-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Jungle Cruise Update
- Thread starter SSG
- Start date
Sharon&Susan
Well-Known Member
I couldn't see it being the new ending scene, but it'd be cool to see the Hornbill gag (especially since the animatronic is still in the queue) return and replace the Native Attack scene.
Stevek
Well-Known Member
Amazing two books by the way.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
I’m ashamed to say I just opened them now to post these pictures. But it looks amazing... and smells great!
Sharon&Susan
Well-Known Member
I think @el_super was referring to how they're a rag tag bunch of mostly white male explorers/imperialists.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
Oh was that it? It just annoys me because it’s some unnecessary backstory spanning across multiple parks. Seems very forced and a Poor attempt at creating park lore. Disneyland doesn’t need S.E.A. It has enough of a rich real history.
I knew it was too good to be true.
BuzzedPotatoHead89
Well-Known Member
If that’s the predominant problem why not re-write/expand the lore of S.E.A. and add Trader Sam as a native born explorer/proprietor of the Amazon Delta. The “head honcho” of the Jungle Expedition Company so to speak.
Since S.E.A. is a relatively new creation that is mostly featured in overseas parks expanding/evolving the lore is all fine and good, imo.
George Lucas on a Bench
Well-Known Member
The thing I like about Disneyland is that it was founded by Patriarchal mostly White Men on classic conservative values and remains a liberal establishment with the passage of time. It's like a perfect little encapsulation of America as a theme park.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
Trying to back away from the raw emotion here, as I truly do want to understand. And if I got caught up in the drama and injected by own experience into your experience, then that was a mistake and I apologize.
But that sentence above really seems to be the crux of what I'm still trying to understand.
You are given "crumbs"? By that, I assume you mean specifically as a Black person and not just as an American? Because Walt literally told us on Opening Day that Disneyland was a park for all Americans, based on our shared culture.
So you want to see more Black stories and themes told at Disneyland? But WDI will need to frame new stories about Black people so that the vast majority of Disneyland visitors who aren't Black can enjoy them.
But it sounds like there's good work on the way in the form of Princess Tiana's Bayou Bash N' Splash, opening 2025.
Stop trying to make this topic about you because it's not.
I think my comments were just from my own confusion.
I just still don't get how removing Africans and South Americans from a ride about Africa and South America improves "representation". That's not a comment directed at you specifically, as you say you could care less. But it's a comment directed at the thread as a whole.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
It's one giant continent, with 1.2 Billion people.
Quick, without Google, can you name the tribe the dancing natives on the Jungle Cruise are representative of and name the area of the continent within 300 miles of their native homeland? Because I can't.
Yes, yes... I know it's fun to claim that Americans don't like to travel and are stupid.
But pretending that I want to travel the entire world and see all the cultures and countries therein is not something I'm going to do for you. Because I have no desire to travel the entire world, only a few key places that I haven't already seen yet.
I get that in your social circle you'd never be allowed to admit that at a dinner party, you have to pretend that the entire world is interesting to you and you honor and admire all cultures, or some such pre-approved scripting you have to say so people think you are an Official Good Person.
At my dinner parties, we are honest enough and blunt enough to be able to say "I have no interest in seeing cold Norwegian fjords!", or "I told Jim I don't want to go on that Kenyan safari, it just seems hot and miserable to me and the flights from LAX to Nairobi take over 20 hours, but I'd take him to the San Diego Zoo if he's good."
Honesty. It's a good policy. And I will be honest with you and say at this point in my life I have no interest in traveling to the African continent. That doesn't mean I'm racist and it doesn't mean I'm stupid.
Heck, I only go on the Jungle Cruise once every few years if I have out-of-towners with me.
Last edited:
I highly recommend Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2010) in the original Swedish starring Noomi Rapace. The 2011 American version is adequate, but not as good.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
My youngest niece really got into that when she went down the rabbit hole of researching her ancestry and getting into her ancestral culture! It's a program I've been meaning to watch myself after her raves, but you just reminded me of it.
My ancestry research has only involved a Volvo and a couple of Saab's that I drove 20 years ago.
Last edited:
TP2000
Well-Known Member
Let's remember that Rhino Poking 'Em In The Butt Scene is a quick little vignette. It was designed by Marc Davis in the 1960's to fill in an empty plot along the river and be instantly understandable from 50 feet away within a 3 second glance.
That's why it's memorable and funny; it works quickly and easily for anyone in the audience regardless of language or nationality.
The Skipper glides around the corner and brings our attention to the Trapped Safari, he cuts the throttle on the engine and delivers his quick line about "getting it in the end", and then he pushes the throttle forward as we laugh and off we go further up the river. The entire thing takes less than 15 seconds, but it works beautifully!
And now there's some multi-park elaborate backstory we need to be aware of? That's nonsense, and something that will fly right over 99.5% of the audience. That's the work of new Imagineers forced to reconfigure the classic sight gag of a master Imagineer.
At least the Poking 'Em In The Butt sight gag will still be there, and still clearly understandable to anyone in the audience from 50 feet away within 3 seconds or less. That's all the audience needs, and it should still be funny.
Last edited:
Please let that not be the name!
TP2000
Well-Known Member
No, it's not. That's just the silly name I came up with in the Splash Mountain thread. Actually, the full title is...
Princess Tiana's Bayou Bash N' Splash, Presented by Ziploc - Opening 2025!
Stevek
Well-Known Member
They are perhaps the greatest collection of Disneyland artwork around. Just beautiful.
D
Deleted member 107043
In the same dedication he says the park is a tribute to "...the hard facts that have created America". How can that be true when every narrative is told from Walt's perspective or from the perspective of his artists who were almost exclusively white and male? How can you explain the minimizing of black and Native people in a place that is supposed to be meeting place for our "shared culture"?
Look, I have a great deal of admiration for Walt Disney, but there is no question that his films and theme parks were largely influenced by his experiences as a privileged white man living in a society dominated by white supremacy. A large part of Disneyland's initial success was dependent on the exclusive elevation of those specific ideals, and I'm glad things are changing.
To drive that point home here are two old Disneyland characterizations of African Americans at different times during the park's first decade of operation. So, outside of the aggressive "uncivilized" African natives and hapless safari guides, we have yet another sad example of the demeaning way in which black people have been portrayed to park visitors over the course of Disneyland's history. It's crazy to think it's 2021 and there is still a shortage of positive representations of a certain segment of AMERICANS in Disneyland.
Last edited by a moderator:
PiratesMansion
Well-Known Member
Framing and presentation has a big impact on how a message is received.
Taking this post as an example, you write this in a way that seems to imply that white stories are for everyone but black stories are only for black people, or that they need to be framed in a way that makes them "approachable" for people who aren't black, and that is the crux of the problem.
Maybe that wasn't your intention. But that is very much how it comes across.
Also, when someone was giving personal, relevant thoughts about how representation mattered to them, you basically stampeded in here and made it about how people weren't talking about you. They weren't talking about you because this particular conversation wasn't about you. Context matters.
I think it's fair to say that standards for representation have evolved, at least partially because people have grown more aware of the effect that media has on other people's opinions and perceptions of others. Back in the 50's and 60's, when you had real Native Americans at Disneyland or Polynesian cast members working at the Tiki Room-at that time, just being there was revolutionary representation because that just didn't happen in that era.
Now that we have a better understanding of the effects of negative representation, amplified through that same media, that's just not enough anymore. If your group is represented, but only in the most marginal, foolish, easily dismissible way possible, is that actually good? Most people would say no.
Should people come to that conclusion, that the worst possible depiction of a group is real life? Of course not. But then, back in the day people would (and perhaps, still do) drive to the Southfork Ranch in Texas and expect to see JR, Sue Ellen, and all the other Ewings just hanging around the pool because that's their house on TV, and if it's on TV, it must be real life. Likewise, people assume that because a movie is based on a true story, everything in it must be accurate. Someone out there has undoubtedly told the story about how the Titanic sank because the lookouts got distracted by watching Jack and Rose make out. People internalize, consciously or not, the things they see, even when they really should know better. This is why it is especially important that we give consideration for how we depict minority groups; if people do believe that about Titanic, it's a bit embarrassing, but it doesn't actively hurt anyone. That's not the case when it comes to minority representation. That doesn't mean every minority character in every media everywhere ever needs to be a perfect saint, but people will walk in to the theater/park/etc with their negative baggage and biases, and the least creators could do is not seem to confirm them in the minds of their audience.
To connect more to you personally, you undoubtedly faced struggles as a gay man living in the times that you did, in many cases struggles that younger LGBT people may not have to deal with at the same level anymore. And that's wonderful that there's been a ton of progress on that front! But, ultimately, for all that progress, there are still a lot of struggles that gay people face in this country, this world, and that will likely be the reality for some time. Even if we get to the point where everything LGBT is technically equal before the law within our lifetime, there will still be people who resent that, complain about it (perhaps unknowingly to people who are LGBT themselves), and seek to find subtle ways to show that REAL MEN AND WOMEN aren't LGBT or some such nonsense and that they will be "put in their place."
If there were animatronics at Disneyland for 60+ years that depicted gay people in a way that was outdated, degrading, and embarrassing, woud that be ok? Because that's basically the argument you're making. Now, maybe you would say it wouldn't bother you personally, and maybe that would be true. But what about that closeted, insecure teenager who definitely sees themselves in those animatronics in the park and watches the people around them act in a way that seems to confirm that those other people think that those outdated stereotypes are still true? Or the people who don't act that way to that teen's face, but still internalize that message and secretly believe it? Is it right to keep those animatronics because many people find them amusing and don't see anything wrong with them?
Whose opinion matters most in that situation: that of the majority, or that of the group closer to what is actually being depicted?
I would think that you would agree that straight people didn't just suddenly decide that gay people were a-OK actually, and that it took decades of fighting for change to get to where we are today. I imagine you would also agree that, while things are significantly better, things aren't *quite* where they need to be-in some ways perhaps, almost there; in others, there's still a lot of work to do. The same is true for Africans/African Americans/Black people. This is but one step that may not seem that important to you, but it does matter.
Which is why neither I nor many other people in this thread understand why some people appear to be losing their minds about this change.