My 5 thoughts on Disney

A couple of months ago I wrote an article on Illumination and how I feel about the company. Spoiler alert: I hate it. 

But what about Disney? And what about other companies for that matter?

Truth be told, my real feelings about disney are a lot more conflicted than I like to admit. I have always loved the Company’s traditional animation and theme parks, both of which were the envy of the world and are major Inspirations to my own work. However, I have come to find the corporate decision-making of the company, especially after Walt’s Death, to be weapons grade cringe. Disney is a company that loves to bank off of brand recognition (much like Nike & McDonalds) despite having no appreciation for what made it successful in the first place. It isn't just a mess, it's a Disaster area.

In this Article, I will explain my 5 thoughts on Disney as a company

1) Disney is the best at Traditional Animation and Theme Parks…

Before the early 2000s, Disney was widely regarded as the gold standard of traditional animation, and for good reason. The studio helped define the modern animated feature through innovations that stretched from Steamboat Willie to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Disney's artists pioneered techniques in character animation, visual storytelling, effects animation, and production methods that became the foundation of the industry. For decades, the studio's greatest successes were inseparable from animation itself, carrying Disney through the 1950s and 1960s, driving the Disney Renaissance of the late 1980s and 1990s, and even providing many of the company's brightest creative moments during the difficult years of the 1970s and early 1980s.

Disney's influence also extended far beyond its own productions. Many of the studio's most important competitors were founded or shaped by former Disney artists, demonstrating the company's role as the industry's training ground. Don Bluth and Richard Rich both began their careers at Walt Disney Animation Studios before establishing their own creative paths, and studios such as Amblimation can trace part of their artistic lineage back through Disney. Even films that were commercial disappointments or gained appreciation only years later—such as The Black Cauldron, Oliver & Company, Atlantis: The Lost Empire, and Treasure Planet—displayed remarkable craftsmanship, ambitious animation, and a distinctive artistic identity that many fans still associate with Disney's hand-drawn era.

Even Disney's Traditionally animated TV series have been historically of much higher quality than their competitors; especially in the 1980s and 1990s. I frequently bring up The Fluppy Dogs and Bonkers to friends, but even the more obvious pics like Gummi Bears, DuckTales, Rescue Rangers, Talespin, Darkwing Duck, Goof Troop, Mighty Ducks, Recess, and House of mouse… to name only a few… come to mind. 

Ironically, Disney itself has often seemed to undervalue the very medium that built its reputation. The 1970s are frequently remembered as the studio's first dark age, a period when animation was no longer the company's primary creative focus while live-action family films received greater attention. Later, Jeffrey Katzenberg famously described feature animation as an "obligation" before ultimately helping oversee the Disney Renaissance—a contrast that many animation fans like myself find ironic. This was also in stark contrast to his attempt to shut down its animation production in the mid 1980s after the failure of The Black Cauldron, though thankfully Roy E Disney had changed his mind. Even Walt Disney, though never abandoning animation, devoted increasing amounts of his time during his later years to Disneyland and other ambitious projects. While those ventures proved enormously influential, they also reflected the company's gradual shift away from animation as its central priority.

Disney's theme parks became just as influential as its animated films, earning admiration not simply for their attractions but for their extraordinary attention to detail and immersive storytelling. Every land, ride, prop, soundtrack, and animatronic was designed to support a believable world rather than merely provide thrills. Much of this growth occurred after Walt Disney's death, with many fans believing the parks continued to improve for decades through increasingly sophisticated design and world-building. 

In more recent years, however, some longtime visitors have argued that this emphasis has shifted toward building experiences around existing franchises such as Star Wars and Marvel, sometimes at the expense of the original settings and imaginative environments that once defined Disney's approach to themed entertainment.

2)...But they are terrible at Live action films and TV

That's not to say they didn't make a few good live action movies. Disney has made some genuinely successful and beloved live-action films, such as Mary Poppins, the Pirates of the Caribbean series, and the Honey, I Shrunk the Kids franchise. In addition, I personally really enjoyed Lt. Robin Crusoe, USN . However, these examples often feel more like exceptions than the rule when compared to the company’s larger live-action output.

The best example of this is the 1970s and early 1980s—often considered Disney’s [first] dark age. During this time, the studio struggled with a reputation for producing safe and outdated family films that failed to connect with audiences.

While Disney was putting out The Apple Dumpling Gang, other studios were putting out films like Jaws. Many of these movies were viewed as overly safe, old-fashioned, and disconnected from what people, especially families, actually wanted to see at the time. While the studio remained successful in animation and theme parks (both culturally and financially to an extent), they were usually undermined by a focus on the live-action division, which severely lacked the same creative spark. While their films would get better in the 1990s, they still were never on par culturally to their animated counterparts. 

Disney’s television output faces similar criticism, particularly through the Disney Channel sitcom. While some shows found dedicated audiences, others (like me) criticize it for relying on predictable plots, exaggerated humor,  and sometimes cringe-inducing depictions of serious issues such as bullying in a supposedly comedic way.

 Hannah Montana, in my opinion, is the biggest offender here. Ironically, the idea of a teenager balancing a normal life with a secret pop-star identity had already been explored more effectively in animated series such as Creamy Mami and Jem, neither of which were done by Disney. In addition, Creamy Mami and Jem also warned about the dangers of alter ego lifestyles that, unfortunately, played out in real life with Miley Cyrus. Say what you will about her going off the rails in the 2010s and you’d be right, but what else would you do if you wanted to shed a fake corporate manufactured version of yourself?

More recently, Disney’s double down reliance on live-action remakes, Star Wars spin-offs, and newer Marvel projects has reinforced the point that the company is just not good at making live-action films and TV shows. Take away Traditional animation and Disney’s not the envy of the world, it is the butt of its jokes about Hollywood culture.  

3) Disney's CGI films ruined both Disney and PIXAR 

Disney's acquisition of Pixar and its subsequent abandonment of hand-drawn feature animation in the 2000s marked a turning point that, in my view, ultimately weakened both studios. Rather than allowing Disney and Pixar to complement one another with distinct artistic identities, the two studios gradually converged around the same CGI-based approach. In doing so, Disney stepped away from the traditional animation that had defined its legacy, while Pixar lost the uniqueness that came from being the industry's premier computer animation studio.

Before the acquisition, the distinction between the two companies was clear. Disney was synonymous with hand-drawn animated musicals, expressive character animation, and a visual style refined over decades. Pixar, meanwhile, was pioneering computer animation with films that combined technological innovation with strong storytelling. They occupied different creative spaces and, as a result, offered audiences greater variety. Together, they represented two complementary approaches to feature animation rather than direct replacements for one another.

By making CGI the default for both studios, Disney effectively erased that distinction. Instead of preserving two separate artistic traditions under one corporate umbrella, the company allowed one medium to overshadow the other. Hand-drawn feature animation was discontinued, while Pixar increasingly became another Disney label rather than a studio with a clearly separate identity. Although both studios have continued to produce successful films, many longtime animation fans believe something valuable was lost when traditional animation ceased to be part of Disney's theatrical output.

The greatest casualty of this shift was diversity within mainstream American animation. Audiences no longer had the opportunity to see Disney's hand-drawn artistry evolve alongside Pixar's computer animation, with each studio pushing the other creatively through their different strengths. In pursuing a single production model, Disney may have achieved greater corporate efficiency, but it also sacrificed the contrast that once made both studios feel special. Rather than strengthening each other's identities, Disney and Pixar gradually became more alike, leaving the animation landscape less varied than it had been before.

4) Disney shot themselves in the foot with Studio Ghibli 

Disney has an unusual history of partnering with outside animation studios and distributors, only for those relationships to eventually end. Over the years, Disney has been associated with a variety of non-Disney productions in different capacities—from syndicated television programming in the 1980s to acquisitions and distribution partnerships in later decades. Shows like Braceface and The Raccoons come to mind, with the latter being quite awkwardly un-disney-like. 

While most of these relationships came and went with relatively little lasting impact, one stands apart from all the others: Disney's partnership with Studio Ghibli.

During the late 1990s and 2000s, Disney played a significant role in bringing Studio Ghibli's films to English-speaking audiences. Through high-quality English dubs and wide home-video distribution, Disney introduced many Western viewers to the works of Hayao Miyazaki and his colleagues. For many fans, Disney was their gateway to films such as Spirited Away, Princess Mononoke, Kiki’s Delivery Service, and My Neighbor Totoro. The partnership seemed mutually beneficial, with Disney helping expand Ghibli's international reach while associating itself with one of the world's most respected animation studios.

When the distribution partnership ended in the early 2010s, however, an unintended consequence began to emerge within parts of the online animation community. Some of Studio Ghibli's most vocal admirers began using Ghibli as the benchmark for "animation done right," often in direct opposition to Disney. In some discussions, Disney's classics were dismissed in favor of Ghibli's films, creating an unnecessary rivalry between two studios that had once been closely associated. While healthy comparisons between artists are inevitable, treating one studio's achievements as proof of another's shortcomings often oversimplifies the strengths of both.

Personally, I find this rivalry difficult to embrace because I still associate Disney and Studio Ghibli through their years of collaboration. Rather than seeing them as opposing camps, I see them as two studios that each made extraordinary contributions to feature animation in their own ways. For that reason, the often-hostile "Disney versus Ghibli" debates found in some online circles strike me as more divisive than constructive, especially given the role Disney itself played in introducing many English-speaking audiences to Ghibli's work in the first place.

5) Disney's as the pride of Americana might actually be undermining American culture 

Disney's position as a de facto symbol of Americana may also carry an unexpected cultural risk—and I say that as both a patriotic American conservative and a longtime Disney fan. When a single company becomes so closely identified with a nation's cultural identity, its successes and failures inevitably become intertwined with perceptions of that culture itself. The greater the symbolic role a company occupies, the greater the consequences if it changes direction or loses the confidence of part of its audience.

A useful historical comparison is Pan American World Airways. For decades, Pan Am was widely regarded as America's flagship airline and represented American aviation to much of the world. After its decline and eventual collapse, the United States no longer had a single airline that filled the same symbolic role, while many foreign flag carriers came to define the standard for international service. Whether or not one agrees with that comparison, it illustrates the broader point: when one company becomes synonymous with a country's identity, that country's cultural image can become unusually dependent on the fortunes and decisions of a single corporation.

From my perspective, Disney experienced something similar. Throughout much of the twentieth century, many conservative American families formed an important part of Disney's loyal audience. By 2026, I believe the company has alienated a significant portion of that audience, while no comparable American animation studio has emerged to occupy the cultural space Disney once held. Regardless of the reasons for that shift, the lack of a clear alternative means that Disney's influence over American family entertainment remains unusually large.

I believe this is especially significant in animation. Ironically, even during the so-called "dark age" of American animation in the 1980s, audiences had access to a broader range of artistic voices and competing studios. DIC, Marvel Sunbow, Nelvana, Sullivan Bluth Productions, and numerous other studios each pursued different creative philosophies, allowing for greater experimentation and stylistic diversity. In my view, that competitive landscape better reflected the American tradition of creative freedom and innovation than a marketplace dominated by a single studio or production model. A healthy culture is strengthened not by one company representing it, but by many creators competing, experimenting, and contributing their own distinct visions.

As a matter of fact, it's one of the secrets to the success of anime.

Bonus: My thoughts on Bob Iger

I hate him and I have more respect for Weapons manufacturers and Nuclear Power Plant Owners than him… that’s all I'll say about him because that is the nicest thing I can say about him

Michael Eisner was much better, but only when Roy E kept him and Ketzenberg on a leash. And, of course, Ron Miller nearly ran the Company into the ground and only got the job because he was Walt’s son-in-law. 

Conclusion: What’s in a name?

Disney’s biggest problem in this day and age, like the vast majority of major consumer companies, seems to be its name. 

This problem actually goes back further than just the current year.

During test screenings for the 1994 animated movie Thumbelina, producers famously played the Walt Disney Pictures logo at the beginning of the film. This trick caused audiences to rate the exact same non-Disney footage much more favorably, demonstrating how powerful brand recognition, especially Disney, is in shaping viewer expectations.

But ultimately, this does more harm to our culture than good. When the standard of quality is monopolized by one institution. This is why American animation especially lags decades behind Anime; One studio dominates Quality, other studios are punished for trying to uphold that quality by being called “ripoffs”, and those who reject said benchmark of quality and make substandard content make up the bulk of our culture. Meanwhile, Anime continues to dominate the world animation market by having a set standard and gradually but pragmatically improving it each generation.

Now I most certainly don't want to live in a world without Disney, and I especially do not want to live in a world without Disney standard of animation. At the same time, I do believe that Disney is a company that simply needs to downsize, both financially and culturally, for the good of America and Western Animation.

In a Future Article, I'll discuss other Western animation studios and Anime.