As much as I prefer brunettes, the sad truth is that the Disney character Ariel, from the Little Mermaid (1989) is a redhead. She’s immediately recognizable as the one red-headed Disney princess.
However, in mythology there is nothing that insists that mermaids must have red hair. There might be mermaids with blue hair, black hair, brown hair or even no hair? Why should we not have a bald Ariel?
Well, if we were to do a new rendition of the original Hans Christen-Anderson tale, there’s no particular reason to make her a redhead or to have any hair at all. We have no real mermaids that we have to try and match in order to make it “realistic”.
So why should we bother making Ariel in the new Disney live-action movie a redhead? Well, because she’s a particular character. There’s no “real” weather witches, but it would not do to make Storm have purple hair in the next X-men movie. She is recognizable as a character with white hair. Why shouldn’t Thor have black hair, or Wolverine be a blonde?
Because the characters are obviously recognizable, pre-existing characters. Sure, there’s nothing in the “real” world that says aliens who have once been considered to be Norse gods *must* be blonde. In fact, even in pre-existing properties, Loki has black hair. So why shouldn’t the new Avengers have a black-haired Thor?
This whole debate is obviously silly. Ariel is a redhead. She always has been and if you want to remake the movie and call back to the 1989 animated feature film with Flounder and Sebastian the crab, she should remain a redhead.
Of course, changing her hair color isn’t necessarily going to make the movie suck. Nothing intrinsic about red-headed actresses makes them better than brunettes or blondes or bald ones. After a few minutes of watching the new movie, you might quickly start recognizing the bald girl as Ariel. But one has to wonder, why would you change it?
Is it because there haven’t been enough bald Disney princesses? Is it because a bunch of self-righteous activist types have arbitrarily decided that bald women need more representation and therefore we need to start making more movies with bald women?
Is it because those same self-righteous whiners made a huge stink about Disney filming in Georgia, now that Georgia has tried to make baby-murder somewhat restricted? And now Disney is hoping to cater to these low-IQ activist types to win back their goodwill so they don’t have to go back to filming in California with its ruinous tax policies?
Well if that’s the reason, we can assume this movie is going to suck. It’s not because bald actresses suck, it’s because the same mindset that makes movies to appeal to the left-wing is the same mindset that makes movies suck. Movies trying to make a political point on the left or the right are always crappy. Many movies that *have* a point are not necessarily making a point. However, having a movie that is trying to make some kind of social statement essentially dooms the movie to irrelevance, except for that sliver of viewers that really enjoy watching movies loudly agree with what they already think.
In any case: Disney’s attempt to mollify the activists means that whoever is in charge of this movie wants to make a statement more than they want to stay true to the original. If you want to be preached to, I’m sure the movie will scratch your itch. If you are looking for a fun and enjoyable live-action remake of the original movie, you’re very likely to be sadly disappointed.
And to anyone who thinks that people who complain about this just hate bald people: You’re a self-righteous loon. Get over yourself.