Jungle Cruise Update

[PiratesMansion]

At some level I agree, but the problem is that we probably disagree with who we think they are pandering to. Jungle Cruise has problems that need to be fixed, but because of their reliance on history and nostalgia, they are still trying to salvage the Jungle Cruise IP instead of just ripping it out entirely.

They people they are pandering to are Disney fans.

But why is it pandering to the fans if they're at least trying to hang on to some kind of park history, but what the audience demands when they're shoving in movie IP whether or not it's justifiable or makes sense?

 

[el_super]

But why is it pandering to the fans if they're at least trying to hang on to some kind of park history, but what the audience demands when they're shoving in movie IP whether or not it's justifiable or makes sense?

It only seems like pandering to me, because the better result would be just removing the ride and redoing it, rather than hanging on to the history at the expense of the future.

 

[No Name]

I love how a jungle cruise update is somehow politics but discussion about recalling governor Newsom is somehow not.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I'll take a stab at it.

A theme is a loose guiding principle. Things are selected that blend together and fit appropriately, but there's not necessarily a concern that the details inform one another or are of any specific importance other than to set a mood, establish an ambiance, or be consistent with the parameters of the area or scene.

A backstory, by contrast, attempts to specifically tie together and quantify each of these items and give them individual importance and a history. It tries to answer why, specifically, each prop is chosen, where it came from, what greater signficance it has, what the history of the building the prop is in has been up to this point, how that building fits in with what's around it and why, etc.

You might consider two Frontierlands as a contrast of these two approaches.

Frontierland, Disneyland, themed: It's the wild west! Therefore, anything that might fit your idea of the wild west is appropriate.

Frontierland, Disneyland Paris, backstoried: It's an old western town called Thunder Mesa, established in year _____ by the Ravenswoods, who set up a gold mine in Big Thunder Mountain, and it's now year ____. Oh, by the way, their house is over there on the hill, but you'll want to stay away as strange things have happened there, and...

When done well, a theme is freeing because you have more options available to you, and many visitors don't care about the backstories anyway. But it may not necessarily be as focused. Undoubtedly there are people at WDI now who seem to feel they NEED that focus to go forward.

Backstories CAN be done well-pretty much all of Disneyland Paris is a shining example of that-but can become convoluted and samey very easily or become fanservice-y in a detrimental way; see, IMO, the continued expansion of SEAS. After a certain point it often becomes more information than the average person needs to appreciate the thing, and then it might seem like too much exposition. It might also put unnecessary or arbitrary limitations on something in a way that a theme would not-the 1930's setting of Jungle Cruise, as an example, or become more important than the actual guest experience. It's my view that modern Imagineers too often forget the power of simplicity with their focus on backstories, and part of the reason the old classics work is that they are presented in a way that is straightforward and instantly readable.

Hopefully that makes sense.

You’re making the very sort of limitations that is common. The theme is the central idea that is being conveyed. The backstory establishes the boundaries of how the theme is expressed. Both can be broad or specific.

Your definitions and examples mean that Frontierland at Disneyland Paris is not themed which is a rather ridiculous take. You also oddly miss that Frontierland at Disneyland is a lot broader than just the Wild West, including a lot of influences of the Midwest and the earlier years of American expansion. Main Street, USA might be a good example of how this notion of “themed” has boundaries. The design of buildings from the Magic Kingdom would look out of place in Disneyland. They’re both the story of optimism and progress in America at the turn of the 20th century but in Disneyland the story is told through a small Midwestern town while at Magic Kingdom it is a small Eastern city.

A backstory can be simple like the differences between the Main Streets or it can be complex and intertwined. Like immersion, Disney’s problem isn’t that there are backstories, but that they have for awhile become overly complex, convoluted and lost in the weeds of meaningless “details”. Just the creation of Alberta Falls for Skipper’s Canteen is a red flag as it’s a whole story that ruins the punchline of the joke it is built on, suggesting the joke is no longer understood but being overly referenced as a demonstration of “knowing” the ride.

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

I love how a jungle cruise update is somehow politics but discussion about recalling governor Newsom is somehow not.

You love that? Personally, I love vegetarian chili for dinner on a cold night with 1/4 of a bottle of rooster sauce squeezed into it and a tall glass of whiskey.

 

[Californian Elitist]

I love how a jungle cruise update is somehow politics but discussion about recalling governor Newsom is somehow not.

No need to delve into this.

 

[PiratesMansion]

It only seems like pandering to me, because the better result would be just removing the ride and redoing it, rather than hanging on to the history at the expense of the future.

Is Alberta Falls etc. pandering? Sure. But my larger point is that sometimes it comes across as though you call it pandering if the park is being acknowledged but it's smart if we're upending the park's history in favor of flavor of the moment IP.

While I don't think anyone has been 100% happy with Jungle Cruise for some time, I think the message or implication of their actions here is that even the modern WDC feels like outright removing the attraction, or doing an IP overlay on top of it, is overstepping bounds, further complicated by the fact that it was Walt's park and Walt's Jungle Cruise. Maybe at some point that will change, but that's where everything stands for right now.

You’re making the very sort of limitations that is common. The theme is the central idea that is being conveyed. The backstory establishes the boundaries of how the theme is expressed. Both can be broad or specific.

Your definitions and examples mean that Frontierland at Disneyland Paris is not themed which is a rather ridiculous take. You also oddly miss that Frontierland at Disneyland is a lot broader than just the Wild West, including a lot of influences of the Midwest and the earlier years of American expansion. Main Street, USA might be a good example of how this notion of “themed” has boundaries. The design of buildings from the Magic Kingdom would look out of place in Disneyland. They’re both the story of optimism and progress in America at the turn of the 20th century but in Disneyland the story is told through a small Midwestern town while at Magic Kingdom it is a small Eastern city.

A backstory can be simple like the differences between the Main Streets or it can be complex and intertwined. Like immersion, Disney’s problem isn’t that there are backstories, but that they have for awhile become overly complex, convoluted and lost in the weeds of meaningless “details”. Just the creation of Alberta Falls for Skipper’s Canteen is a red flag as it’s a whole story that ruins the punchline of the joke it is built on, suggesting the joke is no longer understood but being overly referenced as a demonstration of “knowing” the ride.

It was an attempt at explaining and nothing more. I figured you would have a better explanation but I didn't want to @ you and make you feel like you were being called upon to give one.

I didn't mean to say that Frontierland at DLP wasn't themed, simply that it was driven more by ideas inherent in the backstory approach rather than the approaches of the past. Probably better to say design influences over hard and fast rules.

 

[SuddenStorm]

Weird take. I would say that the design of a scene that is so offense it has to be removed would meet the criteria for poorly done... Right?

To be clear, I don't think anything at Disneyland qualifies as 'so offensive it has to be removed'. That includes the original auction scene, Jungle, Splash. I think each of these changes are a mistake. But if WDI is going to replace this stuff, they should at least make sure the replacement is actually good.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

This is just a bad joke. And not a good-bad joke from the Jungle Cruise, but just bad-bad.

Alberta Falls and her backstory appears to be created by Imagineers who have absolutely no idea how the Jungle Cruise works. And more importantly, no idea how the audience experiences the attraction as they wait in line, load into boats, and then pivot and strain to get 4 or 5 second glimpses at the animals and funny little vignettes along the river. While a CM delivers one-liner jokes and bad puns that can be understood over the roar of diesel engine by anyone older than 8.

This new Alberta Falls backstory, even if they try and hit us over the head with it via some new queue pre-show or blatant animatronic dialogue by a riverbank Skipper, will be ignored and/or missed by 99.5% of the audience. It doesn't matter what race or ethnicity Alberta Falls is, or isn't, she won't enter the audiences mind in the least.

And then there's the poor CM's who will be forced to tell a couple of new jokes that aren't that funny but mandatorily mention Alberta Falls. No joke created by a committee from HR will ever be funny. Ever.

This is yet another example of WDI losing complete sight of how the park works, and how its audience experiences it.

Whatever happened to just telling a good story?

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

For me, I take each Disney decision on changing attractions one at a time. Some are good, some bad, and some are just changes I’m indifferent about.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

Thank you for mentioning the chicken dialogue. And the auction scene in general, because it shows WDI's lack of ability to create a scene that reads instantly- which was perhaps Marc Davis's greatest strength.

Here's the original auction scene-

View attachment 541155 View attachment 541156

Floating through, the scene reads visually instantaneously. They're auctioning the ladies, and the auctioneer is trying to sell the bigger one, while the onlookers want the more traditionally beautiful one. Riders don't tend to listen to the dialogue on rides, it has to read visually with the audio acting as reinforcement. And the original script for this scene does a wonderful job strengthening the gag with witty humor. Not to mention Paul Frees's voice acting.

When redesigning the scene WDI didn't seem to care that the staging was done for that single gag. So without that gag, the scene is now a confusing mess that doesn't read visually at all. It's not immediately apparent that she's holding chickens, or that they're auctioning chickens. It's confusing, and makes less sense the more you think about it- the pirates are auctioning stolen goods to other pirates? Why would pirates want chickens? What's Redd doing there? Why are they saying they want rum when they all already have bottles? Not to mention Redd's lack of exaggerated features found on the other pirates, creating an artistic clash. And, the awful voice acting.

View attachment 541157

The scene's revision was to 1) Remove a gag that's considered outdated and 2) Introduce a strong female character so young girls can see someone aspirational in the ride. Both were done poorly and the scene is far worse then what Marc Davis was able to dream up in the '60s. So now the scene won't offend anyone, but it's also boring and forgettable.

I worry the Jungle Cruise will suffer a similar fate. The additions won't be offensive to anyone- but what they're replaced with will be boring, forgettable, and poorly executed. This Alberta Falls nonsense doesn't give me hope. Also, I guarantee you she'll be a walk around character like Redd. Jungle Cruise as it stands reads visually instantly.

I didn’t want my sons to grow up to be pirates. But my daughters to do so is to be aspired to!

 

[mickEblu]

Weird take. I would say that the design of a scene that is so offense it has to be removed would meet the criteria for poorly done... Right?

No you re right. Because Marc Davis knew that in 50 +years the world would change drastically and pander to a small percentage of sensitive people.

 

[el_super]

Is Alberta Falls etc. pandering? Sure. But my larger point is that sometimes it comes across as though you call it pandering if the park is being acknowledged but it's smart if we're upending the park's history in favor of flavor of the moment IP.

They are an entertainment company, so they are always pandering to someone. When they do add those flavor of the moment IPs, they absolutely are pandering to their base audience, and history shows that they keep working to drive attendance, so yeah, they are smart moves.

What makes this a questionable move is that they are pandering to the hardcore Disneyland history fans, but it is NOT working right? They are adding a park specific backstory, no outside IP with new specifically created characters and AAs. They are checking all the boxes here and yet still pushback?

I think it makes sense that Jungle Cruise is one of those attractions that appeals more to the history crowd, but if they don't buy into these changes then what??

Maybe at some point that will change, but that's where everything stands for right now.

Maybe this is the first step to just outright removing it.

 

[el_super]

To be clear, I don't think anything at Disneyland qualifies as 'so offensive it has to be removed'. That includes the original auction scene, Jungle, Splash. I think each of these changes are a mistake. But if WDI is going to replace this stuff, they should at least make sure the replacement is actually good.

How can you pretend to be an unbiased reviewer of what is good or bad, if you disagree with the need to fix it?

 

[SuddenStorm]

How can you pretend to be an unbiased reviewer of what is good or bad, if you disagree with the need to fix it?

When have I ever pretended to be unbiased? I'm very biased.

 

[Disneyland68]

To be clear, I don't think anything at Disneyland qualifies as 'so offensive it has to be removed'. That includes the original auction scene, Jungle, Splash. I think each of these changes are a mistake. But if WDI is going to replace this stuff, they should at least make sure the replacement is actually good.

Aloha,

Spot on....as usual.

 

[el_super]

When have I ever pretended to be unbiased? I'm very biased.

I guess you don't have to be, but trust me, you're gonna have a rough couple of decades here as Disneyland fan against change.

 

[Californian Elitist]

I guess you don't have to be, but trust me, you're gonna have a rough couple of decades here as Disneyland fan against change.

Many of us have been against most of the changes within the past five or more years, myself included. We’re still enjoying ourselves here.

 

[Sharon&Susan]

Maybe this is the first step to just outright removing it.

I think Disney has bigger priorities for a while than completely removing their decades old jungle ride.

 

[Homemade Imagineering]

Maybe this is the first step to just outright removing it.

Not at all. In fact, Disney clearly sees JC as an investment, because they're putting all of this CapEx into redoing the attraction for the foreseeable future.