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

[Animaniac93-98]

I want to know how much of the discussion was instigated by people who have never and would never visit the parks in the first place. Random thought.

For decades Disney has been trying to win over the opinion of high brow critics who don't really care about or want to visit the parks. It's something Eisner tried in vain to do when Disney's America was in development in the 1990s.

This has always existed and goes back to the 1950s when Disneyland first opened. It's never gone away and never will, but the perceived influence of social media has made Disney more susceptible to thinking these opinions can hurt their bottom line.

 

[Parker in NYC]

As am I. I try not to anymore, but we all get carried away occasionally.

I think all bets are off these days. If someone does claim to know every angle, the cheese stands alone.

 

[_caleb]

No I don’t. However, I think the Fanbase is VERY easily influenced by these influencers. We’ve seen it with the Chapek hate and the IP complaints. People on WDWMagic have been complaining about Chapek since 2015. A few notable influencers started popularizing these complaints on other platforms, and it took off. Now, the majority of online Disney fans hate this guy, and most don’t even know why.

The opposite is true with Josh D’Amaro. The DIS had some great personal interactions with him, and suddenly, Disney fans look at him as the new Walt.

This widespread acclaim or disdain for certain decisions can have an impact on Disney, but typically, it’s fairly minimal. Something like merchandise, not a full theme park attraction.

I guess what I'm really curious at this point is whether there could be any scenario which might lead you to change your opinion a bit (I'm not trying to change your opinion here, just trying to understand a little better). Sometimes, I like to do a little thought experiment like this: Would any of the following cause you to reconsider (even just a little) your opinion:

• Let's say that Splash Mountain was more directly tied to the Song of the South movie than it is. Would that make a difference?
• How about if Disney received six million complaints from guests, expressing hurt and begging that the ride be changed?
• Would it matter if it turned out that "Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah" was discovered to have been written by a leader of the KKK?
• What if Disney knew (as in, had proof, like a diary entry or an interview) that the movie or the ride had actually been created in order to promote a racist ideology?

Obviously, these are pushing things to an extreme. I'm not suggesting that any of these scenarios are true. I'm just curious if any of these-if they had been true--would influence your opinion. I think the one(s) you pick might help me really get where you're coming from.

Everyone's invited to play along if they're interested. I'd only ask that nobody jump on anyone for their answers.

 

[JohnD]

Thanks for your thoughts. I'm genuinely interested in this discussion, and I'm not looking for a fight. So I really appreciate avoiding the sarcasm and mocking tone that can put people on the defensive.

In your opinion, the complaints about Splash Mountain have little/no merit, but Disney thinks they do have merit? Or do you think Disney is just more scared of the complainers than they are of the anti-change people?

This: Disney is just more scared of the complainers than they are of the anti-change people.

I won't say that "anti-change people" don't have valid arguments. But let's be honest. We've been hearing those arguments since Horizons was taken down. The anti-change crowd is very vocal surrounding EPCOT but that hasn't stopped Disney. With Splash, it's more than just "complainers". There's the political subtext surrounding it and the need to get on the bandwagon. Again, look at all the product changes over the summer when demands for change were at their zenith.

 

[Brer Oswald]

I guess what I'm really curious at this point is whether there could be any scenario which might lead you to change your opinion a bit (I'm not trying to change your opinion here, just trying to understand a little better). Sometimes, I like to do a little thought experiment like this: Would any of the following cause you to reconsider (even just a little) your opinion:

• Let's say that Splash Mountain was more directly tied to the Song of the South movie than it is. Would that make a difference?
• How about if Disney received six million complaints from guests, expressing hurt and begging that the ride be changed?
• Would it matter if it turned out that "Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah" was discovered to have been written by a leader of the KKK?
• What if Disney knew (as in, had proof, like a diary entry or an interview) that the movie or the ride had actually been created in order to promote a racist ideology?

Obviously, these are pushing things to an extreme. I'm not suggesting that any of these scenarios are true. I'm just curious if any of these-if they had been true--would influence your opinion. I think the one(s) you pick might help me really get where you're coming from.

Everyone's invited to play along if they're interested. I'd only ask that nobody jump on anyone for their answers.

It’s hard to play devil’s advocate with these questions, as they would require different content for it to be true.

1) This one would make a difference. However, I’m not one to say “THROW IT ALL OUT” if it has problems that can be fixed. Let’s say they included Uncle Remus, and people found the character to be an offensive stereotype. My solution would be to take out Uncle Remus. If there is some other scenario you’re thinking of, let me know.

2) The change would be warranted, regardless of what I think. But I always look to the why. Why are people offended? What can we do to make things better and fix this? Is the only solution to throw Br’er Rabbit out? Or is there a problem with the way the character is represented rather than the stories themselves.

3) Let’s consider a different scenario that might be true if it was written by the alleged Clan leader. Say that the song has a line or a hidden meaning that, when pointed out, clearly represents a disgusting view. That’s very bad and you would need to take action.

4) This is the big one. This would be where the problem is, and it would change everything. Fortunately, it isn’t true.

You aren’t going to change my mind, because I’ve done enough research to come to my conclusion. I didn’t haphazardly come up with my viewpoint on the subject. I did research before I even rode the attraction.

 

[Chi84]

This: Disney is just more scared of the complainers than they are of the anti-change people.

I won't say that "anti-change people" don't have valid arguments. But let's be honest. We've been hearing those arguments since Horizons was taken down. The anti-change crowd is very vocal surrounding EPCOT but that hasn't stopped Disney. With Splash, it's more than just "complainers". There's the political subtext surrounding it and the need to get on the bandwagon. Again, look at all the product changes over the summer when demands for change were at their zenith.

I don't think Disney's "scared" of either group. Splash Mountain in any form is not going to be a factor in whether people visit Disney. No one is staying away because of the current theme, and I doubt anyone is going to make the decision to take a WDW vacation based solely on the fact that Splash will be changed to PatF. Oh, sure, it will be the most popular ride for a while when the theme is new, but it's not going to drive anyone's decision to visit.

Disney has always been somewhat progressive in its outlook, so re-theming a ride to be more diverse and inclusive would naturally appeal to it. And if it also gets rid of a ride based on a movie that Disney itself has distanced itself from, all the better.

 

[_caleb]

It’s hard to play devil’s advocate with these questions, as they would require different content for it to be true.

1) This one would make a difference. However, I’m not one to say “THROW IT ALL OUT” if it has problems that can be fixed. Let’s say they included Uncle Remus, and people found the character to be an offensive stereotype. My solution would be to take out Uncle Remus. If there is some other scenario you’re thinking of, let me know.

2) The change would be warranted, regardless of what I think. But I always look to the why. Why are people offended? What can we do to make things better and fix this? Is the only solution to throw Br’er Rabbit out? Or is there a problem with the way the character is represented rather than the stories themselves.

3) Let’s consider a different scenario that might be true if it was written by the alleged Clan leader. Say that the song has a line or a hidden meaning that, when pointed out, clearly represents a disgusting view. That’s very bad and you would need to take action.

4) This is the big one. This would be where the problem is, and it would change everything. Fortunately, it isn’t true.

You aren’t going to change my mind, because I’ve done enough research to come to my conclusion. I didn’t haphazardly come up with my viewpoint on the subject. I did research before I even rode the attraction.

Thanks for your thoughts and for playing along. Like I said, I am not trying to change anyone’s mind here.

 

[EagleScout610]

The retheme is designed around Disneyland. It makes little sense to start Florida first. Not to mention the fact that they have 3 new attractions they haven’t opened (1 of which is finished, but they’re holding off on due to the lack of tourists they can currently open their doors to). So “immediate revenue” isn’t a sound excuse.

Yes, it was originally designed to make Critter Country more 'instagrammable' and connect it to New Orleans

 

[Dunston]

The bottom line is that a not-insignificant percentage of people think about racism and remember it exists, however briefly, when they ride splash mountain or see it in DL and WDW. Not because the ride is racist, or portrays race at all, but becuase like it or not, the ride is tied to a property most recognize as the "forbidden racist Disney movie." They don't want people in Disney World to be reminded of racism or prejudice at all on their $5,000 vacation. Full stop. Bad vibes. So, they'll change the ride.

The question now is whether the new version just makes people think about Song of the South and racial issues more than before because of the timing of the retheme's announcement and the fact that it used to be something different that now has been deemed to be inexorably tied to racism.

I would have preferred that the ride remained unchanged, because it was a perfect Disney World ride and a waste of money from a company that had to lay off tens of thousands. But, oh well, I understand the rationale at least.

 

[LastoneOn]

I guess what I'm really curious at this point is whether there could be any scenario which might lead you to change your opinion a bit (I'm not trying to change your opinion here, just trying to understand a little better). Sometimes, I like to do a little thought experiment like this: Would any of the following cause you to reconsider (even just a little) your opinion:

• Let's say that Splash Mountain was more directly tied to the Song of the South movie than it is. Would that make a difference?
• How about if Disney received six million complaints from guests, expressing hurt and begging that the ride be changed?
• Would it matter if it turned out that "Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah" was discovered to have been written by a leader of the KKK?
• What if Disney knew (as in, had proof, like a diary entry or an interview) that the movie or the ride had actually been created in order to promote a racist ideology?

Obviously, these are pushing things to an extreme. I'm not suggesting that any of these scenarios are true. I'm just curious if any of these-if they had been true--would influence your opinion. I think the one(s) you pick might help me really get where you're coming from.

Everyone's invited to play along if they're interested. I'd only ask that nobody jump on anyone for their answers.

#1: Not for me. If a nationwide vote of black people said it was a problem, ok. But some "expert" portending too speak for 40 million people? No.

#2: Pretty substantive. No way to know if they are visitors or not, but its a big number.

#3: What if Happy Birthday were same scenario? What if the words "like" "love" "happy" "joy" or their concepts etc were same scenario? (and we are seeing something along this line with 'math is racist' etc etc etc)

#4: Intention does not always drive results. Have to assess the result, effects. Simple question you ask riders: How did it make you feel? Clint Eastwood made a "war movie" called Kelley's Heroes. He intended it to be an anti-war movie. It turned out to be a big hit. Nobody sees it as an anti-war movie, they see it for what it is: Its a a bank heist comedy/drama set in war time. He's actually quite disgusted that the viewers reacted this way. (interviews) Jokes on him. Great cast, great movie by the way.

So let's say #4 occurs, but when its all done nobody picks up on his intention, everyone of all races enjoys the thing, becomes a beloved fan favorite, and so, who's the joke on?? The joke's on the racist.

I don't have a problem with them changing the ride, we will miss Splash, and are hopeful for the new.
What I have a problem with is the pandering, chickens**t way they went about announcing the change. In effect treating a segment of the population like a bunch of stupid fools.

 

[Brer Panther]

So now Disney and the pro-rethemers on this site are claiming that those that people who like and/or work as cast members on Splash Mountain are racist. That's like saying people who like Modern Family are racist against Columbians because the show features lots of jokes about Columbia and stereotypes.

Come on, you know Disney well enough to know that they wouldn’t spend millions to retheme a popular attraction for no reason. You might think the reason doesn’t warrant Disney’s response, but that’s different than saying there’s no reason whatsoever.

They have a reason. Whether that reason is because they're afraid of the complainers, Bob Iger just wanting to free himself from Song of the South existing, or Disney just wanting to sell Tiana merchandise, I don't know.

In your opinion, the complaints about Splash Mountain have little/no merit, but Disney thinks they do have merit? Or do you think Disney is just more scared of the complainers than they are of the anti-change people?

The latter.

The change of Splash Mountain is also an opportunity to push the franchise mandate within the parks by scrapping a ride based on an obscure movie form the 40s with another Princess property that can push merch. That aspect of the change can't be understated and is arguably the #1 reason for all of this, but the added context of "inclusiveness" can be used to further justify the change and dismiss objections.

And some of us are really off put when corporate inclusive measures start and end with the selling of more product, something Disney has been frequently guilty of when it comes to the LGBT community.

I think more people would realize that if it weren't for the fact that Disney initially brushed off The Princess and the Frog as a flop for not making as much money as they'd expected. It makes their suddenly doing a 180 on it all the more suspicious.

This: Disney is just more scared of the complainers than they are of the anti-change people.

Testify.

Reading this thread makes me feel pain. I'm tempted to give up. Enjoy your screen-filled, animatronic-less, done on the cheap, merchandise-pushing Woke Mountain, everyone. As for me, I'll just keep hoping that the rumors about the Magic Kingdom version's retheme being cancelled are true, no matter how unlikely that may seem at the moment, so I can return to Disney World and have a Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah time. And no, I am not a racist. I hate racism.

 

[MisterPenguin]

So now Disney and the pro-rethemers on this site are claiming that those that people who like and/or work as cast members on Splash Mountain are racist.

Can you quote one person who said that in this thread?

 

[tanc]

So if they rush this retheme and people claim the quality is not good enough, then how will this be "inclusive"? Like the bar is so high, and if this retheme is subpar to old Splash Mountain and people complain, people could think Disney did not spend enough money or enough meaningful care. In a way, it just seems like a very tough project to do. If this turns out to be rushed and the people begging for this retheme hate it, how will Disney even deal with it lol.

This "expedited project" to me just sounds like it might be a ton of screen overlays.

Maybe Tokyo was smart about this. They don't want a rushed product.

 

[MisterPenguin]

This "expedited project" to me just sounds like it might be a ton of screen overlays.

What else did Disney do that was an "expedited project" that resulted in a ton of screens such that you would think this?

 

[doctornick]

I am not saying that. D'Amaro implied that Splash makes people feel "unwelcome".

I'm very firmly on the "they shouldn't change the ride side" but when I read the full quote, it sounds to me that he is talking about adding PatF and (thus) how adding more representation for POC the parks would be more "inclusive" and "welcoming". I don't really read the in context quote as necessarily condemning Splash as "unwelcoming". I mean, yes, that's an undercurrent to the entire process going on here but not necessarily the gist of the quote in question.

And, I'll add, that the proper solution in this situation is to build a proper appropriate attraction for Tiana and PatF, not destroy a classic that is only problematic because Disney is intentionally marketing it as such. There absolutely should be more and better representation for minorities in the parks.

 

[_caleb]

It’s hard to play devil’s advocate with these questions, as they would require different content for it to be true.

1) This one would make a difference. However, I’m not one to say “THROW IT ALL OUT” if it has problems that can be fixed. Let’s say they included Uncle Remus, and people found the character to be an offensive stereotype. My solution would be to take out Uncle Remus. If there is some other scenario you’re thinking of, let me know.

2) The change would be warranted, regardless of what I think. But I always look to the why. Why are people offended? What can we do to make things better and fix this? Is the only solution to throw Br’er Rabbit out? Or is there a problem with the way the character is represented rather than the stories themselves.

3) Let’s consider a different scenario that might be true if it was written by the alleged Clan leader. Say that the song has a line or a hidden meaning that, when pointed out, clearly represents a disgusting view. That’s very bad and you would need to take action.

4) This is the big one. This would be where the problem is, and it would change everything. Fortunately, it isn’t true.

You aren’t going to change my mind, because I’ve done enough research to come to my conclusion. I didn’t haphazardly come up with my viewpoint on the subject. I did research before I even rode the attraction.

So far, I’m hearing that Splash Mountain the ride is found to be differentiated enough from Song of the South the film that the racially insensitive aspects of the film are not carried over to the ride. Obviously some people may disagree, but this seems like a valid and understandable position to me, and seems the likely position Disney had when green lighting the project in the first place and keeping it open since then.

I’m also hearing that those who are against the changes are skeptical about the number and sincerity of people who find the ride offensive. I’m not sure what sort of evidence could possibly exist that people are truly offended (protests? boycotts?), but it seems that complaints on social media are not taken as sufficient. Of course, only Disney would know the number or quality of complaints they may have received about the ride, and I’m pretty sure they’re not going to release that information.

There has been lots of discussion about the song, Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah (along with “Turkey in the Straw”) being an iteration of an old minstrel song. It seems those who are against the changes don’t believe any relation between the songs is significant enough to warrant changes. Disney may disagree with this one, but it does seem open to interpretation.

Finally, those who are against the changes generally can imagine a scenario in which their support for the ride would be reconsidered- more evidence of a genuinely offended party or the release of hidden information about malintent. If such information does exist, Disney certainly isn’t sharing it.

Anything I’m missing?

Again, I appreciate those of you who took the time to respond, and I truly am sorry that you’re losing an attraction you love.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

There absolutely should be more and better representation for minorities in the parks.

And there are certainly many ways to do this without changing all versions of Splash Mountain.

 

[BuzzedPotatoHead89]

What else did Disney do that was an "expedited project" that resulted in a ton of screens such that you would think this?

GOTG:MB immediately comes to mind. As do multiple Universal attractions.

I will say the execution of screens and AAs together in and of itself is not a bad thing and I continue to believe a “refresh” of this attraction is not a bad thing. I just question the seeming desire to haphazardly rush this project like it’s removing hemorrhage.

I don’t doubt Disney is capable of creating a high quality second generation Splash Mountain around Tiana and friends. However I am more concerned if this “reimagining” is not well-conceived due to timing/budget constraints in the end both the pro-rethemers and purists will be displeased. And as a result it will forever inextricably be linked to the ride’s previous incarnation and (perceived “troubled”) history.

In some ways, if the budget is too constrained, it would behoove Disney not to “speed this up” at this time. Better to wait than risk the backlash of a “cheap” redo if they really hope to try to best close the book on this SOTS saga/controversy.

 

[MisterPenguin]

GOTG:MB immediately comes to mind. As do multiple Universal attractions.

How many AAs were removed from DL's ToT and replaced by screens?

Don't forget the Rocket AA that was *added*.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

In some ways, if the budget is too constrained, it would behoove Disney not to “speed this up” at this time. Better to wait than risk the backlash of a “cheap” redo if they really hope to try to best close the book on this SOTS saga/controversy.

Unless it's blatantly, comically cheap, don't expect much backlash once it's done, regardless of the result.

The ride will be better (even if it's not) because its inclusive and based on a movie 2020 audiences recognize. The bar for success in the eyes of Disney is pretty low. Increased merch sales will also be seen as proof that they made the right decision.