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

[Bocabear]

I'm not sure Disney has the ability to pull off this retheme and not have it come off as mediocre. If getting rid of splash is what they are going to do, do it right and bulldoze the building and start fresh. That is what PatF deserves. There are so many cool things you can take from the movie for a great ride. But having to shoehorn them into a preexisting space, really will limit the creativity in my eyes.

I disagree... It is not like the FEA overlay where they were taking a very short attraction and expanding from there, Splash is a long ride with tons of scenery and show scenes... There are ample opportunities to tell a great story and create an engaging attraction within that framework...Question is more like will they spend the money to really do a great job with it...
While I am opposed to the change, I am hopeful they will make old school Disney magic with it and create a beautiful detailed attraction worthy of the franchise.

 

[erasure fan1]

I disagree... It is not like the FEA overlay where they were taking a very short attraction and expanding from there, Splash is a long ride with tons of scenery and show scenes... There are ample opportunities to tell a great story and create an engaging attraction within that framework...Question is more like will they spend the money to really do a great job with it...
While I am opposed to the change, I am hopeful they will make old school Disney magic with it and create a beautiful detailed attraction worthy of the franchise.

When I say I'm not sure Disney can pull this off, it's not because it couldn't be done. Its because I don't believe current Disney can do it. Even you wonder if they "will spend the money to really do a great job". I hope they make me eat my words and this comes out fantastic. PatF is at the top of my favorite modern Disney movies so I hope they do it justice. Disney has been more about cutting things and doing the minimum. And it's not like they have a stellar track record of replacing things and having the replacement be better than what was there before.

 

[Donaldfan1934]

It doesn’t matter if ten guests were offended or ten thousand

The number of offended guests should matter if you’re considering spending millions of dollars that may have otherwise been cut given the increasingly uncertain financial future of the parks division.

 

[Brer Oswald]

This is what I find contradictory. If people have to do research to understand Splash Mountain's relationship to African American folklore, then clearly the ride itself is doing nothing to preserve that tradition or keep it in the public consciousness.

I can't recall any discussion of Splash Mountain's claimed educational merits before the retheme was announced.

It’s not contradictory if you’ve been following my posts. Splash Mountain CLEARLY isn’t enough to teach these stories proper. Movies are wildly more available to the general audience than theme park attractions. So the only positive preservation of the stories for the general audience is available in a theme park, one that is increasingly becoming difficult for the middle class to even experience. In a log flume that appeals to adults no less.

Disney has needed to do more regarding this issue for a long time. That’s why some of us say the decision to retheme is “one step forward, two steps backward”. One step forward because a black human character is “allegedly” getting an attraction for the first time (allegedly because if she’s not the star, I’d consider it another step backwards). More representation is always a good thing.

Two steps backwards. One step backwards because of the mess they created in 1946. Another step back because rather than fixing the actual problem and making things right, they are just painting over it. Of course people think Brer Rabbit is offensive now because all they know is that he’s from the offensive banned Disney film, and now they don’t even want to keep the ride.

Why do you think the film was protested so hard back in the 40s? It wasn’t the only film with objectionable content about Black Americans, but it was the only one that was adapting their stories.

So no, this is not the most just decision. It may present the best financial opportunity for the company. But there are problems with this decision, and it isn’t that it’s “too woke” or “too PC” or whatever tired crap the further right leaning may say.

This will be the last you see of the Brer Rabbit character in the public consciousness. The problem will never be addressed, but forgotten about. The damage already done.

And with that, I’ve said everything that can be said.

 

[LittleBuford]

Ok, then I raise you with this: if people have to do research to understand Splash Mountain's relationship to Song of the South and the prejudiced elements of the live action segments, then clearly the ride itself is doing nothing to preserve that prejudice or keep it in the public consciousness.

Yes, I would agree with this. I’ve already made clear multiple times that there is nothing inherently offensive about the ride, just as there is nothing inherently educational about it. Those curious about the theme’s origin, however, will stumble upon the film before they do the original stories, because it’s from the former rather than the latter that the attraction is derived. And that’s the issue: you can’t remove Song of the South from the equation when asking people to look at the history behind the characters, because those characters would never have been featured in the ride if not for the film.

 

[LittleBuford]

It’s not contradictory if you’ve been following my posts. Splash Mountain CLEARLY isn’t enough to teach these stories proper. Movies are wildly more available to the general audience than theme park attractions. So the only positive preservation of the stories for the general audience is available in a theme park, one that is increasingly becoming difficult for the middle class to even experience. In a log flume that appeals to adults no less.

Disney has needed to do more regarding this issue for a long time. That’s why some of us say the decision to retheme is “one step forward, two steps backward”. One step forward because a black human character is “allegedly” getting an attraction for the first time (allegedly because if she’s not the star, I’d consider it another step backwards). More representation is always a good thing.

Two steps backwards. One step backwards because of the mess they created in 1946. Another step back because rather than fixing the actual problem and making things right, they are just painting over it. Of course people think Brer Rabbit is offensive now because all they know is that he’s from the offensive banned Disney film, and now they don’t even want to keep the ride.

Why do you think the film was protested so hard back in the 40s? It wasn’t the only film with objectionable content about Black Americans, but it was the only one that was adapting their stories.

So no, this is not the most just decision. It may present the best financial opportunity for the company. But there are problems with this decision, and it isn’t that it’s “too woke” or “too PC” or whatever tired crap the further right leaning may say.

This will be the last you see of the Brer Rabbit character in the public consciousness. The problem will never be addressed, but forgotten about. The damage already done.

And with that, I’ve said everything that can be said.

We can agree to disagree. I respect your passion and am sorry some people have mischaracterised your stance.

 

[Bocabear]

When I say I'm not sure Disney can pull this off, it's not because it couldn't be done. Its because I don't believe current Disney can do it. Even you wonder if they "will spend the money to really do a great job". I hope they make me eat my words and this comes out fantastic. PatF is at the top of my favorite modern Disney movies so I hope they do it justice. Disney has been more about cutting things and doing the minimum. And it's not like they have a stellar track record of replacing things and having the replacement be better than what was there before.

I agree with you completely! and PATF is not even close to a favorite of mine... I think it is possible they could do something great with is....if they actually allocate the funds necessary

 

[JohnD]

I disagree... It is not like the FEA overlay where they were taking a very short attraction and expanding from there, Splash is a long ride with tons of scenery and show scenes... There are ample opportunities to tell a great story and create an engaging attraction within that framework...Question is more like will they spend the money to really do a great job with it...
While I am opposed to the change, I am hopeful they will make old school Disney magic with it and create a beautiful detailed attraction worthy of the franchise.

By telling us they were bringing back Tony Baxter, the implication is that the PATF version would be just as immersive.

 

[_caleb]

I'd push back a bit and say that the decision was made political by them when they selected splash to replace. The decision to retheme splash is very much a political statement from Disney. If it was just about giving equal representation, PatF would be getting a new major attraction and splash would stay. As the old saying goes, actions speak louder than words. And Disneys actions in my opinion are political.

It's not "just about giving equal representation." Disney has been using the word "inclusion" to mean "changing things that might make some guests feel less welcome."

How is it political for Disney to determine that the Song of the South connection to the current Splash Mountain theme might be something that could offend or makes guests uncomfortable? Seriously trying to understand here.

Disney's actions speak pretty loudly in support of their inclusion efforts. They've made changes to popular and classic rides, they've restructured their leadership, they've made major changes to their CM orientation and training. Splash Mountain is just one attraction on a list of several that the company would like to address. I believe it may have been lower on the list until the national conversation put racial sensitivity into the spotlight, prompting Disney to move it to the top of the list.

 

[FigmentFan82]

I mean they are Disney's toys, they can pack them up and go home if that's what they wanna do

 

[_caleb]

If this were the Disney of a different era, instead of shoehorning PATF into a ride/area where I don't feel like it really belongs, they should have created all new characters and a new storyline for Splash. Keep the bluegrass/Southern feel to it (but with a new soundtrack/songs), keep the queue and theming mostly the same, even keep most of the animal animatronics, but swap out Brer Rabbit/Fox/Bear with a cast of new animal characters created specifically for the ride. That way you can keep the classic feel of Splash while then building a brand new PATF somewhere else, with a unique track and layout that wasn't just overlaid on top of an existing beloved attraction.

I know that's not Disney's MO anymore, to create brand new characters and stories for Disney attractions, because sadly it seems like they've lost a lot of their creativity when it comes to things like that. But that would have been the best solution, I feel.

It is indicative of the major shift in how Disney approached the parks. It used to be that WDI were seen as storytellers as much as designers and engineers. But now, the company sees the film production side as the company's storytellers, and WDI's role has been relegated to basing nearly everything in the parks on movie IP.

I agree that it's a sad change. In my opinion, imagineering was the difference between creating classic attractions that tell immersive stories and just slapping some IP on a ride and considering it to be "themed."

 

[_caleb]

The number of offended guests should matter if you’re considering spending millions of dollars that may have otherwise been cut given the increasingly uncertain financial future of the parks division.

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.

 

[_caleb]

By telling us they were bringing back Tony Baxter, the implication is that the PATF version would be just as immersive.

Here's hoping.

I do think the hope is to have a final product that doesn't offend anyone. This would mean winning over all those who are upset with the loss of the Brer theme.

 

[SamusAranX]

Yes, I would agree with this. I’ve already made clear multiple times that there is nothing inherently offensive about the ride, just as there is nothing inherently educational about it. Those curious about the theme’s origin, however, will stumble upon the film before they do the original stories, because it’s from the former rather than the latter that the attraction is derived. And that’s the issue: you can’t remove Song of the South from the equation when asking people to look at the history behind the characters, because those characters would never have been featured in the ride if not for the film.

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

 

[LittleBuford]

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

I don't think the comparison is especially tenable. Aladdin occurs in an imaginary time and place (even if vaguely identified as "Arabian"), whereas Song of the South is situated in a real (and not-too-distant) historical and geographical context, a context that relates to one of the great traumas of the world. It bears repeating that the film's portrayal of plantation life was heavily criticised even in 1946, long before the much-maligned "woke mob" existed. The Brer characters themselves aren't bad (quite the opposite, I would say), but they're embedded in a film that is undeniably problematic, and from which their Disney manifestations can never fully be disassociated.

 

[puckett26]

Here's hoping.

I do think the hope is to have a final product that doesn't offend anyone. This would mean winning over all those who are upset with the loss of the Brer theme.

This is not aimed at you just a response to the current discussion. The objective should not be to avoid offending anyone or winning people over. Create an attraction that all groups of people will enjoy and want to experience and introduce to future generations - future proofing to a degree.

The other issue created by replacing Splash with PATF (which is completely out of place as explained in my prior post) is that it will remind everyone of the current situation we are all debating right now. You will be dividing your fan base instead of encouraging everyone to enjoy the attraction. The source material of the current ride is offensive and the attraction is, unfortunately, fantastic. Sadly, it should be properly rethemed by maintaining as much of the original ride concept as possible but introducing new characters that are not associated with offensive source material (I think we all agree the concept is not offensive).

The PATF replacement may very well end up being equally fantastic/immersive but it will not be received as it would if a new (high quality) attraction is built in Fantasyland with the other princess attractions. Disney can right a lot of wrongs here but sometimes you have to spend a little (or a lot) more than you would prefer to achieve the end goal. This situation should not be chopped off at the knees due to budgeting and retrofitting an existing attraction. Don't force inclusion; introduce or encourage it through a proper expansion and retheme to address current issues. Otherwise, you are showing your hand and proving it's at least part knee jerk reaction and a band aid to stop the bleeding. All while alienating a core group of your legacy fanbase.

Small groups of people being offended should never be a baseline for approval or change. Otherwise, the world will never have any continuity/consistency and will constantly evolve based on a small group of influencers (right or wrong but offensive can be very subjective in small sample sizes). We also can't hide behind a statement such as "most people didn't know the source material is offensive and the ride does not portray thematic issues of racism etc." The source material is offensive (to a large group of people) and should be rethemed but not replaced by a concept that does not belong and is being accelerated based on recent public pressures.

I know this will never happen so my discussion points are moot. And your statement above is very true which scares me.

 

[_caleb]

Otherwise it’s parks would be in for a major overhaul

But haven't you heard, the parks are in for a major overhaul. Josh D'Amaro has been talking about this for a while.

 

[Bocabear]

This is not aimed at you just a response to the current discussion. The objective should not be to avoid offending anyone or winning people over. Create an attraction that all groups of people will enjoy and want to experience and introduce to future generations - future proofing to a degree.

The other issue created by replacing Splash with PATF (which is completely out of place as explained in my prior post) is that it will remind everyone of the current situation we are all debating right now. You will be dividing your fan base instead of encouraging everyone to enjoy the attraction. The source material of the current ride is offensive and the attraction is, unfortunately, fantastic. Sadly, it should be properly rethemed by maintaining as much of the original ride concept as possible but introducing new characters that are not associated with offensive source material (I think we all agree the concept is not offensive).

The PATF replacement may very well end up being equally fantastic/immersive but it will not be received as it would if a new (high quality) attraction is built in Fantasyland with the other princess attractions. Disney can right a lot of wrongs here but sometimes you have to spend a little (or a lot) more than you would prefer to achieve the end goal. This situation should not be chopped off at the knees due to budgeting and retrofitting an existing attraction. Don't force inclusion; introduce or encourage it through a proper expansion and retheme to address current issues. Otherwise, you are showing your hand and proving it's at least part knee jerk reaction and a band aid to stop the bleeding. All while alienating a core group of your legacy fanbase.

Small groups of people being offended should never be a baseline for approval or change. Otherwise, the world will never have any continuity/consistency and will constantly evolve based on a small group of influencers (right or wrong but offensive can be very subjective in small sample sizes). We also can't hide behind a statement such as "most people didn't know the source material is offensive and the ride does not portray thematic issues of racism etc." The source material is offensive (to a large group of people) and should be rethemed but not replaced by a concept that does not belong and is being accelerated based on recent public pressures.

I know this will never happen so my discussion points are moot. And your statement above is very true which scares me.

I believe when they built Splash they thought they had future-proofed it from offending anyone... 30 years later, some people are offended... Who is to say that the real Cajuns don't get offended by Princess and the Frog for representing them as an alligator and a firefly... Will someone assume that Disney is saying the Cajun people are no better than bugs? I am offended!~
In more recent history than the time frame for Splash Mountain, World war II erupted and the German Nazis committed heinous crimes... So are there people offended with having a Germany pavilion at EPCOT?
Is there any true way to "future-proof" an attraction? seems like everything offends someone...

 

[LastoneOn]

Isn’t this thread for attraction discussion only per WDWmagic’s original post? I think woke is a word frequently used in the discussion of Splash Mountain in the politics and social issues forum. I suppose it’s hard to keep them separated though.

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

 

[JohnD]

Here's hoping.

I do think the hope is to have a final product that doesn't offend anyone. This would mean winning over all those who are upset with the loss of the Brer theme.

I'll miss Splash. There is no doubt about it. But any hopes of winning everyone over would require, at a minimum, replacing AAs in every current scene with new AAs in new scenes and thorough music throughout as is done now for a complete immersive experience beginning to end. Which includes Tiana, Naveen, Facillier, Louis, etc. A nice nod might be keeping the frogs, alligators, and some birds from the current attraction. Anything short of that will leave a lot of people disappointed.