LOL! "Sharholder apologist" is a personal attack? Whatever ... I just don't know how to talk to someone who claims to have studied Walt but is so positive to things that Walt would abhor, things that even those with a rudimentary understanding of Walt would understand. Do you think Walt was just lucky? Do you think Roy would have accomplished any of this on his own?
Walt's been dead for a long time, I grant you that but does it change what he stood for? Does it change the events that he put in place? Does it change what can be considered quality vs. what is greed? I don't think so but if you, in your infinite wisdon deem it so then there is no amount of pixie dust left at any Disney venue to get you to admit otherwise. Bring on 'Meet The Robinson's 2', I guess!
You really have a difficult time keeping up with your own statements so let me see if I can help. I never once claimed to have any idea of what Walt Disney would abhor or who he would hate. You, on the other hand, are the one that made those statements. Your exact words were,
"Walt would HATE you...Absolutely DESPISE you!" I have never made statements like that, only you did. I have found your comments are somewhat contradictory. You see, after your first attack towards me I decided to go back and read other post that you have made. The funny thing is that in March 3, 2009 you made another post on another topic in which you said, "
But I too realize that Walt is dead and no one knows what specifically he would do or like". So, from your own words you clearly admit you have no idea of what Walt Disney would or would not like, but then you claim that the man would "hate and despise me". Isn't it annoying when you own words come back to bite you in the butt! Of course, this won't bother you a bit, you will simply find another way to attack. From reading several of your 1,549 posts it is clear that this is your is your "M.O.". You come across as not liking business, not liking management, not liking shareholders and you don't like Disney as it is today. Come to think of it, after reading your post the only thing that I can see that you do like, or enjoy, is being a big shot behind a keyboard by criticizing most every topic on the board.
You seem to struggle sticking to the topic and have a real hard time when someone disagrees with you, so instead of having a discussion you instead start telling me how someone you have never met and that has been dead for 40 years would feel toward me. Besides being the silliest statement I have ever heard in my life, it does nothing to support your position and only makes you come across as immature and childish.
Money has been and always will be the life blood of Disney and every other company. That does not mean that I want to see sequels made of every movie Disney has ever made, but some of them actually work and are well received. Pirates 2, Pirates 3, and Toy Story 2 were all huge successes and the MONEY generated by those successes are what funds the new ORIGINAL movies that will come in the future. Of course, you chose to ignore those examples along with my other examples when I mentioned the James Bond series. Oh wait here is another example; Star Wars. If I am not mistaken there were 6 of those little films and as I recall they didn't do half bad. So, do you not like ALL sequels, or just the ones made by the Disney company? Oh, wait a minute how about Indiana Jones? I guess George Lucas and Steven Spielberg are just two more greedy greedy sob's too.
One last thing, when I mentioned Roy Disney it was in the context that, in everything I have ever read (he is dead too so I, unlike you, would never claim to know what was in the man's head) Roy Disney is credited in keeping Disney afloat by managing the money and bringing in INVESTORS and BANKS when needed to keep the lights on.
Okay, now I will wait patiently while you can take this post and twist it around like you did my last one, just try to stay on topic.