A Rebuttal
In the past, I've made some comments about the (former) Christian praise of Disney entertainment. For example, I wrote the following on April 8, 2004:

I'm sure that Steven Mallas at the Motley Fool is a knowledgeable investor, but this statement from him left me bewildered:

(certainly the recent religious juggernaut, The Passion of the Christ, is proving an unexpected capturer of bucks that might otherwise have made it into Disney's coffers)....

This assertion rests on the faulty assumption that most Christian families like Disney entertainment, and most people who like Disney entertainment are Christian families....

[L]et's present this list of films to conversative Christian families and see how many of them would attend these movies:

This 1937 film is an occult thriller that includes a reverse "Three's Company" domestic set-up (one woman, many men), as well as a poisoning.

This 1940 film includes an extended sequence entitled "Pleasure Island."

This film, also from 1940, promotes non-Christian religions such as sorcery and the worship of the Greek gods.

This violence-packaged 1942 film is very upsetting to children.

This 1953 film is a favorite of suspected child molestors.

Do you love the occult lyrics in Led Zeppelin movies? Well, check this 1963 film for more of the same!

Yes, I see the conservative Christian families lining up right now to enjoy these films - don't you?

I then posted the following comment in Jimmy Akin's blog on September 10, in response to another comment, in response to Jimmy's original article about Eisner's eventual retirement:

I don't personally criticize Disney's moves to diversify its business - ESPN, for example, is a valuable addition to the business. In addition, while perhaps Walt's version of Disney was family-friendly, it's a stretch of the imagination to claim that it was predominantly Christian (occultic elements run through many of Disney's early films).

Jimmy has responded:

The early Disney problems weren't limited to occult elements (though these were pretty tame by today's standards; Mickey as the Sorcerer's Apprentice even taught a valuable moral lesson). There was also a streak of secular humanism that runs through mid-century Disney material. Still, the company cultivated a fundamentally family-friendly image and jettisoned this as part of the Eisner Era. The company may not have been Christian, but at least it wasn't trying to subvert family values in the way it came to in recent years.

Akin went on to talk about the Eisner era and family friendliness:

I only hope that when the history of the Eisner Era is written a couple of years from now, it will recognize that the disaffection of family-oriented patrons contributed substantially to the decline in Disney boxoffice receipts and that, by the time Disney started to produce more family-friendly films again...its family base had been so alienated that it wouldn't come out to the theater for Disney films.

The alienation went far beyond those who formally boycotted Disney. Many who didn't commit to the boycott still were so turned off by Disney that they would only show up for the most exciting movies (e.g., the Pixar features), passing by less exciting movies they would have turned out to see if not for a general distaste for the company (and they would have seen even more if they had a general like for the company rather than a feeling of betrayal). I know this was the case with me in numerous instances, and I'm sure that it was the case with many, many others.

The level of dissatisfaction with the company reached such levels that even many Christians who weren't specifically boycotting would feel ashamed to admit to friends that they had been to a Disney movie, and it just wasn't worth the effort to go.

If the scope of family alienation is recognized then the departure of Eisner will be a chance for the company to make a clean break with recent history and families may again start going to Disney films in the numbers needed to make them profitable. Disney needs to reach out to its alienated family base when Eisner goes. DRAMATICALLY SO. It needs to send a clear signal that Disney intends to serve its family-oriented customers again in a way that it hasn't in years.

But if the role of family alienation is not recognized then the company may turn in an even more anti-family direction, having concluded that the family-oriented market is either too small to make a profit or too alienated to come back. In that case, look for its profits to continue to decline as the alienation grows worse, with family-oriented customers concluding that Disney passed by its last, best hope for redemption (i.e., the departure of Eisner).

All I can say is that we'll see what happens...