Changes to Pooh

[Debbie Jean]

I don't see myself as a cynic, but definitely a realist. Corporate motivation isn't idealistic, it's bottom line, i.e. money $$$$$ So, I ask myself, why would Disney do this except to generate more revenue?

According to USAToday:
"The gamble could sweeten the pot of a company that already brings in $1 billion annually from Pooh merchandise, "more than all their core characters combined," says Thomas Ranese of marketing consultants Interbrand. "Pooh appears to be a robust brand that can handle expansion.""

So, new characters, new opportunites for mechandising... even better, create the character so that your target audience identifies with them, then integrate the character with established characters who have a strong sentimental appeal... voila! merchandising bonanza!

I suspect that little ones, girls especially, who don't have that "historical" sense of the Pooh gang and Christopher Robin that past and current generations do, will actually welcome the addition!

 

[kmkja1]

I was not on these boards at the time so could someone tell me if people had such a strong reaction when the Heffalump character was introduced?

 

[bicker]

?????? too deep for me. I mean, jeez- we were just talking about pooh and christopher robin.

I think a lot of people are very passionate about Pooh, and have a very substantial perspective with regard to the change. It may be of significant consequence to all of us, but it is to many.

 

[PrincessAurora]

I agree with a great many of the opinions voiced here. I think that Disney is too uber PC (and I REALLY don't do PC). I also think that Disney is looking at their bottom line and how they can wring more money out of people. However I also have another item to put into the mix. The total ignorance of many top Disney executives of their product.

About 8 years ago, friends of mine (both of whom are very successful in Hollywood in their fields today) were working on a Disney project that never saw the light of day. When the writers were pitching the idea to the execs, they had to defend their use of page space. Here is the most heinous example that comes to mind:

Disney Exec: Why do you have 4 pages for Briar Rose?

Writer: That's Sleeping Beauty.

Disney Exec: Well, I can understand 4 pages for Sleeping Beauty.

Writer: Then what is the problem?

Disney Exec: Who is this Briar Rose?

Writer: Sleeping Beauty.

(This starts to sound like "who's on first")

The execs admit that they have NEVER watched Sleeping Beauty at ALL. EVER! A great many of the Disney execs have NEVER seen the old cartoons let alone shorts or the original Mousekateers.

The point is, they are woefully out of touch with the product they represent. People like this would see nothing wrong with changing the sex of Christopher Robin. I for one have a HUGE problem with it. I think someone needs to stick up for the little boys as well as the original concept of the material.

I will let them know my feelings but as all us old Toad protesters know, sometimes The Mouse takes a page out of Rhett Butlers book and frankly does not give a damn.

 

[In a hurry]

I am very friendly!!!

You choose to see it in in the way you choose not a realistic way. You have no idea what the real Christopher Robin's life was like. Money doesn't buy happiness as much as some think it does.

I am glad!!

But, he wasn't complaining about abuse, etc. He was complaining about stories. If his life was hell due to problems at home those are reasons to complain. If his parents sold pornagraphic photos of him, that is exploitation. To complain about his father selling stories with a child named C. R. in them is petty. Wait it out until he was 18 and walk-away. No biggie. But he didn't.

The money issue isn't about buying happiness, but profiting from his supposed expoitation.

I have just know too many kids who have truly been exploited, and too many that just whine because they are either whiners, or merely ungrateful little people.

 

[AUDramaQueen]

Unfortunately my message is not addition but subtraction. You don't see Huey, Duey and Louey. Now you see Donald. Disney giveth and Disney taketh away.

Not to be difficult, but Donald's nephews and Clarabelle Cow are in most episodes of House of Mouse on the Disney Channel and in a lot of those straight to video movies they show on the Disney Channel.

Adding a character to Pooh is fine (Heffalump for instance) but taking away the "creator" of it all just seems wrong in my opinion.

 

[tlbwriter]

I agree with a great many of the opinions voiced here. I think that Disney is too uber PC (and I REALLY don't do PC).

Just out of curiosity, what are some examples of Disney being "too uber PC?"

 

[salmoneous]

Okay folks, the bottem line is this, it's a feminists world

Yep - you figured it out. Feminists dominate the world. The allow men in 99% of the top position to fool the rest of us. Who clued you in?

and Disney has probably been getting bashed about how there's no females in Winnie the Pooh, and since everything must be "politically correct," Disney, in order to save themselves, has to make changes to things.

My understanding the International Cable of Feminists (TM) threatened to "wipe Disney off the face of the Earth" if CR wasn't transmogrified into a girl. Is that the same story you heard?

I see why Disney would do it because they don't want to get sued

Seriously. I can't open the paper without reading about a lawsuit where somebody is suing about a book/story/movie without enough female characters in them.

I'm sure Disney isn't happy to change it. I say we tell Disney to stand its ground and not let these feminists control the best company on earth!!!!!!!!

You got it buddy. Who should we write?

 

[jenrose66]

Winnie the Pooh does not need fixing! I hate when they mess around with old cartoons and try to "freshen" them up. Like there are a couple Charlie Brown specials that came out after the original Charlie Brown Christmas and I can't stand to watch them, so I don't

Anyway; I love Pooh and I would hate to see him ruined. Plus, it's not like Christopher Robin has a very big role, at least in the cartoons...so they should just leave him alone.

 

[willis37862]

If that is indeed true, then I would strongly oppose it as well. Disney is really beginning to tilt towards girls in its marketing. There are numerous princess meals, but no hero meals that might appeal to boys. I know that they used to have a villains meal, but apparently that was too intense for small children of both genders. They are also starting to heavily market the fairies, which also targets girls. Removing Christopher Robin would be yet another blow to boys. Let me add that I would not have any qualms about Christopher Robin having a girlfriend or sister who could also share in the new adventures of Pooh.

I agree I think they are pushing the princess thing to the forefront. I am a girl but I like the other characters more and want to see them also. I wish they did more character meals with other boy-friendly themes. I know my DH would like this better. I also wish there were more villians. I would love to do a villian character meal, warn parents so there kids don't freak and if they don't want to go well more room for us who do!!

 

[PrincessAurora]

Just out of curiosity, what are some examples of Disney being "too uber PC?"

At Disneyland at POTC, they changed the pirates chasing the women to Pirates chasing food. They have fortunatly changed it back after many years and many complaints.

At DL, the last MNSSHP changed their "find Simba" version of Jungle Cruise to Dalmations because the Simba version was considered too scary (even though it was very popular) and was irreverent towards Simba who has in many tight squeezes (in the hippos mouth, on the headhunters tray, up a tree).

On Kali River rapids, a preachy message regarding the clear cutting of the forests. (traveling through the burned out area and hearing chain saws)

The train at WDW. I noticed in '02 that they added Pocahontas music when you go by Tom Sawyer Island and the Indian settlements. The burning cabin was not mentioned. At Disneyland for years the settlers cabin was attacked by Indians. Now it has been changed to being attacked by Pirates. I guess that is OK because the pirate demographic would not be upset. Honestly if they were that uncomfortable, why not just remove the burning cabin altogether as just not family friendly in general?

The American Adventure show in Epcot is very white male centrist and glosses over the Native Americans and slaves that are in show. They just look like they were all hunky dory to go along with Manifest Destiny.

I am a realist. History is History. I'm not into bashing men, denegrading women, etc. However, I am at WDW on vacation to be entertained and escape from the cares and not so nice issues of the world. I don't really need to be preached at on the rides.

For example: you can acheive far more towards conservation with the great exhibits they have such as the Tiger enclosure or the gorillas. To appreciate animals for their beauty and then want to protect them from poachers, etc. We don't need it shoved down our throats with a spoonful of sugar.

There is also the attitude from the company that if you have A then you must have B. (case in point, the topic we are discussing now) If you have something male centered, you don't have to include females just like if there is something female centered, you don't have to include males in it. Story and content should be able to stand on its own by its own unique merits.

WHY include a female Christopher Robin soley to appeal to a female demographic that was "excluded" from the original and not change Cinderella to Cinderfella (thank you Jerry Lewis). You "could" do that and appeal to boys with a male centered rags to riches story but why?

I just feel that Disney has been way too concerned over the past 10-15 years with not offending anyone with anything. You can't please every single person. It is not doable. I would rather they stick to entertainent and subtle messages and leave people to make their own judgements according to their conscience.

 

[POB14]

But, he wasn't complaining about abuse, etc. He was complaining about stories.

Stories, apparently, that got his butt kicked for him:

From Gibbs Christopher Robin went on to boarding school at Stowe where he learned to box as a way to defend himself from the taunting of his classmates.

 

[DiznEeyore]

Stories, apparently, that got his butt kicked for him:

Boy, that was one messed-up family. CR married his first cousin and didn't speak to his mother in the 15 years up to her death? Sad.

And I agree with everyone who says "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". But that isn't the "Disney way" -- I mean, look at "Cinderella 2", "Lion King 1-1/2 and 2" etc. etc. Leave the stories alone!! They are fully capable of standing alone without stupid straight-to-DVD sequels.

I hate the fact that Disney messed with the Pooh stories to begin with (like making Eeyore BLUE and PURPLE! What's THAT about????) -- this new change sounds colossally bad to me.

 

[willis37862]

?

I just feel that Disney has been way too concerned over the past 10-15 years with not offending anyone with anything. You can't please every single person. It is not doable. I would rather they stick to entertainent and subtle messages and leave people to make their own judgements according to their conscience.

Exactly!!!!!!!

 

[mmcguire]

Adding a girl (and an "alternate universe") to Pooh is a HORRIBLE idea! What are they thinking; Pooh meets the Twilight Zone??

 

[maccalovah]

I agree I think they are pushing the princess thing to the forefront. I am a girl but I like the other characters more and want to see them also. I wish they did more character meals with other boy-friendly themes. I know my DH would like this better. I also wish there were more villians. I would love to do a villian character meal, warn parents so there kids don't freak and if they don't want to go well more room for us who do!!

I would love to do a villian character meal too- they're some of the coolest characters out there!

 

[copper0426]

WOW this has touched a serious nerve .I agree with most it is a bad idea that flies in the face of tradition. I really hate to see an established story (one already beloved by millions ) changed to make moooore money how much is enough. The sad thing is the only vote we get is with our wallets so let us see how it goes. I really don't think it as deep an issue as some would say. It is a fact that Disney has gone way PC but it was enevitable. The poster is correct about there not being a feminest plot , there is no longer a need for one the world has turned to just being affraid to offend.
It really is a shame that our boys must put up with less and less masculine influence in the name of empowering our girls. All of this at a time when everyone wants strong men. CHristopher Robin is POOH they don't exist without each other. This truely silly.

 

[Christopher Robin]

<-------Does not agree with any changes.

 

[tlbwriter]

At DL, the last MNSSHP changed their "find Simba" version of Jungle Cruise to Dalmations because the Simba version was considered too scary (even though it was very popular) and was irreverent towards Simba who has in many tight squeezes (in the hippos mouth, on the headhunters tray, up a tree).

Not sure how this one is "PC." I don't consider making something that attracts children less scary to be a "PC" move.

The train at WDW. I noticed in '02 that they added Pocahontas music when you go by Tom Sawyer Island and the Indian settlements. The burning cabin was not mentioned. At Disneyland for years the settlers cabin was attacked by Indians. Now it has been changed to being attacked by Pirates. I guess that is OK because the pirate demographic would not be upset.

The American Adventure show in Epcot is very white male centrist and glosses over the Native Americans and slaves that are in show. They just look like they were all hunky dory to go along with Manifest Destiny.

This sounds like the antithesis of "PC," or at least what people typically label as "PC," to me.

There is also the attitude from the company that if you have A then you must have B. (case in point, the topic we are discussing now) If you have something male centered, you don't have to include females just like if there is something female centered, you don't have to include males in it. Story and content should be able to stand on its own by its own unique merits.

Yeah, that's how I felt when Nickelodeon added cousin Diego to Dora the Explorer. Why did they feel the need to add a male?

I just feel that Disney has been way too concerned over the past 10-15 years with not offending anyone with anything.

Perhaps they feel they have to make amends for "Song of the South."

 

[SheriN]

Not to be difficult, but Donald's nephews and Clarabelle Cow are in most episodes of House of Mouse on the Disney Channel and in a lot of those straight to video movies they show on the Disney Channel.

Adding a character to Pooh is fine (Heffalump for instance) but taking away the "creator" of it all just seems wrong in my opinion.

BINGO! Thank you, this is exactly my point. On House of Mouse you will see the triplets on almost every episode, if not every one. They are in all of the cartoons featuring Scrooge McDuck. They are an Addition, not a replacement.

Which unfortunatly I can see Disney doing with Christopher Robin.