Has the Disney Channel Given Up On Its History?

Years ago they had several shows going regarding the company history,
the parks, etc...Its been years since I've seen anything like it.
Actually I can't recall seeing anything "Disney" on the channel now.
Its just another Nick channel for kids. Nothing at all for adults like
it used to offer.

Guess they forgot who pays for all the Disney goodies and takes the
kids to the parks....

Just find it odd that they ignore the company so much. Unless I missed
it I don't recall seeing any special of any kind on DL's 50th.


Craig

I loved Vault Disney, where they would show old Wonderful World of Disney
shows and park history. The old Mickey Mouse Club was also on late in the
evening, after the kids were asleep.


<crw59@> wrote in message
news:1146247023.382120.221240@i39g2000cwa. o...
> Years ago they had several shows going regarding the company history,
> the parks, etc...Its been years since I've seen anything like it.
> Actually I can't recall seeing anything "Disney" on the channel now.
> Its just another Nick channel for kids. Nothing at all for adults like
> it used to offer.
>
> Guess they forgot who pays for all the Disney goodies and takes the
> kids to the parks....
>
> Just find it odd that they ignore the company so much. Unless I missed
> it I don't recall seeing any special of any kind on DL's 50th.
>
>
> Craig
>

"*bicker*" wrote ...
> Nah. They simply realized that those folks don't watch the
> kinds of things you mentioned with any great alacrity.

I can't imagine ANYONE is watching the kid-focused sitcoms when they rerun
them late at night. I'm surprised Disney wouldn't take advantage of the late
hours and show some of the old stuff.

*bicker* wrote:
> A Sat, 29 Apr 2006 17:41:20 -0700, Jon Nadelberg
> <news@nadelberg.com> escribió:
>> What is in their heads?
>
> Maybe they care more about money than about newsgroups.
>
>

Maybe if they showed something adults would like to watch, they'd have
more viewers and make more money.

John Sisker wrote:
> Jon,
>
> They did at one time, and apparently made enough money. This format lasted
> for years. The bottom line seems to boil down to logistics. From a
> programming standpoint, it may be easier, quicker and cheaper for Disney to
> just select off-the shelf programs, than to dig deeper into their own
> vaults. Of course, by digging deeper, they also pleased a much wider age
> group than they presently are, along with the decision makers and the one's
> with the money. The decision to simply make the present Disney channel just
> a kids program, seems to have Eisner written all over it.
>
> John Sisker
>

What also may happen is that these shows get a bit tired in their run,
and people stop watching them as much. They might are being rested for
now, so that they don't burn out the viewership.

Thing is that at 12:30 in the morning, I really don't want to watch Kim
Possible, or whatever it is they are showing. I have gone from at least
sometimes watching the channel to absolutely never.

I really don't think it is cheaper to run their current offerings as
opposed to the older stuff. I think it is probably cheaper to run the
older things.

I greatly enjoyed the early Disney Channel, then Vault Disney. I was
able to tape a few of the shows from the Wonder World of Color, but had
I known it would change I would have doubled my efforts. One of the
best programs Disney Channel did was the Great Expectations mini
series. I remember featurettes about Disney Artists like Milt Kahl and
Herb Ryman. I grealty hope they'll reconsider at least late night
broadcasting.

*bicker* wrote:
> A Mon, 01 May 2006 06:56:50 -0700, Jon Nadelberg
> <news@nadelberg.com> escribió:
>> *bicker* wrote:
>>> A Sat, 29 Apr 2006 17:41:20 -0700, Jon Nadelberg
>>> <news@nadelberg.com> escribió:
>>>> What is in their heads?
>>> Maybe they care more about money than about newsgroups.
>> Maybe if they showed something adults would like to watch, they'd have
>> more viewers and make more money.
>
> Maybe, but maybe not. They've got the experts and the
> resources to gather the data to know better than we could.
>

And somehow, for several years, those experts told them to put up stuff
like some here have said they enjoyed.

Again, how can you expect programming aimed at pre-teens to get a wide
audience at 1 AM? It's not reasonable.

*bicker* wrote:
> A Mon, 01 May 2006 08:46:22 -0700, Jon Nadelberg
> <news@nadelberg.com> escribió:
>> I really don't think it is cheaper to run their current offerings as
>> opposed to the older stuff. I think it is probably cheaper to run the
>> older things.
>
> I'm not sure it matters what's cheaper to run; what matters
> it what is more profitable to run.

If it is cheaper to run, and they get the same revenue from it, it is
more profitable.

Locally, there are no commercials on my Disney channel, so they are not
selling time. They do get money from the cable operators, provided they
purchase a package of channels from Disney.



> People's tastes change,
> and over time certain markets simply dry up.


This is why I stated that they may be just giving the shows a rest for a
while. The public won't want to watch the same shows over and over again.

However, to program something in a time slot that is aimed at a
demographic that basically does not exist for that time slot is pretty
much giving up. They need to have something on at those hours, to be a
24 hour station, and my guess is that this is the easiest thing for them
to do. They may even save on staff and other factors that do make it
cheaper to run these newer shows.