The Porkchop Express said:

---

The most egregious decision Disney has made lately is taking out the big drop on Splash Mountain in the new Tianna ride.

---

What?

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

The Porkchop Express said:

---

The most egregious decision Disney has made lately is taking out the big drop on Splash Mountain in the new Tianna ride.

---

What?

---

Yep. We walked by the construction on the way to Big Thunder and another park goer mentioned it. Confirmed online they are turning it into a slow boat ride

The Porkchop Express said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

The Porkchop Express said:

---

The most egregious decision Disney has made lately is taking out the big drop on Splash Mountain in the new Tianna ride.

---

What?

---

Yep. We walked by the construction on the way to Big Thunder and another park goer mentioned it. Confirmed online they are turning it into a slow boat ride

---

There's no way that's right. They'd have to rebuild a massive part of the ride. This is basically just a re-theming, new animatronics, music, etc, over the exact same track.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiana's_Bayou_Adventure

YouBet said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

And yet I was describing this EXACT person when I specifically used the words "certain execs" "of influence." Also, do you not think this instance was plastered all over this board (and F16) when it dropped? Either way, I'm AGREEING with you. I'm just saying she's exception not the rule.

---

TC,
She's the President of Entertainment. Vision, strategy, priorities, culture, etc flow downhill. Go back to ABATT's two posts. He nailed it there and I think you are missing the obvious.

Sure, one off personalities may go rogue (ha) and get away with doing their own messaging here and there but the President of Disney Entertainment mandated / curated a left wing vision and culture.

So while I agree with much of what you said on the timeline, shareholder, general incompetence front there has been a left wing push from the top down at Disney for the last several years that has absolutely impacted the films and the content therein. If there wasn't, then they would not have called it out in their 10k and Bob Iger would not be publicly making the statements just above.

---

I hear you, but none of this really goes against what I said, especially considering that the "president of General Entertainment Content" only has sway over the TV side, not the movies. Yes, she's an influential exec, but again, this wasn't an official mandate from any bigwig above her (of which there are many). That, and her interview sounds more like a handful of left-leaning Disney staff wanting to shake up the company, rather than something that was ever officially mandated/implemented by her, seeing as the whole "50 percent" thing never came even remotely close to fruition.

That said, I'm definitely not endorsing anything she was pushing, as wanting "a minimum of 50 percent of characters to be LGBTQIA and racial minorities" across all Disney shows is utterly absurd, given the cultural makeup of our country.

Though, to be clear, on the other end of the spectrum, I *do* think it's nearly as absurd to require that all characters in these shows be straight as well. It's like Star Trek in the '60s all over again, when everyone lost their minds at an inter-racial kiss, and now we don't even bat an eyelash when that happens, not even in a cartoon. The same will eventually happen for "LGBTQIA" characters, but I agree that they don't need to be shoved down everyone's throats at a 50 percent clip.

DallasTeleAg said:

---

I'm not citing specific movies; I'm simply making a point. Substitute "two dudes making out" with any other situation that parents don't want to bring their kids to watch. I'm not trying to get all caught up in the "gotcha!" thing.

The point is, Disney is putting things in movies that a vast majority of their viewers doesn't want to see. We've been told the last couple years by many on this forum that we are making this up or that we are making it seem worse than it really is. Now you literally have the CEO of the company pointing out that they have been doing it, and their bottom line is suffering because of it.

Enough gaslighting, please.

---

Except you're literally twisting words, while simultaneously claiming that you're being gaslit.

First of all, again, she didn't say that "they have been doing it," re: mandating that 50 percent of the characters in their shows be LGBTQIA and racial minorities. She was expressing a DESIRE to do it - in the future - a future that clearly never came.

Granted, I don't watch most Disney television content, but in no way did I see any kind of meaningful increase of LGBTQIA/racial minority characters in the FX, Marvel or Star Wars Disney+ content I consume. I also haven't read or heard of any other complaints of significantly increased implementation across any of the other Disney channels/shows (and we all know that a certain contingent here would have been loudly and endlessly complaining about them should they exist).

On the film side, literally the only instances I can think of are a same-sex relationship in last year's Strange World animated movie that bombed (which I didn't see), a blink-and-you-missed same-sex kiss in the background of the Lightyear movie, and a brief, four-second mention of a same-sex relationship between two creatures made of rocks in Thor: Love and Thunder.

I'm sure there were a couple others, but we're giving you the opportunity to "name names," and all you can come back with is "I'm not naming specific movies" (twice).

Why? What else is there? Where is this barrage of gay/trans/minority-heavy Disney content apparently being shoved in your eyeballs, A Clockwork Orange-style, that you guys keep claiming exists and is poisoning your children?

I genuinely don't understand.

And somehow we're gaslighting you?

Rather, it sounds to me like, for the foreseeable future, Disney will simply be moving away from including any more teeny-tiny little woke "cameos" here and there that seem to send the right into such a fervor. And then they won't be making any more The Marvels-style blockbusters starring basically only female characters hardly anyone knows. Otherwise, "quality over quantity" seems to be the bigger focus/company shift.

The Porkchop Express said:

---

I've seen most Disney movies released since 2010 or so and most of the kids cartoons and disney plus shows in that time frame. I'm scratching my head as to anything I've seen that my wife and I thought the kids shouldn't be watching.

---

Exactly. Granted, parents obviously have different standards, but when nothing sticks out, not even for the side complaining, yet they make it sound like a waterfall of woke is spewing from the Disney castle, I'm at a loss as to what we're even arguing about.

fig96 said:

---

I don't mean to make it seem like I'm trying to debate every minor point, apologies if it comes off that way.

If, however, the question is "what content is in these films that shouldn't be there" and there's literally not a single example you can give, can you understand how that doesn't seem like the most convincing argument?

Outside the minor revolts against a gay character in Strange World and the couple in Lightyear, I'm genuinely curious/unaware what people would be upset about. I get if a film might have for example an environmental message that someone didn't want to hear, but that's a matter of taste rather than something that explicitly shouldn't be in a kids film.

---

TCTTS said:

---

What is it like to completely ignore objective facts in order to continually push such a false, deranged narrative, while also clearly having no clue how the business or the development process works?

---

I don't know. Maybe you could tell us about that A&M is talking to USC coach and it's getting serious bit as an example.

WestAustinAg said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

What is it like to completely ignore objective facts in order to continually push such a false, deranged narrative, while also clearly having no clue how the business or the development process works?

---

I don't know. Maybe you could tell us about that A&M is talking to USC coach and it's getting serious bit as an example.

---

Wrong team, and the complete opposite of what I said, otherwise this is a sick burn that doesn't at all come across as a little obsessed.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

fig96 said:

---

Like what? I'm not trying to gaslight anyone, I'm making the point that these things people don't want to see in kids movies aren't in kids movies.

Genuine question: what is this content that's so inappropriate? The complaints I've seen here in the past are literally about gay people existing in Disney films.

There a huge difference between "the messaging in these films has taken priority over the story/entertainment and they're not good" vs "these are inappropriate things to be in a kids film".

---

You're asking the difference between something and a subset of that something. The content that some find inappropriate is just a part or consequence of the messaging that overrides the story/entertainment value. Not all messaging is inappropriate content, but (almost?) all inappropriate content is messing.

As an example from Marvel, look at The Marvels. It is inarguably an ode to feminism and DEI. Now, there's nothing especially inappropriate about that, but it is still messaging that is so off-putting to so many that the movie (probably) won't even recoup its costs. A subset of that DEI messaging though, is Captain Marvel basically being a lesbian and having a relationship with Valkyrie (I think cut lines made this even more clear). Now, it's not necessarily a kids movie and so may or may not be inappropriate, but it's still an example of how that kind of content is really just a subset of the larger messaging push permeating through Disney's content.

---

I directly addressed in my other post that some people might not like the messaging in a story, and while I might not agree that's their prerogative.

I am, however, attacking the strawman of "gay dudes shouldn't make out in kids films" because this isn't happening.

DallasTeleAg said:

---

Lol... it's not a Strawman Fallacy. I was literally just referencing a gay kissing scene. They had one in Lightyear, with two women.

That was my whole point in getting in these semantic arguments. I didn't get hyperbolic, I simply got the genders switched. Unless you somehow do not equate two women kissing the same as two men kissing. If not, then that would be down to your personal mental distortions.

---

There's a pretty big difference between a peck and two people of any combination of genders making out. So yeah, you did get hyperbolic.

I'll leave y'all to it, we're obviously not going to get anywhere near the same page on this one.

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Also had such a scene in The Rise of Skywalker, centered in the shot but yeah, a brief thing that did happen and took me right out of a galaxy far, far away and to modern day USA.

---

I would never have remembered that. I walked out of the theater, at the end, and immediately scrubbed that movie from my brain.

DallasTeleAg said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Also had such a scene in The Rise of Skywalker, centered in the shot but yeah, a brief thing that did happen and took me right out of a galaxy far, far away and to modern day USA.

---

I would never have remembered that. I walked out of the theater, at the end, and immediately scrubbed that movie from my brain.

---

I forgot about that too.

There are no plans to ever watch one of the sequels or prequels again so I'll never see it again anyway.

That Lightyear kiss was absolutely nothing. To the rest of the world that was a common greeting between friends. I've seen more intimate kisses between friends in England many times

DallasTeleAg said:

---

My point. Now we are arguing about the extent to which something happened. Saying "two dudes kissing" is not hyperbolic. Are you now saying a a kiss on the cheek is not kissing? I never said the scene I am referencing was pornographic, nor that it was a 10-minute make-out session. I am simply stating it happened. I also believe something like this is simply a way for Disney to push the Overton Window.

And, again, my point is there are many who do not care and will say I'm stupid for even bringing it up. That's fine, I don't care that someone disagrees as to whether it should or should not be in the movie. I'm simply saying it IS int the movie, and is a small part of the overall cultural push at a corporation like Disney.

The argument used to be, "well, they are still making money, so go cry more about your antiquated ways disappearing (Disclaimer: I am making up an example based on the cumulative response from that side of the argument, on this forum. By no means am I exactly quoting you or another individual)." Now they are publicly stating their cultural shift is hurting the bottom line. That would make past remarks by others on this board the very definition of "gaslighting".

---

Your words, not mine.

Quote:

---

This goes back to my entire point, and what yall don't seem to get. A large part of the demographic does not want to take their children to a kids movie where two dudes are making out. If I had kids, I definitely wouldn't take them to a movie like that.

---

Quote:

---

I'm not citing specific movies; I'm simply making a point. Substitute "two dudes making out" with any other situation that parents don't want to bring their kids to watch.

---

I'm not trying to "get you", but you obviously paint a certain picture when specifically complaining about dudes making out in a kids movie in multiple posts. Then when I call that out you decide that isn't what you meant and act like I'm the one misinterpreting things.

I have read and understand what you've posted, and as I've clearly said I can understand that people might not like certain messaging in a story; if they choose not to watch because of that that is their prerogative. My point is that you and others have given the impression that there is this very objectionable content being put forth like two dudes making out, but then can provide no examples. Now you're saying that you just meant Disney's agenda.

And now I'm really done.

Believe me i laughed at you for the super serious update you gave the world. The sick burn was how ridiculous you looked all by yourself.

TCTTS said:

---

WestAustinAg said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

DallasTeleAg said:

---

I'm not citing specific movies; I'm simply making a point. Substitute "two dudes making out" with any other situation that parents don't want to bring their kids to watch. I'm not trying to get all caught up in the "gotcha!" thing.

The point is, Disney is putting things in movies that a vast majority of their viewers doesn't want to see. We've been told the last couple years by many on this forum that we are making this up or that we are making it seem worse than it really is. Now you literally have the CEO of the company pointing out that they have been doing it, and their bottom line is suffering because of it.

Enough gaslighting, please.

---

Except you're literally twisting words, while simultaneously claiming that you're being gaslit.

First of all, again, she didn't say that "they have been doing it," re: mandating that 50 percent of the characters in their shows be LGBTQIA and racial minorities. She was expressing a DESIRE to do it - in the future - a future that clearly never came.

Granted, I don't watch most Disney television content, but in no way did I see any kind of meaningful increase of LGBTQIA/racial minority characters in the FX, Marvel or Star Wars Disney+ content I consume. I also haven't read or heard of any other complaints of significantly increased implementation across any of the other Disney channels/shows (and we all know that a certain contingent here would have been loudly and endlessly complaining about them should they exist).

On the film side, literally the only instances I can think of are a same-sex relationship in last year's Strange World animated movie that bombed (which I didn't see), a blink-and-you-missed same-sex kiss in the background of the Lightyear movie, and a brief, four-second mention of a same-sex relationship between two creatures made of rocks in Thor: Love and Thunder.

I'm sure there were a couple others, but we're giving you the opportunity to "name names," and all you can come back with is "I'm not naming specific movies" (twice).

Why? What else is there? Where is this barrage of gay/trans/minority-heavy Disney content apparently being shoved in your eyeballs, A Clockwork Orange-style, that you guys keep claiming exists and is poisoning your children?

I genuinely don't understand.

And somehow we're gaslighting you?

Rather, it sounds to me like, for the foreseeable future, Disney will simply be moving away from including any more teeny-tiny little woke "cameos" here and there that seem to send the right into such a fervor. And then they won't be making any more The Marvels-style blockbusters starring basically only female characters hardly anyone knows. Otherwise, "quality over quantity" seems to be the bigger focus/company shift.

---

This is the ultimate gaslighting charade. Defending Disney is super hard to do. 99 out of a 100 have chosen not to even try. But you are that 1 in a 100.

---

Ignoring the dozen other posts in this thread where I give them plenty of sh*t, this is another spot-on post.

You're two for two!

---

I read them all. Prior to this week you were exhaustively critical of the last several releases as i remember (we agreed!) and then this thread was started which through the input of many others properly laid the problem at the feet of Disney's woke ideology and all of a sudden you donned your Disney cape and fought for the opposite team.