Ariel Got A Tan

This is getting out of hand. Or is it? Is it even important enough to waste my time, and your time, with yet another social media war about Hollywood's woke stunt-casting? Why would I want to risk being called a racist by giving my two cents about the announced live film remake of Disney's classic "The Little Mermaid," why should anyone care about the pale, copper-topped Ariel being re-cast as a girl of color?

Well, the questions I pose in the intro are exactly the reason why this has to be said; re-casting The Little Mermaid as a black girl is problematic. There, I said it. Many have said it on Twitter, YouTube and other social media, and already the reactions from "official media" are pouring in, calling all that criticize Disney's decision to cast Halle Bailey as the life action Ariel, racists and white supremacists. "White Twitter Is Big Mad About Disney Casting a Black Little Mermaid," "The Little Mermaid fans are at war after Disney’s casting of Halle Bailey as Ariel sparks bitter online race row," and "Racists are furious that a Black girl will play 'The Little Mermaid'" are a few telling headlines.

The divide and rulers are at it again, their corporate mouthpieces are inflating it again, and we are eagerly gobbling up their nonsense again. So, let me try to deconstruct this web of misunderstandings and insert a modicum of reason into this discussion, as to at least partially defuse this explosive concoction. First we have to admit that there are racists out there, no doubt, who feel genuinely insulted by Ariel's sudden tan for all the wrong reasons. We also have to concede that this is all purely fictional, so on first sight it shouldn't make any difference at all if Ariel is black, white, brown, yellow or purple, so why should anyone care at all. And there's nothing wrong with striving for more equal media representation among cultural identities, regardless if they're real or manufactured. Trying to fight for the rights of someone else is usually a good thing, as long as the motivations are selfless.

Ariel's tan is still a problem though. Why was the Lord of the Rings trilogy such a success? Why is any film that's based on a book a success? Is there a common thread to be found among them? I dare wager that the success of films based on books, and on any previously used medium, greatly depends on the film staying true to the original as much as possible. Books are most difficult to adapt, simply because every individual reader imagines their own personal protagonist in their head; unless the writer goes through great lengths, spending several pages on a highly detailed description of the characters (and backdrops for that matter), everyone has great freedom in making up their own fantasy world inhabited by their own fantasy personages. Fictional characters may be fictional, but we make them real in our heads. Long after we finish reading the book, long after the movie has ended, these characters stay alive in our heads; there they don't seize to exist.

The Lord of the Rings' director, Peter Jackson, was widely praised for how well he was able to stay true to the source material, especially accounting for the many limitations the visual medium has when compared to the thousands of pages available in the books. It would be jarring for fans of the source material to see Gandalf re-cast as an Asian female. And criticizing such re-casting would have absolutely nothing to do with racism... But apparently it does... Ariel is a character from a book by Danish writer Hans Christian Andersen, a fairy tale. Disney's world famous animation from 1989, which acts as the source material for the announced movie, was true to the source material. And true to common sense for that matter; intuitively I'd say that a half-human-half-fish creature that lives beneath the surface of the ocean, would have a hard time getting a tan and would have a pale, almost translucent skin...

But that's not the point; the point is that making fundamental changes in the appearance of icons, that have lived in our minds for decades or longer, will always be jarring and will always lose the vote of the long-time fans. I don't want to see Blade turned into a white female. And I don't want to see Ariel turned into a "Black Disney Princess." You can't turn the Ghostbusters into females without some form of backlash from fans of the original. If the goal is more equality in media representation, this is not the way to go about it; if the goal is to further divide the people, then kudos, you're doing just fine. If diversity in media representation is your wish (it's not, but let's say it is), then what stops you from creating new characters? Diversity is not the problem here, the problem is that this woke agenda is killing our modern myths. Our myths are the glue that binds our culture, it's where we get the part of our identity that's shared with everyone else.

We are human beings and as such we're not defined by the color of our skin, our gender or political affiliation; there's so much more to us. But the characters that live in our minds, that have lived there for all our lifes in some cases, they are icons, mental images that have become part of what we are. So, don't make Superman black, don't dare come up with White Panther, and if you pitch Black Widow against White Bachelor, I'll personally come over and whoop your ass until it glows red... Ah, I'll just let Doomcock, the future ruler of Earth, explain:

Thanks so much for visiting my blog and reading my posts dear reader, I appreciate that a lot :-) If you like my content, please consider leaving a comment, upvote or resteem. I'll be back here tomorrow and sincerely hope you'll join me. Until then, keep steeming!