Splash Mountain re-theme announced

[Incomudro]

It was Marvel itself who revealed the books don't sell and the retailers were furious about it ...

"What we heard was that people didn’t want any more diversity. They didn’t want female characters out there. That’s what we heard, whether we believe that or not. I don’t know that that’s really true, but that’s what we saw in sales. We saw the sales of any character that was diverse, any character that was new, our female characters, anything that was not a core Marvel character, people were turning their nose up against. That was difficult for us because we had a lot of fresh, new, exciting ideas that we were trying to get out and nothing new really worked."

Imagine trying to push more maleness in a market where the consumers were primarily female?
Some tv show that mainly starred woman and/or who's market was mostly female?

 

[Californian Elitist]

It doesn’t matter. As I just said, Carano was brought up as a means to compare. I literally just said that.

It does matter. That snarky comment of yours at the end of your post was unnecessary because Buford’s question was obviously rhetorical.

We know why Carano was brought up. We can all go back through pages if posts and see that. That topic still doesn’t belong in this thread and has nothing to do with what’s happening with Splash.

I know you just said it, I just replied to the post in which you mentioned it. I can read.

 

[Brer Oswald]

I’ve quite often claimed that this board was way more mature and open to civilized discussions than Twitter. Especially for those with differing opinions. I regret even glancing here because I’m very disappointed at what I’m seeing. Dismissive arguing regardless of the opinion. It’s never to late to stop and reevaluate the situation.

Best of luck to you all.

 

[Sue_Vongello]

She is spewing the company’s altruistic stances on planned changes to the parks, but I think she makes her personal stance more clear by going a little bit off base in the video. When she brings up the Jungle Cruise changes, for example, she directly mentions that they’re happening to remove racial stereotypes even though that fact was very carefully avoided in even her own statement on the DPB announcement. https://disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/2021/01/new-adventures-to-cast-off-soon-along-world-famous-jungle-cruise-at-disneyland-park-and-magic-kingdom-park

There’s a lot to unpack here, but I think everyone here has valid points. On one hand, @Sue_Vongello is right that even corporate decisions that have the most altruistic PR are made with the same business driven intentions as everything else. On the other hand, @SunsetLament and @1HAPPYGHOSTHOST highlight that there are indeed ideologically driven individuals within Disney’s various division who want to use there positions as a platform and exert pressure on others to comply.

Personally, I think both can be true at the same time. The Splash Mountain situation is a perfect microcosm of this. Someone like Carmen Smith may actually believe the PR they’re spewing while at the same time, key decision makers in the company make their business driven motivations clear through inconsistencies in their message such as keeping the current attraction in operation until they see fit.

The one area in which I disagree with @Sue_Vongello, however, is that these decisions can’t fail. While it’s interesting to hear that she hasn’t seen businesses lose money on social or altruistic issues in her personal professional experience, it certainly doesn’t mean that there aren’t instances out there that either have backfired or will backfire once implemented. If every single business decision ever made went accordingly to their analytics and projections, there’d be no such thing as a failed business decision.

To be clear - we don’t disagree.

I didn’t say these ideas are not capable of failing. Nothing is 100%.

My point was in the planning stages before anything is rolled out. The company wouldn’t say “hey we have this idea, we’ve run the numbers and we are going to take a loss on this but we think it’s the right thing to do so let’s do it.” You know, committing to the plan at the idea stage knowing it’s going to be a zero or cost them money.

I was still right about that. That doesn’t happen because those decisions have to be explained to the board.

“Why are you doing something that will not generate income? Or cost us money?”

 

[LittleBuford]

The same motivations behind the firing of Carano (by Lucasfilm, a division of the Walt Disney Company) are the motivations behind the removal of Splash Mountain (by the Parks division of the Walt Disney Company).

You take the connection for granted, but I, for one, don’t see it. On the contrary, I think it’s precisely this sort of lumping together that prevents fruitful and nuanced discussion of specific topics and leads to the usual “woke mob” generalisations.

 

[Californian Elitist]

The same motivations behind the firing of Carano (by Lucasfilm, a division of the Walt Disney Company) are the motivations behind the removal of Splash Mountain (by the Parks division of the Walt Disney Company). It's why Carano's situation is relevant to this discussion. You can't discuss Splash Mountain's removal comprehensively without discussing the motivations of the company (and whether or not they are sound).

Hm? No. There really is no correlation.

 

[Californian Elitist]

You take the connection for granted, but I, for one, don’t see it. On the contrary, I think it’s precisely this sort of lumping together that prevents fruitful and nuanced discussion of specific topics and leads to the usual “woke mob” generalisations.

That’s exactly what it sounds like. Apparently anything related to the “woke mob” belongs in this thread because that’s the reason Splash is going bye-bye.

 

[LittleBuford]

In this case you and Buford continuously attempt to gain control of the conversation by dismissing something that a lot of us here tend to agree with.

This is a discussion forum, the very purpose of which is to share differing perspectives. I neither wish to nor have it in my power to “gain control of the conversation”. All I can do is post my own thoughts, some of which will be in opposition to what others have argued. If anyone doesn’t like what I have to say or feels I’m trying to dominate the discussion, I encourage them to put me on ignore. It seems that you, in particular, would benefit from filtering me out, as you have now complained about my posting style several times in several different threads.

 

[champdisney]

This is a discussion forum, the very purpose of which is to share differing perspectives. I neither wish to nor have it in my power to “gain control of the conversation”. All I can do is post my own thoughts, some of which will be in opposition to what others have argued. If anyone doesn’t like what I have to say or feels I’m trying to dominate the discussion, I encourage them to put me on ignore. It seems that you, in particular, would benefit from filtering me out, as you have now complained about my posting style several times in several different threads.

Why would I do that? I enjoy hearing different opinions and perspectives, that includes yours too. I just do not understand the dismissal of certain individuals (including mine) thought process. Who cares if some of us find similarities to Splash and Carano?

 

[LittleBuford]

Why would I do that? I enjoy hearing different opinions and perspectives, that includes yours too. I just do not understand the dismissal of certain individuals (including mine) thought process.

People disagree with—“dismiss”, to use your term—my thoughts all the time, including in this thread. You are among those people. I don’t complain about it, because such disagreement comes with the territory of participating in a forum. As long as people remain civil and keep to the rules, there is no issue.

Now can we please return to the topic of the thread and move on from critiquing each other’s posting style?

 

[champdisney]

People disagree with—“dismiss”, to use your term—my thoughts all the time, including in this thread. You are among those people. I don’t complain about it, because such disagreement comes with the territory of participating in a forum. As long as people remain civil and keep to the rules, there is no issue.

Now can we please return to the topic of the thread and move on from critiquing each other’s posting style?

No problem, Buford.

By the way, when you chose your screen name, were you spoofing the Big Buford? (It’s a cheeseburger in Checkers)

 

[LittleBuford]

By the way, when you chose your screen name, were you spoofing the Big Buford? (It’s a cheeseburger in Checkers)

No. It’s a reference to one of the songs in Country Bear Jamboree.

 

[Donaldfan1934]

To be clear - we don’t disagree.

I didn’t say these ideas are not capable of failing. Nothing is 100%.

My point was in the planning stages before anything is rolled out. The company wouldn’t say “hey we have this idea, we’ve run the numbers and we are going to take a loss on this but we think it’s the right thing to do so let’s do it.” You know, committing to the plan at the idea stage knowing it’s going to be a zero or cost them money.

I was still right about that. That doesn’t happen because those decisions have to be explained to the board.

“Why are you doing something that will not generate income? Or cost us money?”

You’re right, we don’t disagree at all. I misunderstood your point. Thank you for clarifying it.

 

[champdisney]

No. It’s a reference to one of the songs in Country Bear Jamboree.

True fan.

May I ask what’s your prediction of the future of the Country Bears at WDW? Being that CBJ it’s located directly across from Splash Mountain. I don’t know, I think Disney is eventually going to ditch the Frontierland concept to liven up the PatF’s presence.

 

[LittleBuford]

True fan.

May I ask what’s your prediction of the future of the Country Bears at WDW? Being that CBJ it’s located directly across from Splash Mountain. I don’t know, I think Disney is eventually going to ditch the Frontierland concept to liven up the PatF’s presence.

Frontierland has always had a Southern element to it, including the Country Bear Jamboree itself, so I don't see the conversion of Splash to a New Orleans theme causing any issues in that regard. If anything puts an end to the Country Bears, it'll be the fact that not enough people watch the show (I acknowledge this with a heavy heart).

 

[champdisney]

Frontierland has always had a Southern element to it, including the Country Bear Jamboree, so I don't see the conversion of Splash to a New Orleans theme causing any issues in that regard. If anything puts an end to the Country Bears, it'll be the fact that not enough people watch the show (I acknowledge this with a heavy heart).

Unfortunately, it’s a skip for many people. My wife who is twenty three years of age has been to WDW many many times. Dating back to when she was only a few months old, her first time watching the show was last July. Only because I insisted! Her family finds the show boring which is a load of crap. CBJ is a gem.

 

[Californian Elitist]

So here's a question I haven't seen answered.

Conceding for a second that Song of the South is sufficiently "problematic" to necessitate a retheme, what makes Princess and the Frog any less problematic for the exact same reasons? Song of the South is "bad" because it paints a rosy picture of the Reconstruction South. Wouldn't Princess and the Frog be just as "bad" for painting a rosy picture of the Jim Crow South?

I personally would like to hear from the black members on this board about their thoughts on your question, if anyone wanted to weigh in?

I have some time to finally address this. This will be an essay.

I'll start off by saying that as an African American, I have my own issues with Princess and the Frog. I hate that our first and most likely only black Disney princess spends the majority of the film as an amphibian. I really wish they had used another story to base a black princess off of, or simply come up with an original plotline, but it is what it is. In addition, I don't appreciate the lack of a black prince; we have a black princess, but no black prince. Instead, Disney created a racially ambiguous character with a European accent, from a fictional country that is the result of two countries combined, Maldives and Macedonia, the former being a South Asian country and the latter being a European one. They could have at least thrown in an African country in there or just made him African American. Naveen could have been a wealthy African American man with some sort of business empire who, like Tiana, also came from struggles. Those are my biggest issues with PatF.

Going back to Tiana being a frog, it's important to remember that for the question above. PatF may take place during the Jim Crow era, but that actual story pretty much has nothing to do with that, as the majority of the plot senters around animals on a bayou, including the main character. So if the story is a fantasy that takes place on a bayou with talking animals, a Jim Crow narrative just wouldn't make sense. With that being said, there are hints in the film, albeit subtle, that the situations in the film are obviously due to racial inequality (i.e. Tiana and her family living in a poorer, black neighborhood, her father having to work multiple shifts to support the family, Tiana and her mother working for a wealthy white family, Tiana being unable to afford her restaurant and having to work two jobs for years to save money to put a down payment on the building for her restaurant, the fact that there are no black people at Charlotte's ball, Tiana being outbid by someone who is able to pay the entire amount for the building and the bankers making a remark about her "background," insinuating that her business wouldn't have taken off anyway, etc.). PatF is a fantasy, animated, Disney film with talking animals; I wouldn't expect to see lynchings and the "N" word in the film, but I am pleased with the details that were put in to indicate the obvious inequality. Also, Tiana is NOT content with her position in life and is trying her best to change her and her mother's lives.

Song of the South... I don't find this film to be extremely racist, say like Birth of a Nation. However, it has issues, just like PatF, issues that have been brought up multiple times since the film's release. SotS does have some fantasy elements in the film (the re-tellings of the Brer characters), but the main plot is realistic with live, human characters. Seeing that it's a Disney film, like PatF, I wouldn't expect to have seen disturbing images, such as the murders of ex slaves in the film. However, I'm not pleased with the singing, tap dancing, smiling-all-the-time black folks in the film either. That's not to say that there weren't "happy" 19th century black people in America. But the representation of that in SotS is overdone and too much for me. Unlike Tiana, Remus and the other slaves are portrayed as being quite content with their lives. Throw in the typical Magical Negro plot point present in the film and I'm even more displeased. To be fair, the film is based on the Uncle Remus tales, an appropriation of the original African folklore stories by Joel Chandler Harris. He created the character of Uncle Remus and made him a plantation owner sympathizer and an Uncle Tom. I had to read some of the tales for an American literature graduate course fairly recently and we talked about how Harris making Remus an Uncle Tom perpetuated racism and problematic ideals about African Americans being happy with being less than and ignoring the clear abuse to appease their white masters.

To be clear, I don't have a problem with Splash Mountain and would prefer for the attraction to stay. However, I understand why it's going and can't say I'm angry with its replacement (PatF deserves its own, original ride and shouldn't be shoe-horned into an existing ride, but I digress), given the lack of healthy black representation at the DLR (not sure about WDW). I recognize Splash as a classic and want it to stay, but Disney decided to build a ride based on a movie in their library that has been controversial since its release. In addition to that, they won't officially release the film on video or for streaming services. I had to buy a bootleg copy of the film to see what all of the hullaballoo was about. So Disney has no interest in having mature, adult conversations about the film, creating a disclaimer for it, and allowing the public to successfully access it. In my opinion, they should have never locked the movie away, but they did and now we are here. So they build a ride that's based on a movie they don't officially and formally want the American public to see. LOL. And now, 30+ years later, Disney's choices have led us to the end of Splash Mountain. If we're being honest, it was only a matter of time before Splash would be taken out. Disney has spent decades hiding the film. When the announcement to remove the ride was released last year, I had to explain to multiple friends what Song of the South was, as not only did they not know that Splash Mountain was based on a movie, but they had never even heard of Song of the South. Of course, they researched the movie, read about the controversy and how Disney is ashamed of it and hasn't officially released it in decades, and now they support Splash's removal. Imagine all of the other people who may have done the same. This is truly Disney's fault for having a hand in creating and fueling the stigma surrounding Song of the South instead of owning up to their film, allowing for people to watch it, and have meaningful discussion about race, slavery, Walt Disney, and many other topics that could stem from watching Song of the South.

Again, PatF has its own issues and is not perfect. But, as an African American, especially one who grew up without much black representation in the media I consumed as a child, I believe Tiana and the story in general are an acceptable source to use for a black representation ride in the parks. Looking through Disney's library, SotS and PatF are the only films I can think of with prominent black characters that are central to their respective films' plots (there is an ongoing joke within the black community about the Lion King characters being black, but they don't really count here). Seeing as Disney has no interest in creating and building original rides anymore, and SotS and PatF are the only options, I would support PatF a million times over SotS. Moreover, it appears that the ride will be picking up after the end of PatF, so there will be some originality there. I don't for one second believe Disney truly cares about the black American community. However, I'm not super displeased by this decision and will be in line to see what they've done with the story of our only black princess.

 

[Disney Analyst]

I have some time to finally address this. This will be an essay.

I'll start off by saying that as an African American, I have my own issues with Princess and the Frog. I hate that our first and most likely only black Disney princess spends the majority of the film as an amphibian. I really wish they had used another story to base a black princess off of, or simply come up with an original plotline, but it is what it is. In addition, I don't appreciate the lack of a black prince; we have a black princess, but no black prince. Instead, Disney created a racially ambiguous character with a European accent, from a fictional country that is the result of two countries combined, Maldives and Macedonia, the former being a South Asian country and the latter being a European one. They could have at least thrown in an African country in there or just made him African American. Naveen could have been a wealthy African American man with some sort of business empire who, like Tiana, also came from struggles. Those are my biggest issues with PatF.

Going back to Tiana being a frog, it's important to remember that for the question above. PatF may take place during the Jim Crow era, but that actual story pretty much has nothing to do with that, as the majority of the plot senters around animals on a bayou, including the main character. So if the story is a fantasy that takes place on a bayou with talking animals, a Jim Crow narrative just wouldn't make sense. With that being said, there are hints in the film, albeit subtle, that the situations in the film are obviously due to racial inequality (i.e. Tiana and her family living in a poorer, black neighborhood, her father having to work multiple shifts to support the family, Tiana and her mother working for a wealthy white family, Tiana being unable to afford her restaurant and having to work two jobs for years to save money to put a down payment on the building for her restaurant, the fact that there are no black people at Charlotte's ball, Tiana being outbid by someone who is able to pay the entire amount for the building and the bankers making a remark about her "background," insinuating that her business wouldn't have taken off anyway, etc.). PatF is a fantasy, animated, Disney film with talking animals; I wouldn't expect to see lynchings and the "N" word in the film, but I am pleased with the details that were put in to indicate the obvious inequality. Also, Tiana is NOT content with her position in life and is trying her best to change her and her mother's lives.

Song of the South... I don't find this film to be extremely racist, say like Birth of a Nation. However, it has issues, just like PatF, issues that have been brought up multiple times since the film's release. SotS does have some fantasy elements in the film (the re-tellings of the Brer characters), but the main plot is realistic with live, human characters. Seeing that it's a Disney film, like PatF, I wouldn't expect to have seen disturbing images, such as the murders of ex slaves in the film. However, I'm not pleased with the singing, tap dancing, smiling-all-the-time black folks in the film either. That's not to say that there weren't "happy" 19th century black people in America. But the representation of that in SotS is overdone and too much for me. Unlike Tiana, Remus and the other slaves are portrayed as being quite content with their lives. Throw in the typical Magical Negro plot point present in the film and I'm even more displeased. To be fair, the film is based on the Uncle Remus tales, an appropriation of the original African folklore stories by Joel Chandler Harris. He created the character of Uncle Remus and made him a plantation owner sympathizer and an Uncle Tom. I had to read some of the tales for an American literature graduate course fairly recently and we talked about how Harris making Remus an Uncle Tom perpetuated racism and problematic ideals about African Americans being happy with being less than and ignoring the clear abuse to appease their white masters.

To be clear, I don't have a problem with Splash Mountain and would prefer for the attraction to stay. However, I understand why it's going and can't say I'm angry with its replacement (PatF deserves its own, original ride and shouldn't be shoe-horned into an existing ride, but I digress), given the lack of healthy black representation at the DLR (not sure about WDW). I recognize Splash as a classic and want it to stay, but Disney decided to build a ride based on a movie in their library that has been controversial since its release. In addition to that, they won't officially release the film on video or for streaming services. I had to buy a bootleg copy of the film to see what all of the hullaballoo was about. So Disney has no interest in having mature, adult conversations about the film, creating a disclaimer for it, and allowing the public to successfully access it. In my opinion, they should have never locked the movie away, but they did and now we are here. So they build a ride that's based on a movie they don't officially and formally want the American public to see. LOL. And now, 30+ years later, Disney's choices have led us to the end of Splash Mountain. If we're being honest, it was only a matter of time before Splash would be taken out. Disney has spent decades hiding the film. When the announcement to remove the ride was released last year, I had to explain to multiple friends what Song of the South was, as not only did they not know that Splash Mountain was based on a movie, but they had never even heard of Song of the South. Of course, they researched the movie, read about the controversy and how Disney is ashamed of it and hasn't officially released it in decades, and now they support Splash's removal. Imagine all of the other people who may have done the same. This is truly Disney's fault for having a hand in creating and fueling the stigma surrounding Song of the South instead of owning up to their film, allowing for people to watch it, and have meaningful discussion about race, slavery, Walt Disney, and many other topics that could stem from watching Song of the South.

Again, PatF has its own issues and is not perfect. But, as an African American, especially one who grew up without much black representation in the media I consumed as a child, I believe Tiana and the story in general are an acceptable source to use for a black representation ride in the parks. Looking through Disney's library, SotS and PatF are the only films I can think of with prominent black characters that are central to their respective films' plots (there is an ongoing joke within the black community about the Lion King characters being black, but they don't really count here). Seeing as Disney has no interest in creating and building original rides anymore, and SotS and PatF are the only options, I would support PatF a million times over SotS. Moreover, it appears that the ride will be picking up after the end of PatF, so there will be some originality there. I don't for one second believe Disney truly cares about the black American community. However, I'm not super displeased by this decision and will be in line to see what they've done with the story of our only black princess.

I appreciate you putting forward such a detailed answer.

 

[Sue_Vongello]

I have some time to finally address this. This will be an essay.

I'll start off by saying that as an African American, I have my own issues with Princess and the Frog. I hate that our first and most likely only black Disney princess spends the majority of the film as an amphibian. I really wish they had used another story to base a black princess off of, or simply come up with an original plotline, but it is what it is. In addition, I don't appreciate the lack of a black prince; we have a black princess, but no black prince. Instead, Disney created a racially ambiguous character with a European accent, from a fictional country that is the result of two countries combined, Maldives and Macedonia, the former being a South Asian country and the latter being a European one. They could have at least thrown in an African country in there or just made him African American. Naveen could have been a wealthy African American man with some sort of business empire who, like Tiana, also came from struggles. Those are my biggest issues with PatF.

Going back to Tiana being a frog, it's important to remember that for the question above. PatF may take place during the Jim Crow era, but that actual story pretty much has nothing to do with that, as the majority of the plot senters around animals on a bayou, including the main character. So if the story is a fantasy that takes place on a bayou with talking animals, a Jim Crow narrative just wouldn't make sense. With that being said, there are hints in the film, albeit subtle, that the situations in the film are obviously due to racial inequality (i.e. Tiana and her family living in a poorer, black neighborhood, her father having to work multiple shifts to support the family, Tiana and her mother working for a wealthy white family, Tiana being unable to afford her restaurant and having to work two jobs for years to save money to put a down payment on the building for her restaurant, the fact that there are no black people at Charlotte's ball, Tiana being outbid by someone who is able to pay the entire amount for the building and the bankers making a remark about her "background," insinuating that her business wouldn't have taken off anyway, etc.). PatF is a fantasy, animated, Disney film with talking animals; I wouldn't expect to see lynchings and the "N" word in the film, but I am pleased with the details that were put in to indicate the obvious inequality. Also, Tiana is NOT content with her position in life and is trying her best to change her and her mother's lives.

Song of the South... I don't find this film to be extremely racist, say like Birth of a Nation. However, it has issues, just like PatF, issues that have been brought up multiple times since the film's release. SotS does have some fantasy elements in the film (the re-tellings of the Brer characters), but the main plot is realistic with live, human characters. Seeing that it's a Disney film, like PatF, I wouldn't expect to have seen disturbing images, such as the murders of ex slaves in the film. However, I'm not pleased with the singing, tap dancing, smiling-all-the-time black folks in the film either. That's not to say that there weren't "happy" 19th century black people in America. But the representation of that in SotS is overdone and too much for me. Unlike Tiana, Remus and the other slaves are portrayed as being quite content with their lives. Throw in the typical Magical Negro plot point present in the film and I'm even more displeased. To be fair, the film is based on the Uncle Remus tales, an appropriation of the original African folklore stories by Joel Chandler Harris. He created the character of Uncle Remus and made him a plantation owner sympathizer and an Uncle Tom. I had to read some of the tales for an American literature graduate course fairly recently and we talked about how Harris making Remus an Uncle Tom perpetuated racism and problematic ideals about African Americans being happy with being less than and ignoring the clear abuse to appease their white masters.

To be clear, I don't have a problem with Splash Mountain and would prefer for the attraction to stay. However, I understand why it's going and can't say I'm angry with its replacement (PatF deserves its own, original ride and shouldn't be shoe-horned into an existing ride, but I digress), given the lack of healthy black representation at the DLR (not sure about WDW). I recognize Splash as a classic and want it to stay, but Disney decided to build a ride based on a movie in their library that has been controversial since its release. In addition to that, they won't officially release the film on video or for streaming services. I had to buy a bootleg copy of the film to see what all of the hullaballoo was about. So Disney has no interest in having mature, adult conversations about the film, creating a disclaimer for it, and allowing the public to successfully access it. In my opinion, they should have never locked the movie away, but they did and now we are here. So they build a ride that's based on a movie they don't officially and formally want the American public to see. LOL. And now, 30+ years later, Disney's choices have led us to the end of Splash Mountain. If we're being honest, it was only a matter of time before Splash would be taken out. Disney has spent decades hiding the film. When the announcement to remove the ride was released last year, I had to explain to multiple friends what Song of the South was, as not only did they not know that Splash Mountain was based on a movie, but they had never even heard of Song of the South. Of course, they researched the movie, read about the controversy and how Disney is ashamed of it and hasn't officially released it in decades, and now they support Splash's removal. Imagine all of the other people who may have done the same. This is truly Disney's fault for having a hand in creating and fueling the stigma surrounding Song of the South instead of owning up to their film, allowing for people to watch it, and have meaningful discussion about race, slavery, Walt Disney, and many other topics that could stem from watching Song of the South.

Again, PatF has its own issues and is not perfect. But, as an African American, especially one who grew up without much black representation in the media I consumed as a child, I believe Tiana and the story in general are an acceptable source to use for a black representation ride in the parks. Looking through Disney's library, SotS and PatF are the only films I can think of with prominent black characters that are central to their respective films' plots (there is an ongoing joke within the black community about the Lion King characters being black, but they don't really count here). Seeing as Disney has no interest in creating and building original rides anymore, and SotS and PatF are the only options, I would support PatF a million times over SotS. Moreover, it appears that the ride will be picking up after the end of PatF, so there will be some originality there. I don't for one second believe Disney truly cares about the black American community. However, I'm not super displeased by this decision and will be in line to see what they've done with the story of our only black princess.

Thank you for this well thought out and reasonable response. I really appreciate you taking the time to write out your thoughts.

 

[Californian Elitist]

I appreciate you putting forward such a detailed answer.

Thank you for this well thought out and reasonable response. I really appreciate you taking the time to write out your thoughts.

You're very welcome. I do think this topic is interesting to discuss.

You told me you would gladly buy a ticket to the DCA food festival if it meant replacing Splash in another thread. So no, you do not recognize Splash as a classic or wish it to stay. Everytime I see you on here you are playing the race card.

Lordt, you couldn't detect the sarcasm in my post as a response to your dramatic (and troll-ish) post? I've claimed MULTIPLE TIMES that I want Splash to stay. Whether you pay attention and read my posts carefully or not, that's up to you. This isn't the first time you've accused me of something that's not true.

Race is an obvious significant factor to the question that was asked and my response to it. How is that not obvious?

Keep trolling and failing to accurately comprehend and understand my posts.