Ah! But it may come back! [Settler's Cabin]

[MrLiver]

It doesn't matter if something is insignificant. It's all about the show, and that burning cabin adds to the overall "show" that a ride on the Disneyland Railroad, Mark Twain, Sailing Ship Columbia, or Indian Canoes presents.

How is a burning cabin any more part of the show than one that is not burning? It actually makes more sense thematically to have the cabin NOT on fire. In fact when the cabin was on fire - I remember a great many jokes being made by skippers and train conductors on how the fire never went out. It was distracting to the theme.

And the story line concocted to explain the burning cabin was so convoluted as to loose all meaning. It went from angry Indians to Moonshine Madness to "carelessness"... yeah right.

And all the while bringing it back would be expensive (doubly so since they would have to repair the gas lines first), not politically correct, and possibly dangerous to the environment - and for what? The enjoyment of some fans? No way.

What if the air quality mangement district came down and said "hey, it's cool that you have this burning cabin, but with all the pollution that thing puts out, you can only show the fireworks 150 nights instead of 200." Well I'm sure Disney would rather have the fireworks.

And I have a feeling the guests would too.

So lets just have the money go someplace more productive.

[MasterGracey]

How is a burning cabin any more part of the show than one that is not burning? It actually makes more sense thematically to have the cabin NOT on fire. In fact when the cabin was on fire - I remember a great many jokes being made by skippers and train conductors on how the fire never went out. It was distracting to the theme.

The Rivers Of America and that part of Frontierland in general was a portal to Indian Country. The story of Indians attacking innocent settlers may have not been politically correct or whatever, but it told a story, and reinforced the Indian theme of that area of Frontierland. Afterall, you pass a young Indian girl along the river with her dog, and later pass a Shaman talking to his tribesmen.

Maybe they should just rip out all the vignettes along the River. Afterall, what purpose do they really serve anyway? Why upkeep the animatronics and set pieces along the River? I don't think so.

And just because the conductors poked fun at the burning cabin didn't mean it was a pointless show scene. Those conductors and skippers weren't doing their job correctly. They aren't the Jungle Cruise, and they shouldn't have demeaned the artistic and dramatic integrity of the show.

[MrLiver]

The river still tells a story whether the cabin is burning or not.

Obviously the cabin didn't support the story of the Indians that populated that area of Frontierland - since the Indians in Frontierland have almost always been friendly. That's part of the reason why they changed the story once before.

And how integral can the cabin be in telling a story - if it had it's story changed so many times over the course of the years?

I'm definitely not against adding set pieces or telling stories - but setting a cabin on fire for 17 hours a day, just because you can, seems to be a little below Disney, and far more expensive and troublesome than it's worth. Hence the reason why it hasn't come back.

[MasterGracey]

The river still tells a story whether the cabin is burning or not.

Obviously the cabin didn't support the story of the Indians that populated that area of Frontierland - since the Indians in Frontierland have almost always been friendly. That's part of the reason why they changed the story once before.

And how integral can the cabin be in telling a story - if it had it's story changed so many times over the course of the years?

I'm definitely not against adding set pieces or telling stories - but setting a cabin on fire for 17 hours a day, just because you can, seems to be a little below Disney, and far more expensive and troublesome than it's worth. Hence the reason why it hasn't come back.

I don't think it hasn't come back because it doesn't serve a purpose.

Here is what the train's narration originally said, thanks to Yesterland:

“Now, we’re heading into the true backwoods. Watch for Indians and wild animals near the water’s edge. This is the American West as it was a century ago. Our forefathers who tamed this great wilderness faced constant danger. And there, across the river, is proof—a settler’s cabin afire! The old pioneer lies nearby—the victim of an Indian arrow.”

This showscene established the troubles, risks, and hurdles "our forefathers" faced in settling the American wilderness.

The settler's cabin story wasn't changed because the Imagineers couldn't iron out a good storyline, but because Disney was being put under pressure by an evolving politically correct world first because of the negativte image the cabin gave Indians (despite Disneyland having "friendly" Indians), and later because the settler became a drunk.


You are right, the River still tells a story. However, it's an abbreviated story that is now missing the part about the first Americans taming the wilderness. Why can't we have the whole story? Oh that's right - because the whole story costs too much and just isn't worth the money or effort.

Obviously the cabin didn't support the story of the Indians that populated that area of Frontierland - since the Indians in Frontierland have almost always been friendly.

Oh- and this is wrong. That settler wasn't too bright, and built his cabin on the side of the river that the unfriendly Indians lived on. So actually, the burning cabin did support the story of that side of Frontierland.


[Image from Yesterland.com]

[DisneyIPresume]

Disneyland Guide Maps and the $4.00 artistic style maps still to this day show the Settler's Cabin Burning. A tribute to nostalga? Or A Sign of Revival? You Decide!

I think it is a tribute to the fact that it was never communicated to the people who print these maps to remove the flames from the Burning Cabin, plain and simple.

[monotonehell]

It could come back...

Story: Some hapless settlers left their stove burning unattended and a stray ember has set their cabin alight! *screams of "oh noes!"*

Effect: Use an extra bright back projection on a scree instead of burning fuel. (This could work if I'm right about daylight projection availability)

That solves the problems mentioned above, other than the TDA don't care one.

[NickCharles]

As far as effects go - it's a pretty mild set piece with a huge cost.

They might as well take a pile of money and set it on fire. There's just no reason to have it there. If anything relighting the fire would only bring down upon them a hail of environmentalists and energy conservationists.

It's still burning in the WDW Magic Kingdom.

[FrumiousBoojum]

Hang on... they have new $5 maps out?

They have something that costs below $5?!?!

[The Mad Hatter]

I know it wouldn't be nearly as realistic, but why can't they rig up something like the POTC fire effect on the cabin?

[Cousin Orville]

çHow is a burning cabin any more part of the show than one that is not burning? [/QUOTE]

One is boring and the other isn't. You can lots of un-burning homes on the block that you live. No one pays admission to see them either. I think it's called entertainment.

Of course they would rather have fireworks, but the cabin isn't really burning anything other than the gas. There is no smoke so the pollution is incomparable to the fireworks.

[/QUOTE]"So lets just have the money go someplace more productive."[/QUOTE]

Sounds like a quote from a "decline by degrees" brainstorming session. I'm sorry to be so sarcastic, nothing personal, but I respectfully disagree with you. To me, something on fire will always be more dramatic than something inanimate. Take it out if they can't make it interesting.

[DisneyIPresume]

I remember reading in a thread from several months ago that in order to fix the cabin they need to replace corroded intake gas pipes, and in order to get to this they need to drain ROA. Someone mentioned, obviously, that this would be a lot of work and money just to fix those pipes.

But I don't see also why they cant do something similar to the fire in POTC. It doesn't pollute and the vegetation around the cabin won't catch fire either. Also the fire in POTC doesn't look entirely real, but it is a good enough effect to where it works there and this would also work on the cabin.

[roxystar68]

I think that burning cabin sparked a fear of fire for me. I saw it when I was around two and ever since I've been scared of my house getting set on fire by unfriendly Native Americans.

[Neverlandtink]

I loved that burning cabin. It was like watching an accident! It was one of those things I looked forward to every time I got on the Mark Twain, and was disappointed that I couldn't see it from the Hungry Bear restaurant.

We have home movies of the settler dead with an arrow in his back, but does anyone remember the story of the settler's still that blew up? the arrow (then axe) was removed and he was just laying dead drunk. I think that was post Indian PC, and pre-turn off.

Hmmmm...Do you think he built that still because they didn't serve wine at the Blue Bayou???

[Walt Jr.]

As far as effects go - it's a pretty mild set piece with a huge cost.

They might as well take a pile of money and set it on fire. There's just no reason to have it there. If anything relighting the fire would only bring down upon them a hail of environmentalists and energy conservationists.

And the extra cost for extra detail is what makes Disneyland unlike other "Amusement Parks"!

[Walt Jr.]

It's still burning in the WDW Magic Kingdom.

Sort of Funny! WDW is still Declining by Degrees and they actually have a burning cabin!