Tiana's Bayou Adventure: Disneyland Watch & Discussion

[Brer Panther]

The claims of racism towards PatF are usually geared towards specific parts and factors of the film. SotS is considered to be a racist film altogether and has historically been shunned by both the public and the media since its release back in the 40s. PatF is not being condemned for the same things SotS is continuously condemned for. Overall, it is not considered to be a problematic enough film to denounce. This is evidenced by the fact that it’s readily and officially available to the public, has a presence in Disneyland, sells merchandise, has face characters, etc.

SotS is a racist film, according to many. PatF has elements or plot points that are problematic but it is not a racist film.

As I've pointed out, people have complained about The Princess and the Frog for many of the same reasons that people have complained about Song of the South. The complaints that Song of the South feature a romanticized depiction of an era in which blacks were having a hard time and black stereotypes have also been thrown at Song of the South (Dr. Facilier and Mama Odie do qualify as stereotypes, I feel). How is it that one film is racist for having these elements and another film having these elements just makes it the most non-racist film in existence that just so happens to have problematic elements? Either they're both racist, they're both problematic, or neither is as bad as people make it out to be. Praising one film with problematic elements while shunning another is incredibly hypocritical.

Look who's on DL merchandise for sale nowView attachment 551707

I was gonna say "maybe this is a sign that the retheme's been cancelled!" but then I remembered that if I did I'd get a bunch of replies telling me "nah, the retheme's totally gonna happen, the ride is just so incredibly racist that it must be burned to the ground, The Princes and the Frog is the anti-Song of the South, the t-shirt means nothing" so I decided against it.

Or it’s not the creative an idea that’s been pitched by Armchair Imagineers before...

Yes, but also factor in the fact that Disney didn't give any attention towards The Princess and the Frog for a decade. They brushed it off as a flop for not making as much money as expected and dubbed its "flopping" a sign that hand-drawn animated films were dangerous. And now they're suddenly giving it an attraction?

 

[Californian Elitist]

As I've pointed out, people have complained about The Princess and the Frog for many of the same reasons that people have complained about Song of the South. The complaints that Song of the South feature a romanticized depiction of an era in which blacks were having a hard time and black stereotypes have also been thrown at Song of the South (Dr. Facilier and Mama Odie do qualify as stereotypes, I feel). How is it that one film is racist for having these elements and another film having these elements just makes it the most non-racist film in existence that just so happens to have problematic elements? Either they're both racist, they're both problematic, or neither is as bad as people make it out to be. Praising one film with problematic elements while shunning another is incredibly hypocritical.

It’s not hypocritical because there are no comparisons, hence why Splash (based on SotS) is getting the boot and PatF is being ushered in.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Yes, but also factor in the fact that Disney didn't give any attention towards The Princess and the Frog for a decade. They brushed it off as a flop for not making as much money as expected and dubbed its "flopping" a sign that hand-drawn animated films were dangerous. And now they're suddenly giving it an attraction?

Iger straight up said in an interview that Disney would not invest in a Ratatouille attraction.

 

[mickEblu]

A little off topic but why didn’t PatF do well in theaters? It’s better than at least 3/4 of the computer animated movies that have come out since.

 

[EagleScout610]

It’s not hypocritical because there are no comparisons, hence why Splash (based on SotS) is getting the boot and PatF is being ushered in.

Yeah. The "We can still keep the SoTS theme" argument/discussion is long over and the main discussion is "When will it happen /How badly will they mess this up?"

 

[Brer Panther]

A little off topic but why didn’t PatF do well in theaters? It’s better than at least 3/4 of the computer animated movies that have come out since.

It was up against films like Avatar, the second Alvin and the Chipmunks movie (how that made more money, I have no idea) and I think Sherlock Holmes. That was a big factor, I feel.

 

[PiratesMansion]

A little off topic but why didn’t PatF do well in theaters? It’s better than at least 3/4 of the computer animated movies that have come out since.

Everything @Brer Panther said, but also in 2009:
1. The company's reputation was not what it had once been. Disney had just released a decade of films that were largely viewed as underwhelming, both financially and critically. While the Disney of 2009 was trying to actively rebuild from the mess Eisner had left behind, it had not yet convinced the public that it had done so (whether or not it has actually done these things is up for debate, but it's clear that the public has embraced their choices since in a way that they simply did not in 2009. Heck, the Disney of 2009 had only just bought Marvel! The company was in a very different place).
2. Stiff competition: Pixar at that point was still in its untouchable, could-do-no-wrong phase, people were still drinking the Dreamworks kool-aid, and appreciation for hand-drawn animation was at an all time low (or so it seemed to me as an animation film fan at that time).
3. Princess and the Frog faced its own controversies and negative publicity prior to its opening. Not nearly on the scale of SOTS, mind, but not helpful when you're basically pinning your company's comeback and return to form on that particular movie that's drawing negative press.
4. Allegedly, there was a perception that since the film had the word 'princess' in the title it wasn't appropriate for boys, hence why instead of Rapunzel we have Tangled, instead of the Snow Queen we have Frozen, etc.

 

[EagleScout610]

It was up against films like Avatar, the second Alvin and the Chipmunks movie (how that made more money, I have no idea) and I think Sherlock Holmes. That was a big factor, I feel.

December 2009 Movies

Check out December 2009 movies and get ratings, reviews, trailers and clips for new and popular movies.

www.moviefone.com

So it's not like it was the only thing playing at the time, so I'm guessing it simply got overshadowed.

 

[Brer Oswald]

I've seen people dub The Princess and the Frog racist, usually for very similar reasons to those used to claim that Song of the South is racist (that the characters are oddly cheery for a time period in which black people faced problems, characters being stereotypes, etc.). Why the film is being weaponized against Song of the South makes me raise an eyebrow.

That reason is utterly idiotic in both cases, and the only reason it’s believed in one camp over the other is due to personal bias.

SotS’s biggest unique issues are its live action setting (which doesn’t have any connection to the ride) and it’s dialect (which barely has any presence in the ride). It’s baggage that has been overlooked until it needed to be brought in to justify a replacement (which was most definitely initiated for other reasons).

PatF is always going to have some baggage, although not on the same level. The original story was written by a white American, who based it off of a white European fairytale. There are inaccuracies based on the time period, and it doesn’t address any of the race relation issues beyond saying “she has to work hard”. There’s also a matter of the financial failure. If Disney started making other black animated leads (which they should) would she be as relevant? At least she will always be the first.

However, if they create another black character, this time with black creatives with story input, and they become more popular and relevant, who knows. I guess it would depend on if the story could vaguely fit in Splash, and whether or not PatF merchandise is flying off the shelves. Would the fan base claim that PatF is “racist” as an end to the means of getting this new story an attraction? Probably. As always, they’d be incorrect.

 

[Californian Elitist]

That reason is utterly idiotic in both cases, and the only reason it’s believed in one camp over the other is due to personal bias.

Before I fully respond, I want to confirm that you’re saying that what makes SotS racist, specifically the romanticization of life for 19th century southern black Americans, is idiotic. Is that correct?

 

[Brer Panther]

it doesn’t address any of the race relation issues beyond saying “she has to work hard”.

Well, there's also the two jerks who wouldn't let her have the building she wanted to make her restaurant out of because of her "background". Those guys sucked.

I don't like how we have to weaponize The Princess and the Frog to bash Splash Mountain. The Brers and Tiana can coexist.

 

[CaptinEO]

Well, there's also the two jerks who wouldn't let her have the building she wanted to make her restaurant out of because of her "background". Those guys sucked.

I don't like how we have to weaponize The Princess and the Frog to bash Splash Mountain. The Brers and Tiana can coexist.

The Splash Mountain removal made me by default angry at Princess and the Frog forever. Not the movie's or creator's fault, it's just what I'll forever associate it with. Same goes for Guardian's of the Galaxy.

 

[el_super]

I don't like how we have to weaponize The Princess and the Frog to bash Splash Mountain. The Brers and Tiana can coexist.

LOL who is doing that? A movie that came out in 2009 doesn't change how racist a movie from 1946 is.

 

[Brer Oswald]

Before I fully respond, I want to confirm that you’re saying that what makes SotS racist, specifically the romanticization of life for 19th century southern black Americans, is idiotic. Is that correct?

Do you think that 1920s was as nice as it was for southern black Americans as it was in Princess and the Frog? Both eras were unfair towards black Americans. Both films romanticize the era more than they should. Both are kids films. Disney sugarcoats stuff to a fault when it comes to children. It’s not a unique issue to SotS, and it’s not an issue that can’t be overlooked in an adaptation of the Brer Rabbit stories (which is what Splash Mountain is).

I get the issue. I get why it’s more apparent on the plantation than it is on New Orleans. I get why it makes people uncomfortable. I get why the dialect makes people uncomfortable. I get why the inclusion of the “mammy” stereotype makes people uncomfortable.

I don’t agree with the complaint about the music (every major Disney film has songs, why shouldn’t this one?). I don’t agree with the complaint that Remus being nice to the young kid makes him “subservient”. The complaint that the Brer Characters are “black face minstrelsy” has about as much basis in reality as claiming that Mickey, Donald and Goofy are.

The film should’ve been just the animated parts. They should’ve prioritized getting black creatives instead of the dialect. They didn’t. The question is, how do they move forward? Fans are pushing for avoidance of the problem because, quite frankly, they don’t give a darn. We’re all quitters.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Do you think that 1920s was as nice as it was for southern black Americans as it was in Princess and the Frog? Both eras were unfair towards black Americans. Both films romanticize the era more than they should. Both are kids films. Disney sugarcoats stuff to a fault when it comes to children. It’s not a unique issue to SotS, and it’s not an issue that can’t be overlooked in an adaptation of the Brer Rabbit stories (which is what Splash Mountain is).

I get the issue. I get why it’s more apparent on the plantation than it is on New Orleans. I get why it makes people uncomfortable. I get why the dialect makes people uncomfortable. I get why the inclusion of the “mammy” stereotype makes people uncomfortable.

I don’t agree with the complaint about the music (every major Disney film has songs, why shouldn’t this one?). I don’t agree with the complaint that Remus being nice to the young kid makes him “subservient”. The complaint that the Brer Characters are “black face minstrelsy” has about as much basis in reality as claiming that Mickey, Donald and Goofy are.

The film should’ve been just the animated parts. They should’ve prioritized getting black creatives instead of the dialect. They didn’t. The question is, how do they move forward? Fans are pushing for avoidance of the problem because, quite frankly, they don’t give a darn. We’re all quitters.

Was my interpretation of your previous post correct or not? You find the issues with SotS to be idiotic, yes? I wasn't asking about PatF.

 

[Brer Oswald]

Was my interpretation of your previous post correct or not? You find the issues with SotS to be idiotic, yes? I wasn't asking about PatF.

You’re trying to start conflict (which makes me a little sad, I like you).

No. I don’t think all of the issues are idiotic. Many are justified. Some seem to be fabricated just to bury the parts that were deemed good or okay before last June. The only specific part about the “romanticize” complaint I disagree with is the music. Some of it’s happy. Some of it’s solemn. Singing is a way to pass time, and it’s in every major Disney movie. They sing great and the tunes are well composed, although I prefer much of the instrumentals.

The topic of discussion on the film is not a black or white topic. There are good parts. There are bad parts. Most people I talk to treat it as all bad because they do not care. It is just a “fun fact” to them. Or it’s a scapegoat for Disney fans.

 

[Californian Elitist]

You’re trying to start conflict (which makes me a little sad, I like you).

No. I don’t think all of the issues are idiotic. Many are justified. Some seem to be fabricated just to bury the parts that were deemed good or okay before last June. The only specific part about the “romanticize” complaint I disagree with is the music. Some of it’s happy. Some of it’s solemn. Singing is a way to pass time, and it’s in every major Disney movie. They sing great and the tunes are well composed, although I prefer much of the instrumentals.

The topic of discussion on the film is not a black or white topic. There are good parts. There are bad parts. Most people I talk to treat it as all bad because they do not care. It is just a “fun fact” to them. Or it’s a scapegoat for Disney fans.

I’m not trying to start conflict, I’m trying to make sure I understood what you said. You didn’t answer my question with your first response, so I asked you again.

 

[mickEblu]

At the end of the day nobody cares about SOTS except the hardcore fans. Disney would rather distance themselves from the IP than deal with it. When it comes to the Splash, the vast majority of people don’t view the ride as problematic or racist. Nobody is holding any picket signs outside of Disneyland. You have a few groups of people - PatF fans that are happy the IP is getting a ride, people that are indifferent, people that are angry about the change and people that are happy about the change or at least willing to go along with it because of second hand info they just heard on the internet and how Disney is framing this whole thing.

 

[Californian Elitist]

To those who might find the complaints about SotS and its portrayal of 19th century Southern black Americans, as well as the Uncle Remus stories, Joel Chandler Harris, etc. to be insignificant, idiotic, a waste of time, or what have you, I encourage you to read this short essay by Alice Walker. It’s very brief and should be accessible.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/23268234?seq=3#metadata_info_tab_contents

SotS was a little painful for me to watch, which I did years and years ago as a teenager, but after maturing and learning more about my history, watching that film would be even more painful, but for different reasons. That movie is a reflection of the problem in this country with refusing to acknowledge and truly understand what slavery and racism against black people in America did and the harm it caused and continues to cause. Harris’ appropriation of black folklore is another reflection of another problem in this country that has been in existence for centuries, but I won’t get into that. Disney trying to hide behind their film adds to the same general problem. Some people are examining the issue of SotS and the Uncle Remus stories on a surface level and it shows. I’ll leave this particular post here for now.

Regarding PatF, which absolutely has its own problems, but the majority of the plot concerns two frogs in a swamp, including the main character, a black woman living in 1920s New Orleans. To try and draw similarities on an equal level between that film and SotS is definitely interesting, but a little misguided as well. I’ve talked about the issues with PatF before and I’ve done the same with SotS/Uncle Remus tales. The portrayal of blackness in America is poor between both, but one takes it a couple of steps further and the results are just not very good. I think it’s obvious as to which film I’m referring to.

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

I don't think the majority of people have any misconceptions about slavery or are against being Inclusive and eliminating elements that could be considered offensive. I think an argument can be made that something like Splash Mountain manages to transcend these links to Problematic source material, but the general attitude from Disney is to avoid all of this, tear it all down and have a committee decide what's best for people. That's fine, I guess. They can do what they want with their products.