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"? Please take a look at all of the political non-sense that is going on in this country. Yeah, I can see businesses making business decisions based on garbage like what color someone's skin is, or who they like to diddle, because it is all over our society. What sense does that even make? It makes ZERO sense. 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. Lunatics? Name-calling much?

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. Turn that argument toward the various groups coming out and calling for boycots of XYZ companies until said companies tow the liberal line (see razor company, fast food chicken company, etc)

Also, where were all of these outcries in 1989 when Disney made a red-haired, English-speaking character out of the 1837 Danish original? Tell me, how many Danish people are black? Why would there need to be any outrage over a nation that is predominantly white? 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. How many people actually have a copy of that original work on their bookshelves? Quite likely not very many. But many, many people's first introduction to the story was the 1989 animated movie, which features a white skinned mermaid with bright red hair and a great singing voice.

You may call me a lunatic, fine, whatever. But the fact is that the little mermaid as the vast majority of people in this world know her is that red-headed mermaid with white skin. If Disney wants to make a movie about a black mermaid, that's fine, but she's not the little mermaid. She's a different mermaid. Call the movie something else. And for those of us who have been to a Disney park and had photographs of our daughters taken with Ariel, what are they going to do with all of that once this new movie comes out? Did they just open up new opportunities for black ladies in the Orlando area to be able to take on the Ariel role? Are they going to tell the white gals who have been dressing up as Ariel in their parks to take a hike?

---

Sex Panther said:

---

This is such a non story in the real world. No one ****ing cares

---

Quote:

---

Does Denmark have a sizable percentage of its population that is not white?

---

littlebitofhifi said:

---

Quote:

---

Does Denmark have a sizable percentage of its population that is not white?

---

No, but only 4% of the population is redhead and the official language is still Danish. I think the point is that people only seem to care now because of skin color, whether they'll be honest with themselves about that or not. No one cared about appropriating the fairy tale for commercialism until now. Wonder why?

---

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.

---

claym711 said:

---

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.

---

Incredibly naive to think global corporations and politicians do not attempt to steer social issues. You're also essentially accusing Disney of racism for profit.

Personally don't care about this one, but entertainment board czar butthurt confirmed.

---