Dumbo and Peter Pan rides set for removal?

[Professortango1]

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.

The retheme of Splash Mountain was planned long before BLM made headlines. Its a similar situation to Mission BO. Take a ride with good bones but not based upon a popular property and see if you can retheme the existing attraction with minimal expense to advertise a "new" ride while also driving a more profitable IP.

 

[Professortango1]

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

I wouldn't say better. If I hear someone say something grossly racist or misogynistic, I don't need to be a minority or a woman to be offended by it. Claiming that others shouldn't be offended because someone you anecdotally know isn't offended is pretty dismissive.

 

[mickEblu]

The retheme of Splash Mountain was planned long before BLM made headlines. Its a similar situation to Mission BO. Take a ride with good bones but not based upon a popular property and see if you can retheme the existing attraction with minimal expense to advertise a "new" ride while also driving a more profitable IP.

I’m sure it was discussed as blue sky at some point but “planned” is false.

 

[Professortango1]

I’m sure it was discussed as blue sky at some point but “planned” is false.

That isn't what I've heard from Imagineering at all. BLM news helped fast track it, but the plans were pre-established. Mission BO was their experiment to see if they could get away with such changes and since it was mostly successful, Disney began examining other attractions to see how they might be rethemed to more relevant and profitable franchises.

 

[mickEblu]

I wouldn't say better. If I hear someone say something grossly racist or misogynistic, I don't need to be a minority or a woman to be offended by it. Claiming that others shouldn't be offended because someone you anecdotally know isn't offended is pretty dismissive.

It hold more weight than the argument I mentioned in my last post.

What if it’s ten friends? 20 friends? Does it still not matter that in my real life 20 people aren’t offended by something? Should I really be more concerned about someone I don’t know who may or may not even be that race.

 

[mickEblu]

That isn't what I've heard from Imagineering at all. BLM news helped fast track it, but the plans were pre-established. Mission BO was their experiment to see if they could get away with such changes and since it was mostly successful, Disney began examining other attractions to see how they might be rethemed to more relevant and profitable franchises.

I don’t believe it. I think they dusted off some blue sky idea when the opportunity presented itself.

 

[Professortango1]

It hold more weight than the argument I mentioned in my last post.

What if it’s ten friends? 20 friends? Does it still not matter that in my real life 20 people aren’t offended by something? Should I really be more concerned about someone I don’t know who may or may not even be that race.

I think saying that we should disregard what a large portion of a minority group is saying because a small fraction doesn't agree is the problem. If most voices are saying something is an issue, we should listen to those voices, not use singular voices that disagree to invalidate the majority's complaints.

 

[mickEblu]

I think saying that we should disregard what a large portion of a minority group is saying because a small fraction doesn't agree is the problem. If most voices are saying something is an issue, we should listen to those voices, not use singular voices that disagree to invalidate the majority's complaints.

The thing is I haven’t heard a large portion of any minority group saying they have an issue with these movies/ attractions. It’s more like a movement was happening in real life about real life problems and somehow Disney rides/ movies got thrown into the mix on social media and people went along with it riding the wave of the BLM movement.

 

[Brer Panther]

more relevant and profitable franchises.

Was The Princess and the Frog really relevant and profitable before 2020? Disney brushed it off as a flop and ignored it for years, though I'm sure Tiana merchandise sells pretty well.

 

[Brer Oswald]

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

That isn’t the “I have *blank* friends argument”. He provided an example of a person with Native American background, who wasn’t offended by the depictions in the film.

Does that mean she’s reflective of how al Native Americans feel towards those depictions? Not at all.

But the “friends with *blank* argument” is only applicable to the views of the non Native. He didn’t offer how he felt in that post, nor did he justify his views by having a girlfriend of Native descent.

 

[PiratesMansion]

Was The Princess and the Frog really relevant and profitable before 2020? Disney brushed it off as a flop and ignored it for years, though I'm sure Tiana merchandise sells pretty well.

Yes, actually.

If it wasn't, they wouldn't be retheming Splash Mountain after it. (Hence why if the Tokyo Splash retheme ever happens, there's a good idea it won't be related to PATF because the movie is actually the irrelevance there that people think it is here).

Y'all are so quick to point to PATF's flop at the box office to try and dismiss it as if that's the only time a film can be relevant or make money, but even SOTS made a good chunk of its money after its initial box office run.

And if a film's original run in theaters is the only time the movie or its profitability is relevant, no one would know anything about Pinocchio, Fantasia, Bambi, Alice in Wonderland, or Sleeping Beauty, among other films today. Most films made around that time have been long forgotten. Disney is an expert at getting people to care about their movies and monetize them after their initial box offfice run, so this isn't even a new thing. To claim that Disney hasn't made (or, if you prefer, can't make) PATF into a movie people care about conveniently ignores a good chunk of the company's historic business acumen to make a point that dosn't hold up to scrutiny.

In a non-Disney (well, not originally Disney anyway) example, Avatar actually became the highest grossing movie of all time once again as of the past week or so. Does that mean that Avatar is the most relevant movie of all time by your metrics? I would imagine most people would say no. The conversation is more nuanced than, and has always been more nuanced then, initial box office numbers.

Do you really think no one cared about PATF until 2020 when Disney realized they had a black princess movie they could dust off the shelf? Because to me this all seems like a lot of flimsy articles that solely consist of people saying:
1) I don't know and/or don't like PATF
2) The film didn't make money in 2009, therefore
3) Obviously the movie is irrelevant to everyone because it is irrelevant to me. Especially since it also killed Splash Mountain.

Interesting how so many people dismiss others' experiences/opinions but when they themselves don't care about PATF it must mean everyone doesn't care about PATF and Disney's just disingenuously pretending it's relevant because they want to appear "woke. "

 

[el_super]

The thing is I haven’t heard a large portion of any minority group saying they have an issue with these movies/ attractions.

This ignores that most minority groups have beem conditioned to not express issue or demand changes for negative cultural depictions, due to years of hearing the same flimsy arguments being expressed in this thread. Saying "it's tradition," or "it's historic" or "it's just a theme park ride" is exactly the kind of speech meant to shut down the dissent you are now asking as proof of justification.

Which isn't to say there haven't been voices speaking up. They have. For decades now. It's incorrect to assume that this has been universally acceptable behavior up until this moment, simply because one hasn't been exposed to the criticism. Much like the change in name of the Washington Football Team, the name change last year doesnt mean that it was suddenly unacceptable. It was a problem for decades.

And, as the change for the Washington Football Team has shown, it's a far better strategy to get ahead of these things before complaints reach critical mass than to wait for it to blow over for the 12th time. Disney is trying to be pro-active and think long term here. Maybe the complaints against the racist stereotypes in the park are not seen as problematic by the majority now, but what about 5 years or 10 years from now?

Better to address these problems now, so that you aren't forced to unexpectedly close attractions permanently once some unflattering news hits.

 

[Brer Oswald]

Interesting how so many people dismiss others' experiences/opinions but when they themselves don't care about PATF it must mean everyone doesn't care about PATF and Disney's just disingenuously pretending it's relevant because they want to appear "woke. "

Who are these “many people”? It’s the same poster posting the same thing in every thread. Just ignore them.

 

[Brer Oswald]

This ignores that most minority groups have beem conditioned to not express issue or demand changes for negative cultural depictions, due to years of hearing the same flimsy arguments being expressed in this thread. Saying "it's tradition," or "it's historic" or "it's just a theme park ride" is exactly the kind of speech meant to shut down the dissent you are now asking as proof of justification.

I’ve seen this line used by both people in favour of many of these changes and people against these changes. It’s stupid in either case. Theme Parks are another medium to tell meaningful stories, just as movies and books are. I’d expect theme park super fans to understand that.

 

[mickEblu]

This ignores that most minority groups have beem conditioned to not express issue or demand changes for negative cultural depictions, due to years of hearing the same flimsy arguments being expressed in this thread. Saying "it's tradition," or "it's historic" or "it's just a theme park ride" is exactly the kind of speech meant to shut down the dissent you are now asking as proof of justification.

Which isn't to say there haven't been voices speaking up. They have. For decades now. It's incorrect to assume that this has been universally acceptable behavior up until this moment, simply because one hasn't been exposed to the criticism. Much like the change in name of the Washington Football Team, the name change last year doesnt mean that it was suddenly unacceptable. It was a problem for decades.

And, as the change for the Washington Football Team has shown, it's a far better strategy to get ahead of these things before complaints reach critical mass than to wait for it to blow over for the 12th time. Disney is trying to be pro-active and think long term here. Maybe the complaints against the racist stereotypes in the park are not seen as problematic by the majority now, but what about 5 years or 10 years from now?

Better to address these problems now, so that you aren't forced to unexpectedly close attractions permanently once some unflattering news hits.

And on that note...when is Disneyland reopening?

 

[TP2000]

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'm curious about something, and because you've stated you are a young person in college, I'm going to ask you. (Congrats! )

Do young people ever use the words prejudice or bigotry anymore? Or what about even softer words like insensitive? Or does every instance of potential prejudice or bigotry get automatically elevated to the term "racism" or "racist"?

I ask because it seems like a lot of the issues we are talking about here with Disneyland rides from the 20th century do not involve racism at all. That is, if you consider racism the belief that one race is inherently superior biologically or physiologically to another race, or that a specific race is inherently inferior to other races. In 1989 the Oxford Dictionary defined racism as "the theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race."

And yet so much of what we talk about here is not racism at all. It may be more accurately described as prejudice or bigotry, or simply being insensitive. @mickEblu had a good point about the lyrics to the Peter Pan song "What makes the red man red". Racism is not approached, or even prejudice, but obviously a more accurate way to describe that song would be to call it insensitive. I can't think of any visual gag or scene in Disneyland's Peter Pan ride that portrays Indians as being biologically or physiologically inferior to the white Englishmen who populate the rest of that ride and its story. It's simply insensitive.

So the question is... Is there an ability in American academia today to describe something as being prejudiced? Or describe a person's actions as being bigoted? Or describe an old book or stage play as being insensitive? Or does it always just go straight to Level 10 "Racism!" and that's the only word that is acceptable today?

Is there an ability to have nuance and accuracy in the language, and thus the ideas being discussed? Or is it always just "Racist"?

 

[TP2000]

I Googled up the lyrics to the song called "What Made The Red Man Red?", from Disney's 1953 classic Peter Pan.

Here they are...

Why does he ask you, "How?"
Why does he ask you, "How?"
Once the Injun didn't know
All the things that he know now
But the Injun, he sure learn a lot
And it's all from asking, "How?"

Hana Mana Ganda
Hana Mana Ganda
We translate for you
Hana means what mana means
And ganda means that too

When did he first say, "Ugh!"
When did he first say, "Ugh!
In the Injun book it say
When the first brave married squaw
He gave out with a big ugh
When he saw his Mother-in-Law

What made the red man red?
What made the red man red?
Let's go back a million years
To the very first Injun prince
He kissed a maid and start to blush
And we've all been blushin' since

You've got it from the headman
The real true story of the red man
No matter what's been written or said
Now you know why the red man's red!

Okay... So, some of that language we wouldn't use today in polite conversation. But in 1953? It was language that was widely accepted. In 1953 they also used the word "cripple" in polite society to describe a disabled person, and we'd never do that today.

But the core question is, are these lyrics racist and do they convey racist concepts? Are they trying to say that Indians are inherently inferior to other races biologically and/or physiologically? I can't find any evidence of that in the lyrics. I can't even see an instance of prejudice or bigotry. These lyrics appear to be trying to explain a different culture to the non-Indian audience, although they are describing it with insensitive terms. But prejudice? I don't see that. Bigotry? I don't see that either. Insensitive? Yes, I see that. Out of fashion? Yes, that's obvious! This is very unfashionable language.

But are these lyrics evidence of "racism"? No, not in the actual definition and proper use of the word racism.

If anything, those lyrics merely convey the idea that Indians share the basics of humanity that we all do, right down to disliking their mother-in-laws. They use very unfashionable language to do that, and they cross the line into insensitivity. But that doesn't make it racist.

 

[Californian Elitist]

I'm curious about something, and because you've stated you are a young person in college, I'm going to ask you. (Congrats! )

Do young people ever use the words prejudice or bigotry anymore? Or what about even softer words like "insensitive"? Or does every instance of potential prejudice or bigotry get automatically elevated to the term "racism" or "racist"?

I ask because it seems like a lot of the issues we are talking about here with Disneyland rides from the 20th century do not involve racism at all. That is, if you consider racism the belief that one race is inherently superior biologically or physiologically to another race, or that a specific race is inherently inferior to other races. In 1989 the Oxford Dictionary defined racism as "the theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race."

And yet so much of what we talk about here is not racism at all. It may be more accurately described as prejudice or bigotry, or simply being insensitive. @mickEblu had a good point about the lyrics to the Peter Pan song "What makes the red man red". Racism is not approached, or even prejudice, but obviously a more accurate way to describe that song would be to call it insensitive. I can't think of any visual gag or scene in Disneyland's Peter Pan ride that portrays Indians as being biologically or physiologically inferior to the white Englishmen who populate the rest of that ride and its story. It's simply insensitive.

So the question is... Is there an ability in American academia today to describe something as being prejudiced? Or describe a person's actions as being bigoted? Or describe an old book or stage play as being insensitive? Or does it always just go straight to Level 10 "Racism!" and that's the only word that is acceptable today?

Is there an ability to have nuance and accuracy in the language, and thus the ideas being discussed? Or is it always just "Racist"?

Of course people use those terms.

What many people fail to realize is "Racism!" is a complex, multi-faceted concept. It does not solely mean someone of one race hating someone else because they are of a different race or belief that one's race is superior to others'. Those of us who have taken a sociology 101 class within the last 30 or so years would know this.

 

[TP2000]

Of course people use those terms.

What many people fail to realize is "Racism!" is a complex, multi-faceted concept. It does not solely mean someone of one race hating someone else because they are of a different race or belief that one's race is superior to others'. Those of us who have taken a sociology 101 class within the last 30 or so years would know this.

Huh. And yet the dictionaries haven't caught up. Or at least the hardbound dictionaries I use.

Noun: the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.

I just never hear any young kids claiming "That's prejudiced!" or "That person is a bigot!". It's always "racism" or "racist", at least when they speak out loud. I just didn't know if college professors are in that camp too, and they now only use the words "racist" or "racism" to describe actions or concepts stemming from prejudice or bigotry, but not necessarily racism.

Or, in the case of Disneyland's Peter Pan dark ride, simply stemming from insensitivity. Not racism, in its accurate description.

 

[SuddenStorm]

If this trend continues, Toontown and especially Roger Rabbit's Cartoon Spin won't be safe either.

I mean, Who Framed Roger Rabbit literally has the Crows from Dumbo-

and the tar baby from Song of the South, as well as the possums from the 'Zip a Dee Doo Dah' segment and Brer Bear-