... while stating that racism doesn't exist. Oh, the irony!
Once again, they complain about a black actor or actress being hired.
"Mermaids appear in the folklore of many cultures worldwide, including Europe, Asia, and Africa."
MC racists are self-unaware, ignorant and vile.
You mean the ones complaining about a middle eastern actress playing a Greek queen???
Indeed.
And yeah, all cultures have mermaids but the little mermaid is the result of a certain culture. Want to have black mermaids? Get a story from a black culture, since they have stories about mermaids. Imagine idiots whining about whites wearing braids when lots of Europeans wore braids during the history and now arguing about an European story, a product of the European culture and how they are entitled to it.
Keep your filthy hands off my culture ..
Fucking hypocrites … and racists …
And all cultures borrow from each other. Disney's Mermaid is clearly American since she speaks American English and is created by an American company with an American actress in the lead role.
Disney had already made it clear that racists little yourself are not wanted. Go away!
"And all cultures borrow from each other." - yeah, only when it suits your racist agenda ...
Disney's mermaid IS NOT Disney's. They just stole the story and they show no respect to the original.
Period.
Disney presently owns the rights to "Disney The Little Mermaid".
Everyone had stolen the story from worldwide legends that existed for centuries.
Build your own multi-billion dollar multimedia corporation and you can film racist movies for yourself and your KKK pals.
I'm not responding directly to asom, because we've danced this dance before. I wanted to say about
Disney's mermaid IS NOT Disney's. They just stole the story and they show no respect to the original.
Better question is, why should they? The first time it was obvious and quite understandable why they changed it.
shareI guess I just think that when redoing someone else's song, bring a new flavour to it, or why bother remaking it in the first place?
I don't think that any of these live adaptations needed to be done. I prefer the cartoons to all of them, even Cinderella. I'm just not upset about Disney making appearance changes to a character in a story that they already changed significantly.
Setting it in modern times or something is bringing a new flavour to it, purposely changing the character's skin tone (especially when it's culturally and historically incorrect) only adds a political purpose. And I think there's no denying it when Disney emphasizes "diversity" and "inclusivity" when promoting these movies.
I like the originals just fine. What I dislike the most about these remakes is that Disney acts like they created and own these stories.
I have no doubt that it is politically motivated. I am not arguing that at all. I do think that there is an over representation of white characters in movies though. I would much prefer for original stories. I really, really would. I have really liked the new animated Disney movies. I would love to see more of that. I also know that original and Disney are two words that don't go together. There are fights I consider worth fighting. The skin colour of a mermaid is not one of those for me. Especially not after Disney took out the entire moral of the original story to make a cute movie. I think there are much greater injustices which need addressing.
White people still have the majority of roles in Hollywood.
I think the trend of changing the skin colours of originally white characters is part of a bigger movement and that's why people do have an issue with it.
It's something different than Disney saying, "Hey, let's look beyond Europe for stories, just to do something different."
The majority of people in the US are white and probably even moreso in Hollywood. I don't have a problem with that, just like I have no problem that there are hardly any white people in movies from Bollywood or Nollywood. If minorities do have a problem with it, I'd encourage them to create their own stories.
According to the 2020 census, the population of white people in the US was 61.6%.
This is what a quick google search shows me for India.
1,000,000 people in India are Anglo-Indians and 700,000 United States citizens are living in India. They represent over 0.1% of the total population of India.
To be "diverse" and "inclusive". And to appeal to people like me, of course.
Most people's lives do not look like statistics, though. History doesn't either.
I'm sure there are far less women in the plumbing sector than men. Is it truly NECESSARY to have more female plumbers just so it fits the statistics?
Like I said, minorities can always choose to tell their own stories. And maybe the lack of black roles, for example, in movies is also because less black people choose to be actors. It's too easy to put the blame and responsibility on white people.
When there are fewer roles available, fewer people go for them. I'm not saying that that is white people's fault, I'm just saying that that is how it was. Is the pendulum swinging too far the other way now? I can't say for sure. The stats seem to be more in tune with American population so I don't see that as a bad thing.
As for lives looking like statistics, I think the census is a decent representation of people's lives. Sure I didn't specify rural vs urban and all of that, I just went the over all population. It also didn't include people of mixed ancestry, so those numbers may be a little low.
Like I said, this isn't where I'm wasting my energy. I have 100 years of movies to go through if I just want to see white people. I just don't really care.
Chicken-and-the egg. But if there's truly a lack of roles, create black roles instead of turning white roles black. There's no reason for that other than to make some kind of point.
Movies are often about personal stories involving familiesor friends. Just because 40% of the population isn't white, does not mean that's a true representation of white people's personal lives.
I get that you don't care and I'm not telling you you should, but you do seem to have an issue with people who do care. I'm just explaining it's about more than just the skin tone of one fictional movie character.
I don't have an issue with people who do care, I've just put out stats and made comments that I don't really understand why people care so much about a half fish, half human. I can't wait to see the outrage when Snow White's trailer is released.
Movies are often about personal stories involving familiesor friends. Just because 40% of the population isn't white, does not mean that's a true representation of white people's personal lives.
If Tyler Perry is able to make his crappy movies, then anyone can make their own movies. I don't think the studios owe it to anyone to turn their script into a movie.
I can't wait to see how Disney will try to explain why Snow White isn't exactly as white as snow. My guess is that they won't even bother and anyone who even dares to bring it up it will be accused of being a racist.🤷♀️
I don't think studios owe it to anyone either, it's a business. But when someone says "why doesn't this group just create their own movies and their own stories?" that's a reason why.
shareI can't consider that a legitimate reason. There must be people from minority groups with plenty of money to set up their own studios. There's enough equal opportunity now, so the people who ask why those movies and stories aren't being created, should go out and do it themselves, like Tyler Perry did.
shareThe issue is, why where do many characters originally white?
shareInteresting that you consider racial diversity to be political. It like you are admitting that Republicans/ conservatives are beholden to white supremacy.
share"Disney's Mermaid is clearly American since she speaks American English and is created by an American company with an American actress in the lead role."
Oh, so Belle in the Beauty and the Beast cartoon is suddenly American and not French because she speaks with an American accent, is voiced by an an American actress and the movie was made by an American company???
Apples and oranges.
Belle is an Americanized version with major changes from the original. Changes only bother you when a black actor/actress is cast.
Your conclusion that Ariel must be American is faulty, because the same goes for Belle.
The Little Mermaid is also an "Americanized version with major changes from the original" (Danish fairy tale), not "clearly American".
"Changes only bother you when a black actor/actress is cast."
Says who? I certainly don't.
"create black roles instead of turning white roles black."
It's not a white role. Your belief is part of your white entitlement problem that we've discussed in the past. Ariel is a fictitious character created by Disney.
BTW, Hollywood repeatedly takes historical and fictitious POC characters and turn them white. You haven't complained about that once.
The fictitious character of Ariel that Disney created was WHITE and based on a WHITE character created by Andersen. FACT.
"Your belief is part of your white entitlement problem that we've discussed in the past."
Nope, it's part of your problem of being a racist troll who keeps making up complete BS..
"You haven't complained about that once"
And there it is, your habit of making up complete BS. As if you're there every time I complain about a movie.
You are a freaking troll, who just needs to crawl into a hole a die.
Nope. The Anderson mermaid was not white. Nor did she have red hair. Neither is the prince white. I bet you didn't read the Anderson story!!
You're only assuming they were white which is a form of racism. Disney was a very racist company so practically every character they created was white. Now, they're fixing their past racism. You, on the other hand, want to continue racism.
Ha, you are WRONG!
The mermaid is actually described as being "pale" and having "white hands", "white arms" and "white legs".
"You're only assuming they were white which is a form of racism. Disney was a very racist company so practically every character they created was white. Now, they're fixing their past racism. You, on the other hand, want to continue racism."
You are 100% trolling. Stop it, D-feet.
Nope! She's described as only pale. You didn't read the story - obviously! I read it four times.
The Anderson story has little in common with the Disney movie. How come her tongue not being cut out, her bleeding feet, her death at the end and the omission of her grandmother don't bother you?
"...her skin was as clear and delicate as a rose-leaf, and her eyes as blue as the deepest sea.."
"...pretty little mermaid was standing beneath them, holding out her white hands towards the keel of their ship..."
Black people have blue eyes and everyone has white hands.
share"Little did they dream that a pretty young mermaid was down below, stretching her white arms up toward the keel of their ship."
"Lowering her gaze, she saw that her fish tail was gone, and that she had the loveliest pair of white legs any young maid could hope to have."
And arms and legs?
Lol, you are SOOO wrong, as always:
"Little did they dream that a pretty young mermaid was down below, stretching her white arms up toward the keel of their ship."
"Lowering her gaze, she saw that her fish tail was gone, and that she had the loveliest pair of white legs any young maid could hope to have."
"Then the little mermaid lifted her shapely white arms, rose up on the tips of her toes, and skimmed over the floor."
"Only the helmsman remained on deck as the little mermaid leaned her white arms on the bulwarks."
FOUR times, huh?! Boy oh boy, that's really impressive from a troll!
When Disney created Ariel they made her white and that's a fact they need to accept. Just like you.
When Disney created Ariel they made her black and that's a fact they need to accept. Just like you.
shareLol, you're making up BS again like you always do! Get out of here, D-feet!
shareYou're the one telling everyone to accept what Disney created.
Disney's Ariel is Black. Accept it!
You're the one telling everyone that the mermaid isn't white. Read the Andersen story and watch the Disney cartoon. She's white.
Now bugger off, you troll. It's long past bedtime in Australia.
Disney's Ariel is Black! That's the reason why you racist nerds are crying.
sharePut on your glasses and watch the 1989 movie again, Mr. Magoo. You can't change the facts.
shareDisney's Ariel is black. That's what you're crying about.
shareStop trolling:
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kZ4xIXOppJQ/UKPRBRcKZxI/AAAAAAAAKGs/anR_C7ScD8E/s1600/idontknowwhen.jpg
Anyone can create a blog.
Disney's Ariel is black.
Okay, an official Disney website then:
https://www.shopdisney.eu/characters-and-movies/disney/little-mermaid-the
Now bugger off, D-feet, and go live in space with your little alien friends the Ancient Egyptians.
So pale means black in your sick mind??
sharePale brown is tan.
You're still fixated on a little girl's cartoon character? What's wrong with you?
Pale is NOT brown nor black.
"pale: adjective, light in color or having little color."
You're a fucking racist.
"Tan is a pale tone of brown. The name is derived from tannum (oak bark) used in the tanning of leather. The first recorded use of tan as a color name in English was in the year 1590."
share"A pale shade of brown, tan earned its name from the process by which animal hide becomes leather (tanning). The process owes its name to an old German word for oak trees--tannin-- that produce an acidic chemical compound used in tanning."
shareYES IDIOT. A pale SHADE/tone!!!!
Pale by itself means white. Pale attached to other colors means a light tone of that color you moron. You can have pale red, pale blue, pale brown.
Example: "Pale reds are red colors that are saturated with white. "
But again: "Pale by itself means white."
you are such an ignorant ...
Pale red is pink.
Pale brown is tan.
Pale blue is baby blue.
Pale means less saturation. of color.
1. deficient in color or intensity of color : pallid
2. having color of reduced saturation
3. light in color especially relative to others of its kind
4. not bright or brilliant
5. feeble, faint
There are no white people. All people have color, silly goose!
Anyway, it was already determined that the characters in the book are Arabs.
Hahahaha, right :D
Thanks for the laugh!!! :D
There are no white people. All people have color, silly goose!
We're discussing skin color, genius. Try to keep up!
shareAMERICAN MOVIE...AMERICA IS A RAINBOW...DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE AMERICA IS A WHITE COUNTRY?
BY THE WAY...YOU DON'T HAVE A CULTURE...JUST AN INTERNET CONNECTION AND A BROKEN BRAIN.
American movie based on European culture. Stop stealing my culture you racist prick. Make your own culture. Put your own culture into movies. Oh, you don't have a culture to put into movies, well, I'm sorry for you but that doesn't give you the right to steal and use mine ...
The problem is that you cannot and you have to steal other people culture so you can brag that you created (actually copied) something ...
By the way, my culture is way older than anything you can call your culture ;)
As a matter of facts allegedly the first writing in the world had been discovered in my region (less than 200km away - 120 miles for the ignorant Americans).
BTW: native Americans had exactly zero writings before the contact. Sub Saharan Africa had almost no writings either in the ancient times.
So you're 100% wrong. And stupid.
So you are middle eastern then? I thought you were European.
shareEuropean.
http://www.prehistory.it/ftp/tartaria_tablets/tartaria_tablets_01.htm
But as I said, alleged. It's not very clear what's the age of the tablets.
I'm sorry, when you said first writing I thought you were referring to the first recorded story.
shareSub-Saharan writing occurred much earlier than your tartar tablets by 1-2 millennia.
"An ongoing archaeological dig in Sudan has unearthed fascinating Nubian artifacts from sub-Saharan empires where women held power and prestige. The artifacts also contain remnants of the oldest-written black African language and present the first ever depictions of Egyptian deities with black African features.
The necropolis was built by the Napata kingdom in the seventh century B.C. and then was added to by the Meroitics five centuries later. Some of the most significant findings include tablets and tombs written in Meroitic, the earliest-known written language of sub-Saharan Africans."
https://www.newsweek.com/sub-saharan-african-empires-nubia-meroitic-napata-kush-kingdom-883813
"Maya, Aztecs, Mixtecs, and Zapotecs of Mesoamerica had native writing systems.
The earliest known monument with Zapotec writing is a "Danzante" stone, officially known as Monument 3, found in San José Mogote, Oaxaca. It has a relief of what appears to be a dead and bloodied captive with two glyphic signs between his legs, probably representing his name. First dated to 500–600 BCE, this was earlier considered the earliest writing in Mesoamerica.
The traditions of indigenous Mesoamerican literature extend back to the oldest-attested forms of early writing in the Mesoamerican region, which date from around the mid-1st millennium BCE.
The conquistadors burned most Mesoamerican texts that they encountered."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_literature#/media/File:Dresden_Codex_p09.jpg
You're not too bright, are you? White supremacist myths will keep you stupid.
Are you THAT stupid?? It's rhetorical, I know you are.
By Native Americans it's understood the natives of North American Continent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States
"Native Americans, also known as First Americans, Indigenous Americans, American Indians, and other terms, are the Indigenous peoples of the United States, including Hawaii and territories of the United States, and other times limited to the mainland."
https://www.history.com/topics/native-american-history/native-american-cultures
""Maya, Aztecs, Mixtecs, and Zapotecs of Mesoamerica had native writing systems." - yes, but they are Mesoamericans, NOT Native Americans. I know you're ignorant but still, there is NO excuse.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/North-American-Indian-languages#ref75310
"No native writing system was known among North American Indians at the time of first European contact, unlike the Maya, Aztecs, Mixtecs, and Zapotecs of Mesoamerica who had native writing systems. "
Fucking ignorant. Even the quotes that YOU posted keep mentioning Mesoamerica you MORON!!!!
Also you idiot 300 years BC (the meroitic writing) is older by a millennia than ... wait for it ... 6500 years BC?? Where did you learn math? In prison???
Oh, wait, do you believe that ~300BC is older than ~6500BC because ... it's a smaller number??? AHAHAHAHAAH.
Are you THAT stupid??? Again, It's rhetoric, I know you are.
You just make more and more a fool of yourself.
You're ranting like the white supremacist maniac that you are.
shareThat doesn't change the fact that you are an ignorant that doesn't have any idea what you're talking about.
Period.
"native Americans had exactly zero writings before the contact. Sub Saharan Africa had almost no writings either in the ancient times."
Obviously, you're an idiot who knows nothing about history since I proved you wrong.
You're a white supremacist. If your skin color is the only thing going for you, then you must have a pathetic life.
Obviously you are the idiot. You didn’t prove anything. As I proved above. And I know a lot more about history than you and your whole family!
You still don’t understand the difference between Native Americans and Mesoaméricans?
Jeezus boy, read a book or something…
European civilization came from Asia and Africa including early inventions and religion.
shareNope. And the latest theories are that the Sumerian civilization might be a result of migration from the Danube basin.
The Greeks and the Romans are quite older than your meroitic writing.
If you want to imply that the civilizations had been influenced by others and influenced others, sure. But that's a different problem.
And for SURE there are NO inventions, religion OR aspects of civilization coming from the black, sub-saharan area. I'll let you decide why is that ...
Roman civilization came from Greece.
Greece from Ancient Egypt and Nubia which were black African and Asian cultures.
You don't read which is the reason you don't know anything about African civilizations, inventions and culture.
Furthermore, your cult is banning history books in order to keep their cultists, like yourself, ignorant.
Hahahaha, sure, the white greeks come from sub-saharan blacks. It's OBVIOUS!!!!
share"sub-saharan blacks"
There are black people throughout Africa. Your singular obsession with one region sounds racist. It would be like saying "western European whites" as if whites in other regions aren't really white.
You know nothing about Ancient Greek history. Ancient Greece's origin is in the Eastern Mediterranean and many were olive-complexioned, not white. Greeks were not even considered white in the U.S. until recently. Historically, Greeks were hated by WASPs who didn't consider them or Italians to be white.
"Greek people have also been subjected to racially-motivated violence in the United States. In 1909, hysteria over the large number of Greek immigrants working in meatpacking factories in the town of South Omaha, Nebraska, led a local man named Joseph Murphy—who was, ironically, of Irish descent—to publish a petition to expel all Greek and other southern European immigrants from the city.
In his petition, Murphy wrote that the city had become “infested by a vile bunch of filthy Greeks who have attacked our women, insulted pedestrians upon the street, openly maintained gambling dens and many other forms of viciousness.” An op-ed in The Omaha Daily News added even more racist vitriol, declaring, “They have insulted women … Greeks are a menace to the American labouring man—just as the Japs, Italians, and other similar labourers are.”
These hateful attacks on the Greek community culminated in a bloody pogrom that lasted for seven hours on the day of 21 February 1909, known as the “Greek Town riot,” in which a mob of roughly 3,000 white supremacist men violently assaulted Greeks and other olive-skinned minorities, burned the entire Greek neighborhood of South Omaha, and displaced the entire Greek population of the city. The police stood by and did nothing. The rioters killed at least one Greek boy and caused an estimated $8 million in damages in today’s money. Greek Town was abandoned and never reestablished.
In 1915, the Ku Klux Klan was refounded. This new, refounded Klan incorporated virulent anti-Italianism and anti-Hellenism into its overarching anti-immigrant ideology. It was widely (but certainly wrongly) believed among white supremacists in the early twentieth century that the ancient Greeks and Romans had been members of the so-called “Nordic race” and that modern Greeks were a totally different, inferior people."
Furthermore, ancient Greece was diverse with Black and brown people.
"Greeks and Italians have been in contact with dark-skinned peoples of African and Near Eastern ancestry from the very beginning of their history, from a time even before the development of the Greek alphabet."
Lastly, if you knew history, then you would understand the Egyptian and Nubian influences on ancient Greek art, religion and culture and similar Greek influences on ancient Rome.
I'm from East Europe idiot, I know a lot more than you about that area's history.
Including Greece. And I'm as white (or olive) as the Greeks you imbecile.
Ancient Greece was not diverse. Yeah, there were traders coming/going or some invaders but they were not, as a population, diverse.
Read about it:
https://www.greecehighdefinition.com/blog/2022/5/10/social-status-of-different-races-in-ancient-greece
Of course there were influences between cultures, but that's not what you said.
You said
"Roman civilization came from Greece.
Greece from Ancient Egypt and Nubia which were black African and Asian cultures."
Which is TOTALLY different than "Egyptian and Nubian influences on ancient Greek art, religion and culture and similar Greek influences on ancient Rome."
You don't understand basic things like the difference between being influenced and coming from.
Greece isn't in East Europe, Small Fry.
Ancient Egypt is credited with creating Western Civilization. Western Civilization history usually starts with Ancient Egypt. If you opened a history book, you would know that. Egypt's influences are extensive.
"Its roots lay in the civilizations of ancient Greece and Rome (which themselves built on foundations laid in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia)."
Your link has no credibility. Any idiot can have a blog. And the idiot you chose has horrible grammar. No thanks.
Anyway, you're way off topic. Have you completed your bizarre obsession over a little girl's movie yet?
Greece isn't in East Europe
Nobody cares about East Europe. Not even to visit as a tourist.
shareKeelaim what is this you speak of
"Egypt and Nubia which were black African and Asian cultures.""
???
Egypt is jewel of the arab world. is it not black and never has been.
where do you teach these lies? What kind of schools you have in america?
There were no Arabs in Ancient Egypt. They arrived around 700 AD.
For a Muslim, you're very dumb about Islam.
hahah what schools did you learn history? arabs are a people! moslims came in 700AD but arabs always there! not anybody else! you americans no nothing of my peoples.
shareNo, they weren't. Ancient Egyptians were not Arabs. Afghans are not Arabs.
Btw, I don't believe for 1 second that you're an Afghan.
I like the way you're pretending to write with a faux foreign "accent" complete with misspellings.
Continue your amusing stereotyping!
"Ancient Egyptians were not Arabs"
incorrekt. they looked like arabs = arabs. i've seen the movies. they look arab. arabs name changed but not spirit and look of the peoples. we see them ancient egyptions as arabs. they are not anyting else! you americans cannot rewrite egyption history to include blacks and whites! north africa is arab country.
afghans can be arabs many tribes and people there for millenias.
I'm afghan immigrant to west. you are typical american who hates evryone not from west! shame on you keelai.
You've been a naughty little Afghan Muslim and deserve a spanking.
Apologize for looking at half-naked mermaid cartoons!
Bend over while I spank you - virtually of course.
Racism does exist in Disney. They are anti-white racists, changing the race of a character due to self-imposed racial quotas for less white people.
shareEquality seems unfair to those like yourself who expect white entitlement.
shareI am not sure you understand what equality means.
shareEqual opportunity.
shareExactly:
you have the equal opportunity to make your own fucking stories.
No, taking a story and replacing characters is NOT equal opportunity. Is stealing opportunity from others.
I have no respect for the ones who are too lazy to create their own stuff. They want to re-write history (the one we wrote). They want to re-shape it instead of paving their own way. So fkn pathetic. But the most pathetic are the ones defending this reversed cultural appropriation.
shareDisney created the story. If you don't like it, don't watch.
shareDisney stole the story, they didn't create anything, just copied it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Mermaid
""The Little Mermaid" (Danish: Den lille havfrue) is a Danish literary fairy tale written by the Danish author Hans Christian Andersen."
But I know, you are deeply ignorant and you like to steal other people work.
AS APPLIED TO SOCIETY...EQUALITY MEANS EVERYONE IS ON EQUAL FOOTING WITH EQUAL OPPURTUNITY...YOU INSISTING YOUR CARTOON MERMAIDS BE PLAYED BY WHITE ACTORS ONLY IS THE OPPOSITE OF EQUALITY,DIPSHIT.
shareAs applied to society ... equality doesn't mean that YOU are allowed to STEAL from ME.
Capisci??
Equality means that you have the opportunity to create your own shit and that you should leave my shit alone.
Be a nice guy for fuck's sake.
FAIR ENOUGH...WHAT HAS ASOM CREATED?...WHAT DOES ASOM OWN?...I SMELL A FAKE VICTIM.
shareI'm against anti-whiteism
share
Fuck off Keelai you fucking gaslighter.
Just wanted to provide some statistics for those who think that white people are being erased from film.
https://womenandhollywood.com/resources/statistics/2021-statistics/
Top-grossing 100 films:
Only 32% featured an underrepresented lead/co lead.
Those 32 movies depicted a total of 34 non-white leads/co leads. Eleven or 32.3% of the leads/co leads were Asian, 32.3% (n=11) were Black, 8.8% (n=3) were Hispanic/Latino, 2.9% (n=1) were Middle Eastern/North African, and 23.5% (n=8) were Multiracial/Multiethnic.
Pivoting to underrepresented leads/co leads, the top performer once again was Walt Disney Studios. A full 57.1% of their top-grossing fare featured leads/co leads of color.
Similarly, Warner Bros. Pictures is clocked in with underrepresented leads/co leads across 41.2% of their top movies.
The bottom feeders were 20th Century (9% of films), Sony Pictures Entertainment (16.7% of films) and Paramount Pictures (25% of films).
Of the top-grossing 1,500 films 2007-2021:
Less than 1% featured a woman or girl of color in a leading or co leading role.
Top-grossing theatrical releases:
60.6% of female characters in speaking roles were White, 19.3% were Black, 9.5% were Latina, 8.4% were Asian or Asian American, 0.3% were Native American, 0.5 were MENA, and 1.4% were of multiple races or ethnicities.
64.6% of male characters in speaking roles were White, 16.7% were Black, 8.3% were Latino, 8.4% were Asian or Asian American, 0.1% were Native American, 1.3% were MENA, and 0.6% were of multiple races/ethnicities.
When the limited number of films centered on Latina/Latino characters — “Encanto,” “West Wide Story,” “In the Heights,” etc. — were excluded from the analysis, the percentage of Latina characters in speaking roles fell from 9.5% to 5.7%, and the percentage of Latino characters declined from 8.3% to 6.1%.
When the limited number of films centered on Asian and Asian American characters — “Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings,” “Minari,” “Raya and the Last Dragon,” etc. – were excluded from the analysis, the percentage of Asian and Asian American female characters in speaking roles fell from 8.4% to 5.9%. The percentage of Asian and Asian American male characters declined from 8.4% to 6.4%.
I AM PATIENTLY WAITING TO SEE THE WHAT THESE FOLKS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THOSE STATS.
share"Walt Disney Studios. A full 57.1% of their top-grossing fare featured leads/co leads of color." - bingo.
"Of the top-grossing 1,500 films 2007-2021" do it 2015-2022
I don't know. There are times when it makes sense for a character to be played by a particular race or nationality. I like seeing traditionally Japanese characters or historical figures be played by someone who looks Japanese, for example.
For a long time it was common to have white characters play non white roles like native Americans, Middle Easterners, and so on. This was wrong for a variety of reasons.
That's still happening.
The mermaid isn't white. She's a mermaid. Different species.
White actors are still playing made up non white characters? Thats pretty messed up! I thought Khan in ST Into Darkness was the last time I've seen that. What do you think of them doing that?
Doesn't seem right to me. If a character has been traditionally Japanese, it should probably be played by someone with Japanese ancestry, for example.
I did like the American version of the Ring, though. I don't know. They did just a total reimagining of that one setting it in America so it made a little more sense there. Do you think exceptions should be made?
Still happens. There was no reason why Asian-American actors couldn't play the main characters in the American "Ring" version. Except racism.
shareDisgusting! How can they allow white actors play traditionally non white characters? What's next, having white actors take over an African fairy tail?
shareSo black mermaids form african fairy tales are not black because they are mermaids and a different species.
shareLol, exactly.
shareAriel lives in the Caribbean. It makes sense for her to be black.
shareDidn't answer the question though did you. As always you sidestep it.
The mermaid isn't white. She's a mermaid. Different species.
So black mermaids form african fairy tales are not black because they are mermaids and a different species.
You're completely delusional!
"Her father is King Triton"
Nope. The father is referred to as "Sea King" in the Anderson book.
"son of Poseidon who is the brother if Zeus."
Nope, no relation. Not in the book.
"author of the fairy is Danish"
Who stole the story from a German. Who stole the story from other Germans and French. Who likely stole the story from others. Like I wrote, it's global.
"She lives in the Kingdom of Atlantica off the coast of Denmark."
Nope, not in the book. She just lives in the sea. And it can't be Denmark since where she lives is near land where oranges and citris grow with plenty of sunshine. That sounds like the Caribbean!
"Jamiacan crab"
Now, we have proof along with the West Indian music that Ariel is Caribbean!!!! Btw, in the book, she has no name.
The prince has slaves in the book. Slavery existed in the Caribbean. and she doesn't have red hair in the book! And the mermaid dies in the book after the prince dumps her for another woman.
You can't have it both ways. Everything you mentioned was made-up by Disney and didn't come from the book. Now, Disney is updating its story for a new generation with new music and better storytelling.
You accepted all of the many Disney changes. Except a black Ariel. You're a racist.
"Who stole the story from a German. Who stole the story from other Germans and French. Who likely stole the story from others. Like I wrote, it's global." nope, it's European :p
And apparently the story is set in Italy (still white) and not in Denmark and for SURE not in the Caribbean.
Even Disney set the location of their animation in Italy ...
Likely the Caribbean which makes more sense.
Anyway, Disney's new live action movie is definitely set in the Caribbean.
Racists like yourself aren't complaining about any of the major changes to the Anderson story except for the black mermaid.
Nope, Caribbean makes no sense. Prince (specially white prince) Roman temple in Caribbean? Nope.
Well. The other changes don’t erase the cultural aspects.
Neither the book nor the Disney cartoon mention a specific place. Nor does the book say that the prince is white. Nor the mermaid who can be blue, green, brown or polka dot. It just mentions that she's pale. Tan is pale brown and that's what the actress playing Ariel is!
"Well. The other changes don’t erase the cultural aspects."
You don't have a problem with any of the many, many changes. You only have a problem with the actress being black which makes you a racist.
How come you're not upset that the mermaid's tongue wasn't cut out of her mouth by the witch?
It's Italy. End of discussion.
https://www.sevenseasmermaid.com/where-does-little-mermaid-take-place/
how about those of us who want the remake close to the original?
shareThen why not watch the original?
shareGET YOUR CRAYONS OUT AND GET TO WORK.
shareThis song from the original cartoon is clearly Caribbean music:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrRbB-qUJfY
Since the original cartoon takes place in the Caribbean like the live action version will, it makes more sense for Ariel to be Black.
Stick to the original cartoon if you can't tolerate a fictitious Disney character being Black.
Since the original cartoon takes place in the Caribbean
I can't speak for everyone out there, but myself. It's not about racist hate at all. I just simply would have rather they picked someone who looked close enough to the original animated character. Either Chloe Grace Moretz, Emma Watson or Isla Fisher would have been fantastic for it imo. Especially Isla.
I get your point. But Isla Fisher is like 30 years overaged to play that role. Not that great of a choice if you are looking for an actress that's closer to the character. My first pick for that role would be Annalise Basso. She resembles Ariel too and is half the age of Fisher.
shareRemember when people used to say "Hey, that role was cast so well?" Remember why? It was because they found someone who looked like the one they were familiar with. If it wasn't for the cartoon, there would be no problem with this casting. THEN the ones complaining would be mostly racists.
But the Cause can't keep being the Cause without the cause. So the problem HAS to be seen everywhere.
I personally don't much care. I'd have liked to see an actress who looked like Disney's Ariel but I think this new girl could do fine in the role. People who wish she looked like the cartoon are not racist.
Yes, they're racists. Read the posts on social media.
Disney was a very racist company for a long time. There are people who want that racism to continue even though Disney has moved pass it.
I wish she looked like the cartoon and I am not racist.
sharePlenty of little girls are happy that she doesn't:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ikrd/disney-little-mermaid-trailer-black-girls-reactions