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

[Donaldfan1934]

The stated goal of the final result is everyone feels welcome and included. In order to accomplish this goal, Disney is willing to spend lots of time and money and risk offending fans of Splash Mountain. To me, this indicates that 1) they're pretty serious about the values they're espousing, and 2) they see this as a sound direction for the company in the long term.

Could they be wrong about this move? Maybe. But they're definitely going into this with their eyes wide open. I certainly seems like a demonstration of leadership in a certain direction, however unpopular with some fans. There's plenty of room for disagreement over how they're approaching these changes, but from my perspective, this overall direction is aligns very well with what Walt always intended for the parks to be.

Pleasing everyone is an impossibility. When a company takes actions that even implicitly condemn their product and arguably fans of or employees associated with their product, I believe there needs to be absolute certainty that said product is causing more harm than good. Otherwise, you could ironically end up alienating more customers than can potentially be gained.

I feel the certainty of a product’s impact should be taken into even greater consideration in turbulent times such as these where a possible misstep may be harder to recover from. We can agree to disagree, but as a return to business as usual for the parks division seems increasingly further off with some locations struggling to remain open or get clearance to reopen and thousands of CM’s continuing to be laid off, I already find continued investment towards any high profile projects that aren’t currently under construction to be questionable. When those projects appear to me as if they might lead to larger issues with maintaining the existing audience of the parks, I’m even more likely to question the investment on multiple levels.

 

[_caleb]

Pleasing everyone is an impossibility.

Literally, it’s not. But generally, it is. Who isn’t pleased with Main Street USA?

When a company takes actions that even implicitly condemn their product and arguably fans of or employees associated with their product, I believe there needs to be absolute certainty that said product is causing more harm than good. Otherwise, you could ironically end up alienating more customers than can potentially be gained.

You think Disney is doing all this without being certain? Huh. Seems to me they’d have considered how many fans these kinds of changes might alienate before doing this sort of thing.

Are you familiar with their work on the Star Wars franchise?

I feel the certainty of a product’s impact should be taken into even greater consideration in turbulent times such as these where a possible misstep may be harder to recover from. We can agree to disagree, but as a return to business as usual for the parks division seems increasingly further off with some locations struggling to remain open or get clearance to reopen and thousands of CM’s continuing to be laid off, I already find continued investment towards any high profile projects that aren’t under currently construction to be questionable. When those projects appear to me as if they might lead to larger issues with maintaining the existing audience of the parks, I’m even more likely to question the investment on multiple levels.

This sounds like something I imagine Roy saying said to Walt.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

It was already mentioned in this thread previously but, for a movie about an African-American princess, you see very little of her as an African-American. She's mostly a frog throughout. Not me, but I'm sure someone is "offended".

This has been a common criticism of the movie since it was first released.

 

[Sharon&Susan]

Who isn’t pleased with Main Street USA?

Richard Schickel

 

[_caleb]

Richard Schickel

The Disney Version!

 

[Donaldfan1934]

Literally, it’s not. But generally, it is. Who isn’t pleased with Main Street USA?

Well, Main Street USA has been rumored to be converted into Mickey Ave. or something like it under the guise of Disney’s self-proclaimed inclusivity push, so I guess it’s possible there are at least a few people internally that have a problem with it.

You think Disney is doing all this without being certain? Huh. Seems to me they’d have considered how many fans these kinds of changes might alienate before doing this sort of thing.

Are you familiar with their work on the Star Wars franchise?

I am very familiar familiar with their work on the Star Wars franchise and while I personally haven’t taken any major issue with their output, they objectively did manage to alienate a fair amount of the Star Wars fandom with the sequel trilogy. Sure, TRoS still made over a billion, but it was still a pretty big drop off from the over 2 billion TFA made.

This sounds like something I imagine Roy saying said to Walt.

While Walt and Roy’s relationship certainly had it’s ups and downs, their yin and yang dynamic was integral to the success of their overall careers.

 

[Brer Panther]

I could see some not being able to “separate” the two concepts once researched; however a lot more people in the public audience I think are capable of it. To a point, let’s use Disney’s Aladdin.

I will definitely acknowledge that to many in the Arab culture and world, the film probably comes across as tone deaf in some ways; when the live action remake debuted I remember reading about some the old controversies from the original film, and the animated film for the most part remains unchanged to this day (one line about slicing ears off was changed). Some stereotypical and whitewashed elements remain.

yet, despite an insensitive cultural depiction (I am not claiming myself to be offended, but it’s acknowledged that some of Arabic culture have been offended), the movie remains in circulation, and there are still Aladdin attractions at Disney. Are those attractions automatically offensive to the same people? Or is the general person able to separate the attraction(s) from the film, recognizing that the characters and some concepts in themselves aren’t inherently bad, and can be separated in both thought and practical application? For example, does the magic carpet evoke offensive stereotypes, just because it’s from a film that contains them? It’s a simple no for me. And that’s how I look at SM. *Anything* remotely offensive has been excised; but if that’s not good enough for SM, then why is it for other attraction’s linked to films with insensitive elements? That’s what I mean when I don’t think Disney is genuine. Otherwise it’s parks would be in for a major overhaul

This whole debate really stems from the fact that Song of the South, due to its status as the "banned" Disney movie, is an easy target.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Richard Schickel

Did he like anything?

 

[LittleBuford]

I believe when they built Splash they thought they had future-proofed it from offending anyone...

They also recognised the problematic nature of the source material, which is why they took such great pains to leave out anything offensive. It probably wasn't the wisest move to base an attraction on a film that had already been regarded as controversial for over four decades.

 

[puckett26]

But can't you see- they are future-proofing by changing in light of new sensibilities. We're not going back to a world where "it was a product of its time" is an acceptable rationale for insensitivity like what's found in Song of the South.

That's not completely what I meant by future proofing. I think we generally agree on the subject bc I did say they should be aware of the subject matter. Attractions should be designed for all to enjoy and not be a band aid or a quick twitch reaction to the current PR situation. It may simply be a matter of bad timing by WDW but they made the announcement and tried to kill two birds with one stone. The petition was to retheme Splash. Not replace it with the wrong attraction. Future proofing is not simply eliminating sensitivities. The attractions also have to hit all of the checkmarks, and most importantly, fit the theme of the parks (especially the one being replaced).

This is what I meant by "winning people over." There is a scenario where the people who are upset by the loss of the Brer characters might still consider the rethemed attraction to be good/enjoyable/worthwhile. If they're able to pull this off (as you mention in your post), it would unite the fans?

You will not win the Splash crowd back with the current plan no matter how good the replacement. On the flip side, I would not be happy with PATF replacing a ride that has been "under consideration for quite some time" and not even included with every other princesses in the park. Lose-lose for me.

Not a bad idea, just not the direction they're going with.

Definitely a bummer and I never expected them to do the right thing. They are taking the easy road and least costly option which is a disservice to both attractions and WDW fans.

I would agree with this if the government was forcing Disney to make these changes. But by all accounts, this is a Disney-initiated campaign borne of internal discussion and reflection. There is no indication that Disney is changing based on a number (large or small) of people who have been offended- only that they consider the current theme to be something that might make some people (people Disney wants to include) feel less welcome.

Government has nothing to do with this nor should they. This is about PR, inclusion and doing what is right/satisfying your customer base. I was just making a general statement based on my opinion - I am very down the middle and prefer not choosing a side. WDW's lack of action and sudden reaction to the petition is perceived as a band aid otherwise Splash would have been rethemed years ago when the issue was originally identified. Not kicking the can down the road and "accelerating" the issue after the poop hit the fan. And not only did they pass it off for years, but they are taking the easy and least costly approach which tells me they didn't think about this nearly as much as we are. It is leading to poor decision making and once again replacing rather than expanding. This is a great opportunity to create 2 inclusive attractions and appeal to all fans.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

They also recognised the problematic nature of the source material, which is why they took such great pains to leave out anything offensive. It probably wasn't the wisest move to base an attraction on a film that had already been regarded as controversial for over four decades.

Song of the South was re-released to theaters twice in the same decade the ride opened at Disneyland.

The controversy over the movie pre-dated its original release, but it was never a deterrent to Disney until the 90s. Even then, that was only for releasing the whole thing uncut in the USA. Clips and foreign tapes were still considered fine until the 2000s.

 

[LittleBuford]

Song of the South was re-released to theaters twice in the same decade the ride opened at Disneyland.

The controversy over the movie pre-dated its original release, but it was never a deterrent to Disney until the 90s. Even then, that was only for releasing the whole thing uncut in the USA. Clips and foreign tapes were still considered fine until the 2000s.

Disney was sufficiently aware of the film’s baggage to change the tar-baby scene and remove any reference to the human characters. It was locked away in the vault around the same time that Splash Mountain opened. Again, bad planning given what they already knew.

 

[LittleBuford]

The controversy over the movie pre-dated its original release, but it was never a deterrent to Disney until the 90s.

On this specific issue:

​

Although Song of the South proved a financial success every time it was reissued (1956, 1972, 1980 and 1986), it has not been reissued as often as most Disney films, which were re-released about every seven years. On February 25, 1970, Variety reported that the Disney studio had put the film "permanently on the shelf as offensive to Negroes and present concepts of race." In 1972, however, the studio stated that the picture had never been shelved and would be re-released due to the large numbers of requests from the public.​

Song of the South

Uncle Remus draws upon his tales of Brer Rabbit to help little Johnny deal his confusion over his parents' separation as well as his new life on the plantation. The tales: The Briar Patch, The Tar Baby and Brer Rabbit's Laughing place.

www.tcm.com

 

[Animaniac93-98]

On this specific issue:

​

Although Song of the South proved a financial success every time it was reissued (1956, 1972, 1980 and 1986), it has not been reissued as often as most Disney films, which were re-released about every seven years. On February 25, 1970, Variety reported that the Disney studio had put the film "permanently on the shelf as offensive to Negroes and present concepts of race." In 1972, however, the studio stated that the picture had never been shelved and would be re-released due to the large numbers of requests from the public.​

Song of the South

Uncle Remus draws upon his tales of Brer Rabbit to help little Johnny deal his confusion over his parents' separation as well as his new life on the plantation. The tales: The Briar Patch, The Tar Baby and Brer Rabbit's Laughing place.

www.tcm.com

They changed their minds two years later. All this does it show that it was not a deterrent until the 90s, as I said.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Again, bad planning given what they already knew.

Written from the perspective of 2020. As is so many of these talking points from hypocritical Disney fans.

 

[LittleBuford]

They changed their minds two years later. All this does it show that it was not a deterrent until the 90s, as I said.

I know they changed their minds two years later: I included that detail in the quotation I provided. You didn’t comment on the rest, however.

 

[LittleBuford]

Written from the perspective of 2020. As is so many of these talking points from hypocritical Disney fans.

How am I, or how are others, being hypocritical?

 

[_caleb]

How am I, or how are others, being hypocritical?

Yeah, @Animaniac93-98, are you talking about us? Me? I'd hope not- I thought we are making some good progress in this discussion and understanding each other better...

 

[_caleb]

It may simply be a matter of bad timing by WDW but they made the announcement and tried to kill two birds with one stone.

Yes. I think the opportunity to speak into (and capitalize on) the current social was too big for them to pass up.

The petition was to retheme Splash. Not replace it with the wrong attraction.

What makes you think the announcement of the retheme was in response to the petition? I don't think it had much to do with it at all.

Yes, I think we agree on a lot here.
I appreciate the discussion!

 

[larryz]

Kind of hard to talk about a stabbing without referencing the knife.

Why? Newspapers and Big Media do it all the time.