Have you ever agreed with Disney's decision to add POTC movie scenes/characters to the original POTC ride?

[No Name]

I voted yes because of how the question is phrased. I’ve never been against the decision to add elements from the movies, and in fact it would be kind of weird to most guests if Jack Sparrow weren’t in the ride. I just thought they’d do a better job of adding him in than a lame game of peekaboo.

 

[Robbiem]

There was a novelty to it when it was new in 2006, the same year the first Pirates sequel was released and was a massive hit (making $1 billion worldwide at a time when that was a big deal).

It's been over 15 years now. The Pirates franchise has lost much of its hype and luster. The clumsiness of the execution of some scenes and dialog has become more apparent.

This sums up my view.

Adding IP to pirates had a quick boost but overall the longer term impact will be to date the attraction. The original pirates was timeless in part because it had no tie ins. Adding Depp, Rush etc places it in people’s minds as a noughties ride.

I think a lot of the modern rides with screens and stars will have the same issues. How would people feel know with a Nicholas Hammond spider man ride or bill bixby as dav banner in a hulk attraction?

 

[britain]

This sums up my view.

Adding IP to pirates had a quick boost but overall the longer term impact will be to date the attraction. The original pirates was timeless in part because it had no tie ins. Adding Depp, Rush etc places it in people’s minds as a noughties ride.

I think a lot of the modern rides with screens and stars will have the same issues. How would people feel know with a Nicholas Hammond spider man ride or bill bixby as dav banner in a hulk attraction?

I see your point, but a more apt comparison would be a Superman ride with Christopher Reeves. Because his superman film was a high-quality film production that left a much bigger mark on pop culture than your TV Spider-Man or TV Hulk examples. And therefore I think a Christopher reeve superman ride still operating today wouldn’t look too bad.

 

[Twirlnhurl]

The biggest issue with adding the film characters into the ride is that it recast the pirates as heroes. The original version of the ride had the pirates as villains, and the ride functioned essentially as a morality play.

Once you add sympathetic characters from the film to the ride, the pirates are no longer seen in a dangerous light.

The auction scene (and other scenes that were charger prior to the 2006 refurbishment) went from unobjectionable to potentially fraut.

To clarify, I believe one needs to be extraordinarily shallow and stupid to find any of the scenes in the 1967 ride objectionable. Anyone who is upset with the original ride's depictions of slavery and assault are fundimentally missing the point of the ride.

Those scenes were consistent with the ride's anti-piracy (and anti-slavery and anti-assault) themes.

So when the scene where the pirates were chasing the women was changed to a gluttany scene, thee rider's message was dulled, as the evil pirates were being recast to be less evil and the rider's condemnation of their actions ("dead men tell no tales") looses much of its bite.

When sympathetic film characters (who happen to be pirates) are added to the ride, other acts of villainy (such as a slave-auction) get muddled. Are we still supposed to think slavery is a bad thing, as it was unambiguously in the 1967 version of the ride? Or are Jack Sparrow's wacky pirate friends just engaging in a little bit of good-natured slavery?

I prefer the original morality play version of the ride where the pirates are unambiguously the bad guys. But I understand why the film characters were added. I prefer that the film characters were given their own new ride in Shanghai, and personally feel that the Shanghai version of the ride could go in Disneyland next to the 1967 morality play original (sans film tie-in) and they would be a compelling one-two punch of different rides on a similar topic.

 

[Phroobar]

To clarify, I believe one needs to be extraordinarily shallow and stupid to find any of the scenes in the 1967 ride objectionable.

You just described 90% of the internet.

 

[Robbiem]

I see your point, but a more apt comparison would be a Superman ride with Christopher Reeves. Because his superman film was a high-quality film production that left a much bigger mark on pop culture than your TV Spider-Man or TV Hulk examples. And therefore I think a Christopher reeve superman ride still operating today wouldn’t look too bad.

Fair point. I still think anything with known people will date as the ride freezes them intime compared to how they look now. The Energy ride at epcot is a prime example by the time it closed none of the performers looked anything like they did (cranium command would be another). Guests riding would think wow this is old look at how X looks, rather than wow this is amazing

There are a few exceptions where people might accept this for really iconic performances like James Bond, Star Wars or Harry Potter but I think these are more exceptions than the norm

 

[Californian Elitist]

I liked the additions as a kid, but now I want them gone.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

I enjoyed the inclusion of ride scenes in the movie. Dislike the reverse.

 

[Dear Prudence]

Anamaria was one of the best characters in the film franchise because the actor's experience was so unfortunate during the filming, she never came back for the others (at least this is my understanding). Now that's a character I WISH had made it into the ride.

 

[SuddenStorm]

I'm not a fan of the film editions for two reasons-

1. Before, the ride existed purely in the realm of fantasy. Adding characters portrayed by real people adds a realism to the experience that in my opinion detracts- especially when those actors get extra media attention.

2. The additions are poorly executed. The art design of the new animatronics doesn't match the Marc Davis/Blaine Gibson designs of the originals. The original attraction was basically a 'warning' against greed- the pirates ransack the town and their greed is their downfall, with it even referencing that the treasure is cursed. So having Jack Sparrow celebrating his riches at the end directly contradicts that... the skeletons that used to be on the final lift were much better.

 

[BasiltheBatLord]

The biggest issue with adding the film characters into the ride is that it recast the pirates as heroes. The original version of the ride had the pirates as villains, and the ride functioned essentially as a morality play.

Once you add sympathetic characters from the film to the ride, the pirates are no longer seen in a dangerous light.

The auction scene (and other scenes that were charger prior to the 2006 refurbishment) went from unobjectionable to potentially fraut.

To clarify, I believe one needs to be extraordinarily shallow and stupid to find any of the scenes in the 1967 ride objectionable. Anyone who is upset with the original ride's depictions of slavery and assault are fundimentally missing the point of the ride.

Those scenes were consistent with the ride's anti-piracy (and anti-slavery and anti-assault) themes.

So when the scene where the pirates were chasing the women was changed to a gluttany scene, thee rider's message was dulled, as the evil pirates were being recast to be less evil and the rider's condemnation of their actions ("dead men tell no tales") looses much of its bite.

When sympathetic film characters (who happen to be pirates) are added to the ride, other acts of villainy (such as a slave-auction) get muddled. Are we still supposed to think slavery is a bad thing, as it was unambiguously in the 1967 version of the ride? Or are Jack Sparrow's wacky pirate friends just engaging in a little bit of good-natured slavery?

I prefer the original morality play version of the ride where the pirates are unambiguously the bad guys. But I understand why the film characters were added. I prefer that the film characters were given their own new ride in Shanghai, and personally feel that the Shanghai version of the ride could go in Disneyland next to the 1967 morality play original (sans film tie-in) and they would be a compelling one-two punch of different rides on a similar topic.

There is actually a lot going on on a subtextual level in the attraction which I think most guests miss. Passport to Dreams had a fantastic essay about this on their site a couple years ago. The entire thing is a somewhat metaphysical reverse morality tale.

 

[Practical Pig]

I enjoyed the inclusion of ride scenes in the movie. Dislike the reverse.

This.

 

[Too Many Hats]

The biggest issue with adding the film characters into the ride is that it recast the pirates as heroes. The original version of the ride had the pirates as villains, and the ride functioned essentially as a morality play.

Once you add sympathetic characters from the film to the ride, the pirates are no longer seen in a dangerous light.

You raise a critical point here. The addition of the charismatic and heroic Jack Sparrow altered the context for all the pre-existing pirate pillaging. But it's complicated.

I don't 100% agree that the original iteration of the attraction presented a clear morality tale. I'd like this to be the case, as the pieces of the morality tale are all there and I generally view the attraction in that light, but I don't know that this assertion holds up under scrutiny. Yo Ho is just too catchy and lovable. The trio of singing pirates and the dog and donkey barking and bopping along are just too adorable. The auction scene is a (dark) joke just as much as it's a historical depiction of pirate violence (they want the redhead, not the heavy-set woman! Haha!). And the audience is meant to chuckle, not recoil, when the naked woman appears in the barrel behind the pooped pirate. I'm not saying the original attraction was reprehensible or anything (see: my avatar), but I think it's a bit of a grey area how exactly the audience is supposed to feel about the pirates.

That said, I've never understood how any rational adult can sincerely believe the actions of the pirates on this attraction are intended to be heroic. As if invading and burning a town, torturing men, and auctioning off women was totally cool in 1967. Back in 2018, when Disney added the Redd/hen auction scene, it seemed so dishonest and bewildering to me when advocates of the changes would say "Now, finally, little girls riding the attraction have a role model to look up to, as well!" As if boys experiencing the attraction look up to all the dirty pirates with teeth missing, dressed in ragged clothing, who are shown to be repulsive to the women of the town.

 

[SuddenStorm]

That said, I've never understood how any rational adult can sincerely believe the actions of the pirates on this attraction are intended to be heroic. As if invading and burning a town, torturing men, and auctioning off women was totally cool in 1967. Back in 2018, when Disney added the Redd/hen auction scene, it seemed so dishonest and bewildering to me when advocates of the changes would say "Now, finally, little girls riding the attraction have a role model to look up to, as well!" As if boys experiencing the attraction look up to all the dirty pirates with teeth missing, dressed in ragged clothing, who are shown to be repulsive to the women of the town.

Excellent point- and I think this was touched on heavily here back when they changed the auction scene.

On surface level it was clear- boys have Jack Sparrow, so now girls have Redd the pirate. But as soon as you look past the surface the idea that these pirate characters are supposed to be at all aspirational is ridiculous and misses the entire point of the ride.

 

[Too Many Hats]

Yeah, it absolutely is a surface-level analysis (from people who likely have very little knowledge of / experience with the attraction). To be fair, it's probably true that boys in 2022 see Jack Sparrow as aspirational (despite the fact that he does nothing but hide in the background during the attraction). But even then, this perspective seems to willfully ignore everything else about the ride.

Also... it's kind of weird that Jack Sparrow presumably dies at the end of the attraction, right?

"No fear have ye of evil curses, says you? Arrrgh... Properly warned ye be, says I. Who knows when that evil curse will strike the greedy beholders of this bewitched treasure..."

 

[Animaniac93-98]

As if boys experiencing the attraction look up to all the dirty pirates with teeth missing, dressed in ragged clothing, who are shown to be repulsive to the women of the town.

Keep in mind that prior to them purchasing Marvel and Star Wars, Disney was pushing Pirates so it could become the masculine equivalent of their Princess line up.

That's why we got things like Pirates League (Pirate Bibbidi Bobbidi Boutique), the Pirate and Princess parties, Jake and the Neverland Pirates, Dream Along with Mickey (with equal time for Pirates and Princesses) etc.

 

[Dear Prudence]

I was thinking about the auction scene changes, and I wasn't opposed to them, and I am still not. It's just SO BADLY DONE. The Redd animatronics look cheap and terrible. The dialog is terrible. Her voice is annoying (sorry to the VA, whose fault I am sure that it's not). I am also salty about them downplaying Redd's figure, like wayyyyyy to tell busty/curvy women their bodies are the problem and not that society is the problem).

Again, I really like the goats , 25/10. That's a gag they could have run with throughout the entire rest of the attraction and I would have been happy.

Edit: replace Jack at the end with more goats ! A vast improvement!

 

[Too Many Hats]

Keep in mind that prior to them purchasing Marvel and Star Wars, Disney was pushing Pirates so it could become the masculine equivalent of their Princess line up.

That's why we got things like Pirates League (Pirate Bibbidi Bobbidi Boutique), the Pirate and Princess parties, Jake and the Neverland Pirates, Dream Along with Mickey (with equal time for Pirates and Princesses) etc.

Great point. I maintain that the ride itself (outside of Jack Sparrow) does nothing to present pirates as role models for little boys. But culturally, boys have been playing pirates for generations, and Disney has embraced this. It definitely complicates things.

 

[Twirlnhurl]

I don't 100% agree that the original iteration of the attraction presented a clear morality tale. I'd like this to be the case, as the pieces of the morality tale are all there and I generally view the attraction in that light, but I don't know that this assertion holds up under scrutiny. Yo Ho is just too catchy and lovable. The trio of singing pirates and the dog and donkey barking and bopping along are just too adorable. The auction scene is a (dark) joke just as much as it's a historical depiction of pirate violence (they want the redhead, not the heavy-set woman! Haha!). And the audience is meant to chuckle, not recoil, when the naked woman appears in the barrel behind the pooped pirate. I'm not saying the original attraction was reprehensible or anything (see: my avatar), but I think it's a bit of a grey area how exactly the audience is supposed to feel about the pirates.

Certainly a fair criticism of my argument. However, I would respond that most of Hollywood's best loved morality plays invite the audience to enjoy the villain's villainy for a bit before they get their comeuppance.

But reasonable people can certainly disagree on that point.

A related argument against my position is that (from what we know about the development of the ride) Pirates doesn't necessarily have a ton of authorial intent--the ride was assembled from vignettes developed by Marc Davis, sure. But the ride layout, scene progression, and one are in many ways happenstance caused by the shape of the building, operational concerns, and multiple departments developing the ride in tandem.

I am no expert on the Disneyland original (I've only ridden it about 10 times total, all in two trips over 2015 and 2019), but I have been on the Florida version hundreds of times, and I've ridden the Tokyo version 3 or 4 times.

One thing the Tokyo ride has that the Florida version doesn't have is a scene between the girl in a barrel and the burning village scene where there is no dialogue and you just hear the sounds of the village being pillaged for 15 seconds or so. That scene is genuinely eerie, and going through the arch to see the village on fire and everyone singing Yo Ho is quite a release of tension.

Was that scene created for Tokyo, or was (is?) it in the Disneyland original?

Or did I just imagine that scene in the Tokyo ride? I was tired from long days both times I was there.

 

[Phroobar]

Great point. I maintain that the ride itself (outside of Jack Sparrow) does nothing to present pirates as role models for little boys. But culturally, boys have been playing pirates for generations, and Disney has embraced this. It definitely complicates things.

When did pirates become a role model? When I was a kid, I loved playing pirate. I'd jump around with a wooden sword, draw treasure maps and build a pirate ship in the living room table and make a cave out of the couch pillows. That doesn't mean I grew up to be a corporate raider.