We’re not talking about the overused and ultimately cliché phrase, "politically correct." In truth, those two words carry about as much meaning these days as a wire basket carries water. No, we’re talking about the fact that Disney’s attempt to sanitize attractions instead of being faithful to their inherent tension has left us with too many empty, shallow experiences. Disney, in its effort not to offend anyone, has stripped out too much of the conflict from its attractions’ stories. And without conflict, there's no drama, and no emotion for the audience.
Disney should learn from Sea World. During the hugely popular Shamu show, the Jack Hanna-narrated video shows killer whales stalking, hunting, and eating seals. Very intense. Very real. Sea World doesn’t shy away from the natural conflict of wildlife, which involves carnage, blood, and death. Because of this adherence to true drama, there is genuine emotion and reward for the audience.
Whereas at Disney, expect to see all Nazi symbols and mentions removed from the Indy stunt show. Not only will this disassociate the show from the storyline of the wildly popular Indiana Jones movies, but it also smacks of "cleaning up history." Surely Indy co-creator Steven Spielberg, director of "Schindler’s List," would never agree to this.
Animal Kingdom’s Kilimanjaro Safaris provides another, perhaps better, example.
(Okay, warning for those who haven’t ridden: Spoilers ahead!)
Throughout the climactic chase sequence, the safari riders help to chase down poachers who have injured Big Red, the elephant matriarch of the herd. When the safari riders finally come upon the scene where the poachers have been captured, the game wardens (dressed in green) are holding the poachers at bay with... a walkie-talkie.
This is a recent development, because they used to authentically hold the poachers at bay with a prop gun. In times past, many of the Cast Members routinely acted out the scene with great drama: You’d see them run out from behind the truck that contained Little Red, the baby elephant, and shove their guns into the window of the poachers. They’d be shouting with intense looks of anger and satisfaction at having caught "the bad guys." Guests would then applause and cheer, having been caught up in the action.
Now, the scene consists of rounding the corner to find an immobile warden lazily peering through the window while holding a walkie-talkie, sleepily reciting the line, "Little Red is okay." The cheers from onlookers are now few and far between. The scene is lifeless.
Of course, this neutering of the safari ride has been ongoing. Instead of facing the realities that Big Red was killed, as was the original storyline, executives demanded that the dead elephant’s carcass be removed, and that Safari riders be made aware that Big Red is only wounded. The fake, bloody remains of a zebra were removed from the lion area, too. These may have been improvements to some, but they definitely succeeded in making the ride seem more manufactured and less real.
Disney’s rival up the interstate (Sea World) is allowing the animals to be animals, and letting them tell their own story. At Sea World, visitors can touch the slimy skin of rays--lots and lots of them--swimming smoothly below the surface of the shallow pool. Visitors can also feed and touch the dolphins in the large dolphin cove section of the park, and even swim with them at the extra-admission Discovery Cove.
At Disney, you get to pet a sheep. Dolphins, and all other animals, are off limits.
One Safari driver tells the story of how she was driving her first load of guests first thing in the morning, and white rabbits were being tossed to the cheetahs. The big cats were snagging them from the air and quickly doing quick business on them. To Disney management, this was an obvious mistake that was quickly corrected. Too bad. The guests were engrossed.
Also early in the mornings, the first guests to go on the Safari may get a true thrill--the male lion roaring to mark his territory (before he slumps into sleep for the day). This is the high that guests crave.
To be fair, Disney does allow for some unpleasantness: Images of poached animals prior to boarding the safari, endangered animals spotlighted, and others. But it’s not enough.
Animal Kingdom should relish the true, exciting drama that exists in nature--independent of comfortable storylines and manufactured props. For example, the greatest thrill I ever experienced on the Safari Ride is when we saw a Thomson Gazelle give birth on the savanna. Guests were cheering, cameras were clicking, and the animal keepers were close at hand to make sure that all went well. As a matter of fact, we talked about that experience so much that we almost missed the artificial thrill of saving Little Red from the pretend poachers.
How can props compete with the true Circle of Life?
And although I agree that the term "politically correct" has lost all meaning, I don't think Disney's pulling Nazi symbols or potential rape scenes (like the controversial one in Pirates of the Caribbean) is all that dramtic. If the Nazis had disappeared a hundred years back or so, then it would be meaningless to most people. But I am certain that many Holocaust survivors have ridden that ride expecting to have a good time and instead end up having flashbacks to a part of their lives that none of us could dare imagine.
I also have problems with the comment that the Nazis were one of the "real-world" reasons why "Raiders" was such a hit. The Nazis in the movie had practically nothing in common with the real world. They were just a convenient international bad guy, which Hollywood is always in search of (now it's Middle-Easterners). Making them Nazis also allowed the writer(s) to neglect any type of actual characterizations. They were Nazis. They were evil. 'Nuff said. In fact, their being Nazis was SO unimportant to the actual plot that I had forgotten they were even in the movie until you mentioned it.
That said, I also think the way Disney handles the poaching plot is pathetic. At SFMW's Tiger Island show, they actually present items that have been made from poached tiger carcasses and say to the audience, "We think this looks better on tigers, don't you?" Not terribly deep, but it gets the message across so much better than Disney's lame elephant storyline.
Disney has made a fortune on the big screen killing moms and dads and skinning dogs and the like, but can't kill one elephant for what may be their most important plotline?
My own personal opinion on the "cleaning" of Disney rides: If it may upset some guests and isn't the point of the ride, then get rid of it. Nazis and rapists upset some guests. So may a dead elephant, but then that is the point. Anything less than that is lip service.
For example, MGM has Rock-n-Roller Coaster. What does this have to do with MGM movies? Dino-Rama? What does this have to do with Animals? etc...etc...
As far as the Animal Kingdom comments: I'm not sure I'd always enjoy seeing little bunny's devoured all the time, either. I just know that I DO enjoy when SeaWorld shows the true nature of its Killer whales, sharks, and such. And kids seem not to mind, either. But I do have to admit, the first time I saw the large-screen video of Jack Hannah narrating the killer whale hunt, I was surprised SeaWorld was showing it to the kids. But it was all about education and showing the drama of real-life. Most of the kids just stared wide-eyed, mouthing the word, "Wow." Me too.
The potential Pirate rape--good riddance, I guess. But it's strange the "brides for sale" scene survived--especially with the line, "Turn around, dear...show them your starboard side."
I'm just trying to express the idea that true human (and animal) drama and conflict sometimes gets left out, thus resulting in less-engrossing experiences.
ps With grade school kids blasting away zombies and tearing the backbones out of opponents at the arcade, I think animals in the wild would be a welcome respite for many parents.
As far as Dino-Rama, it's just a fun way to play off the tacky roadside attractions along the interstates in the early part of the 20th Century. Disney's original premise for the park was, "Animals that are, animals that were, and animals that never were." Dinosaurs are the "animals that were" part. They've got quite a bit of the animals that are. It's the "never were" world of dragons, unicorns, and such that's yet to be worked out. And since Reign of Fire is (scuse the pun) going down in flames, expect a longer wait still.
Nature isn't fantasy. It is reality--in its crudest, most basic form.
If the public wants "fantasy" from its theme parks, then the animal theme is never going to work. Now, the "animals that never theme" would--but there's no nature there. Only whatever reality the park's designers have the creativity to dream up.
Animal Kingdom, however, at least the parts dealing with today's creatures, must be real. Otherwise, it's a fraud that leaves the audience feeling cheated, not exhilirated.
If being real means puncturing a three-year-old's fantastic visions, so be it. Those who want fiction may visit the Magic Kingdom, or the China pavilion at Epcot. There are avilable options for everyone.
I've no problem with Disney, or anyone else, opening a "PG"-rated theme park. Just don't make the conflict gratuitous. Show us the drama, triumph, joy and humor of life that many of us, by the circumstances of where and how we live, too often miss.
I would've liked to see the game wardens hold up the bad guys with some emotion--I would've cheered that performance. I do believe that rabbits thrown to cheetahs would be too much for litte ones (on TV is one matter, in real life is another).
In any case, something has to give somewhere--the park has to work on 'keeping it real'. Otherwise, 'NaHTaZu' turns INTO a zoo REALLY quick.
Now, as for the Indy Stunt Show, I could care less. Deep down, whenever I see Indiana Jones battling bad guys, I will recognize and refer to them as Nazis (unless they're dressed differently, in which case, they're disgruntled villagers who worship evil gods--but either way, both bad guys are evil).
And the Pirates thing is just stupid. All the years that attraction had been opened, those pirates never did catch those women. When historical accuracy gives way to 'PC', it's a very sad day.
J, you misunderstood my point. My point wasn't that the plotline that the Nazis were a part of were unimportant to "Raiders." It was that the fact that they were Nazis were unimportant. The movie takes place around the time of WWII which means they could have just as easily used Japan as the enemy and they wouldn't have had to change a single thing in the script. And if the movie were set in the 80's, they would have simply plopped Russians into the bad-guy roles and, once again, WOULD HAVE HAD TO CHANGE NOTHING. Had the plot involved anything that actually had to do with Nazis beyond their evildoings, like if they wanted the Ark to kill all the Jews, then their Naziness would have been important to the plot. As they were actually used, they were nothing more than a device giving the writers the ability to develop only the Indy side of the script. It absolutely worked for this movie, but that still doesn't mean it wasn't lazy writing.
The Pirates argument seems like its going in one of its usual directions and I need to nip that in the bud right now. Pirates is nowhere near historically correct. Far too many people use that as an excuse to not change things that desperately need changing, like the sex-slave-auction scene. If Disney had put ANY effort into being historically accurate then the pirates would be wading through a sea of dead bodies trying to find more villagers to kill, more women to rape or more kids to kidnap. And they surely wouldn't have the time to sing a fun little ditty while doing so. This ride is NOT history; this ride is clearly meant to be pure fantasy. If it wants to pretend that death was not all in a pirate's regular workday, then it also needs to pretend that rape and sex slaves weren't either. Treasure Island in Vegas does the pirates-as-fun motif about a thousand times better than Disney does and it doesn't need to denigrate women to do so.
After directing "Schindler's List", Spielberg said on numerous occasions that he had some regrets about having previously portrayed Nazis in a lightweight, cartoonish manner in the Indiana Jones films. He has said that he could never see himself using Nazis as villains in this type of film ever again and that any future Indiana Jones films would definitely be set well past World War II.
If Europeans can handle politically incorrect representations of pirates, what the hell is up our uptight butts?
And Kevin..."Treasure Island in Vegas does the pirates-as-fun motif about a thousand times better than Disney does and it doesn't need to denigrate women to do so."...Treasure Island is a thousand times better than Disney? That's about as far-fetched as people claiming IoA has no theming...
Honestly, I'm just curious--if you could direct me to any sites or readings on this particular subject, I'd be obliged...
Furthermore, Francois, I find it aggravating that ONCE AGAIN you have ignored an important part of a post and focused solely on something else. Not only did you turn "Treasure Island in Vegas does the pirates-as-fun motif about a thousand times better than Disney does" into " Treasure Island is a thousand times better than Disney?" but you actually bothered to cut and paste MY actual phrase into your post AND YOU STILL MISUNDERSTOOD IT! I CLEARLY stated that TI does the pirates-as-fun motif better. The MOTIF! And they do! There is no selling of women and there is no pillaging innocent townships. They do blow up and sink a British ship, but the British started it at TI. But while I am at it, Treasure Island itself is about 1000 times better than PotC. TI has a better pirate battle. TI has drinking, gambling and food. TI has better giftshops. TI has a pool, real trees and lots of people in skimpy bathing suits. TI has places to sleep. TI has a monorail. And best of all, TI has a Cirque du Soleil show! I think all that kicks the caca out of PotC!
Robert's favorite Disney attraction versus one of Robert's favorite Vegas hang-outs?
Pitted against one another?
No, no, a thousand times, no! I will not contemplate this thread, Kevin! Dammit, I do not want to go there!
(Of course, as Kevin would say... LOL!)
LOL!
I didn't misunderstand you--I clearly understood that you were only talking about the pirate "motif" and not comparing Treasure Island to Disney as a whole. When I turned your motif quote into "Treasure Island is a thousand times better than Disney," it was a result of laziness on my part, but I did understand we were comparing just the pirate motifs and not Treasure Island as a whole versus Disney as a whole. In the future, I will try to be more accurate with my typing and not get lazy and forget vital words ("motif motif motif"). After all, it's clearly unfair for me to make it seem like you were trying to compare Treasure Island as a whole to Disney.
With that being said, however, I notice that that fact didn't stop you from going onto a tangent about how Treasure Island, as a whole, was better than PotC. I believe I'm quoting this correctly, "Treasure Island itself is about 1000 times better than PotC." I guess, after another person forgets to type an important word like "motif," it's acceptable to compare a whole versus a part. ;P Clearly, it would be unfair to compare the Casino, as a whole, to one attraction at Disneyland. After all, Disneyland, as a whole, also has drinking and food (but no gambling--which is good or bad depending on what your looking for), places to sleep (the Grand Californian, etc.), and, at the hotels, at least, "a pool, real trees and lots of people in skimpy bathing suits."
But, I digress--we were discussing how Treasure Island's Pirate show was better in "motif" than PotC because it "whitewashes" pirates by not portraying them as denigrating women or pillaging innocent townships. My viewpoint on that is that, on a p.c. level, Treasure Island is, indeed, better...but p.c. is so, ahem, boring.
Okay, before this post gets too long, I'm also sorry you couldn't give me a book or site or something about my other question about Walt--I was genuinely curious about your discussion of him. People do tend to "whitewash" his life, and I thought you had found a more objective source which I could research too because whitewashing is a bad thing.
But consider this setting--let's recreate PotC 500 to 750 times better. Imagine the original opening--the mysterious cruise through the dark bayous of Louisiana in search of the legendary, infamous and, most importantly, villainous pirate, LaFitte. As we move past the old man on his porch, we make the first drop into the PotC ride and, instead of being confronted with the skeletons of dead pirates or memories of them ransacking Spanish towns, we are instead confronted with a live show of pirates defending themselves against Imperialist British oppressors who seek to ruin the fun of these lovable scoundrels (Treasure Island's show, for those of you who aren't catching my drift). Perhaps my comparison isn't fair, but by placing Treasure Island's "better" show within PotC, shouldn't we have a better attraction overall? One that doesn't offend anyone yet still entertains?
I, for one, would say, "no." The end product, I'm sure many will agree, would be bland and rather flavorless--a good spectacle, perhaps, but lacking the mystique of the original. Where's the villainy that was hinted at in the Louisiana bayou? Where's the darkness? Did we enter the jungle seeking the heart of darkness and find the Wizard of Oz instead?
I don't want to get too deep discussing a simple musical ride, but the concept and atmosphere of PotC is so much richer to me than the shallow spectacle of Treasure Island's live show. In fact, if you think about it, PotC is far more politically correct than the live show--although it is a humorous musical that, without argument, presents a light-hearted version of pirates, it does serve as a morality lesson. First we are confronted with the skeletons of the pirates--the dead pirate on the beach, the skeleton with his hoarded gains alone in his cave; these are the fates of those who lived their lives pursuing greed and lust and villainy. Then, we see their villainy firsthand--I can't imagine how bland, how flavorless the ride would be without presenting pirate villainy--the town being burned, the brides being sold. And afterwards, we see the pirates trying to escape from prison...the fate that awaits many of those who pursue lives of villainy?
What does the live show give us? A portrayal of pirates as heroic figures? As lovable scoundrels, as Errol Flynn lookalikes who must defend their merry way of life from stuffy Imperialist Brits who want to ruin their fun? No darkness here, no hint of villainy. In fact, it's a more denigrating (and damaging) portrayal of pirates because it glosses over their evil so easily--much like gangsta rap's portrayal of thugs because it makes heroes out of villains.
So, is Treasure Island really 500 to 750 times better than PotC? I think not. In terms of a rich experience, it's like comparing J.M. Barrie's rich novel, Peter Pan, to, well, a Disney film.
Or maybe I'm thinking too deeply about these things...
And there is nothing in the rulebooks that says historical figures can't be treated lightly. Even the Nazis aren't shown in a historical context in "The Producers" or "Hogan's Heroes."
I agree that the spectacle of Treasure Island's battle is a spectacle while PotC tells a story. Yet both are supposed to be FUN and not history lessons. TI's battle succeeds at what it sets out to do, while PotC DOESN'T entirely succeed. It isn't complete fun or complete history and the two simply are not meshing well. A former CM told me in the past that PotC gets more complaints than any other attraction in WDW. So there are plenty of people out there who don't think the ride is an adventure either.
I have been raped. And yes, I have seen rape scenes in "entertainment" that brought back much too-vivid memories and left me shaken for days. I do feel that rape scenes have no place in entertainment.
But I think Disney was crazy to change POTC - the only people that would find it offensive would be the kind of people who seek out to be offended.
There are no rape scenes in POTC. Chasing women? All men do that, not just pirates. Yes, historically pirates once raped women - but there is no feeling on the ride that these Disney pirates could be capable of anything so evil. It's really a stretch to say that humorous images of women being chased could traumatize rape victims.
If there is any PC argument it would have to be that the images were offensive to fat women - because the thin women were being chased, but the fat girl obviously wasn't desirable, and she was chasing a pirate instead. (I believe that scene was intended to be the punchline of the visual "joke".)
I've seen the changed ride, and it doesn't really affect the experience very much - but I still think they should have left it alone.
Thank you for your candor and contributing one of the most thoughtful posts I've read on this topic so far. I agree with you--in this age of political correctness, I think people have become more like 'morality police' than people.
Kevin,
In reference to your statement that PotC and Treasure Island's live show are supposed to be fun and not history lessons--well, who said history lessons can't be fun? I had a great history teacher in high school; in fact, I often wonder why I didn't become a history major because of him! :) But, this is really a moot point because I don't believe PotC or Treasure Island should be considered historical (perhaps historical fantasy, but little more than that)...
I do agree with you, however, that Treasure Island's campy live performance is much different than PotC's richer theme. I have to ask then if a richer theme is necessarily less "fun" than a more campy one? I won't insult you; I know you'd say, "no"--Japanese anime's more mature cartoons are fun (though in a different way) as are cartoons aimed at younger audiences such as Hanna-Barbera.
After re-reading our posts and thinking about our disagreement, I'm going to hazard a theory (if I'm way off or being presumptuous doing so, please put me in my place)--I think the gist of our disagreement isn't whether PotC is a successful attraction, but whether or not it is an appropriate one, especially in regards to younger viewers or, as our anonymous poster brought up in her earlier post, "people who seek out to be offended." I think you may have a point--perhaps PotC needs a 'PG' rating rather than a 'G.' Perhaps some attractions should require parental guidance--WDW's Alien Encounter, for instance, might be too extreme for younger audiences. But should PotC be altered? I don't think so--the classics should remain the way they are.
Finally, in regards to your discussion about how WDW's PotC receives more complaints than any other ride--well, perhaps people who seek to be offended do complain about the ride...but before you use that as evidence about PotC's failure, don't forget that this classic ride is well-loved by generations of Disney visitors. Think I'm just spouting Disney-dork propaganda? Well, you know that ain't so--PotC is listed on the top 20 attractions at this site. And PotC Disneyland, PotC WDW, AND PotC Paris are ALL listed on the top 20 dark rides at this site.
But you do make a point about its appropriateness. I DON'T actually find the ride to be personally offensive. I just don't think it is appropriate for the venues in which it appears. In fact, it would probably be far more appropriate for Las Vegas, and they didn't even take it as far as Disney did.
As for the rape victim... I'm sorry and I commend you for the way you are dealing with your experience. But all rape victims are not like you. Many are so viciously brutalized that they end up with something akin to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Yes, you are right that the one scene that was closest to a rape scene was changed around, but the sex-slave scene is apparently enough to once again traumatize women who are supposed to be on vacation. I don't think these women are "looking for things to offend" them. Sure, many are. But just because there are people like that, we should ignore the ones who are having REAL effects from this ride?
For the record, I don't buy a lot of the stories that people don't see what the pirates are really up to. I figured out what deeds they were up to when I was seven. Maybe I was a bit precocious then, but if reality pops into my head at that age, then why when others get that same dose of reality it is because they are "looking to be offended." Not to be rude, but I find the idea of a VERY LARGE group of people all being neatly pushed into one group, labeled and ignored to be not only ignorant, but I find it to be far more offensive than the ride itself. After the events of 9/11, you would think that Americans would be a little more empathetic towards their fellow humans. Apparently a single scene in a ride is more important.
No offense, but I'm not sure I'm completely following your argument in the first paragraph of your last post, so if I'm off-base a little in my response, let me know, k?
Anyway--yes, MK's PotC ain't nothing compared to Paris or Anaheim's PotC. In fact, MK's is rated the lowest of the three PotC's on the top 20 dark rides on this site.
Your other argument about "nostalgia making those grades higher than they should be" is rather hard to refute. I don't know of a top 20 list chosen by "Objective People Definitely Unaffected By Disney Nostalgia" anywhere on the internet. I would like to think that a top 20 list on THIS site, at least, would be fairly objective since this isn't, by definition, a "Disney dork" site. However, I think we can safely assume that a large amount of people in this world DO find PotC enjoyable. Although nostalgia may be a contributing factor for many, I think it would be unfair to consider any PotC fan to be merely a Disney dork blinded by nostalgia.
I think we have some agreement about the possibility that PotC, and other rides with mature themes, might not be appropriate for all viewers--I haven't given the idea much thought, but do we really need rating system? This ride is 'PG?' Or maybe some rides need a warning sign--"This ride may not be appropriate for some viewers." I don't know--perhaps...or perhaps this is an extreme course of action over something very trivial. Things to think about...
I do think we should be careful, however--when we make concessions to every offended group, we are lead, inevitably, to the question of censorship. If PotC is changed because it is perceived as morally offensive, then what about other entertainment venues? Should the film, The Tin Drum, be banned because of questionable content? Or is it just a question of who these forms of entertainment are appropriate for?
Finally, regarding your statement about how "Americans [should] be a little more empathetic towards their fellow humans. Apparently [not changing] a single scene in a ride is more important." I found that statement interesting because you seem to single out Americans as being callous towards the feelings of other people; however, Anaheim's PotC has gone through several changes over the years as a result of complaints from offended people, yet PARIS's PotC STILL contains those same scenes which were deleted from Anaheim's version. By your argument, then, if Americans are callous, then Europeans MUST be barbarians! ;p
Seriously though, it has been my experience that (with the exception of the Brits who censor many films which enter their country) Europeans tend to be less concerned with being politically correct or morally policing society than Americans (who, despite reports to the contrary, have held onto their Puritanical colonial values).
EUROPEANS, please feel free to voice your opinion on my last statement! Put me in my place if I'm totally off-base!
Remember after 9/11 and everyone wanted to go and erase anything about New York City from things so people wouldn't be offended? Movies, television shows, rides... all either got worried over or changed because of that. And we all know that there are far more living victims of rape than there are of that tragedy. MILLIONS MORE. So I have to repeat, I simply don't think that this ONE SOLITARY SCENE is appropriate for either American venue. If it changed, people wouldn't suddenly hate the ride. Would it be boycotted? Personally, I would love to see people trying to explain to newcomers how much they miss the scene where the pirates sold the women. One simple change and millions would STILL love the ride, and millions more could FULLY enjoy their vacations.
It's interesting how you make a relationship between America's puritan attitude towards sex and violent sex crimes in the United States. If I'm reading you correctly, because sex is "still considered a taboo topic by millions in this country," "sex is on the mind of our criminals probably far too much." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's the gist of what you're saying, right? There is a direct causal link between sexual 'repression' and sex crimes.
I think that's a very interesting theory, and I'm sure there's much validity to that theory. However, if you go by your theory, then doesn't altering a single scene in the PotC for questionable sexual content therefore contribute to sex crimes? I'm playing Socrates here, I know--maybe I shouldn't, but I just thought I'd make the observation.
In response to anonymous's observation that, in order to make PotC politically correct and non-offensive to all people, we should include 'pirates of color' to the mix. I don't know, perhaps s/he is right. Then again, adding 'pirates of color' might actually offend African-Americans who might feel that blacks have been portrayed as villains far too much in entertainment venues--black pirates attacking a white Spanish town? And what about the Spanish accents of the victimized townspeople? Isn't it possible that Spanish people might find the portrayal of Spanish accents offensive? And didn't people from Spain actually speak Spanish? In an effort to be fair to the Spanish culture, shouldn't all the voices be dubbed in Spanish?
Okay, I've taken this to an extreme, I know--but I'm just letting you know that morally policing something is a slippery slope.
Kevin argues that altering the ride will make everyone happy, but clearly many are outraged at the very idea that PotC be altered. I, myself, wouldn't be outraged, but I would be disappointed.
I still point to the Europeans--Paris's PotC not only contains the questionable scene, it contains ALL the questionable scenes which have been altered from Anaheim's original! If I may hazard a theory, I think I know why--Europeans place much more confidence on the ability of the individual to take care of themselves. If a person is going to be offended, then that person shouldn't go on the ride.
I have long said that PotC has nothing to do with history since there all the people in their Caribbean are WHITE! Yes, many Caribbean islands were settled by white peeps from other countries, but how representative of the entire area is that? Exactly where are black people represented in these parks? As Francois said, I guess it's understandable that Disney wouldn't want blacks to be villains in a ride. Or victims for that matter. So then why is it okay ONCE AGAIN to have the victims be female? Isn't that total girl Ariel bad enough?
It's interesting that you make the observation that altering PotC would make a very large group of people happy and that "everyone else would just learn to deal with it." Perhaps there's some validity to that statement, but isn't the flip-side true too? If the ride remains the way it is, then everyone else would be happy while a large group of people would just learn to deal with it, right?
And when I discussed racial diversity in PotC, I wasn't actually all that concerned over Disney's attention to multiculturalism--I was trying to point out how trying to be politically correct can be taken to extremes. You start mucking around with the classic formula of PotC, then the next thing you know religious fundamentalists start complaining about how the end of "Mr. Toad's Wild Ride" trivializes purgatory...
I notice you didn't think much of my point about how your argument about America's sexual repression actually works against your argument to change PotC. I thought it was pretty clever ;)
I'm also bugged that NO ONE has any observations about why there's such a fuss over America's PotCs while Europe's PotC retains scenes that have already been altered in Anaheim and WDW's...
"Disney’s attempt to sanitize attractions instead of being faithful to their inherent tension has left us with too many empty, shallow experiences. Disney, in its effort not to offend anyone, has stripped out too much of the conflict from its attractions’ stories. And without conflict, there's no drama, and no emotion for the audience."
That quote really clarified a lot of what I was thinking but hadn't put into words yet. Yes, something like Treasure Island's live show is fun in a shallow sort of way, but PotC is a richer experience (and richer doesn't mean not fun!)...
But I have to disagree about how the victims will "just have to deal with it." If they were dealing with it, there wouldn't be so many complaints now, would there? Kind of like how the Indians had to just deal with moving to Oklahoma instead of America just dealing with them living where they lived. Sometimes the proper solution means hurting the majority just a little so a minority won't hurt so much.
Besides, "fully-drawn" is a rather tricky term--when is something "fully"-drawn? I think PotC does a good job at engaging you in a storyline--we are drawn into the mysterious world of the pirates via the bayou. We see reocurring characters throughout the ride (the red-coated Captain, for instance). Perhaps the characters aren't "fully"-drawn, but they do take on a certain life in our imagination.
About your other point about not offending anybody--yes, it would be nice if we didn't offend anyone, but there's a flip-side to what you're proposing as well.
I found an interesting article that I thought everyone might like to read, http://www.salon.com/media/media970115.html
The quote that struck me the most in that article was this, "Then why change the ride at all? The ride is a remnant of two historical pasts — one, the time of the ride's original creation; the other, a mythologized (if not utterly fanciful) pirate past. In its own playful way, it reminds us that women have not always enjoyed the respect and status they have today. Is it better to pretend that the past is a kind of utopia, to teach children that history can be written and rewritten to conform to present political demands? Disney seems to think so. Now they just need to finish construction and collect."
As for drama not needing characters, I would have to disagree SOMEWHAT. Drama is actually created by a series of events, not just one event. If you are seeing something dramatic on television as you flip through, and you are completely new to what is happening, then you are more likely drawn to the conflict, as J suggested earlier. Of course, drama can happen without well-drawn characters, but when it happens in the movies or television the words "deep" and "rich" are never used. More like "popcorn film" or "brainless fun." I think PotC is meant to be sort of a "popcorn ride" and not a history lesson. As I said before, if it IS a history lesson, it is a piss-poor one. And that one scene is keeping it from being a true "popcorn ride."
Maybe you're right about the Civil War South--should we ban 'Gone with the Wind' from local video stores?
And I didn't realize that the words "deep" and "rich" were never used in regards to television or film. "Citizen Kane" and "Raging Bull" must be brainless, popcorn entertainment...
Okay, okay, that last remark of mine was unfair. But no more unfair than your viewpoint that things are either rich and deep or brainless, popcorn filler--no gradations inbetween? In terms of, let's say, comic books--should we view Archie comics with the same regard as Frank Miller's "Dark Knight" or Neil Gaiman's "Sandman" series, a series which Truman Capote called "light entertainment for intellectuals?"
Look, I'm just saying that the need to be politically correct can sometimes get out of hand...look at this article for instance, and tell me what you think, http://www.handguncontrolinc.org/disney.htm
In fact, I think this warrants a new thread--is politically correctness getting out of hand?
As for your post, I typed, "drama can happen without well-drawn characters, but when it happens in the movies or television the words "deep" and "rich" are never used." That clearly shows that the words "deep" and "rich" are never used for movies WITHOUT WELL-DRAWN CHARACTERS. You then point out "Citizen Kane" and "Raging Bull," which are both movies that are almost solely about WELL-DRAWN CHARACTERS. In fact, the genre they fill is called CHARACTER STUDIES. Which means they WOULDN'T BE CONSIDERED "popcorn movies." A better example of drama that works WITHOUT well-drawn characters would be "Speed." And guess what! No one calls that "rich" or "deep!" They call it a "popcorn movie!"
Previously, I also typed, "That doesn't mean we should be resurrecting scenes of that (the Civil War) with the slave-owners singing their happy tunes." Then you bring up "Gone with the Wind" needing to be banned as a sarcastic comment. Since how does a work of fiction that doesn't shy away from the violence of that era compare to a ride where everyone is singing happy tunes while they humorously rape and pillage a town? Both of these have different ambitions and for anyone on this planet to try and compare something as frivolous as PotC to something as epic and deep as "GwtW" is beyond pathetic. There is a reason that "GwtW" gets assigned in school and PotC DOESN'T!
My points were simply put and non-ambiguous yet you twisted them around to make it seem like I was being ignorant. If your examples made sense in the context of what I was saying, then there wouldn't be a problem. But a common theme in your posts is your choosing one or two points of my posts, rearranging them in your mind, responding to their new transformations and then completely ignoring everything else in my posts. I am done with this debate since it hasn't been a real debate in a while.
You're being unfair, and, frankly, I'm pissed. Don't take that condescending tone with me, and don't accuse me of twisting your words.
Did you ever think that, perhaps, you're not always clear when wording your arguments? Or maybe I'm slow, but, at least, I ask nicely for you to clarify things when I don't understand them(for example, take a look at this old post I sent you: "No offense, but I'm not sure I'm completely following your argument in the first paragraph of your last post, so if I'm off-base a little in my response, let me know, k?"). Have you ever considered that your statement, "drama can happen without well-drawn characters, but when it happens in the movies or television the words "deep" and "rich" are never used," could be easily misconstrued? The "it" in that paragraph can be interpreted as "drama" or "drama without fully-drawn characters"--I misread it as the former, assuming that you meant that movies were light entertainment. An honest mistake. Although I misread your statement, I think you could have pointed that out to me in a more tactful way.
I'm not saying I'm a saint--perhaps I do use sarcasm too much. I'll keep that in mind. But, at least, I apologize occasionally (i.e. "Okay, okay, that last remark of mine was unfair"). And, I've never stooped to insulting your integrity or intelligence.
Kevin, look--I didn't make this debate ugly. If I misunderstand you (either because you're unclear or I'm slow), then I apologize, and I will strive to read more carefully. But you should consider if you are without fault before start insulting me.
No, it would probably just make you and about 10 other people happy, the other 9 being other busybodies taking it upon themselves to decide what is and isn't offensive and making up lies about large groups being offended so that it suits your agenda.
I doubt you'll get a response from Kevin--he left in a hissy fit because his arguments weren't as good as mine...;p
I've been wanting to say something for a while now, but I just haven't been able to form my thoughts into coherent words--or even choose a side to stick with. Both sides have excellent arguements: we do need to be sympathetic to the needs of others when it comes to creating movies, television shows, music, and even theme park rides. Entertainment has pushed to envelope so much today that people are taking a stand against what 'they consider' to be morally wrong.
But an attraction like Pirates of the Caribbean--which has been around for nearly 50 years at DL and 30 at WDW--can suddenly one day be considered offensive enough to warrent change just seems unrealistic and unreasonable.
People are so very concerned with treading softly, hoping not to offend anyone with the ability to file a lawsuit. I can't believe we can be so worried as to live in that kind of fear. Should we hurt people's feelings or offend them intentionally? Generally, no, we should not. There's no class in seeking shock value. On the other side, accidents will happen as we're only human and something may bother someone, but they need to understand intentions and the light of the situation.
With PotC, the situation was intended as a sight gag envolving the 'idealistic' behavior of a pirate. Certain people perceived it as an attack against females, with the pirates chasing the women (they never did catch them, and they never would have). They took a minor offense and blew it way out of proportion--if people didn't notice it then, they certainly took note of it at that point, and I'm sure many people joined the bandwagon when they decided that the scene was communicating something in a violent, offensive way when in fact it was intended to be part of an overall experience in a fantasy world where we could escape from the pressures of everyday life.
I'm waxing philosophical, I know. Point is, boths sides are great arguements, but to be one extreme or the other is to cause conflict. The compromise--the answer is in the middle, somewhere in the grey. In society today, we're just too lazy to find that grey answer and I think that's the cause of a lot of our problems in this world.
