Jessica Rabbit removed from Trunk- Roger Rabbits Cartoon Spin

Dear Prudence

Well-Known Member
How does showing cleavage equate to the objectification of women?
Again, like, I don't think people realize what downplaying or diminishing her figure really means. It basically just reiterates what we've been told our whole lives that our bodies are inherently vulgar and shameful.

And that she's not, you know, a woman who loves her (Rabbit 🥲😐🥴) husband, and who repeatedly saves him and herself
 

Californian Elitist

Well-Known Member
Again, like, I don't think people realize what downplaying or diminishing her figure really means. It basically just reiterates what we've been told our whole lives that our bodies are inherently vulgar and shameful.

And that she's not, you know, a woman who loves her (Rabbit 🥲😐🥴) husband, and who repeatedly saves him and herself
EXACTLY. So any time a woman reveals parts of her body, in this case a cartoon with her cleavage exposed, it automatically means her purpose is reduced to pretty much nothing, besides maybe sexual favors or for the male to gaze upon her, and therefore such displays of her body should never be? As you stated, that is counterproductive and reduces the female body to nothing if it is not fully clothed.
 

BuzzedPotatoHead89

Well-Known Member
The concept that heterosexual men are such simpletons that they cannot handle their libidos around a female shape is an archaic notion that perpetuates gender stereotypes and is insulting to the emotional intelligence of both women (by objectifying them) and men alike (by assuming such low expectations of their own self control).

The problem with thinking that forcing women to “cover up” will solve the problem of the male gaze is a naive one at best (let alone the obvious double standard). Both neo-feminists and religious fanatics (extremes in their groups) rely on a misunderstanding that ignores that expression is liberating and also a better form of desensitization in itself.

Censoring even mild forms of sexual expression in art (even down to cartoons) is akin to plugging a chronically leaky water faucet with a large wad of bubble gum.
 
Last edited:

Ghost93

Well-Known Member
Again, I think considering how much Disney has ignored Roger and Jessica Rabit the past two decades we should be glad that they aren't tearing the ride down. Who knows, maybe this will lead to Disney making a Jessica Rabbit spinoff or something.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Again, I think considering how much Disney has ignored Roger and Jessica Rabit the past two decades we should be glad that they aren't tearing the ride down. Who knows, maybe this will lead to Disney making a Jessica Rabbit spinoff or something.
Disney has been trying to make another movie on and off for 30 years. The issue isn’t Disney’s interest. The idea that a new convoluted story on the ride will spark Spielberg’s interest is ridiculous.
 

Dear Prudence

Well-Known Member
EXACTLY. So any time a woman reveals parts of her body, in this case a cartoon with her cleavage exposed, it automatically means her purpose is reduced to pretty much nothing, besides maybe sexual favors or for the male to gaze upon her, and therefore such displays of her body should never be? As you stated, that is counterproductive and reduces the female body to nothing if it is not fully clothed.
And yet eyes bigger than their waists on a of the female characters for the last 10 plus years is fine, though, lol 😆
 

WEDfan9798

Active Member
I feel that's accurate.

What's important to remember is that Imagineers get paid for this kind of erasing and changing existing rides at the same pay scale they got for creating exciting new rides like Radiator Springs Racers or Mystic Manor or Runaway Railway.

It doesn't matter if they are building the next classic E Ticket, or if they are de-sexing the female character on a 1990's dark ride and pretending she's now the star when the one movie she was in 33 years ago made no mention of any of that. They still make the same salary, the payroll still gets ultimately charged to Burbank, and thus they can still make the payments on the new Tesla and the lovely home in Pasadena. Or if they are a young Imagineer early in their career, the payment on the Honda and the rent for the fun apartment in Silver Lake.

Imagineers at all levels are getting paid the same salary whether they spend their days in Glendale slashing and burning an old dark ride like this to appease HR and the Twitter Mob, or building a custom E Ticket from scratch that will thrill for decades. They just need a project - any project - to work on to earn that money, that's all.

So if the big boss and HR now says that Walt was an evil man and should be erased just like that racist Abe Lincoln, if they want to make their Tesla payments those Imagineers will have to say "Yes, sir. What's the production timeline you can give us to produce the new Great Moments with Che Guevara show?"
I'd hate to think that. It's terrible, my dude.
 

WEDfan9798

Active Member
I couldn't agree more!

And the story of their creation, per the request of the wartime US State Department in order to strengthen cultural ties with our southern neighbors before the Nazis or Japanese could get to them, is really a fascinating chapter in both American and Disney history.

But as we've seen with other hipster Woke pogroms, none of those facts matter. It's a duck wearing a Sombrero, with stereotypical colonial caricatures from Mexico and Brazil. They must be erased before some white college kid is offended and harmed by their presence.

I really won't be surprised when Viva Navidad slips into Yesterland in the next year or two. It's the type of cultural fun that just can not be tolerated any longer by the Woke censors in HR.
As a proud Mexican, I don't have any issue with any portrayal of us at Disney. Not even the older stuff, either. I guess my issue is that they are going to price out Hispanic families, not how there's a bird with a Spanish accent or Donald Duck in a sombrero. I think those "issues" are completely dumb and a waste of resources and they should focus more on not pushing out minorities from visiting their parks.


I'll put it this way. When they redo Splash Mountain, it wouldn't really matter whether there's a black princess in there if black families aren't able to afford to go there. They wanna talk about "inclusion", but then they price out a lot of the people they supposedly want to include...it's sickening.
 

WEDfan9798

Active Member
Oh, I fully realize their actual popularity with real people in South America.

But that doesn't mean a thing to an HR Committee of people who get paid to be Woke.

Heck, I am currently 30 miles from the Mexican border. I have several social friends here in town who are Latinos of Mexican heritage, and at a dinner party earlier this summer two of them were ranting and raving about all these young white kids now who have declared that they be called Latinx, a new word that is meaningless in Spanish and dumb to pronounce in any language.

Latinx is primarily used only by white kids on college campuses, hipster white neighborhoods, or in HR departments by people who want to sound better than you, but it's baffling to actual Latinos in the real world. Only 3% of Latinos in the USA use the term "Latinx", and those 3% likely work in HR and are forced to use it by their white bosses. 🤣


What does Latinx have to do with all this? It's just one more clear example of how a tiny minority of usually clueless white people who are paid to be Woke mess and fiddle with stuff to prove they are worth their huge HR salary.

That's why I really don't see a bright future for the Viva Navidad! show. It's "problematic" for the "Latinx" community, or at least a few dorks in Burbank will easily earn their salary next fiscal year by claiming such.

11628415856_5ce3901be9_b.jpg
Don't get me started on that.
 

WEDfan9798

Active Member
Is it entirely impossible now to enjoy a Disney ride.. anything, really.. without hearing someone crying racism or sexism over something?
Well, I think that scene can be altered to be less stereotypical or replaced with a handful of other characters from the film. Other than that, there's nothing racist or sexist left there and to suggest otherwise is stupid and a blatant cry for attention or overreaching.
 

Dear Prudence

Well-Known Member
As a proud Mexican, I don't have any issue with any portrayal of us at Disney. Not even the older stuff, either. I guess my issue is that they are going to price out Hispanic families, not how there's a bird with a Spanish accent or Donald Duck in a sombrero. I think those "issues" are completely dumb and a waste of resources and they should focus more on not pushing out minorities from visiting their parks.


I'll put it this way. When they redo Splash Mountain, it wouldn't really matter whether there's a black princess in there if black families aren't able to afford to go there. They wanna talk about "inclusion", but then they price out a lot of the people they supposedly want to include...it's sickening.
Hi, I am also Mexican (maternal side, Indigenous, Puebla/Ciudad de México, etc.), and I just wanted to add to your comment. Panchito Pistoles was created as a goodwill ambassador and was played by a very famous Mexican American nightclub entertainer from San Francisco. He wasn't created to make fun of Mexican people (as many of the Mexican "characters" from other studios were). The 'Las Posadas' segment of Three Caballeros is so beautifully and respectfully done--especially given the time period. Obviously, there were things that may have not aged well, but Zé Carioca and Panchito were created with a degree of reverence and played by very famous and well-respected actors from their time periods. All three voice actors reprised their roles for the Spanish and Portuguese language versions of the film Three Caballeros (All three versions I have seen because they used to play regularly on the Latin TV stations. A few years ago, Three Caballeros played at the Walt Disney Family Museum, to a largely Mexican/ Latin audience, who laughed multiple times, especially when Zé snuck in a few curses that just breezed past the censors. Donald in a Sombrero doesn't bother me, especially since Clarence Nash made huge efforts with the Mexican Spanish--EVEN IN A DONALD VOICE! Trying to make our cultura for sale bothers me. Pricing out Mexican/ Latin/ Black families bothers me. Leaving Black Mexicans out of Coco bothers me.

Saludos Amigos and Three Caballeros were made as goodwill gestures, and to appeal to the respective audiences of those countries. Even Walt had mentioned that they had to be as respectful as possible and include specific countries in a specific way because, news flash! we are NOT ALL THE SAME PEOPLE and countries in Latin America DO NOT LIKE EACH OTHER.

The problem I have is people who don't know what they're talking about or even what they're looking at assuming everything is a stereotype. And as for the weasels in zoot suits, think about the company we're talking about. They're trying to girlbossify a character who doesn't need it, because they don't even understand who she is as a character, let alone their own movie.
 

Dear Prudence

Well-Known Member
Me too although spinning makes me sick so i always spend the whole ride fighting the steering wheel.

EDITED to add: Really? Just me?
I was always told that H*spanic was a slur and I don't use it. I don't even like typing it out. I was never allowed to refer to myself as the "H word" because of it. It makes sense, though, we aren't Spanish.

AS for getting sick on RRCS---SAME. I mentioned it on this thread (or maybe the other one) that theming really DOES matter. If it were not for it being a Roger Rabbit attraction, I would not be riding it, because I get such bad vertigo. It also makes zero sense to try and give this attraction any more of a plot than it already has because it's so cattywampus. Maybe a little update of the queue?

(Also, it's fascinating in these threads to see who actually goes to and cares about the parks and attractions, and people who just like grandstanding. It's the same in the Splash threads--people who say that the current incarnations of Splash are "the same" clearly have not been to the parks. (I get that the parks are a luxury, but still. 'so confident and yet so wrong meme dot gif')
 

Dear Prudence

Well-Known Member
Is it entirely impossible now to enjoy a Disney ride.. anything, really.. without hearing someone crying racism or sexism over something?
Peter Pan, both the attraction and the film, contains grotesque, dehumanizing depictions of Native people, and the film is chock a block full of textbook racial slurs (some of which are still in the instrumental music in the ride queue). The film also hyersexualizes a Native (female) child. Peter Pan should have been the first to be adjusted, along with the Blackface African caricatures of the Jungle Cruise, before anything else.
 

SuddenStorm

Well-Known Member
Peter Pan, both the attraction and the film, contains grotesque, dehumanizing depictions of Native people, and the film is chock a block full of textbook racial slurs (some of which are still in the instrumental music in the ride queue). The film also hyersexualizes a Native (female) child. Peter Pan should have been the first to be adjusted, along with the Blackface African caricatures of the Jungle Cruise, before anything else.

I've seen Peter Pan a few times and I've never considered Tiger Lily to be 'hypersexualized'. I mean seriously. This is 'hypersexualized'???

1633625882602.png
 

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

Back
Top Bottom