• 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.

News New Changes Coming to the Disney Look 2021

TP2000

Well-Known Member
I’m confused, are you only allowed one visible tattoo smaller than your hand? Or are you allowed as many tattoos as you want as long as they are smaller than your hand?

I don't understand that either. The rules are very vague and don't address that at all. Although they allude to the fact that multiple tats are allowed by using the plural word "tattoos" in the rules.

TATTOOS
Visible tattoos are permitted, with the exception of placement on the face, head or neck.
Tattoos must be no larger than the Cast Member’s hand when fully extended with the fingers held together.
Undergarments, which include matching fabric tattoo sleeves, are permitted for coverage of larger tattoos on the arms.
Tattoos that depict nudity, offensive or inappropriate language or images, or violate Company policies (including policies prohibiting discrimination and harassment based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, ancestry, age, disability or any other protected category) are not permitted.


It appears as though you may have multiple tats all showing at once, so long as there is visible skin around each one. So you could have four or five hand-sized tats on your legs, a few hand-sized tats on your forearms, etc. and still be just fine to drive over a raft to Tom Sawyer Island in shorts and a short-sleeved shirt.

images
 

corran horn

Well-Known Member
This is not a criticism of the quality of Disney's storytelling but a legitimate question: When you go to a Disney Park, is it really so UNBELIVABLE IMMERISVE that you've entered into a separate reality and a tattoo is going to break the fourth wall and throw the whole experience? The hordes of people in flip-flops and sweat pants haven't already done that to you by that point?
The rascal scooters really take me back to good old Marceline in nineteen aught-six.
 

raven24

Well-Known Member
This is not a criticism of the quality of Disney's storytelling but a legitimate question: When you go to a Disney Park, is it really so UNBELIVABLE IMMERISVE that you've entered into a separate reality and a tattoo is going to break the fourth wall and throw the whole experience? The hordes of people in flip-flops and sweat pants haven't already done that to you by that point?
Once during my days as a Disneyland CM, I saw a guest wearing a shirt that had a revised version of “someday my prince will come,” with the “come” being spelled the other way, if you catch my drift. The text was in the classic Disney font and was not very large, but I was able to notice it up close. That absolutely distracted me and is much more inappropriate than a male CM wearing nail polish or having a small tattoo.
 

gkr889

New Member
Once during my days as a Disneyland CM, I saw a guest wearing a shirt that had a revised version of “someday my prince will come,” with the “come” being spelled the other way, if you catch my drift. The text was in the classic Disney font and was not very large, but I was able to notice it up close. That absolutely distracted me and is much more inappropriate than a male CM wearing nail polish or having a small tattoo.
Oh, I don't even want to think about some of the things I've seen written in the Disney font on guests t shirts
 

TalkingHead

Well-Known Member
Answer: 3 years

 

SuddenStorm

Well-Known Member
This is a while other issue, and should be getting corrected at the front gate. But again, with social media, I’m sure it would be all over TikTok in seconds “cast member won’t let me be authentic self at Disneyland”

Disneyland used to actually enforce a dress code for their guests. Not as strict as the employee one, but there was an expectation that you look decent while in the park.

Disney really should be cracking down on clothing with vulgar writing/images since those have no place in a family destination resort.
 

trojanjustin

Well-Known Member
I think my bigger issue with this change is they are combining the gender identity & inclusion with the watering down of the Disney Look standards. The culture has come a long way with regards to transgender and gender non-conforming people, that's great and Disney should make it easier for these people to be costumed in a way that makes them comfortable. This has nothing to do with tattoos, piercings and other things which detract from the show.
 

SuddenStorm

Well-Known Member
I really hope that Disney thought about the Disney park legacy/reputation among guests over the last few decades and how they want the parks to be perceived by guests in the future.

The Disney look has always been a huge part of their 'advertising' of the Disney difference- but now their Disney look is pretty standard fare, with no discernable difference from any other workplace. Which is totally fine- standards change and evolve over time- but Disney has to be very careful about how they adapt to changing cultural norms.

Allowing increased cultural/religious attire/jewelry among CM's is a huge win. The Disney look already allowed for religious exemptions, but broadening this to allow people to honor their culture while working in the park is the absolute right way to increase diversity/inclusivity. If a man's hairstyle is culturally appropriate and professional- but it's longer hair then Disney allowed before- then I think it's just fine.

However, allowing someone to display their tattoo they got on their forearm that has no cultural/religious value beyond someone trying to express themselves doesn't seem like the right approach to me. While working, the cast member is representing Disney as a brand, not themselves- just like when you work at any company. But Disney has placed great value on their brand since the '50s, whereas Mcdonald's has not.

This doesn't even touch on the huge decline in the quality of service CM's provide as a whole. So now if the "Disney Look" is no different then any other amusement park, and if the level of service provided is not much better then anywhere else- what exactly is the Disney Difference? And at what point do we stop calling Disney employees the vanity term 'Cast Member" and start calling them "workers" like every other company?
 

Amidala

Well-Known Member
Some of these changes fall into that category. Notably those accommodating religious or cultural beliefs.

But several do not.

I do not think it is extreme to ask a man playing an 1880's butler to take off his matching pearl-drop earrings before he goes on stage to perform his role.

I do not think it is extreme to ask the hostess at the Tiki Room to cover up her ill-advised You Only Live Once tat on her forearm she got at a Myrtle Beach strip mall in 2013.

And yet Disney management has still retained its ability, spelled out in multiple paragraphs, to dictate what kind of sunglasses an employee may wear and when they must be removed when performing their jobs.

It's really odd how that works in HR. Sunglass regulations appear to be some sort of holy ground they dare not cross. 🤣

The text on a 'You Only Live Once' tattoo would have to tiny to the point of illegibility to comply with the size restrictions. Or maybe I just have small hands?

& I'm still a little confused as to how tattoos, jewelry and nail polish disrupt immersion but modern sunglasses and sneakers do not. Also, why would you take issue with a Mansion butler wearing pearl-drop earrings but (presumably) not a Mansion maid? Men have been wearing earrings for centuries. I'm not personally the type to nitpick and would be fine with with either, but if I had to pick, I would say something like an Apple watch would distract from the theme much more than earrings.
 

TP2000

Well-Known Member
The text on a 'You Only Live Once' tattoo would have to tiny to the point of illegibility to comply with the size restrictions. Or maybe I just have small hands?

& I'm still a little confused as to how tattoos, jewelry and nail polish disrupt immersion but modern sunglasses and sneakers do not. Also, why would you take issue with a Mansion butler wearing pearl-drop earrings but (presumably) not a Mansion maid? Men have been wearing earrings for centuries. I'm not personally the type to nitpick and would be fine with with either, but if I had to pick, I would say something like an Apple watch would distract from the theme much more than earrings.

All of those things are valid points.

Disneyland is not Colonial Williamsburg. It never was supposed to be, even though Walt visited there and Greenfield Village and other living history museums in the 1950's and he knew what they were trying to do. He took Disneyland in a different direction on purpose.

That said, Disney has invested billions and billions of dollars into their shows they present in their parks. They've spent more money on these shows than all the living history museums combined. It's a huge investment with every architectural and design detail obsessed over.

But a man taking off his earrings at his job is not asking too much. Especially if that man allegedly is a "Cast Member" playing a "role" in a "show", which is all terminology Disney has embraced for decades to try and differentiate itself from Six Flags or Cedar Park. The girl with the trashy Myrtle Beach tats and the black nail polish waking up Jose is no longer a "Cast Member" in a show, she is just an attendant starting a robot bird show. She can now just push the start button from the stool in the back and go back to texting on her phone for 15 minutes; the days of being a cast member in an elaborate show are rather pointless now.

If Disney can request that employees only wear certain types of sunglasses with certain frames and certain shades of lenses and that they remove them once they start talking to customers, then they could certainly tell the man being paid to be an 1880's butler to take off his gorgeous pearl-drop earrings before he steps onstage in an elaborately themed Victorian mansion.

Disney has made a conscious decision to keep sunglass rules in place, but no longer enforce other grooming rules that are just as easy for employees to abide by.

Lower standards allow for lower pay scales. Higher standards require higher pay scales. I think it's obvious why they've made some of these changes to what they require employees to do or not do to be employed there.
 
Last edited:

celluloid

Well-Known Member
Still out in the scorching summer heat. That's a fact. It is a good things they are wearing white. Now some can wear earrings, blue nail polish to add to their gold chains on their neck.

Again, I have done that role more than any other. There aee a lot of ibdoor tasks too. Of course mahority is outdoors and for months yes, it is very humid and hot. And shorts have been an option for a very long time.
 

SuddenStorm

Well-Known Member
There are a lot of changes that individually aren't a huge deal, but combined lead to an overall decrease in show quality.

Allowing CM's to take their costumes home, so you see them in full costume pumping gas after work? Sure not a huge deal, but not a plus either.
Visible tattoos on CM's inside the park? Individually not a huge deal, but combined with the lower service, wearing costumes homes, etc- it gives CM's a very different public perception.
 

gkr889

New Member
All of those things are valid points.

Disneyland is not Colonial Williamsburg. It never was supposed to be, even though Walt visited there and Fairfield Village and other living history museums in the 1950's and he knew what they were trying to do. He took Disneyland in a different direction on purpose.

That said, Disney has invested billions and billions of dollars into their shows they present in their parks. They've spent more money on these shows than all the living history museums combined. It's a huge investment with every architectural and design detail obsessed over.

But a man taking off his earrings at his job is not asking too much. Especially if that man allegedly is a "Cast Member" playing a "role" in a "show", which is all terminology Disney has embraced for decades to try and differentiate itself from Six Flags or Cedar Park. The girl with the trashy Myrtle Beach tats and the black nail polish waking up Jose is no longer a "Cast Member" in a show, she is just an attendant starting a robot bird show. She can now just push the start button from the stool in the back and go back to texting on her phone for 15 minutes; the days of being a cast member in an elaborate show are rather pointless now.

If Disney can request that employees only wear certain types of sunglasses with certain frames and certain shades of lenses and that they remove them once they start talking to customers, then they could certainly tell the man being paid to be an 1880's butler to take off his gorgeous pearl-drop earrings before he steps onstage in an elaborately themed Victorian mansion.

Disney has made a conscious decision to keep sunglass rules in place, but no longer enforce other grooming rules that are just as easy for employees to abide by.

Lower standards allow for lower pay scales. Higher standards require higher pay scales. I think it's obvious why they've made some of these changes to what they require employees to do or not do to be employed there
Part of what this is trying to rectify is the inequity of those requests. In the past they would request of men, or non binary people or male presenting trans people to remove their earrings, but they wouldn't request the same of women, trans or cis, or of non binary people who look presumptuously "female," I don't get the sense that you're making this argument because you believe men shouldn't be wearing earrings, but I don't see how equity of expectations being afforded to all cast members suddenly means that the company cares less about presentation when those same expectations were always there just not applied equally. I feel it's also moot to equate this change to a sudden lack of concern with theme when you consider what those costumes really look like and all of the modern elements present and allowed that have nothing to do with the genre or the period of history in which they are set. A 65% polyester top with a Colombia style back vent and foot ball mesh underneath for air flow isn't all that accurate or immersive. As for the tattoos... what if these people are far more attentive and knowledgeable and enthusiastic about this job than half of the people already doing it? This is an attempt at removing the subjectivity of defining "professionalism" via aesthetic and letting someone's performance be the deciding factor instead.
 

TP2000

Well-Known Member
Part of what this is trying to rectify is the inequity of those requests. In the past they would request of men, or non binary people or male presenting trans people to remove their earrings, but they wouldn't request the same of women, trans or cis, or of non binary people who look presumptuously "female," I don't get the sense that you're making this argument because you believe men shouldn't be wearing earrings, but I don't see how equity of expectations being afforded to all cast members suddenly means that the company cares less about presentation when those same expectations were always there just not applied equally.

Yes, this removes all gender rules. Previously a woman could wear earrings but a man couldn't. A man could shave his head but a woman couldn't. Etc., etc. Now that removes that and all rules apply to everyone, whether you are a man or a woman.

The Disneyland Look was designed and managed for decades to make the Cast Members as unobtrusive to the show as possible. They were not the show, they were not the stars, they were merely the supporting cast. I know it's fashionable for young folks who may not understand how the Disneyland Look was created in the early 1960's and how it was shepherded to refinement in the following decades to feel that it's stifling and tries to implement some sort of "1950's aesthetic" onto employees.

But it was really just designed to let the park, the real star of the show, shine as brightly as possible without minor roles in the chorus shouting "Look at me! I'm fashionable!".

Disneyland was the star, everything else was in the supporting role. There's nothing racist or transphobic or misogynist about that concept, although some folks have revised history today to frame it that way. That's unfortunate and shows a clear lack of understanding about what the Disney Look was trying to do historically.

I feel it's also moot to equate this change to a sudden lack of concern with theme when you consider what those costumes really look like and all of the modern elements present and allowed that have nothing to do with the genre or the period of history in which they are set. A 65% polyester top with a Colombia style back vent and foot ball mesh underneath for air flow isn't all that accurate or immersive. As for the tattoos... what if these people are far more attentive and knowledgeable and enthusiastic about this job than half of the people already doing it? This is an attempt at removing the subjectivity of defining "professionalism" via aesthetic and letting someone's performance be the deciding factor instead.

Again, we get to the issue that Disneyland is obviously not a living history museum. Main Street USA is not a curated reconstruction of Marceline, Missouri circa 1905. The stark reality of Marceline in 1905 was far more muddy, and grey, and drab, and downtrodden than Walt's version he created for the park. So of course the shop clerk uniforms are not totally accurate. And why would an entire town's population dress in the same two skirts and two vests anyway? They wouldn't.

But the Cast Members who worked there were expected to put some effort into the show. To blend in, not stand out, to support the star. Several of these latest changes to the Disney Look do the opposite, and allow employees to now stand out, look different, attract attention, assert modern individuality, and pretend they are the star! They aren't.

The park is still the star. At least for now. We'll have to check back in a year or two on that one. 🧐
 

corran horn

Well-Known Member
Not sure treating castmember visbility with as much caring as park benches or trashcans is the way to go.

Disney would say it's their castmembers that make the magic. Not some 50+ year old dark ride or some animatronic.

This is a way to retain and attract talent I'd say. Not to shove them into a box from the 60s.
 

TP2000

Well-Known Member
If Disneyland really was a living history museum, a new take on Colonial Williamsburg or Greenfield Village, then Main Street USA as a recreation of Marceline, Missouri would have turned out looking like this dreary yet realistic photo taken in the early 1900's.

57723d67ecb5425a649e729fe3bfc705.jpg


Instead, Walt took the Disneyland show in a totally different direction from living history museums. He used the artistry of Hollywood set design and movie making to make a stylized environment. A version of Marceline infinitely cleaner, and prettier, and perkier. He even scented the air with vanilla, instead of the ripening horse manure you see in the photo above.

So we got a Disneyland whose Main Street USA looks like this instead...

dsc370570983.jpg


The Cast Members in that show took on a similarly idyllic and thoroughly unrealistic version of that town. Perfectly groomed, carefully accessorized, entirely non-confrontational. They performed important roles in this show, but they weren't the stars. They were merely supporting cast who were supposed to look as perfect and pretty as the fanciful architecture, but also just blend in to the surroundings.

Disneyland was the star. Not the churro salesman or the shop clerk.
 
Last edited:

castlecake2.0

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Yes, this removes all gender rules. Previously a woman could wear earrings but a man couldn't. A man could shave his head but a woman couldn't. Etc., etc. Now that removes that and all rules apply to everyone, whether you are a man or a woman.

The Disneyland Look was designed and managed for decades to make the Cast Members as unobtrusive to the show as possible. They were not the show, they were not the stars, they were merely the supporting cast. I know it's fashionable for young folks who may not understand how the Disneyland Look was created in the early 1960's and how it was shepherded to refinement in the following decades to feel that it's stifling and tries to implement some sort of "1950's aesthetic" onto employees.

But it was really just designed to let the park, the real star of the show, shine as brightly as possible without minor roles in the chorus shouting "Look at me! I'm fashionable!".

Disneyland was the star, everything else was in the supporting role. There's nothing racist or transphobic or misogynist about that concept, although some folks have revised history today to frame it that way. That's unfortunate and shows a clear lack of understanding about what the Disney Look was trying to do historically.



Again, we get to the issue that Disneyland is obviously not a living history museum. Main Street USA is not a curated reconstruction of Marceline, Missouri circa 1905. The stark reality of Marceline in 1905 was far more muddy, and grey, and drab, and downtrodden than Walt's version he created for the park. So of course the shop clerk uniforms are not totally accurate. And why would an entire town's population dress in the same two skirts and two vests anyway? They wouldn't.

But the Cast Members who worked there were expected to put some effort into the show. To blend in, not stand out, to support the star. Several of these latest changes to the Disney Look do the opposite, and allow employees to now stand out, look different, attract attention, assert modern individuality, and pretend they are the star! They aren't.

The park is still the star. At least for now. We'll have to check back in a year or two on that one. 🧐
It all boils down to current social media generation demanding “look at me look at me I’m so unique!” That’s great, off the clock, not at this particular job
 

TP2000

Well-Known Member
Not sure treating castmember visbility with as much caring as park benches or trashcans is the way to go.

One could make a valid argument that Disney has invested Billions and Billions of dollars over the decades into their parks and their physical structures. Have they invested that much into the people who work in those facilities? I don't know that they have.

It might not be a bad thing if they started investing as much into CM's as they do into park benches and trashcans.

Disney would say it's their castmembers that make the magic. Not some 50+ year old dark ride or some animatronic.

Disney would say that, because that is good PR. Especially in an HR training class. But people don't fly across the Atlantic because a CM is going to ask them to pull on their yellow tab, they fly across the Atlantic because they get to go on Space Mountain.

This is a way to retain and attract talent I'd say. Not to shove them into a box from the 60s.

This is a way to broaden the labor pool and suppress future wage growth. You may now get some tatted up darling person who makes for a fabulous churro salesman but never applied because of their tats, but that's not why these changes were made.

The bulk of these changes were to widen the labor pool and thus make the costs of labor cheaper for the company. Higher standards require higher pay. Lower standards allow for lower pay.
 

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

Top Bottom