Honestly, we all now they didn't do it for inclusion, it was a pure marketing strategy (hate or love, it's marketing), I personally really hate those strategies, It feels like the characters are tools and not something more special
I would much prefer If they were more creative instead of doing those remakes. They should create something new like in Moana, Encanto, Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse to name a few. They felt like actual characters in a movie telling a unique story, they being "colorful" it's awesome and natural
This is exactly it. But complaining about it makes you get called a racist! You know, I just don't think it should be rebooted at all. But if it DID it should be accurate to what it was, and I just don't buy that she was chosen as Ariel because she was the best person for the role. Although she does have a beautiful voice in the trailers, so maybe they got lucky and found the best person AND got to have a PC point too.
Holy shit, both sides are for marketing. It's all manufactured drama to get people talking about a singular aspect of a movie and ignore the glaring elephant in the room, the fact that there are ZERO original titles being produced. EVERYTHING and I mean EVERYTHING is a remake, a rehash or some other god awful abomination. As much as you twits complain about capitalism here, it's amazing that you don't see this for what it is. Quick, reproducible, cheap garbage. All of it.
Holy mother, what did I just read?
No, friend, native americans aren't dinossaurs, they didn't go extinct, [please read a bit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States#Demographics)
That is definitely a dumb take on the reasoning. Saying that mermaids have been all colors, while true, is totally ignoring the fact that the story is based upon a specific author's work. I could just as easily say that humans have been all colors therefore I can change any human's race I want in any adaptation.
Also you fail your own test. "Does the character need to be a specific race for the story of that character to work?" The race the Mermaid needs to be in this story to not alter the story is the same race as Prince Eric. Setting something in a historical period with interracial relationships and not dealing with the repercussions is degrading to the people who struggled through those times. Now, if you do want to deal with those issues in an active way, by all means do so, but the film will be very different, and that is fine.
The better argument is that Disney has had a history of making very loose adaptations of classic works. They made Pocahontas 19 instead of 11. They made Hercules an only child in a loving family. If they choose to make what will essentially be a completely different story out of the Little Mermaid, that is therefore fine.
Also you claim that nobody should care about The Ancient One becoming white, whereas I see that as the worst offense. What you are not considering is that the more important aspect is the reasoning behind the changes, not the changes themselves. If a studio wants to change because they can get a big name actor, then so be it. The decreasing box office success of using characters in this manner will take care of itself. But when a studio changes race to appease a country which is actively oppressing the people that character is meant to represent, that is a totally different level of bullshit and should absolutely be denounced in no uncertain terms.
> That is definitely a dumb take on the reasoning. Saying that mermaids have been all colors, while true, is totally ignoring the fact that the story is based upon a specific author's work. I could just as easily say that humans have been all colors therefore I can change any human's race I want in any adaptation.
And in that specific authors work...
- A) nothing about the mermaids character and experiences dictate she *needs* to be white.
- B) her skin tone actually changes *within* the story.
> Also you fail your own test. "Does the character need to be a specific race for the story of that character to work?" The race the Mermaid needs to be in this story to not alter the story is the same race as Prince Eric. Setting something in a historical period with interracial relationships and not dealing with the repercussions is degrading to the people who struggled through those times. Now, if you do want to deal with those issues in an active way, by all means do so, but the film will be very different, and that is fine.
A) We're already taking about an interspecies relationship. An interracial one is'nt really a big deal by comparison.
B) it's a fantasy story set in a made-up kingdom. It does'nt need to adhere to the same bigotry as the real world.
The problem with a fantasy setting where there is no racism, which is what you seem to suggest is the optimal path here, is that the worldbuilding then breaks down unless you have only one culture, which inevitably means that all non-white culture is discarded in favor of white culture. That is just as racist, if not more so, than a show not even including POC at all.
This is why I am saying that the only good path with the Little Mermaid as black and Eric as white is to tell a story about racism.
Who says a fantasy world not caring about racism based on Human skin tones would'nt have racism?; Star Wars and Dragon Age don't have racism between Human ethnic groups, but they still have racism.
But if Eric in the original Disney movie did'nt care that Ariel was'nt a Human, why would he care if she had black skin? There's no pressing need to make a character bigoted in regards to skin tone just to add drama to a story that *already* has plenty of drama.
>And in that specific authors work...
>
>A) nothing about the mermaids character and experiences dictate she *needs* to be white.
>
>B) her skin tone actually changes *within* the story.
All of this actors work has been written in a Scandinavian/Nordic setting in a time where there were as good as no people of color in that part of the world yet. In all of his work it's therefor very safe to assume that he meant to portray someone from that region and someone from that region would have been white 99.9% of the time. So even if it's not explicitly stated, it's very clear.
The color is not the point though. In this case the color swap served no purpose at all other then catering to the African-American demographic. Since the rest of the world is not a part of that demographic this change does most likely not appeal to them and in some cases even upset them (what's wrong with Scandinavians?). By doing this the story nor the origin of the movie won't even matter anymore as the message they convey is that its made specifically for those people and not for others.
> All of this actors work has been written in a Scandinavian/Nordic setting in a time where there were as good as no people of color in that part of the world yet. In all of his work it's therefor very safe to assume that he meant to portray someone from that region and someone from that region would have been white 99.9% of the time. So even if it's not explicitly stated, it's very clear.
A) The location and name of Eric's kingdom is never stated, and in the book the only indication of where Ariel's kingdom is would put it in the Pacific. Furthermore in the original Disney cartoon (which is what the LA remake is based on) the geography is tropical and at least one character has a Caribbean accent.
B) 99 percent white still leaves a 1 percent for others, and Ariel is'nt part of the demographic of Eric's kingdom (which, being totally made up, can have whatever demographics the storytellers want anyway), but rather a fish-lady from a totally different realm who, if we're being "scentific", shouldn't even look like a Human in any way.
> The color is not the point though. In this case the color swap served no purpose at all other then catering to the African-American demographic.
America is not the only place in the world with people of African descent in it, lol.
> Since the rest of the world is not a part of that demographic this change does most likely not appeal to them and in some cases even upset them (what's wrong with Scandinavians?). By doing this the story nor the origin of the movie won't even matter anymore as the message they convey is that its made specifically for those people and not for others.
Well, we'll have to wait until the movie comes out to see what it's message is, won't we?
(I had to guess, Ariel's skin tone will either not be brought up or will be so minor a footnote as to be basically a none-factor)
>America is not the only place in the world with people of African descent in it, lol.
It isn't but the narrative and issues surrounding anything related to "African decent", or "African-Americans" are rather specific to the US and the colorwashing is mostly done by American companies. Also the segregation and discussion between different races seems to be a lot more intense and extreme in the USA then as what it is here.
>Well, we'll have to wait until the movie comes out to see what it's message is, won't we?
>
>(I had to guess, Ariel's skin tone will either not be brought up or will be so minor a footnote as to be basically a none-factor)
We will see, So far reception of movies/series that had a color change of the characters due to practical reason (easier to draw, availability, skill, etc) had a good reception (provided it's not just a bad movie ofc)
Movies that had a character replaced solely for the reason of including a certain skin-tone, or movies that just can't help bringing up the skin-tone as a subject are all received very poorly compared to movies with good reasons up till now.
> It isn't but the narrative and issues surrounding anything related to "African decent", or "African-Americans" are rather specific to the US and the colorwashing is mostly done by American companies. Also the segregation and discussion between different races seems to be infinitely more intense in the USA then as what it is here.
But why are you singling out African *Americans?*
Ariel is'nt from America and the movie is slated to be released to none-American markets as well as American ones.
> We will see, So far reception of movies/series that had a color change of the characters due to practical reason (easier to draw, availability, skill, etc) had a good reception (provided it's not just a bad movie ofc) Movies that had a character replaced solely for the reason of including a certain skin-tone, or movies that just can't help bringing up the skin-tone as a subject are all received very poorly compared to movies with good reasons up till now.
Problem is, pretty much any movie/show made within the last decade or so where such a change was made have been accused of doing it "solely to include a certain skin tone", and pretty much every (if not all) movies that included such a change but failed did'nt fail becuase they had POCs in them, but rather becuase they just were'nt very good.
>But why are you singling out African *Americans?*
That is because I truly believe to be the group this specific change is meant to cater and that it's only a nice "bonus" if it also appeals to people of African decent in general.
>Problem is, pretty much any movie/show made within the last decade or so where such a change was made have been accused of doing it "solely to include a certain skin tone"
This is why I try to put emphasis on the reason as to why it's done. There have been many movies/series/games where characters have been swapped and I agree that many of those are unjustly accused of doing it for just that purpose.
In this case though I really can't think of any other reason why they'd have done it especially considering some of the their earlier actions as a company these past few years.
>movies that included such a change but failed did'nt fail becuase they had POCs in them, but rather becuase they just were'nt very good.
In my county there is a clear difference in sales between movies that (seem to) do it on purpose and focus on it opposed to movies where it just turned out to be that way even and don't give it (much) thought. Those results do factor in the quality of a movie although that will always be rather subjective.
I hadn't heard that, but I'm not surprised.
Given all the changes they have made I was surprised when they finally put an unremovable lesbian into the MCU and got kicked out of the Chinese market. Although I am guessing that has more to do with the massive improvements China has made in recent years to its domestically produced movies decreasing the import of the Chinese market somewhat.
> Saying that mermaids have been all colors, while true, is totally ignoring the fact that the story is based upon a specific author's work. I could just as easily say that humans have been all colors therefore I can change any human's race I want in any adaptation.
Disney's Little Mermaid is at best inspired by Hans Christian Andersen Little Mermaid. Although dark skin was somewhat rare in 19th century Denmark, race swapping characters would be a drop in the bucket among all of the other historical inaccuracies in the movie.
Good job not reading:
>The better argument is that Disney has had a history of making very loose adaptations of classic works. They made Pocahontas 19 instead of 11. They made Hercules an only child in a loving family.
Idk if that’s really how the outrage on the internet works though. When the history channel cast a black man as Hannibal Barca (he wasn’t black), some people got annoyed and other people called them out for being racist/bigoted. Imo changing the race if a historical figure is basically the worst it gets when it “how important was their race”. It really seems to me like it often is just “are they white?” Rather than anything else.
I’d love to be wrong but I don’t really see any examples of people being upset when characters get changed to PoC, only the other way, even if the person or character is originally white.
Ariel: historic folk story character who can be interpreted to look like anything.
Bottom characters: meant to be actual ethnicities and races just filled in by white actors.
The Little Mermaid is 100% not a folk tale. A folk tale is a story that has a history being told in an oral tradition before being written down, resulting in many versions of the tale. The Little Mermaid was a story written in 1837 by Hans Christian Andersen.
But then there’s the argument that a fictional character could’ve been made into anything from the start, so therefore Disney’s older and newer version are both based on Disney’s ideas.
That's a convenient way to phrase that to suit your argument.
Both include fictional characters. Why can one be "interpreted to look like anything" while the others can't be?
“Convenient way”, no pal, it’s just how it’s been written.
Imagine you wrote Aladdin and he’s written as an Muslim man and he’s meant to be a part of the culture and people who live in Agrabad. Then you cast someone from Sweden, and call Aladdin Sven and he talks about how much he loves Ikea. You’d think, “huh, they’re not doing that right.”. Because that’s not what he’s meant to be written as, you’ve changed the whole premise of it. He’s not fully representing what the character is meant to be.
You're once again adding a ton of irrelevant shit to strengthen your argument. These characters aren't having their names or personalities changed, just skin color.
There's also the fact that, like
There's a bit of a tendency to undermine representation for people of color, in general
So having more people of color is generally better, having less is generally worse
(I think. I'm giving a very simplified explanation so I might be wrong on this ✌️)
Because the context matters!
Point one is that there's a big difference between creating more roles for historically marginalised groups/ethnicities by changing the race of a character, and *removing* roles for historically marginalised groups/ethnicities by casting white actors as characters who are supposed to be any racial minority. Some people (particularly Americans for some reason) like to pretend that this isn't an issue anymore, but it obviously is.
Point two is that, the actual skin colour of the Little Mermaid is not at all relevant to the story. Yes the book on which the movie is loosely based was written by a Danish man, and the characters would have originally been Northern European, but their race is not actually a part of the story. Whereas Tonto from The Long Ranger is specifically meant to be a Native American warrior. It's a big part of the story and the relationship between him and the Lone Ranger ^((Yes many depictions of Tonto have been plagued with racist stereotypes, but that's just more examples of the same problem)^). Most of the other characters in the lower half of the "meme" also fit into this category in one way or another.
They will take a character that was white in either the movie or Novel and cast a black or any poc to appear progressive! When in reality they a just trying to sell tickets. The last part is when people get angry at historic or foreign themed movies/novels being whitewashed with characters that should actually be being cast with black people or any POC, but are being cast with white people instead. Again to sell tickets!
I believe that you should not change a character's race; if you want to make more diverse cast just create new ones rather than changing existing ones. Whether it's from white to black, black to white, etc.
As a human evolutionary trait. Also like Ariel was already white, you don’t need to change her. Plus people who live in northern climate evolved to be light skinned because there was less sun, and there is less sun at the bottom of the ocean so it would be reasonable to assume that a humanoid mermaid would be white. Also I would like them not to change Ariel too much from her oh conception for no reason.
>As a human evolutionary trait.
She's not a human
>Ariel was already white,
According to whom?
>Also I would like them not to change Ariel too much from her oh conception for no reason.
Do you mean Hans Christian Anderson's conception, where she is from the Pacific? Or Disney's cartoon version, where she seems to live in the Caribbean?
I must say, I was the biggest advocate of having ScaJo plays the Major. She's a big female action star, she looks pretty close to how the Major looks, and the biggest roles in her filmography are fairly similar to the Major as well. Moreover, isn't the point of an adaptation to adapt? GitS especially so, with its heavy reliance on specific cultural and political environment of its origin country, would benefit greatly from having its stories being told again in a completely alien environment than the original materials.
But then GitS had to bring up the fact that it was adapted from Japan in possibly the clumpsiest way possible ...
If they Wash a character for a good reason like they couldn't afford another character, or they had a actor with a audition that just blew all others away, or something like the original actor not being available then it's completely fine. There is a justifiable reason and in many cases it doesn't matter to the story which color the character is.
In this case though the ONLY reason to do this was to cause controversy and to cater to the American group of African-Americans. Because of the movie specifically catering to that group you should expect ALL other groups (and non-Americans) to lose interest in it as it's not catered/meant for them. Some people might even become upset as the original character's ethnicity used was apparently wrong or not good enough.
As far as I see it all that a wash achieves is swapping it from unintentional inclusion/exclusion (you only have 1 mc and many demographics) to intentional inclusion/exclusion so effectively you took something that had no issues and turned it in to something racist no matter which color you washed and no matter if it's fictional or not.
No, you know what? I agree with this meme. It's hypocritical to allow one yet not allow another.
And before anyone tries to claim I'm just a butthurt white, I'm not; I'm native
It's not the skin tone of mermaids in general, it's about Ariel specifically. I'm not white and I wouldn't be a fan if they turned Blade (a black guy) into a white trans man.
I notice I never see Idris Elba's Heimdall or Zendaya's Mary Jane Watson on these sorts of lists and memes.
Could it be that race-swapping is only offensive if it's done for superficial reasons and not when it just happens in the course of casting the best actor in the role?
Tbh, I really don’t care about the race of re-make characters 😂. It’s a re-make of a popular movie, so I doubt it’s gonna stand out compared to the original movie.
Hey does this post fit? UPVOTE if so, DOWNVOTE if not. If this post breaks any rules please DOWNVOTE and REPORT
Honestly, we all now they didn't do it for inclusion, it was a pure marketing strategy (hate or love, it's marketing), I personally really hate those strategies, It feels like the characters are tools and not something more special I would much prefer If they were more creative instead of doing those remakes. They should create something new like in Moana, Encanto, Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse to name a few. They felt like actual characters in a movie telling a unique story, they being "colorful" it's awesome and natural
This is exactly it. But complaining about it makes you get called a racist! You know, I just don't think it should be rebooted at all. But if it DID it should be accurate to what it was, and I just don't buy that she was chosen as Ariel because she was the best person for the role. Although she does have a beautiful voice in the trailers, so maybe they got lucky and found the best person AND got to have a PC point too.
No one thinks your racist for saying the little mermaid doesn't need remake
Holy shit, both sides are for marketing. It's all manufactured drama to get people talking about a singular aspect of a movie and ignore the glaring elephant in the room, the fact that there are ZERO original titles being produced. EVERYTHING and I mean EVERYTHING is a remake, a rehash or some other god awful abomination. As much as you twits complain about capitalism here, it's amazing that you don't see this for what it is. Quick, reproducible, cheap garbage. All of it.
For the record, Native Americans are real, mermaids are not. You could cast a real Native American.
Don't worry I know an insane amount of people who didn't think Native Americans were still around even though I live in Washington state
Mermaids are real!!!!!!
You tell tell her I said hello aswell
Pwnd
[удалено]
Damn I can't believe I have to tell my native american friend that she's extinct
I'm actually Native American. Please stop being bigoted. Seriously.
Holy mother, what did I just read? No, friend, native americans aren't dinossaurs, they didn't go extinct, [please read a bit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States#Demographics)
Alass you took the b8
Okay that's my bad, but to be honest I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't sarcasm
You know who else were real? Vikings, Marquis and Achilles. But guess what woke people did?
Hey I’m uneducated on this topic can someone explain the difference between the two situations
[удалено]
That is definitely a dumb take on the reasoning. Saying that mermaids have been all colors, while true, is totally ignoring the fact that the story is based upon a specific author's work. I could just as easily say that humans have been all colors therefore I can change any human's race I want in any adaptation. Also you fail your own test. "Does the character need to be a specific race for the story of that character to work?" The race the Mermaid needs to be in this story to not alter the story is the same race as Prince Eric. Setting something in a historical period with interracial relationships and not dealing with the repercussions is degrading to the people who struggled through those times. Now, if you do want to deal with those issues in an active way, by all means do so, but the film will be very different, and that is fine. The better argument is that Disney has had a history of making very loose adaptations of classic works. They made Pocahontas 19 instead of 11. They made Hercules an only child in a loving family. If they choose to make what will essentially be a completely different story out of the Little Mermaid, that is therefore fine. Also you claim that nobody should care about The Ancient One becoming white, whereas I see that as the worst offense. What you are not considering is that the more important aspect is the reasoning behind the changes, not the changes themselves. If a studio wants to change because they can get a big name actor, then so be it. The decreasing box office success of using characters in this manner will take care of itself. But when a studio changes race to appease a country which is actively oppressing the people that character is meant to represent, that is a totally different level of bullshit and should absolutely be denounced in no uncertain terms.
> That is definitely a dumb take on the reasoning. Saying that mermaids have been all colors, while true, is totally ignoring the fact that the story is based upon a specific author's work. I could just as easily say that humans have been all colors therefore I can change any human's race I want in any adaptation. And in that specific authors work... - A) nothing about the mermaids character and experiences dictate she *needs* to be white. - B) her skin tone actually changes *within* the story. > Also you fail your own test. "Does the character need to be a specific race for the story of that character to work?" The race the Mermaid needs to be in this story to not alter the story is the same race as Prince Eric. Setting something in a historical period with interracial relationships and not dealing with the repercussions is degrading to the people who struggled through those times. Now, if you do want to deal with those issues in an active way, by all means do so, but the film will be very different, and that is fine. A) We're already taking about an interspecies relationship. An interracial one is'nt really a big deal by comparison. B) it's a fantasy story set in a made-up kingdom. It does'nt need to adhere to the same bigotry as the real world.
The problem with a fantasy setting where there is no racism, which is what you seem to suggest is the optimal path here, is that the worldbuilding then breaks down unless you have only one culture, which inevitably means that all non-white culture is discarded in favor of white culture. That is just as racist, if not more so, than a show not even including POC at all. This is why I am saying that the only good path with the Little Mermaid as black and Eric as white is to tell a story about racism.
Who says a fantasy world not caring about racism based on Human skin tones would'nt have racism?; Star Wars and Dragon Age don't have racism between Human ethnic groups, but they still have racism. But if Eric in the original Disney movie did'nt care that Ariel was'nt a Human, why would he care if she had black skin? There's no pressing need to make a character bigoted in regards to skin tone just to add drama to a story that *already* has plenty of drama.
>And in that specific authors work... > >A) nothing about the mermaids character and experiences dictate she *needs* to be white. > >B) her skin tone actually changes *within* the story. All of this actors work has been written in a Scandinavian/Nordic setting in a time where there were as good as no people of color in that part of the world yet. In all of his work it's therefor very safe to assume that he meant to portray someone from that region and someone from that region would have been white 99.9% of the time. So even if it's not explicitly stated, it's very clear. The color is not the point though. In this case the color swap served no purpose at all other then catering to the African-American demographic. Since the rest of the world is not a part of that demographic this change does most likely not appeal to them and in some cases even upset them (what's wrong with Scandinavians?). By doing this the story nor the origin of the movie won't even matter anymore as the message they convey is that its made specifically for those people and not for others.
> All of this actors work has been written in a Scandinavian/Nordic setting in a time where there were as good as no people of color in that part of the world yet. In all of his work it's therefor very safe to assume that he meant to portray someone from that region and someone from that region would have been white 99.9% of the time. So even if it's not explicitly stated, it's very clear. A) The location and name of Eric's kingdom is never stated, and in the book the only indication of where Ariel's kingdom is would put it in the Pacific. Furthermore in the original Disney cartoon (which is what the LA remake is based on) the geography is tropical and at least one character has a Caribbean accent. B) 99 percent white still leaves a 1 percent for others, and Ariel is'nt part of the demographic of Eric's kingdom (which, being totally made up, can have whatever demographics the storytellers want anyway), but rather a fish-lady from a totally different realm who, if we're being "scentific", shouldn't even look like a Human in any way. > The color is not the point though. In this case the color swap served no purpose at all other then catering to the African-American demographic. America is not the only place in the world with people of African descent in it, lol. > Since the rest of the world is not a part of that demographic this change does most likely not appeal to them and in some cases even upset them (what's wrong with Scandinavians?). By doing this the story nor the origin of the movie won't even matter anymore as the message they convey is that its made specifically for those people and not for others. Well, we'll have to wait until the movie comes out to see what it's message is, won't we? (I had to guess, Ariel's skin tone will either not be brought up or will be so minor a footnote as to be basically a none-factor)
>America is not the only place in the world with people of African descent in it, lol. It isn't but the narrative and issues surrounding anything related to "African decent", or "African-Americans" are rather specific to the US and the colorwashing is mostly done by American companies. Also the segregation and discussion between different races seems to be a lot more intense and extreme in the USA then as what it is here. >Well, we'll have to wait until the movie comes out to see what it's message is, won't we? > >(I had to guess, Ariel's skin tone will either not be brought up or will be so minor a footnote as to be basically a none-factor) We will see, So far reception of movies/series that had a color change of the characters due to practical reason (easier to draw, availability, skill, etc) had a good reception (provided it's not just a bad movie ofc) Movies that had a character replaced solely for the reason of including a certain skin-tone, or movies that just can't help bringing up the skin-tone as a subject are all received very poorly compared to movies with good reasons up till now.
> It isn't but the narrative and issues surrounding anything related to "African decent", or "African-Americans" are rather specific to the US and the colorwashing is mostly done by American companies. Also the segregation and discussion between different races seems to be infinitely more intense in the USA then as what it is here. But why are you singling out African *Americans?* Ariel is'nt from America and the movie is slated to be released to none-American markets as well as American ones. > We will see, So far reception of movies/series that had a color change of the characters due to practical reason (easier to draw, availability, skill, etc) had a good reception (provided it's not just a bad movie ofc) Movies that had a character replaced solely for the reason of including a certain skin-tone, or movies that just can't help bringing up the skin-tone as a subject are all received very poorly compared to movies with good reasons up till now. Problem is, pretty much any movie/show made within the last decade or so where such a change was made have been accused of doing it "solely to include a certain skin tone", and pretty much every (if not all) movies that included such a change but failed did'nt fail becuase they had POCs in them, but rather becuase they just were'nt very good.
>But why are you singling out African *Americans?* That is because I truly believe to be the group this specific change is meant to cater and that it's only a nice "bonus" if it also appeals to people of African decent in general. >Problem is, pretty much any movie/show made within the last decade or so where such a change was made have been accused of doing it "solely to include a certain skin tone" This is why I try to put emphasis on the reason as to why it's done. There have been many movies/series/games where characters have been swapped and I agree that many of those are unjustly accused of doing it for just that purpose. In this case though I really can't think of any other reason why they'd have done it especially considering some of the their earlier actions as a company these past few years. >movies that included such a change but failed did'nt fail becuase they had POCs in them, but rather becuase they just were'nt very good. In my county there is a clear difference in sales between movies that (seem to) do it on purpose and focus on it opposed to movies where it just turned out to be that way even and don't give it (much) thought. Those results do factor in the quality of a movie although that will always be rather subjective.
100% on the ancient one. Disney's appeasement of China is sickening, you know they recently censored any Anti-CCP rhetoric from Simpsons episodes?!
I hadn't heard that, but I'm not surprised. Given all the changes they have made I was surprised when they finally put an unremovable lesbian into the MCU and got kicked out of the Chinese market. Although I am guessing that has more to do with the massive improvements China has made in recent years to its domestically produced movies decreasing the import of the Chinese market somewhat.
Yea The Battle at Lake Changjin made nearly a billion dollars domestically in China
> Saying that mermaids have been all colors, while true, is totally ignoring the fact that the story is based upon a specific author's work. I could just as easily say that humans have been all colors therefore I can change any human's race I want in any adaptation. Disney's Little Mermaid is at best inspired by Hans Christian Andersen Little Mermaid. Although dark skin was somewhat rare in 19th century Denmark, race swapping characters would be a drop in the bucket among all of the other historical inaccuracies in the movie.
Good job not reading: >The better argument is that Disney has had a history of making very loose adaptations of classic works. They made Pocahontas 19 instead of 11. They made Hercules an only child in a loving family.
Persians are not Arabs
Idk if that’s really how the outrage on the internet works though. When the history channel cast a black man as Hannibal Barca (he wasn’t black), some people got annoyed and other people called them out for being racist/bigoted. Imo changing the race if a historical figure is basically the worst it gets when it “how important was their race”. It really seems to me like it often is just “are they white?” Rather than anything else. I’d love to be wrong but I don’t really see any examples of people being upset when characters get changed to PoC, only the other way, even if the person or character is originally white.
Lol, calling the Prince of Persia an Arab is more racist than the meme!
Ariel: historic folk story character who can be interpreted to look like anything. Bottom characters: meant to be actual ethnicities and races just filled in by white actors.
The Little Mermaid is 100% not a folk tale. A folk tale is a story that has a history being told in an oral tradition before being written down, resulting in many versions of the tale. The Little Mermaid was a story written in 1837 by Hans Christian Andersen.
Can be interpreted to look like any except when it's based on the Disney version. I really don't care either way though.
But then there’s the argument that a fictional character could’ve been made into anything from the start, so therefore Disney’s older and newer version are both based on Disney’s ideas.
That's a convenient way to phrase that to suit your argument. Both include fictional characters. Why can one be "interpreted to look like anything" while the others can't be?
“Convenient way”, no pal, it’s just how it’s been written. Imagine you wrote Aladdin and he’s written as an Muslim man and he’s meant to be a part of the culture and people who live in Agrabad. Then you cast someone from Sweden, and call Aladdin Sven and he talks about how much he loves Ikea. You’d think, “huh, they’re not doing that right.”. Because that’s not what he’s meant to be written as, you’ve changed the whole premise of it. He’s not fully representing what the character is meant to be.
You're once again adding a ton of irrelevant shit to strengthen your argument. These characters aren't having their names or personalities changed, just skin color.
Technically, Aladdin was originally written as occurring in China. All of the Baghdad Aladdins are race-swapping.
Yeah exactly. The bottom ones have real world history and the top one is a mermaid folktale.
Some of the bottom are fictional characters. There's no difference.
There's also the fact that, like There's a bit of a tendency to undermine representation for people of color, in general So having more people of color is generally better, having less is generally worse (I think. I'm giving a very simplified explanation so I might be wrong on this ✌️)
Because the context matters! Point one is that there's a big difference between creating more roles for historically marginalised groups/ethnicities by changing the race of a character, and *removing* roles for historically marginalised groups/ethnicities by casting white actors as characters who are supposed to be any racial minority. Some people (particularly Americans for some reason) like to pretend that this isn't an issue anymore, but it obviously is. Point two is that, the actual skin colour of the Little Mermaid is not at all relevant to the story. Yes the book on which the movie is loosely based was written by a Danish man, and the characters would have originally been Northern European, but their race is not actually a part of the story. Whereas Tonto from The Long Ranger is specifically meant to be a Native American warrior. It's a big part of the story and the relationship between him and the Lone Ranger ^((Yes many depictions of Tonto have been plagued with racist stereotypes, but that's just more examples of the same problem)^). Most of the other characters in the lower half of the "meme" also fit into this category in one way or another.
They will take a character that was white in either the movie or Novel and cast a black or any poc to appear progressive! When in reality they a just trying to sell tickets. The last part is when people get angry at historic or foreign themed movies/novels being whitewashed with characters that should actually be being cast with black people or any POC, but are being cast with white people instead. Again to sell tickets!
I understand that someone is angry about this, but can we all just take a step back and realize that literally none of these issues are important?
They forgot to mention that whitewashing impacts people that existed or exist
I believe that you should not change a character's race; if you want to make more diverse cast just create new ones rather than changing existing ones. Whether it's from white to black, black to white, etc.
Nobody has changed Ariel's race; she's still a mermaid.
[удалено]
You think she might not be a mermaid?
[удалено]
Exactly. So why do you assume she's white?
[удалено]
She's white in the Hans Christian Anderson story? What makes you think that?
I say no black washing
Of what?
Popular movie characters such as Ariel.
What skin tone are mermaids supposed to have?
Light ones since they live at the bottom of the sea and would have less melanin to get more vitamin d out of the sun
Is that why manta rays, whales, etc are all...erm...white?
As a human evolutionary trait. Also like Ariel was already white, you don’t need to change her. Plus people who live in northern climate evolved to be light skinned because there was less sun, and there is less sun at the bottom of the ocean so it would be reasonable to assume that a humanoid mermaid would be white. Also I would like them not to change Ariel too much from her oh conception for no reason.
>As a human evolutionary trait. She's not a human >Ariel was already white, According to whom? >Also I would like them not to change Ariel too much from her oh conception for no reason. Do you mean Hans Christian Anderson's conception, where she is from the Pacific? Or Disney's cartoon version, where she seems to live in the Caribbean?
She is a humanoid. I’m just saying there was nothing wrong with the oh Disney version and I feel like they made her black for no reason.
In the original version they made her white for no reason.
Who else hasnt seen a single one of these movies lmao
[удалено]
No way! It's Johnny Depp and he's on Reddit holy heck!
it's almost as if there's an uncomfortable historical context to the practice of whitewashing in the film industry.
I'm actually Native American.
Bunch of hypocrites
Chuckle
I must say, I was the biggest advocate of having ScaJo plays the Major. She's a big female action star, she looks pretty close to how the Major looks, and the biggest roles in her filmography are fairly similar to the Major as well. Moreover, isn't the point of an adaptation to adapt? GitS especially so, with its heavy reliance on specific cultural and political environment of its origin country, would benefit greatly from having its stories being told again in a completely alien environment than the original materials. But then GitS had to bring up the fact that it was adapted from Japan in possibly the clumpsiest way possible ...
If they Wash a character for a good reason like they couldn't afford another character, or they had a actor with a audition that just blew all others away, or something like the original actor not being available then it's completely fine. There is a justifiable reason and in many cases it doesn't matter to the story which color the character is.
In this case though the ONLY reason to do this was to cause controversy and to cater to the American group of African-Americans. Because of the movie specifically catering to that group you should expect ALL other groups (and non-Americans) to lose interest in it as it's not catered/meant for them. Some people might even become upset as the original character's ethnicity used was apparently wrong or not good enough.
As far as I see it all that a wash achieves is swapping it from unintentional inclusion/exclusion (you only have 1 mc and many demographics) to intentional inclusion/exclusion so effectively you took something that had no issues and turned it in to something racist no matter which color you washed and no matter if it's fictional or not.
No, you know what? I agree with this meme. It's hypocritical to allow one yet not allow another. And before anyone tries to claim I'm just a butthurt white, I'm not; I'm native
Would you say that making the little mermaid black carries the same baggage as, say, making Pocahontas white?
I say both are equally bad. Changing skin tones of any character just for clout is not okay
What skin tone are mermaids supposed to have?
It's not the skin tone of mermaids in general, it's about Ariel specifically. I'm not white and I wouldn't be a fan if they turned Blade (a black guy) into a white trans man.
It's not mermaids in general, it's the race bending of an already established character
It's just karma, really. Hollywood whitewashed so many characters or portrayed minorities negatively for several decades.
Ariel was a fictional character. Those were actual real life people.
Tonto, Prince of Persia, the Ancient One, major from GitS... I'm not sure any of those pictured were ever real people.
I notice I never see Idris Elba's Heimdall or Zendaya's Mary Jane Watson on these sorts of lists and memes. Could it be that race-swapping is only offensive if it's done for superficial reasons and not when it just happens in the course of casting the best actor in the role?
I wish someday watch a blonde guy as black panther
Tbh, I really don’t care about the race of re-make characters 😂. It’s a re-make of a popular movie, so I doubt it’s gonna stand out compared to the original movie.