Why were the painted skulls removed from the Adventureland entrance?

[whoever]

They were not removed to widen the entrance as the masks on the adjacent poles are still there.

 

[MonocularVision]

 

[emtink]

Now if this was the sole reason why they were making these changes, I would be ok with that. After all, if their prime market doesn't understand the references, what good does it do?

But then explain that this why it is being changed and don't just say it is because it doesn't represent other cultures properly.....being politically correct is NEVER the right reason to change something.

I don't work for Disney, so I have no idea what the 'real' reason is for this particular change. I was offering a counterpoint to the folks who assumed this change was pc culture run amok. I loved the Swiss Family Robinson tree house. They changed it. Was the reason for that change because of the cringe-worthy make-up on the pirates in that movie? The incredibly dated trope of 'disguising' a girl by cutting her hair? Nope! Kids were not watching old live action movies, hadn't seen the movie, didn't care about the movie. That attraction was getting very little foot traffic. So, they changed it. They have changed stuff in the past, are changing stuff now, and will continue to change stuff in the future. And I think most of the time, its not because someone complained about something being insensitive. Its because the content is dated and doesn't resonate with younger generations.

 

[LanceQ]

But then explain that this why it is being changed and don't just say it is because it doesn't represent other cultures properly.....being politically correct is NEVER the right reason to change something.

It's usually the best reason to change something.

 

[longboard55]

I really think it is funny when certain groups complain about not being inclusive. Just sayin.

 

[Indiana Scott]

Nobody here on this forum, regardless of ethnicity, can speak for the feelings and sensitivities of an entire group. Just because one person is fine with a situation doesn't mean others have to be.
And people who are offended or hurt by these things aren't weak. The only ones that are weak are the ones who lack empathy.

I'm a privileged middle aged white guy, but I can see where some of these props are questionable.

 

[Epicnemesis]

Nobody here on this forum, regardless of ethnicity, can speak for the feelings and sensitivities of an entire group. Just because one person is fine with a situation doesn't mean others have to be.
And people who are offended or hurt by these things aren't weak. The only ones that are weak are the ones who lack empathy.

I used to agree with this, but now there are people who have made being offended a hobby. Not saying that it is impossible for someone to have a legit reason to be offended these days, just that there is more nuance than your statement allows.

We shouldn’t bend over backwards to “not offend” someone when they are hunting for reasons to voice a grievance no matter how contrived that grievance may be.

What they do is quite sinister actually, because it creates a boy who cried wolf scenario where legitimately offended voices get drowned out and diminished by the outrage mob.

One shouldn’t conflate a lack of empathy with what is likely, at this point, an over reactive BS meter.

 

[BrianL]

Nobody here on this forum, regardless of ethnicity, can speak for the feelings and sensitivities of an entire group. Just because one person is fine with a situation doesn't mean others have to be.
And people who are offended or hurt by these things aren't weak. The only ones that are weak are the ones who lack empathy.

I'm a privileged middle aged white guy, but I can see where some of these props are questionable.

I used to agree with this, but now there are people who have made being offended a hobby. Not saying that it is impossible for someone to have a legit reason to be offended these days, just that there is more nuance than your statement allows.

We shouldn’t bend over backwards to “not offend” someone when they are hunting for reasons to voice a grievance no matter how contrived that grievance may be.

What they do is quite sinister actually, because it creates a boy who cried wolf scenario where legitimately offended voices get drowned out and diminished by the outrage mob.

One shouldn’t conflate a lack of empathy with what is likely, at this point, an over reactive BS meter.

These are both good points. Nothing can be everything to all people and there is a degree of nuance to these things that often is not addressed. Most of the time I am fine with erring on the side of sensitivity, but I don't agree with every cause du jour that comes up either.

I do agree that a lot of it is that "Adventureland" harkens back to a lot of media that just really isn't popular or relevant anymore. Making some changes to it does make some sense. If that Jungle Cruise movie would ever come out I'm sure that will be a good example of a similar theme told with modern technique. It can do for adventure themes what POTC did for pirates.

 

[GoingSince1990]

When DCA first opened in 2001 there was a sign saying “Philip A Couch, Casting Agency”, in the shape of a *****. Just imagine the outrage this would cause today.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-disneyland-casting-couch-gag-you-wont-believe-existed

 

[LanceQ]

We shouldn’t bend over backwards to “not offend” someone when they are hunting for reasons to voice a grievance no matter how contrived that grievance may be.

What they do is quite sinister actually, because it creates a boy who cried wolf scenario where legitimately offended voices get drowned out and diminished by the outrage mob.

Yes. This is a thing. This happens a lot. In reality. Not in your mind.

I'm sure it happens so much that you can come up with a list of several legitimate, real world examples.

We'll wait.

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

I used to agree with this, but now there are people who have made being offended a hobby. Not saying that it is impossible for someone to have a legit reason to be offended these days, just that there is more nuance than your statement allows.

We shouldn’t bend over backwards to “not offend” someone when they are hunting for reasons to voice a grievance no matter how contrived that grievance may be.

What they do is quite sinister actually, because it creates a boy who cried wolf scenario where legitimately offended voices get drowned out and diminished by the outrage mob.

One shouldn’t conflate a lack of empathy with what is likely, at this point, an over reactive BS meter.

But nobody knows WHY they were removed from the entrance, so this cry of being too politically correct is a red herring. At this point people are looking to be offended by what they perceive is cancel culture, even when they have no idea what the reason is. So maybe instead of attacking people for looking for reasons to be offended, we should be looking at why people care so much when something is changed. Who’s trip is really affected negatively because they removed some skulls from the entrance sign?

And if one group is looking to be offended it is almost always the group crying “cancel culture”. Change isn’t bad. If one gets that upset with it, it might be time they look deep and figure out why.

 

[Epicnemesis]

But nobody knows WHY they were removed from the entrance, so this cry of being too politically correct is a red herring. At this point people are looking to be offended by what they perceive is cancel culture, even when they have no idea what the reason is. So maybe instead of attacking people for looking for reasons to be offended, we should be looking at why people care so much when something is changed. Who’s trip is really affected negatively because they removed some skulls from the entrance sign?

And if one group is looking to be offended it is almost always the group crying “cancel culture”. Change isn’t bad. If one gets that upset with it, it might be time they look deep and figure out why.

Valid points, and you can see upthread that the skull removal isn’t that big of a deal for me ( like you said we don’t know the motive.)

With that said, there have been a lot of changes to the parks as Disney continues to try to limbo below an ever lowering bar of what the professionally offended deem to be offensive, and rides that people here grew up loving are changed. Some would say changed for the better, some would say changed for the worst, but never the less, there are PC driven changes and it’s fair for people to reject it.

There used to be a standard of “would a reasonable person find this offensive” that we used to use in society.

Also, that last line of your post can go both ways. Your phrasing makes it seem like you are implying that anyone who disagrees with these changes (lets use the jungle cruise for example) is a bigot, whether explicitly, or through unconscious bias. I am assuming that’s not where you were going, but your phrasing leaned that way.

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

Valid points, and you can see upthread that the skull removal isn’t that big of a deal for me ( like you said we don’t know the motive.)

With that said, there have been a lot of changes to the parks as Disney continues to try to limbo below an ever lowering bar of what the professionally offended deem to be offensive, and rides that people here grew up loving are changed. Some would say changed for the better, some would say changed for the worst, but never the less, there are PC driven changes and it’s fair for people to reject it.

There used to be a standard of “would a reasonable person find this offensive” that we used to use in society.

Also, that last line of your post can go both ways. Your phrasing makes it seem like you are implying that anyone who disagrees with these changes (lets use the jungle cruise for example) is a bigot, whether explicitly, or through unconscious bias. I am assuming that’s not where you were going, but your phrasing leaned that way.

Hmm, people can take my last line as they wish. But I meant what I said - for those who find themselves really upset about changes, they should look deep at the why. That will be an individual answer for everybody. But yes, I do find those who scream about cancel culture to be much louder and with less reason.

I do find it ironic that people get more offended by change than the idea something could be hurtful to somebody else.

 

[ubaisore]

I see a few on high horses that are doing just what they say others are. Kind of funny....but really very sad

 

[BayGirl22]

I don't work for Disney, so I have no idea what the 'real' reason is for this particular change. I was offering a counterpoint to the folks who assumed this change was pc culture run amok. I loved the Swiss Family Robinson tree house. They changed it. Was the reason for that change because of the cringe-worthy make-up on the pirates in that movie? The incredibly dated trope of 'disguising' a girl by cutting her hair? Nope! Kids were not watching old live action movies, hadn't seen the movie, didn't care about the movie. That attraction was getting very little foot traffic. So, they changed it. They have changed stuff in the past, are changing stuff now, and will continue to change stuff in the future. And I think most of the time, its not because someone complained about something being insensitive. Its because the content is dated and doesn't resonate with younger generations.

Good points here. I just watched Swiss Family Robinson because I had never seen it (I'm in my late 40's) and my kids had zero interest in the movie. Nothing in the 1940 version was inherently "offensive", it was just dated tropes and not that interesting (didn't get to the 1960 version yet, maybe its different). There are several other movies my kids don't get either, and unless the ride really stands on its own, they aren't going to gravitate toward those attractions. A lot of these changes are keeping up with Disney's target audience.

"There used to be a standard of “would a reasonable person find this offensive” that we used to use in society."
I'm not sure who that "reasonable person" was, but I can guess they were a demographic that does not reflect a global audience. The world is smaller now and companies want jokes and stories to resonate with a broader group of people. Its possible to be inclusive without feeling "offended" in an emotional way. Humor that "punches down" on a group or builds on outdated cultural stereotypes is generally lazy anyway. Building interesting stories that don't insult broad groups, continents, or demographics is just good business.