Re: The Movie House - Part 11

by futbol Fri Jul 05, 2019 12:42 pm

The argument that mermaids don't really exist so they could be portrayed as anything is weak. The whole thing originates from Hans Christian Andersen’s book "The Little Mermaid" in which he describes Arielle as follows:

…They were six lovely girls, but the youngest was the most beautiful of them all. Her skin was as soft and tender as a rose petal, and her eyes were as blue as the deep sea, but like all the others she had no feet. Her body ended in a fish tail.
…Lowering her gaze, she saw that her fish tail was gone, and that she had the loveliest pair of white legs any young maid could hope to have. But she was naked, so she clothed herself in her own long hair.

There are certain established and iconic characters and how they look like is already embedded in people's minds, if you drastically change that for identity politics purposes you gotta expect the backlash.

What next? Fat Batman and Obese Superman to send a signal against bodyshaming?

by futbol Fri Jul 05, 2019 12:58 pm

On a side note, even scientifically it makes little sense to have black underwater characters for very obvious reasons concerning the non existent UV rays in deep waters. In Pirates of the Carribean 4 the actress was actually prevented from getting a tan for that reason alone.

Seriously, it's so unfitting, it's pure cringe.

by El Gunner Fri Jul 05, 2019 1:53 pm

Oh god, stop crying and being so sensitive.
You don't have to watch the movie when it comes out.

by futbol Fri Jul 05, 2019 1:54 pm

No one is crying, we're having a discussion about a movie and its cast. Maybe you are crying.

by BarrileteCosmico Fri Jul 05, 2019 1:57 pm

futbol wrote:The argument that mermaids don't really exist so they could be portrayed as anything is weak. The whole thing originates from Hans Christian Andersen’s book "The Little Mermaid" in which he describes Arielle as follows:

…They were six lovely girls, but the youngest was the most beautiful of them all. Her skin was as soft and tender as a rose petal, and her eyes were as blue as the deep sea, but like all the others she had no feet. Her body ended in a fish tail.
…Lowering her gaze, she saw that her fish tail was gone, and that she had the loveliest pair of white legs any young maid could hope to have. But she was naked, so she clothed herself in her own long hair.

There are certain established and iconic characters and how they look like is already embedded in people's minds, if you drastically change that for identity politics purposes you gotta expect the backlash.

What next? Fat Batman and Obese Superman to send a signal against bodyshaming?

Yes because Disney is absolutely known for never taking liberties with the source material, it's not like he was despised by some of his contemporaries like Tolkien because of the huge liberties he took with them... It's nothing new and it's laughable to start caring about it now only because they switched the race.

Again, if race impacted the story in any way, like it would for Mulan, Snow White, Mérida, Pocahontas or Jasmine I could see the issue. But it doesn't for Ariel. It's not "Hollywood forcing political correctness down our throats", it's choosing the best actress for the role they could get in the service of the story.

by El Gunner Fri Jul 05, 2019 1:57 pm

McLewis wrote:
Myesyats wrote:It's not a big deal but it feels forced. Its just funny how hard they're trying to seem progressive.

Just create more black heroes instead of turning the white ones black. Can you imagine if they remade Aladdin as a pale skin red head? Wouldnt really work.

Little mermaid is a 19th century Danish tale so of course Ariel is white.

I have several problems with this post.

1. White folks would not shut the fuck up about Black Panther and were butthurt when we celebrated it as an achievement of black cinema to the point where it's premiere nights featured the cast and prominent black actors and musicians dressing up in traditional African garb. I was told this was apparently overkill by the white folks on my twitter feed, reddit, FB and everywhere else imaginable. The movie itself was repeatedly called "overhyped and overrated, etc" by those same white folks as well when in reality, it was no better or worse than any of the other Marvel movies honestly. Maybe it was FOMO or something. So even when we have a hero that looks like us to celebrate, wypipo still found reasons to shit on it. There's literally no way around this apparently.

2. Aladdin is distinctively Arab given that it comes from Arabian Nights, a uniquely and singularly Arabic tale. The ethnicity of those characters is central to the story. Unlike an Arabic (yet human) main character, mermaids like Ariel are mythical creatures. They're literally made up. Therefore, they can be any color imaginable. Returning to Aladdin, how did you feel about Will Smith as a "blue" genie? No one seemed to have a problem with a white guy playing that role. It's considered one of the best animated performances of all time FFS. What about Moses depiction as a white man in the Prince of Egypt when his skin color would've been decided darker? How about Robin Hood (a white guy who probably didn't even exist) as a goddamn fox?

Why is any of that ok, but casting a black singer as a creature of absolute myth such a problem?

It's a little more than just regular FOMO. Those affected white people just get jealous, they are so sensitive when it comes to skin colour, and get jealous when people of colour get those moments. They want to be a part of every little recognition.

by McLewis Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:05 pm

futbol wrote:The argument that mermaids don't really exist so they could be portrayed as anything is weak. The whole thing originates from Hans Christian Andersen’s book "The Little Mermaid" in which he describes Arielle as follows:

…They were six lovely girls, but the youngest was the most beautiful of them all. Her skin was as soft and tender as a rose petal, and her eyes were as blue as the deep sea, but like all the others she had no feet. Her body ended in a fish tail.
…Lowering her gaze, she saw that her fish tail was gone, and that she had the loveliest pair of white legs any young maid could hope to have. But she was naked, so she clothed herself in her own long hair.

There are certain established and iconic characters and how they look like is already embedded in people's minds, if you drastically change that for identity politics purposes you gotta expect the backlash.

Did Hans Christian Andersen invent mermaids? No, he did not.

They've existed in various forms of cultural lore centuries before he was even born. In addition to Europe, cultures in the Near East, Africa and Asia have tales relating to mermaids. The first reported mention of a mermaid occurred in Ancient Assyria (that's modern day Iraq, which is full of non-white people).

by futbol Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:19 pm

McLewis wrote:
futbol wrote:The argument that mermaids don't really exist so they could be portrayed as anything is weak. The whole thing originates from Hans Christian Andersen’s book "The Little Mermaid" in which he describes Arielle as follows:

…They were six lovely girls, but the youngest was the most beautiful of them all. Her skin was as soft and tender as a rose petal, and her eyes were as blue as the deep sea, but like all the others she had no feet. Her body ended in a fish tail.
…Lowering her gaze, she saw that her fish tail was gone, and that she had the loveliest pair of white legs any young maid could hope to have. But she was naked, so she clothed herself in her own long hair.

There are certain established and iconic characters and how they look like is already embedded in people's minds, if you drastically change that for identity politics purposes you gotta expect the backlash.

Did Hans Christian Andersen invent mermaids? No, he did not.

They've existed in various forms of cultural lore centuries before he was even born. In addition to Europe, cultures in the Near East, Africa and Asia have tales relating to mermaids. The first reported mention of a mermaid occurred in Ancient Assyria (that's modern day Iraq, which is full of non-white people).

Did Sapkowski invent witchers? No, he didn't. So let's go and make a middle eastern, black and curly haired Geralt of Riva in a Witcher movie then.

Arielle is not "any mermaid", she is a very specific character that is already described and depicted with specific looks.

As for "best possible actress". You gotta be joking. From what I read they didn't even do any open casting, she got the role because of Beyoncé. Nor is she even an actress to begin with. She is one of many Youtube cover singers who got lucky that Beyoncé was bored.

by McLewis Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:21 pm

El Gunner wrote:
McLewis wrote:
Myesyats wrote:It's not a big deal but it feels forced. Its just funny how hard they're trying to seem progressive.

Just create more black heroes instead of turning the white ones black. Can you imagine if they remade Aladdin as a pale skin red head? Wouldnt really work.

Little mermaid is a 19th century Danish tale so of course Ariel is white.

I have several problems with this post.

1. White folks would not shut the fuck up about Black Panther and were butthurt when we celebrated it as an achievement of black cinema to the point where it's premiere nights featured the cast and prominent black actors and musicians dressing up in traditional African garb. I was told this was apparently overkill by the white folks on my twitter feed, reddit, FB and everywhere else imaginable. The movie itself was repeatedly called "overhyped and overrated, etc" by those same white folks as well when in reality, it was no better or worse than any of the other Marvel movies honestly. Maybe it was FOMO or something. So even when we have a hero that looks like us to celebrate, wypipo still found reasons to shit on it. There's literally no way around this apparently.

2. Aladdin is distinctively Arab given that it comes from Arabian Nights, a uniquely and singularly Arabic tale. The ethnicity of those characters is central to the story. Unlike an Arabic (yet human) main character, mermaids like Ariel are mythical creatures. They're literally made up. Therefore, they can be any color imaginable. Returning to Aladdin, how did you feel about Will Smith as a "blue" genie? No one seemed to have a problem with a white guy playing that role. It's considered one of the best animated performances of all time FFS. What about Moses depiction as a white man in the Prince of Egypt when his skin color would've been decided darker? How about Robin Hood (a white guy who probably didn't even exist) as a goddamn fox?

Why is any of that ok, but casting a black singer as a creature of absolute myth such a problem?

It's a little more than just regular FOMO. Those affected white people just get jealous, they are so sensitive when it comes to skin colour, and get jealous when people of colour get those moments. They want to be a part of every little recognition.

This wouldn't bother me so much if we weren't surrounded by literally thousands of years of their culture, which has influenced so much of contemporary pop culture. It's pretty much ubiquitous. They tell us to make movies around our own characters and heroes and then when we do, its gets shit on because apparently there's not enough of them in those works. It's absolute nonsense.

by futbol Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:10 pm

You take it as a personal "black vs. white" thing. It isn't. It was equally bad to turn Aladdin into a Bollywood movie.

by McLewis Fri Jul 05, 2019 7:13 pm

I dunno man, when I'm told by white folks that black folks need to make movies celebrating their own characters instead of "blackwashing" white ones and then we do exactly that (such as Black Panther) only to be told by those same whites that we're apparently celebrating the blackness of that movie too much, that's frustrating. It leaves me with the only reasonable conclusion: Whites don't want Blacks celebrating anything.

If that sounds hyperbolic, I wish it really was, but that's actually reality.

So yes, I take it personally. There's absolutely nothing wrong about wanting to see more characters of all works that look like me after spending 3 decades of my short life connecting with characters that look nothing like me.

Also Mena Massoud (who plays Aladdin) is a Canadian of Egyptian (Coptic Christian) descent. Marwan Kenzari (who plays Jafar) is a Dutchman of Tunisian descent, Navid Negahban (who plays the Sultan) and Nasim Pedrad( plays Jasmine' handmaid) are both Americans of Iranian descent, and Numan Acar (plays Hakim, leader of the palace guards) is a German of Turkish descent. Only Naomi Scott is of Indian descent. If you're referring to the fact that they all have some Bollywood credits to their name, I don't understand why that's a bad thing. That's as culturally accurate a cast as could be assembled for a movie of this magnitude. Disney did a good job with the casting honestly, even if the movie itself wasn't particularly memorable.

by BarrileteCosmico Fri Jul 05, 2019 7:21 pm

But if we were to respect the source material, as futbol so wants to do, then Aladin should've been set in China and played by an East Asian cast.

by McLewis Fri Jul 05, 2019 7:29 pm

He's defensive. The ones who are bothered by this generally are. I get it. I probably would be too. It's understandable. What I don't get is the inability to at least try to understand why these kneejerk "wHy NOt hAvE a WHite blAck paNTheR?" counterarguments are such shit rebuttals.

If that's the first thing that springs to mind as a defense, they do not understand this topic and really shouldn't talk about it until they're ready to try.

by Myesyats Fri Jul 05, 2019 7:31 pm

I don't think I ever criticised Black Panther.

It's not solely about race or black people. It's about being over-the-top progressive whether it's race, gender or whatever.

I don't really care but prime example would be, say, remaking Ghostbusters to put women as main characters just to show they can also lead a role or be funny.

Make your own shit to prove a point, do not remake what is already established.

by El Gunner Fri Jul 05, 2019 8:28 pm

McLewis wrote:He's defensive. The ones who are bothered by this generally are. I get it. I probably would be too. It's understandable. What I don't get is the inability to at least try to understand why these kneejerk "wHy NOt hAvE a WHite blAck paNTheR?" counterarguments are such shit rebuttals.

If that's the first thing that springs to mind as a defense, they do not understand this topic and really shouldn't talk about it until they're ready to try.

Understandable, perhaps, but justifiable?
I think not.

Just a mere 60 years ago Jim Crow laws were still in effect. Just a mere 30 years ago Apartheid laws were still in effect.
The psychology of white superiority still runs deep in our everyday lives, and it will take much more longer for tensions to reach a reasonable equilibrium.

In the meantime, these sensitive defensive white folk need to know their history, and in turn their place in current day affairs. Yes, your voice still counts, but speak with a little bit more social consciousness and awareness. And by that I mean not 100-year old social consciousness thought out by white folk.

by McLewis Fri Jul 05, 2019 9:00 pm

Myesyats wrote:I don't think I ever criticised Black Panther.

It's not solely about race or black people. It's about being over-the-top progressive whether it's race, gender or whatever.

I don't really care but prime example would be, say, remaking Ghostbusters to put women as main characters just to show they can also lead a role or be funny.

Make your own shit to prove a point, do not remake what is already established.

I use Black Panther as my primary example because it's the one I see the most. Not here particularly, but on other forums, boards, comment sections, etc that I frequent. It's a stupid, low effort retort and I'll call it out wherever I see it.

Hating on a female-led Ghostbusters is no different to me than hating on a black Ariel. The reason for the complaint is the same as you said - "Make your own shit to prove a point, do not remake what is already established."

I don't think you understand how offensive that is. You're basically telling little girls that they shouldn't dream of being Ghostbusters because only boys can be Ghostbusters. Wasn't this also the case with astronauts? Soldiers? World Leaders? The movie sought to dispel that myth, in its own way, I believe. I personally think it should've been made as a sequel that continues the story (like the current Star Wars trilogy) rather than an out-and-out gender-swapping remake, but what's done is done.

It's confusing that so many men find this movie offensive when it was made to be a homage to the first 2.

El Gunner wrote:
McLewis wrote:He's defensive. The ones who are bothered by this generally are. I get it. I probably would be too. It's understandable. What I don't get is the inability to at least try to understand why these kneejerk "wHy NOt hAvE a WHite blAck paNTheR?" counterarguments are such shit rebuttals.

If that's the first thing that springs to mind as a defense, they do not understand this topic and really shouldn't talk about it until they're ready to try.

Understandable, perhaps, but justifiable?
I think not.

Just a mere 60 years ago Jim Crow laws were still in effect. Just a mere 30 years ago Apartheid laws were still in effect.
The psychology of white superiority still runs deep in our everyday lives, and it will take much more longer for tensions to reach a reasonable equilibrium.

In the meantime, these sensitive defensive white folk need to know their history, and in turn their place in current day affairs. Yes, your voice still counts, but speak with a little bit more social consciousness and awareness. And by that I mean not 100-year old social consciousness thought out by white folk.

Agreed, of course. I think they speak out of raw emotion. There's no critical thinking taking place when it comes to topics of this nature. There's no real consideration of comprehension. They just know this stuff is wrong and they need to express that singular feeling. No real thought goes into it beyond that. Unfortunate honestly.

by Myesyats Fri Jul 05, 2019 11:02 pm

McLewis wrote:
I use Black Panther as my primary example because it's the one I see the most. Not here particularly, but on other forums, boards, comment sections, etc that I frequent. It's a stupid, low effort retort and I'll call it out wherever I see it.

Hating on a female-led Ghostbusters is no different to me than hating on a black Ariel. The reason for the complaint is the same as you said - "Make your own shit to prove a point, do not remake what is already established."

I don't think you understand how offensive that is. You're basically telling little girls that they shouldn't dream of being Ghostbusters because only boys can be Ghostbusters. Wasn't this also the case with astronauts? Soldiers? World Leaders? The movie sought to dispel that myth, in its own way, I believe. I personally think it should've been made as a sequel that continues the story (like the current Star Wars trilogy) rather than an out-and-out gender-swapping remake, but what's done is done.

It's confusing that so many men find this movie offensive when it was made to be a homage to the first 2.

I don't find any of this offensive but rather pointless and cringeworthy and at no point am I telling little girls they shouldnt dream.

There is plenty of powerful women in film, as leads, as heroes. Theres Wonder Woman, Lara Croft and the list goes on. Are you saying little girls have no one to look up to? They do. The all female Ghostbusters, however, was a heavily criticised flop for a reason.

You guys bringing Jim Crow laws and Apartheid into this is comical. This has nothing to do with black people per se. Would you cast Bill Hader as Obama in a movie about the latter? No. Because it doesnt make sense. And thats the point.

I think Black Panther is great.... because it makes sense. Black Arielle doesnt offend me, i'd say the same thing if she was yellow or red. Ultimately I'm alright with their choice because I dont get offended and its for the kids so it doesnt matter....I just think it doesnt make a lot of sense since she was a mermaid off the coast of Denmark in 19th century where you wouldnt come across a black person.

by El Gunner Fri Jul 05, 2019 11:17 pm

You guys bringing Jim Crow laws and Apartheid into this is comical. This has nothing to do with black people per se. Would you cast Bill Hader as Obama in a movie about the latter? No. Because it doesnt make sense. And thats the point.

Oh my god... oh my god Laughing

Like clockwork, on point

by Freeza Fri Jul 05, 2019 11:20 pm

Most nonsensical comparison I’ve read. I’m impressed really.

Comparing a 200 old character from a fairy tale to an actual person.

by Myesyats Fri Jul 05, 2019 11:33 pm

Arielle is a specific character that has already been depicted. There is no debate here. lol

Making this about racial segregation is borderline hysteria. Who is the sensitive one here? lmao

by Freeza Fri Jul 05, 2019 11:56 pm

It’s the same character as in the fairytale. Giving her a name doesn’t make it a different character.

It’s all about race. Stop being in denial about it. As soon as you admit it, you can begin to improve.

by Myesyats Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:08 am

I'm not racist man, Kevin Hart is like my favorite comedian

by M99 Sat Jul 06, 2019 8:11 am

Myesyats wrote:I'm not racist man, Kevin Hart is like my favorite comedian

My God, this is worse than I'm not racist I have black friends rofl

by Freeza Sat Jul 06, 2019 8:54 am

M99 wrote:
Myesyats wrote:I'm not racist man, Kevin Hart is like my favorite comedian

My God, this is worse than I'm not racist I have black friends

Wasn’t going to comment on it, because it nearly killed me rofl

by Myesyats Sat Jul 06, 2019 10:23 am

You guys are no fun at a party, I can clearly tell.

by El Gunner Sat Jul 06, 2019 12:07 pm

I feel like you were serious up until the Kevin Hart post, but okay.
Besides, as a white person, this is not a subject to be making light work of.

by Sponsored content