The Four Color Media Monitor

Yeah, it's stupid to change Ariel's ethnicity in this, even moreso considering that, due to Lin Manuel Miranda's involvement and his previously barring whites from participating in the casting of Hamilton, that Halle Bailey's being signed on was most likely racially-motivated pure and simple. Say what you will about Emma Watson and Belle, at least she actually resembles Belle more or less.

Speaking of Emma Watson, I'll be honest, while not much good (I was very disgusted with how they made LeFou homosexual in the remake, and in fact, that was what started my full boycott against Disney when this became apparent), I personally thought the remake was actually BETTER than the 1991 film for a variety of reasons, and that if anything, the 1991 film was actually just as guilty if not even MORESO than the remake of many of these PC options (well, barring LeFou's sexuality or any character's sexuality, although Don Hahn did imply that The Mob Song was meant to invoke AIDS victims due to Howard Ashman having his last throes during that time), and I can even give a whole list of just how bad the original 1991 film was.

Not seeing the problem with Ariel being black in the live action remake. The question I have is will the prince also be black? If not, a significant portion of the black audience will not be happy. Then again, making the audience happy is no longer a big Disney priority at this point.

(continued from prior post)

For starters, Belle in the beginning song, while clearly framed as being some poor sap who can't get much respect, is shown to basically be talking down to her fellow peers at the village, many of whom, such as the baker, simply cannot afford the time to listen to her talking about her books simply because they are busy with work, and disses the village as provincial. And many of the reasons she refused to marry Gaston actually did match up with the Federalist's complaints about the movie regarding why she refused to marry. In fact, in the original film, when Gaston is outlining their future plans as husband and wife, she develops a sickened reaction the second he mentions "dogs" in reference to children she'll bear him, and she actually humiliates him by launching him into a mudpool (and her smirk afterward implied she deliberately intended for him to fall into the pool). What's even worse is that the only women in the film who show ANY positive views towards marrying are the Bimbettes, and as you can guess from the name, they're demeaned by being depicted like dumb blondes and bimbos who fall for the nearest hunk. Might as well also add that the reasons she even was in the village in the first place are never revealed, nor do they explain why, despite clearly being able to afford the time to read all day instead of doing any actual work, neither Belle nor Maurice even seemed to consider moving out (it clearly can't be due to finances, since Belle having the ability to read all day, a luxury especially back then, would suggest she's financially capable of simply moving out).

Oh, and while she does take initiative in doing the prisoner swap, she unfortunately managed to violate her promise within just a few hours, indicating she wasn't even trustworthy with her own word (deliberately disobeying Beast and the servants and going into the West Wing, and for reasons that came across as being out of spite), and her violation of that promise (which she even admitted she was violating the deal) meant she just endangered her dad into getting abducted again. Oh, and when Beast saved her sorry butt from the wolves, while she does save him (and came across as superhuman by lifting Beast onto the horse without any apparent aid), and give a curt thanks, she basically blamed him for the whole thing despite the whole situation was more her fault than his fault. Oh yeah, and she refused to dine with him even when he politely asked twice, albeit at the servants prodding and was clearly uncomfortable having to swallow his pride, and even blew off the wardrobe's attempt at convincing her to give him a chance. She even glares at him when he tells her to close her eyes since it's a surprise gift, indicating the only reason she fell for him was because of that library he gave her.

Oh, and after leaving the castle, despite clearly deducing Gaston was responsible for organizing the mob as blackmail against her to force her hand in marriage, she ends up selling out Beast and the servants all in order to get out of a jam, and she clearly didn't even think that through since she reacted with surprise when Gaston inevitably rabbleroused. And thanks to her "civilizing" Beast and how he doesn't even attempt to fight back to defend his servants, let alone himself, when the mob came for him, until Belle was present, it's implied that men aren't even allowed to defend themselves unless a woman is nearby. Oh yeah, and Lumiere was depicted as an unrepentant womanizer in the original, especially in the sequels (where he had another girlfriend named Angelique in addition to the featherduster) and the special edition (where he shamelessly admits he's going to resume his sporting and courting, which if Mrs. Potts is to be believed, he's even gone as low as to bed already-married women). That's about as inappropriate for kids as LeFou being gay in the remake was. Maurice wasn't even allowed to save Belle even ONCE, instead he has to be saved. Actually, I must admit, with the triplets and Belle, they completely screwed up their characterizations, since the triplets came far closer to actually having inner beauty even WITH their crush on Gaston than Belle did. And there's some implicit denouncement of Christianity since the villagers often used phrases such as "sin", "praise the lord", and "say a prayer", and are clearly depicted as bad guys (not helping matters is Gaston actually making most Bond villains seem smart by openly bragging about key details about his plan to blackmail Belle and the villagers supporting him due to the writers being cynical about their audiences), and by contrast, Belle, the character the story treats as a moral paragon, is implied to not even believe in God.

Not to mention it seems to condemn marriages, since aside from Belle ruining a wedding and being treated positively for it, we don't even see or have it even be implied that Belle and Adam are married. What's worse, Linda Woolverton, the lady who screenwrote the movie, makes it very clear she was trying to push feminism onto the masses in every interview she made since I think 1992, as did Don Hahn, and apparently, it pushing feminism (especially the far-left kind from the 1970s) was due to Jeffrey Katzenberg demanding that thanks to some critics denouncing Ariel as "cloyingly sexist"... get this, because she even WANTED to go for Eric at all. A bit of a side note, but for all of the narrative of how Belle's the most beautiful woman in the village, she certainly seemed to be outclassed by the triplets and to a lesser extent the featherduster's human form, both of whom wouldn't look out of place in a Dead or Alive game. If I must be honest, The Little Mermaid did the whole foil thing regarding the moral of true beauty coming from within far better between its female protagonists.

At least the remake included a Village Chaplain who is both treated positively and is also shown to actually approve of Belle's literacy (in fact, that's actually pretty accurate to history, since Christianity if anything encouraged literacy to both women and men), not to mention her dad is actually allowed to save her once, Belle in the remake actually HAS foils that befit the moral of the tale who do come across as internally ugly to say the very least, and Lumiere and the featherduster are an actual married couple and not "friends with benefits." Not to mention her reason for going to the village is actually explained, as is why they don't just pack up and leave (as her dad's too depressed over his wife's death to care about moving out). So, yes, even with LeFou being changed into a homosexual man for no reason at all, I STILL would label it a better movie than the original.

Sorry for the lengthy multi-posts, but it was way too long to fit into one post.

Mr. Bee, maybe if they didn't blatantly hire Halle Bailey to play Ariel to fill racial quotas as part of that leftist diversity con due to Lin Manuel Miranda playing a role in the production of the movie (you remember him, the guy who did Hamilton and explicitly... blacklisted any white actors from any involvement in the cast, whites need not apply I believe the casting call said), there'd be little problem with Ariel being black, no matter how nonsensical it is for there to be a black mermaid when she is apparently surfacing even LESS than in the original thanks to Scuttle being changed into a diving bird. However, as it is, it's a mistake.

Why exactly do you even care Mr. Green? You don't even like western animation! Hell, even the one cartoon you actually watch (Rocky & Bullwinkle) you probably don't care for much, what with the sketchy animation, long drawn-out plotlines, and the fact that fairy tails are used in-between the main portions of the cartoon just to extend the length of the average episode to about 30 minutes.

It seems more likely that mermaids are a case of divergent rather than parallel evolution. That is, they evolved from people, not fish. They are obviously mammals, can breathe in the atmosphere, and have characteristics like long flowing hair that would have been unlikely to evolve from fish under water. They are more like other aquatic animals that evolved from land animals - dolphins, whales - than like fish.

For that to have happened, it would have had to happen in warm waters; people who threw off their clothes to go into the water full-time would have frozen to death in Norway. So Africa is a likely spot. Would they have lost their pigmentation over time like the Africans who migrated to Northern Europe? Perhaps - but mermaids like to bask in the sun on rocks, so they would still have needed sun protection, and even the whitest of skin would not have let in much vitamin C at the bottom of the ocean. In real life, I think, mermaids would be colored like many marine animals - light on the belly, so someone looking up would confuse them with the light from the surface, dark on the back, so that someone looking down would confuse them with the ocean bottom.

Man may be the product of evolution, but mermaids are a direct creation of God.

This will blow the tops of super religious people who read the above comment.

So how do people decide how to create racial quotas anyway?