Jungle Cruise Re-Imagining

[UNCgolf]

Personally I love the Jungle cruise as is, though I will admit I also love the Jingle Cruise holiday skins. However, leaving politics aside, and the question of if it is a good idea to touch any of the WDW original rides, i come at if from this perspective. There has to be an affirmative REASON to make a change to a ride, especially at a time where it appears budgets and spending are a major concern to Disney (as it is to almost every company right now.) So if the argument can't be made that the changes being made will make the ride BETTER, why expend the funds for this project, when they could be dedicated to other projects that will either A) add new attractions/material to the park or B) improve existing rides. If the argument is that it won't effect the overall ride that much (based on its the skippers and jokes that make the ride not the scenes) or that people will just ignore or forget about the changes soon after they are made (the pole climber figures for example) then is it really a change worth making?

Yes, because it's removing offensive content. There is a positive aspect to the change for at least some riders, and no negatives whatsoever (that anyone has articulated up to this point -- again, everyone has just clamored about changes without making any argument that they will actually make the ride worse).

 

[_caleb]

Personally I love the Jungle cruise as is, though I will admit I also love the Jingle Cruise holiday skins. However, leaving politics aside, and the question of if it is a good idea to touch any of the WDW original rides, i come at if from this perspective. There has to be an affirmative REASON to make a change to a ride, especially at a time where it appears budgets and spending are a major concern to Disney (as it is to almost every company right now.) So if the argument can't be made that the changes being made will make the ride BETTER, why expend the funds for this project, when they could be dedicated to other projects that will either A) add new attractions/material to the park or B) improve existing rides. If the argument is that it won't effect the overall ride that much (based on its the skippers and jokes that make the ride not the scenes) or that people will just ignore or forget about the changes soon after they are made (the pole climber figures for example) then is it really a change worth making?

This is why the debate over whether or not the scenes in question are racist matters so much. If they are, then I think most people would agree that removing racist scenes would automatically make the attraction better, simply by making it less racist.

I appreciate that there are thoughtful people on both sides of the discussion, though it seems Disney’s already decided.

To your point, it would be preferable if any changes improved the ride in other ways, too.

 

[celluloid]

Has there been any word from the official Head Hunter tribes yet? I would hate for them to feel negatively depicted.

 

[rylouisbo]

Thanks for responding, but I’m not sure you understand what I’m saying. Maybe you do and we just disagree.

In storytelling, like in a movie or a theme park attraction, the audience identifies with characters and “types” in the story. The “story” of the Jungle Cruise is told from a perspective that romanticizes the experience of exploring the jungle. Unless you’re not paying attention or simply cannot understand the story being told, you’re identifying with someone‘s perspective in the story.

The idea of power dynamics is not something I invented. It’s a way to describe the relationship between two groups. It also explains why some people might be comforted and entertained by uncharitable depictions of groups that have historically been taken advantage of, abused, exploited, or hurt.

I don’t appreciate your attempts to explain ”how I really think,” please don’t do that. I am genuinely interested in discussion about the topic, but only if it’s done in good faith.

i disagree with your point about storytelling. a movie or story if often viewed through many different views. i dont need to personally identify with all or any of those views while taking in the story. also identifying with someone perspective is different than identifying with someone personally. i can go through the ride and understand the story and characters without putting myself in their shoes because i'm not them i just want to see what happens to them. i could also go through the ride and pretend i'm every character in the ride imagining what it would be like if i were them. people interact and understand stories in different ways.

so we should not be allowed to address any history with "uncharitable depictions"? also, uncharitable depictions is a subjective opinion. what you think is uncharitable is different than what i do, so why is your perspective correct even though most people did not view it the same way you did?

i dont appreciate peoples attempts to demand everyone agree with their opinion on what is racist or offensive. basically saying that if anyone disagrees with that then they are supporting racist things. millions of people ride jungle cruise and walk away not seeing it as racist or offensive but because a few do somehow it is... somehow all those millions of people are just not educated enough or something... thats a horrible way to handle things. perhaps they are educated and understand your thoughts but just disagree with them. that doesnt mean they support racist things it means they dont agree with your interpretation of many things.

 

[rylouisbo]

Yes, because it's removing offensive content. There is a positive aspect to the change for at least some riders, and no negatives whatsoever (that anyone has articulated up to this point -- again, everyone has just clamored about changes without making any argument that they will actually make the ride worse).

yes my annoyance is not that i think the changes will make the ride worse, i actually think the update will make the ride better.

my annoyance is more with the optics and how disney is pandering and pretending to be doing this for moral reasons while thats just ridiculous considering everything else disney has been doing.

 

[LittleBuford]

I just think its ironic that they're switching out goofy-looking brown people with goofy-looking white people, being chased up a pole.

If you’re talking about the Magic Kingdom version, the current pole-climbers are all white, whereas the redesigned ones represent a variety of ethnicities.

 

[celluloid]

yes my annoyance is not that i think the changes will make the ride worse, i actually think the update will make the ride better.

my annoyance is more with the optics and how disney is pandering and pretending to be doing this for moral reasons while thats just ridiculous considering everything else disney has been doing.

Well said. It actually is just the updates that it was going to get with the synergy and promotion a partial budget since there is not a lot of confidence in the movie now. It is less of a budget and they can push those optics.

 

[TalkingHead]

Thanks for responding, but I’m not sure you understand what I’m saying. Maybe you do and we just disagree.

In storytelling, like in a movie or a theme park attraction, the audience identifies with characters and “types” in the story. The “story” of the Jungle Cruise is told from a perspective that romanticizes the experience of exploring the jungle. Unless you’re not paying attention or simply cannot understand the story being told, you’re identifying with someone‘s perspective in the story.

The idea of power dynamics is not something I invented. It’s a way to describe the relationship between two groups. It also explains why some people might be comforted and entertained by uncharitable depictions of groups that have historically been taken advantage of, abused, exploited, or hurt.

I don’t appreciate your attempts to explain ”how I really think,” please don’t do that. I am genuinely interested in discussion about the topic, but only if it’s done in good faith.

Now the JC power dynamics will be human vs. animal. Animal rights activist may object. Better remove the negative depiction of apes. They deserve better.

More to the point, the ride will still be about the romantic adventuring of colonial explorers in the jungle, just in a way that doesn’t acknowledge the power dynamics that are baked into the premise. So I guess that’s progress?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Now the JC power dynamics will be human vs. animal. Animal rights activist may object. Better remove the negative depiction of apes. They deserve better.

More to the point, the ride will still be about the romantic adventuring of colonial explorers in the jungle, just in a way that doesn’t acknowledge the power dynamics that are baked into the premise. So I guess that’s progress?

I'm guessing you don't realize the horribly racist trope that you just used?

 

[jeanericuser001]

I don’t think the announced changes are example of Disney “cowtowing to each person wanting inclusion.” In the case of Jungle Cruise, we’re talking about Disney getting rid of a handful of sight gags that make fun of indigenous people for being backwards, primitive, and foolish. There aren’t a lot of these around the parks, but the few that exist will likely be changed.

What would a trans ghost look like?

To me its always been the sarcasm comedy ride much like MILF except its actually funny depending on the narrator. Reminds me of when I went on the Harambe wildlife preserve once and commented to the narrator that every animal seemed to be pointing their butts at us. It became a sort of running joke throughout the whole ride as every single animal seemed to be pointing their butts at us. When it didn't happen it seemed to give people a sigh of relief only to encounter yet another animal showing off its derriere. hehe That spontaneous comedy is the true thing that helped the jungle cruise and I fear this crackdown won't be just a change to the ride but also to the comedy itself. That is what I fear may happen.

As for trans ghost, I some times wonder about constance hatchaway. Some photos make her looks slightly manly in the face.

 

[rylouisbo]

I'm guessing you don't realize the horribly racist trope that you just used?

i'm guessing you didnt understand their comment as there is no "horribly racist trope" in it

 

[_caleb]

i disagree with your point about storytelling. a movie or story if often viewed through many different views. i dont need to personally identify with all or any of those views while taking in the story. also identifying with someone perspective is different than identifying with someone personally.

Right. It’s identifying with the perspective that I’ve been talking about, not some personal identification with an AA in a theme park ride.

so we should not be allowed to address any history with "uncharitable depictions"? also, uncharitable depictions is a subjective opinion. what you think is uncharitable is different than what i do, so why is your perspective correct even though most people did not view it the same way you did?

Who said anything about “being allowed” to do anything? You’re allowed to do whatever you like! All of my opinions are nothing more than my opinions: what is uncharitable, what is racist, and what is correct—just my opinions. And I’m often wrong about things. It does seems strange that you’d act like anyone is being forced to think or act a certain way. I’m hoping people could be expected to be kind and fair on their own accord, vs. anyone trying to force them to.

i dont appreciate peoples attempts to demand everyone agree with their opinion on what is racist or offensive. basically saying that if anyone disagrees with that then they are supporting racist things. millions of people ride jungle cruise and walk away not seeing it as racist or offensive but because a few do somehow it is... somehow all those millions of people are just not educated enough or something... thats a horrible way to handle things. perhaps they are educated and understand your thoughts but just disagree with them. that doesnt mean they support racist things it means they dont agree with your interpretation of many things.

Again, not sure who is demanding anything, or what has led you to think that’s the case. There are strong opinions on both sides of this discussion, but I think it’s entirely possible for thoughtful, intelligent, and non-racist people to disagree. Unfortunately, some of the arguments don’t seem to engage so thoughtfully.

 

[JoeCamel]

Any word on Sam?

Sam will be in the bar...

 

[_caleb]

Now the JC power dynamics will be human vs. animal. Animal rights activist may object. Better remove the negative depiction of apes. They deserve better.

More to the point, the ride will still be about the romantic adventuring of colonial explorers in the jungle, just in a way that doesn’t acknowledge the power dynamics that are baked into the premise. So I guess that’s progress?

Maybe. I see where you’re going with the slippery slope argument, but I don’t think that applies here.

I think the new version of the ride will acknowledge the power dynamics by removing the gags that might play on racial differences and come at the expense of groups of people. It’s progress toward Disney’s stated goal of inclusion, in my opinion.

 

[rylouisbo]

@_caleb

yea i'm able to identify with many different perspectives and am not refrained from only identifying with people who look like me. often identifying with people who do not as what matters is the feelings and beliefs a person has not their looks. i think its very reasonable to think that a white person could identify with the native peoples in jungle cruise and think they are the best part in a positive way.

we have very different views on these things and i dont see how they would ever be resolved. my stance is to leave things alone and leave it up to the individual for how to react to things, if i thought jungle cruise was racist i just wouldnt ride it perhaps not support disney anymore, i wouldnt demand it be changed to fit my feelings. others seem to want to educate and change anything that doesnt follow their view not caring they are destroying things that other people love and cherish. they believe we should not be allowed to love and cherish it because they view it as bad.

for example the "we wants the redhead scene" from pirates... i have a relative who is red headed and we would always cheer and laugh along with that scene it was a fun experience for us that we made a tradition out of. then came along others who decided it was "bad" and needed to be removed because only their feelings and opinions mattered and nobody could enjoy it because they didnt like it. thats horrible and just causes division. bottom line is whats bad for you isnt "bad" for everyone.

its a fundamental difference in world view and until the side that wants to force others to follow them stops doing that i dont see how things will ever get less divisive.

 

[DisneyHead123]

I am fine with the refurbishment (was never a huge fan of the Jungle Cruise but the littles in my family like it because they think it's a better version of the Animal Kingdom Safari... they don't seem to really care about the difference between seeing real vs. animatronic animals until age 6 or so) but also understand why top-down declarations of "diversity and inclusion" rankle a bit. They almost never seem to involve large scale surveys of the people they purport to represent, and so end up representing middle to upper class politeness norms more than anything. I don't think that's a bad thing, necessarily - I agree that ham-handed humor about native people is very inappropriate in 2021. But I don't really see it as a move that champions the wishes and desires of minorities, since they are generally not consulted about such decisions in the form of surveys and other research (and in some cases when they actually are consulted the consensus opinion conflicts with societal norms about what is appropriate - Native Americans have sometimes, if polling is correct, been fine with football team names that were deemed offensive to them, for example).

I think Disney does a good job of being truly inclusive in other areas - in doing research (I assume) to create the village of Harambe, for example, and just in general in doing customer research and incorporating feedback from a very diverse customer base. And I do think this ride needs to be updated. That said, I am interested in the work of people like Jack Goldstone and Peter Turchin on income inequality in this country, and our current dynamic makes me very nervous - I foresee increasing resentment over public perception of elite enforced norms if we continue down our current path. Disney is a fuzzy, sweet, much-beloved financially elite force, but I hope it does not forget that it does, ultimately, represent that - the financial uber-elite. I think they walk a razor's edge when it comes to making top-down decisions about appropriateness... I feel the decisions they have made so far have been relatively clear cut and I agree with them, but if they continue down this road to more ambiguous areas, I hope they take a more populist approach to it. Changes made based on the feedback of a large group of real people is something we can all feel good about - I hope they take the time to get feedback from minority communities and show how they are representing their desires, in a ground-up, grassroots fashion.

 

[corran horn]

"but we meant only the *good* parts of colonialism!"

 

[rylouisbo]

wait people dont think that there were good parts of colonialism? not even improved medicine, education or human rights? yes human rights were advanced greatly thanks to colonialism but that requires an honest look at history to see.

 

[MisterPenguin]

wait people dont think that there were good parts of colonialism? not even improved medicine, education or human rights? yes human rights were advanced greatly thanks to colonialism but that requires an honest look at history to see.

Thank God that advances in education came with being enslaved. Oh wait... being educated was banned. But the medicine was great for when they were whipped or hobbled or had a hand cut off. And think of all the human rights that came with land being taken away and being enslaved or put on reservations or having families separated. Such great human rights!

The Burden of the White Man must weigh heavy on your shoulders!! God bless you!!!

 

[rylouisbo]

Thank God that advances in education came with being enslaved. Oh wait... being educated was banned. But the medicine was great for when they were whipped or hobbled or had a hand cut off. And think of all the human rights that came with land being taken away and being enslaved or put on reservations or having families separated. Such great human rights!

The Burden of the White Man must weigh heavy on your shoulders!! God bless you!!!

oh you misunderstood, the statement was in response to another. It might be hard to comprehend but the world and history are not black and white. things arent just good or bad. there were many bad things about colonialism and there were many good things that came out of it. i know its easier to pretend like something is just bad or good but thats not reality.

not seeing how colonialism helped advance religious, womens, racial, lgbt human rights just shows pure ignorance of history.

also "the burden of the white man" now youre just being racist... again ironic from people complaining about things they think are racist...