Splash Mountain re-theme announced

[doctornick]

I would consider this an attempt at education. My intention isn't to put words in your mouth; we might just be working with different definitions.

Maybe? I'm saying the ride as is does not attempt to do any educating. It's just not there as things currently stand. I'm saying the ride (or at least the company in how they promote the ride) could be using it as a chance to educate. That they don't - or haven't ever - is unfortunate, but it would be possible to do so if there were a desire.

At any rate, my point is that pushing the "inclusive" angle began after the retheme's announcement. It's a form of retconning that has very little to do with how the ride was viewed and discussed before 2020. My own view is that Splash Mountain is neither racist nor a celebration of African (or African American) folklore. It wasn't themed around Song of the South to offend Black people or to celebrate their heritage, but because Disney had a bunch of leftover animal animatronics from America Sings. The decision to tie the ride to a film that was already regarded by many as problematic ultimately proved to be a miscalculation, because that association can never be fully obliterated and will, for some people at least, taint the ride itself.

I don't disagree with anything here and realize any attempt to make Splash more culturally inclusive is long past; it's not happening. I'm speaking more on hypotheticals than real world practicality. The ride isn't intended as any sort of cultural homage (not like, say, Maelstrom was).

But that doesn't mean that it couldn't have been or couldn't be in the future; there's just not any particular will from the company to do so. Which, personally, I find sad.

I can only speak to my own experience where, as a result of loving Splash as a ride, years ago I went out of my way to find a (bootleg) SotS to watch and went on to learn more about Joel Chandler Harris and Uncle Remus. And I learned about the original tales that this was based on. And, again just personally, I was happy to have learned more about folklore that I otherwise knew nothing about - and I remember thinking it would be great if this folklore was part of the regular rotation we would see among children's books.

If inclusion really is the goal here, I don't think there can be any doubt that The Princess and the Frog is a much better choice than Song of the South.

See, I would disagree. As I think the vast majority of Americans and people in general are completely ignorant of the cultural basis for Splash Mountain. And I think educating people to make them aware of that real cultural tradition would be far more beneficial than putting in a ride based on a movie which has minimal ties to actual African American culture (even worse is kinda based on a White European fairy tale). I'm not hardcore about it or anything though.

 

[LittleBuford]

I'm saying the ride (or at least the company in how they promote the ride) could be using it as a chance to educate. That they don't - or haven't ever - is unfortunate, but it would be possible to do so if there were a desire.

This is what I understood you to be saying anyway.

I strongly disagree with the second sentence I've quoted. Much more unfortunate would be if Disney twisted itself into knots trying to push the current ride as inclusive or instructive.

See, I would disagree. As I think the vast majority of Americans and people in general are completely ignorant of the cultural basis for Splash Mountain. And I think educating people to make them aware of that real cultural tradition would be far more beneficial than putting in a ride based on a movie which has minimal ties to actual African American culture (even worse is kinda based on a White European fairy tale). I'm not hardcore about it or anything though.

To quote @Chi84, it isn't Disney's job "to educate African Americans on what stories they should find best represent them in current culture". The stories' respective origins matter far less than how the IPs in their present form are perceived. Regardless of its fairytale derivation, The Princess and the Frog has come to enjoy a solid reputation as the film that introduced Disney's first Black princess. That doesn't mean it's the right IP for Splash Mountain, or that Splash Mountain should be changed at all (these are separate issues). All I'm saying is that the inclusivity argument is a losing one for those who advocate keeping the current Song of the South theme. There are other (and better) grounds on which to defend the ride.

 

[Brer Panther]

Aren't there some people who think The Princess and the Frog is racist too?

 

[seabreezept813]

Aren't there some people who think The Princess and the Frog is racist too?

Yes, I teach a fairy tales and pop culture and there’s a lot of criticism about the film. Some basics: voodoo stereotypes, creole accents, etc.

 

[tirian]

Yes, I teach a fairy tales and pop culture and there’s a lot of criticism about the film. Some basics: voodoo stereotypes, creole accents, etc.

I have many coworkers from New Orleans.

All hated the movie and felt it misrepresented everything about the city and “was obviously made by Californians.” The music was wrong, the accents were wrong, the food was wrong (honey doesn’t go on beignets), the voodoo was stereotyped.

 

[The Mom]

I have many coworkers from New Orleans.

All hated the movie and felt it misrepresented everything about the city and “was obviously made by Californians.” The music was wrong, the accents were wrong, the food was wrong (honey doesn’t go on beignets), the voodoo was stereotyped.

They had a character put honey on a beignet? Blasphemy!

 

[CaptinEO]

Disney Warns Viewers Of Racism In Some Classic Movies With Strengthened Label — NPR

Disney strengthened language used to denounce racist depictions in some of its classic properties on the company's streaming service.

apple.news

See this is a reasonable approach to avoid censorship. Now even I think theres no need for a "disclaimer" for a ride with singing animals and no humans, but why can't this be an alternative.

If Disney wants to keep these stories alive as historical examples, doesn't it also make sense to keep a themepark attraction alive?

 

[Chi84]

Disney Warns Viewers Of Racism In Some Classic Movies With Strengthened Label — NPR

Disney strengthened language used to denounce racist depictions in some of its classic properties on the company's streaming service.

apple.news

See this is a reasonable approach to avoid censorship. Now even I think theres no need for a "disclaimer" for a ride with singing animals and no humans, but why can't this be an alternative.

If Disney wants to keep these stories alive as historical examples, doesn't it also make sense to keep a themepark attraction alive?

I don't think it necessarily wants to keep them alive as historical examples as much as it wants to avoid rewriting or denying history by removing them. It's a sure bet Disney won't be making any more theme park rides out of them.

Splash just presented an opportunity to re-theme an outdated ride that some (I suspect very few) associate with a movie that Disney itself finds so objectionable that not even a disclaimer can save it. I haven't seen the movie - I'm just stating what appears to be Disney's own position on a product it owns. It gets to re-theme the ride to something that is more relevant to current guests, as well as being more diverse and inclusive, which is right in Disney's wheelhouse. My take is that Disney finds no upside to keeping the ride as it is - Disney's not in the business of providing historical examples.

 

[CaptinEO]

I don't think it necessarily wants to keep them alive as historical examples as much as it wants to avoid rewriting or denying history by removing them. It's a sure bet Disney won't be making any more theme park rides out of them.

Splash just presented an opportunity to re-theme an outdated ride that some (I suspect very few) associate with a movie that Disney itself finds so objectionable that not even a disclaimer can save it. I haven't seen the movie - I'm just stating what appears to be Disney's own position on a product it owns. It gets to re-theme the ride to something that is more relevant to current guests, as well as being more diverse and inclusive, which is right in Disney's wheelhouse. My take is that Disney finds no upside to keeping the ride as it is - Disney's not in the business of providing historical examples.

Disney's perspective is for whatever reason that SotS is not Ok. But my point is, why is that one "banned", yet the others can be saved by a disclaimer?

If Disney wants to avoid rewriting or denying history, why are they removing Splash Mountain and never releasing Song of the South on US Home Video, yet Peter Pan's redskin indians only needs a text disclaimer and the ride can stay as well?

I just find it hypocritical how the company acts.

If the company had just released Song of the South with a disclaimer 20-30 years ago, its reputation wouldnt be nearly as inflated as it is now. By "banning" the movie from the American market, Disney made things worse.

 

[Chi84]

Disney's perspective is for whatever reason that SotS is not Ok. But my point is, why is that one "banned", yet the others can be saved by a disclaimer?

If Disney wants to avoid rewriting or denying history, why are they removing Splash Mountain and never releasing Song of the South on US Home Video, yet Peter Pan's redskin indians only needs a text disclaimer and the ride can stay as well?

I just find it hypocritical how the company acts.

If the company had just released Song of the South with a disclaimer 20-30 years ago, its reputation wouldnt be nearly as inflated as it is now. By "banning" the movie from the American market, Disney made things worse.

There’s just no upside for Disney to do anything you suggest. Disney is the one that decided SotS is too objectionable to be released even with a disclaimer. It’s their product so they get to decide


My guess is that Disney would rather have a ride that is based on a movie people have seen - one that is more in line with its current inclination toward diversity and inclusion. One never knows what will happen with Peter Pan or any other ride.

It’s not hypocritical to change one ride while leaving others in place, any more than it is hypocritical for police to ticket just a portion of the traffic violators on the road at any given time. You do what you can to make things better, not just throw up your hands because you can’t fix everything all at once.

I just don’t think Disney sees any good reason to keep an outdated theme based on a movie almost no one has seen. If the movie was released today, I doubt anyone would be clamoring to see it.

 

[_caleb]

There’s just no upside for Disney to do anything you suggest. Disney is the one that decided SotS is too objectionable to be released even with a disclaimer. It’s their product so they get to decide


My guess is that Disney would rather have a ride that is based on a movie people have seen - one that is more in line with its current inclination toward diversity and inclusion. One never knows what will happen with Peter Pan or any other ride.

It’s not hypocritical to change one ride while leaving others in place, any more than it is hypocritical for police to ticket just a portion of the traffic violators on the road at any given time. You do what you can to make things better, not just throw up your hands because you can’t fix everything all at once.

I just don’t think Disney sees any good reason to keep an outdated theme based on a movie almost no one has seen. If the movie was released today, I doubt anyone would be clamoring to see it.

I agree with this. The only other thing I'd add is that the current social/political climate (in America, especially) has made this change rise to a higher priority level for the company that it might have otherwise held.

For everyone who loves the ride, doesn't see anything wrong with it, and doesn't understand/agree with why Disney would do this, I'm truly sorry. I know we're all invested in this stuff, and I hate that so many of you are losing something you love so dearly.

 

[LittleBuford]

If Disney wants to keep these stories alive as historical examples, doesn't it also make sense to keep a themepark attraction alive?

You’re comparing two very different genres. From the earliest days of Disneyland, Disney has never hesitated to overhaul or replace its theme park attractions. The announcement concerning Splash Mountain came as a big shock to many of us (myself included), but only because it’s such a popular and iconic ride. That Disney would radically change an existing attraction is not in itself unexpected—it’s been happening for decades now.

 

[UNCgolf]

I agree with this. The only other thing I'd add is that the current social/political climate (in America, especially) has made this change rise to a higher priority level for the company that it might have otherwise held.

For everyone who loves the ride, doesn't see anything wrong with it, and doesn't understand/agree with why Disney would do this, I'm truly sorry. I know we're all invested in this stuff, and I hate that so many of you are losing something you love so dearly.

Agreed with both of you.

I personally don't think there's much wrong with the ride itself, but I still understand why they want to change it. My main concern is and always has been that I do not trust them (especially now with money tight) to build something that's even half the ride that current Splash Mountain is, which is a major problem. I'm expecting them to take one of the crown jewels of the park and turn it into something of an afterthought -- not anything outright terrible, but full of scenes that are reminiscent of Frozen Ever After rather than the lush settings full of lively characters that currently exist in the ride.

 

[erasure fan1]

The announcement concerning Splash Mountain came as a big shock to many of us (myself included), but only because it’s such a popular and iconic ride. That Disney would radically change an existing attraction is not in itself unexpected—it’s been happening for decades now.

That is only part of the reason in my opinion. What makes it shocking is all the trash they aren't fixing. Like you said it is so popular and so iconic. So how can you worry about that when you have garbage like imagination and so many other problem areas in the parks.

 

[The Mom]

IMO Twitter is the neighborhood gossip/National Enquirer of this generation. There may be a pearl in there somewhere, but you have to root around in a lot of crap before you find it.

I don't think our lives are better because of it, and IMO, it - as a whole - makes life worse.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

IMO Twitter is the neighborhood gossip/National Enquirer of this generation. There may be a pearl in there somewhere, but you have to root around in a lot of crap before you find it.

I don't think our lives are better because of it, and IMO, it - as a whole - makes life worse.

It does. There are high profile victims of Twitter being used as a weapon who would definitely agree.

 

[tirian]

Agreed with both of you.

I personally don't think there's much wrong with the ride itself, but I still understand why they want to change it. My main concern is and always has been that I do not trust them (especially now with money tight) to build something that's even half the ride that current Splash Mountain is, which is a major problem. I'm expecting them to take one of the crown jewels of the park and turn it into something of an afterthought -- not anything outright terrible, but full of scenes that are reminiscent of Frozen Ever After rather than the lush settings full of lively characters that currently exist in the ride.

That’s my big concern too. I love WDW’s Splash Mt. because it features classic Disney storytelling—lush settings, catchy music, lots of AAs, and family-friendly thrills.

WDI doesn’t make attractions like that anymore. My concern isn’t about losing Splash Mt. so much as knowing its replacement will be yet another mediocre ride from the team that gave us Mickey’s Runaway Railway, Ratatouille, Frozen Ever After, ROTR, MFSR, the Cindy Castle paint job, POTC featuring Depp and Redd, HarmonioUS, etc.

Disney itself keeps politicizing the Splash change even though millions of guests of all ethnic backgrounds have enjoyed the attraction for decades. Replace Splash with Marc Davis’ final plans for Western River Expedition—the plans that he adjusted to remove offensive stereotypes—and fans would be excited. But no. We get another princess, and we’ll probably get more cheap projection robots and a lame storyline.

Disney is becoming a parody of itself.

 

[Brer Oswald]

That’s my big concern too. I love WDW’s Splash Mt. because it features classic Disney storytelling—lush settings, catchy music, lots of AAs, and family-friendly thrills.

WDI doesn’t make attractions like that anymore. My concern isn’t about losing Splash Mt. so much as knowing its replacement will be yet another mediocre ride from the team that gave us Mickey’s Runaway Railway, Ratatouille, Frozen Ever After, ROTR, MFSR, the Cindy Castle paint job, POTC featuring Depp and Redd, HarmonioUS, etc.

Disney itself keeps politicizing the Splash change even though millions of guests of all ethnic backgrounds have enjoyed the attraction for decades. Replace Splash with Marc Davis’ final plans for Western River Expedition—the plans that he adjusted to remove offensive stereotypes—and fans would be excited. But no. We get another princess, and we’ll probably get more cheap projection robots and a lame storyline.

Disney is becoming a parody of itself.

I don’t think WRE is any more of an appropriate response than PatF. This isn’t just the destruction of a great ride. This is the defamation of significant cultural stories passed down by Africans and African Americans.

When Disney took on the responsibility of adapting the stories, they consequently bared the burden of representing these stories for the modern generation. Why did the NAACP and other organizations care enough to protest? Because these stories are important and Disney has to get the representation right. They kind of did for the animated sections, but the unnecessary live action sections will forever hold the film down.

What Disney needed to do was swallow their pride, admit their mistakes, and make a film that was a better representation of these stories. But they instead decided to wait until nobody even remembered the original stories beyond the actual ride (which did Brer Rabbit a lot more justice than the film). Now they can bury it entirely.

This situation shows how important it is for Disney films to get the representation right, as they take on the responsibility to teach the mainstream audience of the tales they adapt. I’ve repeated this at nauseam. BrerCountry has said it over and over again. It’s frustrating but I can’t blame most people for refusing to listen with the limited TRUE information that is easily available. This is a problem Disney created in 1946, and they’ve only made it worse as time has gone on. It’s sad, but what can you do?

 

[Sharon&Susan]

 

[Brer Oswald]

View attachment 513465

Did make this one?