Why the fuss is live-action Ariel black?!?!?!

This post is completely full of false equivalencies. None of these are the same as the current situation.

First of all, we aren't talking about a game that was re-made in another country with a different culture. They are both made in America. So that's not the same at all.

Secondly, this isn't a "remake" exactly. It's supposed to be a live action version of the same exact movie. The entire point of doing that is to get to see those same exact characters, but in real life instead of animation. That's part of why people were pissed about Jasmine not being the same race as the actress who played her, because they recognized that the point is to have the characters be the same, with the only difference being they are live instead of animated.

And thirdly, that last paragraph is compeltley irrelevant. I have zero issues with more minorities being represented in movies these days. I think that's a great thing. This isn't people saying "I'm mad that a black person is in this movie!" This isn't even people saying "I'm mad that a black person is playing the lead role in this movie!" This is people saying they are mad that ARIEL is being played by a black person, because she isn't black. And again I say, if the races were swapped, most all of the people supporting this would lose their minds. They are just showing their own hypocrisy. If Tiana or Mulan or Pocahontas was cast to be played by a white person, nobody would be having that. And I don't even have to guess that that would be the case, because we've already seen it with Jasmine. And that wasn't even a white actress, she just was half white and half Indian, and Jasmine is supposed to be middle-eastern. But at least she actually looked exactly like Jasmine anyway, unlike this current situation.

 

I guess I just don't understand what you mean by "it shouldn't be an issue." If you mean that they should be allowed to do it and they will make a lot of money off of it and they aren't doing anything illegal or morally wrong, then yes, obviously that's true. I don't think anybody is saying that's not the case.

But it is an issue for me, and for a lot of other people. So when you say "it shouldn't be an issue," I'm not sure what you mean by that. You obviously agree that we should all be allowed to have our own opinions, which is good, and my opinion is that it is an issue. So... I'm not sure what "it shouldn't be an issue" means. It is, for me.

See, the thing is though, NOBODY asked for a black Ariel. Literally nobody. It wasn't like their audience was asking for that, and they gave it to them. Nobody would have been mad if they kept Ariel white. But they chose to shake things up, which I believe was solely for the sake of pandering and publicity. Which yes, also makes money. My point before was that you are framing your statement about how the company wants to make money as "a different perspective," but my point is that it isn't a different perspective. I'm well aware that the company is doing this to make money, and pandering to the left makes money. They are one and the same. It also creates publicity, because people are talking about it, which also makes money.

Honestly, what probably happened is that they saw all of the publicity Aladdin got for Jasmine not being the right race, but since she was half white and not half black, it was bad publicity. So they thought "how can we garner that same publicity, but make it positive? Oh, I know! Make Ariel black!" I just find that sleazy and I honestly don't see why more black people aren't offended by it. They don't actually care about representing more people of color, they care about stirring up publicity for their film, and they are using blackness to do it. That seems kind of messed up to me.

And yes, I'm well aware of how Capitalism works, and that tons of companies do this. I'm not surprises by it in the slightest, I just still think it's messed up.

 

I see what you mean, but again you're equating a live action version with a remake. It's not really the same. For example, when they re-made Ghost Busters with women, I thought it was kind of dumb, but I wasn't offended or anything, because the point of the movie was to do something different.

From a writing perspective, the main purpose of doing a re-make is to do something different. If you don't put a new twist on it, then what's the point? The point wasn't to hire actors that look just like Bill Murray and the gang for the new Ghost Busters, because that would be dumb and pointless.

But the whole live-action remake thing is different. The main point of a live-action remake of an originally animated film, is to get actors who resemble the characters as closely as possible, so you can see what that character would look like if they were real, rather than animated. So to me, this whole thing is a bigger deal in this situation, because it defeats the entire purpose of even doing this movie in the first place. At least that's how I feel. The only reason I see live action remakes is because I want to see those exact same characters portrayed on screen, looking as close to their animated counterparts as possible. As a huge Beauty and the Beast fan, I was even a little disappointed in Emma Watson being cast as Belle, because her facial features to me are too harsh, sharp lines and not soft enough to be Belle.

My point is, there are different goals when you're talking about an animated movie being turned into a live action movie, rather than a live action movie being re-made into a different live action movie.

 

I think we are all hypocrites in many ways, but that one I disagree with. Doing something you claim is wrong, to me, isn't hypocritical when it comes to addiction. We all still recognize that it's harmful. I think it would be hypocritical if we all preached that it was harmful here, but then went out and told our friends to do it, or created it ourselves for other people to see. Or if we said one kind of porn was harmful, but thought that for some reason a different kind was totally fine.

But idk, I digress. I think addiction is a special kind of thing, so I wouldn't call someone a hypocrite for having an addiction.

 

As far as I'm aware, it was just a decision they made, and now a lot of people are excited about it. But there was no reason for anyone to have expected them or wanted them to change Ariel's race.

I'm not familiar with that story, but you explained it well enough.

But again, I just don't think that's the same as this situation. There are just different expectations when you're going from animation to live action, and I don't personally see any point in even doing a live action version of an animated movie, if not to let the audience see what those characters would look like in real life. That's what's fun about it, for me.

Yeah, I agree.

Also to be fair, and to show that I'm not compeltley unwilling to accept change or something, I didn't even really mind that they made LeFou in Beauty and the Beast gay. I mean I thought it was kind of dumb, but it wasn't a huge leap, given his obsession with Gaston in the animated version. And the reason I didn't care much is because he's a side character, and it's kind of whatever. I don't know that I would even care that much if they made him black. I think one of the other characters was black too, like Mrs. Potts or something, and I didn't care about that. But it's different when it's a main character. I absolutely would have cared if they had decided to make Belle black, just for the heck of it. Or Asian or Mexican or any other race, honestly.

I agree. Mulan and Pocahontas weren't the best examples, because the stories wouldn't make sense if they were white. Their race is pretty central to the story. I just couldn't really think of any other examples. And yeah, Ariel being white isn't essential to the story, but as I said, it's not really about race to me, as much as just the fact that she doesn't look like Ariel (which just so happens to be because of her race).

 

I guess I misunderstood you then. I thought your point was that Ariel shouldn't be black because her character was first introduced and therefore definitively established as being white. If you're saying that you personally prefer her to be white, then fair enough.

 

I mean, I am saying the first thing, but that's still just my opinion. Why am I not allowed to think that she shouldn't be black because the character is already established as being white? That's still just an opinion.

 

I'm not sure, I never read the book

 

yep and she described as pale, with ginger hair and blue eyes. I mean out of three at least one could be saved
but what is wrong in all of this is that you can't argue with most of them(obv not everyone) because other way you're racist, I mean one of the biggest news media here in my country made this reporting to tell everyone how much are clever and open minded in disney just because they transformed a danish white mermaid in a black one, I mean the problem is not that she's black is that that she's not pale, ginger and blue eyes. I LOVED Peter Dinklage in GOT but telling all of you directly if he wouldn't have been a midget it wouldn't had the part and that's it because tyrion was a WHITE DWARF and they chose him because of it and there's nothing wrong. if you want to change then change everything call it "the adventure of a mermaid" wrote your story and let the mermaid be how you like the most

 

Of course you are allowed to think that. I was just saying that it's not really objective. But you have the right to not be objective. My point was just that Ariel isn't her skin color. So her skin color being different shouldn't be used as a measure to judge her character differently, at least from an objective point of view. Live-action Batman for example was first introduced to a new generation by actor Michael Keaton. A few years later he was played by Val Kilmer. Keaton had brown hair, Kilmer blonde, and it wouldn't have been fair to say that only brown-haired Michael Keaton is Batman/Bruce Wayne just because he was first introduced that way. Batman's character isn't defined by his hair color. Of course, it's natural to not always be 100% objective and form an opinion also based on personal taste/preferences/nostalgia, I was just trying to bring attention to that distinction.