Splash Mountain re-theme announced

[Incomudro]

You’re right that LOTS of things can be indirectly traced to racism, and that we can never be completed disconnected from what you call “an unpleasant past” (I think that’s an understatement!)

Some things aren’t just loosely-affiliated with unpleasant things, they’re actually responsible to perpetuating hate, bigotry, and oppression. I think we might all agree with this idea in theory, which means now we’re talking about what falls into that category and what doesn’t.

And that’s the point—these things are determined by a society in a given point in history. Every generation re-negotiates these things within society as we decide social constructs— what is race? What is racist? What’s far-enough removed from racism that we‘re okay with it, vs. what’s too rooted in racist ideology for us to tolerate. This is what’s happening now.

Song of the South was controversial when it was produced, but it did reflect the sensibilities of those who created it. Over time, the tone and message were deemed (by society and by Disney in response) to be racially insensitive, so Disney locked it away. When they built Splash Mountain, they figured they could use the Brer characters in a way that was far enough removed form the racially insensitive parts of SotS.

And for the 1989 DL audience, they did. But that was a time when most people didn’t have access to the source material. It was also a time when America was perhaps less concerned with racial insensitivity. Now, 30+ years later, society is re-negotiating. And a ride that may have been accepted as different enough from the source material now isn’t as acceptable.

I certainly agree with the principle of your post.
My problem is that today's society is on a veritable witch hunt, turning over stones - and indeed doing online research to find the most tenuous of connections.
They are also very selective about what they find offensive.
Where does it end, and why should the mobs have the power?
As a rock fan for instance - why not go after rock music?
Steven Tyler, Robert Plant etc., certainly got their styles from blues singers.
What's the root of blues?
Heck, even the foods we eat aren't "pure."
Want to talk about sugar?

 

[_caleb]

Where exactly is the solid proof that "Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah" is based on that song? Just because they both have "Zip" in the name doesn't mean it's based on that song. And nobody answered my question about what makes what people consider racist about The Princess and the Frog okay?

I guess my attempt to address your question wasn’t good enough?

The word “zip” isn’t the only connection. Zip-A-Dee-Do-Dah isn’t a real word. But it’s very similar to the likewise nonsensical line: "Zip a duden duden duden zip a duden day," from some very racist versions of “Turkey in the Straw“ popularized in “Zip ” minstrel shows.

This was a made-up version of Black vernacular—used by White people to make fun of Black people (”look how funny they talk!”), which was a central feature to minstrel shows.

 

[_caleb]

I certainly agree with the principle of your post.
My problem is that today's society is on a veritable witch hunt, turning over stones - and indeed doing online research to find the most tenuous of connections.
They are also very selective about what they find offensive.
Where does it end, and why should the mobs have the power?
As a rock fan for instance - why not go after rock music?
Steven Tyler, Robert Plant etc., certainly got their styles from blues singers.
What's the root of blues?
Heck, even the foods we eat aren't "pure."
Want to talk about sugar?

I completely understand this. And to those who have come to terms with how these things had been “negotiated“ by society (what was “racist” and what wasn’t), it can feel like a mob with pitchforks and torches looking for another thing to declare as racist.

But what if that isn’t what’s happening? What if this is (and has always been) the way society navigates these things?

Sometimes, people bring up racist connections but society collectively shrugs and says, ”no, we don’t think that’s a problem.” ?

You mention Rock n roll. Did Elvis steal from Chuck Berry (and others), or was he merely inspired by them? What about Tiki culture? White rappers? There’s no shortage of people complaining about these things today, but society largely just says, “we’re fine with this.”

Sometimes, however, when we learn about the backstory of something—even something we love—we have to decide if it’s worth it to us to maintain that thing. We have to reflect and ask if this thing is different enough from any racist intentions that its now ok, or if we should move on from it in order for society to heal and grow. And people will evaluate these things differently (see this thread as an example)!

What some fear is a dangerous slippery slope others might praise as welcomed progress. The voices might seem louder because of social media, but I don’t see it as anything new.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

This post is not about the validity of the problematic elements of the ride or pro-retheme or not. That’s my preface.

I’ve seen a lot of posts on this thread recently that say Disney is not making this move out of fear of the “Twitter mob” ... the problem is people are getting hung up on certain nomenclature. Sure saying Twitter is the sole reason is an oversimplification but it still works to succinctly define the reasons why.

In my line of work I’ve had the opportunity to work for many of the top fortune 100 companies and have been involved in the highest level of decision making meetings so let me be clear about this - any public company that answers to a board of directors does not ever make decisions solely based on altruism or what is the current social dynamic. Or better put it is absolutely never the driving force unless it affects the numbers. Every decision is made solely based around how something might affect their numbers. If there are some altruistic ancillary benefits then great! And those will most certainly be paraded out as part of a PR campaign but do not be fooled that this is Disney trying to be socially aware or inclusive. It’s a marketing ploy. That is the real fantasy land.

The reality is they have heard from outside forces (partly Twitter) their displeasure with the current theme and they have run analytics and cost analysis about what would be the negative effects long term if they don’t retheme the ride and what the ROI would be if they do a modest retheme that they can market as being socially aware. This explains the modest budget projections we’ve heard rumored because it wouldn’t make sense for them to do a large scale crazy retheme. The numbers wouldn’t make sense. Basically, very simply, from my experience, it probably breaks down like this:

current maintenance costs of Splash as is + loss of future business from bad publicity vs. initial cost of retheme - reduced maintenance costs from reduced animatronics + initial bump from good publicity - loss of business from people upset about the retheme

The reality is the people furious about the retheme are rabid Disney fans and so in all likelihood won’t stop going to the park. The majority of the ones most upset are probably not as rabid fans therefore represent future unearned business.

So sure it’s not fear of Twitter mob per se but it is an analytic cost based approach to determine the viability of a retheme based on current social trends. The numbers are probably not large but the analytic approach very clearly shows them that they stand to increase revenue by this retheme, however large or small, which is the only reason its being done, especially in this current economic environment.

I respectfully disagree. I agree that in the past this may have been true, but currently, at certain companies, the ideologues have gained a foothold in corporate leadership. Disney is one of these companies. A perfect example is the Kathleen Kennedy and her minions at Lucasfilm doing their absolute best to destroy Star Wars because they hate that Luke Skywalker and Han Solo were the face of the billion dollar franchise for 40 years. They didn't fire Gina Carano because it was going to make them more money; she was fired because they wanted to attack her conservative political beliefs. Another example is Marvel Comics - the actual comic book division. They have tons of very popular characters, almost exclusively white males, that have just made their film division (and Disney) billions of dollars over the last decade. Meanwhile, just as these white male characters were generating unbelievable popularity and money for Marvel Studios, the comic book division set out to change every one of these popular characters to some sort of diversity-character ... Captain America became black, Iron Man became a black teenage woman, Thor became a woman, Hawkeye became a woman, Luke Cage took over leadership of the Avengers, later the Avengers became "young" featuring the gay male couple, etc. They did not do this because they thought it would make them more money. But even if you believed they did, almost immediately as these changes started, the retail stores (the comic book stores) started screaming that nobody wanted to buy these books and that it was costing the company (and the retailers) a lot of money. New readers (just like the old readers) wanted to see the characters that they were watching on the screen - Steve Rogers, Tony Stark, male Thor, etc. If it was all about the money, somebody in the comic book division would have recognized the mistake and immediately started changing things back - it is a decade later and they have not. They still continue to push characters (Squirrel Girl, for example) that the book-buying audience does not want. These people aren't interested in making money (at least not for the companies they influence); they are interested in changing culture.

Regarding the Disney Parks division, the change from Splash Mountain to the Princess Tiana ride is not driven by the paying customers and the park attendees. It's driven by persons like this lady - - Carmen Smith, who works in Disney's Executive Creative Development and Inclusion Strategies for Walt Disney Imagineering. She's not advocating changing the ride to make money. She wants it to change to push culture in the direction she wants it to go.

 

[LittleBuford]

Regarding the Disney Parks division, the change from Splash Mountain to the Princess Tiana ride is not driven by the paying customers and the park attendees. It's driven by persons like this lady - - Carmen Smith, who works in Disney's Executive Creative Development and Inclusion Strategies for Walt Disney Imagineering. She's not advocating changing the ride to make money. She wants it to change to push culture in the direction she wants it to go.

Carmen Smith is an ideologue in your view? Could you pick out some quotes that you find particularly problematic from the video you shared?

Regarding comic books, some alternative perspectives to yours:

Comics retailers' shocking claim: Diversity isn't killing comics sales

Comics retailers' shocking claim: Diversity isn't killing comics sales

www.comicsbeat.com

Comic Sales Figures Prove To Marvel: Diversity Isn't The Problem

There's another reason female-led issues aren't selling...

screenrant.com

 

[Sue_Vongello]

I respectfully disagree. I agree that in the past this may have been true, but currently, at certain companies, the ideologues have gained a foothold in corporate leadership. Disney is one of these companies. A perfect example is the Kathleen Kennedy and her minions at Lucasfilm doing their absolute best to destroy Star Wars because they hate that Luke Skywalker and Han Solo were the face of the billion dollar franchise for 40 years. They didn't fire Gina Carano because it was going to make them more money; she was fired because they wanted to attack her conservative political beliefs. Another example is Marvel Comics - the actual comic book division. They have tons of very popular characters, almost exclusively white males, that have just made their film division (and Disney) billions of dollars over the last decade. Meanwhile, just as these white male characters were generating unbelievable popularity and money for Marvel Studios, the comic book division set out to change every one of these popular characters to some sort of diversity-character ... Captain America became black, Iron Man became a black teenage woman, Thor became a woman, Hawkeye became a woman, Luke Cage took over leadership of the Avengers, later the Avengers became "young" featuring the gay male couple, etc. They did not do this because they thought it would make them more money. But even if you believed they did, almost immediately as these changes started, the retail stores (the comic book stores) started screaming that nobody wanted to buy these books and that it was costing the company (and the retailers) a lot of money. New readers (just like the old readers) wanted to see the characters that they were watching on the screen - Steve Rogers, Tony Stark, male Thor, etc. If it was all about the money, somebody in the comic book division would have recognized the mistake and immediately started changing things back - it is a decade later and they have not. They still continue to push characters (Squirrel Girl, for example) that the book-buying audience does not want. These people aren't interested in making money (at least not for the companies they influence); they are interested in changing culture.

Regarding the Disney Parks division, the change from Splash Mountain to the Princess Tiana ride is not driven by the paying customers and the park attendees. It's driven by persons like this lady - - Carmen Smith, who works in Disney's Executive Creative Development and Inclusion Strategies for Walt Disney Imagineering. She's not advocating changing the ride to make money. She wants it to change to push culture in the direction she wants it to go.

-They fired Gina Carano because it was fear out of costing them money.
-Comic books don’t cost as much as movies to make so more risk can be taken but very clearly they knew they had the white male $$$$ so the goal was to capture more markets, period. It wasn’t diversity for diversity’s sake it was diversity to make more money.
-Disney absolutely 100% has run analytics on this change and have found that it would save them more and/or make them more money in the long run if they do it.

I know it all sounds very cynical and cold but it’s the truth. This isn’t something I believe or something I’m making guesses on ... I’ve been in countless of these types of meetings where social issues are brought up or altruistic issues are discussed. Guess how many times one of those issues turn into initiatives that cost the company money? You’re right- it’s zero.

Everyone is entitled to their own personal beliefs about the merits of this change over - all I’m helping everyone appreciate is the reality- don’t give Disney credit for doing the right thing because it’s the right thing to do. It’s a billion dollar public corporation run by a collective board - its incapable of being altruistic for altruism’s sake. It’s all numbers followed up by marketing/PR designed to fool you that they are doing it for the right reasons. Don’t fall for it. You can be happy about the change but don’t overly pat them on the back.

 

[1HAPPYGHOSTHOST]

This proves everything I said and should close the door on any controversy. She did nothing wrong, was bullied by twitter and Disney and Lucasfilm employees. She is smart, strong and 100% genuine. Disney made a mistake and should apologize to her.

 

[Archie123]

This proves everything I said and should close the door on any controversy. She did nothing wrong, was bullied by twitter and Disney and Lucasfilm employees. She is smart, strong and 100% genuine. Disney made a mistake and should apologize to her.

Using Ben Shapiro does prove something alright lol.

 

[Incomudro]

I respectfully disagree. I agree that in the past this may have been true, but currently, at certain companies, the ideologues have gained a foothold in corporate leadership. Disney is one of these companies. A perfect example is the Kathleen Kennedy and her minions at Lucasfilm doing their absolute best to destroy Star Wars because they hate that Luke Skywalker and Han Solo were the face of the billion dollar franchise for 40 years. They didn't fire Gina Carano because it was going to make them more money; she was fired because they wanted to attack her conservative political beliefs. Another example is Marvel Comics - the actual comic book division. They have tons of very popular characters, almost exclusively white males, that have just made their film division (and Disney) billions of dollars over the last decade. Meanwhile, just as these white male characters were generating unbelievable popularity and money for Marvel Studios, the comic book division set out to change every one of these popular characters to some sort of diversity-character ... Captain America became black, Iron Man became a black teenage woman, Thor became a woman, Hawkeye became a woman, Luke Cage took over leadership of the Avengers, later the Avengers became "young" featuring the gay male couple, etc. They did not do this because they thought it would make them more money. But even if you believed they did, almost immediately as these changes started, the retail stores (the comic book stores) started screaming that nobody wanted to buy these books and that it was costing the company (and the retailers) a lot of money. New readers (just like the old readers) wanted to see the characters that they were watching on the screen - Steve Rogers, Tony Stark, male Thor, etc. If it was all about the money, somebody in the comic book division would have recognized the mistake and immediately started changing things back - it is a decade later and they have not. They still continue to push characters (Squirrel Girl, for example) that the book-buying audience does not want. These people aren't interested in making money (at least not for the companies they influence); they are interested in changing culture.

Regarding the Disney Parks division, the change from Splash Mountain to the Princess Tiana ride is not driven by the paying customers and the park attendees. It's driven by persons like this lady - - Carmen Smith, who works in Disney's Executive Creative Development and Inclusion Strategies for Walt Disney Imagineering. She's not advocating changing the ride to make money. She wants it to change to push culture in the direction she wants it to go.

Great post.
There is a definite hunt and campaign that people are on right now.
It runs from the everyday person with a twitter account, to the high ups in corporations.

 

[Incomudro]

This proves everything I said and should close the door on any controversy. She did nothing wrong, was bullied by twitter and Disney and Lucasfilm employees. She is smart, strong and 100% genuine. Disney made a mistake and should apologize to her.

The left will tell you that they love a strong and independent woman, until they actually meet one.

 

[LittleBuford]

The left will tell you that they love a strong and independent woman, until they actually meet one.

Such sweeping generalisations are unfounded and unhelpful. Plus why are we talking about Carano in a Splash Mountain thread?

 

[Mr Bill]

Such sweeping generalisations are unfounded and unhelpful. Plus why are we talking about Carano in a Splash Mountain thread?

Because the outrage over both is being manufactured in the same factory

 

[Incomudro]

Such sweeping generalisations are unfounded and unhelpful. Plus why are we talking about Carano in a Splash Mountain thread?

What I said is demonstrably true.

 

[LittleBuford]

What I said is demonstrably true.

As someone on the left, I strongly disagree.

Have a magical Sunday.

 

[Donaldfan1934]

This post is not about the validity of the problematic elements of the ride or pro-retheme or not. That’s my preface.

I’ve seen a lot of posts on this thread recently that say Disney is not making this move out of fear of the “Twitter mob” ... the problem is people are getting hung up on certain nomenclature. Sure saying Twitter is the sole reason is an oversimplification but it still works to succinctly define the reasons why.

In my line of work I’ve had the opportunity to work for many of the top fortune 100 companies and have been involved in the highest level of decision making meetings so let me be clear about this - any public company that answers to a board of directors does not ever make decisions solely based on altruism or what is the current social dynamic. Or better put it is absolutely never the driving force unless it affects the numbers. Every decision is made solely based around how something might affect their numbers. If there are some altruistic ancillary benefits then great! And those will most certainly be paraded out as part of a PR campaign but do not be fooled that this is Disney trying to be socially aware or inclusive. It’s a marketing ploy. That is the real fantasy land.

The reality is they have heard from outside forces (partly Twitter) their displeasure with the current theme and they have run analytics and cost analysis about what would be the negative effects long term if they don’t retheme the ride and what the ROI would be if they do a modest retheme that they can market as being socially aware. This explains the modest budget projections we’ve heard rumored because it wouldn’t make sense for them to do a large scale crazy retheme. The numbers wouldn’t make sense. Basically, very simply, from my experience, it probably breaks down like this:

current maintenance costs of Splash as is + loss of future business from bad publicity vs. initial cost of retheme - reduced maintenance costs from reduced animatronics + initial bump from good publicity - loss of business from people upset about the retheme

The reality is the people furious about the retheme are rabid Disney fans and so in all likelihood won’t stop going to the park. The majority of the ones most upset are probably not as rabid fans therefore represent future unearned business.

So sure it’s not fear of Twitter mob per se but it is an analytic cost based approach to determine the viability of a retheme based on current social trends. The numbers are probably not large but the analytic approach very clearly shows them that they stand to increase revenue by this retheme, however large or small, which is the only reason its being done, especially in this current economic environment.

I respectfully disagree. I agree that in the past this may have been true, but currently, at certain companies, the ideologues have gained a foothold in corporate leadership. Disney is one of these companies. A perfect example is the Kathleen Kennedy and her minions at Lucasfilm doing their absolute best to destroy Star Wars because they hate that Luke Skywalker and Han Solo were the face of the billion dollar franchise for 40 years. They didn't fire Gina Carano because it was going to make them more money; she was fired because they wanted to attack her conservative political beliefs. Another example is Marvel Comics - the actual comic book division. They have tons of very popular characters, almost exclusively white males, that have just made their film division (and Disney) billions of dollars over the last decade. Meanwhile, just as these white male characters were generating unbelievable popularity and money for Marvel Studios, the comic book division set out to change every one of these popular characters to some sort of diversity-character ... Captain America became black, Iron Man became a black teenage woman, Thor became a woman, Hawkeye became a woman, Luke Cage took over leadership of the Avengers, later the Avengers became "young" featuring the gay male couple, etc. They did not do this because they thought it would make them more money. But even if you believed they did, almost immediately as these changes started, the retail stores (the comic book stores) started screaming that nobody wanted to buy these books and that it was costing the company (and the retailers) a lot of money. New readers (just like the old readers) wanted to see the characters that they were watching on the screen - Steve Rogers, Tony Stark, male Thor, etc. If it was all about the money, somebody in the comic book division would have recognized the mistake and immediately started changing things back - it is a decade later and they have not. They still continue to push characters (Squirrel Girl, for example) that the book-buying audience does not want. These people aren't interested in making money (at least not for the companies they influence); they are interested in changing culture.

Regarding the Disney Parks division, the change from Splash Mountain to the Princess Tiana ride is not driven by the paying customers and the park attendees. It's driven by persons like this lady - - Carmen Smith, who works in Disney's Executive Creative Development and Inclusion Strategies for Walt Disney Imagineering. She's not advocating changing the ride to make money. She wants it to change to push culture in the direction she wants it to go.

-They fired Gina Carano because it was fear out of costing them money.
-Comic books don’t cost as much as movies to make so more risk can be taken but very clearly they knew they had the white male $$$$ so the goal was to capture more markets, period. It wasn’t diversity for diversity’s sake it was diversity to make more money.
-Disney absolutely 100% has run analytics on this change and have found that it would save them more and/or make them more money in the long run if they do it.

I know it all sounds very cynical and cold but it’s the truth. This isn’t something I believe or something I’m making guesses on ... I’ve been in countless of these types of meetings where social issues are brought up or altruistic issues are discussed. Guess how many times one of those issues turn into initiatives that cost the company money? You’re right- it’s zero.

Everyone is entitled to their own personal beliefs about the merits of this change over - all I’m helping everyone appreciate is the reality- don’t give Disney credit for doing the right thing because it’s the right thing to do. It’s a billion dollar public corporation run by a collective board - its incapable of being altruistic for altruism’s sake. It’s all numbers followed up by marketing/PR designed to fool you that they are doing it for the right reasons. Don’t fall for it. You can be happy about the change but don’t overly pat them on the back.

This proves everything I said and should close the door on any controversy. She did nothing wrong, was bullied by twitter and Disney and Lucasfilm employees. She is smart, strong and 100% genuine. Disney made a mistake and should apologize to her.

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.

 

[LittleBuford]

Someone like Carmen Smith may actually believe the PR they’re spewing

You're the second person in this thread to imply that Smith's position is unreasonable or extreme. Could you please clarify what exactly you think she's "spewing"?

 

[Donaldfan1934]

You're the second person in this thread to imply that Smith's position is unreasonable or extreme. Could you please clarify what exactly you think she's "spewing"?

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/b...se-at-disneyland-park-and-magic-kingdom-park/

 

[LittleBuford]

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 off 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/b...se-at-disneyland-park-and-magic-kingdom-park/

I guess I don't understand why you describe it as spewing, especially given that you seem to acknowledge that she believes in the value of what she's doing.

 

[Angel Ariel]

The left will tell you that they love a strong and independent woman, until they actually meet one.

Pretty sure there’s more than one strong, independent woman in this thread (and in the politics forum) that leans left.

 

[Donaldfan1934]

I guess I don't understand why you describe it as spewing, especially given that you seem to acknowledge that she believes in the value of what she's doing.

As @Sue_Vongello said, the PR itself is designed to fool you that the company as a whole is doing it for the right reasons even if they aren’t. While she may believe it, I already acknowledged that both can be true.