News Splash Mountain retheme to Princess and the Frog - Tiana's Bayou Adventure

[Sir_Cliff]

This is why, in retrospect, it's probably a good idea that the Disney's America theme park in Virginia didn't happen. Disney would have never found a way to accurately portray history while simultaneously offering fun amusement park escapism. While Disney's America was an intriguing idea, the Disney company would have inevitably been dragged into nonstop culture war issues between the left and the right over how it tells America's history.

So with Frontierland, Disney either has to hope most people don't consider its implications (as it has done for the past 50+ years) or it will have to one day change it to avoid backlash.

I tend to agree on Disney's America. I think the local residents saved Disney from themselves on that one.

As for Frontierland, my feeling is they will lean into caricatures of the Wild West/US wilderness like country bears and runaway mine trains and just try and avoid anything that could be controversial. The implications of the frontier are not pleasant when you think about them, but I also think a fantasy "Wild West" can exist in the culture as long as in the appropriate venues people are learning the realities behind how countries like the US, Canada, Australia, etc. were settled. I don't think Woody, for example, is about to be cancelled.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

This is why, in retrospect, it's probably a good idea that the Disney's America theme park in Virginia didn't happen. Disney would have never found a way to accurately portray history while simultaneously offering fun amusement park escapism. While Disney's America was an intriguing idea, the Disney company would have inevitably been dragged into nonstop culture war issues between the left and the right over how it tells America's history.

If Disney's America had been built it would have been turned into Pixar and Princesses long before "cancel culture" became a familiar phrase, because Disney gave up on that kind of adherence to theme years ago.

 

[James Alucobond]

The implications of the frontier are not pleasant when you think about them.

The implications of practically any nation's history are not pleasant when you think about them.

 

[SamusAranX]

The implications of practically any nation's history are not pleasant when you think about them.

Yep.

there is nothing inherently wrong with the aspects of exploration and adventure that are leaned on in Frontierland.

Thats why it’s such a slippery slope to start with SM. Once the notion is borne that even if all questionable or negative elements are excised from it, if you can find a link, an attraction is “problematic”; that dooms 90 percent of Disney World.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Yep.

there is nothing inherently wrong with the aspects of exploration and adventure that are leaned on in Frontierland.

Thats why it’s such a slippery slope to start with SM. Once the notion is borne that even if all questionable or negative elements are excised from it, if you can find a link, an attraction is “problematic”; that dooms 90 percent of Disney World.

Again, it's why I want a more vague name for Liberty Square and the stretch of land that leads to Splash / PatF.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Yep.

there is nothing inherently wrong with the aspects of exploration and adventure that are leaned on in Frontierland.

Thats why it’s such a slippery slope to start with SM. Once the notion is borne that even if all questionable or negative elements are excised from it, if you can find a link, an attraction is “problematic”; that dooms 90 percent of Disney World.

But this is honestly where I think people are creating their own slippery slope with talk about Main Street USA being under threat for being too white or Frontierland threatened with the bulldozer. I doubt we'll see shows based around cowboys and Indians or hokey Native American displays in Frontierland, but I think saloons, caves, riverboats, and country bears are all still fine.

My impression is that they are looking for elements that are obviously outdated or offensive, such as the depiction of 'natives' in the Jungle Cruise and trying to be mindful of issues of inclusivity as they plan new attractions or additions going forward. In the case of Splash Mountain, it has been my favourite attraction since my very first visit to Disneyland so I'm sad to see it re-themed. On the other hand, the movie it is based on was controversial when the ride opened 30 years ago and is neither beloved nor really defensible in terms of its racial politics. So, I can understand where they feel that they're eventually going to have to address that issue and change the theme even if it doesn't fill me with joy. Whether we like it or not, Splash was also one of the more obvious examples of an attraction that potentially needed to be addressed alongside Jungle Cruise.

 

[Artemicon]

My impression is that they are looking for elements that are obviously outdated or offensive, such as the depiction of 'natives' in the Jungle Cruise and trying to be mindful of issues of inclusivity as they plan new attractions or additions going forward. In the case of Splash Mountain, it has been my favourite attraction since my very first visit to Disneyland so I'm sad to see it re-themed. On the other hand, the movie it is based on was controversial when the ride opened 30 years ago and is neither beloved nor really defensible in terms of its racial politics. So, I can understand where they feel that they're eventually going to have to address that issue and change the theme even if it doesn't fill me with joy. Whether we like it or not, Splash was also one of the more obvious examples of an attraction that potentially needed to be addressed alongside Jungle Cruise.

It's probably just the nostalgia talking, but I didn't see the need to remove something like Trader Sam and the other native depictions from the Jungle cruise. If anything it seems more racist to remove the cultural depictions of other races, and white washes the ride. I don't have problems with retheming the pole scene other than the fact that it again white washes it due to removing more people of color in favor of a whiter cast (in Disneyland, I know World's cast was different). All of this is considerate of the facts that in undeveloped parts of the Amazon(Polynesia?) and Africa, there were tribes that dressed, danced, and shrunk heads, in the ways depicted. If it's anything other than being more sensitive to a more delicate audience, I don't understand it. I hope it isn't just kowtowing to the types of people to complain about everything. Either way though, just opinion here, but it does seem just a bit more boring in comparison.

 

[DisneyDodo]

But this is honestly where I think people are creating their own slippery slope with talk about Main Street USA being under threat for being too white or Frontierland threatened with the bulldozer. I doubt we'll see shows based around cowboys and Indians or hokey Native American displays in Frontierland, but I think saloons, caves, riverboats, and country bears are all still fine.

My impression is that they are looking for elements that are obviously outdated or offensive, such as the depiction of 'natives' in the Jungle Cruise and trying to be mindful of issues of inclusivity as they plan new attractions or additions going forward. In the case of Splash Mountain, it has been my favourite attraction since my very first visit to Disneyland so I'm sad to see it re-themed. On the other hand, the movie it is based on was controversial when the ride opened 30 years ago and is neither beloved nor really defensible in terms of its racial politics. So, I can understand where they feel that they're eventually going to have to address that issue and change the theme even if it doesn't fill me with joy. Whether we like it or not, Splash was also one of the more obvious examples of an attraction that potentially needed to be addressed alongside Jungle Cruise.

My issue with this thinking is that nobody that I know of has even alleged that there is anything problematic about Splash Mountain itself. The outrage is simply based on the notion that it's doomed by association with a movie that was problematic, despite none of the problematic parts making it into the ride. That's very different from changing parts of a ride that are themselves controversial, as they've done with PotC and JC. If association with something non-inclusive alone is sufficient for an attraction to be deemed untenable, then there is absolutely nothing stopping Main Street or Frontierland from being completely removed on those grounds. I don't even see it as a "slippery slope" - in my mind, it would be completely lateral to the Splash retheme.

 

[DisneyDodo]

It's probably just the nostalgia talking, but I didn't see the need to remove something like Trader Sam and the other native depictions from the Jungle cruise. If anything it seems more racist to remove the cultural depictions of other races, and white washes the ride. I don't have problems with retheming the pole scene other than the fact that it again white washes it due to removing more people of color in favor of a whiter cast (in Disneyland, I know World's cast was different). All of this is considerate of the facts that in undeveloped parts of the Amazon(Polynesia?) and Africa, there were tribes that dressed, danced, and shrunk heads, in the ways depicted. If it's anything other than being more sensitive to a more delicate audience, I don't understand it. I hope it isn't just kowtowing to the types of people to complain about everything. Either way though, just opinion here, but it does seem just a bit more boring in comparison.

There's a sizable segment of the population that is offended by any depiction of Native Americans whatsoever. Just the idea of natives... existing... is seen as problematic. It's certainly ironic that this line of thinking is motivated not by racism, but by obsession with avoiding racism at all costs, but it obviously doesn't do the Native American community any favors.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

It's probably just the nostalgia talking, but I didn't see the need to remove something like Trader Sam and the other native depictions from the Jungle cruise. If anything it seems more racist to remove the cultural depictions of other races, and white washes the ride. I don't have problems with retheming the pole scene other than the fact that it again white washes it due to removing more people of color in favor of a whiter cast (in Disneyland, I know World's cast was different). All of this is considerate of the facts that in undeveloped parts of the Amazon(Polynesia?) and Africa, there were tribes that dressed, danced, and shrunk heads, in the ways depicted. If it's anything other than being more sensitive to a more delicate audience, I don't understand it. I hope it isn't just kowtowing to the types of people to complain about everything. Either way though, just opinion here, but it does seem just a bit more boring in comparison.

The issue, though, is that they are not cultural depictions but caricatures. Trader Sam, for example, was not created on the basis of meticulous research into the customs of a particular group of people, crafted in consultation with these people, and presented to visitors on the ride in an educational fashion. It's a gag using, in Anaheim, a figure designed to look African and, in Florida, one designed to be vaguely South American. The representations play on outdated stereotypes about 'uncivilised' people for humour and a little excitement, and they're certainly not respectful or accurate representations of any particular culture.

To be honest, I don't buy the idea of removing such caricatures as 'whitewashing' as it suggests that representation just means literally representing different types of people regardless of the nature of that representation.

If association with something non-inclusive alone is sufficient for an attraction to be deemed untenable, then there is absolutely nothing stopping Main Street or Frontierland from being completely removed on those grounds. I don't even see it as a "slippery slope" - in my mind, it would be completely lateral to the Splash retheme.

This is where I really don't find the slippery slope argument is at all convincing. Song of the South isn't controversial because people find it 'non-inclusive'; the film is considered by many to be racist. Splash Mountain isn't just associated with the film, it is directly based on it.

 

[Artemicon]

The issue, though, is that they are not cultural depictions but caricatures. Trader Sam, for example, was not created on the basis of meticulous research into the customs of a particular group of people, crafted in consultation with these people, and presented to visitors on the ride in an educational fashion. It's a gag using, in Anaheim, a figure designed to look African and, in Florida, one designed to be vaguely South American. The representations play on outdated stereotypes about 'uncivilised' people for humour and a little excitement, and they're certainly not respectful or accurate representations of any particular culture.

I can concede that Trader Sam is more of a caricature, as he is a character invented by Disney in their mythos. With that said I can see his removal, but why remove the other native depictions which are very close to video of tribal dance and hunting practices in their subsequent areas?

 

[DisneyDodo]

This is where I really don't find the slippery slope argument is at all convincing. Song of the South isn't controversial because people find it 'non-inclusive'; the film is considered by many to be racist. Splash Mountain isn't just associated with the film, it is directly based on it.

I don't really see the distinction you're making here. The treatment of Native Americans during the period of westward expansion was most certainly racist. Frontierland is directly based on that period.

But Frontierland is not even the clearest parallel to Splash in this regard. Take Dumbo - the crows in the movie are seen as anti-black racist caricatures. Of course, they aren't included in the Dumbo the Flying Elephant ride, but the ride is directly based on that film. Would you suggest there is no way the same people who demanded Splash be rethemed could never do the same to Dumbo?

If the most racism-conscious person in the world visited Magic Kingdom with no prior context and rode every attraction, they would have nothing negative to say about Splash Mountain. The fact that it still has to go (despite also being one of the most popular attractions in the park and the fact that Disney was dealing with a pandemic-fueled cash crunch when they announced it) suggests that virtually nothing is safe. I'm not saying that everything will be replaced, just that there is no reason to assume that any of the aforementioned attractions/lands won't be. You can always conjure up some minor reason why this case is different, but in reality, the standard that's being set is one that Splash is nowhere near alone in failing to live up to.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

I don't really see the distinction you're making here. The treatment of Native Americans during the period of westward expansion was most certainly racist. Frontierland is directly based on that period.

But Frontierland is not even the clearest parallel to Splash in this regard. Take Dumbo - the crows in the movie are seen as anti-black racist caricatures. Of course, they aren't included in the Dumbo the Flying Elephant ride, but the ride is directly based on that film. Would you suggest there is no way the same people who demanded Splash be rethemed could never do the same to Dumbo?

This is where I don't get the slippery slope argument of it having to be all or nothing. You may disagree with some of the choices, but Disney is choosing to address what it sees as attractions and theming in the park having overtly racist connotations, not anything that could possibly be read as having some connection to something racist. So, for example, if the black crows were part of the Dumbo ride I'm sure they would be gone, as the "red Indians" from Peter Pan's Flight surely will be soon. They judge Song of the South as a racist film and don't want an attraction based on the film in the parks anymore. Again, I understand why some might disagree, but the connection between the film and the attraction is explicit.

Saying that they either have to take such measures AND demolish Main Street USA, burn the entire Dumbo ride, close Frontierland, take down all the American flags, close any World Showcase pavilion whose country has anything racist in its past, etc. OR do absolutely nothing to address racism in existing attractions is not logical. It's also just a way of saying you don't want them to address any issues of racism in the park.

 

[DisneyDodo]

This is where I don't get the slippery slope argument of it having to be all or nothing. You may disagree with some of the choices, but Disney is choosing to address what it sees as attractions and theming in the park having overtly racist connotations, not anything that could possibly be read as having some connection to something racist. So, for example, if the black crows were part of the Dumbo ride I'm sure they would be gone, as the "red Indians" from Peter Pan's Flight surely will be soon. They judge Song of the South as a racist film and don't want an attraction based on the film in the parks anymore. Again, I understand why some might disagree, but the connection between the film and the attraction is explicit.

Saying that they either have to take such measures AND demolish Main Street USA, burn the entire Dumbo ride, close Frontierland, take down all the American flags, close any World Showcase pavilion whose country has anything racist in its past, etc. OR do absolutely nothing to address racism in existing attractions is not logical. It's also just a way of saying you don't want them to address any issues of racism in the park.

I don't want to belabor the point, so this will be my last post on this. You seem to contradict yourself by suggesting that Dumbo is fine because the racist parts aren't included, and PPF will be fine once those racist aspects are removed, but Splash is problematic despite not including any of the racist parts of the original film. Nobody claims that there is anything racist about Br'er Rabbit, Fox, or Bear.

As for your second point that it's not all-or-nothing, I've already addressed that twice:

That's very different from changing parts of a ride that are themselves controversial, as they've done with PotC and JC.

I'm not saying that everything will be replaced, just that there is no reason to assume that any of the aforementioned attractions/lands won't be. You can always conjure up some minor reason why this case is different, but in reality, the standard that's being set is one that Splash is nowhere near alone in failing to live up to.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

I don't want to belabor the point, so this will be my last post on this. You seem to contradict yourself by suggesting that Dumbo is fine because the racist parts aren't included, and PPF will be fine once those racist aspects are removed, but Splash is problematic despite not including any of the racist parts of the original film. Nobody claims that there is anything racist about Br'er Rabbit, Fox, or Bear.

We will, no doubt, have to agree to disagree. My response, though, would be that there is a difference between not including an outdated racist caricature when basing an attraction on a film that is otherwise not racist to basing an attraction on the non-racist parts of a racist film.

Again, people will disagree on whether SotS is racist, or if the animated segments are or are not, etc., but I think that's the logic at play and it makes sense to me.

 

[UNCgolf]

We will, no doubt, have to agree to disagree. My response, though, would be that there is a difference between not including an outdated racist caricature when basing an attraction on a film that is otherwise not racist to basing an attraction on the non-racist parts of a racist film.

Again, people will disagree on whether SotS is racist, or if the animated segments are or are not, etc., but I think that's the logic at play and it makes sense to me.

While I'm okay with the Splash retheme in theory (I just don't have any faith that the replacement will be comparable in quality), I think what you're saying here is a tough line to draw. How do you really determine if a film is racist overall or just has specific racist parts?

 

[James Alucobond]

I think the difference here may simply be Disney's intent. They never intend to revisit Song of the South, so you're dealing with a completely dead IP they've scrubbed from their back catalogue; there is no possibility of future synergies between the ride and features in the theater or on Disney+. It can only ever be what it currently is because Disney views its media counterpart as irredeemable and void of re-make potential, unlike all of the classic fairy tales and adventure stories that form the basis for nearly everything else.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

While I'm okay with the Splash retheme in theory (I just don't have any faith that the replacement will be comparable in quality), I think what you're saying here is a tough line to draw. How do you really determine if a film is racist overall or just has specific racist parts?

Very fair point. I think other people have argued far better than I could why SotS has provoked a particularly strong reaction over its representation of the Reconstruction-era South and of African Americans themselves from its release onwards. I can understand why others might, but I'm honestly not that interested or competent to argue over whether or how SotS is racist. I do think it's clear that Disney itself decided long before the current political and cultural moment (ironically dating back to around the time Splash Mountain opened) that the film's depictions of race were so unacceptable that they would not re-release or broadcast the film again. The entire setting and the dialogue of the main characters in SotS are read by many as racist in a way that isn't the case with something like Dumbo or, say, The Aristocats even if they do contain some racist stereotypes.

I do agree that it's thorny and people can reasonably disagree on these judgements. I also think, though, that you can say SotS crosses a line that a film like Dumbo or Peter Pan doesn't and so it doesn't follow that if you take one out of the parks you have to take all of them out.

I also have my concerns over whether they'll be able to come up with something of comparable quality.

 

[LittleBuford]

While I'm okay with the Splash retheme in theory (I just don't have any faith that the replacement will be comparable in quality), I think what you're saying here is a tough line to draw. How do you really determine if a film is racist overall or just has specific racist parts?

There's no exact science to it, but I think it's telling that Song of the South was regarded as problematic from the moment of its release. I find it strange that so many posters here say there are no issues with the film given that critics back in the '40s could spot them.

 

[UNCgolf]

There's no exact science to it, but I think it's telling that Song of the South was regarded as problematic from the moment of its release. I find it strange that so many posters here say there are no issues with the film given that critics back in the '40s could spot them.

I do agree that it's thorny and people can reasonably disagree on these judgements. I also think, though, that you can say SotS crosses a line that a film like Dumbo or Peter Pan doesn't and so it doesn't follow that if you take one out of the parks you have to take all of them out.

I agree that Song of the South is really in its own category and there's not much else that's comparable.

With that said, I would not be surprised to see some discontent around representing movies like Dumbo and Peter Pan which have potentially racist elements (not really arguable in Peter Pan, but I actually have seen academic arguments that the crows in Dumbo aren't racist). I don't think it'll rise to the level of removing the attractions, but I suppose you never know.

I personally tend to agree with the argument that the ride itself isn't racist, but I also understand that it's difficult to divorce the ride from the movie and it's easier for Disney to just wash their hands of it.