But an appeal to people's fond memories of the past carries some risk for a modern company, especially when many people don't look upon all elements of that past so fondly. Not everything passes the test of time.
Who decides what passes that test, and what fails? That is the central issue animating a conflict between Disney and some of its most devoted fans. The latest battle in this conflict is the debate over Disney's announcement that it will change the Auction scene in its Pirates of the Caribbean rides, to remove what many consider a depiction of human trafficking.
Okay, let's not wimp out of this. The Auction scene absolutely depicts human trafficking. That shouldn't be an issue. The only question should be whether the context for that depiction is responsible, or not.
In my Orange County Register column this week, I defend the Disney Imagineers who created the Auction scene... and defend Disney's decision now to change it. In the column, I point out that the original ending of the Disneyland version of the ride left all the Pirates facing certain death.
Whether they rot in prison or get blown sky-high after drunkenly shooting up an arsenal, Disneyland’s pirates originally all paid the ultimate price for their crimes by the end of the ride.
But when Disney changed the ride a decade ago to add "good guy" Captain Jack Sparrow to the attraction, they let the pirates get away with it. And that made the auction scene unjustifiable, to many fans.
Once Disney started changing the Pirates ride from its original narrative to that from its films, it couldn't stop halfway without opening itself up to criticism that it was endorsing what the pirates were doing on that ride. So rather than going back to the original — and sacrificing a tie-in to its multi-billion-dollar movie franchise — Disney is taking a step toward going all in on the movie narrative in the rides. If the pirates are going to be the good guys, the Auction scene had to go. So Annie the Redhead is getting her gun.
That decision has disappointed thousands of Disney fans, for whom the original Pirates ride — of even the recent, awkward hybrid version — is part of their fond memories of Disney visits past. I suspect many of them feel like victims of a bait and switch. Disney promised them nostalgia, and now is failing to deliver.
That feeling also fueled the outrage over the Tower of Terror/Guardians of the Galaxy conversion and pretty much every other major change Disneyland has made over the past several decades. Disney doesn't always make the right decisions as it looks to improve its parks (Journey into Your Imagination with Figment, The Enchanted Tiki Room Under New Management, Rocket Rods and New Tomorrowland, etc.) But it needs to keep changing to continue to appeal to a changing market of theme park fans.
We want immersive themed environments now, not generic collections of stand-alone attractions. We don't want to wait in long serpentine queues. And many of us don't want to go on rides and watch shows that contain moments that leave people cringing instead of smiling.
Look, Disney's always white-washed the past. It cleans the horse poop on Main Street USA, instead of letting it collect as it would have in the real turn-of-the-20th-century America. Food's readily available in Frontierland, and no one's dying of the Black Plague in Fantasyland. The trick to selling nostalgia is to keep the elements of the past that people remember fondly and to quietly ignore the rest.
But as Disneyland's present continuously fades into its past, Disney must edit itself as it makes those decisions for a new generation. With as many fans as Disney has won over the years, those decisions always are going to leave someone disappointed. Will they be disappointed enough to stop being Disney fans? If so, can Disney win over new fans to replace them with a more responsible and engaging line-up of attractions?
Ultimately, as with just about anything in business, this is a numbers game. For what it is worth, I think Disney is doing the right thing here with Pirates. I also believe that the numbers will prove to be on Disney's side, too, as even more fans will continue to enjoy Pirates of the Caribbean after Disney makes the change.
Read Robert's column:
Tweet
I just met with my cousin who took her kids to Disney and when she heard of this, she said "good." Because having a light-hearted adventure showing ugly women being dismissed in an auction and a hot redhead lusted over was a bit disturbing. Great article pointing out the vastly different values of the 1960s vs today and how the change makes sense as just because something is "classic" doesn't make it "right."
Disney has decided they can make more money by treating Pirates as heroes than as villains. So, they need to sanitize all of piracy to do so. That's not political correctness being the issue. That's Disney making a choice to make more money and now having to stand by it.
This isn't even a Disney only problem. Universal has been very guilty of this with the ax taken to Jaws, ET, King Kong, and Back to the Future
Conceivable or far-fetched?
I agree with that take - it's an important issue that's been disturbing people, too. And Disney fixes it with this change.
Anthony,
Agreed that Universal has been annoying some of its fan base by disposing of so many classic attractions, but it's not been enduring as much blowback simply because Universal doesn't sell nostalgia the way that Disney does.
But times and tastes change.
If the auction scene and perhaps the "fat wench" audio are offensive to a significant portion of the people trying to enjoy the ride, why shouldn't Disney change them? This is entertainment and not a historically accurate re-enactment. If you want historical accuracy go download "Saving Private Ryan" or Schindler's List" and limit the viewers to the adults and teens in the household. Let the kids watch something age appropriate for them.
And when it gets down to it, nostalgia is way overrated. About the only things that were better in the past were Coke in the bottle made with real sugar and Epcot.
I thought the skeletons was a prologue to show the Pirates didn't win. They relived their adventures. Jack Sparrow's addition didn't add anything. It's more comedy. Pirates lost it's edge as well as being jolly fun. Let's keep pulling the strings to make the attraction a big bore. Disney needs to step up to bring more cohesion to the narrative.
My solution is keep the original scene with very minor changes. The sexual morality still exists and it's represented with Red Head as a Madam. Some women are fellow prostitutes and dressed accordingly. Thus, consenting adults. Remove the banner. The fat woman is the Captain's wife. The chase scene should show villagers being chased with valuables featured in the movies. Jack Sparrow's narrative must work in the new attraction.
With Disney announcing a team-up with the Rock to re-imagine the Jungle Cruise, I agree with TH Creative that the natives are getting their pink slips soon, which is fine by me. The hokey pokey joke was pretty silly anyway, and that's even by JC standards. ;-)
I can't imagine that there would be real people who would take the time to be offended by this scene to the point that the park wants to change it.
If they are changing it to make it better, go for it. If they are changing it to reflect modern views, that's a slippery slope.
I can't imagine that there would be real people who would take the time to be offended by this scene to the point that the park wants to change it.
If they are changing it to make it better, go for it. If they are changing it to reflect modern views, that's a slippery slope.
Movies are also entertainment (of course some more than others) and technically can be changed. Rememeber Mr. Lucas' highly controversial changes to Star Wars.
About the narrative of the ride, I don't think it's at all clear to many visitors that the original 1967 version of Pirates was supposed to be a morality play or that the skeletons in the first part of the ride were directly connected to the live pirates ransacking the town in the second half.
I used the painting of the redheaded woman in the bar scene (who looks remarkably like the redhead in the auction scene) as evidence, and I think that was too obscure for 95% of park visitors, even if it does exist.
The LA Times ran a story last week with some comments by Tony Baxter, who was quoted as saying that he had tried to figure out the narrative of Pirates every which way, and the best he could come up with was the story is a feverish dream about Pirates, in order to tie together the first and second halves of the narrative.
But on the Disneyland website, it does say that after viewing the skeletons and stolen loot, riders then travel FARTHER BACK IN TIME to see the pirates ransacking the town, which suggests that the skeletons were the same pirates who ransacked the town but had met unfortunate ends (I disagree with Robert here: how did the pirates get to the beach or the bar or the bedroom with all the riches? Enough of them survived the fire and the explosions to enjoy their riches, only to be murdered later by their shipmates or die unhappy deaths even with their loot).
The point is, the Imagineers and Mr. Disney didn't plan a straightforward narrative. They left some clues tying the elements together, but the morality play aspect was probably lost to 50% + of park visitors, especially children. The impression they received was probably more along the lines of Tony Baxter's interpretation-- those pirates did some mean, nasty stuff, and some other pirate related weird sh*t happened, too.
This article has been archived and is no longer accepting comments.
Time change, and our acceptance of what is right and wrong changes. I understand that the scene taken out was "historically accurate" and if we want education then this should be part of it.
However when it is posed as entertainment then aren't we unconsciously re enforcing that as acceptable on impressionable young minds?