Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why SOTS Needs to Be Discussed

Collapse

Get Away Today

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #81
    Splash Mountain is/was my absolute favorite attraction at the Disney parks. It used to be Pirates before the movie tie-in stuff was added and Haunted Mansion is probably tied for 2nd. Anyways, I was angry and sad at first when it was initially announced it was going away at some point, but I also understand why they are doing it now and can understand the issues it may cause under the circumstances now. But like someone else pointed out, had Disney chose to not try to hide the characters for so many years and instead embraced them and used them in a way that sort of "erased" the original movie from '46 and allowed newer audiences to see them in a more positive light, that may have avoided all of this right now. Although Splash Mtn sort of did that in a way already. But distancing it from the original film may have allowed it to continue on without the negative aspects from it's history. Well, maybe. I guess we will never really know now.

    I had SotS books growing up and saw it in the theater in '86. I enjoyed it as a kid and never knew there was something wrong with the subject matter. It wasn't until I was older where I realized the subject matter was controversial.

    For me the saddest part will be not being able to hear all the songs. Splash Mountain was definitely the attraction at Disney that put me in that carefree, go-lucky happy mood. I loved going on it and whistling along with the songs and smiling. That will be something I am going to miss tremendously about the experience. Coming around the corner at the beginning and steering by the Briar Patch as you heard 'How Do Ya Do' was kind of therapeutic for me - it took me to another place so well. And then after escaping the Briar patch and entering the giant cave with all the critters singing 'Zip-O-Dee-Doo-Da' on the steamboat was the ultimate climax for a Disney attraction in terms of energy and fun and positive vibes. I am going to miss that as well.

    As far as the re-theme goes, I think if Disney does it right and puts 100% of their effort and money into it, it will be great. BUT, my fear is this is going to be an awful misfire in terms of how it is done and how it is executed. The story/concept for the show/experience doesn't sound promising so far to me personally. My other fear is that Disney will cheap out on this like they always do with other projects and either remove a lot of the audio-animatronics to save on the maintenance costs and replace them with just scenery or even worse digital screens. That is probably my biggest concern with this project. I also hope they don't tame the adventure down and make the ride less scary in parts or make you get less wet. This re-theme needs to really retain the water ride and "YOU WILL GET WET, YOU MAY GET SOAKED" aspect or it will be a failure on that merit alone. The vultures at the lift hill and the very solemn tone and dire feeling as you made your way up the final lift hill also really needs to be retained with this, which I am more confident Disney will be able to do.
    Last edited by DarthBrett78; 06-29-2020, 06:17 PM.

    Comment


    • #82
      https://archive.org/details/SongOfTheSouth_Disney

      MC'ers can watch for themselves and make up their own minds.

      Comment


      • #83
        Originally posted by Mastersarge View Post

        I think it’s a reaction to the too sensitive people in society demanding every bad thing in history be erased instead of using it as a teaching tool. We don’t live in a society that promises no one’s feelings will ever be hurt, and if someone expects to be protected from ever feeling offended, then he or she is living a delusion. Life is rather quite the opposite as the First Amendment guarantees every person has the right to offend others.
        Disney is a private company. They don't protect your freedom of speech/expression, or your freedom to criticize the government in the form of speech or media such as the press, or your ability to practice faith or not be compelled to follow a state ordained faith. Secondly, as previously described, you are not protected to offend or talk ill of others, especially through the use of a widely availible medium, such as film, press, etc; that would be libel. Offending others through private means and mediums, such as online on a forum, or other forms of communication, save for face to face conversations, is also not protected, as they are hosted by an entity besides the government.

        But beyond that. This argument skips over the point that I and others have made multiple times now. Disney is the one who refuses to acknowledge their history. Disney is the one who knew they were adapting a film that rewrote and repackaged a era of US history. Disney is the one that chose not to head the warnings of others in hollywood at the time, and to avoid having to face or acknowledge what they were doing and continuing, released the film in segregated Atlanta Georgia. Disney is the one who, knowing the implications of what they had done and the connections the film had, chose to surgically remove the characters and put them in a ride. Disney is the one who heard the complaints of people of color and how their continued use but refusal to acknowledge the connections the characters had was just continuing a cycle of systemic racism, and did nothing (except maybe purposely let the ride slowly rot, as others have pointed out). And it is now Disney's choice to still not try and "give those characters and stories" back to black story tellers and historians, and let them recontextualize this media so we can all enjoy it virtually "guilt free."

        With all of that, how does this issue relate to the assertion that people are "too sensitve" and not wanting to get their feelings hurt or hurt others? And why, even if that were the be all-end all, is that a bad thing, especially against the fact that Disney is the entity that refuses to acknowledge the mistakes they made and use it as a teaching tool and a chance to empower the people they have had a hand in hurting? And how does it relate to the idea that once day, this will happen to a ride about victorian ghost supersticians that have been recontextualized as "silly spooks?"

        Comment


        • #84
          Originally posted by Beavis View Post

          Just because they were happy doesn't "whitewash" history. Great people in countless terrible situations often talk about the need to keep cheer and optimism in really dark times. But I never heard Mandela's good humor in awful times cast as a "whitewashing" of the South African prison experience.

          The most lamentable character in SotS is white. And the expectation that a Disney story should have highlighted the misery inflicted within a historical backdrop is to bury everything Walt Disney was.

          Just something to keep in mind the next time you go see a musical like Annie and see 'Tomorrow' as a ghoulish endorsement of neglectful and abusive orphanages.
          The whitewashing people are alluding to is not simply the fact that the african american characters are "happy" and have a will to live in the film, as that would be a depressing film to watch. The element that people now, and even then (hence the film being premiered in segregated atlanta instead of hollywood) are pointing out as whitewashing, is the presentation of the black and white characters of the reconstruction era south and being polite and brotherly, with former slaves living incomfort as opposed to the reality that they were often not allowed to own substantial property, visit the same stores and churches as white southerns, and were continuously "othered."

          While yes, presenting that in it's full extent would be depressing (not that disney was against depressing elements in film, see Dumbo, Bambi, treasure Island, etc, so long as there was something of a happy ending) we can also see from their other films such as Fox and Hound or Robin Hood, that it's possible to show systemic issues between people, and how people involved might continue and participate in that cycle, and how that can be used as something to overcome or empower characters. But instead, likely because this issue is "too real," or because people within the studio possibly wanting to continue that cycle themselves because they recognized that the modern continuation of that cycle benefited white americans even in the 40's and 50's; they chose to "whitewash" that issue and act like it wasn't present.

          And to seat the blame firmly on Disney's choices, we must be clear. Disney DIDN'T have to produce the movie at all. Disney DIDN'T have to feature the prominent live action sections that went beyond what was featured in the book. Disney could have just made a collection of animated shorts, like the Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh. And Disney has had more than 50 years to address these problems, but instead just keeps sweeping it under the rug, which doesn't make it look any less like they themselves understand it's bad, but also don't want to admit that there is dark parts of the company's history.

          Comment


          • #85
            Originally posted by Beavis View Post

            Just because they were happy doesn't "whitewash" history. Great people in countless terrible situations often talk about the need to keep cheer and optimism in really dark times. But I never heard Mandela's good humor in awful times cast as a "whitewashing" of the South African prison experience.

            The most lamentable character in SotS is white. And the expectation that a Disney story should have highlighted the misery inflicted within a historical backdrop is to bury everything Walt Disney was.

            Just something to keep in mind the next time you go see a musical like Annie and see 'Tomorrow' as a ghoulish endorsement of neglectful and abusive orphanages.
            Just because other films/movies/plays do it the same or worst doesn't make it SOTS better.

            The film is also very meh, I love the animated parts but its really not a film worth dying for its at best ok or fine.

            To me its really funny how some are just so unfor this. Like no matter how many ways this could be a positive thing, some just wont let it be positive.

            Its some narrative about who is winning and what not, this is a private company wanting to make more money and get good press....I think this change will do that and we will also get a better ride from it unless they really under budget this which besides pixar pier disney hasn't been doing that much in recent years.
            Happy Halloween!!!

            Comment


            • #86
              Originally posted by SkunkID View Post

              Disney is a private company. They don't protect your freedom of speech/expression, or your freedom to criticize the government in the form of speech or media such as the press, or your ability to practice faith or not be compelled to follow a state ordained faith. Secondly, as previously described, you are not protected to offend or talk ill of others, especially through the use of a widely availible medium, such as film, press, etc; that would be libel. Offending others through private means and mediums, such as online on a forum, or other forms of communication, save for face to face conversations, is also not protected, as they are hosted by an entity besides the government.

              But beyond that. This argument skips over the point that I and others have made multiple times now. Disney is the one who refuses to acknowledge their history. Disney is the one who knew they were adapting a film that rewrote and repackaged a era of US history. Disney is the one that chose not to head the warnings of others in hollywood at the time, and to avoid having to face or acknowledge what they were doing and continuing, released the film in segregated Atlanta Georgia. Disney is the one who, knowing the implications of what they had done and the connections the film had, chose to surgically remove the characters and put them in a ride. Disney is the one who heard the complaints of people of color and how their continued use but refusal to acknowledge the connections the characters had was just continuing a cycle of systemic racism, and did nothing (except maybe purposely let the ride slowly rot, as others have pointed out). And it is now Disney's choice to still not try and "give those characters and stories" back to black story tellers and historians, and let them recontextualize this media so we can all enjoy it virtually "guilt free."

              With all of that, how does this issue relate to the assertion that people are "too sensitve" and not wanting to get their feelings hurt or hurt others? And why, even if that were the be all-end all, is that a bad thing, especially against the fact that Disney is the entity that refuses to acknowledge the mistakes they made and use it as a teaching tool and a chance to empower the people they have had a hand in hurting? And how does it relate to the idea that once day, this will happen to a ride about victorian ghost supersticians that have been recontextualized as "silly spooks?"
              I was attempting to argue the point from DLHMFAN as I have heard it expressed before from others. I think the cavalier disregard of the insensitivities of SOTS stem from other examples in society where people are too offended. The frustration from these incidents are being rolled over into the SM issue in that the timing of the announcement seems to align with many other companies giving into the clamoring for the change of names, tearing down of statues, etc.

              So, it may be more of lumping SM being changed into a larger narrative of companies kowtowing to a mob of belligerents than say trying to defend the insensitivities of SOTS.

              Comment


              • #87
                Originally posted by Mastersarge View Post

                I was attempting to argue the point from DLHMFAN as I have heard it expressed before from others. I think the cavalier disregard of the insensitivities of SOTS stem from other examples in society where people are too offended. The frustration from these incidents are being rolled over into the SM issue in that the timing of the announcement seems to align with many other companies giving into the clamoring for the change of names, tearing down of statues, etc.

                So, it may be more of lumping SM being changed into a larger narrative of companies kowtowing to a mob of belligerents than say trying to defend the insensitivities of SOTS.
                While yes, the announcement of the rethemeing was released almost undoubtably to coincide with other societal changes happening in reguard to the current BLM movement, and it could be argued that this specific change is being made by diseny as an attempt to paint themselves on the "right side of history," thus an example of "woke capitalism;" the fact that Disney had this change ready, and had admitted that it's been in the works for more than a year, with enough time to bring Tony Baxter as a committed creator for this, shows that it may be more than just "a means to collect some social brownie points."

                More so, while the ride is being lumped in to an issue more related to the film, the fact of the matter is, they are related, and a demand for some kind of acknowledgement had been made to and ignored by disney for literally decades. As you yourself had pointed out previously, these kinds of moments could/should be used as teaching tools, and in the eyes of people of color, could have been used as chances to empower black creators and "give them back" the characters; but none of that happened. That is why we are where we are now; not because of people's "sensitivities" that have suddenly come into being from a vacuum out of no where. They have been present and growing concerns for literally decades, in some cases, more than a century, and the fact that this sentiment has spilled over into Disney is only a logical conclusion given Disney's choice to not address the issue. Disney has now only acted suddenly in the public eye because, as has been seen, these growing issues have reached a feverpitch moment where Disney could either choose to do "something," even if that something is just a continuation of their choice to not address the issue at heart; or they could do nothing and wait for those who have been speaking for decades to take matters into their own hands, likely through social shaming that would have forced Disney to do what they did, or even more.

                Comment


                • #88
                  Originally posted by JerrodDRagon View Post
                  To me its really funny how some are just so unfor this. Like no matter how many ways this could be a positive thing, some just wont let it be positive.
                  I
                  Really? I mean almost every Disney attraction that was very popular that has ever closed or was replaced gets the same type of reaction. Usually petitions or major backlash. People grow attached to things and it becomes their favorite. Of course not everybody is going to embrace the new thing taking it's place. Human nature doesn't work that way at all. Look at numerous past Disney attractions that had huge followings -- Nature's Wonderland, Adventures Thru Inner-Space, the PeopleMover, Horizons, World of Motion, 20K Leagues Under the Sea, Mr Toad's Wild Ride, the original Figment, Alien Encounter, Maelstrom, Tower of Terror, Universe of Energy, The Great Movie Ride and now Splash Mtn. It happened with all of those. And it will happen with others that eventually get replaced or close forever.

                  I find it bizarre that someone would question why there are some people that are not all for something that is replacing an attraction that was around for 30 years and immensely popular. Regardless of the reason why it is going away or what caused it to be replaced. And I am talking about any of those attractions that were replaced, not just Splash.

                  Comment


                  • #89
                    Originally posted by SkunkID View Post

                    While yes, the announcement of the rethemeing was released almost undoubtably to coincide with other societal changes happening in reguard to the current BLM movement, and it could be argued that this specific change is being made by diseny as an attempt to paint themselves on the "right side of history," thus an example of "woke capitalism;" the fact that Disney had this change ready, and had admitted that it's been in the works for more than a year, with enough time to bring Tony Baxter as a committed creator for this, shows that it may be more than just "a means to collect some social brownie points."
                    I really believe the re-theme may have been a project Disney was not too confident with or were sort of reluctant on maybe green-lighting or hesitant with and then once all of this happened in the last month with the unrest and BLM movement and petition to change Splash it gave them their answer to go ahead and do it. It's a win-win for them now as it will allow the park to get a new/refreshed and re-themed attraction to bring in crowds (well, maybe not right away lol) and also make it seem like they reacted instantly to the backlash and give Disney a lot of positive press. Which it did. Most news organizations reported Disney changed it because of the Twitter backlash, even though Disney, and I believe them, said it was in the works for a year already. The concept art is proof they were planning it at some point and it wasn't an immediate reaction. But was it a project that was definitely happening or had been pushed to the side or wasn't getting approved? That remains an unknown. I am kind of curious when the concept art was actually done and when this project was originally pitched. It's quite possible it had been sitting for years.

                    Comment


                    • #90
                      Originally posted by DarthBrett78 View Post

                      I really believe the re-theme may have been a project Disney was not too confident with or were sort of reluctant on maybe green-lighting or hesitant with and then once all of this happened in the last month with the unrest and BLM movement and petition to change Splash it gave them their answer to go ahead and do it. It's a win-win for them now as it will allow the park to get a new/refreshed and re-themed attraction to bring in crowds (well, maybe not right away lol) and also make it seem like they reacted instantly to the backlash and give Disney a lot of positive press. Which it did. Most news organizations reported Disney changed it because of the Twitter backlash, even though Disney, and I believe them, said it was in the works for a year already. The concept art is proof they were planning it at some point and it wasn't an immediate reaction. But was it a project that was definitely happening or had been pushed to the side or wasn't getting approved? That remains an unknown. I am kind of curious when the concept art was actually done and when this project was originally pitched. It's quite possible it had been sitting for years.
                      This is kind of where I am sitting too honestly. I REALLY kind of reject the narrative that this is all just "disney giving into the crowds so riots don't happen" as that feels too much in bad faith, and rejects the reality of what's actually happening with almost every other change happening right now being voluntary of companies own choices (except maybe removing statues, but I wager that might have more to do with the fact that some chains, some ropes, and 50+ people pissed off people ready to get rid of the thing that mocked their heritage since the 60's is easier to assemble and coordinate than an official city councel meeting and the paperwork needed to get a bulldozer).

                      But the fact that a good chunk of things shown seem to be decently far along does give me the suspicion that, maybe this is all just a happy coincidence, or maybe disney has been sitting on this for a while now. It was noted in the other thread, Splash's recent refurbs have been focused entirely on track maintanence and OSHA requirements, with alot of show scenes seemingly being left to rot, or getting the bare minimum to keep things running. Granted, it's always possible that, it is just genuinely hard to keep animatronics from the 70's running in a high moisture environment. Reguardless, I'd love when Tony Baxter once against "retires" and if out of Disney's NDA's, if he could maybe tell us exactly how long they have him waiting for "the call" so to speak.

                      Comment


                      • #91
                        Originally posted by JerrodDRagon View Post

                        As someone who has seen it (I own it because ebay used to have DVD copies) it basically white washes history. After the Slaves were free they were happy and lived with everyone else with no issues and told children story's to help them with issues.

                        But lets pretend its not based off Walt's Idealized America, fact is the ride has not gotten love in years. Prince and the Frog will be able to sell more toys and dolls, it has a cool villain that can also get a bigger role in the parks now and the ride at night will 100 Percent look better with the boat lite up and the fireflies all over the mountain.
                        Splash Mountain does have a unique history to it: several audio animatronics originated from America Sings.

                        Comment


                        • #92
                          Originally posted by SkunkID View Post

                          I understand that this is more of a "gotcha" comment, but I genuinely want to understand the mentality at play.

                          There have been multiple people in this thread expressing why the ride and the connected film are problematic and/or offensive. They explained it in both emotional and factual terms inline with history. They've explained it as more than just "not liking" something, and tried to show why it's apart of something they want to addressed, but Disney's own neglect of the situation has resulted in it being removed is/was inevitable.

                          So I want, me selfishly, wants to know why you see this entire situation as the first step of a slippery slope towards just removing everything you hold near and dear in the parks (based off your username)? This whole thread is about letting people be heard, so please tell me why you feel this way. Because the other option is just apathy, and that doesn't look good on anyone.
                          If Disney was going to change Splash Mountain, it would have made more sense of putting the Country Bears in it instead of Princess and the Frog. Princess and the Frog has a more "New Orleans Square" theme than a "Critter Country" theme to it.

                          Comment


                          • #93
                            Originally posted by DarthBrett78 View Post

                            Really? I mean almost every Disney attraction that was very popular that has ever closed or was replaced gets the same type of reaction. Usually petitions or major backlash. People grow attached to things and it becomes their favorite. Of course not everybody is going to embrace the new thing taking it's place. Human nature doesn't work that way at all. Look at numerous past Disney attractions that had huge followings -- Nature's Wonderland, Adventures Thru Inner-Space, the PeopleMover, Horizons, World of Motion, 20K Leagues Under the Sea, Mr Toad's Wild Ride, the original Figment, Alien Encounter, Maelstrom, Tower of Terror, Universe of Energy, The Great Movie Ride and now Splash Mtn. It happened with all of those. And it will happen with others that eventually get replaced or close forever.

                            I find it bizarre that someone would question why there are some people that are not all for something that is replacing an attraction that was around for 30 years and immensely popular. Regardless of the reason why it is going away or what caused it to be replaced. And I am talking about any of those attractions that were replaced, not just Splash.
                            Difference here is The Great Movie ride and Mickey's ride are almost not the same at all (though I think most people agree Mickey's ride is much more impressive)

                            We all know the track or look of the mountain isn't going to change. The music will be the most missed part but it's not like Princess and the Frog doesn't have some killer tones as well.
                            For the most part it's should be a big tech upgrade since most AA on the ride are from America Sings from the 80s and even the Brer Figures we got have very limited movement )at least here in CA)
                            People on these forums and reddit and so on knew the History of the ride and knew it could not last forever.

                            I don't know but to me this isn't that bad, the new theme fits, it expands a land everyone loves, the tech will be a huge upgrade, more merchandise for the ride, it will look beautiful at night now, and it's not based off some super hip Cool movies like Frozen, its a film I've heard many "bloggers" haven't even seen its more of a cult classic and they have Tony supervising it. Until I see them say the buget is like nothing I'm not too worried this will be a hit with fans and at least unlike older rider we have TONS of HD video's of Splash and the versions in other counties I'm sure will stay Splash.
                            Happy Halloween!!!

                            Comment


                            • #94
                              Originally posted by DLHMFAN View Post

                              If Disney was going to change Splash Mountain, it would have made more sense of putting the Country Bears in it instead of Princess and the Frog. Princess and the Frog has a more "New Orleans Square" theme than a "Critter Country" theme to it.
                              This is an entirely fair point. I would agree to this 100%, but I assumed they picked PatF so they could extend NOS down, and call the classic section the french quarter, and the new area that will one day likely consume pooh corner, the Riverfront or something.

                              Comment


                              • #95
                                Originally posted by SkunkID View Post

                                This is an entirely fair point. I would agree to this 100%, but I assumed they picked PatF so they could extend NOS down, and call the classic section the french quarter, and the new area that will one day likely consume pooh corner, the Riverfront or something.
                                It’s been said before that the current theme of Splash Mtn fit quite well next to HM because it appeared you were going deeper into the south the further you got from NOS proper. Anything replacing Splash Mtn would end up being judged against the same frame of reference; at least in CA. It’s for that reason alone that nothing other than a theme taking place near or in Louisiana could have been considered. Anything else would have broken the current theme and required even more explanation as to why it fit next to a southern style mansion.

                                For me, the theme of a land is as important as the rides themselves. NOS attractions should make sense in New Orleans, Frontierland attractions should make sense in a western setting, and so on. Critter country made sense until the Country Bears were replaced with the very British countryside setting of Pooh. I love the Pooh Dark ride, but it should never have gone where it did. It breaks the theme of the best region of any Disney theme park, hands down.

                                I don’t think Splash Mountain’s retheme will fix Pooh’s out of place nature, but it does make it more obvious and I hope it will hasten moving Pooh somewhere better (The Fantasyland Theater should be 2 or 3 dark rides instead, and Pooh would fit well there along side a Mary Poppins ride and/or something else UK based). That’s the real outrage and disappointment in TDA for me ; Pooh’s lack of fitting in anywhere.
                                Mike_M

                                Disneyland Trips
                                Walt Disney World
                                Disneyland Paris

                                1980, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1989
                                1990, 1992, 1993

                                2000, 2001, 2006, 2007, 2009
                                2010, 2011, 2014, 2016, 2016, 2017, 2/2019, 11/2019
                                2020

                                Comment


                                • #96
                                  Originally posted by SkunkID View Post

                                  While yes, the announcement of the rethemeing was released almost undoubtably to coincide with other societal changes happening in reguard to the current BLM movement, and it could be argued that this specific change is being made by diseny as an attempt to paint themselves on the "right side of history," thus an example of "woke capitalism;" the fact that Disney had this change ready, and had admitted that it's been in the works for more than a year, with enough time to bring Tony Baxter as a committed creator for this, shows that it may be more than just "a means to collect some social brownie points."

                                  More so, while the ride is being lumped in to an issue more related to the film, the fact of the matter is, they are related, and a demand for some kind of acknowledgement had been made to and ignored by disney for literally decades. As you yourself had pointed out previously, these kinds of moments could/should be used as teaching tools, and in the eyes of people of color, could have been used as chances to empower black creators and "give them back" the characters; but none of that happened. That is why we are where we are now; not because of people's "sensitivities" that have suddenly come into being from a vacuum out of no where. They have been present and growing concerns for literally decades, in some cases, more than a century, and the fact that this sentiment has spilled over into Disney is only a logical conclusion given Disney's choice to not address the issue. Disney has now only acted suddenly in the public eye because, as has been seen, these growing issues have reached a feverpitch moment where Disney could either choose to do "something," even if that something is just a continuation of their choice to not address the issue at heart; or they could do nothing and wait for those who have been speaking for decades to take matters into their own hands, likely through social shaming that would have forced Disney to do what they did, or even more.
                                  Sure, I understand that. And I’m personally not upset about the changing of the ride because I like the idea of TPATF as it expands NOS. Though I’m not sure what you mean with the “give the characters back to Black creators”.

                                  It is also true that BLM can be takings things too far by demanding the removal of statues, rioting, taking over areas of the city, demanding people be defunded. All of those over the top knee jerk reactions are not the answer.

                                  Comment


                                  • #97
                                    Originally posted by SkunkID View Post

                                    This is an entirely fair point. I would agree to this 100%, but I assumed they picked PatF so they could extend NOS down, and call the classic section the french quarter, and the new area that will one day likely consume pooh corner, the Riverfront or something.
                                    What Disney is doing is "alarming". The next thing they're going to do is close Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln and bring in another Pixar or Marvel theme attraction in Mr. Lincoln's place. I question Disney's timing regarding Splash Mountain at this time.

                                    Comment


                                    • #98
                                      An excerpt from Robert Niles's column in the Orange County Register:

                                      Disney did the right thing on Splash Mountain — so what’s next?

                                      "By deciding to change the theme of Splash Mountain, Disney did the right thing both ethically and economically.

                                      Those two don’t always go together. But they did here. As a multimedia entertainment giant, Disney wants three-tool franchises — ones that work in its theme parks, sell merchandise and play to large audiences in movies or on TV. Because of its roots in minstrelsy, Splash Mountain’s 'Song of the South' franchise could not deliver that.

                                      Disney wisely has buried its 1946 live action and animated film — it’s one of the few Disney classics you won’t find on Disney+. Whether author Joel Chandler Harris meant for his Uncle Remus stories to be respectful representations of 19th century Black folklore is irrelevant. Racism fueled their popularity. And even if Disney tried to disassociate Brer Rabbit and friends from 'Song of the South,' Splash Mountain’s 'Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah' theme song cannot escape its racist origin as the lyric of a minstrel song that included a racial slur in its title.

                                      Changing Splash Mountain to 'The Princess and the Frog' not only allows Disney finally to cut all ties to 'Song of the South,' it allows the company to amplify a franchise led by one of its most beloved Black characters. But the switch does have some Disney fans concerned about the future of other Disney theme park attractions. Will Disney switch the theme of other rides that aren’t based on popular movie or TV franchises?

                                      One of more troubling original franchises in Disney’s theme parks is 'Jungle Cruise,' with its abundant caricatures of African natives. Disney is set to release a movie based on that ride, so I’m inclined to wait until we see how Disney might reframe that franchise through the film before calling for change. Still, Disney needs to do something there..."

                                      "Disneyland is often called a magic kingdom because
                                      it combines fantasy and history, adventure and learning,
                                      together with every variety of recreation and fun,
                                      designed to appeal to everyone."

                                      - Walt Disney

                                      "Disneyland is all about turning movies into rides."
                                      - Michael Eisner

                                      "It's very symbiotic."
                                      - Bob Chapek

                                      Comment


                                      • #99
                                        Originally posted by DLHMFAN View Post
                                        What Disney is doing is "alarming". The next thing they're going to do is close Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln and bring in another Pixar or Marvel theme attraction in Mr. Lincoln's place. I question Disney's timing regarding Splash Mountain at this time.
                                        In point of historical fact, there is no connection between the issues of Splash Mountain's connection to Song of the South, and Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln. The issues with Splash Mountain concern the racism in Song of the South's source material and the film's roots in 1940s Hollywood's twisting of Black history. No such issues attend Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln.
                                        "Disneyland is often called a magic kingdom because
                                        it combines fantasy and history, adventure and learning,
                                        together with every variety of recreation and fun,
                                        designed to appeal to everyone."

                                        - Walt Disney

                                        "Disneyland is all about turning movies into rides."
                                        - Michael Eisner

                                        "It's very symbiotic."
                                        - Bob Chapek

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by Mastersarge View Post

                                          Sure, I understand that. And I’m personally not upset about the changing of the ride because I like the idea of TPATF as it expands NOS. Though I’m not sure what you mean with the “give the characters back to Black creators”.

                                          It is also true that BLM can be takings things too far by demanding the removal of statues, rioting, taking over areas of the city, demanding people be defunded. All of those over the top knee jerk reactions are not the answer.
                                          I mean exactly what it sounds like in "giving back" the characters. As as been stated previously in the thread, the issues of Splash Mtn. come not simply from it's connection to SotS and the problematic nature of the film; but also because the characters themselves are part of a chain of abuses that systematic racism has dealt black americans. While yes, credit for the design and form of the character's appearance goes firmly with the artists, it is important to understand these characters, and their stories were created by slaves in the american south. During a period in which slaves were forced to abandon anything of their previous cultures and home before being taken to the US, the stories of brer rabbit served as one of the few ways they were able to keep SOME part of their culture and their native stories alive, and were then able to pass to their children and grandchildren who were born within the US, without a tangible connection to their ancestrial homes.

                                          What makes these characters and stories so problematic in american culture is the fact that, when these stories reached the masses, they did so, not by the words and writings of those former black slaves, but in the writings ofJoel Chandler Harris. These characters and stories are frequently considered "stolen," as Harris paid little credit to the african americans he collected these stories from (to be fair, he paid credit within his person writings, but made no significant mention within the stories which people were most exposed to). Even more damning, he chose to create an imaginary black man in the form of Uncle Remus, one crafted specifically to be inoffensive to white audiences of the era and best represent what they expected from black story tellers in the south. Harris's writings became the most popular iterations of these stories, and when disney chose to adapt these stories for a film, instead of attempting to reach out to black story tellers and historians of the time, they simply chose to adapt Harris's writings. And in the decades since that film's release, even as more and more people of color brought this issue of the character's origins, Disney did not budge or even work to acknowledge what the company's choices mean in continuing the cycle of systemic racism.

                                          When I say "give the characters back," I mean that Disney, with it's resources and connections, could have easily reached out to black creators and those familiar with the origins of the characters, the intentions of the stories, and the connections these stories have to pre-american, african storytelling (they made an effort with lion king afterall). They could have acknowledged what the movie was apart of, and in an effort to heal some of the issues, they could have allowed new cartoons, shorts, stories, etc, written by black creators. They could have allowed black creators to recontextualize the characters and stories as something seperate from the Uncle Remus stories, and we could live in a world where the stories Disney helped create hand-in-hand with the black community could be the most prominent versions. Then we wouldn't be in this whole issue to begin with, because there wouldn't be nearly all this baggage associated with the ride, and characters.



                                          Comment

                                          Get Away Today Footer

                                          Collapse
                                          Working...
                                          X