New idea for splash mountain

[Chi84]

How is Pooh exclusive?

Just come out and say the reason instead of beating around the bush with vague terms that don’t really make sense.

They don’t have any rides with black human protagonists. And that’s a problem. It really is. But all of these terms added make it seem really fake and disingenuous. The lack of representation in characters is a company wide or a resort wide problem. Not a Splash Mountain specific problem.

And if you knew anything about Brer Rabbit, you’d realize that this isn’t necessarily adding to the representation. It’s swapping a spade for a spade. The only major difference is that this protagonist is a human instead of a rabbit. But I rest my case.

That's the second time with the language. Starting to look intentional. They want to add diverse characters that everyone will recognize as such without having to explain so much. They don't care if anyone knows anything about the rabbit.

There has to be a beginning to everything. Maybe this is just a first step for Disney - there's no reason why it can't make other rides more diverse too.

 

[champdisney]

Christopher Robin is a white anglo saxon Protestant boy from London. Definitely no inclusivity here. Pooh and company are his imagination. (Don't shoot the messenger. You wanted an explanation. This is it.)

That’s still a bit of a reach. Don’tcha think?

 

[JohnD]

That’s still a bit of a reach. Don’tcha think?

I'm just telling you. That's today's thinking. Winnie the Pooh is the imagination of a white English boy. Pooh already has its own ride anyway. Versus Princess and the Frog is about a black Cajun girl who becomes a princess. She hits all the right markers and the story is good anyway.

 

[NateD1226]

They will never change Splash. Not when they can`t afford a new film for Soarin` or to patch up a hole on POTC...

This aged very poorly...

 

[Brer Oswald]

That's the second time with the language. Starting to look intentional. They want to add diverse characters that everyone will recognize as such without having to explain so much. They don't care if anyone knows anything about the rabbit.

There has to be a beginning to everything. Maybe this is just a first step for Disney - there's no reason why it can't make other rides more diverse too.

When Disney takes on a Prexisting Intellectual Property, they also take on the responsibility of directing public perception in regards to the property. When people think of Snow White, Cinderella, Peter Pan, the Little Mermaid, etc, the Disney version is the first thing to come to mind. As is the case with Brer Rabbit.

Burrying the characters because their first adaptation is a reckless and irresponsible thing to do. They’ve ruined the public perception of these characters, who date way back to before the 19th century in Africa. It’s why I can’t necessarily fault you or anyone else for this perception. But I can at least ask for you to understand why some people are upset about this. It’s beyond matters of a theme park ride or a 1946 movie.

As a company, they aren’t obligated to protect the IP. But, if you want to argue morals, which many are including the company themselves in their Parks Blog, they still have that responsibility. Maybe it’s not a theme park ride. Maybe you need to remove the songs.

But strictly arguing morals and culture, locking the Brer Rabbit character in a vault, deeming him offensive, insignificant, and not worth the audiences time is not something that should be applauded.

 

[Brer Oswald]

Christopher Robin is a white anglo saxon Protestant boy from London. Definitely no inclusivity here. Pooh and company are his imagination. (Don't shoot the messenger. You wanted an explanation. This is it.)

I think maybe we’re at a cross roads where the terms “exclusivity” and “inclusivity” don’t really fit the situation. Christopher Robin isn’t the main aspect of the Pooh IP.

The stuffed animals, all of which are different animals with different personalities, are the main focus. It’s about how they interact and get along as a family.

You can make a call for the company to have a more diverse set of IP from a multitude of backgrounds.

If Winnie the Pooh is “exclusive” because it has a white boy as a character, would Mulan be “exclusive” to others who aren’t from China? I don’t think so. The issue you’re trying to call to is the overall catalogue. Not the specific franchise itself.

 

[JohnD]

I think maybe we’re at a cross roads where the terms “exclusivity” and “inclusivity” don’t really fit the situation. Christopher Robin isn’t the main aspect of the Pooh IP.

The stuffed animals, all of which are different animals with different personalities, are the main focus. It’s about how they interact and get along as a family.

You can make a call for the company to have a more diverse set of IP from a multitude of backgrounds.

If Winnie the Pooh is “exclusive” because it has a white boy as a character, would Mulan be “exclusive” to others who aren’t from China? I don’t think so. The issue you’re trying to call to is the overall catalogue. Not the specific franchise itself.

I'm not necessarily arguing with you but explaining the prevailing thinking. You don't like the fact that Splash is being rethemed from Brer Rabbit because he's just a rabbit. Well, it's the same thinking. Brer Rabbit is derived from Song of the South. Song of the South is deemed, well, no longer politically correct. Therefore, all characters derived from that movie are no longer politically correct. At the same time, retheming Splash Mountain to a story based on the imagination of a white English boy won't cut it either, regardless of what characters are featured. An IP of diversity and inclusivity is called for. Theming to Princess and the Frog is obvious and, in fact, is the direct counter to Song of the South. To quote Elsa, "Let it go."

 

[champdisney]

I'm just telling you. That's today's thinking. Winnie the Pooh is the imagination of a white English boy. Pooh already has its own ride anyway. Versus Princess and the Frog is about a black Cajun girl who becomes a princess. She hits all the right markers and the story is good anyway.

Correct. That is today’s mentality and a false one at that. We’re talking about grown adults taking issue to works of fiction targeted towards children. Granted, Pooh hasn’t been a subject of interest for these people, at least not yet... in other words let’s just end the Pooh conversation here.

Before someone really takes issue that the one human character in those stories is white.

 

[marni1971]

This aged very poorly...

How DID you find that from 16 years ago ??!

 

[JohnD]

Correct. That is today’s mentality and a false one at that. We’re talking about grown adults taking issue to works of fiction targeted towards children. Granted, Pooh hasn’t been a subject of interest for these people, at least not yet... in other words let’s just end the Pooh conversation here.

Before someone really takes issue that the one human character in those stories is white.

Correct. I never said I liked it. Just explained the thinking.

 

[Brer Oswald]

I'm not necessarily arguing with you but explaining the prevailing thinking. You don't like the fact that Splash is being rethemed from Brer Rabbit because he's just a rabbit. Well, it's the same thinking. Brer Rabbit is derived from Song of the South. Song of the South is deemed, well, no longer politically correct. Therefore, all characters derived from that movie are no longer politically correct. At the same time, retheming Splash Mountain to a story based on the imagination of a white English boy won't cut it either, regardless of what characters are featured. An IP of diversity and inclusivity is called for. Theming to Princess and the Frog is obvious and, in fact, is the direct counter to Song of the South. To quote Elsa, "Let it go."

That’s just it. Brer Rabbit isn’t derived from “Song of the South”. It’s derived from the Brer Rabbit folklore tales, which were adapted in Disney’s Song of the South.

Your assumption that all characters from the movie are now no longer politically correct is exactly what I was describing in Disney “taking on the responsibility of representing a story when they adapt it”.

PatF isn’t anymore inclusive than Winnie the Pooh. You could argue it’s less inclusive to the general audience because of the varied personality types and little to no dependence on human characters. More people in general are going to be able to relate.

HOWEVER, what you are trying to call for is more diverse representation in the catalogue of offerings at the parks, which is correct. Replacing Splash with Pooh actually would take away from that. Replacing Splash with PatF doesn’t take away nor does it add, although it does change it to one that is deemed more relevant (and more easily understood to the general audience).

 

[JohnD]

That’s just it. Brer Rabbit isn’t derived from “Song of the South”. It’s derived from the Brer Rabbit folklore tales, which were adapted in Disney’s Song of the South.

Your assumption that all characters from the movie are now no longer politically correct is exactly what I was describing in Disney “taking on the responsibility of representing a story when they adapt it”.

PatF isn’t anymore inclusive than Winnie the Pooh. You could argue it’s less inclusive to the general audience because of the varied personality types and little to no dependence on human characters. More people in general are going to be able to relate.

HOWEVER, what you are trying to call for is more diverse representation in the catalogue of offerings at the parks, which is correct. Replacing Splash with Pooh actually would take away from that. Replacing Splash with PatF doesn’t take away nor does it add, although it does change it to one that is deemed more relevant (and more easily understood to the general audience).

I'm not calling for anything. Regarding Brer Rabbit, you're splitting "hares". Sure, every Disney story is derived from folklore. But these characters are the ones as featured in Song of the South. I'm just explaining the decision making process that went into changing the theming.

 

[Brer Oswald]

I'm not calling for anything. I'm just explaining the decision making process that went into changing the theming.

I understand that. I’m critiquing the use of the words “inclusive” and “diverse”. You aren’t making the ride more or less of either of those two things. But an argument can be made that you are making the park’s offerings as a whole “more diverse”.

 

[ppete1975]

When Disney takes on a Prexisting Intellectual Property, they also take on the responsibility of directing public perception in regards to the property. When people think of Snow White, Cinderella, Peter Pan, the Little Mermaid, etc, the Disney version is the first thing to come to mind. As is the case with Brer Rabbit.

Burrying the characters because their first adaptation is a reckless and irresponsible thing to do. They’ve ruined the public perception of these characters, who date way back to before the 19th century in Africa. It’s why I can’t necessarily fault you or anyone else for this perception. But I can at least ask for you to understand why some people are upset about this. It’s beyond matters of a theme park ride or a 1946 movie.

As a company, they aren’t obligated to protect the IP. But, if you want to argue morals, which many are including the company themselves in their Parks Blog, they still have that responsibility. Maybe it’s not a theme park ride. Maybe you need to remove the songs.

But strictly arguing morals and culture, locking the Brer Rabbit character in a vault, deeming him offensive, insignificant, and not worth the audiences time is not something that should be applauded.

you realize halle berry is playing ariel in the new movie.... they are changing their own disney version now..

 

[Brer Oswald]

you realize halle berry is playing ariel in the new movie.... they are changing their own disney version now..

I don’t see a problem with that. If the film is good, it’s still a good representation of the story. And if it bombs the animated film is still popular.

 

[ppete1975]

I don’t see a problem with that. If the film is good, it’s still a good representation of the story. And if it bombs the animated film is still popular.

The disney version is a red head 16ish girl. Would people be upset if kate hudson played moana or tiana?

 

[Brer Oswald]

The disney version is a red head 16ish girl. Would people be upset if kate hudson played moana or tiana?

Alright, I’m not going to beat around the bush here. It’s different with Moana, or Tiana, or Mulan. There aren’t dozens of black, Asian, Polynesian protagonists leading Disney films. There are dozens upon dozens of white leads in Disney films.

That’s why it’s okay to change these things in the live action films. Regardless, these live action films act as supplements to the animated films, not replacements.

This has little to do with the point that I made. I said that when Disney adapts a story, they have a responsibility of preserving the story and maintaining the public perception of said story. They’ve succeeded that with Little Mermaid and countless other European fairytales. They failed that with the Brer Rabbit tales.

They created some great animated segments and surrounded it with mostly unrelated live action filler. 95% of the problems people have with the film are contained in that live action filler and have nothing to do with Brer Rabbit. Yet, because of this narrative failure, Brer Rabbit is now being labelled as a symbol of what he was created to stand against. That is on Disney.

The responsible thing would have been to isolate Brer Rabbit. Redo it. They’ve had 70+ years to fix this. They did a great adaptation as a theme park attraction, but the casuals look to the movies first! Movies are easier for the general public to understand. And what do they have to look at?

It’s sad. It’s unfortunate. It’s frustrating to know the truth, and just take crap from people who don’t know better. And honestly I can’t blame them. Who do you blame? I don’t think it would be just one person.

 

[Robbiem]

Alright, I’m not going to beat around the bush here. It’s different with Moana, or Tiana, or Mulan. There aren’t dozens of black, Asian, Polynesian protagonists leading Disney films. There are dozens upon dozens of white leads in Disney films.

That’s why it’s okay to change these things in the live action films. Regardless, these live action films act as supplements to the animated films, not replacements.

This has little to do with the point that I made. I said that when Disney adapts a story, they have a responsibility of preserving the story and maintaining the public perception of said story. They’ve succeeded that with Little Mermaid and countless other European fairytales. They failed that with the Brer Rabbit tales.

They created some great animated segments and surrounded it with mostly unrelated live action filler. 95% of the problems people have with the film are contained in that live action filler and have nothing to do with Brer Rabbit. Yet, because of this narrative failure, Brer Rabbit is now being labelled as a symbol of what he was created to stand against. That is on Disney.

The responsible thing would have been to isolate Brer Rabbit. Redo it. They’ve had 70+ years to fix this. They did a great adaptation as a theme park attraction, but the casuals look to the movies first! Movies are easier for the general public to understand. And what do they have to look at?

It’s sad. It’s unfortunate. It’s frustrating to know the truth, and just take crap from people who don’t know better. And honestly I can’t blame them. Who do you blame? I don’t think it would be just one person.

i have to say I disagree. To say its ok for people of one ethnicity to have parts protected but for others its wrong to recast is a form of racism no matter what you say. Actors should be able to play a role and that should be it. Its part of their job to play other people and I would support anyone’s ability to play any part.

I’m quite happy for Halle Berry to be the little mermaid or for Kate Hudson to be Moana if they are able to find the right character and play the part. When you start to say x person can’t be y because..... you are introducing predudice and discrimination.

At the end of the day entertainment is a business if people want change they should vote with their wallets and the studios will reply by changing their output

To fight discrimination by creating a different form of what they are fighting because it suits their POV isnt right

 

[Brer Oswald]

i have to say I disagree. To say its ok for people of one ethnicity to have parts protected but for others its wrong to recast is a form of racism no matter what you say. Actors should be able to play a role and that should be it. Its part of their job to play other people and I would support anyone’s ability to play any part.

I’m quite happy for Halle Berry to be the little mermaid or for Kate Hudson to be Moana if they are able to find the right character and play the part. When you start to say x person can’t be y because..... you are introducing predudice and discrimination.

At the end of the day entertainment is a business if people want change they should vote with their wallets and the studios will reply by changing their output

To fight discrimination by creating a different form of what they are fighting because it suits their POV isnt right

I understand your perspective. But this situation is rather unique. If there were serveral black princesses, or several Asian princesses, it might be a bit different. But there aren’t. There are 1 each.

Perhaps if their background didn’t play a role in the story, it to would also be different. But I don’t see how you could do that with something like Mulan. Cultural relevance is important to some of these films. Mermaid? Not so much.

 

[HongKongFooy]

Depends

Considering a possible Pooh,
Why, yes!