• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Jungle Cruise Re-Imagining

_caleb

Well-Known Member
It's tough to really answer that question. I think I would need to frame it more as "is this acceptable or not for a theme park?" - ultimately, anything can be viewed by someone as racist but there's a line somewhere where things on one side are too stereotyped/potentially offensive as to unreasonable for a theme park versus the other side of the line where maybe some people might not like them but they would generally be acceptable to the vast majority.

For me, I would argue that the DL version of Trader Sam falls in the "unacceptable" side and should be changed:
View attachment 526962


And MK falls under the "acceptable" side. The latter is just more whimsical and not stereotypical of any particular race or culture that it seems reasonable for a theme park setting. As I mentioned, getting rid of the shrunken heads would address the most concerning aspect, as the character design is fine.
Thanks for your response! I appreciate hearing your perspective.
 

rylouisbo

Well-Known Member
Others, including the powers that be at Disney, disagree with you.
yea that just means you dont know what racism means if you include jungle cruise in your list of racist things... and disney doesnt actually care about racism, its naive to believe that while seeing them make bank off china where racism is sponsored by the chinese government. i'll believe they care when they take a stand against china... lol
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
yea that just means you dont know what racism means if you include jungle cruise in your list of racist things... and disney doesnt actually care about racism, its naive to believe that while seeing them make bank off china where racism is sponsored by the chinese government. i'll believe they care when they take a stand against china... lol
I’m not about to argue with you about whose definition of racism is correct. My point still stands: some people do regard elements of the ride as racist, whether or not you agree with them.

There’s certainly a debate to be had about China and Disney, but your bringing it up here feels somewhat like deflection.
 

Sue_Vongello

Well-Known Member
From my perspective, the announced changes to Jungle Cruise is similar to the Splash Mountain announcement in that it's not about the number of people who might have complained about racial insensitivities in the Jungle Cruise. It's about Disney as an organization asking itself if there's anything in the parks that might somehow communicate that some guests aren't welcome. They've identified a handful of things (see @WDW Pro 's list) that they want to change because they find them insensitive.

I've used the example before of inviting Muslim friends over for dinner. If you want your guests to feel welcome, you don't include pork on the menu. This is a separate issue from whether you enjoy pork, or you have a right to eat pork, or your guests complain about you serving pork.

It seems to me that only a very ignorant or mean-spirited person would insist the host serve pork anyway.

I mean someone can take that analogy and say well it’s more like someone is a vegan because their sensitivity to animal rights but they go to a friends house and meat is served ... they could just you know ... NOT eat the non-vegan friendly dishes and maybe not criticize their friends for eating meat? I say that because I’m a vegan and I never demand people only cook vegan and I just you know ... don’t eat the meat, I don’t demand that everyone around me Change because of my sensitivities.

I don’t think it’s fair to say someone is mean or ignorant because they would insist something be served - it’s certainly not nice I agree but it’s also not nice for me or someone like me to force other people to bend to their wishes because they are incapable of not taking offense to a different view.

But the end result is my opinion doesn’t matter and your opinion doesn’t matter and really a random Disney executive opinion doesn’t matter - it’s all numbers based and out of our control. Anyone thinking that Disney is basing these ideas out of altruism is delusional ... it’s all numbers.

I do think we should be happy Jungle Cruise isn’t getting destroyed and the changes are minor and they don’t affect the overall framework of what made the ride great. And for the love of god there is no IP being shoved in!
 

asianway

Well-Known Member
Yup. Splash doesn't reference any of the "sketchy" parts from the movie.
Splash is such a stretch to me since it requires seeing a movie no one under the age of 40 saw in a theater, knowing the backstory underlying the fables, problems with zip a dee doo dah, the cultural appropriation on the source material angle ...

my test is-would a non Disney friend find it objectionable? Splash no. A bunch of natives and a finale with a stylized POC ? Their reaction would be “boy, you’d never get away with that today”
 

_caleb

Well-Known Member
I mean someone can take that analogy and say well it’s more like someone is a vegan because their sensitivity to animal rights but they go to a friends house and meat is served ... they could just you know ... NOT eat the non-vegan friendly dishes and maybe not criticize their friends for eating meat? I say that because I’m a vegan and I never demand people only cook vegan and I just you know ... don’t eat the meat, I don’t demand that everyone around me Change because of my sensitivities.

I don’t think it’s fair to say someone is mean or ignorant because they would insist something be served - it’s certainly not nice I agree but it’s also not nice for me or someone like me to force other people to bend to their wishes because they are incapable of not taking offense to a different view.

But the end result is my opinion doesn’t matter and your opinion doesn’t matter and really a random Disney executive opinion doesn’t matter - it’s all numbers based and out of our control. Anyone thinking that Disney is basing these ideas out of altruism is delusional ... it’s all numbers.

I do think we should be happy Jungle Cruise isn’t getting destroyed and the changes are minor and they don’t affect the overall framework of what made the ride great. And for the love of god there is no IP being shoved in!
Yes, we could use your vegan diet for the analogy as well. You never demand that people cook only vegan, because you’re a nice person. But a friend who wanted you to feel comfortable and welcome would at least try to offer you something that didn’t have animal-based ingredients. The changes to Jungle Cruise is not about a few people demanding their way for everyone, it’s about Disney making changes that they think might make people not feel welcome.

Keeping with the analogy, if you and I were invited to a friend’s house, and they (in order to make you feel welcome) served us a salad and chicken, and I ridiculed them for ”pandering to the vegans” for serving a salad at all and complained that vegans are too sensitive and should just get over themselves and eat meat, what would that make me (if not mean or ignorant)?

I’m not sure it’s as simple as “just the numbers,” either. These changes to Jungle Cruise are going to cost lots of money (which is tight right now), and it will be very difficult to trace any increase or decrease in attendance back to them as a direct cause.

I agree with you— so glad they aren’t forcing IP into the Jungle Cruise.
 

Animaniac93-98

Well-Known Member
I’m not sure it’s as simple as “just the numbers,” either. These changes to Jungle Cruise are going to cost lots of money (which is tight right now), and it will be very difficult to trace any increase or decrease in attendance back to them as a direct cause.

With the exception of Splash Mountain, most of these PC changes are just swapping out or redressing existing figures. None are major enough to be marketable or noticeable to the average guest on their own.

It's PR brownie points Disney wants, with a minimum of effort. It's easier and cheaper than building new rides and shows from scratch with majority PoC characters.
 

Sue_Vongello

Well-Known Member
With the exception of Splash Mountain, most of these PC changes are just swapping out or redressing existing figures. None are major enough to be marketable or noticeable to the average guest on their own.

It's PR brownie points Disney wants, with a minimum of effort. It's easier and cheaper than building new rides and shows from scratch with majority PoC characters.

Thank you - this is what I meant by numbers. You articulated it better than me.
 

tl77

Well-Known Member
If any of you want to hear what that vibe was like, check out the other side of the Enchanted Tiki Room LP. Starts at 17:15.

This isn't the "original serious version" of the spiel, it's the first "funny version". The lost Safari up the tree was added by Marc Davis in the early 60's as one of the "funny" additions, the spiel slowly got crazier over time
 

_caleb

Well-Known Member
With the exception of Splash Mountain, most of these PC changes are just swapping out or redressing existing figures. None are major enough to be marketable or noticeable to the average guest on their own.

It's PR brownie points Disney wants, with a minimum of effort. It's easier and cheaper than building new rides and shows from scratch with majority PoC characters.
I agree the Jungle Cruise changes will cost far less than what they’ve announced for Splash Mountain. But in an environment where construction projects have been put on hold, it’s remarkable that Disney is still saying they’re moving forward with these changes. No doubt they’ll try to leverage this for positive PR, but there are lots of other ways they could get more bang for their buck if that’s all this was about.
 

tl77

Well-Known Member
I'm guessing they will replace the "head hunters" with something like "poachers" chasing you out of the Jungle at the end? A lot of Disney animated films have funny/dramatic scenes of "animals fighting humans and hunters" The 2 Rescuers films, Tarzan, I think even Pocahontas has a scene like that... That's what I'd expect as "the new exciting conclusion" to The Jungle Cruise. I'm honestly surprised the head hunters lasted this long... I was even more surprised they named the recent Tiki Bars in Disneyland and The Polynesian "Trader Sam's"
 

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
I’m not about to argue with you about whose definition of racism is correct. My point still stands: some people do regard elements of the ride as racist, whether or not you agree with them.

There’s certainly a debate to be had about China and Disney, but your bringing it up here feels somewhat like deflection.

Not even somewhat. It is deflection.

Two things can be true at once, as I know you know. What China is doing is racist, but apart from that, it’s genocidal. And the corporate community / world governments at large need to do a better job regarding China.

This doesn’t mean Disney shouldn’t adjust attractions to be more inclusive, as their values seem to suggest they will be doing.

China is a whole other issue.
 

doctornick

Well-Known Member
It's PR brownie points Disney wants, with a minimum of effort. It's easier and cheaper than building new rides and shows from scratch with majority PoC characters.

That's to me the real big elephant in the room here. If Disney really wanted to be inclusive - I mean, be seriously gungho dedicated to it - the best way to do it is to go and build a number of additional attractions/lands/etc which feature PoC in prominent and positive roles. Build a John Henry attraction in Adventureland. Add a (real, not Wakanda) Sub Saharan county's pavilion in Epcot and have an inspiring ride or film. Or add India or another south Asian country (no, DAK's Asia is about the animals and nature, not the people/culture). Or a South American country. How about a show based on Aida? Hell, come up with something that "we don't know we even want" and surprise us. Honestly, I'm not pretending to be a creative here - I suck at that stuff - but if they wanted to truly make the parks more welcoming to a diverse number of guests, they can do so if they want and it doesn't have to involve removing or markedly changing beloved rides.

Of course that would cost significant money and it strikes me that Disney is more interested is doing small token acts that can be done cheaply. Even Splash to Tiana which will cost at least a decent chunk of change s likely seen as something that can save operating costs down the road if (as expected) few AAs are used and the ride has a smaller maintenance cost over time.

I dunno, it just seems like a cynical way to go about things by talking big and that doing a marginal amount.
 

Brer Oswald

Well-Known Member
I agree the Jungle Cruise changes will cost far less than what they’ve announced for Splash Mountain. But in an environment where construction projects have been put on hold, it’s remarkable that Disney is still saying they’re moving forward with these changes. No doubt they’ll try to leverage this for positive PR, but there are lots of other ways they could get more bang for their buck if that’s all this was about.
The Splash thing was clearly something they’ve been waiting to pull the trigger on for awhile. Did you hear how much disgust Iger would refer to the IP with at every investor meeting? I have no doubt the 2019 wave of merchandise was the final milk of the cow, in preparation for the closure.

But, there is no world where they would have gotten away with “removing forest critters but keeping negative depictions of black natives”. They must’ve figured that sometime after June, either by the suggestions of some fans, or by their own judgment. They set a precedent that they had to match with Jungle Cruise, and very likely Peter Pan.
 

jkh36619

Well-Known Member
Honestly, cant the ride just be updated because its not very good? If you have to have a skipper telling ridiculous jokes to make it palatable...You know the difference between Jungle Cruise and Living with the Land? About a 70 minute wait.
 

Animaniac93-98

Well-Known Member
That's to me the real big elephant in the room here. If Disney really wanted to be inclusive - I mean, be seriously gungho dedicated to it - the best way to do it is to go and build a number of additional attractions/lands/etc which feature PoC in prominent and positive roles. Build a John Henry attraction in Adventureland. Add a (real, not Wakanda) Sub Saharan county's pavilion in Epcot and have an inspiring ride or film. Or add India or another south Asian country (not, DAK's Asia is about the animals and nature, not the people/culture). Or a South American country. How about a show based on Aida? Hell, come up with something that "we don't know we even want" and surprise us. Honestly, I'm not pretending to be a creative here - I suck at that stuff - but if they wanted to truly make the parks more welcoming to a diverse number of guests, they can do so if they want and it doesn't have to involve removing or markedly changing beloved rides. O

Of course that would cost significant money and it strikes me that Disney is more interested is doing small token acts that can be done cheaply. Even Splash to Tiana which will cost at least a decent chunk of change s likely seen as something that can save operating costs down the road if (as expected) few AAs are used and the ride has a smaller maintenance cost over time.

I dunno, it just seems like a cynical way to go about things by talking big and that doing a marginal amount.

They could also do more for their employees and hire and promote PoC, women and LGBTQ to higher ranking/decision making roles.

It's hard to take Disney's efforts to be "inclusive" seriously when it's token changes approved by a mostly white, male leadership.
 

Brer Oswald

Well-Known Member
That's to me the real big elephant in the room here. If Disney really wanted to be inclusive - I mean, be seriously gungho dedicated to it - the best way to do it is to go and build a number of additional attractions/lands/etc which feature PoC in prominent and positive roles. Build a John Henry attraction in Adventureland. Add a (real, not Wakanda) Sub Saharan county's pavilion in Epcot and have an inspiring ride or film. Or add India or another south Asian country (not, DAK's Asia is about the animals and nature, not the people/culture). Or a South American country. How about a show based on Aida? Hell, come up with something that "we don't know we even want" and surprise us. Honestly, I'm not pretending to be a creative here - I suck at that stuff - but if they wanted to truly make the parks more welcoming to a diverse number of guests, they can do so if they want and it doesn't have to involve removing or markedly changing beloved rides. O

Of course that would cost significant money and it strikes me that Disney is more interested is doing small token acts that can be done cheaply. Even Splash to Tiana which will cost at least a decent chunk of change s likely seen as something that can save operating costs down the road if (as expected) few AAs are used and the ride has a smaller maintenance cost over time.

I dunno, it just seems like a cynical way to go about things by talking big and that doing a marginal amount.
It is cheap, but I have no doubt that further down the road (maybe 10, 15 years), people will realize this is call them out on it. Hopefully, we’ll have a more humble and receptive Disney, and with a little more cash, they will be able to invest in original attractions with varied representations that are also high effort.

Or maybe they’ll just make their films more diverse, and continue to plug those in the major attractions.
 

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

Top Bottom