You're largely implying that Ariel spends a lot of time on the surface, which isn't the case. Most of the merfolk actively avoid the surface iirc. Ariel goes up for short periods of time. Additionally, if we're going for "realism based on location," technically Ariel should likely be overweight as most sea mammals are covered in a large amount of blubber for heat conservation purposes.
There's also the fact it's gonna take place in the Caribbean though, so it makes sense "realistically" that she isn't pale white. Honestly, if she's got the iconic red hair, I don't think skin color matters
Haha well we COULD go into the deep lore and say that Ariel is the daughter of Triton, who is the son of the God Poseidon. So technically Ariel should be Greek. Or, if we want to go back to the roots of the story, the author was Danish, iirc
'
In regards to the hair, interestingly iirc Ariel was only made a redhead due to the fact that shortly before the Little Mermaid came into being a movie called "Splash" was released, that featured a blonde mermaid named Madison. Disney wanted to make Ariel stand out a bit from Madison, so they gave her red hair instead of blonde.
'
That said I do hope they manage to pull off her having red hair if they're going this route.
Unpopular opinion: I don't fully understand the downvotes on this. Technically the guest does have a point-- if we're fine with swapping the races of characters than it shouldn't matter whether the original character is black or not. Though I'm fairly certain T'Challa's race plays a bit more into his storyline than your average bear, not unlike Pocahontas, or Mulan, so he may not be the best example. I imagine we wouldnt have nearly as agreeable a reception if it was announced Tiana was being played by a white girl, though.
'
I'm not sure why people feel the need to argue this point, and then immediately lash out or backtrack as soon as someone suggests it be evenly applied.
thats just the thing. The guest picked one of the worst possible examples of a reverse of this as the race of the character is a story part of the character. No where in her thing is the fact she is white important for any reason. The tchalla being black is important for the story to work as if he was, for example, native american like me the whole story would make no sense. a much better choice would be maybe cyborg from DC as in that him being black in the most current version is juts a hold over of the character and he could be any race without it affecting the story of the character really at all.
-
personally im of the opinion that characters shouldnt be changed to that extent without a good in story reason for it as doing so otherwise tends to just be an obvious agenda with no attempt to smooth it out or make the change actually function in any way. Rarely does such a movie actually have much quality to it as they just shoe horn in a brand new thing to it for the sake of change.
Well considering The Little Mermaid is European, and would most likely take place in the Mediterranean, somewhere around Greece or Italy, Possibly Spain, then it also has to do on the region and area, with the intergration of races throughout the world it wouldn't be completely impossible for Tchalla to half some white in him, then again this has happened before with other characters from he same universe such as Heimdall and Valkyrie, don't get me wrong I love all three of these actors/actress, but considering that within Norse Mythology Heimdall is seen as a very white good, even spoken as paler than other Gods, to cast him as someone of darker skin doesn't make since, same goes for Valkyrie in Norse Mythology Valkyries are woman with pale skin, blue eyes, and blonde hair and take fallen warrior off the battlefield and into Valhalla, now again I'm perfectly fine with this
I'm just saying that this would never happen with a film that is based on African Mythology or a film based off an original who's main character was black, I know Disney doesn't have very many of those, but that's mainly due to the fact that they used European stories for most of the originals, either be willing to intergrate all of it, or not at all
Yeah I think it's fairly ridiculous tbh. Let's not forget when little girls started getting called insensitive and racist for daring to have the wrong skin color when they dressed up as Moana for Halloween.
'
It's such a mess. But I genuinely think if disney really wanted black characters, they would write them, not blackwash existing characters for the sake of (what certainly seems like) promoting their film. But I also don't feel like arguing with people for 500 years over it.
'
As we've said, there's no way any of them would be as gung-ho if it was a white actor/tress playing a black character in the next live action.
@xvarnah I totally feel you. My thought is, why not just create a new and wonderful princess with darker skin and a non-European background, maybe African or Asian, instead of changing the race of an already existing princess? It just doesn't make any sense. And we all know that if this went the other way around race-wise, there would practically be riots in the streets. Just some food for thought.
But that could be achieved with any character, like and original black character, or a preexisting black character.
Also the movie will be hot garbage like all the other live-action Disney remakes, so it doesn't matter anyway.
Maybe fun for kids, visually pleasing, but hot garbage otherwise. Beauty and the Beast really pissed me off.
1Reply
deleted
· 4 years ago
During the last years, apparently big companies have come to the conclusion that advertising thru empowering minorities and underdogs in society is a good business strategy. That means they have found a majority* of people (and therefore inevitably also a big portion of straight white people) like the idea of darker-than-white and/or non-100%-binary heroes and females in traditionally male roles etc. That would mean the online outrage about it is coming from a (way) smaller group of people than it appears when looking at Twitter and Facebook. And what's most pathetic is the idea of "accuracy" in 100% fictional fantasy characters as pripyatplatypus pointed out already. Their bullshit whining about straight whites being the new oppressed group is just completing the picture of being exceptionally daft and backward minded. Enjoy your last few years of being in charge.
.
* majority here means _real_ majority = popular vote, there's no electoral college in market research
It’s a movie!!! It’s not that serious! You are grown men and women crying over a CHILDREN'S MOVIE!! 1. Many are saying the movie is “ruined” because it’s a black actor implying that black people are bad actors. 2. It’s fictional! 3. The more you guys complain about it the more fuel you’re giving the black/non-racist community to go see and support it just for the sole purpose of pissing you all off! Grow up and stop bitching. Disney obviously doesn’t care about your unjustified complaints
Literally no one in this thread said the movie is ruined? No one person. Not in the post itself, or in the comments. So, really, the only one crying here (over non-existent comments ABOUT a children's movie no less) is... you.
'
I understand soap-boxes can be very important to people on the internet, but before you drag yours out it might be worth noting whether any of the people your speech is directed at are actually IN the place you're screeching at. Unless you're looking for an echo chamber, in which case this is also the wrong thread. Twitter is good for that, I hear
As for the "unjustified" complaint - please, for the love of god, remember these words. Write them down. Carve them into your bedroom wall or tattoo them into your arm if you have to. And the next time a character of a different race is replaced by a white person, remember them. I'm absolutely certain you were the first in line to defend the Scarlet Johannson who starred in the Ghost in the Shell movie. When Johnny Deep got flack for playing Tonto in the lone ranger - you were there, I'm sure, waving your righteous banner for all to see.
'
And, as we all remember, NO ONE attacked white girls dressing up as Moana for Halloween and accused them of "cultural appropriation." Didn't happen, because that reality would be... icky. And I'm certain you'd have had just as big of words for that situation as well.
'
Unless, of course, it's only okay to discriminate against white people. But that can't be accurate, because that would be (dare I say it)... racist.
As a final note - if you think Disney cares about diversity then you haven't been paying attention.
'
If they cared, they would have started a long time ago. They would have teams of staff members working to develop new stories, based on those cultures. They wouldn't be spending millions to rehash tacky live-action versions of things that were already successful.
'
If they cared about diversity, tell me why did they make Ariel black instead of adapting "The princess and the frog" ? Or making an entirely new film altogether. Why are none of the stories they HAVE written in the last decade or so featuring prominent non-white characters?
'
Disney cares about the same thing every big corporation cares about: the bottom line.
I don't honestly give a good goddamn about this movie really because all the live actions have been tacky so far. But that's okay. The movie was never aimed at people like me, it was aimed at people like you. If you like it, and what it supposedly stands for, buy your ticket and enjoy. Hell, buy three tickets just for the sake of "showing me and all them other racists" whose boss.
'
At the end of the day it doesn't really matter.
'
But I'm honestly getting tired of all these hypocritical holier-than-thou people pouring out of the woodwork to preach their message of "it's racist if YOU do it against THESE people, but not the other way round, bigot."
'
Most of the people on this post gave their reasons for their reactions to the casting. If you can't be bothered to read it and ask if there is, in fact, a legitimacy behind their claim before you begin spouting off, that really says more about YOU then them.
1
deleted
· 4 years ago
It's funny how a histrionically whining, over-dramatic little Über-Karen who literally can't stop her soapboxing for hours tells other people to get off their soapbox and not be so dramatic. Boohoo, it's so unfair how the whites are treated these days. Hilarious.
.
As to Disney's motives: their market research showed them what the majority of customers likes to see.
Aw, I'm flattered you take the time to read so many of my comments. I'm not sure why you DO, mind you, since you make such a weighted point to misinterpret them that I can practically hear the sound as they fly right over your hairspray.
'
Unfortunately, in your efforts to attack my personality rather than any of the points I made, you also didn't actually bother injecting any logic into your own statements, or attempt to back a single thing you said up. Which essentially means you're just repeating what the original guest said.
'
I'd direct you to re-read my comment, but your wording suggests you have difficulty with that, so I'll try and simplify.
'
My comment was never about how white people are treated. It's about how all people are treated. Claiming it's fine to blackwash a character while simultaneously throwing fits anytime the opposite happens is the definition of hypocrisy.
As to Disney's motives: you are a persistent little echo-chamber, I'll give you that. Glad we both agree.
'
If you ever have an original thought then feel free to let me know
Ah, your word of the week is echo chamber... good for you. Too bad you're using it wrong. In case you're planning on using "strawman", here's a good example so you understand what it is: "Claiming it's fine to blackwash a character while simultaneously throwing fits anytime the opposite happens is the definition of hypocrisy."
So that would be a no on the "original thought," then? Damn. I didn't have HIGH hopes, but I did have some hope. It's okay, thinking isn't everyone's cup of tea.
As a side note - if you'd prefer I can use "parroting."
'
Example give:
Person A: "Disney only cares about the bottom line."
Person B: "Disney only cares if the numbers say they'll be good for their bottom line."
'
As for a strawman, saying that LARGELY implies that you had an argument to make to begin with. Which, the observant among us will not, you did not.
'
Everything you've said had to do with your opinion on my character. What you quoted me saying had nothing to do with what you stated about my character at all. Argumentum ad hominem IS an often practiced tactic on the internet, but it doesn't actually make your statements relevant. In actuality what we've just witnessed is you, in your attempt to label me a strawman, essentially becoming a strawman yourself. Irony
thats a lot of stuff and ive not read it all but the only thing im gonna say is that the character that scarlett johansson played in ghost in a shell was a white character in the original lore so its literally not changing the character's race at all in that instance.
@bethorien I only ever saw a couple episodes of GitS stand alone complex, and never read the manga. So I don't know the deep lore. But if that's the case, that makes it even more ridiculous, because people were complaining literally for years over Scarlet Johannson being cast as Motoko.
'
It got so bad it started being referred to as a "whitewashing controversy." It was covered by dozens upon dozens of media outlets and was cited, often and loudly, as the reason the movie did poorly in box office. Because scarlet wasn't Asian enough.
'
People had a similar reaction to the casting of that white actress as "The Ancient One" in Dr Strange.
'
And it's within peoples' rights to be offended if they want to be. All I've been saying is, try to apply your offendedness evenly. Ironically saying that managed to offend someone but that's the interwebs for you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
·
Edited 4 years ago
deleted
· 4 years ago
Ok, let's see... it's not parroting when one is refuting or expanding their opponent's conclusion while arguing based on the same assumptions, an echo chamber characterizes a mindset where one is only listening to their chosen peer group and not to research and science, you're pretty much engaging in ad hominem all over the place and one is not labeling their opponent a strawman but accuse them of attacking a straw man they have built for the sake of the argument. Thank you for participating. I think I'm going to unfollow the comments of this posting.
This wasn't really intelligible, but I'll try and respond to what I think you were saying.
'
-in regards to parroting/echoing, the issue occurs two-fold:
You begin by echoing the hypocritical nonsense of the original guest post, however you somehow manage to do it with less substance or actual merit. Which is quite the feat, I'll admit.
The second parroting occurs when you talk about Disney. In this scenario, however, you're repeating the very thing *I* said, but worded differently. As demonstrated in the quote I gave. Hence: parroting.
'
-You are literally abandoning this comment section because it is not echoing your frame of mind back at you. Which is fine, but Hence: echo-chamber.
-I did indeed engage in ad hominem after you repeatedly refused to offer anything but your own personality for me to critique. If you'd rather I respond to your actual arguments on the subject: MAKE THEM. It's a wonder you can openly call anyone whiny without a trace of irony or self-awareness
'
-You can, actually, label a person a strawman, as well as label what they've said as being a strawman. In this scenario, both apply to you.
'
Hopefully you have more to offer whatever post you next choose to engage in. I may even let you borrow the soapbox.
'
For everyone else:
New word of the day - Viridescent. No reason for it, I just like the word
'
In regards to the hair, interestingly iirc Ariel was only made a redhead due to the fact that shortly before the Little Mermaid came into being a movie called "Splash" was released, that featured a blonde mermaid named Madison. Disney wanted to make Ariel stand out a bit from Madison, so they gave her red hair instead of blonde.
'
That said I do hope they manage to pull off her having red hair if they're going this route.
'
I'm not sure why people feel the need to argue this point, and then immediately lash out or backtrack as soon as someone suggests it be evenly applied.
-
personally im of the opinion that characters shouldnt be changed to that extent without a good in story reason for it as doing so otherwise tends to just be an obvious agenda with no attempt to smooth it out or make the change actually function in any way. Rarely does such a movie actually have much quality to it as they just shoe horn in a brand new thing to it for the sake of change.
'
It's such a mess. But I genuinely think if disney really wanted black characters, they would write them, not blackwash existing characters for the sake of (what certainly seems like) promoting their film. But I also don't feel like arguing with people for 500 years over it.
'
As we've said, there's no way any of them would be as gung-ho if it was a white actor/tress playing a black character in the next live action.
Also the movie will be hot garbage like all the other live-action Disney remakes, so it doesn't matter anyway.
.
* majority here means _real_ majority = popular vote, there's no electoral college in market research
'
I understand soap-boxes can be very important to people on the internet, but before you drag yours out it might be worth noting whether any of the people your speech is directed at are actually IN the place you're screeching at. Unless you're looking for an echo chamber, in which case this is also the wrong thread. Twitter is good for that, I hear
'
And, as we all remember, NO ONE attacked white girls dressing up as Moana for Halloween and accused them of "cultural appropriation." Didn't happen, because that reality would be... icky. And I'm certain you'd have had just as big of words for that situation as well.
'
Unless, of course, it's only okay to discriminate against white people. But that can't be accurate, because that would be (dare I say it)... racist.
'
If they cared, they would have started a long time ago. They would have teams of staff members working to develop new stories, based on those cultures. They wouldn't be spending millions to rehash tacky live-action versions of things that were already successful.
'
If they cared about diversity, tell me why did they make Ariel black instead of adapting "The princess and the frog" ? Or making an entirely new film altogether. Why are none of the stories they HAVE written in the last decade or so featuring prominent non-white characters?
'
Disney cares about the same thing every big corporation cares about: the bottom line.
'
At the end of the day it doesn't really matter.
'
But I'm honestly getting tired of all these hypocritical holier-than-thou people pouring out of the woodwork to preach their message of "it's racist if YOU do it against THESE people, but not the other way round, bigot."
'
Most of the people on this post gave their reasons for their reactions to the casting. If you can't be bothered to read it and ask if there is, in fact, a legitimacy behind their claim before you begin spouting off, that really says more about YOU then them.
.
As to Disney's motives: their market research showed them what the majority of customers likes to see.
'
Unfortunately, in your efforts to attack my personality rather than any of the points I made, you also didn't actually bother injecting any logic into your own statements, or attempt to back a single thing you said up. Which essentially means you're just repeating what the original guest said.
'
I'd direct you to re-read my comment, but your wording suggests you have difficulty with that, so I'll try and simplify.
'
My comment was never about how white people are treated. It's about how all people are treated. Claiming it's fine to blackwash a character while simultaneously throwing fits anytime the opposite happens is the definition of hypocrisy.
'
If you ever have an original thought then feel free to let me know
'
Example give:
Person A: "Disney only cares about the bottom line."
Person B: "Disney only cares if the numbers say they'll be good for their bottom line."
'
As for a strawman, saying that LARGELY implies that you had an argument to make to begin with. Which, the observant among us will not, you did not.
'
Everything you've said had to do with your opinion on my character. What you quoted me saying had nothing to do with what you stated about my character at all. Argumentum ad hominem IS an often practiced tactic on the internet, but it doesn't actually make your statements relevant. In actuality what we've just witnessed is you, in your attempt to label me a strawman, essentially becoming a strawman yourself. Irony
'
It got so bad it started being referred to as a "whitewashing controversy." It was covered by dozens upon dozens of media outlets and was cited, often and loudly, as the reason the movie did poorly in box office. Because scarlet wasn't Asian enough.
'
People had a similar reaction to the casting of that white actress as "The Ancient One" in Dr Strange.
'
And it's within peoples' rights to be offended if they want to be. All I've been saying is, try to apply your offendedness evenly. Ironically saying that managed to offend someone but that's the interwebs for you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
'
-in regards to parroting/echoing, the issue occurs two-fold:
You begin by echoing the hypocritical nonsense of the original guest post, however you somehow manage to do it with less substance or actual merit. Which is quite the feat, I'll admit.
The second parroting occurs when you talk about Disney. In this scenario, however, you're repeating the very thing *I* said, but worded differently. As demonstrated in the quote I gave. Hence: parroting.
'
-You are literally abandoning this comment section because it is not echoing your frame of mind back at you. Which is fine, but Hence: echo-chamber.
'
-You can, actually, label a person a strawman, as well as label what they've said as being a strawman. In this scenario, both apply to you.
'
Hopefully you have more to offer whatever post you next choose to engage in. I may even let you borrow the soapbox.
'
For everyone else:
New word of the day - Viridescent. No reason for it, I just like the word