Belton Ag said:

---

I don't see the problem with wanting Disney to cast a redhead for Ariel. It would be the same if they cast a white girl if they remake Moana or Princess and the Frog.

I think the casting choice here is really dumb and I'm not sure why they'd bother remaking this movie instead of doing an original movie using this actress.

---

It's quite simple

"Diversity", and black people/minorities good.

White people bad. Actively erase them.

Sine poena nulla lex.

Why does she have to be redheaded and white in this version?

I guess all of you hate "Hamilton" right?

BenFiasco14 said:

---

Belton Ag said:

---

I don't see the problem with wanting Disney to cast a redhead for Ariel. It would be the same if they cast a white girl if they remake Moana or Princess and the Frog.

I think the casting choice here is really dumb and I'm not sure why they'd bother remaking this movie instead of doing an original movie using this actress.

---

It's quite simple

"Diversity", and black people/minorities good.

White people bad. Actively erase them.

---

You legitimately have to be the most insecure pansy poster on this entire website. It just never ends

Tobias Funke said:

---

BenFiasco14 said:

---

Belton Ag said:

---

I don't see the problem with wanting Disney to cast a redhead for Ariel. It would be the same if they cast a white girl if they remake Moana or Princess and the Frog.

I think the casting choice here is really dumb and I'm not sure why they'd bother remaking this movie instead of doing an original movie using this actress.

---

It's quite simple

"Diversity", and black people/minorities good.

White people bad. Actively erase them.

---

You legitimately have to be the most insecure pansy poster on this entire website. It just never ends

---

I don't even know who the heck you are pal. But obsession noted. Spreadsheet updated!

Sine poena nulla lex.

I knew what I was going to find on this thread after seeing it somewhere else. Texags never disappoints with stupidity. Bunch of grown men complaining about what the little mermaid looks like. WGAF

BenFiasco14 said:

---

Belton Ag said:

---

I don't see the problem with wanting Disney to cast a redhead for Ariel. It would be the same if they cast a white girl if they remake Moana or Princess and the Frog.

I think the casting choice here is really dumb and I'm not sure why they'd bother remaking this movie instead of doing an original movie using this actress.

---

It's quite simple

"Diversity", and black people/minorities good.

White people bad. Actively erase them.

---

According to this, white roles in movies have DROPPED 6.8% to an abysmal 70.7% of all characters in movies from 2007 to 2017.

Only 70.7% of all characters in movies are white! How are white actors and actresses going to support their families with a meager 70.7% of the roles in movies! How are they going to pay their Hispanic yardmen and black butlers/maids and Asian massage parlor workers? White people make up 60% of the US population, why are we only getting 70.7% of the movie roles? It's a travesty, it's a sham, it's a mockery ... it's a travashamockery!

Tanya 93 said:

---

Why does she have to be redheaded and white in this version?

I guess all of you hate "Hamilton" right?

---

Will you be okay with a live action Princess and the Frog with a white Tiana?

It's their property to do with as they please; it's up to audiences to determine whether to spend their $ and time on seeing the finished product. As I said earlier, I'm not a fan of the casting, but who knows how she'll really look in the finished movie? Chris Evans is not a scrawny little kid in real life, but they made him look that way for a good portion of the first Captain America movie. Perhaps they'll do some visual effects transformation on this gal to give her a redder head of hair (despite the alternative of just hiring someone who actually has red hair).

Hamilton - never seen it, likely never will.

I hate when Disney messes things up from the original version. Bring back the original version where she doesn't marry the prince and dissolves into the ocean instead!

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Why does she have to be redheaded and white in this version?

I guess all of you hate "Hamilton" right?

---

Will you be okay with a live action Princess and the Frog with a white Tiana?

It's their property to do with as they please; it's up to audiences to determine whether to spend their $ and time on seeing the finished product. As I said earlier, I'm not a fan of the casting, but who knows how she'll really look in the finished movie? Chris Evans is not a scrawny little kid in real life, but they made him look that way for a good portion of the first Captain America movie. Perhaps they'll do some visual effects transformation on this gal to give her a redder head of hair (despite the alternative of just hiring someone who actually has red hair).

Hamilton - never seen it, likely never will.

---

Never saw it, so I don't care

Ariel's voice is what is important. That is what Ursual wants, not her hair.


The pearl clutching over a mermaid not having red hair is amusing considering how some of the same say liberals should get over whining about Halloween costumes because. It is just a costume.

It's no big deal as long as she can sing.

Unless race is important to the character, I really don't care. Ariel is a mermaid, and unless mermaids are supposed to have be white with red hair, I don't care who is cast. Elsa being black is stupid, Black Panther being white is stupid. Blade being white is fine, Batman being black is fine (and the melt down would be entertaining).

"White people complaining they cast a black girl as Ariel: Disney created 49 films from 1937-2009 before delivering their first black princess with Tiana. Black girls watched an entire catalog NEVER seeing themselves. For 70 years."

~ Hillary Monohan

To me it comes down to the pipes. Ariel is supposed to have an amazing voice...they have to nail that or the movie falls flat.

They've gone with the same "look" for the Cinderella, Beauty, and Aladdin re-makes...but chose differently with this one.

But if they nail it...that shouldn't be an issue.

Just be true to the story.

TXK said:

---

"White people complaining they cast a black girl as Ariel: Disney created 49 films from 1937-2009 before delivering their first black princess with Tiana. Black girls watched an entire catalog NEVER seeing themselves. For 70 years."

~ Hillary Monohan

---

Totally missing the point. If someone is complaining, it's probably not because they're mad a black girl has been featured as a "princess."

I know it's hard for pea brains like the person quoted above to realize it, but it is possible to think that blacks have been unfairly underrepresented by Disney and for this to be a dumb casting choice.

Unfortunately, once again thanks to this ongoing stupid culture war, another non-political icon has become fodder for the unhealthy debate.

Tanya 93 said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Why does she have to be redheaded and white in this version?

I guess all of you hate "Hamilton" right?

---

Will you be okay with a live action Princess and the Frog with a white Tiana?

It's their property to do with as they please; it's up to audiences to determine whether to spend their $ and time on seeing the finished product. As I said earlier, I'm not a fan of the casting, but who knows how she'll really look in the finished movie? Chris Evans is not a scrawny little kid in real life, but they made him look that way for a good portion of the first Captain America movie. Perhaps they'll do some visual effects transformation on this gal to give her a redder head of hair (despite the alternative of just hiring someone who actually has red hair).

Hamilton - never seen it, likely never will.

---

Never saw it, so I don't care

Ariel's voice is what is important. That is what Ursual wants, not her hair.


The pearl clutching over a mermaid not having red hair is amusing considering how some of the same say liberals should get over whining about Halloween costumes because. It is just a costume.

It's no big deal as long as she can sing.

---

My wife doesn't have any pearls. Not clutching anything.

I've stated already that I'll give the movie a chance depending on how they ultimately present her; if I don't like what I see from the trailers, such as with Dumbo, then I likely will skip it. Again, I was dubious about Will Smith as the Genie in Aladdin, but word of mouth convinced me to see it, and I'm glad I did.

I'm all for Ariel being whatever race as long as the performance is good. The reality is that mermaids are pretty darn fictional and can be whatever skin color. Being white with red hair was a choice Disney made in the late '80s. It's not like we're basing her on a historical character. It's not going to affect the story at all.

Plenty of people don't want to be force fed SJW BLM nonsense. They should voice their opinions. Who cares if the self elected entertainment board czar gets butthurt about it.

In all seriousness... do you truly believe that a global corporation the size of Disney made this decision in order to force-feed "SJW BLM nonsense"? What sense does that even make? Like, I don't even understand how a sane individual can believe that a company as massive as Disney would even be in the business of pushing something like that?

Instead, maybe... just maybe... Disney ran the numbers and came to the conclusion that it makes the most financial sense; that the lunatics they'd lose in a decision like this would be far outweighed by the black audience they'd gain in return.

It's just mind-boggling how desperately people like you want certain corporations and "Hollywood" at large to fit into this box you've made in order to so righteously and neatly rail against. It's a business. And this was a business decision. Plain and simple.

Also, where were all of these outcries in 1989 when Disney made a red-haired, English-speaking character out of the 1837 Danish original? Were you this up in arms the first time Disney didn't stay true to the original? What values was Disney "force-feeding" when they changed the character then? Or, you know... maybe they wanted the maximum possible audience, same as they do now, so they changed the character in order to maximize their profit, same as they're doing this time as well.

This is all just so incredibly dumb. You're not only complaining about the skin color a FICTIONAL, CARTOON MERMAID who was ALREADY "appropriated" in 1989, you're actually choosing to believe that a global corporation is making this decision in order to teach their audience a lesson instead of actually making this decision to make more money.

claym711 said:

---

Plenty of people don't want to be force fed SJW BLM nonsense. They should voice their opinions. Who cares if the self elected entertainment board czar gets butthurt about it.

---

Point on this doll where the black merman touched you.

TCTTS said:

---

In all seriousness... do you truly believe that a global corporation the size of Disney made this decision in order to force-feed "SJW BLM nonsense"? What sense does that even make? Like, I don't even understand how a sane individual can believe that a company as massive as Disney would even be in the business of pushing something like that?

Instead, maybe... just maybe... Disney ran the numbers and came to the conclusion that it makes the most financial sense; that the lunatics they'd lose in a decision like this would be far outweighed by the black audience they'd gain in return.

It's just mind-boggling how desperately people like you want certain corporations and "Hollywood" at large to fit into this box you've made in order to so righteously and neatly rail against. It's a business. And this was a business decision. Plain and simple.

Also, where were all of these outcries in 1989 when Disney made a red-haired, English-speaking character out of the 1837 Danish original? Were you this up in arms the first time Disney didn't stay true to the original? What values was Disney "force-feeding" when they changed the character then? Or, you know... maybe they wanted the maximum possible audience, same as they do now, so they changed the character in order to maximize their profit, same as they're doing this time as well.

This is all just so incredibly dumb. You're not only complaining about the skin color a FICTIONAL, CARTOON MERMAID who was ALREADY "appropriated" in 1989, you're actually choosing to believe that a global corporation is making this decision in order to teach their audience a lesson instead of actually making this decision to make more money.

---