Tiana's Bayou Adventure: Disneyland Watch & Discussion

[CaptinEO]

I always see it brought up that somehow having a panel of African Americans talking about Song of the South can legitimize the movie and make it acceptable.

I don't believe this is the case at all. Nothing changes the content of the movie.

I certainly don't need any celebrities or historians to explain reconstruction era America for me to watch a film.

I think if anything it'd be exploiting the African American community to use them to try and paint Song of the South as acceptable.

 

[Professortango1]

I was given extensive education on this subject in multiple classes, elementry, jr high, highschool, and college.

I am not talking about documentaries at all. If someone wants to learn more about something a documentary is a nice entry level lesson in it.

I'm saying context is something that should be given externally to the source material if the person so chooses to seek it out. I don't need Disney to tell me how drinking is bad (while they sell alcohol in their parks) and why red native americans in Peter Pan are wrong. It ruins the original entertainment when you give safety warnings and elementry school life lessons to adults.

It'd be like telling me the sky is blue everytime I went outside.

It would be like Disney also having a mandarory video to tell us why eating high calorie food is bad, regardless of what shape you are in.

At the end of the day we are responsible for ourselves. If someone can't tell right from wrong, no disclaimer is going to change their tune.

If someone can't figure out things were different in the past, it's not Disney's obligation to explain world history to you.

Yes, but if a film's perspective no longer reflects your company's values and you don't want people to mistake it for such, you put a disclaimer up. You recognize that the film has problematic elements that a modern audiences notices and it should be viewed as a piece of film history rather than as a current artistic expression that the studio backs. This is especially important when dealing with material for kids.

 

[Californian Elitist]

I was given extensive education on this subject in multiple classes, elementry, jr high, highschool, and college.

I am not talking about documentaries at all. If someone wants to learn more about something a documentary is a nice entry level lesson in it.

I'm saying context is something that should be given externally to the source material if the person so chooses to seek it out. I don't need Disney to tell me how drinking is bad (while they sell alcohol in their parks) and why red native americans in Peter Pan are wrong. It ruins the original entertainment when you give safety warnings and elementry school life lessons to adults.

It'd be like telling me the sky is blue everytime I went outside.

It would be like Disney also having a mandarory video to tell us why eating high calorie food is bad, regardless of what shape you are in.

At the end of the day we are responsible for ourselves. If someone can't tell right from wrong, no disclaimer is going to change their tune.

If someone can't figure out things were different in the past, it's not Disney's obligation to explain world history to you.

You weren’t, but let’s test that, if you’re up for it. Without using Google, can you tell me about the Racial Uplift period? The years in which the period occurred, how it began, who the key figures were and some of their biographies, what was happening amongst African Americans at that time, etc.?

It’s not about changing tunes. There’s no harm in big companies making attempts to properly educate the public. But if Disney were to ever release SotS with context from historians included, which they won’t, you can always skip it, since you know all the context and information already.

 

[CaptinEO]

Yes, but if a film's perspective no longer reflects your company's values and you don't want people to mistake it for such, you put a disclaimer up. You recognize that the film has problematic elements that a modern audiences notices and it should be viewed as a piece of film history rather than as a current artistic expression that the studio backs. This is especially important when dealing with material for kids.

What does a disclaimer do? If you think the content is harmful it does nothing to alter it.

 

[CaptinEO]

You weren’t, but let’s test that, if you’re up for it. Without using Google, can you tell me about the Racial Uplift period? The years in which the period occurred, how it began, who the key figures were and some of their biographies, what was happening amongst African Americans at that time, etc.?

It’s not about changing tunes. There’s no harm in big companies making attempts to properly educate the public. But if Disney were to ever release SotS with context from historians included, which they won’t, you can always skip it, since you know all the context and information already.

I don't have to prove my education to strangers online, regardless of how much you insist I'm uneducated.

I think a bonus feature with something of that nature is fine. But I guess to me the idea that you can legitimize a film by having a panel discuss it doesn't make any sense.

 

[Californian Elitist]

I don't have to prove my education to strangers online, regardless of how much you insist I'm uneducated.

I think a bonus feature with something of that nature is fine. But I guess to me the idea that you can legitimize a film by having a panel discuss it doesn't make any sense.

So that’s a no, then? I figured that. I didn’t say you were uneducated. I said neither you, nor any other American, were given extensive lessons on African American history in K-12 classes and I stand by that. As it’s been mentioned already, we don’t receive extensive lessons and education on any particular thing in history.

It’s not about legitimizing the film, it’s simply educating others. That’s what providing historical context does.

Agree to disagree.

 

[Professortango1]

What does a disclaimer do? If you think the content is harmful it does nothing to alter it.

Perspective. Context. These things matter and effect how we absorb information.

 

[VJ]

If Mary Poppins was, for some reason, declared problematic (there’s a book-based reason that could conceivably happen) and some people wanted the Penguins removed from the parks, you could say the Penguins themselves are not offensive in any way, but you couldn’t say their existence is not a reference to Mary Poppins.

there's also a line by admiral boom during the step in time sequence which is.......... pretty problematic

 

[Brer Panther]

there's also a line by admiral boom during the step in time sequence which is.......... pretty problematic

Is it "We're being attacked by Haagen-Dazs!"?

 

[VJ]

Is it "We're being attacked by Haagen-Dazs!"?

yep

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

Great line

 

[Roger_the_pianist]

Yes, it fits in in the same way that the entire Magic Kingdom is American Heritage Mythology skewed. It does not make it inherently wicked. Old stories from the "old country" we hold onto with a fanciful fairytale view of Europe as one large land. The Old Frontier, but more of what we know from folk stories and the Hollywood western serials than of our actual Davy Crockett, or Main Street USA being a paved version that transcends time period where everyone is smiling and wearing fresh pressed clothes and singing in barbershop quartets that only nostalgia could provide.
It is nothing new.

I'd say it's a bit more complicated with slavery involved.

 

[celluloid]

I'd say it's a bit more complicated with slavery involved.

That seems like a weak quip after the entire paragraph you quoted form me with other concrete examples.
Maybe as you mentioned your education was pretty lacking in school then. Every Country's history has slavery involved and while that does not make slavery right you can always link anything positive in storytelling with some real life connection back to it. That is why I mentioned it is not inherently wicked to present the optimist dedication to American History and its mythos as the theme for Disneyland as it has been since day one. Do you hear any slavery involved in the Railroads of the United States represented at the park? You do know how much of that was built right? It is just as problematic if you are not there for the fictional filter. Piracy is not something that should in reality be celebrated either, but it is ok to be entertained by the skewed version. Funny that you were the one talking about your rough times with Educators you had, but you somehow pass off all of the examples I gave as not having the same trouble. It is not evil, it is the optimistic choice, the same way that All of Tomorrowland never has and does not have heavy warnings about Nuclear melt downs or weapons of mass destruction. It is the fictional skewed version of familiarity. Not a reminder of the harsh realities.

 

[Brer Panther]

yep

Suspected as much. Is it problematic because it's stereotypical towards Germans?

 

[VJ]

Suspected as much. Is it problematic because it's stereotypical towards Germans?

nope

 

[Brer Panther]

Oh. Then why IS it problematic?

 

[celluloid]

Is it "We're being attacked by Haagen-Dazs!"?

That is not actually what he says. It is "hottentots" and it was at one time a term that people of England used for pastoral tribes in Africa but eventually became a term for all dark skinned people. Which is what Admiral Boom thought before looking closer and realizing they were Chimney Sweeps with smudged soot on their faces. The term at one time would be how it is inappropriate to call people with dark pigment African American, although no offense intended, they are not necessarily African in origin.

Haagen-Daz as in the Ice Cream company is a made up word by the company based in New York, who wanted an exotic sounding name for their company.

 

[Roger_the_pianist]

In no way am I saying a panel would try to make it ACCEPTABLE. Moreso, commentary on why it is problematic.

The idea of a panel for commentary got turned into something defending the movie, by other posters who seem to want to defend the film (and save Splash Mountain, and deny there will be a retheme)

 

[VJ]

That is not actually what he says. It is "hottentots" and it was at one time a term that people of England used for pastoral tribes in Africa but eventually became a term for all dark skinned people. Which is what Admiral Boom thought before looking closer and realizing they were Chimney Sweeps with smudged smoke on faces. The term at one time would be how it is inappropriate to call people with dark pigment African American, although no offense intended, they are not necessarily African in origin.

Haagen-Daz as in the Ice Cream company is a made up word by the company based in New York, who wanted an exotic sounding name for their company.

ding ding ding

 

[Roger_the_pianist]

I'm not just saying it would be only celebrities. I originally listed two celebrities, said additional film historians and civil rights activists.