Splash Mountain re-theme announced

[Brer Panther]

I've probably said this before, but it bears repeating - this is only happening because Song of the South is an easy target.

 

[Brer Oswald]

Let's assume for the sake of argument that there is not any racism in Splash Mountain. Then one has to ask TWDC why they feel the need to re-theme Splash Mountain. And, until and if you get that answer, the attraction is going to be re-themed. I have no authority, jurisdiction or power to change the corporate mind of TWDC.

If you do not see the racism in Splash Mountain then there is little I can do except to point it out. But I think you know that TWDC is not in the habit of doing complete re-themes of attractions that draw huge crowds unless there is a significant problem. If you think racism is not the problem, then I wish you the best of luck in finding out the "true" problem. And please get back to me when you discover the problem.

But I can really save you some time. The ride is racist despite all your protestations to the contrary.

There’s a few reasons, none of which being that the “ride is racist”. WDI always plans these rethemes because they’re cheaper to produce, and they keep people employed. If these rethemes can be cloned, they will be because that’s more work. Why do you think ToT got a retheme? What about the cancelled Stitch Retheme for Space Mountain. The Tiki Room retheme in the 90s. They plan rethemes for popular attractions all the time.

But why PatF? Surely it’s because they’re fighting the wrongs of the “RACIST” Splash Mountain, right? Well, not exactly. Look where Splash is in Disneyland. Right next to New Orleans Square. Where does PatF take place? New Orleans. Not only that, but there’s a food connection I’m tbe film, and food sells. Trusted insider (and alleged “former Disney Employee”) TP2000 mentioned this in a different thread. The reason this was done was because of food and merchandise tie ins. It was designed for Disneyland and cloned to Florida because it keeps Imagineers working, and is an easy “addition” to Florida since it’s reusing development assets for Disneyland.

Then there’s the elephant in the room. SotS. Regardless of your opinion on the film, it’s still a controversial film. Nobody’s seen it, and it’s become a giant Boogeyman in the Disney world. Iger surely wants the Bob Iger Company to remove any reference to it possible, and Splash is guilty by association. Although, as TP mentioned, this was a secondary reason to the monetary benefit.

So no. The ride is in fact not racist. They intentionally removed the one racially insensitive element of the animated segments from the film to not offend anyone. It may be easier to claim the ride is racist, but anyone that has a big enough brain to process context would know that it isn’t. And if Disney truly cared about racism in their parks, changes to the Jungle Cruise, Peter Pan, And Country Bears would’ve been announced long before this Splash change. But they weren’t because they didn’t plan on altering those.

 

[Brer Oswald]

You can repeat this over and over and over and it still won't be true. FYI, OLC has told Bobby to pound sand so even if Iger scraps Splash in the U.S., his woke dream of completely distancing The Bob Iger Company from Splash and SotS won't be happening anytime soon. Sorry. Cope & Seethe.

FTFY

 

[dig311dug]

The ride is racist despite all your protestations to the contrary.

It's not... but let's all just get along. Just like the end of SotS.

 

[Brer Oswald]

I think the issue is that it’s a children’s film, which those other movies aren’t. That is why it is treated as more problematic than, say, Gone with the Wind. It really isn’t a film that kids should be watching (and I say that as Briton who watched it often as a child).

Absolutely. That and the fact that it’s a Disney film. That being said, there is no motive being pushed in the film, nor any stereotype obvious/obnoxious enough to alter how a child would view race or racial issues. Unless you have really racist parents. Then I could see it being a problem.

 

[LittleBuford]

Absolutely. That and the fact that it’s a Disney film. That being said, there is no motive being pushed in the film, nor any stereotype obvious/obnoxious enough to alter how a child would view race or racial issues. Unless you have really racist parents. Then I could see it being a problem.

A child who doesn’t know (or isn’t told) better would walk away from the film with a highly romanticised picture of what it meant to be African American in the nineteenth-century South. That to me is reason enough to keep the film out of general viewership.

 

[Brer Oswald]

A child who doesn’t know (or isn’t told) better would walk away from the film with a highly romanticised picture of what it meant to be African American in the nineteenth-century South. That to me is reason enough to keep the film out of general viewership.

I watched the film last week. They don’t really give a time or a place. Like nearly every Disney fantasy film, it isn’t meant to be realistic. If kids walk away from the film come away from the film thinking all Black people in the south Sing and Dance with cartoon Rabbits, they’re just as likely to come out of Mary Poppins thinking all British people have flying nannies that sing and dance with cartoon Penguins. Just as ridiculous and just as harmless to kids IMO.

I think the film has greater impact to be harmful and offensive to the adult audience, who over analyze and extrapolate everything.

 

[LittleBuford]

I watched the film last week. They don’t really give a time or a place. Like nearly every Disney fantasy film, it isn’t meant to be realistic. If kids walk away from the film come away from the film thinking all Black people in the south Sing and Dance with cartoon Rabbits, they’re just as likely to come out of Mary Poppins thinking all British people have flying nannies that sing and dance with cartoon Penguins. Just as ridiculous and just as harmless to kids IMO.

I think the film has greater impact to be harmful and offensive to the adult audience, who over analyze and extrapolate everything.

Millions of people still celebrate the Confederacy and downplay the horrors of slavery. Coming away from Mary Poppins with a romanticised understanding of Edwardian London is harmless; coming away from Song of the South with a romanticised understanding of plantation life is a far more serious matter, especially where children are concerned.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

A child who doesn’t know (or isn’t told) better would walk away from the film with a highly romanticised picture of what it meant to be African American in the nineteenth-century South. That to me is reason enough to keep the film out of general viewership.

And perhaps that is part of the problem...parents have far less time with their children to discuss such things these days and depend on the schools to provide nearly 100% of a child's education. IMO, schools gloss over some of the worst parts of history far too much...even as children grow older and are able to handle the truth. My 14-year-old knows more about the Holocaust than most of his peers, but only because I had done research myself to further learn about the events that occurred. Slavery and racism are next on the list. He's much like I was - history, as it's taught in schools, bores him to death, but when it's laid out in more of a story format rather then memorization of names and dates, and it's easier to see the bigger picture of what was happening globally, he's far more interested.

Honestly, I feel SotS has enough merit as art, and as an illustration of how brave Walt was in tackling such a sensitive topic in the era in which he did, that it should never be hidden away as if it's something to be ashamed about. The last scene of the film is the one we are meant to take to heart - friendship and caring regardless of race - and that was a pretty bold statement in 1946.

 

[Brer Oswald]

Millions of people still celebrate the Confederacy and downplay the horrors of slavery. Coming away from Mary Poppins with a romanticised understanding of Edwardian London is harmless; coming away from Song of the South with a romanticised understanding of plantation life is a far more serious matter, especially where children are concerned.

I’m sorry. I still don’t see it. A kid today isn’t going to know what slavery or “plantation life” even is, let alone even care what it is. The only thing from the film that I could see potentially being a negative influence on the younger audience is the dialect.

 

[Brer Oswald]

And perhaps that is part of the problem...parents have far less time with their children to discuss such things these days and depend on the schools to provide nearly 100% of a child's education. IMO, schools gloss over some of the worst parts of history far too much...even as children grow older and are able to handle the truth. My 14-year-old knows more about the Holocaust than most of his peers, but only because I had done research myself to further learn about the events that occurred. Slavery and racism are next on the list. He's much like I was - history, as it's taught in schools, bores him to death, but when it's laid out in more of a story format rather then memorization of names and dates, and it's easier to see the bigger picture of what was happening globally, he's far more interested.

Honestly, I feel SotS has enough merit as art, and as an illustration of how brave Walt was in tackling such a sensitive topic in the era in which he did, that it should never be hidden away as if it's something to be ashamed about. The last scene of the film is the one we are meant to take to heart - friendship and caring regardless of race - and that was a pretty bold statement in 1946.

The last segment is beautiful. And in my opinion, it’s a very beautiful film most of the time. I know that there are some flaws. But to me the good outweighs the bad.

As for it being a teaching point, I first learned about black face and racism in Hollywood from a Mickey Mouse DVD. Yes, it was produced in the Eisner Era.

 

[LittleBuford]

Honestly, I feel SotS has enough merit as art, and as an illustration of how brave Walt was in tackling such a sensitive topic in the era in which he did, that it should never be hidden away as if it's something to be ashamed about. The last scene of the film is the one we are meant to take to heart - friendship and caring regardless of race - and that was a pretty bold statement in 1946.

I disagree. Apart from the animated sequences, it's a mediocre film and was recognised as such by critics of the time. Nor was it especially bold, given that it was criticised even upon its release for romanticising plantation life. The only thing daring about it is its brilliant combination of live action and animation.

 

[LittleBuford]

A kid today isn’t going to know what slavery or “plantation life” even is, let alone even care what it is.

This statement really surprises me. Don't American children learn about slavery?

 

[ImperfectPixie]

This statement really surprises me. Don't American children learn about slavery?

My 14-year-old just informed me that they'd spent a couple of months talking about it during this last school year - before it got cancelled.

 

[Brer Panther]

because of food and merchandise tie ins.

This brings to mind a quote from @Magenta Panther from a thread back in 2016...

There's a story about Walt Disney that one of his Imagineers, Rolly Crump, likes to tell. Once he, Walt, and Walt's staff were discussing the Country Bears Jamboree attraction. One of his staff, a marketing guy, suggested that a t-shirt store be placed near the attraction. Walt didn't like that idea. As the discussions continued, the marketing guy kept pushing the idea. When he said, for the third time "T-shirts make a lot of money, Walt," Walt turned to him and said, "Mr. (Whoever), the tail does not wag the dog!"

Well, that was Walt's company. But in the Robert Iger Company, the tail DOES wag the dog, and that tail is Marketing

He's right. In the Robert Iger Company, the tail does indeed wag the dog. And that tail is indeed marketing and merchandising. Little did we know that their plot to stick Guardians of the Galaxy in the Tower of Terror was just the beginning.

 

[Brer Oswald]

This statement really surprises me. Don't American children learn about slavery?

Might be part of the reason I really don’t understand the viewpoint on the film. I’m not American. I didn’t know much of anything about slavery until doing research on the film.

 

[Brer Oswald]

This brings to mind a quote from @Magenta Panther from a thread back in 2016...


He's right. In the Robert Iger Company, the tail does indeed wag the dog. And that tail is indeed marketing and merchandising. Little did we know that their plot to stick Guardians of the Galaxy in the Tower of Terror was just the beginning.

Magenta Panther is crazy 50% of the time (no offence, I am too), but that statement is bang on.

 

[manmythlegend]

A child who doesn’t know (or isn’t told) better would walk away from the film with a highly romanticised picture of what it meant to be African American in the nineteenth-century South. That to me is reason enough to keep the film out of general viewership.

This is flawed simplistic logic. It's up to adults to educate children, not fantasy movies. Just the same as when a child plays a shooter video game. Do they come out thinking shooting is pretty fun and cool? Perhaps. And adults will (at least should) be there to explain why shooting isn't cool.

 

[Brer Oswald]

This is flawed simplistic logic. It's up to adults to educate children, not fantasy movies. Just the same as when a child plays a shooter video game. Do they come out thinking shooting is pretty fun and cool? Perhaps. And adults will (at least should) be there to explain why shooting isn't cool.

I jump around like Mario and run like Sonci the Hedgehog. So I guess there is a problem there.

 

[LittleBuford]

This is flawed simplistic logic. It's up to adults to educate children, not fantasy movies. Just the same as when a child plays a shooter video game. Do they come out thinking shooting is pretty fun and cool? Perhaps. And adults will (at least should) be there to explain why shooting isn't cool.

I agree with the bolded. But how many parents would discuss slavery and its aftermath with their children after showing them a Disney movie? The Disney brand just isn't associated with such controversial topics, and for good reason.