- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 'The Little Mermaid' Official Trailer | Disney
Posted on 3/13/23 at 4:00 pm to imjustafatkid
Posted on 3/13/23 at 4:00 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
Casting black Ariel only erases black Ariel. No one will ever think of Ariel and see this chick in their minds.
I mean, except for every kid who is abt to be introduced to the little mermaid.
2
Posted on 3/13/23 at 4:04 pm to SlimTigerSlap
quote:
I mean, except for every kid who is abt to be introduced to the little mermaid.
Lol nobody has a Disney+ sub or has watched the little mermaid in the last 30 years.
Those being "introduced" to the little mermaid for the first time with this film are an extremely small audience.
This post was edited on 3/13/23 at 4:05 pm
Posted on 3/13/23 at 4:06 pm to JasonMason
quote:
We did this in another thread I know. The box office is not Disney's revenue. That's total revenue from ticket sales. Disney doesn't get the whole amount and the "budget" also doesn't include marketing and advertising. I'm doubting Dumbo made money.
And you also ignore that these films have rights sold all over the world plus digital rentals.
Now Pinnochio and Mulan, very hard to imagine either of those will ever break even. Even make half of their budgets back.
Point is, Disney isn't deliberately breaking their fiduciary responsibility to spread "wokism" or whatever dumbfrick nonsense conjured up in here. These movies by and large are low-risk, solid-upside investments. And shareholders love that. Little Mermaid will probably cost 150 mil, another 80-100 marketing. Make 450 Million+ plus worldwide as it's floor, then bring in a bunch more through rentals and licensing. Have knockdown effects with their parks and selling the original film and licensing it out.
Posted on 3/13/23 at 4:08 pm to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
Now do Anne Boleyn...
I had the misfortune of watching this BBC series. As expected, it was terrible and performed horribly in the ratings.
Posted on 3/13/23 at 4:10 pm to JasonMason
Disney needs to do a kingdom hearts series to try and get a signature Disney series for plus instead of these lame retreads
Posted on 3/13/23 at 4:11 pm to Bronc
Why wasn't Pinocchio received well? I watched it and thoroughly enjoyed it.
Posted on 3/13/23 at 4:11 pm to JasonMason
quote:
Lol nobody has a Disney+ sub or has watched the little mermaid in the last 30 years.
Those being "introduced" to the little mermaid for the first time with this film are an extremely small audience.
Umm, if you ignore the future, I guess.
Posted on 3/13/23 at 4:13 pm to QJenk
quote:
Why wasn't Pinocchio received well? I watched it and thoroughly enjoyed it.
Didn't it go straight to D+ and had a budget of close to 200mil?
Hard to imagine digital sales and licensing will be enough, but maybe I'm wrong.
Posted on 3/13/23 at 4:14 pm to SlimTigerSlap
quote:
The problem with that is established IPs are always a safer bet for studios.
Not my problem.
quote:
Now I'm sure you can imagine the character makeup of most established IPs due to the historical makeup of this country.
Again, that it what it is. This feels like the first attempt at those mental gymnastic I was referring to. Let's see...
quote:
Casting black Ariel doesn't erase white Ariel. You can show the latter to your kids if you feel compelled.
None of this addresses my point.
- Cast to the source material.
- If you think the source materials of the predominant stories are "too white" which is what you suggested, then write NEW materials or bring to the public other stories, fables, etc from other cultures and make them popular. This solves issue #1, AND allows for truly diverse entertainment, rather than tokenization of historically white characters and stories.
Why would nonwhite people want what amounts to white peoples' sloppy seconds of well known characters rather than new characters they could call their own? It kind of feels like it's mostly because it pisses off white people...
Posted on 3/13/23 at 4:18 pm to GeauxTigerTM
@GeauzTigerTM
You're speaking from a bubble. These movies make money. Corporations exist to make money. You say, "not my problem." They don't give a shite. It's the shareholders problem. Laughable that you'd tell a studio what to do with its intellectual material. Your only course is to not watch.
I don't know, ask them. They seem to celebrate when it happens.
You're speaking from a bubble. These movies make money. Corporations exist to make money. You say, "not my problem." They don't give a shite. It's the shareholders problem. Laughable that you'd tell a studio what to do with its intellectual material. Your only course is to not watch.
quote:
Why would nonwhite people want what amounts to white peoples' sloppy seconds of well known characters rather than new characters they could call their own?
I don't know, ask them. They seem to celebrate when it happens.
This post was edited on 3/13/23 at 4:22 pm
Posted on 3/13/23 at 4:21 pm to MStant1
quote:
I'm not familiar with the show that the image is from, but would agree I don't understand why they would cast a non-white person in this role (is this a Hamilton type situation where the story isn't really about the story and casting non-white actors is making a broader point?).
BBC show, and no...it's not like Hamilton.
LINK
The new excuse here is "blind casting" as the reason for these types of casting. Essentially suggesting race plays no part on casting and it's always "best person for the job," etc. Which begs two questions. First, if this is the case why the race swaps in cartoons? Second, have white people forgotten how to act, because it sure LOOKS like a ton of traditionally white roles have been cast with nonwhite actors and none on the reverse under this new system.
quote:
I'm not losing sleep over it given that we have decades upon decades of movies where non-white characters were cast by white actors.
So pay back? Yeah...I'm not down with that. As I said earlier, my take is to ALWAYS cast to the source, be it fiction or nonfiction. So I think it was wrong to to it when it was whitewashing and wrong to do it now that it's black/brownwashing. Pointing to the fact that it happened one way as an excuse to keep doing it in reverse is why we can;t have nice things.
Posted on 3/13/23 at 4:22 pm to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
- Cast to the source material.
The source material describes a family of mermaids with brown and dark curly hair. An Ariel that cuts out her tongue, attempts to kill the prince and his new wife after she is rejected by the prince, then commits suicide.
Why is your only concern about the source material the skin color of the mermaid that not once is central to any of the story? A story that is all but excised and barely recognizable outside of a mermaid wanting a Prince and to be human?
This is one of those times where this argument simply does not work. You cant claim adherence to a source material that is already a gross bastardization and then the only thing you care about in another bastardization of the source material is the mermaid staying white. At least not without thinking the obvious, which is that your issue isn't representing the source material, its that you simply don't want a black person cast in the lead
quote:
Why would nonwhite people want what amounts to white peoples' sloppy seconds of well known characters rather than new characters they could call their own? It kind of feels like it's mostly because it pisses off white people...
Seems to mean a lot based on how many white people melt down when they are not the sole racial representation in all of these adaptions and remakes.
This post was edited on 3/13/23 at 4:26 pm
Posted on 3/13/23 at 4:26 pm to SlimTigerSlap
quote:
You're speaking from a bubble. These movies make money. Corporations exist to make money. You say, "not my problem." They don't give a shite. It's the shareholders problem. Laughable that you'd tell a studio what to do with its intellectual material. Your only course is to not watch.
Disney's wild successes lately must be why they just dumped Chapek in favor of bringing back Iger...
Posted on 3/13/23 at 4:28 pm to RLDSC FAN
Why do all the comments start with ' Love the part where...' , and in different languages?
That's not bots posting at all, is it?
That's not bots posting at all, is it?
Posted on 3/13/23 at 4:31 pm to Bronc
WTF do international rights sales secondarily have to do with box office and budget?
This post was edited on 3/13/23 at 4:33 pm
Posted on 3/13/23 at 4:33 pm to Bronc
quote:
The source material describes a family of mermaids with brown and dark curly hair. An Ariel that cuts out her tongue, attempts to kill the prince and his new wife after she is rejected by the prince, then commits suicide.
Why is your only concern about the source material the skin color of the mermaid that not once is central to any of the story? A story that is all but excised and barely recognizable outside of a mermaid wanting a Prince and to be human?
A) all things being equal, I'd have preferred Disney stick to that source material when doing TLM in the first place, but it obviously would not have gone over well.
B) since they Disnefied the story, THAT becomes Disney's source material and the one it ought to stick with, because it's the one they've shown people is their version for decades.
quote:
Seems to mean a lot based on how many white people melt down when they are not the sole racial representation in all of these adaptions and remakes
It's been brought up before but it's the perfect example. M. Night's shitty version of Avatar was panned for sucking, but also for whitewashing characters and both reasons were valid. Fans of the show who ere white were not happy that he cast a bunch of whities in the roles, because they wanted it to remain true to the source. and it's why they rejoiced when Netflix released images of the actors cast in their version.
Why? If white fans were so racist, shouldn't they have liked the first one and complained the Netflix version was bad because of all the nonwhite actors? Or could it be something less insidious as I suggested?
Posted on 3/13/23 at 4:35 pm to SlimTigerSlap
quote:
I don't know, ask them. They seem to celebrate when it happens.
Some do. Some don't. It seems that most people that celebrate it are white leftists. I've seen my fair share of non white people calling these companies out for the lazy changes instead of introducing creativity through new stories and taking creative risks.
Posted on 3/13/23 at 4:35 pm to JasonMason
quote:
WTF do international rights sales secondarily have to do with box office and budget?
It's revenue derived directly from the film and part of these remakes product lifecycle.
Posted on 3/13/23 at 4:35 pm to Colonel Flagg
quote:
So who is going to play Vanessa?
Riley Reid
Posted on 3/13/23 at 4:37 pm to Bronc
quote:
It's revenue derived directly from the film and part of these remakes product lifecycle.
So again again, what goes that have to do with box office and budget?
Page 5 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News