The Little Mermaid Controversy Continues

[Kowani]

...I feel like the first thing you should’ve asked for was a source.

No, no. Let's just automatically believe that someone, somewhere, has a bad opinion and jump straight to being mad about their opinion.

It is the Internet thing to do.

[Reznoviya]

Well they're rebooting that (Mulan) because Mushu is a racist Dragon apparently because Eddie Murphy is playing him.

Why is that racist?

Idk. Ask people who post crap like this.


https://www.colorlines.com/articles/def ... usly-op-ed

[Kowani]

Why is that racist?

Idk. Ask people who post crap like this.


https://www.colorlines.com/articles/def ... usly-op-ed

You didn’t read your own source.

[Ifreann]

Why is that racist?

Idk. Ask people who post crap like this.


https://www.colorlines.com/articles/def ... usly-op-ed

What about that is crap?

[Katganistan]

Wouldn't it make sense to cast a white actor as Prince Eric anyway since the fairy tale of the Little Mermaid is of Northern European origin? Unless Disney was looking to make a more culturally diverse version of the story in this live action rendition, that is... I don't know.

Yes, that is my entire point. The story is Northern European, and just pushing “diversity” is silly, like how in the atrocious remake of Beauty and the Beast they added black nobleman in eighteenth century France for no reason. It just is ridiculous.

Are you sure?

[Reznoviya]

Idk. Ask people who post crap like this.


https://www.colorlines.com/articles/def ... usly-op-ed

What about that is crap?

Apparently America is not Respecting "Asian Culture" with mulan according to this journo because of the dragon's appearance. And they think that it will respect it once it doesn't feature the dragon. The only thing I've seen is inaccuracies than the original.

[Samadhi]

Why is that racist?

Idk. Ask people who post crap like this.



https://www.colorlines.com/articles/def ... usly-op-ed

What the fuck was that?

[Kowani]

What about that is crap?

Apparently America is not Respecting "Asian Culture" with mulan according to this journo because of the dragon's appearance. And they think that it will respect it once it doesn't feature the dragon.

…That wasn’t what it was saying at all.

[Katganistan]

This. Actors need to match the character they are playing.

So do you think Nick Fury should be a stoic white guy?

Cause he ain't black nor does he look or act like Samuel Jackson in the comics.

Depends. He is in the Ultimates world.

[Ifreann]

What about that is crap?

Apparently America is not Respecting "Asian Culture" with mulan according to this journo because of the dragon's appearance. And they think that it will respect it once it doesn't feature the dragon.

That's not really the thesis of the article.

[USS Monitor]

This is different from a movie that's meant to be a realistic depiction of history.

Oh great, look who just summoned the ghosts of Melies, Lumiere, and Edison.

The short response to this is no...no it is not. The long answer is people have been arguing about the role of realism in film since literally the invention of motion pictures.

Also, a mermaid that has to get a boy to fall in love with her to get her voice back is not history.

<snip>

I never said the Little Mermaid was history or argued that any of the characters had to be a specific race, so what was the point of ranting at me?

All I posted was that there are some roles where you want a person of a particular race. I never said that applied to any specific characters in the Little Mermaid. I never said that all movies had to be realistic. I was only saying that if you have made a stylistic choice that your movie is meant to be realistic, then that is a legitimate reason why you might need an actor of a particular race.

But you went and assumed a bunch of other bullshit that I never said and shot your mouth off at me over nothing. Or do you seriously believe that it's racist for a studio to make even one movie that strives for realism?

I know I was away from the thread for a while and this is old, but that was an absolutely RIDICULOUS strawman.

This was the central point of my post, since apparently you didn't bother to read it:

Time to shut down Hamilton.

That's a bit of a special case because it's already a stylized telling of the story

[Reznoviya]

Apparently America is not Respecting "Asian Culture" with mulan according to this journo because of the dragon's appearance. And they think that it will respect it once it doesn't feature the dragon.

…That wasn’t what it was saying at all.

Well this isn't the only thing I was hearing. It was way before the Ariel incident that people on Twitter were saying the same thing about Mushu being offensive. If you believe I'm a delusional psychopath, go ahead and call me a liar, I also have poor memory. But I somehow remember people getting angry about reboot mulan trailer, which turned into a scuffle on various Social Media sites (Twitter including) between Mushu fans and the supposed "Offended" people I mentioned earlier cheering that Mushu was removed (Chinese Presumably) and was open about how they are offended.

[Kowani]

…That wasn’t what it was saying at all.

Well this isn't the only thing I was hearing. It was way before the Ariel incident that people on Twitter were saying the same thing about Mushu being offensive.

Sigh. Mushu isn’t offensive in and of himself. However, as the article points out, a Mulan without Mushu allows for a movie in which an Asian character is a centerpiece on her own, instead of sharing the spotlight. If you noticed, the article brought up other examples of a subtle reframing of the narrative: lack of love interests, or the trio of companions, for example. Nobody’s claiming that Mushu’s offensive, we’re saying that the movie tells a different story without him-one that needed to be told.

[Reznoviya]

Well this isn't the only thing I was hearing. It was way before the Ariel incident that people on Twitter were saying the same thing about Mushu being offensive.

Sigh. Mushu isn’t offensive in and of himself. However, as the article points out, a Mulan without Mushu allows for a movie in which an Asian character is a centerpiece on her own, instead of sharing the spotlight. If you noticed, the article brought up other examples of a subtle reframing of the narrative: lack of love interests, or the trio of companions, for example. Nobody’s claiming that Mushu’s offensive, we’re saying that the movie tells a different story without him-one that needed to be told.

I see.

[Katganistan]

This kind of randomly applied adherence would unnecessarily shackle story telling. No West Side Story, Romeo and Juliet wasn't about Puerto Rican and white gangs in New York. No Clueless, Emma didn't take place in a Beverly Hills high school. Adaptation is an art form (yes, even when it's done by an all consuming corporate entity that literally has the power to alter copyright laws) and change is part of that.

If you need it to be 'as Hans Christian Andersen intended', well...it turns out there's this story he wrote in 1837 that you can read any time you want and it will be exactly as he intended. Provided you speak Danish. There's no obligation for film to be accurate or precise. Historically or otherwise.

What matters with adaptation is that you present it as a completely different work inspired by the original as opposed to the original work. If I went to a showing of Romeo and Juliet in a theater and everyone showed up on stage wearing jeans and using New York accents I would walk out. Not because I have anything against the concept of the work it self but because that is not what I came to see. I came to see Romeo and Juliet and I want to bloody see that and not something derivative with little to no connection but the name tacked on.

In the original Shakespeare there is no evidence that actors wore togas for Julius Caesar, and did not speak in Latin.

[Cannot think of a name]

Oh great, look who just summoned the ghosts of Melies, Lumiere, and Edison.

The short response to this is no...no it is not. The long answer is people have been arguing about the role of realism in film since literally the invention of motion pictures.

Also, a mermaid that has to get a boy to fall in love with her to get her voice back is not history.

<snip>

I never said the Little Mermaid was history or argued that any of the characters had to be a specific race, so what was the point of ranting at me?

You were more of a jumping off point. I had to go back and follow the quote chain to see what the hubub was. In your post you seemed to be making a distinction between the roles of film and the stage. I'll highlight how I came to that conclusion:

Stage plays tend to have more emphasis on the costumes, and getting actors that can sing and dance -- rather than getting actors that have the perfect face for the role. There aren't any close-ups in a stage play.

This is different from a movie that's meant to be a realistic depiction of history.

These points in opposition read to me to suggest that the stage allowed for a 'magical realism' while film was meant to depict a kind of reality. That's not what you meant, cool. My bad. But it is such a common argument that it literally dates back to the founders of film as a technology and art form, which is what those name drops were all about. Edison and the French filmmakers vehemently disagreed on the nature and use of film and that argument has never been settled. The biggest variation of it happens when people talk about musicals on film and 'where did that music come from' etc. I saw those two points in opposition and I addressed a 100 year old argument. It wasn't personal. The rest, again, was a launching off point of pent up points from having read through the thread to that point. I wasn't going to make a separate post, I figured if an argument didn't apply to one you'd made you'd figure out that it was addressing someone else. Again, my mistake.

[Katganistan]

Umm what? That exec is fucking stupid, Harriet Tubman is famous for being a slave women and helping hundreds through the underground railroad. This is also incredibly stupid, like seriously.

So, having a Black historical character played by a White actress is stupid, but having White historical characters played by Blacks is edgy and wonderful? How does that work again?

In what history books are Ariel, Annie, or Cinderella, pray tell?

[Elwher]

So, having a Black historical character played by a White actress is stupid, but having White historical characters played by Blacks is edgy and wonderful? How does that work again?

In what history books are Ariel, Annie, or Cinderella, pray tell?

None, but Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr certainly are in a few.

[Ors Might]

Why is that racist?

Idk. Ask people who post crap like this.


https://www.colorlines.com/articles/def ... usly-op-ed

Eh. I understand what they’re getting at but I disagree with them on a few points. One of the big ones for me was the implication that her romance in the original disney film made Mulan less independent and strong. Her love interest, from what I recall, only took an interest to begin with because of her independence and strength.

[Elwher]

Idk. Ask people who post crap like this.


https://www.colorlines.com/articles/def ... usly-op-ed

Eh. I understand what they’re getting at but I disagree with them on a few points. One of the big ones for me was the implication that her romance in the original disney film made Mulan less independent and strong. Her love interest, from what I recall, only took an interest to begin with because of her independence and strength.

There are many reasonable options for people who do not like how a film is made or the casting thereof; ranging from not going to see it up to forming their own production company and making their own film.

[The Black Forrest]

Eh. I understand what they’re getting at but I disagree with them on a few points. One of the big ones for me was the implication that her romance in the original disney film made Mulan less independent and strong. Her love interest, from what I recall, only took an interest to begin with because of her independence and strength.

There are many reasonable options for people who do not like how a film is made or the casting thereof; ranging from not going to see it up to forming their own production company and making their own film.

That takes effort, time and money. Easier to complain after all.

If simple though. If you don’t like the casting don’t see it.

I wonder how many of these “the casting is wrong” types would have seen it if it was casted right?

[SD_Film Artists]

I wonder how many of these “the casting is wrong” types would have seen it if it was casted right?

Which is why a lot of 'woke' films tend to flop; the casting directors try to aim for a target audience which isn't the franchise's normal target audience; a some people watch it just for the politics but few stay to become true fans and buy the merchandise etc. Then the production company is surprised when the normal audience don't like it and the new audience have left for other sources of race-based edge.

And on a seperate but related issue, it was funny how people accused the live-action Ghost in the Shell movie of "whitewashing" when it's by far the most Asian Ghost in the Shell that there's ever been.