eeehhhhhhhhhhhhh i mean for some people, yeah.
for the vast majority of fans, it’s less the change in race than it is the betrayal of characterization, totally separate from race. it’s upsetting when producers take established characters, themes, and stories, and shift their tones, motivations, and personalities to make them drastically different from what the fans had come to love, or use the bare minimum from the source material to create something that pushes a message (in either direction, right or left) without telling a story.
also, speaking from conversations with my brother in law; it’s unimaginative. is it too much to ask that studios like Disney put the time, money, effort and though into creating new diverse characters that carry meaning and invite their own worlds and beloved characters instead of piggybacking off past successes? why even bother, at that point, unless it’s a simple cash grab? at which point it no longer fees representative, just insulting.
also, Jesus was a middle eastern Jew, and every decent christian with a basic education of their faith knows that. the white depiction of Jesus is as antiquated as that attempt at poking fun at Christians .
I can 100% see your point and I’m not going to say that everyone who gets upset at character or content changes is somehow prejudiced or has a political motivation etc. I would however say that it seems largely a moot point. That is to say the argument that is often raised about the changing of characters or stories being the reason for objection to characters of different appearances or backgrounds being used. I say this not to invalidate the feelings of those who are upset that their beloved fictions have been changed- I myself have had many books or comics or original films disappoint or upset me due to variance from the original such as changes of plot points or perhaps a vehicle or item or other iconic item modified from the original description in a way I didn’t like. Something akin to a sword as long as a man and of such darkness that it appeared as a hole in space to the eye- and they make it a dinky silver sword with a gemstone or some convoluted design with 3 prongs etc.
Where it becomes moot though is that most often these are adaptations or reimaginings. Not strictly original stories but something akin to high budget authorized fan fiction- there are almost always going to be changes, some things aren’t practical or are impossible to do or do well so get changed. Some things that work well in a book don’t work as well on screen. Some things will be changed because they were topical at the time but issues or society has changed. All sorts of reasons and then the ultimate reason that the original was the vision of its creator(s) where an adaptation or remake is the vision of the current creator(s) of the original vision. Ignoring commercial reasons- the artist(s) involved likely want to bring their own take to things, their own touches and personality. Simply carbon copying the work of another as closely as possible takes skill but it is generally not a form of self expression. Likewise, audiences often enjoy fresh takes and surprises, or fan service
to change details which the original didn’t suit them. We know there are so many versions of classic tales like “little red riding hood” because different creators and audiences had different tastes and the same story told over and over can be very boring even if it is told “better” each time, but we often enjoy a little variance on classics. Books and films like Shrek, Disney, Red, etc etc. show the popularity of changing up details but working off an existing work. It can be disappointing for hard core fans when they dream of seeing the EXACT story they read or work they watched reproduced with modern technology- but it’s generally a given. Especially- where it comes to concepts like inclusion and social changes. The morality of fairy tales of old often doesn’t fit modern morality to the point where we may not even understand the point of some of these messed up old stories. Older works generally have to be updated linguistically with time or be lost to all but a niche academic
audience. The story of King Arthur reproduced faithfully to the original would have language that is “English,” but lost English speakers wouldn’t be able to tell what was being said or even what was happening on film. With representation though- in the real world many works were made at times or places or in cultures where some people just would be excluded or relegated to certain roles and not even really possible to be on certain roles or story lines. So to that point of fan service- it’s often a service to those fans who have never or traditionally rarely been catered to. Fans who would want to see characters like them in these stories or roles etc. with older and popular works like LOTR or what not- often there have been so many retellings and offshoots that those other fans have had plenty of chances to see a version that might cater to them.
It’s the little mermaid TV series. The “black” girl was a mermaid of darkest skin named Gabriella who played a “little sister” type to Ariel. Gabriella was Non hearing as well- so she really admired Ariel’s singing in the story lines which were often more catered towards representation of non hearing people.
Now there are some valid points to bring up.
The first being- who really cared about the little mermaid TV series or most Disney spin off series and their side characters who often aren’t canon?
There is certainly a difference in exposure and production values between an A list marquis movie set for world wide release, PR, and merchandising and a made for television filler show capitalizing on the spin off potential of an existing IP and taking place in the same setting. The title character of “The little mermaid” was not “black,” but A mermaid was black- which is a bit like saying that having a woman as the presidents aid is the same as having a female president.
To be blunt- that was not an adaptation or retelling of the little mermaid and the titular character was not Gabriella. The show was not titled as such or branded on her. She did not become the image Disney associated with the name “The little mermaid,” and the story was a continuation of the same version of the story where Ariel was the little mermaid. So we can’t really say that is a retelling or adaptation of the story as much as a continuation of an adaptation or retelling.
But if we look at the little mermaid and every version through time from any wagers you could probably find characters of any sort being used- Disney alone produced MANY sequels and spin offs as shows, movies, books, comics, games, stories in attractions, ice shoes etc etc. but…. One 30 years ago had a “black mermaid” so… how many had Ariel? How many had all or mostly “white” mermaids?
We can see that it still holds true that having a mermaid that isn’t portrayed as or literally modeled after in appearance a “white” woman is still a fairly “fresh” or “novel” way to approach the character.
As a final note- Gabriella isn’t necessarily “black.” Even looking at her one could say that just because her skin tone is slightly darker than “pink” and her features are not identical to Ariel’s doesn’t mean she is “black”
In cannon Gabriella is a Latina. You can see this information in several places online. The term “black” can mean different things in different parts of the world- in some places Latina’s or dark Spanish/Hispanic persons are called “black,” when people talk about the upcoming film the “black” mermaid is perhaps better described as “of afto-Caribbean” decent or some similarly more specific language referring to a specific ethnic/“racial” group or those sharing certain genetic markers and ancestry. So the mermaid if 30 years ago
Gabriella did not represent THOSE people specifically and thus there wasn’t a mermaid of her type as a main character or the titular little mermaid from Disney yet. Thusly it is novel.
I won’t go too deep into pandering and how making a mermaid “of color” AND with a non typical physical ability (non hearing) could be seen as an attempt to play “diversity bingo” and just be able to say there was representation of multiple groups if confronted and lack of such.
I will say that simply seeing a character “of color” and making the assumption that because they are “brown” or “tan” that “gets all of them..” is maybe more an indication of a problem than an indication of a solution.
@guest_ I was expecting the usual science based response on how sea water dissipates light so fast that creatures at depth generally have little to no skin tone. Humans who live near the equator with higher solar impact have darker skin. Intriguingly, those at the same latitude as central Africa, but are ocean fairing peoples have lighter skin; the oceans absorb red wavelengths and infrared as well leading to less need for melanin to counteract the solar radiation. Which explains why ocean going Polynesians are lighter skinned than central Africans.
Mermaids, being sub surfaced species would need even less melanin. So... pale skin.. would be evolutionarly correct. Not so much for red hair. Few if any sea mammals sport long flops of scarlet or any other color hair. It's ... too my Hydraulic drag. When in the swim... bald is not only beautiful, it's efficient too.
Lol. I know my comments are long but I actually have to often cut them down. Funny enough I thought of speaking on the matter a bit- but to mention that pigmentation at depth would likely factor in. Why didn’t I? Because as the response hints to- it is possibly or largely irrelevant. Mermaids aren’t human… or… they are… or not. We don’t really know. There isn’t a whole lot in canon to explore their origins or biology. Later stories from Disney of questionable cannon do seem to indicate that Ariel- or at least “human Ariel” can reproduce with humans. The anatomy is very similar between the depicted mermaids and humans- they have similar face structure and same arms and hands and number of eyes and lips and similar teeth etc etc…
Of course scientifically that doesn’t seem to make a LOT of sense. One might imagine their eyes would need to be different as well as their breathing systems and organs. The mermaids seem to be able to speak under water just as humans can speak on land- so their vocal structures and likely at least the upper GI tract and related structures can’t be identical to ours. Their ears would likely evolve differently- human ears do not function well or optimally under water. Their diet and conditions would generally suggest at at least a variance in dental structure, musculature and other areas would probably need to be specialized. I mean- with full body contact to a large mass of water, survival for a human like creature with a roughly 98 degree core temp in even 80 degree tropical water wouldn’t be long term realistic. So there scientifically seem to need to be some pretty large and fundamental differences in anatomy that we at the least so not see visibly to make sense of things with our
Mermaids. Now, Ursula gives Ariel “legs” and/or the “ability to walk on land” etc. we don’t REALLY know what was done- mechanically. That is to say- someone who knows nothing about computers, their family member comes and “makes the computer faster.” Did they increase memory? Processor? Free sad space? Get rid of bloatware and resource hogging programs? Lower security settings? Tweak the router or set up the network or ISP plan to be better..? So did Ursula literally turn a tail into legs and add an ability to breath air maybe? Or were there fundamental or radical and complete changes to Ariel?
The entire train of thought may be irrelevant. Why? Because Ursula uses “magic” to do it. In the real world we might question if magic exists and say that which appears to be magic has a reasonable and consistent explanation and we just need to figure it out. In a fantasy fiction- magic can be a real part of their world. This also implies as does the general mythology of mermaids that mermaids exist via some sort of magic. Why can they speak human language and survive without the basic adaptations you would expect? Magic. In many fictions and many interpretation of magic- magic is a sort of “science,” it has constraints and rules and can be iterated and modified by those with understandings of the system. In others, “magic” is more a plot device that just makes elements of the story or overall world or feel work.
We don’t have sufficient canonical knowledge of the magic in the little mermaid to do much more than speculate- however the lack of information in canon or in production and pre production material suggests the “magic” is the sort that is “plot device.” Regardless of that debatable point- nothing is expressed that would imply or explicitly state that some rule or constraint if magic applies to such a specific matter as mermaid skin tone.
Tl:Dr and conclusion- while it is interesting to think of the science of why our mermaids in the feature might be as they are, the fact that they are so different and ambiguous in anatomy and vary so greatly from what science would tell us would be not only the optimum adaptation but the basic minimum to survive- we are left to assume as is implied in the feature and by the subject matter that science is not the defining force behind mermaids but that “magic” is at work. The extent of their anatomical and other abnormalities would logically then imply that regardless of UV response in human or “real world” biological creatures- the mermaids exposure to sun or UV would not necessarily have any impact on their skin tone or colorations. So I didn’t really bring it up because the overall proposal I have is that science and our understanding of HUMAN or known life form biology and genetics doesn’t inherently apply here.
I could somewhat agree- I mean, I think representation is important but just taking the exact story of Indiana Jones and throwing Idris Elba in a shot for shot remake is a bit disingenuous- pandering perhaps. It’s tricky- complex. Stereotypes. If we are going to make a character black for example- in many cases just being of that appearance isn’t what it is about- it’s about the characterization- what is this persons story? What elements of a culture or identity do they bring to be a fully fleshed out character who IS black and not just the story of a white guy played by a black man? How are common experiences and hopes and fears and relatable elements that many in the audience can identify going to be worked into the story? Is this a black character, or a character who is color swapped to black…?
So for respect in the actual act of earnestly trying to add representation as opposed to just pandering or riding a social justice fad, will there be actual people with knowledge of the culture and care put in to authenticity or will it just be a cash in? The complexities enter when we realize that there are stereotypes. Probably no culture asides MAYBE some small and secluded groups are monoliths. The “black” experience or “white” experience or “Asian” experience in America aren’t the same. You can be poor or rich and encounter racism and such, but how that comes out and how often etc. can be influenced by where you live or the wealth you have or grew up with. So for example- so so many Hollywood films about the “black” experience focus on crimes, inner cities, slavery, sports, music, etc. it doesn’t really represent the people and exact experiences of those black Americans growing up in suburban Connecticut or affluent areas of Los Angeles etc. so when we say “will this express the..
authentic experience” it’s like- we tend to go to stereotypes. It isn’t that there aren’t people, perhaps many (hence why it became a stereotype) these things are true for- but I mean… asides from comedies or the occasional Oscar bait and some more recent work- Hollywood has traditionally represented a “white experience” that is pretty foreign to those living in the rust belt or who might be called the slur “trailer trash” etc. So that gets tricky- I don’t want to imply that for example- A black man couldn’t live the exact life of Indiana Jones, that he has to have vernacular in his speech and have battles against institutional racism or micro aggressions or not have a father who is a genius professor and be a tenured and respected college professor who has seen the world and speaks many languages. It isn’t that such a character isn’t authentic- it’s that to simply take an existing characterization created largely by and for a white audience and “color swap” them is lazy and perhaps…
.. insulting. It’s a bit like having a dinner party and knowing one of your guests doesn’t eat pork so you serve them a plate with a raw potato on it because all your dishes were made with pork for people who eat pork. Nothing about that says: “I WANT you to be here. I thought of YOU and considered YOU.” It basically says: “F$ck you. This is what you get. You can be like everyone else or get out and I don’t care which or wether YOU enjoy this or not.” When you serve these intricate dishes planned to the tastes of your other guests and give them the raw potato it says “I could be bothered to think of everyone else but you, you I do not give a s&it about one way or the other.”
So I can see that perspective- where it isn’t enough to just slap a different look on the same thing and say you’ve “included” someone. That said- nothing about a story like the little mermaid or so many tales is centered on matters of culture and race. Often the story doesn’t make room or the characters are so generic in that sense beyond traits like “curious” “brave” etc. that they don’t really HAVE an identity beyond what they look like. I’ll get back to this point. When it comes to “fantasy” stuff- so much is just aesthetics. It’s all made up. The kingdom in the little mermaid Disney films doesn’t exist. The people don’t exist. They don’t follow our culture or geography or even history. When you go to a fantasy land- there is often no reason why a character or group needs to look a certain way- and if there is… it usually changes nothing about the story itself to amend that so it makes sense to be any other way. I mean- we could say: “but the people of Kings Landing live…
.. away from the equator and it’s cold and little sun so they would be pale and the people of the islands would be dark!” Well- that’s one way to apply the logic of our world to a completely made up world. I mean- is it completely made up…? They have fire and it mostly seems to work the same, they have gravity… they seem to give birth the same way and have the same anatomy and die from the same injuries and have the same vital spots… but is it so…? There are fam theories that show that based on movement and the ability of dragons of those specifications to fly, the gravity may be lower in game of thrones Tv universe. Movement as well as the behavior of fire suggests that their atmosphere may be a different mix of gasses than ours. Also… people literally can be part dragon and use magic and project their minds into animals.. oh. And the dead can be reanimated into a massive army too. So like… it’s similar but not the same right?
So we get caught up in this real world logic. Why couldn’t a group of people who can use magic and have all these other oddities compared to us not have the same mechanisms or concentrations of melanin? In our world the general scientific belief is most or all of modern humans trace their origins to Africa and the lighter pigments in skin developed over so many tens of thousands or more years because those not exposed to the right stimulus didn’t benefit from darker skin. But… why couldn’t the ancestors of those in Westeros etc. have been different? Why couldn’t that migration been more recent or their evolution slower? Why couldn’t their entire species of human have evolved without the genes that would cause them to lose pigment or darker peoples have been more successful in survival and thusly why couldn’t it just as easily be, without any radical or substantial alteration of the story etc- that everyone in GOT was a person of color…? It’s a fantasy world. It is what one makes it.
The rules do not have to be the same as our world. Usually they are not the same. Usually the nature of why the fantasy setting is appealing is exactly the fact that it bends and breaks the rules of our world. So I’m such cases I don’t see the real issue. If the entire identity of a character and the story has no relation or ties to racial and ethnic or even practical concerns if our world to where there simply isn’t any real parallel to the experiences of a given group identity- why does it matter? The only considerations are meta to the work- how the an audience in our real world will perceive the aesthetics or the politics and connotations of a character through the lens of their biases and experiences in our world; or how well an audience will “identify with” or “project onto” a character.
In simple terms- Pac-Man has been reported and re made and updated and spun off a million times. Pac-Man is iconic in yellow, but there really is no reason why they couldn’t make a Pac-Man game with a blue or green or pink “Pac-Man” and I wouldn’t play the exact same Pac-Man game and say one was trash or I refused to play because the Pac-Man was the wrong color. I’m eating dots. There are ghosts. The things I came for are all there. I suppose that if you add food coloring to eggs to make them green, so many people would be off put because they expect their eggs to look a certain way, but if the eggs are good I’m eating the green eggs and at the least it would be an interesting and fun change of pace.
for the vast majority of fans, it’s less the change in race than it is the betrayal of characterization, totally separate from race. it’s upsetting when producers take established characters, themes, and stories, and shift their tones, motivations, and personalities to make them drastically different from what the fans had come to love, or use the bare minimum from the source material to create something that pushes a message (in either direction, right or left) without telling a story.
also, speaking from conversations with my brother in law; it’s unimaginative. is it too much to ask that studios like Disney put the time, money, effort and though into creating new diverse characters that carry meaning and invite their own worlds and beloved characters instead of piggybacking off past successes? why even bother, at that point, unless it’s a simple cash grab? at which point it no longer fees representative, just insulting.
Now there are some valid points to bring up.
The first being- who really cared about the little mermaid TV series or most Disney spin off series and their side characters who often aren’t canon?
There is certainly a difference in exposure and production values between an A list marquis movie set for world wide release, PR, and merchandising and a made for television filler show capitalizing on the spin off potential of an existing IP and taking place in the same setting. The title character of “The little mermaid” was not “black,” but A mermaid was black- which is a bit like saying that having a woman as the presidents aid is the same as having a female president.
But if we look at the little mermaid and every version through time from any wagers you could probably find characters of any sort being used- Disney alone produced MANY sequels and spin offs as shows, movies, books, comics, games, stories in attractions, ice shoes etc etc. but…. One 30 years ago had a “black mermaid” so… how many had Ariel? How many had all or mostly “white” mermaids?
In cannon Gabriella is a Latina. You can see this information in several places online. The term “black” can mean different things in different parts of the world- in some places Latina’s or dark Spanish/Hispanic persons are called “black,” when people talk about the upcoming film the “black” mermaid is perhaps better described as “of afto-Caribbean” decent or some similarly more specific language referring to a specific ethnic/“racial” group or those sharing certain genetic markers and ancestry. So the mermaid if 30 years ago
Gabriella did not represent THOSE people specifically and thus there wasn’t a mermaid of her type as a main character or the titular little mermaid from Disney yet. Thusly it is novel.
I will say that simply seeing a character “of color” and making the assumption that because they are “brown” or “tan” that “gets all of them..” is maybe more an indication of a problem than an indication of a solution.
Mermaids, being sub surfaced species would need even less melanin. So... pale skin.. would be evolutionarly correct. Not so much for red hair. Few if any sea mammals sport long flops of scarlet or any other color hair. It's ... too my Hydraulic drag. When in the swim... bald is not only beautiful, it's efficient too.