Does anyone have a problem with the Little Mermaid being black?
Why?
36-40, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Whodunnit · M
Only that it doesn't conform to the original description by the author.
It's not a race thing. It's a wish to preserve the original vision and by extension European fantasy and folklore.
Yes, mermaids can potentially be any colour, I'd expect Greek mermaids and sirens to look Mediterranean, but Ariel specifically was described by Hans Christain Anderson as being white with blue eyes.
It's not a race thing. It's a wish to preserve the original vision and by extension European fantasy and folklore.
Yes, mermaids can potentially be any colour, I'd expect Greek mermaids and sirens to look Mediterranean, but Ariel specifically was described by Hans Christain Anderson as being white with blue eyes.
SlightlyBelowAverageJoe · 36-40, M
@Whodunnit Was there any changes to the original story to the animated story?
Whodunnit · M
@SlightlyBelowAverageJoe The original was much darker in tone, closer to a Brothers Grimm tale really (although they themselves were bowlderised versions of much older tales) so obviously it got Disneyfied and cutesy characters got added.
I can give you a link to a digital copy if you like.
I can give you a link to a digital copy if you like.
SlightlyBelowAverageJoe · 36-40, M
@Whodunnit I get the gist. But it makes me question why people don't care about the original vision when it comes to story, but care about original vision when it comes to appearances.
Whodunnit · M
@SlightlyBelowAverageJoe Oh, believe me, I'm no fan of the cartoon either. Disney has a bad habit of grabbing anything and everything that's out of copyright and making their versions the only one people know.
They also have a tendency to conveniently forget that these stories are largely morality tales and their intent is to teach through allegory.
In the case of The Little Mermaid it's that the grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence.
In the Disney version Ariel gets the prince, gets back her voice and all is right with the world. However, In the original Ariel has to make the decision to kill the prince to transform back into a mermaid and return to the sea or allow herself to save him by herself dying. She chooses the latter. Not exactly a Disney ending, lol
They also have a tendency to conveniently forget that these stories are largely morality tales and their intent is to teach through allegory.
In the case of The Little Mermaid it's that the grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence.
In the Disney version Ariel gets the prince, gets back her voice and all is right with the world. However, In the original Ariel has to make the decision to kill the prince to transform back into a mermaid and return to the sea or allow herself to save him by herself dying. She chooses the latter. Not exactly a Disney ending, lol
SlightlyBelowAverageJoe · 36-40, M
@Whodunnit haha, sounds like a Grimms tale.
That's essentially my point though. It seems people cherry pick what they get upset about. Now, I don't know if too many people are actually upset about the race swap. I could see it either way (eithe they are, or it's just fake outcry created to divide people) regardless. I doubt may people would notice if Ariel's tail was blue instead of green (or vice versa). Is the story more important? Do little details make the story?
I'm no fan of making things woke just to be woke, but if race determines a make believe character instead of just the character itself, then it just brings up questions for me.
That's essentially my point though. It seems people cherry pick what they get upset about. Now, I don't know if too many people are actually upset about the race swap. I could see it either way (eithe they are, or it's just fake outcry created to divide people) regardless. I doubt may people would notice if Ariel's tail was blue instead of green (or vice versa). Is the story more important? Do little details make the story?
I'm no fan of making things woke just to be woke, but if race determines a make believe character instead of just the character itself, then it just brings up questions for me.
Whodunnit · M
@SlightlyBelowAverageJoe I'll be honest, I think a lot of this is manufactured to generate free publicity, which has worked well in the past and to a degree has offered some level of protection from criticism for some weaker films.
Disney, and by extension Marvel and Star Wars until recently had this down to a fine art. But you can only use the same tactic of baiting an audience a certain number of times before they get wise to it.
You can trace this form of hostile defence back to 2016 and the failed Ghostbusters reboot. The promotional material came out swinging claiming that anyone who didn't like the film was obviously a misogynist. Of course it transpired that the film was bloody terrible. But by that point the stage was set and since that time production companies have used this preemptive blackmail/coercion tactic to shame folks into watching some bland or outright terrible films. Terminator: Dark Fate and Charlie's Angels are good examples of this.
It's quite possible that the casting directors truly believed that Halle was the best person for the job, but a cynical part of me wonders if they've cast a black actress for protection from professional critics because they have another bland product on their hands. I'm pretty certain that once the film is released those critics will hail it as a huge success, the public won't be anywhere near as impressed, but any and all negative feedback from the public will be attributed to racist review-bombing. As I say, they've done this too often now and it's becoming predictable.
You never know though, I'm not infallible and I may be wrong. After all, some people would buy a dog turd if it had Mickey Mouse ears atop of it. That said though Pinocchio has absolutely tanked with both critics and the audience so perhaps people are getting sick of lazy remakes.
Anyway, it's almost 3am here and I'm in danger of rambling.
Disney, and by extension Marvel and Star Wars until recently had this down to a fine art. But you can only use the same tactic of baiting an audience a certain number of times before they get wise to it.
You can trace this form of hostile defence back to 2016 and the failed Ghostbusters reboot. The promotional material came out swinging claiming that anyone who didn't like the film was obviously a misogynist. Of course it transpired that the film was bloody terrible. But by that point the stage was set and since that time production companies have used this preemptive blackmail/coercion tactic to shame folks into watching some bland or outright terrible films. Terminator: Dark Fate and Charlie's Angels are good examples of this.
It's quite possible that the casting directors truly believed that Halle was the best person for the job, but a cynical part of me wonders if they've cast a black actress for protection from professional critics because they have another bland product on their hands. I'm pretty certain that once the film is released those critics will hail it as a huge success, the public won't be anywhere near as impressed, but any and all negative feedback from the public will be attributed to racist review-bombing. As I say, they've done this too often now and it's becoming predictable.
You never know though, I'm not infallible and I may be wrong. After all, some people would buy a dog turd if it had Mickey Mouse ears atop of it. That said though Pinocchio has absolutely tanked with both critics and the audience so perhaps people are getting sick of lazy remakes.
Anyway, it's almost 3am here and I'm in danger of rambling.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment