I'm asian and Ariel Should look like this

As an American- I don’t give a shit. I grew up with a little mermaid that looked like that. I liked it then and now. Still will. Scientifically I can’t say that those traits would be likely in a mermaid- but we can’t really say they wouldn’t since we don’t have a lot of mermaid experience to base that on- but as far as the conditions a mermaid is evolved for- it seems unlikely. That said- I don’t care. It’s a mermaid fantasy. It can look like whatever. I hated the new lost on space robot until I gave it a chance to because I was used to the older version. Turns out I still prefer the original but the new take was neat and something well... new.

I see your point and I raise you: make an original mermaid story for your black mermaid.

What the hell? The little mermaid itself isn’t an original mermaid story. It’s a retelling if a very unoriginal story. “Oh- but they changed some things and added specific details!” But... unless the remake were a shot for shot copy of the animated version with no changes other than being film/cgi and a couple different looking characters... how is that any less original than the previous Disney version which itself was not an original story?

And the next question- why would Disney- who already owns the rights and scripts to a version of the little mermaid- need to go to special expense to craft an entirely new mermaid story just because they decided to change the attributes of the main character? How many X-men movies and cast changes have their been? Did anyone say “well- they are changing casting choices and using different actors with different looks- so let’s throw away the entire X-men property as it exists and make our own new superhero team with younger people instead of recasting younger actors and just still using the existing X-men stuff...”

None of what I said prompted this. My point is Little Mermaid is fine as it is, and all these remakes are getting redundant

Apologies creative dragon baby. It’s a common counterpoint of those who believe in “racial integrity” of casting in a franchise use- they say “why can’t XYZ race just make their own original story to be in?” So in context when you say: “make an original story for your black mermaid”... it sounded as if your point was that if one wanted to cast a black mermaid, one should have to make a new and original property to do so. I believe the largest contributor asides the commonality of the argument in that vein to my misunderstanding of your point was the inclusion of race in your statement. If the point was that instead of making a remake at all- to make a new property- I would assume race need not be specified, as opposed to where race is the primary reason for making a new version in which case race would be included.

Although- much of my reply is still applicable even when we shift the context of what you said from a misunderstanding. While endless retelling of stories don’t sit well with me for several reasons, and fresh new properties are nice, there a strong business and social/psychological case for re using or continuing old franchises and tying in the new with the familiar when one wants to make a successful movie and leverage emotional impact.

The rocky films are a key example- and to many most of the franchise ranges from good to amazing in writing and impact- and while the story of rocky balboa (rocky 6) could have been an original film ala the wrestler or many others dealing with a once bright but now old star- it loses impact. Likewise- the film “Creed” could have been original and unrelated to rocky but by tying it in with the star as the son of Apollo- it gives it a sense of history and pedigree. Now rocky isn’t an example of recasts- just the concept of nostalgia and capitalizing on existing history with a viewer.

Shows like Dr. who use plot devices to explain recasts and pursue ongoing continuity- sentai style shows often just keep moving with little or no real or substantial explanations beyond their occurrence in somehow connected realities. Other times no attempt at all is made to explain changes in cast etc. like when Roads was changed in the MCU and no in universe reason was given for his suddenly vastly different looks etc. but I can sympathize that not everything needs to be a recast or “reboot,” and Disney or others using such methods to avoid paying royalties or giving credit to original staff is low imho- but I’ve also enjoyed many “reboots” and the fact they let me enjoy franchises I loved in a new light, so I can’t argue against them. Either way it’s somewhat inevitable that a company sitting on a bankable IP wouldn’t leverage that...

One way or another it will come back by intent or accident. We take for granted that the original classic will endure for all time- but stars and works we believe immortal are often forgotten to time as those who loved their prime and those who came a generation after age and die as well. Their dated works may stand to aficionados but in main stream conscious and market they vanish- and then are reused or by chance near copies re emerge independently on their own after the original is forgotten. So in that regard the “reboot” often serves to keep a franchise alive for new generations to enjoy. It’s only old to those who lived through it.

But if you don’t believe me show a kid a movie that was cool in the 1970’s or a sci fo show from the 1960’s and then show them a modern version held in high regard. Chances are the modern sensibilities and tastes generally will skew to the version with effects and cultural norms they more closely associate with.