Removing Peter Pans Flight Scenes

[BrianL]

Thats an interesting question. I think Disney has been changing its characterization of “princess-ness” for a while and celebrating those characters. I was even thinking of how in a movie like Moana the “princess” does not need saving nor is any part of it about how Moana needs to find a man. Really the only other male character in the movie is never even thought of as a mate.

Its one thing to change the characterization on a ride. It’s another to try to change centuries of characterization especially where people already own copies of that original version (DVDs, Blu-Rays, etc.) and cannot be updated. I have noticed that Disney appears to be updating these characterizations in more contemporary renditions. When our daughters were younger (5-7 years ago) when we would read “princess” stories written more recently, they focused on Cinderella doing charity work or Belle helping animals, etc., not on relationships with the “princes.” And this is not even talking about the close to 30 years of Disney “princess” stories such as Pocahantas, Mulan, Tangled, and Frozen.

It doesn’t erase this sexist/misogynist history but I’ve felt it’s turning the boat around. I think that our daughters have had more exposure to these more “modern” versions of “princess-ness” than to the prior versions.

I definitely like how they have changed the depictions of princesses, however one thing that happens with that which I do not like is that it somehow becomes seen as "wrong" to have a princess who is just that and not also an action hero or whatever. It's okay if a little girl wants to be a pampered princess instead of a firefighter or whatever, and it's also okay if they do want to be a firefighter too. Some people get a little judgey about that. Granted there was a time when the stories were very one-sided and I'm glad that has changed. I like the tough gals like Rapunzel better anyway.

 

[DisneyMama811]

The library

I feel slighted by my local libraries lack of selection

I'm sorry I had to.

 

[MickeyWaffles]

It really comes down to this.

- Does keeping the offensive scene hurt anyone? Yes. It surely does.

- Does removing the offensive scene hurt anyone? No. It does not. People may be weirdly outraged about it. But if removing this scene that is outdated and hurtful to others is actually somehow painful to you, that is very sad.

Removing the scene doesn’t erase history. It removes an outdated racist depiction from a theme park ride that is based a fictional animated film.

Why are people so unwilling to acknowledge that something from the past could be wrong and that it is time to move on from it? This country has moved beyond MANY things that are no longer acceptable. Growth and change are not bad things.

 

[Krandor]

It that some have weird hills to die on. Updating or changing one scene in a ride because it’s not currently culturally appropriate is certainly a strange one to die on.

And it isn't even one of the iconic or best scenes on the ride either. If it wasn't there next time I rode PP I'm not so sure I'd notice. Seems like a weird hill to die on.

 

[Tiki Birdland]

I find it ironic that some of you complaining about Disney removing everything they deem offensive are the same ones asking for Disney to limit it's sales of alcohol in Epcot because you find drunks offensive.

Agree with poster who said if you can't figure out what was offensive about the depiction of Native Americans in Peter Pan...well not much else to be said.

Not even close to being the same thing. But, I will say that I do understand how some might find depictions of native americans in PP are offensive. And, yes, I am offended at the drunks at EPCoT Center. The only reason Disney allows it is the $$ it brings. Talk about high gross margin!

 

[Simba's Girl]

Not even close to being the same thing. But, I will say that I do understand how some might find depictions of native americans in PP are offensive. And, yes, I am offended at the drunks at EPCoT Center. The only reason Disney allows it is the $$ it brings. Talk about high gross margin!

If you could only get high at Disney...

 

[AurumPunzel]

It really comes down to this.

- Does keeping the offensive scene in hurt anyone? Yes. It surely does.

- Does removing the offensive scene hurt anyone? No. It does not. People may be weirdly outraged about it. But if removing this scene that is outdated and hurtful to others is actually somehow painful to you, that is very sad.

Removing the scene doesn’t erase history. It removes an outdated racist depiction from a theme park ride that is based a fictional animated film.

Why are people so unwilling to acknowledge that something from the past could be wrong and that it is time to move on from it? This country has moved beyond MANY things that are no longer acceptable. Growth and change are not bad things.

The issue is that it's become too faddy to revise or censor works of art that a given minority may take offence to, despite it never being a problem until now, yet if it's been a problem from the beginning, then it should have been addressed from the onset. But regardless, it's still erasing history. Historical precedent, especially in China, has taught us that revisionism is not necessarily a good thing.

 

[KBoopaloo]

The issue is that it's become too faddy to revise or censor works of art that a given minority may take offence to, despite it never being a problem until now, yet if it's been a problem from the beginning, then it should have been addressed from the onset. But regardless, it's still erasing history. Historical precedent, especially in China, has taught us that revisionism is not necessarily a good thing.

Sure because everyone knows that minorities and those without power have always been in positions that allowed them to speak up when they found something offensive without any repercussions? This thread is full of bad takes but this one might win the prize.

 

[rteetz]

The issue is that it's become too faddy to revise or censor works of art that a given minority may take offence to, despite it never being a problem until now, yet if it's been a problem from the beginning, then it should have been addressed from the onset. But regardless, it's still erasing history. Historical precedent, especially in China, has taught us that revisionism is not necessarily a good thing.

Theme parks aren’t museums.

 

[Farro]

The issue is that it's become too faddy to revise or censor works of art that a given minority may take offence to, despite it never being a problem until now, yet if it's been a problem from the beginning, then it should have been addressed from the onset. But regardless, it's still erasing history. Historical precedent, especially in China, has taught us that revisionism is not necessarily a good thing.

Peter Pan is not a work of art about Native Americans. It contains a crude depiction of Native Americans from a time when people were more ignorant than they are now (some people). You don't understand that today people may view things differently? So at the time the cartoon was made, perhaps they didn't view it as offensive, and now we know better?

They aren't erasing the history of Native Americans - just erasing an offensive stereotype.

And they aren't even doing that in the movie, correct? Just the warning.

 

[rteetz]

Peter Pan is not a work of art about Native Americans. It's a crude depiction of Native Americans from a time when people were more ignorant than they are now (some people).

They aren't erasing the history of Native Americans - just erasing an offensive stereotype.

And they aren't even doing that in the movie, correct? Just the warning.

Yes there is a warning. It’s sort of hard to just erase scenes from movies. This scene is not that important to the ride so this is a rather easy fix.

 

[AurumPunzel]

If you agree it's offensive, then not sure of what you are arguing against.

You don't want them to remove one scene from the Peter Pan ride that may be offensive to others because...why? They aren't removing it from the movie.

I am arguing against hiding that scene from the promo because it pretends that it doesn't exist when it's clearly present, yet they're not going to modify it. However, they should at least modify it in a way that it removes the negativity and presents the natives in a more positive light. The original movie is staying as it is, with a warning to acknowledge that the stereotypes were and are still wrong.

After all, aren't we supposed to be acknowledging history and making the rides more representative to modern-day sensitivities?

 

[Farro]

I am arguing against hiding that scene from the promo because it pretends that it doesn't exist when it's clearly present, yet they're not going to modify it. However, they should at least modify it in a way that it removes the negativity and presents the natives in a more positive light. The original movie is staying as it is, with a warning to acknowledge that the stereotypes were and are still wrong.

I understand - if they remove it from the promo, they should remove from the ride.

I actually agree with that.

 

[AurumPunzel]

I understand - if they remove it from the promo, they should remove from the ride.

I actually agree with that.

Now we've got some common ground.

I just feel that it's rather hypocritical for Disney to remove the scene from the promo and yet keep it in the actual ride, because it implies that they're being two-faced with their strategy of inclusiveness given that we're getting the SM PATF retheme, and pretends that the contentious scene does not exist, hence my earlier comment about erasure and revisionism.

 

[Farro]

Now we've got some common ground.

I just feel that it's rather hypocritical for Disney to remove the scene from the promo and yet keep it in the actual ride, because it implies that they're being two-faced with their strategy of inclusiveness given that we're getting the SM PATF retheme, and pretends that the contentious scene does not exist, hence my earlier comment about erasure and revisionism.

The ride will come with time, I'm sure.

 

[Krandor]

So was it erasing history to close stitch? Was history erased by closing great movie ride? Should nothing at the parks ever change because we will be removing art and history?

Or is it only scenes that some people might find offensive that should not be touched to save history?

 

[Krandor]

Now we've got some common ground.

I just feel that it's rather hypocritical for Disney to remove the scene from the promo and yet keep it in the actual ride, because it implies that they're being two-faced with their strategy of inclusiveness given that we're getting the SM PATF retheme, and pretends that the contentious scene does not exist, hence my earlier comment about erasure and revisionism.

I'm almost certain it will be changed. Right now disney has too many projects on the board some of which are being delayed due to the current financial situation so I don't think they have the resources to commit to re-doing it right now but I'm not it is on a list of upcoming projects but one they are not yet ready to announce yet. Even in inclusiveness changes they still have splash and jungle cruise to do. This will likely be after those.

 

[AurumPunzel]

So was it erasing history to close stitch? Was history erased by closing great movie ride? Should nothing at the parks ever change because we will be removing art and history?

Or is it only scenes that some people might find offensive that should not be touched to save history?

There's a huge difference between closing down and retheming a ride and hiding a perpetual yet contentious scene from a film on a ride promo video that exists, and was even addressed by adding a warning to the underlying film on Disney+. Disney built those parks to evolve, but this is about a scene that exists in perpetuity on a ride that should be addressed, not by erasing its presence on a promo video, but by changing the depictions of the natives to be more positive, because that'll acknowledge the wrongs, yet not erase the history of that scene. It retells it in a different and more positive light, which is what this whole inclusiveness push was supposed to be about.

 

[Krandor]

There's a huge difference between closing down and retheming a ride and hiding a perpetual yet contentious scene from a film on a ride promo video that exists, and was even addressed by adding a warning to the underlying film on Disney+. Disney built those parks to evolve, but this is about a scene that exists in perpetuity on a ride that should be addressed, not by erasing its presence on a promo video, but by changing the depictions of the natives to be more positive, because that'll acknowledge the wrongs, yet not erase the history of that scene. It retells it in a different and more positive light, which is what this whole inclusiveness push was supposed to be about.

The scene should be changed on the ride and I'm sure it will after some other projects are completed. For now they decided to go on and remove it from the video but that is really just a sign that it's going to change. I mean they haven't even started on PATF or JC yet. However I bet the design workon what the new scene should look like it already in progress.

 

[rteetz]

it was "in general". His comments were offensive then and more so now with all the piling on here. I agree with a later poster, I'm done.

In what world is me mentioning drinking in Epcot offensive? It’s not against any sort of rule. I wasn’t a belligerent drunk. Good lord.