“yOu cHAnGed ThE pOrTryAL oF aN iMagInaRy fIgUrE wHo AlrEadY hAs cOunTlesS veRsIoNs aNd tHat mAKeS mE MaD. No oTheR reAsOns. iTs aBoUt ConTinUiTy…”
deleted
· 2 years ago
First of all let me just say that I don't really care about the little mermaid, I grew up watching it but it wasn't that dear to my heart. But, countlesss versions? Are we talking Dr. Who style? Where every version is different from the last? All by disney surely, otherwise I'm not sure why would you even bring that up, people didn't meet Ariel in these hundred year old fairytales, they don't have that image of her in their brains. I imagine it akin to bookreaders getting angry when the movie doesn't match their idealized book world in cinema form.
Also, "Imaginary figure"? I am aware she didn't actually insist and I think the point you're trying to make is that, if she did exist, and they fully changed their race it would make more sense that way if people got angry at a race swap. But, ignoring the fact that that does happen in many scenarios, that argument makes next to no sense.
Cont.
1
deleted
· 2 years ago
Weather she existed or not she's a character. A character with her own personality, characteristics, background, and, weather you like it or not, looks. When people see one of her most notable, apparent, most identifiable characteristics (at a glance), of course they are going to comment on the difference between this one and the one they remember.
If you find any grammatical mistakes or redaction errors let me know, I'm trying to improve my english.
We can continue this if you respond, I'm actually interested in your point of view
@ignorance- thank you. To start I can only speak with any authority to American English which sometimes contradicts other English. Well written. I enjoyed it. To get it out of the way, your English is excellent. I wouldn’t know you were working to improve it had you not said. I can only find the most MINOR and potentially subjective feedback- and most of what I find are things that are not only common in English- especially causal English- but that are more “natural.” Little things- “Disney” not being capitalized (proper noun), you begin a sentence with “but,” which is perfectly understandable and natural, but technically not proper. A few things look to be or may be standard “auto type” typos- “insist” is used instead of “exist” but you use exist in the next clause so I think that is a typo. “Whether” as is “whether or not” is spelled “weather” as in “the weather outside is rainy..” but it’s very minor things. I’d put you in the top percentiles of communication for eloquence and…
.. clearly communicating complex and nuanced thought in written English- certainly online but really even in most professional circles. So with that part wrapped up- to the discussion! Lol.
To be honest- I do admit there are valid reasons, or at least “innocent” reasons for being upset a character has changed. With that said, the Disney version, the fairy tale version, the direct to video version- it doesn’t much matter in my eyes. Disney changes characters. Mickey, Minnie, Donald, Goofy, we’ve seen different versions of characters in appearance, personality, even retcon of stories. While many Disney characters, especially earlier princesses, didn’t get much “personality,” we’ve seen those characters portrayed in vastly different ways in all sorts of Disney media- and I would argue that changing a characters personality is much more a drastic departing from the “original” than swapping color pallets or outfits.
To the fairy tales themselves- they were once the “original” or the one that people had an image in their mind. “Goldilocks” of the “Three bears” story was originally an old woman- but most of the world now knows her as a young girl, usually blonde as the name suggests.
When we look at history it’s easy to hand wave and say: “that was a long time ago- this is how it is now” or “this is how it has been..” “this is what people know..” yes. We know what we know- until there is something new to know. So Disney often drastically altered classic tales with established characters and plot points, or even historical events or related folk tellings, and then a generation or a few grew up with that, and now, unsurprisingly they are doing it again.
We see this all over. The “rebooting” or “reimagining” of stories isn’t new and it isn’t some recent fad- most people just never noticed or connected the dots because the every person just didn’t really have the access or care to.
Most famous characters and iconography that has been around any length of time in a commercial space undergoes at the least stylistic changes for the times. Batman looks very different , his characterization and mannerisms and often details of his life and story are very different now than at his inception. Most heroes don’t have their “classic” appearance. Most have undergone various “updates” to make them relevant or “cool” or fit the image of that time and/or place.
And yes- even books. With the exception of academics and die hards, few people who even read the oldest popular stories read them in their original text- they are translated and updated. When films and such are made they tend to translate and update them as well. It’s not only easier for contemporary audiences to understand but it helps keep the “tone” in most cases. A story written in the 1950’s would use language and references of the time. If that story was intended as a tale of the modern times- that’s 70 or so years ago to us. To keep it “Everyman” and “relatable” the language and style and even perhaps certain points would need changed. So there is an artistic choice- stay as true to the original as possible- “period correct” and all- or change things.
Where it gets interesting is that when Iron man no longer looks like he’s wearing a rubber gimp suit and is in “cool techno armor” most people don’t mind that “violation of the original character,” or when Batman suddenly has modern tactical looking suits and equipment instead of a gray onesie etc. you can argue that “technology marched ahead” but Batman stories are (with special exception) usual set in a similar time and place. When they aren’t- that’s a pretty big change too. So you can change the way the suit looks, the entire identity and origin of his closest friends and villains, how his parents died and how he became the Batman- his entire arsenal or his “rules” or any of that… and that’s ok… until we make Bruce Wayne Black. Then- suddenly come a bunch of people crying out that a legacy is ruined.
I want to be clear- there are people who DO or would complain when they decide to cut Robin or make Robin a circus orphan or a pick pocket or whatever- and when those people cry out about the change- probably they just don’t like change to the character and that’s all that there is to it. But- when the people who are fine with one Batman being in a modern “real” setting and another being in a 1930’s hyperbolic world and all these other things- but that ONE thing sets them off, that isn’t about changes to the character- it’s about the SPECIFIC change.
Of course- if the little mermaid stopped someone from killing themselves or they worship it like a holy book- perhaps the outrage of any change makes sense. For most people it’s a movie they maybe liked and probably have a bunch of childhood memories tied to. Changing the character doesn’t change those memories. A new generation of kids will know this new version and that will be their version until it changes or is forgotten. They modeled the original Ariel after an actress who was an example of the beauty standards of the time, so it would make logical sense they might do the same now.
To your other question- I see it as both a completely new and spectate entity and not. This film, nothing about what we know suggests it shares a continuity with the original or any of the spin offs and other Disney Little Mermaid works. They have a new team and so it is a new movie based on the same story. Many stories, books, even movies and TV shows have multiple works based on the same origin. Arnold was Conan and Jason Mamoa was Conan and others have been as well as cartoons and other iterations. There have been many Dracula and Joker and The Hulk etc etc. we’ve seen new version of Buzz Lightyear and so forth. Very different versions of the characters- but for some the line is only crossed, the differences only noticed, when certain things are changed.
While it is it’s own film it’s undeniable that the properties are linked at least in the owners of the IP and in the fact that their similarities make them inseparable to most. The remake of the film “Total Recall” in my opinion wasn’t a terrible film- but the fact it shared a name and details with an original that IMHO was far superior in every way, made it seem terrible to myself and many others. Often this is true- sequels or “reboots” etc. that could be at least good movies on their own are actually seen as worse because they are comparing themselves to a better or more loved work in their own title and narrative. So I get that angle and I’m not saying that every person who dislikes a “new” version is prejudiced or foolish- but at the end of the day it is what it is.
They can’t or won’t just remake the same thing over and over. A story about a “cool” teen or a “dork” changes with time or it doesn’t resonate anymore. What is “cool” and how kids look and dress and act or what is “dorky” etc. changes. Our images of beauty or perceptions of different appearances changes with time. So it’s just sort of a natural thing.
unless it's an essay or something professional, i've basically given up on most capitalization in teh engrish. i simply don't care anymore. i don't care if i spel sometin rong. iz so esausting. effin punctuation as well' if you jammin to my errors to win an argrument, cuz you dont or cant understand my intent. phuck you? I'm sorry, but I really do no longer care.
Lol. Hi @funkmastrrex. I don’t put a lot of effort in these days myself when it comes to such things either- but just for the record I wasn’t criticizing ignorance or undermining their argument. They asked in their comment to point out any perceived issues like spelling etc. because they are trying to improve their English- and I did make sure to mention that all I see are very small things that seem natural and normal.
oh i know, i was just was drunk, saw a wall of text and was just like... nope, not reading it lol
1
deleted
· 2 years ago
@funkmasterrex
Yes I asked for correction in my english
@guest_
My brother in christ I promise I'll read all of that. But I wasn't expecting a full bible. I'll get to it, later
the main issue with making the little mermaid black is the fact its a self defeating act. The point of doing it from a "doing it for a purpose rather than happening to pick a black chick to be the actress" is representation related stuff, however a common trend in the past however long is replacing characters previously depicted as a redhead as black. This is functionally taking a demographic represented less, removing an instance of representation for them, and then replacing it with a more common demographic.
Natural redheads are a demographic that make up less people out of most populations than lgbt people in the same population.
If the goal of the act is to help with positive representation for minorities, that has a net neutral effect on the goal, it doesnt advance it. It's trading one thing for another. Redhead's still have not uncommon issues with old stereotypes and disparagements. There are still genuinely people who believe redheads are soulless, who are afraid of them.
Also, "Imaginary figure"? I am aware she didn't actually insist and I think the point you're trying to make is that, if she did exist, and they fully changed their race it would make more sense that way if people got angry at a race swap. But, ignoring the fact that that does happen in many scenarios, that argument makes next to no sense.
Cont.
If you find any grammatical mistakes or redaction errors let me know, I'm trying to improve my english.
We can continue this if you respond, I'm actually interested in your point of view
When we look at history it’s easy to hand wave and say: “that was a long time ago- this is how it is now” or “this is how it has been..” “this is what people know..” yes. We know what we know- until there is something new to know. So Disney often drastically altered classic tales with established characters and plot points, or even historical events or related folk tellings, and then a generation or a few grew up with that, and now, unsurprisingly they are doing it again.
Most famous characters and iconography that has been around any length of time in a commercial space undergoes at the least stylistic changes for the times. Batman looks very different , his characterization and mannerisms and often details of his life and story are very different now than at his inception. Most heroes don’t have their “classic” appearance. Most have undergone various “updates” to make them relevant or “cool” or fit the image of that time and/or place.
Yes I asked for correction in my english
@guest_
My brother in christ I promise I'll read all of that. But I wasn't expecting a full bible. I'll get to it, later
Natural redheads are a demographic that make up less people out of most populations than lgbt people in the same population.
If the goal of the act is to help with positive representation for minorities, that has a net neutral effect on the goal, it doesnt advance it. It's trading one thing for another. Redhead's still have not uncommon issues with old stereotypes and disparagements. There are still genuinely people who believe redheads are soulless, who are afraid of them.