We want to redhead!

[MickeyMinnieMom]

a joke that needs to be explained is not worth keeping.

I just don't get or agree with this logic. My kids love "I Love Lucy". I have to explain some jokes. Should we get rid of "I Love Lucy" reruns?

I know that this isn't a scientific poll, but about 85-87% are not bothered by this -- stat has been pretty steady since it was posted. Of course, this site skews older, but I doubt this jumps to >50% if broadened. Wish we could know.

But again -- we don't even know WHY Disney is making this change. We can all guess.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

There is so much here I would like to comment on, however - after being called a troll last night in another thread, I'll refrain.

DIS is rough. I get it.

 

[SheHulk]

I just don't get or agree with this logic. My kids love "I Love Lucy". I have to explain some jokes. Should we get rid of "I Love Lucy" reruns?

I know that this isn't a scientific poll, but about 85-87% are not bothered by this -- stat has been pretty steady since it was posted. Of course, this site skews older, but I doubt this jumps to >50% if broadened. Wish we could know.

But again -- we don't even know WHY Disney is making this change. We can all guess.

If you had to pay $100+ a day to watch I Love Lucy reruns and had to explain a certain percentage of the jokes, your kids wouldn't pay when they get old enough.

 

[Boski]

There is so much here I would like to comment on, however - after being called a troll last night in another thread, I'll refrain.

Don't. Unless you can't take some ribbing back. Sometimes being called a troll can be a compliment on this board.

 

[mirak]

I appreciate folks giving Disney the benefit of the doubt, but I think we all know exactly why Disney is making this change. They're not spending money on totally gutting this scene just to "introduce a new lady pirate." They've could have inserted a new character anywhere.

Let's get real here, folks.... it's either the fat joke or the "sex slavery" or probably both. The only question in my mind is whether this is a response to actual complaints, or someone within Disney with nothing better to do decided to tinker.

 

[Disxuni]

I've read comments on other forums on this subject, but something I have not seen once been brought up (however maybe in this post it has, but I personally am not reading over 100 comments before making one comment that is related to the subject, but not rebuttal to anyone specific), is that while it is common for these type of things to happen in the past in piracy, what also has happened in pirate history is woman were in fact pirates.

While the scene has never offended me much, as one, I've always grown up with it, two, it is historically accurate, three, while it is technically "inappropriate" it is a more tame way of showing the darkness of that time. Also, while a lot of times Disney is sugar coated heavily, we cannot deny there are "dark" moments in some past and present films.

That being said, I do not mind the scene, however I am not highly offended that it is going to change. As someone who learned some more pirate history recently and who is in fact a woman, I find it refreshing that instead of replacing her completely, they are recasting "the red head" as a pirate.

So, she will never be gone, or forgotten, and while it is rare, it is yes, still historically accurate.

 

[anneboleyn]

I think there could be a middle ground here...why not let the red headed woman stay (as a badass pirate or not) but remove the tied up, crying women behind her and replace them with other items, because that seems to be the part that is making people uncomfortable. People don't mind the actual red head, it seems to be what is taking place behind her that is unnecessary. There could still be an auction, but the sexual slavery aspect could go away and still have the "we want the redhead" part.

I just feel like there is a way to make multiple people happy in this situation.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

If you had to pay $100+ a day to watch I Love Lucy reruns and had to explain a certain percentage of the jokes, your kids wouldn't pay when they get old enough.

I just disagree.

It isn't a burden to me to answer some awkward questions from my kids. It's part of parenting and really doesn't stress me out. I think that because I bring that attitude to it, my kids would NOT choose to avoid a theme park because of some awkwardly-explained jokes.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

Sometimes being called a troll can be a compliment on this board.

No not really.

 

[SheHulk]

I just disagree.

It isn't a burden to me to answer some awkward questions from my kids. It's part of parenting and really doesn't stress me out. I think that because I bring that attitude to it, my kids would NOT choose to avoid a theme park because of some awkwardly-explained jokes.

I never said it was a burden to anybody to explain jokes. I was saying that a joke that has to be explained doesn't hit the mark like one that doesn't have to. You can explain "Up your nose with a rubber hose" until you're blue in the face but it won't make your kids love Welcome Back Kotter or have the same nostalgia for it that someone who grew up in the 70s would have.

 

[Elizabeth Smith]

I think there could be a middle ground here...why not let the red headed woman stay (as a badass pirate or not) but remove the tied up, crying women behind her and replace them with other items, because that seems to be the part that is making people uncomfortable. People don't mind the actual red head, it seems to be what is taking place behind her that is unnecessary. There could still be an auction, but the sexual slavery aspect could go away and still have the "we want the redhead" part.

I just feel like there is a way to make multiple people happy in this situation.

I like this idea. You can keep the line. Perhaps one of the guys bidding at the auction saying something like "who cares about the item, We wants the red head!" Like a poor attempt at flirting.

I'm not attached to the auction scene personally, nor am I personally bothered by it, but I think that sex slavery is a very sensitive subject. If someone else is bothered, then it is worth re-thinking the scene.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

I never said it was a burden to anybody to explain jokes. I was saying that a joke that has to be explained doesn't hit the mark like one that doesn't have to. You can explain "Up your nose with a rubber hose" until you're blue in the face but it won't make your kids love Welcome Back Kotter or have the same nostalgia for it that someone who grew up in the 70s would have.

Nostalgia is a result of experiencing something and reliving later, right? My kids -- 10 and 12 WOULD be nostalgic for this ride in its current incarnation because they are experiencing it now. That they didn't get the joke at first won't impact that.

I think you're extending the "consequence" of this old joke too far, I guess.

But again -- Disney is a business -- if there is demand to change it, so be it! I just see no evidence of that great demand. But we don't know what their deliberations were.

 

[SheHulk]

Nostalgia is a result of experiencing something and reliving later, right? My kids -- 10 and 12 WOULD be nostalgic for this ride in its current incarnation because they are experiencing it now. That they didn't the joke at first won't impact that.

I think you're extending the "consequence" of this old joke too far, I guess.

But again -- Disney is a business -- if there is demand to change it, so be it! I just see no evidence of that great demand. But we don't know what their deliberations were.

I get what you're saying... All I'm saying is that these little things add up and if too many of the rides get too "dated" kids can be turned off, especially with Universal breathing down Disney's neck. As I've said before I have no problem with them keeping it, I will be a little sad that my childhood is disappearing actually, but it's very likely a business decision and over time little things will be picked off one by one. I get annoyed by my kids often because they don't show the same reverence for It's a Small World that I do

 

[amberpi]

That being said, I do not mind the scene, however I am not highly offended that it is going to change. As someone who learned some more pirate history recently and who is in fact a woman, I find it refreshing that instead of replacing her completely, they are recasting "the red head" as a pirate.

So, she will never be gone, or forgotten, and while it is rare, it is yes, still historically accurate.

Since that line is so beloved (including by me, even though I had some serious questions about this as a child - but I was THAT kid who wanted to know everything and would ask 50 follow-ups for every 1 question), they could easily include it as a bunch of pirates wanting the red head to be captain, or any other number of things that Imagineers are much suited to come up with than I am. I think/hope they keep the line.

 

[yulilin3]

Just to play devils advocate on this subject, since it seems it's not going away
Can Disney's decision to change this particular scene have anything to do with something other than human trafficking/rape/selling people etc? Can it be they want to get rid of a couple of A.A. to save some money on maintenance, or just update the scene so it makes more sense to current generations?
I don't know WHY they are changing it. If it was just because of p.c. I would think they would look into the obvious scene of torture at the beginning where Carlos is being drowned for not disclosing information in the well.
For me personally I don't care if they change the scene or not, I think I would only be truly upset with Disney if they took Voices of Liberty or the Citizens of Hollywood away, for the rest I would be ok, if the updates are good

 

[champ1380]

Since that line is so beloved (including by me, even though I had some serious questions about this as a child - but I was THAT kid who wanted to know everything and would ask 50 follow-ups for every 1 question), they could easily include it as a bunch of pirates wanting the red head to be captain, or any other number of things that Imagineers are much suited to come up with than I am. I think/hope they keep the line.

This seems like it would solve some of the nostalgia complaints while still moving the scene in a more positive direction.

It doesn't sound like there was this loud public outcry to change this scene. Perhaps Disney wanted to get out in front of one while they were adding a female pirate character anyways. Public perceptions change, what was accepted as funny 40 years ago isn't necessarily going to be seen as such now and in the future. I'm not saying anyone who finds it funny is wrong for thinking so, just at some point the balance of those who find it offensive might outweigh the people who think it's funny and nostalgic. And why not make that change now...

 

[Robo]

-And why not make that change now...

My overriding question is, since they already altered the "chase" vignettes years ago,
why didn't they sanitize the "auction scene" at the same time?

 

[Parkercrew]

For those who are outraged about whether Disney has gotten complaints or if Disney has sufficient justification for the change.

I mean, ultimately Disney can do whatever they want to this scene for any reason (or no reason at all). It might feel like they're messing with our nostalgia without permission. But it's really not our call on whether they still want a fat joke in the ride, or maybe use this opportunity to create a brand new scene.

Walt always intended for this ride and for his parks to be ever changing and evolving. I'm sure there will be more tinkering of other scenes in PotC. At least we can't accuse them of neglecting the ride with updates.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

My overriding question is, since they already altered the "chase" vignettes years ago,
why didn't they sanitize the "auction scene" at the same time?

People are just getting around to being offended by this one? Kidding -- I wish we knew.

Good question...

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

For those who are outraged about whether Disney has gotten complaints or if Disney has sufficient justification for the change.

Who's "outraged"?

Many of us have said repeatedly that we have no idea why Disney chose to do this. Of course it's their call. One can know that and still comment that it doesn't appear that there was a public outcry AGAINST the scene that has existed for 50 years.