The Little Mermaid - Live Action Disney (TBC)

raigraphixs

Distinguished Member
D-o6O6OXkAI_eVl.jpg
D-o7T-2XoAExpRz.jpg
D-o7T-xWsAEO3jj.jpg
D-o7T-xXsAElr6l.jpg
D-o7T-yWkAA6tbK.jpg
 

lucasisking

Distinguished Member
Plenty of black people aren't happy about the choice either, feeling this is pandering and would prefer instead to have their own original characters.

The virtue-signallers coming out of the woodwork are just as ignorant as the racists.
 

Garrett

Moderator
I dont see why its prejudice not unless there saying there not choosing the actor/actresses with natural red hair for the roles. But seems as daft as them crying foul, like the comments they made that a lesbian should have been chosen to have played Batwoman( a lesbian character), when the opposite been happening e.g. Sheldon played by Jim Parson.
Although I just looked at how they done Starfires hair and it look bloody awful it even looks pink.

I have to agree with Joe Griffin twitter.
 

lucasisking

Distinguished Member
Its not necessarily that the mermaid is supposed to be 'white' that's the issue. Its more that she's supposed to be a red-head. Apart from the tail (including it in fact) Ariel's most distinctive feature is her shock of red hair. It's her defining human feature. One might argue that Ariel's look is more iconic than her character (she didn't really have much of a character). And sorry if it's non-PC, but red-heads happen to be caucasian. Take that one up with nature.

Not so with, say, Zendaya playing MJ in Spider-Man. MJ is a character, not a look. So it doesn't matter so much who plays her. I really like Zendaya as MJ (I like her in general to be fair), and I hope I feel the same about the new Ariel. However I think its totally fine for some people to question the casting when it is such a drastic visual change from the iconography of the character.

As always, there's room for a bit of nuance in the discussion. It doesn't have to mean one side is 'racist' and the other is 'sjw'.
 

Garrett

Moderator
have to say I had more issues with Black Widow going blond, she never been blonde, than them changing the race of the West family in the TV series than in the comics although Wally(when in costume) looks a million miles from the Kid Flash I read.
 

douki

Well-known Member
The fundamental problem with the original movie:

What the hell is actually wrong with being a mermaid??

Aren't we suppose to be promoting the idea of being true to how you are born?

When Ariel's dad gives her legs at the end, it's the equivalent of him paying for her to have surgery in order to change how she was born. There's nothing wrong with having a fish tail

They got the message completely wrong and really need to change the ending
 

Plumsandpearls

Well-known Member
The fundamental problem with the original movie:

What the hell is actually wrong with being a mermaid??

Aren't we suppose to be promoting the idea of being true to how you are born?

When Ariel's dad gives her legs at the end, it's the equivalent of him paying for her to have surgery in order to change how she was born. There's nothing wrong with having a fish tail

They got the message completely wrong and really need to change the ending
The book (unsurprisingly) is pretty dark. Worth reading though
 

wolfie138

Member
if we're a society now where parents let pre teens etc have sex changes then this is the right message completely, if she yearned for legs and not a tail!
 

douki

Well-known Member
if we're a society now where parents let pre teens etc have sex changes then this is the right message completely, if she yearned for legs and not a tail!

Interesting point. Although, having a sex change is a corrective medical procedure. Are you therefore saying that Ariel was incorrectly born with a fish tail?

Ariel is a mer-person. Mer people have fish tails, thats one of their defining characteristics. So to wish away the tail is not being true to yourself or accepting who you are.
 

wolfie138

Member
no, she was born a fish but identifies as human.
 

barnaby jones

Distinguished Member
The fundamental problem with the original movie:

What the hell is actually wrong with being a mermaid??

Aren't we suppose to be promoting the idea of being true to how you are born?

When Ariel's dad gives her legs at the end, it's the equivalent of him paying for her to have surgery in order to change how she was born. There's nothing wrong with having a fish tail

They got the message completely wrong and really need to change the ending

Unless it’s your life long dream to be a human !
 

douki

Well-known Member
Guys we're talking different species here. It makes no sense. She just has to learn to love life whilst being a fish person

The ending should be Ariel realising that she is a mermaid and accepting who she is. It would be bitter sweet and far more meaningful.

Having your dad magically turn you into an entirely different species is not following your dream. It's getting what you want. Not a good message
 

barnaby jones

Distinguished Member
What you want is an ultra real, gritty version of The Little Mermaid.
Maybe she has a run in with Robert Pattison’s character from The Lighthouse, after a prolonged, brutal rape sequence, completely distraught, she turns to her father, he carries out her request but giving his daughter what she wants comes with it’s own price. The painful, complicated procedure of attaching some poor unsuspecting fisherman’s legs to a mermaid is a horrific process. After a long recovery Ariel finally has her land legs to carry out her bloody revenge…..
 

alphaomega16

Distinguished Member
What I want is new movies if they are going to keep butchering old ones to fit in with todays lunacy of agendas and views.
no, she was born a fish but identifies as human.
erm, what, going a bit of the tracks there aren't we?

She was always intrigued with life above the sea and whilst visiting the surface she fell for one of its inhabitants and there was only one way to be together.

Its the same logic as falling for someone of an alien species and having to adjust your body to live on their planet for whatever reason, doesn't mean you identify as an alien.

Last few posts are a perfect example of why older movies should be left alone.

Edit
Also born a fish is a bit of a stretch considering their upper half are basically human, they are capable of both above and below but only one is permanent due to the obvious.

If it was reversed and you could get gills implanted so you could breathe underwater to be with one does that mean you identify as a fish or just made a choice to be with someone you loved?

I know its a bit of a rant but im getting really ****** off with all the stuff I grew up with getting dragged through the mud recently from hollywood, mostly in the form of live actions.
 
Last edited:

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Sony A90J Thoughts, madVR Processor & Sonus faber Lumina II Reviews + Movie & TV roundup
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

Q Acoustics announces Q Active app availability
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
TCL introduces Roku smart TVs for UK
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Melco Audio introduces new N100-H50 digital music library
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 16th June 2021
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Deezer introduces 360 Sessions to showcase spatial audio
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom