Live-Action The Little Mermaid

[X Knight]

I'm not sure what you're asking. When's it ok for them to be not white? Any time, as far as I'm concerned, as long as their skin color doesn't play a part in their identity/background/upbringing in some vital way.

I'd have to say in Ariel's case, her skin color does play a part in her identity.

for one, that's how she was created and that's been her consistent visual identity in mainstream culture for 30 years.

also, her hair color being red, and that being a striking/defining feature of her visual identity, does tie into her skin color, imo. red hair kind of goes more naturally with fair skinned people.

 

[X Knight]

Because white people have not been underrepresented (or represented in a racist manner) since the dawn of the medium. How is this so hard to grasp? White-washing =/= racebending a formerly white character. White people have been dominant in the medium since it was born, and abused that dominance for decades. Context matters. Giving some positive representation back to those who've been denied it all those years, like casting a WOC as a beloved imaginary fairy tale character, hurts no one.

I'll just have to disagree with you on that.

 

[flickchick85]

I'd have to say in Ariel's case, her skin color does play a part in her identity.

for one, that's how she was created and that's been her consistent visual identity in mainstream culture for 30 years.

also, her hair color being red, and that being a striking/defining feature of her visual identity, does tie into her skin color, imo. red hair kind of goes more naturally with fair skinned people.

There's nothing natural about a damn mermaid. "Because it's how she looked before" is NOT defining her identity in any meaningful way. It's an appearance. It can change. Everyone's appearance changes, especially fairytale characters who are subjected to multiple interpretations. It affects her personality or story in no way whatsoever.

 

[flickchick85]

I'll just have to disagree with you on that.

So it "hurts" you because she doesn't look how you want her to look. Ok.

By that token, Superman's plastic muscles in BvS hurt me. I'm still recovering, but I'll live.

 

[jmc]

I'm not sure what you're asking.

Let me put it this way. At what stage does a characters design matter? If we give Superman blonde hair does that change things? Probably not much from a character perspective, but for most people it just doesn't look like Superman anymore. You might be able to argue until you're blue in the face that it's still Clark Kent, that the blonde hair doesn't matter, that nothing changes, and realistically if we were to look at things literally you may very well right. That is real world logic, and if I'm honest I can't argue against that. But we're not talking realism, were talking fiction or more specifically symbolism.

When a character has been defined for several decades or longer with a specific design no amount or compelling argument is going to change people's minds about what the character should look like. We associate the visual identity, his suit, his hair, and yes the skin colour of Superman to the very values he holds, in a similar way that we as a society have done in the past with deities in various religions. This goes for any number of characters and franchises. So returning to this, is her skin colour vital to her characters design? Given Ariel has become one of Disney best known characters for the best part of 30 years, was the film that literally saved Disney animation, and was a character many girls grew up with loving, admiring and cherishing, I'd argue the answer is yes.

Does adhering to the design matter? Again from a literal perspective the answer is no. From a perspective of symbolism the answer is yes. What we have to understand is there's actually an important attachment people develop to iconic characters, and to dismiss any criticism of alteration is to not understand why such change is rejected. For some people, it's not just fiction, it's part of a value they hold, part of their upbringing, part of who they are. That's the best way I can explain things.

 

[MovieSlave]

I've never heard of Halle Bailey until now but am curious to see what she'll look like in this. For a second I kept reading people's posts as "Halle Berry".

 

[flickchick85]

Let me put it this way. At what stage does a characters design matter? If we give Superman blonde hair does that change things? Probably not much from a character perspective, but for most people it just doesn't look like Superman anymore. You might be able to argue until you're blue in the face that it's still Clark Kent, that the blonde hair doesn't matter, that nothing changes, and realistically if we were to look at things literally you may very well right. That is real world logic, and if I'm honest I can't argue against that. But we're not talking realism, were talking fiction or more specifically symbolism.

When a character has been defined for several decades or longer with a specific design no amount or compelling argument is going to change people's minds about what the character should look like. We associate the visual identity, his suit, his hair, and yes the skin colour of Superman to the very values he holds, in a similar way that we as a society have done in the past with deities in various religions. This goes for any number of characters and franchises. So returning to this, is her skin colour vital to her characters design? Given Ariel has become one of Disney best known characters for the best part of 30 years, was the film that literally saved Disney animation, and was a character many girls grew up with loving, admiring and cherishing, I'd argue the answer is yes. Does adhering to the design matter? Again from a literal perspective the answer is no. From a perspective of symbolism the answer is yes. What we have to understand is there's actually an important attachment people develop to iconic characters, and to dismiss any criticism of alteration is to not understand why such change is rejected. For some people, it's not just fiction, it's part of a value they hold, part of their upbringing, part of who they are. That's the best way I can explain things.

Superman is a different case to me, as he has a much longer shelf-life with a certain look, and that look was steeped in his history of being created by a couple of children of Jewish immigrants, during a time when they felt alien and persecuted, so he was modeled on their own ideal. If they made him more Aryan with blonde hair, that would feel wrong, especially given the time he was created. THAT's actual symbolism tied to a visual identity. Not, "oh they looked this way before, so they should stay that way." The 1989 movie ain't even the first version of this story, and Ariel's appearance has none of that symbolism that defines her background/identity at all. It's simply a look the animators chose.

 

[OtherwiseKnownAs]

Imagine being over the age of 5 and caring what race Ariel is.

 

[X Knight]

Let me put it this way. At what stage does a characters design matter? If we give Superman blonde hair does that change things? Probably not much from a character perspective, but for most people it just doesn't look like Superman anymore. You might be able to argue until you're blue in the face that it's still Clark Kent, that the blonde hair doesn't matter, that nothing changes, and realistically if we were to look at things literally you may very well right. That is real world logic, and if I'm honest I can't argue against that. But we're not talking realism, were talking fiction or more specifically symbolism.

When a character has been defined for several decades or longer with a specific design no amount or compelling argument is going to change people's minds about what the character should look like. We associate the visual identity, his suit, his hair, and yes the skin colour of Superman to the very values he holds, in a similar way that we as a society have done in the past with deities in various religions. This goes for any number of characters and franchises. So returning to this, is her skin colour vital to her characters design? Given Ariel has become one of Disney best known characters for the best part of 30 years, was the film that literally saved Disney animation, and was a character many girls grew up with loving, admiring and cherishing, I'd argue the answer is yes.

Does adhering to the design matter? Again from a literal perspective the answer is no. From a perspective of symbolism the answer is yes. What we have to understand is there's actually an important attachment people develop to iconic characters, and to dismiss any criticism of alteration is to not understand why such change is rejected. For some people, it's not just fiction, it's part of a value they hold, part of their upbringing, part of who they are. That's the best way I can explain things.

pretty much this.

 

[Blade Hoarder]

Remember when blonde James Bond destroyed the character?

 

[jmc]

Superman is a different case to me, as he has a much longer shelf-life with a certain look, and that look was steeped in his history as being created by a couple of children of Jewish immigrants, during a time when they felt alien and persecuted, so he was modeled on their own ideal. If they made him more Aryan with blonde hair, that would feel wrong, especially given the time he was created. THAT's actual symbolism tied to a visual identity. Not, "oh they always looked this way so they should stay that way." The 1989 movie ain't even the first version of this story, and Ariel's appearance has none of that symbolism that defines her background/identity at all. It's simply a look the animators chose.

You're understanding what I'm saying though, right? If DC tomorrow were to change his hair to blonde you could tell me the exact same argument that you're making with Ariel. Of course it literally doesn't matter whether Superman has blond or black hair, or course it literally doesn't matter what colour the skin of a mermaid is. But from a symbolic perspective there are values to their existing identities that people are going to be attached to. If we acknowledge this then the solution is not to disturb this thing people like, but to build on top of those foundations. No-one wins here, and people telling other's just to get over it isn't really helping. This is why the discussion needs to me moved onto developing new ideas and mythologies, because this type of situation is doing nothing but causing more division than is necessary.

 

[Schlosser85]

Remember when blonde James Bond destroyed the character?

I also remember set pics from The Dark Knight popping up and people complaining about Harvey Dent being blond and saying Aaron Eckhart should have dyed his hair.

 

[flickchick85]

You're understanding what I'm saying though, right? If DC tomorrow were to change his hair to blonde you could tell me the exact same argument that you're making with Ariel. Of course it literally doesn't matter whether Superman has blond or black hair, or course it literally doesn't matter what colour the skin of a mermaid is. But from a symbolic perspective there are values to their existing identities that people are going to be attached to. If we acknowledge this then the solution is not to disturb this thing people like, but to build on top of those foundations. No-one wins here, and people telling other's just to get over it isn't really helping. This is why the discussion needs to me moved onto developing new ideas and mythologies, because this type of situation is doing nothing but causing more division than is necessary.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm saying it doesn't apply to Ariel the way it does Superman. The closer comparison is the one @Blade Hoarder just made to James Bond. The change here is purely aesthetic, and therefore, the people who get up in arms about such things need to learn how to get over it and move on. Like they did with blonde Bond. In that sense, it's probably good for society that this is happening more often. The more it happens, the more normalized it becomes, and the more people can just get used to the diversity. Because it ain't going anywhere.

 

[Blade Hoarder]

I can't help but laugh very hard every time someone brings up the fact that it's sacred Danish mythology.

I bet actual Danish people don't give a toss about this. America and it's perennial hang up with race. Always a spectacle for the rest of the world .

 

[jmc]

I understand what you're saying, but I'm saying it doesn't apply to Ariel the way it does Superman. The closer comparison is the one @Blade Hoarder just made to James Bond. The change here is purely aesthetic, and therefore, the people who get up in arms about such things need to learn how to get over it and move on. Like they did with blonde Bond. In that sense, it's probably good for society that this is happening more often. The more it happens, the more normalized it becomes, and the more people can just get used to the diversity. Because it ain't going anywhere.

Diversity of ideas, creations and mythologies is needed, not second hand gestures.

 

[Blade Hoarder]

I also remember set pics from The Dark Knight popping up and people complaining about Harvey Dent being blond and saying Aaron Eckhart should have dyed his hair.

I wonder how big the outrage was when Billy Dee was cast as Dent.

Oh wait, 4chan and YouTube didn't exist back then. Didn't lead lonely young men down a rabbit hole of racist excrement and crazed conspiracies.

 

[flickchick85]

Diversity of ideas, creations and mythologies is needed, not second hand gestures.

It's not merely a gesture for the millions of little girls of color who get to see someone who looks like them as a beloved Disney princess.

Diversity of ideas and mythologies would also always be welcome. But that doesn't make this moot. It's not an either/or situation.

 

[jmc]

You mean like Tiana?

 

[flickchick85]

No, I mean like Ariel. The Princess and the Frog was a poorly-marketed flop. This is guaranteed to get a much bigger push and reach a much wider audience.

 

[Jekecy]

I understand what you're saying, but I'm saying it doesn't apply to Ariel the way it does Superman. The closer comparison is the one @Blade Hoarder just made to James Bond. The change here is purely aesthetic, and therefore, the people who get up in arms about such things need to learn how to get over it and move on. Like they did with blonde Bond. In that sense, it's probably good for society that this is happening more often. The more it happens, the more normalized it becomes, and the more people can just get used to the diversity. Because it ain't going anywhere.

That's a bit harsh, no? I personally know a handful of redheaded girls myself who absolutely idolized Ariel for representing gingers when there are so few icons to look up to who are physically like them. From the stories I've heard, growing up they're practically a minority within the white world.

I'm sure it's not the intent, but I do think the messaging is a bit twisted in showing young gingers their fictional representatives don't matter one iota.

 

[jmc]

No, I mean like Ariel. The Princess and the Frog was a poorly-marketed flop. This is guaranteed to get a much bigger push and reach a much wider audience.

What do you think said girls would appreciate more? Because, the thing is not everyone who falls into the minority column is happy with this type of thing either. There are people who don't want second hand characters, they want their own characters and mythologies.

 

[flickchick85]

What do you think said girls would appreciate more? Because, the thing is not everyone who falls into the minority column is happy with this type of thing either. There are people who don't want second hand characters, they want their own characters and mythologies.

Not everyone's happy with anything. Such is life.

 

[Albright]

I‘m very disappointed, that it’s not Zendaya.
I can see, the movie set in the Carribean Sea, so a black mermaid fits into the setting

 

[flickchick85]

That's a bit harsh, no? I personally know a handful of redheaded girls myself who absolutely idolized Ariel for representing gingers when there are so few icons to look up to who are physically like them. From the stories I've heard, growing up they're practically a minority within the white world.

I'm sure it's not the intent, but I do think the messaging is a bit twisted in showing young gingers their fictional representatives don't matter one iota.

I missed when they wiped the 1989 film from existence!

 

[jmc]

I note with interest you're no longer engaging with either argument. Have it your way.