• 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

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
The problem is that you can make that statement about practically every single attraction at every single theme park in the world. Someone will be offended by something, so you deal with it by making a change that might have offended less than 1% of the guests, if even that? And how many actually complained to Disney? Anyway, my contention is that Disney did not remove him because they thought he was offensive, but because he simply didn't fit in with the new story.

So are we now supposed to feel offended by this?
View attachment 546090
Again, rather than deal in hypotheticals, I’d prefer to talk about what is actually happening. Some guests are made uncomfortable by the tribesman imagery. That’s not the same as being offended or outraged (I think the distinction is being lost in this all-or-nothing framing that you and others are insisting on). And if Sam’s removal and replacement make those guests feel more welcome, I’m all for it, especially given that the planned changes remain faithful to the ride’s feel and humour.
 

LuvtheGoof

Grill Master
Premium Member
WDW's Trader Sam was a caricature of a SE Asian Man, as noted by his exaggerated features that were based on stereotypes that were and are harmful.

Alberta Falls is a mixed race woman who's features were designed in a natural manner, without certain body elements exaggerated for comedic effect and without and stereotypical practices intended for comedy.
Sorry, but according to some around here, he is a caricature of a South American man, so who should be offended?
 

SunsetLament

Well-Known Member
WDW's Trader Sam was a caricature of a SE Asian Man, as noted by his exaggerated features that were based on stereotypes that were and are harmful.

Alberta Falls is a mixed race woman who's features were designed in a natural manner, without certain body elements exaggerated for comedic effect and without and stereotypical practices intended for comedy.
You do realize that in the last 3 days, in this thread alone, we've had "definitive" statements that WDW's Trader Sam is Argentinian, Ecuadorian, Peruvian and now Southeast Asian, right?

Maybe ... just maybe ... his ethnicity or country of origin is nebulous?
 

LuvtheGoof

Grill Master
Premium Member
Again, rather than deal in hypotheticals, I’d prefer to talk about what is actually happening. Some guests are made uncomfortable by the tribesman imagery. That’s not the same as being offended or outraged (I think the distinction is being lost in this all-or-nothing framing that you and others are insisting on). And if Sam’s removal and replacement make those guests feel more welcome, I’m all for it, especially given that the planned changes remain faithful to the ride’s feel and humour.
You see that is the part that I'm just not understanding. How can anyone be made uncomfortable about him? He's a cartoon character in a Disney attraction. Again, I personally have no issues with his removal (guess I haven't made that clear), but I simply disagree with why Disney removed him.
 

castlecake2.0

Well-Known Member
You do realize that in the last 3 days, in this thread alone, we've had "definitive" statements that WDW's Trader Sam is Argentinian, Ecuadorian, Peruvian and now Southeast Asian, right?

Maybe ... just maybe ... his ethnicity or country of origin is nebulous?
So what if it is? Disney doesn’t want it in their ride anymore.
 

LuvtheGoof

Grill Master
Premium Member
Alberta Falls is a mixed race woman who's features were designed in a natural manner, without certain body elements exaggerated for comedic effect and without and stereotypical practices intended for comedy.
So now the Jungle Cruise isn't comedic anymore? My contention is that someone else will be offended by the mixed race woman. There is simply no way to appease everyone.
 

SunsetLament

Well-Known Member
So what if it is? Disney doesn’t want it in their ride anymore.

Great question. Here's the answer. This is what is called an "internet message board." And the purpose of internet message boards are to hold discussions. Typically, the discussions are focused around a central topic and persons access and post on the message board because they find the central topic interesting or thought-provoking. This particular internet message board is focused on the Walt Disney Company (generally) and Walt Disney World (specifically). People come to this message board to discuss Walt Disney World and the decisions made by the Walt Disney Company in its management of Walt Disney World. So if the answer to every post on this particular message board is, (paraphrase) "Who cares? The Walt Disney Company owns Walt Disney World and can do whatever it wants," it would actually be contrary to the purpose of this particular message board (specifically) and internet message board discussions (generally).

A shorter answer would be: Everyone knows Disney can do what it wants in WDW; the purpose of this thread is to discuss whether proposed changes are good or not.
 

castlecake2.0

Well-Known Member
You honestly believe the "outrage" over Trader Sam being there is warranted?
I believe there was probably never outrage about him, and very little complaints to be honest. What I think happened is the Company that operates the attraction took a look at it and said to themselves “maybe this isn’t the best story to tell anymore”, and removed him.
 

Sir_Cliff

Well-Known Member
I find it very strange that people are arguing that Trader Sam is some cartoon character devoid of any racial or ethnic connotations dropped into a ride that features representations of real animals, references actually existing places, and has other figures that are obviously supposed to represent human beings that inhabit the planet earth. That you easily read him as a cartoonish blur of all non-white "primitives" in the context of the ride really highlights the whole issue with the figure.
 

LuvtheGoof

Grill Master
Premium Member
I believe there was probably never outrage about him, and very little complaints to be honest. What I think happened is the Company that operates the attraction took a look at it and said to themselves “maybe this isn’t the best story to tell anymore”, and removed him.
Well, my take is that he simply didn't fit in with the new story, not that his wasn't the best story to tell. Disney is pretty silent on this as well. So if there was probably no outrage, and few to no complaints, why remove him at all? Again, because the new story is different, and he doesn't fit into it.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
I find it very strange that people are arguing that Trader Sam is some cartoon character devoid of any racial or ethnic connotations dropped into a ride that features representations of real animals, references actually existing places, and has other figures that are obviously supposed to represent human beings that inhabit the planet earth. That you easily read him as a cartoonish blur of all non-white "primitives" in the context of the ride really highlights the whole issue with the figure.
Ironically, they're also throwing classic Disney's Imagineering under the bus with their denialism. Suddenly we're meant to pretend that Disney doesn't know how to evoke particular themes and places.
 

SorcererMC

Well-Known Member
Well, my take is that he simply didn't fit in with the new story, not that his wasn't the best story to tell. Disney is pretty silent on this as well. So if there was probably no outrage, and few to no complaints, why remove him at all? Again, because the new story is different, and he doesn't fit into it.
Disney's not silent on this. [emphasis added]
Imagineering Creative Executive Chris Beatty told Disney’s D23 fan club.

“When you look at the Jungle Cruise, as it is today, there are just a couple of scenes that don’t do that and needed a refresh,” Beatty told D23. “But I want to make sure people know we are not changing the whole Jungle Cruise. This is not a re-envisioning of the entire attraction. It’s the Jungle Cruise you know and love, with the skippers still leading the way, and at the same time, we’re addressing the negative depictions of ‘natives.’”
 

LuvtheGoof

Grill Master
Premium Member
Disney's not silent on this. [emphasis added]
Imagineering Creative Executive Chris Beatty told Disney’s D23 fan club.

“When you look at the Jungle Cruise, as it is today, there are just a couple of scenes that don’t do that and needed a refresh,” Beatty told D23. “But I want to make sure people know we are not changing the whole Jungle Cruise. This is not a re-envisioning of the entire attraction. It’s the Jungle Cruise you know and love, with the skippers still leading the way, and at the same time, we’re addressing the negative depictions of ‘natives.’”
Ok, thanks.
 

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
Again, rather than deal in hypotheticals, I’d prefer to talk about what is actually happening. Some guests are made uncomfortable by the tribesman imagery. That’s not the same as being offended or outraged (I think the distinction is being lost in this all-or-nothing framing that you and others are insisting on). And if Sam’s removal and replacement make those guests feel more welcome, I’m all for it, especially given that the planned changes remain faithful to the ride’s feel and humour.

And quite frankly, even if no guests had actually complained to Disney regarding the depiction of said peoples on the ride, society as a whole has been working on this very thing for years now. Working to make amends, to find reconciliation, and be more thoughtful in how we speak about/represent others.

Disney has decided to be part of that conversation, and address areas of the parks where they have fallen short.

Disney gets to decide what they are now comfortable with, and in this case, they are no longer comfortable with how they've depicted specific groups on attractions.

That's it, and quite frankly I don't even see it as up for discussion.
 

helenabear

Well-Known Member
Well, my take is that he simply didn't fit in with the new story, not that his wasn't the best story to tell. Disney is pretty silent on this as well. So if there was probably no outrage, and few to no complaints, why remove him at all? Again, because the new story is different, and he doesn't fit into it.
Not everything that offends or makes one uncomfortable will cause people to be outraged. Often people silently take it or quietly complain. Why are you constantly questioning it? It makes some people uncomfortable to see. Negative stereotypes are not good. Why keep it?
 

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

Top Bottom