Jungle Cruise Re-Imagining

[Sue_Vongello]

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.

These are very good posts and to anyone thinking this isn’t about numbers for Disney - if Iger/Disney is/was so disgusted by Splash why continue to sell merch? Why not discontinue it all now? Why even wait on the redo? It seems very disingenuous to say this ride is racist but please buy all this merch first.

 

[Californian Elitist]

I'm specifically referring to @raven24 and @Dr. Hans Reinhardt , who have offered several very thoughtful posts over there on how they view these scenes from their perspective. I don't want to assume their race, but I believe that they are both African American.

The rest of this post is not directed to you, @Horizons1, just general thoughts on the subject.

I guess my perspective as a white person is simply that I do not get to decide whether a depiction of another race is acceptable or inoffensive to the very group that it is representing. Seems pretty simple to me. The problems with the depictions of native people in JC is not exactly a new discussion; so I'm unsure why so many of you are trying to pretend as though it is.

As a gay man, I would find it pretty discomposing if a large group of straight people were trying to convince me that a stereotypical depiction of a member of my community shouldn't offend me simply on the predicate that it doesn't offend them.

I’m just now seeing this tag. My apologies for my late response!

Your analogy is spot on. I’m a straight woman who happens to have many LGBTQ+ friends and family members. I’d like to consider myself an ally and absolutely recognize that I have privilege as a straight woman. When I go out with my gay friends, conversations about issues the LGBTQ community face often come up. I of course cannot relate to said issues because I’m not gay. Therefore, my job is to listen and do my best to empathize and do what I can to support causes and continue to be an ally and supportive friend.

The same argument can be made for multiple examples. We all need to do a better job of listening to those with different experiences than that of our own instead of attempting to feel like a guilty victim.

I hope all is well on this side of the forums.

 

[Brer Oswald]

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.

What rubs me the wrong way is that they can label things as “bad” but they can’t even explain why. I’m not sure if it’s because they don’t understand themselves, or they think so low of the audience.

This creates a lot of mislabeling and misconceptions. If you want to get rid of these attractions or attraction elements that’s fine. But if they’re not using these as learning opportunities, they’re doomed to keep repeating these problems, and we’re doomed to keep misunderstanding what’s going on. The “why” is just as important as the “what”.

 

[_caleb]

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.

I think things are changing. To me, the addition of the 5th Key was evidence that it’s not all just about positive PR. That was mostly a behind-the-scenes sort of thing.

 

[UNCgolf]

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.

That's insulting.

Living with the Land is wonderful and a much better attraction than the Jungle Cruise.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

What rubs me the wrong way is that they can label things as “bad” but they can’t even explain why.

It's even more vague than that. Disney simply says they want to make their parks more "inclusive", but won't say what directly isn't inclusive about these attractions at the moment, or apologize for the problematic aspects. Fans are left to speculate as to what and why the changes are made.

I think it's so Disney does not draw attention to what could be considered objectionable while these rides continue to operate. Or indirectly invite the general public to comb through their rides to see what else is bad before Disney gets a chance to change it.

 

[Brer Oswald]

I think things are changing. To me, the addition of the 5th Key was evidence that it’s not all just about positive PR. That was mostly a behind-the-scenes sort of thing.

Didn’t that conveniently drop around the time they were getting crap with the Mulan and Chinese Government scandal?

 

[Animaniac93-98]

To me, the addition of the 5th Key was evidence that it’s not all just about positive PR. That was mostly a behind-the-scenes sort of thing.

Except they did promote it, and then people called them out for its redundancy. Disney was already encouraging its front line cast to be welcoming and accepting in their roles. I'd still label it superficial PR, but that's just me.

 

[_caleb]

Except they did promote it, and then people called them out for its redundancy. Disney was already encouraging its front line cast to be welcoming and accepting in their roles. I'd still label it superficial PR, but that's just me.

Where did they promote the 5th Key? Possible I missed it, but I thought it was just announced internally via the Hub? I did see that Iger posted something about it on Twitter, so maybe that’s what you mean?

Anyway, there seems to be a lot of pushback on recent changes/announcements, yet Disney continues with the changes (or says they intend to). This makes me thing the changes are more than just caving to the ”woke mob” or whatever.

 

[Brer Oswald]

It's even more vague than that. Disney simply says they want to make their parks more "inclusive", but won't say what isn't inclusive about these attractions at the moment. Fans are left to speculate as to what and why the changes are made.

I think it's so Disney does not draw attention to what could be considered objectionable while these rides continue to operate. Or indirectly invite the general public to comb through their rides to see what else is bad before Disney gets a chance to change it.

I don’t see how that’s good for them in the long run. Jungle Cruise and it’s a small world both have depictions of cultures that can be considered caricatures or stereotypes. But I think that most of us Disney experts can agree that these two are very very different.

As described by several users, the Jungle Cruise characters are negative stereotypes, antagonizing the natives of the land you’re visiting. The dolls on small world, meanwhile, are promoting a message that is positive. The costumes of the dolls are all overzealous and stereotypical of the cultures they’re representing because the dolls all have identical face molds. It’s a really simplistic method of illustrating the message of unity the attraction is trying to promote. The costumes represent our differences. The faces represent our similarities. And of course, there’s a natural varied set of skin tones.

But without explaining why the Jungle Cruise natives are offensive, they open themselves to the same scrutiny with small world. On the forum, most of us may have the common sense to distinguish the two. But the casual audience that doesn’t visit Disney at all or often won’t know the meaning behind the attractions.

“They removed the stereotypes in Jungle Cruise, so they should take out the ones in Small World.” So then they remove dolls from Africa. But wait a minute? That’s not good. As forum members have pointed out in the past, the problem is that there are too few humans in Africa. That should be the change being made. And that’s why the “why” is so important.

 

[Magic Feather]

This refurb will take a shorter amount of time compared to the average "major" refurb schedule. I could easily see it being started and ended in the year at WDW. This will start, and likely end, before splash.

 

[Homemade Imagineering]

I don’t see how that’s good for them in the long run. Jungle Cruise and it’s a small world both have depictions of cultures that can be considered caricatures or stereotypes. But I think that most of us Disney experts can agree that these two are very very different.

As described by several users, the Jungle Cruise characters are negative stereotypes, antagonizing the natives of the land you’re visiting. The dolls on small world, meanwhile, are promoting a message that is positive. The costumes of the dolls are all overzealous and stereotypical of the cultures they’re representing because the dolls all have identical face molds. It’s a really simplistic method of illustrating the message of unity the attraction is trying to promote. The costumes represent our differences. The faces represent our similarities. And of course, there’s a natural varied set of skin tones.

But without explaining why the Jungle Cruise natives are offensive, they open themselves to the same scrutiny with small world. On the forum, most of us may have the common sense to distinguish the two. But the casual audience that doesn’t visit Disney at all or often won’t know the meaning behind the attractions.

“They removed the stereotypes in Jungle Cruise, so they should take out the ones in Small World.” So then they remove dolls from Africa. But wait a minute? That’s not good. As forum members have pointed out in the past, the problem is that there are too few humans in Africa. That should be the change being made. And that’s why the “why” is so important.

I'm really curious as to what they're gonna do with IASW, since it's very much different from any other Disney attraction to exist, in many ways. It holds a very special place in my heart, so I hope they're cautious with it. I think people often overlook the immense importance of the attraction's message, as another stupid old cliche, or as something that's simply annoying to them. Some even go onto calling the attraction racist because of its depiction of cultures throughout the attraction, which is upsetting because the thing is supposed to be the most anti racist piece of theme park history, with its important message and beautiful costumes, but at the same time is often misunderstood. I also love the design of the doll molds, and how they're all the same to show that deep down inside, we're all the same despite our differences. It's a beautiful attraction, and sometimes that immense joyfulness can make one feel off, or rather creeped out or resentful towards it.

Marty Sklar once said it's the most important attraction in the Parks, and I firmly agree with him there. It gets tiring whenever I see people making fun of the thing over and over again. As for the cultures depicted, you're supposed to be viewing everything in the attraction from the eyes of a child, who doesn't necessarily yet understand the hardships of the real world. In some instances, it's easy to take this as something racist, when in actuality it's just an over simplified view of the world.

 

[LittleBuford]

I’m always baffled when people criticise such decisions as being driven by PR concerns. Of course they are. Disney is a business, after all: good PR is essential to its success. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t also a genuine desire for inclusivity at play, or that the end result won’t meaningfully contribute to such an aim.

 

[Brer Oswald]

I'm really curious as to what they're gonna do with IASW, since it's very much different from any other Disney attraction to exist, in many ways. It holds a very special place in my heart, so I hope they're cautious with it. I think people often overlook the immense importance of the attraction's message, as another stupid old cliche, or as something that's simply annoying to them. Some even go onto calling the attraction racist because of its depiction of cultures throughout the attraction, which is upsetting because the thing is supposed to be the most anti racist piece of theme park history, with its important message and beautiful costumes, but at the same time is often misunderstood. I also love the design of the doll molds, and how they're all the same to show that deep down inside, we're all the same despite our differences. It's a beautiful attraction, and sometimes that immense joyfulness can make one feel off, or rather creeped out or resentful towards it.

Marty Sklar once said it's the most important attraction in the Parks, and I firmly agree with him there. It gets tiring whenever I see people making fun of the thing over and over again. As for the cultures depicted, you're supposed to be viewing everything in the attraction from the eyes of a child, who doesn't necessarily yet understand the hardships of the real world. In some instances, it's easy to take this as something racist, when in actuality it's just an over simplified view of the world.

Both you and Marty would have to be correct. It is the most important attraction in the parks. We need small world more than ever.

 

[LittleBuford]

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.

Why must it be either/or, though? What’s wrong with smaller updates until they can aim for something more ambitious?

 

[LittleBuford]

I'm really curious as to what they're gonna do with IASW, since it's very much different from any other Disney attraction to exist, in many ways. It holds a very special place in my heart, so I hope they're cautious with it. I think people often overlook the immense importance of the attraction's message, as another stupid old cliche, or as something that's simply annoying to them. Some even go onto calling the attraction racist because of its depiction of cultures throughout the attraction, which is upsetting because the thing is supposed to be the most anti racist piece of theme park history, with its important message and beautiful costumes, but at the same time is often misunderstood. I also love the design of the doll molds, and how they're all the same to show that deep down inside, we're all the same despite our differences. It's a beautiful attraction, and sometimes that immense joyfulness can make one feel off, or rather creeped out or resentful towards it.

Marty Sklar once said it's the most important attraction in the Parks, and I firmly agree with him there. It gets tiring whenever I see people making fun of the thing over and over again. As for the cultures depicted, you're supposed to be viewing everything in the attraction from the eyes of a child, who doesn't necessarily yet understand the hardships of the real world. In some instances, it's easy to take this as something racist, when in actuality it's just an over simplified view of the world.

It’s one of my favourites too, though I do think some of the depictions stand to be updated. Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, consists of a few figures scattered among animals, whereas Europe is represented by a series of distinct and recognisable countries. They could redress such imbalances while remaining true to the spirit and aesthetics of the original ride.

 

[Homemade Imagineering]

It’s one of my favourites too, though I do think some of the depictions stand to be updated. Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, consists of a few figures scattered among animals, whereas Europe is represented by a series of distinct and recognisable countries. They could redress such imbalances while remaining true to the spirit and aesthetics of the original ride.

I see your points. One thing I noticed while watching a Ride-through on the Paris IASW was the fact that they actually had African French dolls, or in other words interracial mixed dolls scattered throughout the different countries. This was one of the proposed changes that Pro spoke about last summer, that may come to the domestic IASWs.

Skip to 6:39 to see what I’m referencing here:

 

[BeautifulTomorrow]

Headhunting wasn't limited to just one part of the world or a single ethnographic background, so if it has two feet it fits no matter what pigmentation. Spears? Yup, those were ubiquitous globally. Indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation that are hostile to outside contact? Still have them, in fact, the Sentinelese win as the people with the best border control. You try to visit them, they kill you.

Thanks for the history lesson? I'm not sure why you posted this in reply to what I said? Also, if you meant to reply to someone else's post, I don't think anyone is debating the truth of what you said, merely saying the Trader Sam (or Chief Namee) is a Marc Davis cartoony characterization of a Southeast Asian person, because at that point in the ride you are on the Mekong (formerly Irrawaddy) river. If anyone chooses not to see that then they have some reflecting to do. But really I don't want to get into it, because I know I'm not changing anyone's mind if they don't actively want to shift their perspective.

 

[BeautifulTomorrow]

Heck, I think they should use the same 'art style' and close to the tech so the parts they don't change won't look so strikingly different.

By the art, it seems like they've tried to guard against that.

I think they will be trying to match the same technology that the ride has now as much as they can. No need for anything fancy when the remaining figures aren't changing.

 

[jeanericuser001]

I started realizing that if we keep cowtowing to each person wanting inclusion then there is gonna need to be a lot of interesting if not unusual things. The haunted mansion is gonna need representation from every race and body type. If that is the case will we see a trans ghost some day?