Tiana's Bayou Adventure: Disneyland Watch & Discussion

[Californian Elitist]

This. 100% I think if more people accepted Splash, as long as the Song of the South elements remain, always has been a ticking time bomb until it was rethemed, 90% of the drama over the retheme wouldn't have happened

Exactly. The complaints I’ve personally heard and have seen about Splash Mountain have nothing to do with the actual ride. “I can’t believe that ride is based on a racist movie” is the general rhetoric I keep hearing and seeing.

 

[EagleScout610]

I teach literature and Uncle Remus and Brer Rabbit has showed up a few times on my exams for Certification tests just this year in sections to use for stories that teach moral lessons with a "trickster" character.

I remember learning about Trickster Tales back in High School english. We had to write a Trickster Tale and of course I used Brer Rabbit and co haha.

 

[celluloid]

I remember learning about Trickster Tales back in High School english. We had to write a Trickster Tale and of course I used Brer Rabbit and co haha.

That is cool that you remember that. The example is still used today. The Brers are actually used in Middle and High School English classes for that and to elaborate on the concept of Reverse Psychology.

 

[Californian Elitist]

I teach literature and Uncle Remus and Brer Rabbit has showed up a few times on my exams for Certification tests just this year in sections to use for stories that teach moral lessons with a "trickster" character. So they are still seen as valuable examples. They still teach Shakespeare even though the time period and the design of his plays are classist and Mysogynistic right down to their cast listings based on order of Social Class.
As your class probably covered, it is important to notice the challenges we can reflect on and learn from, but intelligence is also being able to appreciate the good and values that come from the work.

Let's be honest. Any theme park attraction that has lasted for more than thirty years(and is going to last longer) has not been on borrowed time nor a ticking time bomb. That is appeal to emotion language. More than three decades. That is on the older end of an attraction lifespan even by Disney Standards. Still getting hour plus waits daily even with limited capacity and one of the most popular rides in the most popular theme park in the world.

I completely agree with your first paragraph. To be clear, I want suggesting that we shouldn’t read the Uncle Remus Tales. They absolutely should be read. I just submitted a thesis on censoring literature. I’m an aspiring English professors myself and have no plans to censor anything.

Regarding your second paragraph, popularity for a number of years doesn’t necessarily equate to lack of problems. Lots of things that are no longer in practice were once popular for many years. No matter how much Splash attempted to get away from the film, it has always shadowed SotS.

 

[CaptinEO]

If someone doesn't like Splash Princess and the Frog, they're welcome to not ride it. If they believe it's ties to Song of the South The Woke® Agenda, condemn the entire experience, there's like 50 other attractions to experience at the resort.

The only agenda is the sell more toys and dresses agenda.

 

[EagleScout610]

That is cool that you remember that. The example is still used today. The Brers are actually used in Middle and High School English classes for that and to elaborate on the concept of Reverse Psychology.

During a Psych class I did draw the Br'ers on a paper once during the Reverse Psychology unit (Suprisingly the teacher never used them as an example)

 

[celluloid]

During a Psych class I did draw the Br'ers on a paper once during the Reverse Psychology unit (Suprisingly the teacher never used them as an example)

Dang! The Brers and and Bugs vs Daffy are the classic go to for me!

I am also an Eagle Scout! (if it is fair to presume that your name insinuates that you are)

 

[EagleScout610]

I am also an Eagle Scout! (if it is fair to presume that your name insinuates that you are)

Congrats! Class of 2018, you?

 

[celluloid]

I completely agree with your first paragraph. To be clear, I want suggesting that we shouldn’t read the Uncle Remus Tales. They absolutely should be read. I just submitted a thesis on censoring literature. I’m an aspiring English professors myself and have no plans to censor anything.

Regarding your second paragraph, popularity for a number of years doesn’t necessarily equate to lack of problems. Lots of things that are no longer in practice were once popular for many years. No matter how much Splash attempted to get away from the film, it has always shadowed SotS.

Not saying it has a lack of concerns. But what doesn't? Art is made by people so I understand that point.

But the proof in a business sense is that Splash still seems to provide that it is not seen as a cultural problem, even for the company that claims that is the catalyst for the change. They are since fine operating it and profiting off of its Intellectual Property. If it is culturally inappropriate to operate the attraction, it is a claim should be backed by evidence of not operating it right?
It is the ticking time bomb aspect that I think can be disregarded as in reference to theme parks, and that is what we are talking about after all, a theme park attraction lasting three decades duplicated to exist in three different locations. A "ticking time bomb" and "borrowed time." The evidence there for that side of the argument would be that any theme park attraction that last for 30 plus years at three different location and still operating with guest satisfaction is proof that the concept is still far more successful than any challenges it has. Just as I know challenges with other concepts and conceits in attractions can have to various audiences that have different tastes and outlooks. We need to be honest and understand that cultural shift is not the primary agenda for the changing of an already above average popularity attraction that is world renowned to synergy that will sell more in the gift shop. The attraction is still a main feature at three of the most popular theme parks in the world and is the in the top list of operating people pleasing attractions at each. We can say that cultural change of what is right or better morally is slow, but thirty years in a theme park is a long successful time for an attraction that is still currently successful.

 

[celluloid]

Congrats! Class of 2018, you?

2007. I am old. Congrats to you as well. I am very grateful for it.

 

[180º]

Not saying it has a lack of concerns. But what doesn't? Art is made by people so I understand that point.

But the proof in a business sense is that Splash still seems to provide that it is not seen as a cultural problem, even for the company that claims that is the catalyst for the change. They are since fine operating it and profiting off of its Intellectual Property. If it is culturally inappropriate to operate the attraction, it is a claim should be backed by evidence of not operating it right?
It is the ticking time bomb aspect that I think can be disregarded as in reference to theme parks, and that is what we are talking about after all, a theme park attraction lasting three decades duplicated to exist in three different locations. A "ticking time bomb" and "borrowed time." The evidence there for that side of the argument would be that any theme park attraction that last for 30 plus years at three different location and still operating with guest satisfaction is proof that the concept is still far more successful than any challenges it has. Just as I know challenges with other concepts and conceits in attractions can have to various audiences that have different tastes and outlooks. We need to be honest and understand that cultural shift is not the primary agenda for the changing of an already above average popularity attraction that is world renowned to synergy that will sell more in the gift shop. The attraction is still a main feature at three of the most popular theme parks in the world and is the in the top list of operating people pleasing attractions at each. We can say that cultural change of what is right or better morally is slow, but thirty years in a theme park is a long successful time for an attraction that is still currently successful.

All fair points, but we must remember that SotS isn’t just another Snow White or Princess in the Frog, who have played host to concerns here and there over the years. Song of the South is famously one of the most controversial and taboo works of mainstream film in history.

 

[celluloid]

All fair points, but we must remember that SotS isn’t just another Snow White or Princess in the Frog, who have played host to concerns here and there over the years. Song of the South is famously one of the most controversial and taboo works of mainstream film in history.

The popularity equal to morally right and wrong as Raven pointed out works the other direction would work here too right? Just because it is famously a target of cultural issues in cinema does not make everything associated with it wrong or more wrong than other works' issues from different audiences. Certainly people who visit the theme parks do not seem to be feeling that way as they ride the ride and by the merch.

The difference is Disney knows there is a potential to sell more merch with a recent Princess Movie.

Disney was fine recently dedicating major expansion land in the most popular theme park in the world to a movie that infamously has a character named Jim Crow and questionable anthropomorphic depictions. They built a major attraction that has 7 characters that arguably have Dwarfism and are seen as flat comic relief archetypes by a certain populace. There is an audience that has issues with this that are just as valid if concerned about portrayal.

 

[180º]

The popularity equal to morally right and wrong as Raven pointed out works the other direction would work here too right? Just because it is famously a target of cultural issues in cinema does not make everything associated with it wrong or more wrong than other works' issues from different audiences. Certainly people who visit the theme parks do not seem to be feeling that way as they ride the ride and by the merch.

The difference is Disney knows there is a potential to sell more merch with a recent Princess Movie.

Disney was fine recently dedicating major expansion land in the most popular theme park in the world to a movie that infamously has a character named Jim Crow and questionable anthropomorphic depictions. They built a major attraction that has 7 characters that arguably have Dwarfism and are seen as flat comic relief archetypes by a certain populace. There is an audience that has issues with this that are just as valid if concerned about portrayal.

Oh, absolutely. Disney cites “inclusion” as the reason for replacing Splash, and I don’t believe that’s completely honest. Merchandising must be a huge factor, sure, but don’t underestimate the opportunity to unload a problematic IP and further scrub Song of the South from existence. Not that I agree with it, but there’s no way to just pretend that Song of the South hasn’t been Disney’s most problematic film entry not just in the last year, but for the better part of a century.

 

[el_super]

The evidence there for that side of the argument would be that any theme park attraction that last for 30 plus years at three different location and still operating with guest satisfaction is proof that the concept is still far more successful than any challenges it has. Just as I know challenges with other concepts and conceits in attractions can have to various audiences that have different tastes and outlooks. We need to be honest and understand that cultural shift is not the primary agenda for the changing of an already above average popularity attraction that is world renowned to synergy that will sell more in the gift shop.

To be fair though, the Knott's Log Ride has been a successful attraction for over 50 years, without the inclusion of the characters. So how do you tease apart the popularity of the character/subject material from the physical ride experience?

I don't think it's entirely reasonable to suggest that popularity should be the sole driver for keeping an attraction in this circumstance either. Even if we all agree that the moral outrage isn't enough to have an impact on the attraction, or Disney's brand, today, we would all have to agree that doesn't mean it will be true 5 to 10 years from now. Disney wants to change the ride out, before the outrage gets to the point of having people picketing on Harbor Blvd.

 

[celluloid]

To be fair though, the Knott's Log Ride has been a successful attraction for over 50 years, without the inclusion of the characters. So how do you tease apart the popularity of the character/subject material from the physical ride experience?

Knotts has great things but their flume is not nearly as popular as if it had well designed characters and a relatable timeless plot for those who care. It would be pretty bold to say Splash Mountain would be as popular without its theme designed. And it is kind of an impossible argument to have as it has existed now and has been successful as a sum of its parts.

If the cultural outrage is shadowed by the fact that a log flume is fun and well done, is it really at risk or even more specificually currently an "outrage" or "ticking time bomb?" That means it is barely even in the common conscience. I feel like that argues my point.

 

[el_super]

Knotts has great things but their flume is not nearly as popular as if it had well designed characters and a relatable timeless plot for those who care. It would be pretty bold to say Splash Mountain would be as popular without its theme designed. And it is kind of an impossible argument to have as it has existed now and has been successful as a sum of its parts.

The Log Ride at Knott's meets the same criteria though. It's been around for ages and still routinely has hour long waits.

Except of course when it gets cold, in which case the lines for these water rides usually drops to nothing. Splash is no exception.

I don't think it's fair to use the popularity of the attraction as justification for using the characters, when the popularity is derived from multiple factors and we can't realistically separate them.

If the cultural outrage is shadowed by the fact that a log flume is fun and well done, is it really at risk or even more specificually currently an "outrage" or "ticking time bomb?" That means it is barely even in the common conscience. I feel like that argues my point.

Yeah it kind of proves your point, but it also means that the characters and story are not as consequential to the overall success of the ride, and that what is in the common conscience today, may change tomorrow. Both points in favor of changing the ride.

 

[celluloid]

The Log Ride at Knott's meets the same criteria though. It's been around for ages and still routinely has hour long waits.

Not quite, we are not even naming the ride by its proper name. Knotts' is great, but let's not compare the familiarity. You can say Splash Mountain in most any casual classroom like setting in the US and much of your audience will know what you mean, even if they have never been. So that must mean whether it is the characters, branding, marketing ...whatever. It works and is a sum of its parts. Arguing on why it is successful is a separate argument. Not quite the same criteria.

Never did I say the popularity of the ride is justification of using anything. But it is Disney's evidence of being ok enough with it to operate it because guests are clearly ok with it. if they are willing to not ride it because it is chilly, don't you think the concerns of unintentional racism that may be present or association would have them also not riding?

Yeah it kind of proves your point, but it also means that the characters and story are not as consequential to the overall success of the ride, and that what is in the common conscience today, may change tomorrow. Both points in favor of changing the ride.

They are consequential to the experience. You might say that is the point of a theme park, otherwise we would have been riding Western River Expansion for decades now instead of a cloned shortened Pirates of the Caribbean. That is direct evidence of the company acting immediately(a time bomb you might say or a cultural request that is urgent in demand) An attraction operating for 30 plus years and possibly more is not a comparison is my point you say I kind of make.

If Splash obvious with a hurtful past in the company's eyes, it would not have reopened with the park and Disney would not want to make another dime off of anything to do with it.

Also the last point may be more interesting or register if the change was not something that has concerns over the same social cultural representation issues.

 

[el_super]

They are consequential to the experience.

I guess we will find out after they are removed.

If Splash obvious with a hurtful past in the company's eyes, it would not have reopened with the park and Disney would not want to make another dime off of anything to do with it.

I don't think it's that hypocritical to want the ride to reopen for operational needs, versus acknowledging that the ride has cultural issues that need to be addressed. I don't think it's reasonable to expect change to happen over night. It's still a positive change to say that you want to enact change, but yes, it would be hypocritical now if they don't follow through with changing the ride.

 

[celluloid]

I guess we will find out after they are removed.

That statement makes no sense to your argument. That reads like a False Division. The ride's theming currently can be consequential the experience, even if it is replaced with something as popular as or different.
Frozen is clearly more relevant and selling than Maelstrom's take on a Norway Pavilion Attraction, however, the theming of Maelstrom, as odd as it was to many, was consequential.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Not saying it has a lack of concerns. But what doesn't? Art is made by people so I understand that point.

But the proof in a business sense is that Splash still seems to provide that it is not seen as a cultural problem, even for the company that claims that is the catalyst for the change. They are since fine operating it and profiting off of its Intellectual Property. If it is culturally inappropriate to operate the attraction, it is a claim should be backed by evidence of not operating it right?
It is the ticking time bomb aspect that I think can be disregarded as in reference to theme parks, and that is what we are talking about after all, a theme park attraction lasting three decades duplicated to exist in three different locations. A "ticking time bomb" and "borrowed time." The evidence there for that side of the argument would be that any theme park attraction that last for 30 plus years at three different location and still operating with guest satisfaction is proof that the concept is still far more successful than any challenges it has. Just as I know challenges with other concepts and conceits in attractions can have to various audiences that have different tastes and outlooks. We need to be honest and understand that cultural shift is not the primary agenda for the changing of an already above average popularity attraction that is world renowned to synergy that will sell more in the gift shop. The attraction is still a main feature at three of the most popular theme parks in the world and is the in the top list of operating people pleasing attractions at each. We can say that cultural change of what is right or better morally is slow, but thirty years in a theme park is a long successful time for an attraction that is still currently successful.

Again, I agree that Splash isn’t the problem. It’s SotS that’s the problem, which Splash is based on. I’m not denying Splash’s popularity. I of course know it’s a popular ride. But Disney is getting rid of it and we all know the reason. Because they decided to base the ride off of SotS, debates and conversations surrounding if that was a wise choice were sure to happen.

It was questionable from the moment they used SotS as inspiration. Agree to disagree.