Disney To Retheme Splash Mountain With Princess and the Frog Overlay

About three weeks ago, there were several Twitter threads that went viral over petitions to retheme Disney's Splash Mountain, and some concept art that showed how Disney could do it. I've been working on a post responding to that, and I'll hopefully finish it and post it anyway, since we now have a decision about what Disney is doing.


Yep, that's right. The Internet won actually won. Well -- maybe. According to the Disney Parks Blog, this retheme is a project "Imagineers have been working on since last year."

Okay. Let's pause for a second.

Before we go any further, let's make one thing explicitly clear. There are many things Disney does well -- their customer service is the industry standard and their animated films have won 13 out of the 19 Academy Awards given to feature-length animated films. They are trailblazers and innovators in many ways -- but not really when it comes to cultural politics. Angharad N. Valdivia says it best:

"...to be sure, Disney does not pursue new representational strategies unless it is certain that profits will increase without alienating the bulk of its audience." 

"Unless it is certain that profits will increase without alienating the bulk of its audience." Hold on to that thought.

Let's go back a bit further.

via Etsy

Splash Mountain is one of the "three Disney Mountains": Space, Thunder, and Splash. For as far back as my memory goes (which isn't 100% reliable, mind you) -- they were the only three "real" coasters in Disney World, certainly in Magic Kingdom. [There was a push in the late 1990s-early 2000s to open bigger thrill rides as Disney tried to compete with other parks and attract "older" crowds: Rock n' Roller Coaster and Test Track opened in 1999; Tower of Terror opened in 1994, and Expedition Everest in 2006.]

But Splash Mountain has been in Magic Kingdom since 1992 (!!!), and even longer in Disneyland, since 1989. It's a testament to my Dad's love for Disney, that I remember when Splash Mountain opened at Disney World. We weren't there for opening day or anything, but I remember that it was still new enough for the lines to be insanely long. Perhaps not Galaxy's Edge long, but long enough for the early '90s. I think we must have waited at least 2 hours in line -- I remember the sticky Florida heat, the fans and misters Disney had set up to cool guests snaking through the queue, and I remember being grateful every time the queue wound around into a shady spot. (I also remember my dad grumbling that no ride could be worth a wait this long, but at least it was better than the Thunder Mountain line, which packs guests in like sardine with little ventilation/air circulation.)

The basic premise of Splash Mountain -- as one of the things that sets Disney apart from other amusement parks is that rides, and queues, actually tell a story -- is that Br'er Rabbit, bored at home, leaves the Briar Patch to go on adventures. He's constantly pursued by Br'er Fox and Br'er Bear, who through typical villainous trickery, try to capture him -- but the wily Br'er Rabbit escapes every time. Until the last -- when he's caught in the Laughing Place. Br'er Fox ties him up and makes to roast him -- with Br'er Rabbit desperately trying to escape. Cue the big drop of the log flume ride, and when you make it to the bottom, drenched and giddy, everything ends happily, with "Zip A Dee Do Dah" playing as you coast past a riverboat celebration and Br'er Rabbit content at home. (It is a Disney ride, after all.) At ~10 minutes, it's one of the longest rides/attractions in a Disney park, which usually means it's worth the wait.


Disney scholars and aficionados will know, of course, that this isn't an independent, original ride -- like, say, Figment's Journey Into Imagination, which exists outside of any Disney movie or TV show.
[Sidebar: Don't you dare touch this ride, Disney! Between Figment and the Sherman Brothers' "One Little Spark," this is pure Disney magic.]
It's hard for me to guess at what the average Disney-goes knows about this ride -- that is, if they know that Splash Mountain is tied to a Disney film; if they know that "Zip A Dee Do Dah" comes from that film and not this ride; if they know that film is 1946's Song of the South; if they know anything about the controversy and legacy surrounding that film.

Suffice it to say, and this is what that other post deals with, Song of the South is a controversial film and one of the only films to remain in the Disney Vault after Disney moved their entire catalog to Disney+. The film is set in the Reconstruction Era -- not an antebellum one -- and is loosely based on the Br'er Rabbit stories of Joel Chandler Harris. On the one hand, the film portrays black people happily working on a plantation, even after they've been freed, echoing Br'er Rabbit's sentiment of, "Home sweet home is the lesson today. Oh, I'm thru with moving on now..." On the other hand, Walt though the film would be a cornerstone of his legacy, and paints the "outsider" characters -- and the storytellers -- as the positives ones, and implicitly criticizes the upper-class whites and their lifestyle.

Like, I said. Controversial.

Okay, back to June 2020 -- a firestorm of a year if ever there was one -- and the Black Lives Matter movement has shifted national attention away from the Coronavirus Pandemic. Rightfully so. Change is slowly burning -- like Mississippi changing it's state flag, Quaker Oats is "retiring" Aunt Jemima, and Ben & Jerry's offered us both a powerful statement about dismantling white supremacy AND a new flavor of ice cream, Empower Mint. And while this change is good, long overdue, and sorely needed -- it has to be just the beginning.

Which brings us back to Valdivia: Disney will not pursue new representational strategies unless it is certain that profits will increase without alienating the bulk of its audience." Meaning: Disney isn't going to be progressive unless they know it's a fiscally sound decision.
Exhibit A: Disney has been making feature-length animated films since 1937 -- but they didn't feature a black protagonist until 2009's The Princess and the Frog. And I genuinely don't believe that it's a coincidence that Obama was elected POTUS in 2008. It seems a bit reductive to equate being ready for a black Disney Princess with being ready for a black president, but I think they are related.

So, yes. I believe that the Very Important People at Disney have been discussing this retheme for at least a year -- I'd even bet that it's been longer than that, as the calls to retheme Splash Mountain certainly aren't new.

But the timing....just seems too "perfect." The tweets and concept art went viral around June 9, 2020. The Disney Parks Blog announcement is from June 25th. A little over two weeks is just about the amount of time it seems is needed to draw up concept art and draft the press release. After all, if it had been in the works, why not release the news immediately after the tweets went viral? I don't doubt that this was in the works -- and it's not like Disney execs haven't been busy with other things like a global pandemic disrupting their billion dollar daily operations -- but now they have "proof" that they won't alienate the bulk of their audience .

As for my personal feelings...well, as far as they matter, there is a part of me that's sad that I won't experience with my kids the Splash Mountain that I first experienced with my family -- and remember so vividly. That being said, (1) there are plenty of other rides that are still the exact same as they were in the 1990s when I first rode them -- again, DON'T TAKE MY FIGMENT, DISNEY. And (2) my kids have no idea who Br'er Rabbit or Br'er Fox are -- but they know and love Tiana. So the ride will probably be more meaningful for them with the new storyline.

As a general rule, I'm reluctant to endorse Disney's retheming of classic rides. In particular, I'm thinking of Maelstrom in the Norway pavilion, which was totally revamped to meet the success of and demands for Frozen. Don't get me wrong -- it's a great ride, with amazing animatronics, but...I loved Maelstrom. And I loved that EPCOT was always just a little bit disconnected from the entertainment side. Not everything has to be synergistically connected to a film or TV show -- look at Figment, look at Tower of Terror, look at Expedition Everest. They're all successful and all independent of Intellectual Properties (IPs).

And, yes. Expecting a park that was established in 1955 (or, 1971) to remain unchanged is naive and unfeasible -- and even counter to Walt's own dreams for the parks. So I think this change is needed -- and will be a good one. I just hope that it doesn't open the flood gates for unnecessary changes. (I know there may be other conversations, like this one, about other rides. I don't mean those changes.)

Happy Stitch Day!

Happy Stitch Day, everyone!


Since Stitch was unaffectionately known as Experiment 626, Disney fans have dubbed June 26th -- 6/26 -- as Stitch Day.

Cinderella Castle? More Like Briar Rose (Gold) Castle

With Summer Term II and a new Disney seminar about to start, I thought it was high time I dipped my toes back into blogging. If I'll be asking my students to write on a semi-regular basis, I should be doing the same.

I've got a couple of longer posts in the works, but I thought I'd start with a quick update.

Now, disclaimer: I *love* me some rose gold. After a violent anti-pink phases that lasted through the majority of my childhood and adolescence, I came to the realization that, yes, I actually like the color and I could trounce gender stereotypes and still embrace the color. And what I love about rose gold -- particularly Disney's sparkly version -- is that it's feminine without being too bold:

View this post on Instagram

THREE DAYS. Not that I’m counting down or anything. #disneyvacation #mydisneyside #rosegoldminnieears #rosegoldmanicure #rosegoldeverything #rosegold

A post shared by serrendipity (@serrendipity) on Dec 4, 2018 at 1:06pm PST

So, objectively speaking, I love the rose gold vibes.

What I do not love, however, is the rose gold look on my iconic Cinderella castle. Now that I've visited both parks, I'm admittedly torn on which is actually my favorite -- but I think Disneyland might have a slight edge, so much so that our first family trip to Disney (now postponed indefinitely) was going to be there, rather than to (the geographically closer) Disney World.

But when it comes to castle? Hands down, Cinderella Castle in WDW is my favorite.

I mean, LOOK AT HER.

She is stunning and turning that corner on Main Street, catching that first glimpse -- never fails to give me goosebumps.

Also? That silver/blue color scheme with a hint of gold? Perfectly captures Cinderella -- whose dress I'm never sure if it's actually blue or silver.


 That's not to say that Sleeping Beauty's Castle in Disneyland isn't beautiful -- just beautiful in her own way.

She's smaller, of course, as is Disneyland (comparatively). She has to be -- she's plopped in the middle of Anaheim. Turning that corner on Main Street, I still get goosebumps, but my initial thought is always, "Gosh, I forgot just how small she actually is."

The color scheme though? The pink and blue refresh works -- it embodies Sleeping Beauty (and Flora and Merrywether) perfectly.

The castles -- and their color schemes -- match both their respective parks and their namesake princesses.

So...I am confused by -- and not happy about -- this new makeover Cinderella Castle received for the upcoming 50th anniversary of Walt Disney World. Check it out:

via The Laughing Place

WHAT. 

What is this?!

I get that 50th anniversaries are symbolized by gold, but this is decidedly rose gold and not, you know, traditional gold, which would have worked given the original color scheme of the castle. It's a bold choice -- and one which makes my iconic castle look she's trying too much to emulate her older sister. 

Look, I know it's probably (hopefully?) temporary, and after the 2+ years of anniversary celebrations (because Disney loves to milk a celebration), it will go back to normal. It better. 

I know that the Birthday Cake Castle for the 25th Anniversary was loathed by many -- my 12 year old self thought it was fun -- and everything went back to normal. I know people hated the Sorcerer's Hat in MGM, the Mickey Hands on top of Spaceship Earth -- and it was all temporary. 

So this had better be temporary too. 🤞

The Importance of Kristoff

We talk about this a lot in my Disney classes, but so often, it's the female characters who are the focus of at best discussion, at worst criticism in Disney films. (With the exception of Pixar. Because Pixar has this weird obsession with male leads. And just when we think they're making progress with films like Brave and Toy Story 4, which feature Merida and Bo Peep & Jessie, we get Onward. Don't even get me started on Onward. I am...not impressed by the trailer.)

And while the heroines (and, to some extent, the villains) of Disney Princess movies aren't necessarily fully-fleshed out characters, they're at least better than the Disney Princes. After all, Snow White's prince doesn't even have a name (I refuse to believe it's "Florian"), and Cinderella's love interest is known simply as "Prince Charming". It's not until we get to Sleeping Beauty that the prince even has a name and actual dialogue. 

This is, of course, something that's changing in more recent films. Speaking of the 2015 live-action Cinderella, screenwriter Chris Weitz says,

"Prince Charming is something of a cypher in the animated (1950) version and the Grimm and Perrault talks. I felt that whereas it was acceptable and even useful to have him be essentially symbolic in earlier versions (it was just enough that he was rich and important and handsome), an audience today demands a bit more in terms of identification."

Kristoff isn't technically a prince (yet) -- I'm hoping for a Frozen III where Kristoff and Anna get married and Elsa brings Honeymarren as her date -- but the ideas are the same: it's not enough that he's Anna's True Love, we have to know more about him to understand why Anna loves him. (Frankly, his relationship with Sven is enough for me: he's goofy and good with animals.)

And, as Kristen Bell points out to Jimmy Fallon, it's equally important to know why he loves her and to see him loving her. It's not something we get enough of, and can go a long way in changing the narrative that leads to Toxic Masculinity.

Film Review: How Frozen II Gets Colonialism Right In a Kid's Movie

When it comes to watching Disney movies, I find it very hard to take off my academic cap and just enjoy the movie. I'm constantly analyzing and looking for little details. While I sometimes wish I could just enjoy them like I do other movies, I actually really enjoy it -- especially when I see some progress and development in the Disney Princess brand.

One of the biggest criticisms lobbed against Disney films is their whitewashing of history -- it started, perhaps, with Song of the South, and didn't really get better with Pocahontas or The Princess and the Frog. Critics point out that relations between two tension-charged groups -- the Native Americans and the English settlers in the former, and whites and blacks in the latter -- were not as simple or positive as they're portrayed in the animated films; defenders retort that that they're children's films and, as such, can't possibly address the complexities of racial dynamics in 90 minutes nor should they. 

Both sides are right: Disney isn't creating a documentary or a historical film; they're producing a fairy-tale film. (Whether Pocahontas -- a real historical figure -- has a fairy-tale story and whether Disney should have set a film in 1920s Louisiana are entirely different questions.) And the defenders are right, too: even if Disney had a moral obligation to accurately represent history, it'd be almost impossible to do in a 90-minute film. 

So the question then becomes -- and I love discussing it with my students -- what should Disney do? How can they not sidestep sensitive issues but still do them justice? 

And this is where Frozen II comes in: the basic gist of the plot (and I think this is mostly apparent from the trailer), there's a conflict between the Arendellians and the native people in the film, the Northundra (who, I think, are modeled after the Sami tribe, the native people of Norway/Scandinavia). The story of the conflict is initially filtered through Elsa and Anna's father, who doesn't know what happened because he was outside the forest and knocked unconscious. But the elemental spirits of the forest basically keep people in and "lock" out the outside world.

But here's the significant part: the arc of the film is basically Elsa uncovering the truth of what happened, of why the spirits were angered. And the reason, as Elsa learns, is that Elsa's grandfather betrayed the Northundra, building the dam under the guise of peace and unity, but really doing it to gauge the strength and size of the Northundra tribe. His reason? He was pissed off that they were independent and wanted them to swear allegiance to him. The moment he kills the Northundra leader is the moment the spirits "revolt" for lack of a better term, and there's a more complicated, but beautiful, resolution to the story, one which ends with a message of true peace and unity.

Why is this so important? Well, aside from the fact that Elsa and Anna's grandfather is basically a symbol of some ye olden days Fragile Toxic Masculinity, he represents that colonial, imperialist mindset of "white is right" and that native people should swear fealty to him simply because of the crown he wears. In the film, the Northundra are portrayed relatively flat, but they're kind people who seem intent on harmony and peace. (I'm thinking of Pocahontas, where each group views the other as "savage," and equally at fault, when, in reality, the English settlers bear the majority of the blame and fault.) While there's a bit of a problem in locating that mindset in just one character -- in Pocahontas, it's Ratcliffe; once he's gone, all the English settlers are totally fine with everything; here, it's the grandfather who seems to be the sole prejudiced one -- what's important is that Elsa and Anna's grandfather is portrayed as wrong, and his beliefs are firmly and clearly denounced by both Elsa and Anna. Both sisters understand why their grandfather's actions were unforgivable and also understand what they need to do make things right and restore balance. And, in this case, that means appeasing the Elemental spirits and making reparations by destroying the dam.

Is it a perfect depiction of complex inter-racial relations? Of course not. It is, after all, an animated film with a target demographic of preschoolers and elementary schoolers. And there are lots of unanswered questions, but...

Does it attempt to handle complex issues better than its predecessors did? Yes, I would say so. And, what's more important, is that I think it lays the groundwork for important future discussions. I think it opens the door to have early conversations about imperialism and colonialism and how some people, even people we thought were good and right, did some truly bad things. From there? There are so many places to go. 

Film Review: Frozen II

This afternoon, my husband I were fortunate enough to have a Double-Feature Date Afternoon. We saw Knives Out first -- which was a fantastic WhoDunIt and just an overall delightful romp -- and then saw Frozen 2.

Disclaimer: I haven't read any reviews and managed to stay largely spoiler-free. I had read some "first reactions" -- those Twitter responses about people's early responses to the film which are largely vague and non-specific and which don't give away any specific details -- and that was all I knew. Most of them were positive -- I feel like there was one lukewarm response which basically said it "was good, but not as good as the first," (important to note that it was written by a man) -- which reassured me. Disney sequels are, after all, usually things that go straight-to-video and aren't very good. (The only sequels I can think of are The Rescuers Down Under -- because The Rescuers were. my. jam. -- and Ralph Breaks the Internet...somebody correct me if I'm wrong.) I knew that the film was darker, had supposedly matured with its audience, and that a good deal of people believed it was unnecessary.

I have thoughts. Lots of thoughts.

But here's the gist of them: Frozen II is not the movie I thought it was going to be, and that's okay, because it turned out to be the Disney Princess Movie I needed. And, more importantly, I think it's the Disney Princess Movie that I needed to see as a young girl, that the brand needs, and that little girls (and boys) need.
Spoilery thoughts below.

Wait -- Disney Is *Actually* Doing A Live-Action Snow White?!

This girl right here? She's an icon:


via GIPHY

She is not just the OG Disney Princess -- she's the OG Disney Character.

Without her, there would probably not be a "Disney." There (probably) would not be a billion-dollar multi-media conglomerate. We (probably) wouldn't be watching cartoons as adults. We might not even have theme parks, of which Disney ones represent the Gold Star. And who else knows what the trickle-down-effect would be. 

Because back in 1937, pretty much everyone expected an 80-minute feature-length animated film to flop. Which is extra problematic considering Disney sunk everything he had into this film -- I think the estimated budget eventually ballooned up to $1.5 million (in the middle of the Great Depression, remember). Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was known as Disney's Folly. 

But maybe it was precisely that historical context -- the Depression -- that made people flock to the theater. For escape, for nostalgia, for air conditioning -- whatever it was, people loved it. If I'm remembering correctly, I believe the film made $80 million during its first year: at a time when an adult movie ticket cost a quarter and a child movie ticket a nickel. 

And thus, Disney was saved and an empire was born. 

Now, she's not perfect. She's gotten a lot of criticism. She certainly makes some questionable life-choices: 

via GIPHY

But remember: She was born in 1937. I'm not saying that excuses everything, but face it: things were a helluva lot different then. 

And it's not all bad: sure, she's only 14 and marries a man she basically just met, but at least that man didn't stumble across the seemingly-dead-body of an 8 year old girl in the middle of a forest and attempt to buy her from some dwarves. (Which is what happens in the original story by the Grimm Brothers.) Unlike her successors, her eyes are proportionate and normal-sized. Also unlike her successors, she's got a healthy body type with a realistic waist and some actual curves. And, when she stumbles upon the dwarf's cottage, she doesn't ask for a hand-out: she uses the skills she has (yes, they are limited and domestic) to compensate for a roof over her head. 

So, yes. I'm defending her. And not just because she was my favorite when I was very little. (We also didn't have a lot of options pre-1989):

(My dad would kill me if he saw this photo. Also, remember when Disney characters just wandered the parks?)

ANYWAY. All of this is to say that, as the OG Character, she holds a special place in the realm of Movies-You-Just-Don't-Remake. How could you remake The Wizard of Oz without Judy Garland? Or Gone With The Wind without Clark Gable or Vivien Leigh? Or Breakfast at Tiffany's without Audrey Hepburn? 

I thought, for the longest time, that Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was off-limits. Of course her story has been retold -- I actually even enjoyed Snow White and the Huntsman, mainly due to Charlize Theron's Wicked Queen, and Gregory's Maguire's Italian take with Lucrezia Borgia as the villainess -- and Disney went so far as make Snow the heroine of its fairy-tale-version-of-Lost, Once Upon A Time. 

But now it seems like the iconic 1937 film has been added to the list of Disney's Remake Machine, having just found a director in Marc Webb. (Yes, the film was announced in 2016, but films are announced all the time--it doesn't necessarily mean it's going to get made. We've been waiting on that Wicked film for years now.)

Things That Make Me Cautiously Optimistic:

• Marc Webb was a director/producer on Crazy Ex-Girlfriend which, largely thanks to Rachel Bloom, did exceptional things with its portrayal of mental illness, female friendships, and romantic relationships. 
• Pasek and Paul have been brought on to write new songs for the film -- and if "Speechless" is any indication, this bodes extremely well. 

Things That Might Be Tricky:

• Adriana Caselotti -- Disney's original voice actress -- had an incredibly high voice. And while it may have worked in the 1930s, it's one of the things my students comment on the most when asked about things they disliked about the film. (A quibble, I know, but her voice is iconic.)
• There's not a whole lot of story there, and the source material isn't exactly great by 2019 standards. Most adaptations maintain the element of female jealousy and conflict -- based on appearance/beauty -- and I would love to see Disney change and update this for 2019. 
• I'd also hope that this Snow White will have a spine and won't be quite so passive. While Disney's 2015 version of Cinderella was a beautiful film, and did update some elements of the story, Ella was still "as meek and as mild as a mouse" for  most of the film. 

Finally, while there aren't even whispers of a rumor about the plot, several of the articles I read mention that Disney is also considering a "spin-off" featuring Snow White's "sister," Rose Red. Which....

via GIPHY

...is not entirely true. I mean, yes. I used to think this as a kid because "Snow White and Rose Red" was one of my favorite stories. But...just because they have the same name doesn't mean they're the same character. So...yeah. Not sisters. 

Hopefully, this is just lazy reporting and not actual information coming from Disney. Because that would not bode well.