Did you know that red hair/white skin is the most rare combination of the human race?
Yet they cast a black person with black hair. That's not rare at all.
Over a billion negroid people in the world.
I think that’s the point we’ve been trying to make. Lots of dark skinned African descended people on this world and no live action black Disney princess yet. Ginger-complected people have already have Giselle in TWO live action Disney princess films and now you want one in a third one as well? Where’s the accurate representation in that? Considering the amount of black people, there should be multiple black princesses.
shareWe don't need them to steal a character that represents a minority group.
share"Lots of dark skinned African descended people on this world"
so go make youre own storys instead of stealing arab culture.
that is right. you cannot create own storys so steal others hahahahahahhahahaha
useless
have you not seen any of the thousands of movies that were made in Africa in the past 20 years?
shareCan we see the data you accumulated to support this claim?
shareDon't be afraid of FACTS:
https://www.rd.com/article/hair-eye-color-combination-rare/#:~:text=Red%20is%20the%20rarest%20hair,almost%20certainly%20have%20red%20hair.
"What are the rarest hair and eye color combinations? That’d be red hair with blue eyes.
There’s a little genetic tweak that makes the combination of red hair and blue eyes the rarest of them all. The same Nature study mentioned above found that another gene variant, HERC2, interacts with both the MC1R gene and the OCA2 gene—and it can shut off the redhead gene while expressing blue eyes and blonde hair. That makes the blue eye and red hair combination even more unlikely to happen.
In addition, with both red hair and blue eyes being something akin to recessive traits, having parents that are able to pass on two sets of recessive genes is very unlikely. In most cases, you’d have blue eyes and hair somewhere on the spectrum of blond to brown, or red hair with brown, hazel or green eyes.
According to an article by evolutionary biology professor Mark Elgar, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, blue-eyed redheads are the absolute rarest, with 0.17% of the population having that combination of hair and eye color. So if that describes you, you’re most likely one in a million (or more!)."
Sorry if this causes 'offence', but facts aren't 'racist'. They just are. Deal with it.
I was looking for data on rare hair and skin color but all I found was data on rare hair and eye color; like the link you posted.
shareAre there many (any) Black people with red hair *and* blue eyes?
I know of Black people with red-tinted hair (Malcolm X supposedly had reddish hair, but it still wasn't as brightly red as Ariel), but it's extremely unlikely for a Black person to have blue eyes, although I believe it happens.
https://owlcation.com/stem/Black-People-with-Blue-Eyes
Seeing that mermaids are mythical creatures, I suppose it would make sense for Ariel to have an exceptionally rare combination of hair and eyes for a Black woman, but surely it would always be preferable to cast naturally red-headed people, whether they are white OR Black, as red-headed characters, seeing how rare this phenotype is.
And FWIW, I'm not keen on where a brunette or blonde white actor is given red hair for a film. It looks unnatural. Cast a naturally red-headed actor FFS.
Do you need to use the term 'negroid' to make your point? It makes you seem racist.
shareHE IS.
shareWell, I'm not so keen to throw around labels, if it can be helped. The OP shouldn't use that derogatory and unnecessary term, but they are factually correct when they say "that red hair/white skin is the most rare combination of the human race", and I'm sorry, but FACTS cannot be 'racist'.
shareIT'S THE PERSONAL FLAVOR HE PEPPERS ALL HIS POSTS WITH...THE FLAVOR IS RACIST TROLL.
shareI'm not familiar with them.
If their agenda is racism, then I don't care for their BULLSHIT. I only care for good-faith and reasonable, rational arguments, whether they benefit the left or the right. In fact, if they're a racist, they only hurt whatever argument they're otherwise trying to make.
THIS is the reality: red hair will eventually be non-existent in society. The FACT is that it's the rarest (natural) hair colour in the world. That is why it makes sense to document red-heads in film and TV NOW, before they are one day extinct.
As a GENUINE leftist (not a FRAUD, like a few here I could mention) I believe that just as we document endangered animals to preserve the knowledge of their existence for future generations, we should do so with rare genetic phenotypes. The people who will now argue with me, are extremely inconsistent and illogical in their arguments (which is what happens when you pursue an *agenda*, particularly a political/corporate-mandated one, rather than allow yourself to be guided by consistent and rational principles).
FAIR ENOUGH...NOW YOU AND OR THE OP TELL ME WHAT ANY OF THIS HAS TO DO WITH AN ANIMATED FISH WOMAN.🤔
shareWell, the animated Disney version of The Little Mermaid, of which this is a direct remake, featured a character called Ariel, who had red hair. I believe the OP and others are speculating why Disney didn't take this opportunity to cast an actor with red hair (the rarest phenotype in the world, and one that will one day disappear) as the character that is *directly* based on the aforementioned animated Ariel. 🤷♂️
No doubt I will now be called a 'man baby' or a 'racist' for making this *perfectly* calm, rational, reasonable and logical point. Weird... 🤷♂️
re·make
[remake]
VERB
make (something) again or differently.
I don't see the point.
Then again, Lily James didn't look like the animated Cinderella and Emma Watson didn't much look like the animated Belle. The woman they got for Jasmine arguably came closest to resembling her animated counterpart. But, suffice to say, it's not an issue of 'race' (the Jasmine actor is a POC, and James and Watson are white)
The animated films already exist, so why remake them, unless you're going to literally bring the animated films to life (which is what I initially believed was the whole point).
There's something magical about seeing a two-dimensional character being brought, ACCURATELY to life in live-action form, but I guess no-one feels this way, which once again, raises the damn question. If the point isn't to bring the animated version to life, what is the DAMN point?
The point is making money, something Disney is quite good at. What fucking business is it of yours to try to dictate them what to do in their own company?
shareA company is not a sentient entity. Stop treating it like one.
Walt Disney's politics, whatever one may think of them (and as a *genuine* leftist, unlike the corporatists at Disney, don't particularly approve of them), is a million miles away from the politics supposedly espoused by 2023 Disney.
I don't make this point to call out any side, politically, but simply to highlight that Disney is a corporation made up of various people of different opinions, so to act as if it always makes entirely unanimous decisions, or that its decisions are always successful and/or prudent, is utteyl absurd.
You asked what the point of making the movie was and I gave you the answer: to make money.
Your indignant sputtering is satisfying but I suggest you just move on with your life.
Well, not all movies make money these days. In fact, a good few of Disney's live-action remakes have *lost* a significant amount of the studio's money, so 'capitalism, ain't it great?' doesn't particularly work as a de facto answer here either. But, hey, keep simping for the neoliberal corporatist/capitalist establishment. 🙂
shareDisney could be losing money on this movie but the reason it was made does not change.
Any more irrelevancies?