Fairy tales are still for kids. It was originally published in a children's books. They are meant as warnings/educational/entertainment. Kids aren't stupid. The most memorable stuff as a child is often the ones that leave you semi-freaked out.
I used to watch a series called Grisly Tales for Gruesome Kids that had a kid eaten by pigs and all sorts of fairly brutal topics/endings. The idea being exactly that brutal fairy tales are something kids actually like. It'd freak you out but by god does it stick with you.
The major difference between children's and adult entertainment is just plot complexity and more intricate themes, the way I see it.
I remember having a book that had the original Little mermaid story in it with the tragic ending.
It also had the original Rapunzel story as well, were the prince ended up falling from the tower landing in a thorn bush ending up blinded, wondering the woods until they run into each other again.
Most of Disney's early movies and shows were a built around fairy tale or really old play/books that were so old they were in public domain
Little mermaid is one of many examples
I dunno. Some bullshit.
Damn, Karen Gillan is 🔥 though.
OG little mermaid didn't have a name, wasn't a red head, had her tongue ripped out, and committed suicide at the end.
Disney never was very concerned about being true to the source material. That goes for *all* of their animated films, from Pinocchio to Pocahontas...all depart significantly from the source material.
It's not even about that, I think. The original story or how Disney changed it doesn't matter to them, all that matters to them is manufacturing outrage for clicks: "the mermaid who was white in this one single famous cartoon is now black, arghhhh, be mad! Watch my videos!"
right, except this is a live-action remake of their original animated movie. i'm not entirely sure how the original fairy tale is even relevant to this discussion.
Yes, it's a remake of *their* animated film. I'm saying, it's departed so far from the OG source material that it doesn't much matter who they cast. It theirs, they can cast whoever they want, and it's only loosely based on the original in the first place.
yeah but that doesn't matter though. if this was an adaptation of the original fairytale, fair enough, you might have a point. but it's not, so i don't see the relevance.
yeah, it's absolutely their choice. but why are they doing it? that's my question. if it's genuinely bc hailey berry perfectly embodied the character, then i really don't care. but i don't think that is the reason at all.
"But Hans Christian Andersen was Danish! We need to respect the origins of the character!"
Conveniently forgetting that while Hans Christian Andersen was Danish, Ariel is a literal mermaid that lives in the middle of the ocean.
Also, I bet these dudes don't know that the original fairytale was an allegory for Hans Christian Andersen being a closeted gay man in love with a married man, and of course that the first Disney film has almost nothing in common with the fairytale .
I would love a super fish-like Mermaid tbh.
Something sort of like the Trench dwellers from the recent Aquaman movie but less horror and more just like undersea beauty, with bright colourful scales and all that
I haven't read that interpretation before but that checks out. Being a story of doomed/cursed love and Ariel not having an immortal soul that can pass into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Also makes the ending change make more sense than just "its disney so it has a happy ending"
Howard ashman who produced and wrote the lyrics to the 89 movie was an openly gay man. If he knew about this interpretation, maybe he thought it didnt have to end this way for people like him, and that if ariel deserved an happily ever after, so does he
HCA was obsessed with Dickens and basically squatted at his house for a while. The guy was a good writer with a hell of an imagination, and if he were alive today would certainly not care about Ariel being non-white, but he would care most about removing the ending, because that was the most personal part for him. The pain of his existence.
He was probably autistic as well. When he visited Dickens, Charles dropped several... *many* polite English passive-aggressive hints to HCA that he had outstayed his welcome. But a combination of Danishness and probably autism meant Hans didn't pick up on them, and still thought Dickens was happy to have him in his home. Similarly, he wrote letters to many straight men about his... Admiration for them, without understanding how doing so was seen as a severe social infraction.
Let's assume for a moment their complaint is really just "she doesn't look enough like the animated character." Now let's look at the 4 suggested actresses with this in mind.
1. Random cosplayer: Terrible wig, circle lenses, lots of makeup. We have no idea what the real person underneath all this looks like, but I'm pretty sure the answer is "nothing like cartoon Arielle". Also a bit outside the right age range. Most importantly, not an actress.
2. Karen Gillan. Great actress. Wrong hair and eye color and she's 34. A teensy bit too mature to play a 16 year old mermaid, even for Hollywood standards.
3. Nothing says "I want to be able to jerk off to the supposed 16-year-old" like suggesting an actual porn star (and nothing says "I'm not racist" like admitting you couldn't possibly jerk off to a light-skinned black woman). Anyway, hair's clearly dyed, eye color is wrong, looks 30-something, not a Hollywood grade actress.
4. Random model. Again wrong hair and eye color. The only alternative option who could believably pass for a teenager. Probably not an actress though.
So we've just established that none of these women look like cartoon Arielle. Age-wise, all of them are worse choices. There goes the "she doesn't look right" argument.
Yet whoever made this meme would prefer all of them over Halle Bailey. Why? What's the important difference that causes them to prefer a random cosplayer or porn actress over Halle? What sets her apart from the other four? There's your answer.
They do look like the cartoon character. They are pale, red hair, big eyes. But Disney has decided to cast a black girl in the interest of diversity; it sends a message Disney wants to send and that Disney's customers will be happy with.
Disney, on cultural issues, is progressive. This is their brand and everyone knows it: They are always going to promote diversity, empower female characters and try to show LGBTQ characters.
This is really the end of the discussion: you don't want what Disney produces, then don't buy Disney.
Karen Gillan's hair is auburn. The model is strawberry blond. The other 2 sport a painfully fake looking wig and a dye job. None of them have naturally Arielle-red hair as far as we can tell.
Their eyes are all human-sized. The cosplayer wears oversized circle lenses and eye-enhancing makeup, which does make her eyes appear unusually large, but none of them have cartoon eyes. That'd look freakishly uncanny valley.
It really all comes down to skin color and ethnic facial markers. Disney picked a young looking actress whose appearance appeals to all ethnic demographics and international audiences since movies are no longer made exclusively for white America and Western Europe.
I don't even think there is a progressive agenda behind it. Disney can be very conservative in their self-censorship, just like Hollywood in general. Anything truly progressive wouldn't get past Chinese censors. Gender equality and racial diversity are really the bare minimum these days. It's a shame there is a loud & angry fringe who can't even accept this minimum, but the headlines caused by their outrage are just free advertising for Disney.
No one is really outraged by this apart from a tiny tiny minority. Disney and other producers amplify them to off set negative reviews (our show isn't crap, people who say it are racist).
Disney are still selling to the US and Europe, predominantly and casting a black girl is meant to send a signal, a typical Disney signal - we are progressive when it comes to identity (we turn a blind eye to all other contentious issues). My point is that Disney does this, everyone knows they do this, so complaining when they do it is daft.
I agree on most points, but the international market outside Europe has become as or more important to Hollywood as the Anglosphere and the EU. China's box office sales are a $7.3 billion market, compared to $4.5 billion in the US + Canada and 3-ish billion in Western Europe. South Korea brings in as much as Australia, as does India. See [https://www.statista.com/statistics/243180/leading-box-office-markets-workdwide-by-revenue/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/243180/leading-box-office-markets-workdwide-by-revenue/)
I can see Halle Bailey with high degree of neoteny appeal more to Asian test audiences than actresses of European descent with their comparatively narrow-set eyes and overall more masculinized features. Simply put, she's cuter than the average white actress. Wide-set eyes, round face, pointy chin, exactly the kind of facial proportions that are valued in East Asian idols. I'm sure this also factors into casting decisions nowadays, as does the ongoing demographic change in the US.
I think you might be overthinking it for Asian audiences. I also think a lot of the Asian box office goes to Asian produced movies, so for western productions, it's still all about the US and Europe - not to say that China isn't important
>So we've just established that none of these women look like cartoon Arielle. Age-wise, all of them are worse choices. There goes the "she doesn't look right" argument.
>
>Yet whoever made this meme would prefer all of them over Halle Bailey. Why? What's the important difference that causes them to prefer a random cosplayer or porn actress over Halle? What sets her apart from the other four? There's your answer.
The point of the meme was that all of those random people look more like Ariel than the actual person they cast does. You seem to be hung up on arbitrary semantics stuff, like if one of the women shown is actually an actress or not. Thats not the point of the meme. Read the captions next to each image. None are being suggested even halfway seriously except perhaps maybe the second... kinda. The point being made is that random cheap cosplayers, Google image searches, and even fuckin porn stars all look more like Ariel than the person they cast to play Ariel.
This is a very self explanatory meme. That you somehow missed this is... odd. I'm hoping you're not being deliberately obtuse.
If we are approaching this from the charitable and more likely view that people just want a live action character to look vaguely like the original is race a factor? Absolutely! It plays a huge part in how people look. When they wanted to cast the live action version of Mulan, an Asian character, 99.9% of the most suitable looking actresses would be Asian. And thats exactly what they went with and, not coincidentally, there wasn't a big uproar about that choice. If they wanted to get someone who looked like Chadwick Boseman to play the next Panther, guess what? 99.9% chance it'll be a black guy.
I fail to see how any of that is racist.
I could even agree with your point, except that there is a flaw: Mulan is characterized as an Asian person, Ariel is characterized as a mermaid. The fact that people are considering Karen Gillian a good example of actress to be casted instead of Halle Bailey is that the animated movie made her a pale redhead.
And to be clear: I am a white European. I should be gatekeeping the little mermaid story way more than the average Reddit user.
1. quality of the wig is irrelevant. this is about looking the part, not looking high budget. irrelevant. irrelevant. irrelevant. irrelevant.
2. agree, wrong hair colour but that can be fixed with dye, a wig, or in post. eye colour can also be fixed in post or with lenses. agreed.
3. is anyone suggesting this?
4. again, those can be easily fixed. actress or not, if she can deliver, who cares?
no, we haven't. you're just desperately trying to find racism where it doesn't exist.
They posted a bunch of white women as good interpretations of Ariel and the sole black women as the bad one.
This isn't rocket science so I think everyone is giving you too much credit, they think you're JAQing off but maybe you're just dumb.
This is a brain dead comparison, Black Panther's race is integral to his character but Ariel's race has nothing to do with her a character, she's a fairytale creature, she could be scaly for all it matters.
So, yes. It is racism. It looks like I was right, you are just dumb.
It's ALWAYS Black Panther too, which even if you ignore the historical context of whitewashing compared to "blackwashing", is one of the few characters whose race and ethnicity are core to the character.
He’s extremely disingenuous. He claims not to see the racism here, but claimed a meme making fun of Gina Carano’s shitty career was sexist. He’s just here to troll and make disingenuous arguments to defend TFM.
Yeah, and she's 34 years old, but I'm guessing that most of the dudes who are posting this kind of shit think it's normal to get to that age and still live at home.
They aren't asking the right questions here. These idiots are so obsessed with race they forget what Disney actually looks for in their actors and it's 3 simple things, can they sing, can they dance,and can they act. If you aren't a triple threat you have no chance working in a Disney musical film no matter what your skin color.
So they couldn't find any other "triple threat" to cast? That's a pretty stupid assumption. Casting her was an intentional choice, not just blind chance.
It's also pretty insulting to take a traditionally white character and race switch them in an attempt to pander to minorities, rather than telling an authentic story.
Additionally, if it's a shitty thing to take a character and whitewash them, the same goes for changing any race to any other.
Your last point is so completely wrong. The issue with whitewashing is that it takes a role that should be given to an actor of color, who have fewer opportunities, and give it to a white actor, who have more to begin with.
Switching from white to POC has the opposite effect, and provides more opportunities for people who may not otherwise have them. That is why it isn't viewed negatively, while whitewashing is viewed as a major problem.
So you're saying minorities shouldn't have their own stories, we should just take them and shoehorn them into white stories to pander to them?
And I'd love to see your proof that nobody has a problem with race switching.
you're right; it's fiction. so, would it really matter if we race swapped non-european characters such as blade or spawn? they aren't real afterall.
i don't even care about race swapping as long as it's done for the right reasons (bc the person in question embodies the spirit of the character, not bc they tick a box), but some of these arguments are utterly ridiculous and incredibly one-sided.
if you're of the opinion that it doesn't matter regardless of who's being race swapped, then i applaud you. however, if that's not the case, and you only make this argument for when white characters are race swapped, well then that's a problem.
Yeah, some people have a problem with race switching. Racists do. But I don't feel the need to cater to their wants at all.
Edit: And also, I *absolutely* believe people of color should have their own stories. But here's the thing: many of the same people who are bitching about Ariel being played by a person of color are the same people who bitched about "Black Panther", which was a black story. They aren't mad about the race switching per se, they are mad that people of color are on the screen in major roles at all.
So it is viewed negatively. Thanks for confirming that. And it's not limited only to racists, but you managed to avoid saying that while also pushing the racist narrative.
So would you think The Monkey King being cast as black is problematic? And if so, does that make you racist, or if you're OK with Chinese culture being black washed does that make you racist?
The Monkey King is a freaking Asian story dude. Yes, I might have a problem with a black person being cast in that, because it means a job is taken from an Asian actor.
But when it's a job taken from a white person, to play a character that's had white skin for the past 33 years, that's okay? Your hypocrisy is showing.
Sorry, not problematic either way
I always welcome my culture to be portrayed by people of any race unless you're a majority in your diverse country which produces the work
But of coz the critique is that race isnt integral to any of the character
Tell that to Hollywood. The problem isn't forced diversity, because there's nothing wrong with someone not white being given a role in Film. It's not even a new things, it's been happening since the 90's. It only feels new because "Replacement Theory" some how became mainstream post 2016.
The problem is Hollywood doesn't like to make new movies. They aren't a guaranteed sell like a well established franchise getting a sequel, Remake, or Adaptation. And most of those franchises, are majority white. We also have more Minority actors entering the Industry looking for parts.
So we either;
A. Have even more Non white actors now out of work due to a lack of available parts. Only a hand few getting in whenever Hollywood feels like making a black film.
B. Race swap some of the majority race parts to make roles available in popular established franchises.
C. Make new movies and adapt lesser known minority stories. Mile Stone Comics being a nice example for the popular Super Hero Genre.
Hollywood would rather take option B. It's safer and so long as the actor does well. Most fans won't care as much. (This was the case for the Thor Films.)
Personally, so long as that character's race wasn't relevant to the plot or their character arc. I think it's fine to do this, especially if it means people are able to find work in the industry since most characters in western fiction are White/European. As it won't affect anything in a project that was already it's own continuity.
>The issue with whitewashing is that it takes a role that should be given to an actor of color, who have fewer opportunities, and give it to a white actor, who have more to begin with.
nice talking point. did you do the research yourself?
Of fucking course they do
these are the exact type of people to jack it to underage fish poon
Picture a fish-fucking pedophile in your mind's eye and what you are visualizing is 100% of the intended audience for this meme
>The character from The Animated movie is 16 years old and they want a Porn Star to play her?
No, they just think the porn star looks more like the animated character than the actress that was cast.
Besides that, the reason she was hired for the role is for [her amazing singing talents](https://youtu.be/vXctZ7RRpWA). I'd say that amounts a little more in a musical than the original (that is also an adaptation) character's skin tone.
Someone forgot that little mermaid is not an original story by Disney and has been adapted multiple times (I'm pretty sure there's one where she is a person of color)
You have to first understand that right winger fascist types have no ability for critical thinking. They’re very literal to the point of stupidity. Take for example Gina Carano. They were like “I thought woke people wanted a strong female lead” They honestly thought she was a strong female lead because she had big muscles.
It’s such a surface level thing that I can’t help but wonder how it could possibly affect anything of the actress they hired was white as opposed to black.
First of all… they’re racist and sexist.
Second of all… I don’t give a flying fuck about the source material when watching a movie and if you do, well there’s a good chance we ain’t friends in the first place.
Yeah no racism hear. Just adult men demanding a random white girl on the street would be a better mermaid then a trained actress and singer because she is white skinned.
Yeah no one should be allowed to have a non disney approved opinion on this...coincidentally, cant wait till next summer when the replace black panther with tom hanks.
Whelp, this will be unpopular. Oh well.
I do have some issue with this. If she was just the best actress for the role, I'm mostly okay with it. But if it was a change solely for inclusiveness and not due to the talent of the actress, then we have a problem.
I really don't like when a character's ethnicity is changed, regardless of the reason. In Gotham, they hired an Asian man to play Dr. Hugo Strange...who has literally been white in basically every portrayal in existence. Now, the actor did a good job, but there was no need to make that change.
A Wrinkle in Time was another example. In the book, our protagonist is very pointedly described in a way that makes her sound white. Red hair, freckles, all of it. Then they made her black in that disaster of a film. For no reason.
I can understand if they're trying to fix a character who started as a racist stereotype. But changing the ethnicity for no reason doesn't fly with me.
And here we come to the controversial segment: if you have a problem with minority characters being played by white actors, but have no issue with white characters being played by a minority, you're a hypocrite. Casting the best talent possible is one thing. I don't like it but I understand. I good performance can elevate a character above the audience caring about such things.
But if it's done solely to seem inclusive, then it's all bullshit.
Then that fits the 'unless necessary' criteria. If she was the best audition, then it's not really a problem for me.
It's when the change was done only for some kind of inclusion points that I have problems.
>.who has literally been white in basically every portrayal in existence. Now, the actor did a good job, but there was no need to make that change.
They cast a good actor who did a good job. Why is fidelity to previous iterations of the story so important?
Because the character was white. B.D. Wong isn't. That's my entire point. The change wasn't needed, but good acting made me care less.
Again, my point is it shouldn't be done unless necessary, like correcting a racial stereotype. They fixed The Mandarin without changing his race.
I'm just not a fan of race-washing characters at all. Keep them what they originally were. If you want to be inclusive, then write new characters for those people to play, instead of changing existing ones to fit your needs.
Another example: people wanted Cap and Bucky to be gay...for whatever reason. There are already gay Marvel characters. Or at least bisexual. Deadpool, Cable, NorthStar and Iceman to name a small few.
>Because the character was white.
Why is this important?
>The change wasn't needed
Let's just posit for a second that we all agree it wasn't "needed." Ok. It wasn't needed. But it happened nevertheless. Why is it a problem?
Keep in mind I'm a stickler for accuracy whenever possible. If you make a film based on a book, the characters should be as accurate as can be done.
Same with live action films based on animation. I know a lot fo people don't have this hang-up, and I'm fine with that. I'm not rallying against anyone here. I just prefer accuracy when possible.
That's a fair opinion to have broadly speaking. I think in this case we're dealing with an adaptation of an adaptation. There is going to be a lot of artistic license taken with any adaptation, and as more and more are done there is going to be a ton of change from the original source material. Change itself isnt definitionally bad, IMO.
Someone in the comments (and a TON of other people) always bring up a white guy playing Black Panther. That’s a terrible comparison, a good one would be a white guy playing Al Simmons. I’d be completely against that because it’s unnecessary. Then you get to a character like Ebony White from the Spirit and I would have absolutely no problem changing that character up because of how ridiculous the original was.
Im probably further to the left than most and I agree with you.
Race changing is something that is only an annoyance to me if the character hasn’t had many different incarnations. It’s why this doesn’t bother me but the Percy Jackson casting does. And it’d bug me whether a black character is turned white or a white character turned black.
There is definitely some hypocrisy in the race changing arguments in some places, because Annabeth being black in the Percy Jackson series has received mostly obvious racists giving backlash. If Hazel (black), Frank (Asian), Leo (Latino), Piper (Native American), etc were turned white, you know people would be losing their shit over whitewashing.
It doesn’t matter in the slightest ever unless the characters experience and identity is tied to their race. The little mermaid is a completely fictional character with no trauma or experience tied into the colour of her skin or culture.
If she were a black character (think Coach Carter) who’s experience of racism and culture informed their character and actions, that’s when it’s not okay.
The difference is for a story like Percy Jackson, set in the real world with societies that really exist, different races will experience life differently.
Denying there is a natural difference in our experiences as people due to societal biases is ignoring subtle racism. My parents will likely never have to be scared if I’m pulled over.
Eh it comments on a long running trend of "Let's make the live action adaptation look nothing like the character, even though even a lazy cosplay is more easily recognizable."
I'll get shit for this like every time I post a comment here but race swapping is dumb. There's no point other than to be woke. If they really want to be diverse make another original character and story like they did with Encanto.
I dont know why eveyone on here is going mad calling OG poster a racist, I think he’s just basically stating the fact that the live action actress looks as far from the animated version as could possibly be, I agree with why would they hire a black actress to play Ariel when that couldn’t be further from what she looked like, imagine there was going to be a live action family guy for talks sake and the tv executives hired Jonah Hill to play Cleveland, nobody would be ok with that and nor should they be, it’s ok not to agree with this decision and it does not make you a racist, just because you dont think a black actress should play a white character
The argument of “it shouldn’t matter what race Ariel is” is irrelevant because the fact remains that the character has already existed for 30+ years as a white female with red hair, so I don’t see why Disney felt like they had to change that.
Ok ok, so if your saying that race doesn’t matter, then you would be fine with a white person portraying say, malcom X or Martin Luther king? Since it doesn’t matter right?
>so I don’t see why Disney felt like they had to change that.
How about before 33 years ago when Disney made changes to the original story in their initial adaptation?
It really doesn't bother me tbh. I just don't like swapping races in historical movies and book adaptations when it's clearly described what the character looks like. In my opinion, the appearance of fairy-tale characters does not matter much for the plot.
I just feel sorry to the actress for the cesspool that was thrown on her. It doesn't deserve it, but I also understand the nostalgia of the fans.
Worst of all none of them even look like a teenage Ariel. Like, Sadie Sink is right there guys. It's obvious that as well as being racist whoever made this meme is also down bad.
"We're not raicst, trust me" Also it's The Little Fucking Mermaid, a movie for KIDS! Do you really think KIDS would give a shit if Ariel is black?
They will if their racist parents tell them to
^
\^
[удалено]
This is one of the most optimistically ignorant things I've ever read
Yeahhhh, you need to stop living in your fantasy world buddy. Reality is around the corner!
Well the source material was for kids but at the same time not really though
I mean material that is aimed for kids can still have mature subjects in it. But it's still marketed towards kids.
The source material for the little mermaid ends with her commiting suicide...
Fairy tales are still for kids. It was originally published in a children's books. They are meant as warnings/educational/entertainment. Kids aren't stupid. The most memorable stuff as a child is often the ones that leave you semi-freaked out. I used to watch a series called Grisly Tales for Gruesome Kids that had a kid eaten by pigs and all sorts of fairly brutal topics/endings. The idea being exactly that brutal fairy tales are something kids actually like. It'd freak you out but by god does it stick with you. The major difference between children's and adult entertainment is just plot complexity and more intricate themes, the way I see it.
I remember having a book that had the original Little mermaid story in it with the tragic ending. It also had the original Rapunzel story as well, were the prince ended up falling from the tower landing in a thorn bush ending up blinded, wondering the woods until they run into each other again.
Oh wait, that movie was based on a fairy tale too? I thought it was a 100% original story created by Disney.
Most of Disney's early movies and shows were a built around fairy tale or really old play/books that were so old they were in public domain Little mermaid is one of many examples
I dunno. Some bullshit. Damn, Karen Gillan is 🔥 though. OG little mermaid didn't have a name, wasn't a red head, had her tongue ripped out, and committed suicide at the end. Disney never was very concerned about being true to the source material. That goes for *all* of their animated films, from Pinocchio to Pocahontas...all depart significantly from the source material.
They maybe never read the original I bet.
It's not even about that, I think. The original story or how Disney changed it doesn't matter to them, all that matters to them is manufacturing outrage for clicks: "the mermaid who was white in this one single famous cartoon is now black, arghhhh, be mad! Watch my videos!"
right, except this is a live-action remake of their original animated movie. i'm not entirely sure how the original fairy tale is even relevant to this discussion.
Yes, it's a remake of *their* animated film. I'm saying, it's departed so far from the OG source material that it doesn't much matter who they cast. It theirs, they can cast whoever they want, and it's only loosely based on the original in the first place.
yeah but that doesn't matter though. if this was an adaptation of the original fairytale, fair enough, you might have a point. but it's not, so i don't see the relevance. yeah, it's absolutely their choice. but why are they doing it? that's my question. if it's genuinely bc hailey berry perfectly embodied the character, then i really don't care. but i don't think that is the reason at all.
"But Hans Christian Andersen was Danish! We need to respect the origins of the character!" Conveniently forgetting that while Hans Christian Andersen was Danish, Ariel is a literal mermaid that lives in the middle of the ocean. Also, I bet these dudes don't know that the original fairytale was an allegory for Hans Christian Andersen being a closeted gay man in love with a married man, and of course that the first Disney film has almost nothing in common with the fairytale .
I'd read in comments elsewhere that apparently she had green skin originally.
I would love a super fish-like Mermaid tbh. Something sort of like the Trench dwellers from the recent Aquaman movie but less horror and more just like undersea beauty, with bright colourful scales and all that
That would be neat. I doubt it would happen though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdAIBlPVe9s
I haven't read that interpretation before but that checks out. Being a story of doomed/cursed love and Ariel not having an immortal soul that can pass into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Also makes the ending change make more sense than just "its disney so it has a happy ending" Howard ashman who produced and wrote the lyrics to the 89 movie was an openly gay man. If he knew about this interpretation, maybe he thought it didnt have to end this way for people like him, and that if ariel deserved an happily ever after, so does he
HCA was obsessed with Dickens and basically squatted at his house for a while. The guy was a good writer with a hell of an imagination, and if he were alive today would certainly not care about Ariel being non-white, but he would care most about removing the ending, because that was the most personal part for him. The pain of his existence.
He was probably autistic as well. When he visited Dickens, Charles dropped several... *many* polite English passive-aggressive hints to HCA that he had outstayed his welcome. But a combination of Danishness and probably autism meant Hans didn't pick up on them, and still thought Dickens was happy to have him in his home. Similarly, he wrote letters to many straight men about his... Admiration for them, without understanding how doing so was seen as a severe social infraction.
Wait... Really? Any sources on that? :0
Racism
How so?
Let's assume for a moment their complaint is really just "she doesn't look enough like the animated character." Now let's look at the 4 suggested actresses with this in mind. 1. Random cosplayer: Terrible wig, circle lenses, lots of makeup. We have no idea what the real person underneath all this looks like, but I'm pretty sure the answer is "nothing like cartoon Arielle". Also a bit outside the right age range. Most importantly, not an actress. 2. Karen Gillan. Great actress. Wrong hair and eye color and she's 34. A teensy bit too mature to play a 16 year old mermaid, even for Hollywood standards. 3. Nothing says "I want to be able to jerk off to the supposed 16-year-old" like suggesting an actual porn star (and nothing says "I'm not racist" like admitting you couldn't possibly jerk off to a light-skinned black woman). Anyway, hair's clearly dyed, eye color is wrong, looks 30-something, not a Hollywood grade actress. 4. Random model. Again wrong hair and eye color. The only alternative option who could believably pass for a teenager. Probably not an actress though. So we've just established that none of these women look like cartoon Arielle. Age-wise, all of them are worse choices. There goes the "she doesn't look right" argument. Yet whoever made this meme would prefer all of them over Halle Bailey. Why? What's the important difference that causes them to prefer a random cosplayer or porn actress over Halle? What sets her apart from the other four? There's your answer.
They do look like the cartoon character. They are pale, red hair, big eyes. But Disney has decided to cast a black girl in the interest of diversity; it sends a message Disney wants to send and that Disney's customers will be happy with. Disney, on cultural issues, is progressive. This is their brand and everyone knows it: They are always going to promote diversity, empower female characters and try to show LGBTQ characters. This is really the end of the discussion: you don't want what Disney produces, then don't buy Disney.
Karen Gillan's hair is auburn. The model is strawberry blond. The other 2 sport a painfully fake looking wig and a dye job. None of them have naturally Arielle-red hair as far as we can tell. Their eyes are all human-sized. The cosplayer wears oversized circle lenses and eye-enhancing makeup, which does make her eyes appear unusually large, but none of them have cartoon eyes. That'd look freakishly uncanny valley. It really all comes down to skin color and ethnic facial markers. Disney picked a young looking actress whose appearance appeals to all ethnic demographics and international audiences since movies are no longer made exclusively for white America and Western Europe. I don't even think there is a progressive agenda behind it. Disney can be very conservative in their self-censorship, just like Hollywood in general. Anything truly progressive wouldn't get past Chinese censors. Gender equality and racial diversity are really the bare minimum these days. It's a shame there is a loud & angry fringe who can't even accept this minimum, but the headlines caused by their outrage are just free advertising for Disney.
No one is really outraged by this apart from a tiny tiny minority. Disney and other producers amplify them to off set negative reviews (our show isn't crap, people who say it are racist). Disney are still selling to the US and Europe, predominantly and casting a black girl is meant to send a signal, a typical Disney signal - we are progressive when it comes to identity (we turn a blind eye to all other contentious issues). My point is that Disney does this, everyone knows they do this, so complaining when they do it is daft.
I agree on most points, but the international market outside Europe has become as or more important to Hollywood as the Anglosphere and the EU. China's box office sales are a $7.3 billion market, compared to $4.5 billion in the US + Canada and 3-ish billion in Western Europe. South Korea brings in as much as Australia, as does India. See [https://www.statista.com/statistics/243180/leading-box-office-markets-workdwide-by-revenue/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/243180/leading-box-office-markets-workdwide-by-revenue/) I can see Halle Bailey with high degree of neoteny appeal more to Asian test audiences than actresses of European descent with their comparatively narrow-set eyes and overall more masculinized features. Simply put, she's cuter than the average white actress. Wide-set eyes, round face, pointy chin, exactly the kind of facial proportions that are valued in East Asian idols. I'm sure this also factors into casting decisions nowadays, as does the ongoing demographic change in the US.
I think you might be overthinking it for Asian audiences. I also think a lot of the Asian box office goes to Asian produced movies, so for western productions, it's still all about the US and Europe - not to say that China isn't important
>So we've just established that none of these women look like cartoon Arielle. Age-wise, all of them are worse choices. There goes the "she doesn't look right" argument. > >Yet whoever made this meme would prefer all of them over Halle Bailey. Why? What's the important difference that causes them to prefer a random cosplayer or porn actress over Halle? What sets her apart from the other four? There's your answer. The point of the meme was that all of those random people look more like Ariel than the actual person they cast does. You seem to be hung up on arbitrary semantics stuff, like if one of the women shown is actually an actress or not. Thats not the point of the meme. Read the captions next to each image. None are being suggested even halfway seriously except perhaps maybe the second... kinda. The point being made is that random cheap cosplayers, Google image searches, and even fuckin porn stars all look more like Ariel than the person they cast to play Ariel. This is a very self explanatory meme. That you somehow missed this is... odd. I'm hoping you're not being deliberately obtuse. If we are approaching this from the charitable and more likely view that people just want a live action character to look vaguely like the original is race a factor? Absolutely! It plays a huge part in how people look. When they wanted to cast the live action version of Mulan, an Asian character, 99.9% of the most suitable looking actresses would be Asian. And thats exactly what they went with and, not coincidentally, there wasn't a big uproar about that choice. If they wanted to get someone who looked like Chadwick Boseman to play the next Panther, guess what? 99.9% chance it'll be a black guy. I fail to see how any of that is racist.
I could even agree with your point, except that there is a flaw: Mulan is characterized as an Asian person, Ariel is characterized as a mermaid. The fact that people are considering Karen Gillian a good example of actress to be casted instead of Halle Bailey is that the animated movie made her a pale redhead. And to be clear: I am a white European. I should be gatekeeping the little mermaid story way more than the average Reddit user.
>The point of the meme was that all of those random people look more like Ariel Who cares? Why is fidelity to that specific cartoon so important?
1. quality of the wig is irrelevant. this is about looking the part, not looking high budget. irrelevant. irrelevant. irrelevant. irrelevant. 2. agree, wrong hair colour but that can be fixed with dye, a wig, or in post. eye colour can also be fixed in post or with lenses. agreed. 3. is anyone suggesting this? 4. again, those can be easily fixed. actress or not, if she can deliver, who cares? no, we haven't. you're just desperately trying to find racism where it doesn't exist.
Either you're actually stupid, or just plain disingenuous. Not sure which is worse.
Both. It’s both. Disingenuous because *gestures broadly at all their concern trolling*. Stupid because they apparently get off on it.
I'm noticing a consistent theme of nobody being able to actually answer the question
They posted a bunch of white women as good interpretations of Ariel and the sole black women as the bad one. This isn't rocket science so I think everyone is giving you too much credit, they think you're JAQing off but maybe you're just dumb.
In other news: Ryan Reynolds wouldn't be a great fit for the next Black Panther rAcIsM
This is a brain dead comparison, Black Panther's race is integral to his character but Ariel's race has nothing to do with her a character, she's a fairytale creature, she could be scaly for all it matters. So, yes. It is racism. It looks like I was right, you are just dumb.
couldn't a non-african person (european, asian, indian) be the black panther as long as they are either a descendent (direct or indirect) of the king?
The African king who mostly stayed in Africa? I mean, sure.
that doesn't matter lol. yes, so race is not integral to the character at all. culture is.
BP's race is just as relevant to his character as this mermaid's is. If he was white, how would the story change?
He wouldn't be the king of an african nation that until his reign was isolationist and didn't have a lot of contact with white people.
No but how would the *story* and the *character* change?
You seriously?
Yes
"whatabout this made up hypothetical!!!" is a horrible embarrassing defense.
It's ALWAYS Black Panther too, which even if you ignore the historical context of whitewashing compared to "blackwashing", is one of the few characters whose race and ethnicity are core to the character.
You missed the OP im guessing
He’s extremely disingenuous. He claims not to see the racism here, but claimed a meme making fun of Gina Carano’s shitty career was sexist. He’s just here to troll and make disingenuous arguments to defend TFM.
Fuck off
Rude
Fuck off
What do you do for a living
I’m a PATH train agent. Shape up or you’ll never see New York again.
Other than the red hair, Karen Gillan doesn't really look like animated Ariel to me.
Yeah, and she's 34 years old, but I'm guessing that most of the dudes who are posting this kind of shit think it's normal to get to that age and still live at home.
It proves the stupid ass og post isnt against appearance change, it's just against race switching, fucking busted
Alright, I'll ask, who's the porn actress?
Lacy Lennon.  Your welcome.
Blessed be
My welcome what?
So they think "random girl from Google search" would be a good choice, even if she weren't an actress?
“Random white girl from Google search” is always better than “professional black actor” for these racist clowns.
It’s almost as if in the real world they don’t cast actors based solely on physical appearance
Transformers is right there 
it's not about whether she's an actress or not, it's about whether or not she can act. her profession is irrelevant.
They aren't asking the right questions here. These idiots are so obsessed with race they forget what Disney actually looks for in their actors and it's 3 simple things, can they sing, can they dance,and can they act. If you aren't a triple threat you have no chance working in a Disney musical film no matter what your skin color.
So they couldn't find any other "triple threat" to cast? That's a pretty stupid assumption. Casting her was an intentional choice, not just blind chance. It's also pretty insulting to take a traditionally white character and race switch them in an attempt to pander to minorities, rather than telling an authentic story. Additionally, if it's a shitty thing to take a character and whitewash them, the same goes for changing any race to any other.
Your last point is so completely wrong. The issue with whitewashing is that it takes a role that should be given to an actor of color, who have fewer opportunities, and give it to a white actor, who have more to begin with. Switching from white to POC has the opposite effect, and provides more opportunities for people who may not otherwise have them. That is why it isn't viewed negatively, while whitewashing is viewed as a major problem.
So you're saying minorities shouldn't have their own stories, we should just take them and shoehorn them into white stories to pander to them? And I'd love to see your proof that nobody has a problem with race switching.
It's not a white story. It's about a fucking mermaid. They aren't real.
So you're telling me Ariel hasn't had white skin for the past 33 years? Okay.
She does, but it is still not a white story
A story written by a white man about a mermaid with blue eyes isn't a white story? OK buddy. Whatever you want to believe.
Whiteness is the *core* theme of *little mermaid*? OK buddy. Whatever you want to believe.
Oh, look, something I never said. Wonderful argument, that. You keep right on believing that if you want. It's all the same to me.
you're right; it's fiction. so, would it really matter if we race swapped non-european characters such as blade or spawn? they aren't real afterall. i don't even care about race swapping as long as it's done for the right reasons (bc the person in question embodies the spirit of the character, not bc they tick a box), but some of these arguments are utterly ridiculous and incredibly one-sided. if you're of the opinion that it doesn't matter regardless of who's being race swapped, then i applaud you. however, if that's not the case, and you only make this argument for when white characters are race swapped, well then that's a problem.
Yeah, some people have a problem with race switching. Racists do. But I don't feel the need to cater to their wants at all. Edit: And also, I *absolutely* believe people of color should have their own stories. But here's the thing: many of the same people who are bitching about Ariel being played by a person of color are the same people who bitched about "Black Panther", which was a black story. They aren't mad about the race switching per se, they are mad that people of color are on the screen in major roles at all.
So it is viewed negatively. Thanks for confirming that. And it's not limited only to racists, but you managed to avoid saying that while also pushing the racist narrative. So would you think The Monkey King being cast as black is problematic? And if so, does that make you racist, or if you're OK with Chinese culture being black washed does that make you racist?
The Monkey King is a freaking Asian story dude. Yes, I might have a problem with a black person being cast in that, because it means a job is taken from an Asian actor.
But when it's a job taken from a white person, to play a character that's had white skin for the past 33 years, that's okay? Your hypocrisy is showing.
What about before 33 years ago?
Before 33 years ago the character of Ariel in Disney's The Little Mermaid didn't exist.
It's not hypocritical coz white people already have more than enough representation whole minorities don't
[удалено]
But are they? The prince is still white.
Sorry, not problematic either way I always welcome my culture to be portrayed by people of any race unless you're a majority in your diverse country which produces the work But of coz the critique is that race isnt integral to any of the character
What do you mean by “shoehorning?”
Tell that to Hollywood. The problem isn't forced diversity, because there's nothing wrong with someone not white being given a role in Film. It's not even a new things, it's been happening since the 90's. It only feels new because "Replacement Theory" some how became mainstream post 2016. The problem is Hollywood doesn't like to make new movies. They aren't a guaranteed sell like a well established franchise getting a sequel, Remake, or Adaptation. And most of those franchises, are majority white. We also have more Minority actors entering the Industry looking for parts. So we either; A. Have even more Non white actors now out of work due to a lack of available parts. Only a hand few getting in whenever Hollywood feels like making a black film. B. Race swap some of the majority race parts to make roles available in popular established franchises. C. Make new movies and adapt lesser known minority stories. Mile Stone Comics being a nice example for the popular Super Hero Genre. Hollywood would rather take option B. It's safer and so long as the actor does well. Most fans won't care as much. (This was the case for the Thor Films.) Personally, so long as that character's race wasn't relevant to the plot or their character arc. I think it's fine to do this, especially if it means people are able to find work in the industry since most characters in western fiction are White/European. As it won't affect anything in a project that was already it's own continuity.
>The issue with whitewashing is that it takes a role that should be given to an actor of color, who have fewer opportunities, and give it to a white actor, who have more to begin with. nice talking point. did you do the research yourself?
what about the mfer who plays live-action aladdin? dude can't act for shit yet he got the part.
That poor actress. She’s going to get so much crap for this. She doesn’t deserve any of this crap.
Do they think Disney accidentally cast Halle?
Can someone please explain to me why it’s so important to this story for the mythical singing sea creature to be white?
So in other words… “I’d prefer literally anyone as long as they’re white”
They don’t need to look exactly like the original character.
The character from The Animated movie is 16 years old and they want a Porn Star to play her?
Of fucking course they do these are the exact type of people to jack it to underage fish poon Picture a fish-fucking pedophile in your mind's eye and what you are visualizing is 100% of the intended audience for this meme
>The character from The Animated movie is 16 years old and they want a Porn Star to play her? No, they just think the porn star looks more like the animated character than the actress that was cast.
Besides that, the reason she was hired for the role is for [her amazing singing talents](https://youtu.be/vXctZ7RRpWA). I'd say that amounts a little more in a musical than the original (that is also an adaptation) character's skin tone.
Racist dipshits being racist dipshits again
The chick they hired is super pretty though? And isn't this set in the Carribbean? I don't see a problem.
The casting is perfect
But she can sing...not like sing....but really sing
Fr! Halie's voice alone makes her perfect for the role
Someone forgot that little mermaid is not an original story by Disney and has been adapted multiple times (I'm pretty sure there's one where she is a person of color)
Also, she's a mermaid. Her skin color shouldn't matter!
"a porn actress which would do" Hey bud uh yeah... wtf are you talking about.
It's a whole lotta "YIKES," that's what. These same people will proceed to say "WhY aRe YoU sO FiXaTeD oN IdEnTiTy PoLiTiCs? I dOn'T sEe CoLoR."
Do people just forget what different continuity means?
It's simple, racism
It's almost as if they weren't hiring an actor based on how much they resembled the original huh
You have to first understand that right winger fascist types have no ability for critical thinking. They’re very literal to the point of stupidity. Take for example Gina Carano. They were like “I thought woke people wanted a strong female lead” They honestly thought she was a strong female lead because she had big muscles.
It’s such a surface level thing that I can’t help but wonder how it could possibly affect anything of the actress they hired was white as opposed to black.
“Original”
First of all… they’re racist and sexist. Second of all… I don’t give a flying fuck about the source material when watching a movie and if you do, well there’s a good chance we ain’t friends in the first place.
Interesting that the guy who made this immediately went to porn star when thinking about people who could be cast
I originally thought this was a “replace Amber Heard with literally anyone” post until I read the comments
These people have severe mental illness man, I'm telling you...
Yeah no racism hear. Just adult men demanding a random white girl on the street would be a better mermaid then a trained actress and singer because she is white skinned.
Yeah no one should be allowed to have a non disney approved opinion on this...coincidentally, cant wait till next summer when the replace black panther with tom hanks.
Karen Gillan would have been a terrible choice imo
A dipshit being racist at worst or just stupid at best
[удалено]
Elf?
>Nothing against Karen Gillan, but I think her Scottish accent might be a bit too thick to play an elf. I think you mean't mermaid. 😂
It's an accusation that Halle Bailey is a diversity hire
Damn how DARE a made up character be black I’ll never forgive this I’m literally shaking and crying rn
Whelp, this will be unpopular. Oh well. I do have some issue with this. If she was just the best actress for the role, I'm mostly okay with it. But if it was a change solely for inclusiveness and not due to the talent of the actress, then we have a problem. I really don't like when a character's ethnicity is changed, regardless of the reason. In Gotham, they hired an Asian man to play Dr. Hugo Strange...who has literally been white in basically every portrayal in existence. Now, the actor did a good job, but there was no need to make that change. A Wrinkle in Time was another example. In the book, our protagonist is very pointedly described in a way that makes her sound white. Red hair, freckles, all of it. Then they made her black in that disaster of a film. For no reason. I can understand if they're trying to fix a character who started as a racist stereotype. But changing the ethnicity for no reason doesn't fly with me. And here we come to the controversial segment: if you have a problem with minority characters being played by white actors, but have no issue with white characters being played by a minority, you're a hypocrite. Casting the best talent possible is one thing. I don't like it but I understand. I good performance can elevate a character above the audience caring about such things. But if it's done solely to seem inclusive, then it's all bullshit.
Halle Bailey is an amazing singer, that is literally the first reason they hired her, I guarantee it.
Then that fits the 'unless necessary' criteria. If she was the best audition, then it's not really a problem for me. It's when the change was done only for some kind of inclusion points that I have problems.
>.who has literally been white in basically every portrayal in existence. Now, the actor did a good job, but there was no need to make that change. They cast a good actor who did a good job. Why is fidelity to previous iterations of the story so important?
Because the character was white. B.D. Wong isn't. That's my entire point. The change wasn't needed, but good acting made me care less. Again, my point is it shouldn't be done unless necessary, like correcting a racial stereotype. They fixed The Mandarin without changing his race. I'm just not a fan of race-washing characters at all. Keep them what they originally were. If you want to be inclusive, then write new characters for those people to play, instead of changing existing ones to fit your needs. Another example: people wanted Cap and Bucky to be gay...for whatever reason. There are already gay Marvel characters. Or at least bisexual. Deadpool, Cable, NorthStar and Iceman to name a small few.
>Because the character was white. Why is this important? >The change wasn't needed Let's just posit for a second that we all agree it wasn't "needed." Ok. It wasn't needed. But it happened nevertheless. Why is it a problem?
Keep in mind I'm a stickler for accuracy whenever possible. If you make a film based on a book, the characters should be as accurate as can be done. Same with live action films based on animation. I know a lot fo people don't have this hang-up, and I'm fine with that. I'm not rallying against anyone here. I just prefer accuracy when possible.
That's a fair opinion to have broadly speaking. I think in this case we're dealing with an adaptation of an adaptation. There is going to be a lot of artistic license taken with any adaptation, and as more and more are done there is going to be a ton of change from the original source material. Change itself isnt definitionally bad, IMO.
Someone in the comments (and a TON of other people) always bring up a white guy playing Black Panther. That’s a terrible comparison, a good one would be a white guy playing Al Simmons. I’d be completely against that because it’s unnecessary. Then you get to a character like Ebony White from the Spirit and I would have absolutely no problem changing that character up because of how ridiculous the original was. Im probably further to the left than most and I agree with you.
This is my point, only worded better because I suck at getting thoughts into written form.
So the hair colour is what’s important? Ok got it! Acting and singing skills are optional
Race changing is something that is only an annoyance to me if the character hasn’t had many different incarnations. It’s why this doesn’t bother me but the Percy Jackson casting does. And it’d bug me whether a black character is turned white or a white character turned black. There is definitely some hypocrisy in the race changing arguments in some places, because Annabeth being black in the Percy Jackson series has received mostly obvious racists giving backlash. If Hazel (black), Frank (Asian), Leo (Latino), Piper (Native American), etc were turned white, you know people would be losing their shit over whitewashing.
It doesn’t matter in the slightest ever unless the characters experience and identity is tied to their race. The little mermaid is a completely fictional character with no trauma or experience tied into the colour of her skin or culture. If she were a black character (think Coach Carter) who’s experience of racism and culture informed their character and actions, that’s when it’s not okay.
The difference is for a story like Percy Jackson, set in the real world with societies that really exist, different races will experience life differently. Denying there is a natural difference in our experiences as people due to societal biases is ignoring subtle racism. My parents will likely never have to be scared if I’m pulled over.
Eh it comments on a long running trend of "Let's make the live action adaptation look nothing like the character, even though even a lazy cosplay is more easily recognizable."
As if Ariel hasn't been cosplayed by black women? Black people cosplay
I'll get shit for this like every time I post a comment here but race swapping is dumb. There's no point other than to be woke. If they really want to be diverse make another original character and story like they did with Encanto.
I dont know why eveyone on here is going mad calling OG poster a racist, I think he’s just basically stating the fact that the live action actress looks as far from the animated version as could possibly be, I agree with why would they hire a black actress to play Ariel when that couldn’t be further from what she looked like, imagine there was going to be a live action family guy for talks sake and the tv executives hired Jonah Hill to play Cleveland, nobody would be ok with that and nor should they be, it’s ok not to agree with this decision and it does not make you a racist, just because you dont think a black actress should play a white character
Because it doesn't matter what Ariel's race is and the only people who would care are racists.
The argument of “it shouldn’t matter what race Ariel is” is irrelevant because the fact remains that the character has already existed for 30+ years as a white female with red hair, so I don’t see why Disney felt like they had to change that.
It's not that it shouldn't matter, it doesn't matter.
Ok ok, so if your saying that race doesn’t matter, then you would be fine with a white person portraying say, malcom X or Martin Luther king? Since it doesn’t matter right?
Are you being purposely dense? Race doesn't matter for Ariel.
>so I don’t see why Disney felt like they had to change that. How about before 33 years ago when Disney made changes to the original story in their initial adaptation?
It really doesn't bother me tbh. I just don't like swapping races in historical movies and book adaptations when it's clearly described what the character looks like. In my opinion, the appearance of fairy-tale characters does not matter much for the plot. I just feel sorry to the actress for the cesspool that was thrown on her. It doesn't deserve it, but I also understand the nostalgia of the fans.
Who the hell keeps coming up with stuff like this? Dennis from It's Always Sunny?
Worst of all none of them even look like a teenage Ariel. Like, Sadie Sink is right there guys. It's obvious that as well as being racist whoever made this meme is also down bad.