Splash Mountain re-theme announced

[Donaldfan1934]

Well if they’re swayed by petitions and there are so many more petitioners asking them to keep Splash as it is, they’ll change their decision. No worries.

To be fair, I’m not saying your perspective is necessarily right or wrong. I just wanted to make it clear that an opposing perspective isn’t entirely unreasonable given the circumstances.

 

[Sue_Vongello]

Well I’ve had 36 years’ worth of experience with WDW vacations so I do have some basis for my opinion of the company and how it has operated through the years. Disney has always been progressive and inclusive. For example, the company went over and above in accommodating the disabled well before the law required it to the extent it does now. I believe the change to SM is a continuation of how the company has always operated.

But even if your theory is correct, the company is still doing what it wants - just for less exemplary reasons. Petitions aren’t going to change anything.

You're assuming I have no association or experience with Disney from a guest or maybe perhaps even a business perspective. You're also assuming I haven't been privy to high level decision making at maybe perhaps Disney or any other similarly large corporation.

Are there some companies that make decisions out of moral ideas and righteous intentions? Yes.

Is Disney one of those companies? No.

And that's not meant to disparage Disney or some of the really good people that work there. It's just being pragmatic about the nature of a large corporation. A billion dollar public corporation has to be careful and calculated. It doesn't mean there aren't people that don't want it to be. It doesn't mean there aren't people in high levels that want to make these decisions because of some moral agenda. However, a company on Disney's level has many many many people that have to weigh in on the decision and at the end of the day, decisions are made solely on the merits of revenue, publicity, or marketing.

Some times those moral agendas can fit in those categories and they can "kill two birds with one stone" but the conversation isn't started because someone wants to do the right thing. There is no such thing as "moral meetings" ... there are marketing meetings, sales meetings, and finance meetings.

As an example, I am a part of two "minority" groups. Whenever Disney does something like provide special merchandise catering to those communities- my first thought isn't, "oh wow, they are being inclusive and they care about me!" No ... my first thought is "someone in marketing knows what I want" And they are right because I buy it all up.

Maybe I am cynical or maybe I am an old lady that has spent too many meetings in board rooms discussing these types of issues.

My point is, if you want to celebrate the decision to change Splash Mountain because you've boycotted the ride for all these years, go right ahead and celebrate the change. But I would strongly offer this advice - I would hesitate to celebrate the "decision makers" in Disney as if they were operating purely from altruistic places. Because in all likelihood this decision was motivated out of a place of marketing (PatF merch is easier to sell then SotS merch) and knee jerk publicity (BLM movement and the parks in DL not reopening).

 

[Chi84]

You're assuming I have no association or experience with Disney from a guest or maybe perhaps even a business perspective. You're also assuming I haven't been privy to high level decision making at maybe perhaps Disney or any other similarly large corporation.

Are there some companies that make decisions out of moral ideas and righteous intentions? Yes.

Is Disney one of those companies? No.

And that's not meant to disparage Disney or some of the really good people that work there. It's just being pragmatic about the nature of a large corporation. A billion dollar public corporation has to be careful and calculated. It doesn't mean there aren't people that don't want it to be. It doesn't mean there aren't people in high levels that want to make these decisions because of some moral agenda. However, a company on Disney's level has many many many people that have to weigh in on the decision and at the end of the day, decisions are made solely on the merits of revenue, publicity, or marketing.

Some times those moral agendas can fit in those categories and they can "kill two birds with one stone" but the conversation isn't started because someone wants to do the right thing. There is no such thing as "moral meetings" ... there are marketing meetings, sales meetings, and finance meetings.

As an example, I am a part of two "minority" groups. Whenever Disney does something like provide special merchandise catering to those communities- my first thought isn't, "oh wow, they are being inclusive and they care about me!" No ... my first thought is "someone in marketing knows what I want" And they are right because I buy it all up.

Maybe I am cynical or maybe I am an old lady that has spent too many meetings in board rooms discussing these types of issues.

My point is, if you want to celebrate the decision to change Splash Mountain because you've boycotted the ride for all these years, go right ahead and celebrate the change. But I would strongly offer this advice - I would hesitate to celebrate the "decision makers" in Disney as if they were operating purely from altruistic places. Because in all likelihood this decision was motivated out of a place of marketing (PatF merch is easier to sell then SotS merch) and knee jerk publicity (BLM movement and the parks in DL not reopening).

I wasn’t assuming anything at all about you; I just mentioned my own experience. I didn't challenge the validity of your opinion - I simply disagree with you.

I love the change because I believe it will be more inclusive and relevant to current guests. If Disney made the decision out of a desire for profit and publicly I’m okay with that. Either way the ride improves.

 

[Flugell]

I wasn’t assuming anything at all about you; I just mentioned my own experience. I simply disagree with you.

I love the change because I believe it will be more inclusive and relevant to current guests. If Disney made the decision out of a desire for profit and publicly I’m okay with that. Either way the ride improves.

Perhaps we should wait and see what the new ride is like before we say the ride improves. I am talking about the quality of the ride not the morality of either old or new ride. Until it is built how can you make such a claim?

 

[Chi84]

Perhaps we should wait and see what the new ride is like before we say the ride improves. I am talking about the quality of the ride not the morality of either old or new ride. Until it is built how can you make such a claim?

I was talking about the societal aspects of the ride, not its quality. I have nothing against the current version of Splash, but the characters always seemed outdated. I believe the planned theme will make Disney more inclusive and the ride more relevant to newer generations of guests .

With respect to quality, I can't say for certain or speak for others, but I'm rarely disappointed with the changes Disney makes (with the possible exception of Figment's Journey into what the h*ll). Possibly it's just my perspective. We visit Disney often enough that we look forward to experiences changing from time to time. I don't get emotionally attached to ride themes, shows or restaurants, although I can certainly understand why others do.

Based on my experience with Disney, I am optimistic that the new Splash will be done well. I know there are many on this board who think Disney has been going downhill since the day it opened, and they are very vocal. This is just my opinion. I don't want to start an argument about the Adventurer's Club.

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

You're assuming I have no association or experience with Disney from a guest or maybe perhaps even a business perspective. You're also assuming I haven't been privy to high level decision making at maybe perhaps Disney or any other similarly large corporation.

Are there some companies that make decisions out of moral ideas and righteous intentions? Yes.

Is Disney one of those companies? No.

And that's not meant to disparage Disney or some of the really good people that work there. It's just being pragmatic about the nature of a large corporation. A billion dollar public corporation has to be careful and calculated. It doesn't mean there aren't people that don't want it to be. It doesn't mean there aren't people in high levels that want to make these decisions because of some moral agenda. However, a company on Disney's level has many many many people that have to weigh in on the decision and at the end of the day, decisions are made solely on the merits of revenue, publicity, or marketing.

Some times those moral agendas can fit in those categories and they can "kill two birds with one stone" but the conversation isn't started because someone wants to do the right thing. There is no such thing as "moral meetings" ... there are marketing meetings, sales meetings, and finance meetings.

As an example, I am a part of two "minority" groups. Whenever Disney does something like provide special merchandise catering to those communities- my first thought isn't, "oh wow, they are being inclusive and they care about me!" No ... my first thought is "someone in marketing knows what I want" And they are right because I buy it all up.

Maybe I am cynical or maybe I am an old lady that has spent too many meetings in board rooms discussing these types of issues.

My point is, if you want to celebrate the decision to change Splash Mountain because you've boycotted the ride for all these years, go right ahead and celebrate the change. But I would strongly offer this advice - I would hesitate to celebrate the "decision makers" in Disney as if they were operating purely from altruistic places. Because in all likelihood this decision was motivated out of a place of marketing (PatF merch is easier to sell then SotS merch) and knee jerk publicity (BLM movement and the parks in DL not reopening).

I mostly agree with your post.
Except, Disney has NOT marketed Tiana very much. About two years ago, I was standing in a Disney Store, and they had a BIG display of their 11" dolls. They had pretty much all the male and female fairytale dolls from: Mulan, Moana, Snow White, Little Mermaid, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Pocahontas, , Beauty +Beast, Merida, Frozen, Aladdin....but one Disney princess/prince pair was missing.

I wasn't paying much attention to the display until a young lady walked by and somewhat loudly pointed this out. Sure enough, there were no Tiana or Naveen dolls. That was sad on so many levels.

Currently on Disney website out of I think 286 total girl shirts design options: 7 have Tiana/PatF, 18 have Jasmine/Aladdin, and 15 have Belle/ B+B.

For women's shirts: 5 feature Tiana/PatF, 9 feature Jasmine/Aladdin, 10 feature belle/B+B.

(I just picked Tiana nd two other random princesses to count. No special reason why I picked these two. )

 

[Kate F]

If this were some sort of generic flume ride in a regular amusement park, then I’d understand why it seems a bit overboard to grieve this heavily about it. This is on a completely different level and I find Disney’s dismissive attitude towards the countless fans of one of the most popular rides of all time to be an insult.

Notice how everywhere you look, the emphasis is placed on how excited people should be about the new version and how the rides legacy as one of the best and most beloved in the World is glossed over?

 

[Willmark]

You're assuming I have no association or experience with Disney from a guest or maybe perhaps even a business perspective. You're also assuming I haven't been privy to high level decision making at maybe perhaps Disney or any other similarly large corporation.

Are there some companies that make decisions out of moral ideas and righteous intentions? Yes.

Is Disney one of those companies? No.

And that's not meant to disparage Disney or some of the really good people that work there. It's just being pragmatic about the nature of a large corporation. A billion dollar public corporation has to be careful and calculated. It doesn't mean there aren't people that don't want it to be. It doesn't mean there aren't people in high levels that want to make these decisions because of some moral agenda. However, a company on Disney's level has many many many people that have to weigh in on the decision and at the end of the day, decisions are made solely on the merits of revenue, publicity, or marketing.

Some times those moral agendas can fit in those categories and they can "kill two birds with one stone" but the conversation isn't started because someone wants to do the right thing. There is no such thing as "moral meetings" ... there are marketing meetings, sales meetings, and finance meetings.

As an example, I am a part of two "minority" groups. Whenever Disney does something like provide special merchandise catering to those communities- my first thought isn't, "oh wow, they are being inclusive and they care about me!" No ... my first thought is "someone in marketing knows what I want" And they are right because I buy it all up.

Maybe I am cynical or maybe I am an old lady that has spent too many meetings in board rooms discussing these types of issues.

My point is, if you want to celebrate the decision to change Splash Mountain because you've boycotted the ride for all these years, go right ahead and celebrate the change. But I would strongly offer this advice - I would hesitate to celebrate the "decision makers" in Disney as if they were operating purely from altruistic places. Because in all likelihood this decision was motivated out of a place of marketing (PatF merch is easier to sell then SotS merch) and knee jerk publicity (BLM movement and the parks in DL not reopening).

Disney is in the business to make $. Any decisions that coincide with Disney “values” (whatever they may be) is a far distant second to profits.

That’s not stating or endorsing pros or cons of said values rather it’s speaking to their ultimate goal. Of which you well described.

TLDR? I agree.

 

[Kate F]

Disney is in the business to make $. Any decisions that coincide with Disney “values” (whatever they may be) is a far distant second to profits.

That’s not stating or endorsing pros or cons of said values rather it’s speaking to their ultimate goal. Of which you well described.

TLDR? I agree.

More money would be made from keeping the ride as is and opening a new Princess and the Frog attraction elsewhere. If that’s the main concern.

 

[Chi84]

If this were some sort of generic flume ride in a regular amusement park, then I’d understand why it seems a bit overboard to grieve this heavily about it. This is on a completely different level and I find Disney’s dismissive attitude towards the countless fans of one of the most popular rides of all time to be an insult.

Notice how everywhere you look, the emphasis is placed on how excited people should be about the new version and how the rides legacy as one of the best and most beloved in the World is glossed over?

Honestly, I don’t think there’s such widespread agreement (outside of these boards) that Splash is one of the most popular rides of all time or one of the best and most beloved in WDW. I suspect people love the extended flume ride and the jumping water etc. but it’s hard for me to believe people are so captivated by those particular characters. But I have no way of knowing that for certain. I guess it’s just a matter of opinion. There’s something for everyone at Disney.

 

[Willmark]

More money would be made from keeping the ride as is and opening a new Princess and the Frog attraction elsewhere. If that’s the main concern.

Not really. They have limited ability to push merch which is the trend because I’m fairly sure the profit margins are far greater then operating the ride.

Ultimately, I have no horse in this race as it were. I’m not a Disney fan, (Mrs Willmark is). I just like the fact I’m not at work while there.

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

I know there are many on this board who think Disney has been going downhill since the day it opened, and they are very vocal. This is just my opinion. I don't want to start an argument about the Adventurer's Club.

I definitely don't think WDW has been going downhill since they opened. I take each new feature as it comes. Some have been hits and some misses. When it comes to re-theming rides, I'd say WDW has a mixed record. This has the potential to be good, but this long closure is costing WDW a LOT of $, and they already have many projects. so I'm skeptical that they are going to think big on this one.

The cynical side of me said- along the lines of Sue's post, that this was more about making money than anything else. Only I don't think they did it to market Tiana. I think it was more an effort to avert negative publicity.

As I said earlier though...a braver option would have been to re-tell the original folktales in way that everyone could enjoy. I think that has the potential to be even more beneficial for everyone. More of a highlight and uplift approach. People object every time WDW removes so much as a menu item. Redoing a major ride is certain to upset many people, because so much of WDW is about holding onto childhood nostalgia. That's what Disney has marketed for years.

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

Honestly, I don’t think there’s such widespread agreement (outside of these boards) that Splash is one of the most popular rides of all time or one of the best and most beloved in WDW. I suspect people love the extended flume ride and the jumping water etc. but it’s hard for me to believe people are so captivated by those particular characters. But I have no way of knowing that for certain. I guess it’s just a matter of opinion. There’s something for everyone at Disney.

I dunno...I've been on Disney boards long enough to remember folks getting upset over relatively small menu changes.

If WDW did away wit Dole Whips? Phew! (Mind, I personally miss the smell of Nestle Tollhouse cookies.)

Oh, yeah. In the old days, many people frequently complained about WDW's terrible coffee. I read many posts from people who begged to be able to get Starbucks coffee at WDW instead of Nescafe, but when Starbucks took over the Main Street Bakery? Phew!

Since the start of paper FP, Splash has been a FP attraction with long waits. As for loving the wet, I've read countless water anxiety threads regarding Splash. Not all of them were on this Disney board, but oh so many people asking how to avoid getting wet. I had no idea people were so afraid of WATER! Yet the ride still has long waits almost all the time.

 

[Chi84]

I definitely don't think WDW has been going downhill since they opened. I take each new feature as it comes. Some have been hits and some misses. When it comes to re-theming rides, I'd say WDW has a mixed record. This has the potential to be good, but this long closure is costing WDW a LOT of $, and they already have many projects. so I'm skeptical that they are going to think big on this one.

The cynical side of me said- along the lines of Sue's post, that this was more about making money than anything else. Only I don't think they did it to market Tiana. I think it was more an effort to avert negative publicity.

As I said earlier though...a braver option would have been to re-tell the original folktales in way that everyone could enjoy. I think that has the potential to be even more beneficial for everyone. More of a highlight and uplift approach. People object every time WDW removes so much as a menu item. Redoing a major ride is certain to upset many people, because so much of WDW is about holding onto childhood nostalgia. That's what Disney has marketed for years.

I know you quoted only part of my post to save room but the redacted version makes it look like it’s my opinion that Disney has been going downhill. That’s the opposite of what I think.

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

True, but the transatlantic slave trade was singularly egregious in scale and impact, and the descendants of other enslaved individuals and groups generally ended up being untraceably absorbed into their “host” populations. Unlike the vast majority of us who are just speculating about our ancestry, African Americans know that they are descended from slaves. I can’t imagine what that must feel like.

If you or anyone else is interested...in the 1930's a massive effort was made to record the personal accounts of every formerly enslaved person (that was still alive). They are posted on the Library of Congress' website.

Mind, the accounts were collected in 1936-1938, roughly 70 years after the American Civil War ended. Still, a remarkable number of people were still alive to share their experiences. Many were in their upper 80's.

Also important to remember when reading their accounts is that the 1800's were very different from 2020. (not you personally, but all of us should remember this when reading accounts from the 1800's.) Many people used outhouses. Many- most? - people only had one or two outfits. Doing laundry by hand was a major task. People didn't bathe like people do in 2020. Women couldn't own property, except MARRIED women eventually were able to own - but not control -property on paper. Tennessee was the 1st state to even have a law against wife beating, in 1850. In 2020, we might read about enslaved people only having one pair of shoes, through the prism of 2020 when shoes are cheap and most people have multiple pairs, instead of remembering most people only bought one pair of shoes per year. The battle of Gettysburg happened in part, because troops from both armies were in need of shoes! Many people went barefoot all summer in the 1800's! Many soldiers marched barefoot. That is hard to imagine in 2020.

That said, I've long thought their stories should be widely read by every American. Hearing their voices would be a meaningful way for everyone to appreciate them as real people.

 

[Sue_Vongello]

More money would be made from keeping the ride as is and opening a new Princess and the Frog attraction elsewhere. If that’s the main concern.

That’s probably not true as much as it pains me to say- because if the rumored budget for this is 30-35 million, well that’s at least a hundred million if not a few hundred million short of what a new land and ride would cost.

It’s another thing thats funny about the people celebrating this decision.

It’s a pretty cheap way to appease the tens of people clamoring for change.

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

Nevermind (minor mistake on my part.)

 

[Chi84]

That’s probably not true as much as it pains me to say- because if the rumored budget for this is 30-35 million, well that’s at least a hundred million if not a few hundred million short of what a new land and ride would cost.

It’s another thing thats funny about the people celebrating this decision.

It’s a pretty cheap way to appease the tens of people clamoring for change.

It is a start though. Maybe this is just the beginning. There’s no reason re-theming an old ride has to be all Disney does. Look on the bright side - maybe a new ride and land will be coming in the future.

 

[Kate F]

If you ask me, there is no bright side to this. None. They’re ripping out my favorite thing in any of the parks. No new rides and lands announced in the future will change that. But again, that’s just me.

 

[Kate F]

“Hey, we’re drastically changing your favorite ride at the parks, but it’s ok, we have Star Wars.”