Dumbo and Peter Pan rides set for removal?

[PiratesMansion]

I’d say they obliterate them. Not soften them. But that’s my opinion. Again, this isn’t about what’s on the screen. It’s about the stuff that happened long before Peter Pan that makes people sensitive about it.... now 70 years later.

Well, even if those points are "obliterated," what about the rest of it?

But again I disagree-it is very much is about what's on the screen, because the entire reason we're having this discussion is because of concerns that problematic elements from the *movies* will then mean that the rides will be "cancelled" like Splash has been because of the issues with its source material. And if that's the discussion we're having, and if other people go back to the whole "but it's not problematic to ME" thing that's become so pervasive here, someone may as well explain why the scenes in question have issues, as it does no one any good to put their fingers in their ears and pretend that everything in these films is hunky dory just because they love Disney or they love this film, especially when most haven't even seen the thing recently.
'
That IS the purpose of this thread, right? The fear of that happening with other rides just as it happened with Splash?

Because if not, then why does this thread even exist?

Firstly, there isn’t much ambiguity. The general stakes are right there in spoken dialogue. If it was only referred to in song lyric, it would be more ambiguous. Nevertheless, the slur in the lyric is still a slur.

With the second instance, yes that was the view point of many Americans. Disney themselves were poking fun of that false viewpoint. John claims that Natives aren’t intelligent, and in a moment of humour, the cartoon natives disprove that ignorant theory. It’s like any film that deals with racial tones. What the character says was racist, but that’s the point. He’s shown to be incorrect in his beliefs. They don’t get any rewards for being “ahead of the curve” with native depictions in this film, as proven through the character designs and song lyrics. But this line is not a piece of evidence against Disney.

Point being, it is generally agreed that the scenes and depictions of the Indians trend in the not-good direction, including by you, so I don't know why instead we're focusing on circling back to semantics rather than the overall problematic nature of what is actually in the film.

 

[Californian Elitist]

The Native scenes have been controversial for years now. It's not a recent thing. They were removed in the Return to Neverland sequel, which was released in 2002, nearly twenty years ago. Marc Davis, one of Pan's animators stated that if they were to re-do the film, they would have either removed the Natives or represented them differently. He passed in 2000, so he must have made that statement sometime between the 70s and 90s.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

I know there are different opinions within a specific race of people. That’s normal and their opinions are the only ones that matter when the situation applies to their race. And let’s be honest, those of the opinion that “it doesn’t bother me” regarding racism or very serious issues towards their own don’t tend to be very forward-thinking.

I find your last sentence a generalization of too many people, but I understand what you’re getting at. Again, very complex.

 

[mickEblu]

Well, even if those points are "obliterated," what about the rest of it?

But again I disagree-it is very much is about what's on the screen, because the entire reason we're having this discussion is because of concerns that problematic elements from the *movies* will then mean that the rides will be "cancelled" like Splash has been because of the issues with its source material. And if that's the discussion we're having, and if other people go back to the whole "but it's not problematic to ME" thing that's become so pervasive here, someone may as well explain why the scenes in question have issues, as it does no one any good to put their fingers in their ears and pretend that everything in these films is hunky dory just because they love Disney or they love this film, especially when most haven't even seen the thing recently.
'
That IS the purpose of this thread, right? The fear of that happening with other rides just as it happened with Splash?

Because if not, then why does this thread even exist?


Point being, it is generally agreed that the scenes and depictions of the Indians trend in the not-good direction, including by you, so I don't know why instead we're focusing on circling back to semantics rather than the overall problematic nature of what is actually in the film.

I wouldn’t say it’s hunky dory. I think I’m just taking a 1953 - 2019 approach to it. It’s acceptable enough considering it was made in a much different time. Certainly nothing bad enough that requires it to be taken off child profiles on Disney + or the removal of a few mannequins on the ride. And I guess Disney and the rest of the world for the last 68 years agreed with me.

 

[1HAPPYGHOSTHOST]

I wouldn’t say it’s hunky dory. I think I’m just taking a 1953 - 2019 approach to it. It’s acceptable enough considering it was made in a much different time. Certainly nothing bad enough that requires it to be taken off child profiles on Disney + or the removal of a few mannequins on the ride. And I guess Disney and the rest of the world for the last 68 years agreed with me.

Well said.

 

[Californian Elitist]

I find your last sentence a generalization of too many people, but I understand what you’re getting at. Again, very complex.

I mentioned "don't tend to be" to refrain from generalizing. But yes you're right, it's complex.

 

[mickEblu]

The problem with all these things being erased at the same time is that none of it comes across as genuine at all. And we know this. Disney will do what is best for their bottom line. When being gay wasn’t en vogue, they let go of Ellen. Most of this cancel culture stuff (not just Disney) is just way over the top. Mostly over corrections for stuff that isn’t even problematic if we stick to what’s actually on the screen. Just bored white people from the far side of a specific political party saying who needs to be offended. None of it is genuine. And none of it is truly helping anyone.

 

[Homemade Imagineering]

Look, I very, very much do respect the OP of this thread, as I do everyone on this forum. Just saying (and I've said this multiple times before already), the sensationalism surrounding the SM and JC announcements has been way overblown, and having these conversations surrounding the fear that other attractions will meet their demise is getting tiring, especially considering SM was the ONLY attraction that couldn't be altered, without removing all ties/references to SotS. All other attractions with "problematic" elements won't require a hefty re-theme like SM.

Ultimately, conversations like this only directly relate themselves back to the SM situation, one we've been over for months now. No one is trying to permanently erase Pan and Dumbo from Disney history, two of Disney's most iconic movies ever. I also wouldn't take a magnifying glass to the Disney + censorship situation. In conclusion, the attractions themselves take up such small footprints, and it wouldn't necessarily be feasible to replace Pan, or for that matter Dumbo on all coasts.

I understand some of you are afraid of change, and I can't blame you. I myself wouldn't want these two attractions to be gone from the parks, but having these conversations will only continue to divide us, and that's the last thing I want on this forum. Let's try to keep the conversation far away from the SM situation. That's all I'm gonna say for now, we will see what happens. Just keep in mind, the decisions the OP is suggesting would expose TWDC to a PR nightmare.

 

[PiratesMansion]

I wouldn’t say it’s hunky dory. I think I’m just taking a 1953 - 2019 approach to it. It’s acceptable enough considering it was made in a much different time. Certainly nothing bad enough that requires it to be taken off child profiles on Disney + or the removal of a few mannequins on the ride. And I guess Disney and the rest of the world for the last 68 years agreed with me.

I have seen literally no one here advocating for the changing of or removal of the ride. It's all the same fearmongering as usual by people who don't understand and don't care to understand these arguments.

I think removing Peter Pan and the other movies from children's profiles (which, again, are only for children seven and under, and it would require almost no effort for a parent or sibling to switch profiles in three seconds if they wanted to watch any of those movies) is fine because young children internalize what they see in media, just as people of all ages do, including representations of race; here's but one example from 2010 that refers back to a study done in the 50's that was used to justify the passing of the landmark Brown v. Board Supreme Court case (https://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/13/doll.study/index.html). Knowing that, and knowing that there are *adults* that don't view media with any nuance or critical thinking I can certainly understand trying to keep children away from harmful racial depictions, when they are at their youngest and most impressionable.

I see nothing wrong with stopping children under seven from viewing films with racist depictions and am kind of disturbed that so many people are *upset* by that viewpoint. Especially since if you really wanted to show your children any of those movies it wouldn't at all be hard to do so. Again, that research from above has been around since at least *the 1950s.* The Peter Pan native segments have been known to be offensive for some time. Literally none of this is new information.

 

[Homemade Imagineering]

I have seen literally no one here advocating for the changing of or removal of the ride. It's all the same fearmongering as usual by people who don't understand and don't care to understand these arguments.

This.

 

[Brer Oswald]

Well, even if those points are "obliterated," what about the rest of it?

I agree with the rest of it. Already said that.

It may confuse you why I would then stick to those two specific points. Those two elements you selected were cherry picked in a way that made them support your argument. However, with the full context provided, they don’t support your argument.

Yes, your argument that the Native stereotypes are an issue is valid. I even agree with it. But just because there is other credible evidence that you pointed, does not mean that all of it is true.

It may seem silly for me to even care, but I think cherry-picking points to support our claim, regardless of whether or not the claim is accurate, sets a bad precedent. It is something we all do, and it is something we all have to try to back away from doing the best that we can.

I won’t hold it against you.

 

[PiratesMansion]

I agree with the rest of it. Already said that.

It may confuse you why I would then stick to those two specific points. Those two elements you selected were cherry picked in a way that made them support your argument. However, with the full context provided, they don’t support your argument.

Yes, your argument that the Native stereotypes are an issue is valid. I even agree with it. But just because there is other credible evidence that you pointed, does not mean that all of it is true.

It may seem silly for me to even care, but I think cherry-picking points to support our claim, regardless of whether or not the claim is accurate, sets a bad precedent. It is something we all do, and it is something we all have to try to back away from doing the best that we can.

I won’t hold it against you.

I did not intentionally cherry pick. I missed them by mistake, as I already said in reply to @mickEblu.

You are going after me as if I am the only person here who has ever gotten a fact incorrect or given a bad faith argument (which I did not do, because I made a mistake and admitted as such). It does NOT mean my argument that you otherwise agree with is invalid.

Again, WHY are we harping on this? It doesn't matter. Scene bad! The end.

 

[mickEblu]

I have seen literally no one here advocating for the changing of or removal of the ride. It's all the same fearmongering as usual by people who don't understand and don't care to understand these arguments.

I think removing Peter Pan and the other movies from children's profiles (which, again, are only for children seven and under, and it would require almost no effort for a parent or sibling to switch profiles in three seconds if they wanted to watch any of those movies) is fine because young children internalize what they see in media, just as people of all ages do, including representations of race; here's but one example from 2010 that refers back to a study done in the 50's that was used to justify the passing of the landmark Brown v. Board Supreme Court case (https://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/13/doll.study/index.html). Knowing that, and knowing that there are *adults* that don't view media with any nuance or critical thinking I can certainly understand trying to keep children away from harmful racial depictions, when they are at their youngest and most impressionable.

I see nothing wrong with stopping children under seven from viewing films with racist depictions and am kind of disturbed that so many people are *upset* by that viewpoint. Especially since if you really wanted to show your children any of those movies it wouldn't at all be hard to do so. Again, that research from above has been around since at least *the 1950s.* The Peter Pan native segments have been known to be offensive for some time. Literally none of this is new information.

I didn’t say anyone here advocated for removing the Indians from the ride but we know the change is coming.

 

[Brer Oswald]

I did not intentionally cherry pick. I missed them by mistake, as I already said in reply to @mickEblu.

You are going after me as if I am the only person here who has ever made a mistake or given a bad faith argument. Which I did not do, because I made a mistake and admitted as such. It does NOT mean my argument that you otherwise agree with is invalid.

Again, WHY are we harping on this? It doesn't matter! Scene bad! The end!

I’m not going after you. I’ve witnessed most people in this thread make some sort of argument fallacy. Only reason I commented on your post is because I thought I could get a reasonable and smart discussion with you.

Again, your whole argument isn’t invalid. I don’t think I need to say that again. We both agree that it is valid.

“Scene bad! The end!” is rather close minded. I think it’s important we know why it’s bad so that we know how to judge it, and so that we know how to prevent future mistakes.

Again, I’m not attacking you. I’m just offering a little criticism. If I didn’t think you were intelligent and reasonable, I would not have replied to any of your posts. I mean no harm

 

[PiratesMansion]

I didn’t say anyone here advocated for removing the Indians from the ride but we know it’s coming.

We'll see. Not saying it will definitively never happen, but I really do think the two big ones to change for Disney were Splash and JC.

And passing by any Indian imagery in the DL version takes about two seconds total of the ride time. From what I could tell from a ride through, there's the teepees in the Neverland room, one Indian at the skull, and three Indians as your moving from one side of the pirate ship to the other. That's far less time than was spent with any of the parts of JC they're changing, and the questionable elements of Peter Pan haven't seeped into people's (or Disney's) consciousness as much as those of SOTS.

I had actually assumed that all of the Indian imagery in the ride was all next to each other. It's not super prominent even so, but it's more spread out than I rememered.

 

[Sharon&Susan]

We'll see. Not saying it will definitively never happen, but I really do think the two big ones to change for Disney were Splash and JC.

And passing by any Indian imagery in the DL version takes about two seconds total of the ride time. From what I could tell from a ride through, there's the teepees in the Neverland room, one Indian at the skull, and three Indians as your moving from one side of the pirate ship to the other. That's far less time than was spent with any of the parts of JC they're changing, and the questionable elements of Peter Pan haven't seeped into people's (or Disney's) consciousness as much as those of SOTS.

I don't know if Tiger Lillee will stay or not, but I'm betting that the teepees will stay on the Neverland model. Even Peter Pan 2 kept the camp in Neverland even while consciously avoiding anything else to do with the Neverland Natives.

 

[Professortango1]

I am in a interracial relationship with my girlfriend. She is a Navajo. A hunter/gatherer that I read about in Social Studies. and she has nooo problem with the Peter Pan depiction of Native American's because she understand it is a cartoon for children.

Ah yes, the "I have black friends" argument.

 

[Practical Pig]

Removing films with racial issues from children's profiles on D+ transfers the responsibility of the children's exposure to those issues from Disney to the parents. This is a Disney Dodge™

 

[mickEblu]

We'll see. Not saying it will definitively never happen, but I really do think the two big ones to change for Disney were Splash and JC.

And passing by any Indian imagery in the DL version takes about two seconds total of the ride time. From what I could tell from a ride through, there's the teepees in the Neverland room, one Indian at the skull, and three Indians as your moving from one side of the pirate ship to the other. That's far less time than was spent with any of the parts of JC they're changing, and the questionable elements of Peter Pan haven't seeped into people's (or Disney's) consciousness as much as those of SOTS.

I had actually assumed that all of the Indian imagery in the ride was all next to each other. It's not super prominent even so, but it's more spread out than I rememered.

The questionable elements of SOTS haven’t seeped into peoples consciousness as nobody has seen the movie. The chatter surrounding it from people who haven’t even seen the movie have seeped into peoples consciousness. The questionable elements of Peter Pan should be far more present in peoples consciousness but somehow SOTS is more of an issue as people bought into what they heard on social media.

Yeah I thought aside from Tiger Lily, it was just the chief and maybe another Indian or two on the cliff.

 

[mickEblu]

Ah yes, the "I have black friends" argument.

Much better than the “I’m not even (insert race) argument but I’m more offended than them.