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

[Ghost93]

I do wonder when the actual decision was made to permanently withdraw Song of the South from circulation. Because when Splash Mountain was first conceived, the original plan was to use the ride to promote the film, not to replace it. This 1987 article from the LA Times talks about the initial plans to build Splash Mountain and how Disney had initially planned to re-release Song of the South in 1989 to coincide with the ride's grand opening: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-01-30-fi-1552-story.html

From the article:

Al Flores, a Disneyland spokesman, said Thursday that the movie “Song of the South"--which he said probably will be re-released when the new ride opens--was chosen as a theme for the ride because it fit into the Bear Country theme and will be a good marketing tool.

The article also acknowledges the controversy of the film, but explains why no one at Disney thought it would be an issue.

The amusement park plans to break ground this summer on “Splash Mountain,” a ride featuring characters from Disney’s “Song of the South.” The ride will serenade customers with a rousing version of “Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah"--the Academy Award-winning movie theme--as they float along a man-made river, watching Br’er Rabbit outwitting Br’er Fox and Br’er Bear in scenes taken from the animated portions of the film.

The movie has sparked controversy since its premier in 1946 because of its depiction in live-action scenes of relationships between slaves and plantation owners in the pre-Civil War South. But Disney officials say they do not expect the ride to provoke criticism because it uses only the animated animal characters.

 

[RSoxNo1]

There was also a time when you couldn't buy ANY Disney movie, but that didn't stop people from wanting to go on rides based on Peter Pan and Alice in Wonderland.

Ironically you're referring to the Disney Vault which I believe was a Bob Chapek thing.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Ironically you're referring to the Disney Vault which I believe was a Bob Chapek thing.

I was thinking pre-home video.

Also, Chapek started at Disney in 1993, 8 years after Pinocchio began the "vault" tradition on video.

 

[Marc Davis Fan]

"The movie has sparked controversy since its premier in 1946 because of its depiction in live-action scenes of relationships between slaves and plantation owners in the pre-Civil War South."

This should say: "...because people incorrectly believed it to depict the pre-Civil War South."

 

[Californian Elitist]

"The movie has sparked controversy since its premier in 1946 because of its depiction in live-action scenes of relationships between slaves and plantation owners in the pre-Civil War South."

This should say: "...because people incorrectly believed it to depict the pre-Civil War South."

Pre or post-Civil War, it’s still fantasized typical life for a mid 19th century African American.

 

[LittleBuford]

I find this thread among the most confusing I've ever encountered or participated in here in the forums. For reasons that aren't entirely clear to me, the conversation continually veers off into really strange places that are only tangentially related to the topic, with people making points that they seem to regard as very important but whose relevance they never explain, even when directly asked. I'll be glad when work starts on the retheme and we can finally start talking about something worthwhile.

 

[LittleBuford]

"The movie has sparked controversy since its premier in 1946 because of its depiction in live-action scenes of relationships between slaves and plantation owners in the pre-Civil War South."

This should say: "...because people incorrectly believed it to depict the pre-Civil War South."

The sentence can be amended as follows:

"The movie has sparked controversy since its premier in 1946 because of its depiction in live-action scenes of relationships between recently freed enslaved people and plantation owners in the post-Civil War South."

The point remains exactly the same.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I find this thread among the most confusing I've ever encountered or participated in here in the forums. For reasons that aren't entirely clear to me, the conversation continually veers off into really strange places that are only tangentially related to the topic, with people making points that they seem to regard as very important but whose relevance they never explain, even when directly asked. I'll be glad when work starts on the retheme and we can finally start talking about something worthwhile.

Halfway thru the demolition, someone will ask if it's too late to go back to the way it was before. Why would they ask that? Because they found a Tweet of a picture of a Brer Rabbit pin on an old pin-trading board at Wilderness Campground. Therefore, the retheme must not continue due to Disney's hypocrisy!

 

[Roger_the_pianist]

SOTS makes no attempt to present itself as POST civil war. Somewhere it's said that the censors told Disney he needed to set it up as Reconstruction era in the opening title cards, but that didn't happen.

 

[Dear Prudence]

SOTS makes no attempt to present itself as POST civil war. Somewhere it's said that the censors told Disney he needed to set it up as Reconstruction era in the opening title cards, but that didn't happen.

If you know anything about costume history (which I am assuming that you don't because you made this statement), the silhouettes presented by the costumes of the female characters in the film are a clear indication of SOTS being set post-Civil War. Something set in the 1870s or 1880s would have been closer to the 1940s than we are now, and people during that time period would have either lived through it, or their parents or grandparents would have.

Just like you said that SOTS was the "worst movie ever made geared toward children" (paraphrased) when both Peter Pand and Pocahontas exist. (Edit: mentioned this not to play oppression Olympics, I don't mess with/ play that nonsense, but to point out hypocrisy and over reach)

 

[LittleBuford]

If you know anything about costume history (which I am assuming that you don't because you made this statement), the silhouettes presented by the costumes of the female characters in the film are a clear indication of SOTS being set post-Civil War.

Many viewers ever since the film's release have mistaken its time period. There are numerous indicators that the African American characters aren't enslaved (Remus preparing to leave the plantation, for example), but it's easy to see why audiences might have been misled by the film's overall representation of race.

 

[Dear Prudence]

Many viewers ever since the film's release have mistaken its time period. There are numerous indicators that the African American characters aren't enslaved (Remus preparing to leave the plantation, for example), but it's easy to see why audiences might have been misled by the film's overall representation of race.

Correct, the film doesn't do an explicit job hitting you over the head about the year /era it takes place. I think one of their errors is that it assumes too much from its viewers. Especially as we get farther and farther away from this era, people have no touchstones, as they would have been when the film came out (on top of education generally being terrible and Reconstruction being its own set of nightmares).

 

[LittleBuford]

Especially as we get farther and farther away from this era, people have no touchstones, as they would have been when the film came out (on top of education generally being terrible and Reconstruction being its own set of nightmares).

Again, many viewers when the film came out (and even as distinguished a critic as Bosley Crowther) mistook its time period. @Roger_the_pianist is quite right that the Hays Office had asked Disney to “be certain that the frontispiece of the book mentioned establishes the date in the 1870s” to preempt this very confusion. For some reason, Disney didn't comply with the request.

What's interesting to me about the controversy surrounding Song of the South is how consistent it's been over the years. The same issues that people raise now about the film were being voiced all the way back in 1946.

 

[UNCgolf]

Again, many viewers when the film came out (and even as distinguished a critic as Bosley Crowther) mistook its time period. @Roger_the_pianist is quite right that the Hays Office had asked Disney to “be certain that the frontispiece of the book mentioned establishes the date in the 1870s” to preempt this very confusion. For some reason, Disney didn't comply with the request.

What's interesting to me about the controversy surrounding Song of the South is how consistent it's been over the years. The same issues that people raise now about the film were being voiced all the way back in 1946.

I still wonder why Disney didn't just make a fully animated version of some Brer stories without the live action framing device -- something like they did with Winnie the Pooh. Just an anthology of a few stories.

If they had, there would be very little reason for anyone to complain about it today.

 

[LittleBuford]

I still wonder why Disney didn't just make a fully animated version of some Brer stories without the live action framing device -- something like they did with Winnie the Pooh. Just an anthology of a few stories.

If they had, there would be very little reason for anyone to complain about it today.

I too wish Disney had gone that route, especially given how poorly the live-action sequences compare to the animated ones (a difference in quality that was noted from the outset).

 

[Dear Prudence]

Again, many viewers when the film came out (and even as distinguished a critic as Bosley Crowther) mistook its time period. @Roger_the_pianist is quite right that the Hays Office had asked Disney to “be certain that the frontispiece of the book mentioned establishes the date in the 1870s” to preempt this very confusion. For some reason, Disney didn't comply with the request.

What's interesting to me about the controversy surrounding Song of the South is how consistent it's been over the years. The same issues that people raise now about the film were being voiced all the way back in 1946.

There are a lot of things about Disney in the 1940's I am surprised passed any Hays Office employee (Pinocchio, for example). Yes, I agree, there has always been some confusion, even contemporary confusion, and criticism, but to say there was "no indication" is a falsehood. The fashionable women's costumes indicate the 1870s immediately. There was an instant change in the silhouette of dresses post-Civil War, especially in the American South, for obvious "economic" reasons. Every single dress the mother wears in the film immediately invokes (late) 1870's, because of the closeness/tightness of the bodice on the dress, the clear boning from the corset, the elongated torso and the emphasis on the long lines and the bustle in the back (even though she is clearing donning 1940's hair).(I know this is probably going to be deleted and most people won't care either way --because what are facts and reality, anyway?--but, just in case, someone might find this useful).

 

[Dear Prudence]

I still wonder why Disney didn't just make a fully animated version of some Brer stories without the live action framing device -- something like they did with Winnie the Pooh. Just an anthology of a few stories.

If they had, there would be very little reason for anyone to complain about it today.

Money Roy didn't believe people would have been interested in a whole movie of Brer stories (even if Walt did). They had scripts for several more adventures and had them in the works of being released, but the push back against the live-action portions of SOTS made them shelve them, but they lived on the Disney comics. It makes me sad for the Black voice actors who worked on the film most of all, honestly.

I am glad the animated portions got to live on in some way, even if Splash Mountain is going away now.

 

[EagleScout610]

I still wonder why Disney didn't just make a fully animated version of some Brer stories without the live action framing device -- something like they did with Winnie the Pooh. Just an anthology of a few stories.

If they had, there would be very little reason for anyone to complain about it today.

They've had every opportunity to.

 

[LittleBuford]

There are a lot of things about Disney in the 1940's I am surprised passed any Hays Office employee (Pinocchio, for example). Yes, I agree, there has always been some confusion, even contemporary confusion, and criticism, but to say there was "no indication" is a falsehood. The fashionable women's costumes indicate the 1870s immediately. There was an instant change in the silhouette of dresses post-Civil War, especially in the American South, for obvious "economic" reasons. Every single dress the mother wears in the film immediately invokes (late) 1870's, because of the closeness/tightness of the bodice on the dress, the clear boning from the corset, the elongated torso and the emphasis on the long lines and the bustle in the back (even though she is clearing donning 1940's hair).(I know this is probably going to be deleted and most people won't care either way --because what are facts and reality, anyway?--but, just in case, someone might find this useful).

Yes, there are sartorial indicators of a later setting, but that doesn't negate the larger point, which is that the film's representation of race has been deemed problematic for 75 years now.

 

[Dear Prudence]

Yes, there are sartorial indicators of a later setting, but that doesn't negate the larger point, which is that the film's representation of race has been deemed problematic for 75 years now.

I don't disagree with that point at all, for clarification.