Jessica Rabbit removed from Trunk- Roger Rabbits Cartoon Spin

S

SplashGhost

Well-Known Member
I feel there will be an eventually backlash over all these PC changes at Disney Parks. It has become like Disney's idea of being progressive is to take things so ludicrously far that it feels like a parody. I consider myself a progressive, but I am strongly against censorship, and this diversity and inclusion committee seems to think that diversity and inclusion can be reached with censorship instead of making an actual new attraction to feature the diversity they want.

Plus society goes through phases, there are times when people are more puritanical about certain things, and times when they have more relaxed views on those same things. Also, once again, DisTwitter does not represent 99.9% of people that visit Disney Parks, so Disney should never take the viewpoints of DisTwitter seriously.

One thing I was thinking is how hilarious it is they they are rewriting the entire ride's script to justify the censorship. It is kind of like the thing with Trader Sam having to be gone on break so that he isn't shown on the ride. They couldn't just remove Trader Sam, they have to write that he is "gone on break" into the script of the Jungle Cruise because Imagineers have to have some convoluted explanation for everything that just draws more attention to what they get wrong.
 
Californian Elitist

Californian Elitist

Well-Known Member
CaptinEO said:
It's interesting to me because a lot of their new decision making doesn't seem family oriented. Like allowing tatoos or putting in gay references in all their films.

(Not saying these things are bad, but it goes against how they used to operate.)

A lot of my coworkers with younger kids say they don't take their children to Disney movies because they are too young to have discussions about sexuality.

It's weird since the company used to be very "in" with the family demographic as well as the christian community.

Growing up, I knew many kids with strict parents who ONLY were allowed to see G rated Disney films.

I wonder if Disney's accountants came to the conclusion that the market of childless people in their 20s was a better demographic than families?
Click to expand...
Those concerns from parents are pretty silly, as heterosexual couples have been a thing since forever and that most definitely concerns sexuality. Disney is still in with the family demographic (there are plenty of children in the U.S. with gay parents). Also, not so sure about the tattoo thing…pretty sure we can find examples of tattoos in Disney films from years and years ago.

All of this stuff is subjective. I had a history teacher who found many of the early Disney films, like Pinocchio, inappropriate for her children.
 
Ghost93

Ghost93

Well-Known Member
CaptinEO said:
It's interesting to me because a lot of their new decision making doesn't seem family oriented. Like allowing tatoos or putting in gay references in all their films.
Click to expand...
There is nothing not family-friendly about gay characters. Many kids have gay parents! Many kids are gay themselves! Being gay isn't inherently more sexual than being straight.

And depicting a gay relationship isn't depicting sexuality. I think Disney should have a movie with gay princes or gay princesses. And they should be allowed to kiss on the mouth as that usually happens with straight couples. And I don't want to hear "kids are too young for romance" nonsense when there have been SO MANY straight Disney couples. In just the animated movies alone, we've had Snow White and her prince, Bambi and Faline, Cinderella and Prince Charming, Peter Pan and Wendy, Aurora and Prince Phillip, Roger and Anita, Pongo and Perdita, Ariel and Eric, Belle and the Beast, Aladdin and Jasmine, Pocahontas and John Smith, Phoebus and Esmeralda, Hercules and Meg, Simba and Nala, Mulan and Shang, Tarzan and Jane, Woody and Bo Peep, Bernard and Bianca, Mr. Incredible and Elastigirl, Nani and David, Tiana and Naveen, Rapunzel and Flynn Rider, Anna and Kristoff, Carl and Ellie and Lady and the Tramp. This is of course ignoring all of the straight romances from the live-action theatrical movies and the Disney Channel Original Movies. At this point, it's not too much to demand a gay couple!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Californian Elitist

Californian Elitist

Well-Known Member
CaptinEO said:
Just giving anecdotes, none of which bode well for the companies once clean "family" demographic. None of these coworkers have problems with gay people by any means, but don't want to have the discussion with their 5 year old kids quite yet.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know. It just doesn’t make sense to me. Parents are allowed to show their kids Disney content or not, ultimately. Its up to them.
 
Heppenheimer

Heppenheimer

Well-Known Member
CaptinEO said:
I know at one point Disney really aligned themselves closely with christian churches, going so far as to consult them for some film content decisions. I feel in the early 2000s when Disney Animation /Live Action wasnt doing so hot, they probably needed groups like that, as they were the last remaining people seeing their films.

I'm sure this is no longer the case.
Click to expand...
Odd then that they got some minor flack from right wing congregations over "Brother Bear". Something about the movie supposedly promoting paganism...

I remember, though, the Catholic church I attended at the time offered screenings for kids, since the main themes of the movie were about empathy and forgiveness. You know, part of the bedrock of Christianity.
 
Last edited:
Californian Elitist

Californian Elitist

Well-Known Member
DrAlice said:
I remember a gaggle of moms complaining about Princess and the Frog being inappropriate because of the "voo doo" and occult stuff in the movie. Ya know, because magic and witches and stuff NEVER showed up in previous Disney movies.... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The Sword in the Stone, anyone? I can bet there were a few moms sporting beehive hairstyles that didn’t approve of Merlin and his talking owl. Plenty of satanism, black magic, and evil going on there.

Can’t please everyone.
 
Ghost93

Ghost93

Well-Known Member
Heppenheimer said:
Odd then that they got some minor flack from right wing congregations over "Brother Bear". Something about the movie supposedly promoting paganism...
Click to expand...
I grew up in a VERY conservative Christian community and many parents complained all the time about Disney movies in the 90s/early 2000s.

Christians objected to Pocahontas for promoting the idea that spirits live in trees and for supposedly erasing her conversion to Christianity (even though most historians believe her conversion was forced upon her).

They hated The Hunchback of Notre Dame for its portrayal of Frollo, a member of the church, as an evil and lecherous man. They felt it gave Christianity a bad name. They also hated Esmeralda for being too sexual and for palm reading.

They hated the greek gods in Hercules because "there's only one God" and Tarzan for showing that humans and apes aren't that different (because that supposedly supports evolution and they didn't believe in evolution).

I could go on and on, but you get the idea.
 
BuzzedPotatoHead89

BuzzedPotatoHead89

Well-Known Member
It’s fine that people object to certain things in media. They can not watch them. But the role of “the corporation” is to appeal to the the “median” consumer.

Just because Twitter (really the internet more broadly) appeals to the fringes and blew up the construct of the Overton Window by magnifying the voices of the polar extremes doesn’t mean the concept of appealing the broadest and deepest audience subsection of the population doesn’t exist.

Any informal consumer poll of your audience will tell you where your “center” is and what appeals to most consumers. Or if you don’t want to use surveys, just look at consumer products sales… something even Chapek understands.
 
denyuntilcaught

denyuntilcaught

Well-Known Member
CaptinEO said:
I know at one point Disney really aligned themselves closely with christian churches, going so far as to consult them for some film content decisions. I feel in the early 2000s when Disney Animation /Live Action wasnt doing so hot, they probably needed groups like that, as they were the last remaining people seeing their films.

I'm sure this is no longer the case.
Click to expand...
The relationship between the church and their impact on what was deemed family content was muddied in the past. So happy we've moved past that.
 
el_super

el_super

Well-Known Member
BuzzedPotatoHead89 said:
Just because Twitter (really the internet more broadly) appeals to the fringes and blew up the construct of the Overton Window by magnifying the voices of the polar extremes doesn’t mean the concept of appealing the broadest and deepest audience subsection of the population doesn’t exist.
Click to expand...

And that's exactly what's happening here. Yes Twitter represents one extreme, but let's not forget that the people posting against these changes are doing so on.... the internet. Just because the application is different, one group on twitter and one on facebook/message boards, doesn't mean one message is more right than the other.

No, Disney isn't taking all their direction from Twitter (they would never pass up the opportunity to pay a research firm millions of dollars to find out the same thing). But Twitter and Tik Tok and other forms of social media are amplifying and putting on display, the changes in social mores that are occurring amongst the younger demographics. They can't be ignored.
 
BuzzedPotatoHead89

BuzzedPotatoHead89

Well-Known Member
el_super said:
And that's exactly what's happening here. Yes Twitter represents one extreme, but let's not forget that the people posting against these changes are doing so on.... the internet. Just because the application is different, one group on twitter and one on facebook/message boards, doesn't mean one message is more right than the other.

No, Disney isn't taking all their direction from Twitter (they would never pass up the opportunity to pay a research firm millions of dollars to find out the same thing). But Twitter and Tik Tok and other forms of social media are amplifying and putting on display, the changes in social mores that are occurring amongst the younger demographics. They can't be ignored.
Click to expand...
I think herein lies my point… I’m really not opposed to all of the changes. More so my concern is the execution itself is so focused on trying to hastily “correct a problem” to avoid a negative social media trend that the window dressing that is created to replace it then misses the mark or appears disjointed in some cases.

I’m one of the few folks on this board that still likes SWGE for what it offers and have cited the new RoA scenes as an Imagineering enhancement. I’m also cautiously optimistic on Splash Mountain (though I think the Disney PR on why change is necessary has been abysmal). I also think the natives needed to be replaced even if the new execution is (IMO) a bit mediocre.

I’m not opposed to change, I just hope the focus is thorough and thoughtful not only of the legacy of the content in question but what will replace it.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom