Like others in this thread, you presume Ariel is the only one who is going to look different than their cartoon analogue. If the entire cast is racially diverse, does your analysis change?
What was your opinion about the multi-racial rendering of Cinderella?
There’s something amusing about all these middle-age white men talking about this movie like this is serious business to them…a Disney princess movie.
I have faith the 6 year-olds of the world will manage.
How do we know that cartoon Ariel was white? Perhaps she was just a light-skinned mermaid of color.
I am not being totally tongue-in-cheek here.
Ariel lives in world where race is determined by the nature of one’s lower appendages. So accusing Disney of changing her race is crazy. All Disney has done is change her skin coloring. And this is a minor change under the sea, where many species change their coloring (including crabs, flounders, and octopusses) like humans change their underwear. Why wouldn’t a mermaid possess the same ability? They aren’t humans and thus aren’t constrained by human limitations.
Dude, they’re not going to stop selling cartoon Ariel merch. That’s not how this works at all. The idea isn’t to replace all the white Ariel stuff on the shelves with black Ariel stuff. The idea is to get you to buy your kids a white Ariel and a black Ariel.
Basically, same reason Spider-Man’s suit changes with every movie.
And now they have a second image of Ariel that they can market in parallel to the first. From that standpoint, the fact that the live action Ariel looks significantly different from the animated version is a selling point - now kids can clamor for their parents to get them both Ariels!
They made Nicole Kidman his mom and she’s virtually translucent so everyone watching could still feel confident about his whiteness.
There is actually a pretty strong racial subtext to Starfire, at least originally, but it’s not a great one. Starfire was enslaved by a space empire called The Citadel, before escaping and joining the Teen Titans. This was a big part of the claim that she was originally black (at least metaphorically) in that Root article Dale mentioned. Except, her origin doesn’t draw on African-American narratives, it draws on white slavery tropes - she’s a princess whose been enslaved by… well, basically, by Idi Amin. That’s not projection on my part, that’s the explicit intent as explained by the writer in the letters column of the book. And the portrayal over all is super, super uncomfortable.
This is outrageous! The original Little Mermaid was ethnically Chilean Sea Bass, how dare Disney cast a Patagonian Toothfish! It messes up the entire canon!
Oh, people are talking about the OTHER half?
Actually, no. Ariel is the star of the show, no doubt, but again, Disney has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, marketing these specific characters for decades … and, as I noted, they just launched a new merchandising campaign to celebrate the movie’s 30th anniversary. To change the appearance of some pretty iconic characters for no discernable reason seems tone-deaf to me.
I wasn’t aware of a multi-racial rendering of Cinderella, and as a result I have no strong opinion. I will say (although I have no hard data to back this up) that I’d bet Disney has spent more in the last 30 years in marketing merchandise on Ariel than they have on Cinderella.
It’s not a racial issue to me, per se; it’s changing a character’s appearance for no discernable reason after spending millions upon millions of dollars essentially branding that character in a certain way.
I wasn’t aware I had to conform (or not conform) to a certain demographic before I could express an opinion on this subject.
Oh, I’m aware of the motivation behind it. I just think it’s a misstep.
And for the record, I’m a Spider-Man purist. I don’t mind minor alterations in the iconic red/blue/black suit, but crap like the Iron Spider getup Marvel trotted out in the last couple of Avengers movies chaps my undies.
That happened in the comics, though.
No more tone-deaf than redoing the entire movie and just substituting cartoons with live actors. If you’re going to rehash something, it makes perfect sense to put a new spin on it. Not trying to make the characters match 100% with cartoon likeness is the spin here.
New songs from Lin-Manuel Miranda also transforms the movie into something else. Disney will make a killing just on the music sales alone. Their merchandising concerns are not a problem at all.
I seriously doubt Disney hasn’t studied market conditions and determined this will make a bigger splash than, say, the live action version of Beauty and the Beast.
I have to say that I am seriously :dubious: about people who have no expertise fretting about Disney possibly making less money because of the change. I’m sure Disney has done market studies up the wazoo.
There’s no actor that looks exactly like the cartoon version of Ariel. They cast a slim and attractive young woman (just like the cartoon) – it’s only our society and culture that singles out race as somehow a MAJOR difference in appearance. There’s no legitimate non-cultural reason that race and skin tone should be any more significant than height, or build, or eye color, or hair color/texture, etc.
Then why was Will Smith as the Genie blue-toned for at least part of the recent Aladdin remake?
I think it’s because the Genie character, as created and marketed by Disney, was blue in the original cartoon (and in subsequent cartoons). His appearance was a significant portion of his “cultural” identity (i.e., how we as a moviegoing culture perceived him). Disney could’ve just let him be Will Smith as “a” genie, but when he was the character “Genie” for Aladdin, he was blue (for a time, anyway; as I understand it, he didn’t stay blue throughout the movie).
As you (and others) have pointed out, I’m sure Disney has done marketing studies and focus groups about this change to the Ariel character. And maybe all their data is correct, and this won’t matter one bit. Maybe the live-action remake of The Little Mermaid will be the highest-grossing movie in the history of cinema solely because of this change.
Of course, Coca-Cola had marketing studies out the wazoo saying New Coke was what people wanted back in the mid-80s, too, and that didn’t turn out so well.
My point is, messing with an icon for no salient reason doesn’t always work.
Technically, Ariel was modelled after Alyssa Milano.
But generally, if you see a young, thin woman with light skin, big red hair and blue eyes dressed up in a mermaid costume for Halloween, “Princess Ariel” would be a pretty good guess.
The distinction that’s missing there (and seems to always be missed by people concerned with this sort of thing) is that when they rolled out New Coke, they took old Coke off the market. This new movie isn’t replacing the cartoon. The cartoon is still going to be marketed, and merched, and occasionally re-released. The absolute worst case for Disney here is that the new movie fails, and nobody wants to buy any of the new LM merchandising. Which will effect the merchandising for the previous movie not one whit.
They probably made him blue because color has always been used to mean certain things in Aladdin storytelling,according to this article. But the simplest explanation? They just wanted him to be blue because he’s always been blue, and a non-natural skin color is a great way to distinguish a magical character from a non-magical one.
A “magic” skin color carries different weight than the more pedestrian coloring that regular people have.
If the cartoon Ariel were caramel-colored and the actress cast to play her in the live action version was dark brown, I wonder how many people would have an opinion about this let alone a negative one.
Race is a made-up construct. There are societies where caramel skin is sufficiently different from dark brown that individuals with these skin tones would be placed in different racial categories. But in the US, most people have been programmed to not to distinguish shades of brown skin. One is black whether they look like Halle Bailey or Halle Berry. And this makes no more sense objectively than swapping Halle Bailey in for a pale-faced mermaid. But in the US, the former wouldn’t be noticed by the vast majority of folks while the latter is the talk of the virtual town.
That is how powerful a grip race has on our consciousness. And that is why I don’t believe people when they insist they “don’t see color”.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
I’m not one to say I’m color-blind, but I *will *say that if the original Ariel had been dark-skinned with blonde hair, and now Disney was proposing to make her light-skinned with red hair … I would be making the same point.
The color of her skin and hair (and eyes and scales) doesn’t matter to me from a racial standpoint. I’m objecting to changing – for what appears to be no significant reason – an icon which has been pretty well established in the Disney zeitgeist for three decades.
Monstro is, I think, making a slightly different point. If her skin color went from Golden Deep to Warm Tan, would you notice? Would you consider that as significant a change as going from Light to Warm Tan?
If you’d consider it a less significant change, that’s probably due to your culturally-received notions of race.
