I couldn't help but notice that in the ads running for Princess and the Frog, the movie is called, not "Walt Disney's Princess and the Frog" but "Disney's Princess and the Frog". "Disney's"? Well, that's nice. After all, Disney is a corporation now, like Ford and Chrysler, and heck, nobody calls a Mustang a "Henry Ford Mustang", or a Town and Country a "Walter P. Chrysler Town and Country". The names Ford and Chrysler, after all, are just nameplates now, and the people behind those names are largely forgotten by the general public.
Looks like the Disney Company is treading the same path.
Man, I hate that company now. Walt, I'll love forever, but as for the company that either excises his first name or tries to exploit his legacy for gain, a legacy that they, in fact, seem to be hell-bent on destroying...NO. We've got Kermit the Sock instead of Mickey Mouse promoting the theme parks. Soon Spiderman will be running around in them. The name continues to be cheapened with dopey cheapquels ("Christmas Buddies", eccchhh). Not to mention lame comedies like "Old Dogs" and eye-warping travesties based on literary classics ("Disney's Christmas Carol") that terrify the kiddies.
It's not Walt's company any more. Maybe it's good they're dumping his first name. It shows a bit of honesty on the corporate suits' part, if nothing else. But I"ll never fall for their corporate line again. Disney is now no different or better than Dreamworks or 20th Century Fox or Paramount. They're all interchangable, with none laying especial claim to my loyalties. I'll probably be skipping Princess and the Frog for that reason. It looks slick, polished, but ultimately vapid and soulless, like too much of Disney product these days. I think that's why I liked the movie Astro Boy so much. Its poignancy, laughter and tears, plus its heart-wringing hero, reminded me of what Disney movies USED to be like.