Jungle Cruise Re-Imagining

[rylouisbo]

That said, my first thought was also that it should be removed, just because there's a cultural consensus that this is inappropriate and yes, offensive.

i dont think that is true, i dont think there is a consensus that brer rabbit is offensive or that showing natives on the jungle cruise ride is offensive. if anything i think more people could care less about it and walk away smiling after they see those things because they were not offended by them.

 

[ᗩLᘿᑕ ֊ᗩζᗩᗰ]

So, S.E.A (Society of Explorers and Adventurers), that needs a show or movie and to be more prominent in the Jungle Cruise ride.

...maybe it is associated with the new movie?

That's exactly what Disney could do, an interconnected cinematic universe. But should they?

Not for the reason of linking films together but for the larger growing "need" to retheme attractions. Frankly, I could see them using it to justify ride reimagines. It's a blasphemous line of thinking but not one I'm sure Disney isn't aware of or been considered. Any attraction deemed problematic would then get it's tweaks and tune-ups in the form of a the IP-adjacent S.E.A. connection. Swiss Family Treehouse; an S.E.A. attraction. Haunted Mansion, an S.E.A. ghost host. It's simultaneously lazy yet still somewhat creative, scary yet intriguing. Anyone not thinking such a thing possible need only look to Jungle Cruise. All eyes are on this movie and the overlay to see if S.E.A. is lumped in. If so, all bets are off for future ride overlays. :shudders: While the idea of a shared cinematic universe is intriguing I fear how that concept will trickle into the parks.

 

[LittleBuford]

Is it the same people making contradictory statements? If not you're probably hearing a whirlwind of different narratives coming from various different perspectives.

Personally, my first thought was... about 1 in 5 Black people in the US live in poverty. Black men make up about 6% of the overall population but 34% of the prison population. The life expectancy is about 4 years lower for Black people in the US. It just doesn't seem reasonable to infer that if you did a poll of Black people in America and asked what they wanted from Disney, that most would say "Get rid of that native animatronic on the Jungle Cruise ride!". I think it's questionable whether the average Black person would particularly identify with a native on a ride who happens to share the same skin color, actually - I don't know that Black children would think that has anything to do with them any more than a white child would feel like a caricature of a warlike Viking or medieval executioner represented them or their culture because their skin was a similar shade.

That said, my first thought was also that it should be removed, just because there's a cultural consensus that this is inappropriate and yes, offensive. That's a bit different than saying it's really helping minorities, or we know for sure that this is something people of color even care about in significant numbers, or that it's fostering an atmosphere of inclusion (that is certainly possible, but I'd have to be convinced by actual data on that point - to my mind real inclusion is usually about creating a fun, relaxed atmosphere with things that people care about and enjoy, vs. worrying about what could offend people) but just that it's something that we as a culture are not cool with.

Looking at the various comments here, it occurs to me that to many, this might be symbolic in the way that a flag or statue is symbolic, or the way that having a particular book included in a library is symbolic. It's not really about the thing itself. By way of an extreme example - if China bought a bunch of real estate in Florida and they wanted to fly the Chinese flag at Disney, it's not that the flag itself, a piece of fabric in the air, would have much influence over anyone's quality of life. But it would still be extremely important to people, of course, at a symbolic level. So I guess this is more about symbolism to people. I think people see this move as an endorsement of Woke Culture (which I do have serious reservations about - I think it has admirable elements but also problematically elitist elements - although I don't think this move actually constitutes Woke Culture, I think it's far more anodyne and middle of the road than that) - the equivalent of flying a little Woke Flag at Disney. Again, I disagree, but I think this is why people have such strong feelings about it.

This is personal and anecdotal, and I certainly don’t mean to suggest that it holds true for others, but as someone of Middle Eastern heritage, I feel a sense of excitement and even happiness whenever I pass the scene of Arab scholars in Spaceship Earth. It’s far from accurate in its portrayal (the costumes are all over the place), but it still speaks to me somehow, all the more so because it’s about the only animatronic display on property that celebrates Middle Eastern culture in a (semi-)serious way. Representation—even in as frivolous a place as a theme park—can make a positive impact, no matter how small.

 

[DisneyHead123]

i dont think that is true, i dont think there is a consensus that brer rabbit is offensive or that showing natives on the jungle cruise ride is offensive. if anything i think more people could care less about it and walk away smiling after they see those things because they were not offended by them.

It may depend on where you're from - I'm from a relatively liberal area so I may have different ideas about what people "typically" think about such things.

 

[el_super]

So, S.E.A (Society of Explorers and Adventurers), that needs a show or movie and to be more prominent in the Jungle Cruise ride.

S.E.A needs to disappear. ASAP. Not only does the backstory celebrate the same imperialism that is so problematic on the Jungle Cruise, but as a tribute to the real-life (almost exclusively white) Imagineers that spearheaded these projects, it highlights the real-life hiring deficiencies of the Walt Disney Company. The fact that it is so relatively modern as well, makes it more egregious a slight than anything on the Jungle Cruise itself.

 

[_caleb]

It may depend on where you're from - I'm from a relatively liberal area so I may have different ideas about what people "typically" think about such things.

Also you seem to be intelligent enough not to assume your opinion is the majority opinion.

 

[seabreezept813]

You are arguing on a WDW board because you are nostalgic about the ride, the theme and the characters. Your username is a celebration of the characters. The average guest at WDW has never seen the movie and would not stop riding because it was Splash Mountain with Tiana or Buzz or Rescuers or Chip and Dale. They will just as happily buy any stuffed animal related to the ride.

It's a log flume ride that get's people wet on a hot day. That is really all it is.

That’s a real simplification of the ride to be honest. If you want a log flume ride there are so many options that are much more financially sound than a day at Magic Kingdom. The ride is lengthy, has elaborate show scenes, and dare I say is very charming. The music is upbeat and happy and for decades has been an anthem of Disney/the Magic Kingdom. It has been featured in parades, tv specials, the welcome to the park. So no it’s not simply a water ride. Disney has made it a symbol of the park for decades. Do I think it’s problematic? Nope because it had already addressed issues from the film and took out people entirely.. it’s a critter ride. But regardless of whether you ethically find SM offensive, anyone whose observed the history of re-theming attractions should be concerned about quality. Regardless of source material, it wouldn’t be far fetched to assume that Disney would try to shorten the length of the attraction, cut physical sets, and just essentially cheapen it. I think most people don’t mind/care about JC changes because they seem tailored to simple changes and not a change to the ride experience..aka it’s not a total redo so it might not cheapen the experience. If Splash had specific scenes that were problematic and they made minor changes to adjust I think people wouldn’t care as much.

 

[UNCgolf]

You are arguing on a WDW board because you are nostalgic about the ride, the theme and the characters. Your username is a celebration of the characters. The average guest at WDW has never seen the movie and would not stop riding because it was Splash Mountain with Tiana or Buzz or Rescuers or Chip and Dale. They will just as happily buy any stuffed animal related to the ride.

It's a log flume ride that get's people wet on a hot day. That is really all it is.

This is definitely wrong, and I say that as a person who is fine with changing the theme.

It doesn't get long lines because it's a log flume that might get you wet on a hot day. First of all, there's no guarantee you will get wet at all -- I've been on it and only had a few drops of water hit me. Secondly, it still has some of the longest lines in the park on rainy or "cold" days. It's an incredibly well done ride with numerous characters, intricate show scenes, etc. and that is why it gets such long lines. I don't think the theme itself matters very much (it obviously matters a lot to some people), but the overall quality of the attraction is very important. If the retheme leads to a lesser attraction, it's not going to have the exact same lines just because it's a log flume -- which is my whole concern with the retheme; that Disney isn't going to build something remotely close to what currently exists.

Otherwise, there's no point in having a themed ride at all. Just throw up a random log flume and get 2-3 hours waits. There are of course some people who only ride it for that reason (you may be one) but it's certainly not true for a huge percentage of guests.

 

[DisneyHead123]

This is personal and anecdotal, and I certainly don’t mean to suggest that it holds true for others, but as someone of Middle Eastern heritage, I feel a sense of excitement and even happiness whenever I pass the scene of Arab scholars in Spaceship Earth. It’s far from accurate in its portrayal (the costumes are all over the place), but it still speaks to me somehow, all the more so because it’s about the only animatronic display on property that celebrates Middle Eastern culture in a (semi-)serious way. Representation—even in as frivolous a place as a theme park—can make a positive impact, no matter how small.

I think it's true that positive depictions of various cultures can be a really good thing... I am maybe a bit wary of this line of thinking (that we need to spend a lot of time worrying about the potential symbolism of this or that) because I have seen it devolve into squabbles over minutia while there are much larger issues happening (not here, in life in general). But, that doesn't mean that there isn't a time and place when small symbolic changes can be helpful.

 

[DisneyHead123]

Also you seem to be intelligent enough not to assume your opinion is the majority opinion.

For the purposes of this conversation I'm trying to view it through Disney's eyes, and in this case, yeah, I can see how to a ton of people in their customer base, this would be a common sense decision, not a controversial one. Certainly in my area, which is liberal but still relatively centrist, it would come across as just common sense. I really don't envy Disney in trying to make decisions for a politically diverse customer base in the current climate!

 

[_caleb]

I think it's true that positive depictions of various cultures can be a really good thing... I am maybe a bit wary of this line of thinking (that we need to spend a lot of time worrying about the potential symbolism of this or that) because I have seen it devolve into squabbles over minutia while there are much larger issues happening (not here, in life in general). But, that doesn't mean that there isn't a time and place when small symbolic changes can be helpful.

I would add that all the little things do add up to carry outsized influence. It doesn’t make sense to focus ONLY on the larger areas when there are many smaller, cheaper, simpler areas to address, but (to your point,) it also doesn’t make sense to focus ONLY on the small things and ignore the major issues.

And symbolism is a dynamic thing—it changes over time. What something “means” to one person (or group of people) in a certain time or place may not mean the same thing to others (or to those very same people but in a different time or place).

The trouble starts when we stop thinking critically about what we’re doing.

 

[ᗩLᘿᑕ ֊ᗩζᗩᗰ]

Nothing implied just asking out of curiosity:
What aspects of this attraction negatively depict natives?
And could WDI resolve those aspects yet still keep natives within the attraction?

 

[_caleb]

For the purposes of this conversation I'm trying to view it through Disney's eyes, and in this case, yeah, I can see how to a ton of people in their customer base, this would be a common sense decision, not a controversial one. Certainly in my area, which is liberal but still relatively centrist, it would come across as just common sense. I really don't envy Disney in trying to make decisions for a politically diverse customer base in the current climate!

Right! And not only is Disney trying to please their current customer base, they’re trying to build a larger and different one—one that’s still emerging!

 

[el_super]

Nothing implied just asking out of curiosity:
What aspects of this attraction negatively depict natives?

The depiction of them aggressively brandishing weapons and trying to murder everyone in the boat.

And could WDI resolve those aspects yet still keep natives within the attraction?

Maybe... but it wouldn't be worth the effort. If they really wanted to give an adequate portrayal of native peoples and fully represent their stories, they would have to make the ride an educational examination of those peoples and their cultures. Told from their perspectives. They couldn't just use dark colored "natives" as set dressing for a 7 second vignette, even if you can imagine them doing it in a way that isn't just aggression.

 

[_caleb]

Nothing implied just asking out of curiosity:
What aspects of this attraction negatively depict natives?
And could those aspects be resolved yet still keep the natives within the attraction?

It seems important that we consider the problem is bigger than just the ”natives” scenes on Jungle Cruise. Because if the larger issues of representation, White perspective, and the like were addressed, the scenes might not be as big of a problem as they currently are. When the majority of the few depictions of people of color in the parks are as threats to Western civilization (headhunters and violent primitive tribes), those negative depictions mean a lot. If the park was full of positive depictions of people of color (where they are the hero of the story, valued for who they are and how they’ve contributed), a few insensitive scenes might be easier to overlook.

The scenes themselves depict African tribes in a way that wasn’t ever real—these depictions actually show how the indigenous people seemed to White explorers and colonizers. It’s the same with how American Indians have been depicted in Disney films and rides. Were African tribes in the 1920s violent? Maybe some were. But to the White people (who literally invaded Africa), they may have seemed that way. Were there headhunters? Maybe. But not this kind that would have decapitated random people just to sell heads like souvenirs at a roadside rest stop.

So the depictions in the Jungle Cruise take the aspects of tribal culture that would have seemed the most exotic, scary, or funny (but were actually rare, misunderstood, or sacred) about another culture and shows only those things. And really only as a plot device to add a sense of thrill to the ride.

I’m sure African Imagineers could create a much better representations of “native” peoples but I would imagine they’d want to think much bigger than just changing the costumes on the African AAs or getting rid of the shrunken heads gag.

 

[flynnibus]

It seems important that we consider the problem is bigger than just the ”natives” scenes on Jungle Cruise. Because if the larger issues of representation, White perspective, and the like were addressed, the scenes might not be as big of a problem as they currently are. When the majority of the few depictions of people of color in the parks are as threats to Western civilization (headhunters and violent primitive tribes), those negative depictions mean a lot. If the park was full of positive depictions of people of color (where they are the hero of the story, valued for who they are and how they’ve contributed), a few insensitive scenes might be easier to overlook.

The scenes themselves depict African tribes in a way that wasn’t ever real—these depictions actually show how the indigenous people seemed to White explorers and colonizers. It’s the same with how American Indians have been depicted in Disney films and rides. Were African tribes in the 1920s violent? Maybe some were. But to the White people (who literally invaded Africa), they may have seemed that way. Were there headhunters? Maybe. But not this kind that would have decapitated random people just to sell heads like souvenirs at a roadside rest stop.

So the depictions in the Jungle Cruise take the aspects of tribal culture that would have seemed the most exotic, scary, or funny (but were actually rare, misunderstood, or sacred) about another culture and shows only those things. And really only as a plot device to add a sense of thrill to the ride.

I’m sure African Imagineers could create a much better representations of “native” peoples but I would imagine they’d want to think much bigger than just changing the costumes on the African AAs or getting rid of the shrunken heads gag.

if the haunted mansion was just an empty house or just had random squatters depicted living there... it wouldn't be much of a ride. The writers put in some elements of danger or exotic into the Jungle Cruise. They must quickly convey ideas or invoke something in the audience.

Imagineers were not trying to vilify native peoples... they were using images and characterizations that the audience would be able to quickly connect the intended story elements.

One can make an argument that 'does this perpetuate these stereotypes...' and the less informed the audience is, probably the more it does.

But just like when we see a man in a fur outfit, messy hair, and maybe carrying a club... people immediately think CAVEMAN!... the choice of illustration has done it's job. Even if you don't believe that's really how ancient homosapiens looked/acted.

It's story telling for entertainment purposes - not an archeology class.

 

[DisneyHead123]

I would add that all the little things do add up to carry outsized influence. It doesn’t make sense to focus ONLY on the larger areas when there are many smaller, cheaper, simpler areas to address, but (to your point,) it also doesn’t make sense to focus ONLY on the small things and ignore the major issues.

And symbolism is a dynamic thing—it changes over time. What something “means” to one person (or group of people) in a certain time or place may not mean the same thing to others (or to those very same people but in a different time or place).

The trouble starts when we stop thinking critically about what we’re doing.

Like I've said, at the level that Disney is doing things now, I don't have an issue with it... but I am wary of some aspects of Woke culture in general, so if they went further down that path I might have an issue with it (I was going to put some examples of things that I am not a fan of in Woke culture, but decided that's too big a can of worms for a Disney board - this is a place to talk Disney, not the wide world of politics in general.) And beyond that, I am trying to understand why this does offend some people so much. I may be reading too much into it... maybe people just hate change in general. But if there are bigger themes there, I'm trying to figure them out. Perhaps this is an exercise in turning Disney rides into reading tea leaves to attempt to understand the chaos of the US at large, though, lol.

Right! And not only is Disney trying to please their current customer base, they’re trying to build a larger and different one—one that’s still emerging!

I hope they do. And while I also think capitalism certainly has plenty of problems, this is one benefit - it's just bad business to alienate your customers, so it forces a degree of research into what will make places more appealing and welcoming to people across a diverse spectrum of cultures. Goodness knows we need cultural-divide-bridging at the moment.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Imagineers were not trying to vilify native peoples... they were using images and characterizations that the audience would be able to quickly connect the intended story elements.

And "angry tribespeople" were certainly a more common media trope when the Jungle Cruise was first developed. It was a cliché even by then, which is why it was included in Raiders of the Lost Ark, a movie based on old adventure serials.

Speaking of Indy, the depcticions of natives in those movies are arguably worse than Jungle Cruise, but I doubt Disney is gonna censor or remove those movies anytime soon.

 

[_caleb]

if the haunted mansion was just an empty house or just had random squatters depicted living there... it wouldn't be much of a ride. The writers put in some elements of danger or exotic into the Jungle Cruise. They must quickly convey ideas or invoke something in the audience.

Imagineers were not trying to vilify native peoples... they were using images and characterizations that the audience would be able to quickly connect the intended story elements.

One can make an argument that 'does this perpetuate these stereotypes...' and the less informed the audience is, probably the more it does.

But just like when we see a man in a fur outfit, messy hair, and maybe carrying a club... people immediately think CAVEMAN!... the choice of illustration has done it's job. Even if you don't believe that's really how ancient homosapiens looked/acted.

It's story telling for entertainment purposes - not an archeology class.

Right. But the writers didn’t put just ANY elements of danger or exotic into the Jungle Cruise. They could have put in magic, attacking animals, fire, falling trees, crazed explorers—any number of things that would have created the sense of danger and exotic without reducing historically marginalize people to playing that part.

The Imagineers were definitely playing to the stereotype that already existed in the audience’s minds (as you mention)—as a more economical approach to storytelling. But that stereotype was built in our collective minds over years and years of propaganda. Those stories (violent, primitive, ignorant, strange, funny) provided the rationale for conquering, colonizing, and even enslaving African people.

I agree that most Disney guests are not likely to look at the scene and think that those are meant to be an accurate depiction of how all real tribal people look/act. But the use of the stereotype subtly reinforces the same worldview it was designed to promote.

 

[flynnibus]

Speaking of Indy, the depcticions of natives in those movies are arguably worse than Jungle Cruise, but I doubt Disney is gonna censor or remove those movies anytime soon.

Well.. the D+ changes lately made me rethink those sacred cow laws. I think they eventually will start trying to wall up and treat those films as problematic.