Change to the Pirates early 2018

[FoozieBear]

OP is obviously way off-base and absolutely incorrect in his assessment. However, there is one small thing I may agree with him on. At what point do we stop going back and 'changing art', because we realize it is incorrect? Always felt the scene reflected a dark period in that aspect of history, and its existence is a reminder of advancement. Feel like its important to keep subtle reminders for the message it was trying to portray. Do we go back to old movies and edit them just so that they're better suited for our current society?

Maybe that's just me. But that being said, I'm intrigued to see what this change will look like. Looking forward to seeing it.

 

[JS514]

I’m surprised that Disney doesn’t want to keep a scene about human trafficking in its attraction. You know, for the good ol’ days.

But they're cool with drunk pirates running around burning down an entire city and stealing all of the resident's items? Of course they are, because this is about PIRATES. It is a fantasy ride about a fantasy world. If everything in Disney were meant to be taken as a literal endorsement, then boy oh boy we are in for some trouble.


Edit: I should clarify and say, although that part has always made me laugh since I was a small child (my wife still gets mad when I randomly say "we wants the redhead" at the house), I am not necessarily anti-change in regards to it, but im not pro-change. I am intrigued to see what it will be like and how it will change the "mood" of the section. Just get tired of the "if we don't change it, then little boys are going to see it and grow up to be human traffickers" type crowd. You can't be against one thing, and not the other. If that's the case, tear it down, Disney buy out My Little Pony, and we will talk about rainbows and friendship.

 

[MrHappy]

Funny you should bring this up. I have no problem with Mickey and Minnie, but what about Donald? Do we live in a society where people walk around half naked? Mickey and Minnie wear clothes. Get that duck some pants!!!!!

Donald doesn't wear pants because he's a duck, and if a duck wears pants they would get soaked as they sit in the water while the shirt is above water.

EDIT: I added the smiley so no one thinks I'm really that crazy.

 

[Bullseye1967]

Donald doesn't wear pants because he's a duck, and if a duck wears pants they would get soaked as they sit in the water while the shirt is above water.

EDIT: I added the smiley so no one thinks I'm really that crazy.

Now it makes sense and I feel better

 

[larryz]

I've seen the intended result in Paris. You are now sailing through an antiques market....

I'd love to see Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush get together to film a short parody of that concept...

 

[Minthorne]

But they're cool with drunk pirates running around burning down an entire city and stealing all of the resident's items? Of course they are, because this is about PIRATES. It is a fantasy ride about a fantasy world. If everything in Disney were meant to be taken as a literal endorsement, then boy oh boy we are in for some trouble.


Edit: I should clarify and say, although that part has always made me laugh since I was a small child (my wife still gets mad when I randomly say "we wants the redhead" at the house), I am not necessarily anti-change in regards to it, but im not pro-change. I am intrigued to see what it will be like and how it will change the "mood" of the section. Just get tired of the "if we don't change it, then little boys are going to see it and grow up to be human traffickers" type crowd. You can't be against one thing, and not the other. If that's the case, tear it down, Disney buy out My Little Pony, and we will talk about rainbows and friendship.

The only constant is change.

 

[J_Carioca]

OP is obviously way off-base and absolutely incorrect in his assessment. However, there is one small thing I may agree with him on. At what point do we stop going back and 'changing art', because we realize it is incorrect? Always felt the scene reflected a dark period in that aspect of history, and its existence is a reminder of advancement. Feel like its important to keep subtle reminders for the message it was trying to portray. Do we go back to old movies and edit them just so that they're better suited for our current society?

Maybe that's just me. But that being said, I'm intrigued to see what this change will look like. Looking forward to seeing it.

Everyone else should stop replying to this thread because no one is going to make a more intelligent observation than this.

 

[OsbourneCox]

you need to get a life if youre still angry about this. first world problems at their best. and I'm not even a fe

2 things jump out fast:
(1) Are you being fair?
Was that you who called the cable company complaining about interrupted service back in April? Maybe you were the one who got ticked at your sister-in-law for borrowing your SUV and returned it dirty. Or remember that 17 minute wait at Starbucks that irked you good especially when you found out they ran out of Christmas blend once you reached the counter? Not you? Ya, I'm sure not one event consistent with "first world" living has tripped up your day to the point of a dissatisfaction/complaint.

(2) "ye come seeking complainers and salty posters eh? Aye you come to the proper place"

 

[Walt Disney1955]

But they're cool with drunk pirates running around burning down an entire city and stealing all of the resident's items? Of course they are, because this is about PIRATES. It is a fantasy ride about a fantasy world. If everything in Disney were meant to be taken as a literal endorsement, then boy oh boy we are in for some trouble.


Edit: I should clarify and say, although that part has always made me laugh since I was a small child (my wife still gets mad when I randomly say "we wants the redhead" at the house), I am not necessarily anti-change in regards to it, but im not pro-change. I am intrigued to see what it will be like and how it will change the "mood" of the section. Just get tired of the "if we don't change it, then little boys are going to see it and grow up to be human traffickers" type crowd. You can't be against one thing, and not the other. If that's the case, tear it down, Disney buy out My Little Pony, and we will talk about rainbows and friendship.

Seen that scene among others since I was 10 years old, never grew up to be a pimp. I always thought it was just a fun ride no one really took seriously. They are drunk pirates acting in ways I think even a 10 year old would know is wrong (or at least I did).

 

[Raineman]

With this change, I'm afraid that the hanging scene in the stretching room at HM night be next, because I'm sure there are a few people who think that it is "too frightening" and "unsuitable for children". Maybe someone will think the portrayal of the natives on JC is racist, or the lions eating the zebra displays cruelty to animals and is offensive to vegans. This is a slippery slope that Disney is heading down, a revisionist history of sorts brought on by pandering to unnecessarily triggered minority groups.

 

[OsbourneCox]

I wish Disney were more Q. Tarantino like as far as not changing scripts just to appease the vocal few.

 

[FettFan]

I wish Disney were more Q. Tarantino like as far as not changing scripts just to appease the vocal few.

Off Topic: I would love to see a Tarantino-inspired Disney World.

Here's what the Mexico Pavilion would look like:

 

[disneygeek90]

With this change, I'm afraid that the hanging scene in the stretching room at HM night be next, because I'm sure there are a few people who think that it is "too frightening" and "unsuitable for children". Maybe someone will think the portrayal of the natives on JC is racist, or the lions eating the zebra displays cruelty to animals and is offensive to vegans. This is a slippery slope that Disney is heading down, a revisionist history of sorts brought on by pandering to unnecessarily triggered minority groups.

As a vegetarian, a lion eating a zebra is not cruelty to animals. I sure do love how people jump to conclusions with no other real basis, though.

 

[JS514]

As a vegetarian, a lion eating a zebra is not cruelty to animals. I sure do love how people jump to conclusions with no other real basis, though.

I think that was more of a sarcastic comment regarding how far some people go with things that just aren't true. For instance, I overheard a heated discussion on a plane not too long ago. One individual was claiming that the other not eating cajun food was rude and racist. Yes, racist. Now, any person with common sense *should* know that not liking a certain ethnic food does not make you a racist.

I see the biggest problem in a lot of these politically correct situations, is that people, who are not even the supposed "victim" of the alleged discrimination, are the ones to yell "OFFENSIVE". So many people are inclined to be offended because something *may* be offensive to someone else. (i.e. A group of white people may demand a road name be changed because it is "offensive" to, say, Native Americans, yet the Native Americans don't really care). Of course, I'm not blanketing everything as though this is the case, but if you look close to the more "ridiculous" claims, you'll more than not see that it isn't even the alleged victim yelling the battle cry.

So, long drawn out novel later (sorry), I believe his comment was saying more so that, no, a lion eating a zebra is *not* offensive to vegetarians, because that's ridiculous, but I'm sure there is someone out there (who most likely isnt even a vegetarian) would be daft enough to yell "offensive" because they are afraid it *might* be offensive to someone. And sadly, those are the people who yell loudest and longest, and usually are the culprit in the nonsensical changes that are made. And another problem with those people, is that they drown out the people who have truly legitimate claims of wrongdoing, which makes it hard for anybody to sort out the truth amidst the crazies.

 

[OneofThree]

At what point do we stop going back and 'changing art', because we realize it is incorrect?

Not sure we should ever consider art "correct" or "incorrect", but I do agree in that there is zero value in revising history. If an accurate representation of a particular group, in a particular place, during a particular time is validation enough for some to take a bad idea and run with, I'd say we're beyond hope as a society.

 

[larryz]

I think that was more of a sarcastic comment regarding how far some people go with things that just aren't true. For instance, I overheard a heated discussion on a plane not too long ago. One individual was claiming that the other not eating cajun food was rude and racist. Yes, racist. Now, any person with common sense *should* know that not liking a certain ethnic food does not make you a racist.

I see the biggest problem in a lot of these politically correct situations, is that people, who are not even the supposed "victim" of the alleged discrimination, are the ones to yell "OFFENSIVE". So many people are inclined to be offended because something *may* be offensive to someone else. (i.e. A group of white people may demand a road name be changed because it is "offensive" to, say, Native Americans, yet the Native Americans don't really care). Of course, I'm not blanketing everything as though this is the case, but if you look close to the more "ridiculous" claims, you'll more than not see that it isn't even the alleged victim yelling the battle cry.

So, long drawn out novel later (sorry), I believe his comment was saying more so that, no, a lion eating a zebra is *not* offensive to vegetarians, because that's ridiculous, but I'm sure there is someone out there (who most likely isnt even a vegetarian) would be daft enough to yell "offensive" because they are afraid it *might* be offensive to someone. And sadly, those are the people who yell loudest and longest, and usually are the culprit in the nonsensical changes that are made. And another problem with those people, is that they drown out the people who have truly legitimate claims of wrongdoing, which makes it hard for anybody to sort out the truth amidst the crazies.

Ah, but it might offend people who are both vegetarians and who identify as lions in their current or prior lives. So clearly, we must cut that scene to potentially avoid the potential offense.

Of course, nobody's addressed those who might identify as zebras... poor things...

 

[larryz]

Off Topic: I would love to see a Tarantino-inspired Disney World.

Here's what the Mexico Pavilion would look like:

Back on topic: maybe they can get QT to direct a revised version of PotC at WDW... that would be something!

 

[RustySpork]

It's Disney's IP, which makes it Disney's decision. If you don't like the changes, don't ride it.

 

[FoozieBear]

It's Disney's IP, which makes it Disney's decision. If you don't like the changes, don't ride it.

That's a bit silly. Nobody is outrageously calling for a boycott. It's a discussion (like everything else on this forum) about whether we think its a good idea or not. When Disney makes changes that I don't really agree with, I'll still ride the attraction, but instead, I'd think "If I were in charge here, I would have done that differently".

I'm glad we all have an opportunity to voice our opinions here, I think it shows that we actually care about these attractions. How many other theme parks could anyone say that about?

 

[RustySpork]

That's a bit silly. Nobody is outrageously calling for a boycott. It's a discussion (like everything else on this forum) about whether we think its a good idea or not. When Disney makes changes that I don't really agree with, I'll still ride the attraction, but instead, I'd think "If I were in charge here, I would have done that differently".

Yes, it's a discussion, to which I'm adding my $.02.

I'm glad we all have an opportunity to voice our opinions here, I think it shows that we actually care about these attractions. How many other theme parks could anyone say that about?

All of them.