Snow White is now brown according to Hollywood

a reply to: AlienBorg

And does this actor speak for all little people.

Nope.

Again the term "dwarf" is considered derogatory in this day of age, just a thought.

The world spun buddy.

And it got a lot less racist and more inclusive since the 1930s.

That's just another fact people will have to deal with.

They do not use the term "dwarf" for the same reason they don't call people who are Down Syndrome the M word or
people with disabilities the S word.

For a start its bad manners and poor form, not just derogatory.

originally posted by: AlienBorg
They went woke and lost the game.

What did they lose? LOL!

Who would be a good actress for this in your opinion?

Can she sing like this?



Ya think maybe it was her talent that landed her the role? Would you even know she was part Columbian if MAGA news didn't tell you?

a reply to: AlienBorg

Referring you back to my earlier reply

Referring you back to the simple fact that a fictional character's skin pigment does not change history.

And if in doubt please inform us how Jesus being portrayed as being white.

So as to mollycoddle the minds of the weak.

In any way changes the message behind the man?

Of course I will not watch the new version of the Brown Princess and the non binary gender queer creatures. I prefer the old original version just like the vast majority of people.

So you will happily talk about something and condemn the movie without first even being willing to watch it?

How are you even going to compare the two, aside from Snow's skin colour of course?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: AlienBorg

And does this actor speak for all little people.

Nope.

Again the term "dwarf" is considered derogatory in this day of age, just a thought.

The world spun buddy.

And it got a lot less racist and more inclusive since the 1930s.

That's just another fact people will have to deal with.

They do not use the term "dwarf" for the same reason they don't call people who are Down Syndrome the M word or
people with disabilities the S word.

For a start its bad manners and poor form, not just derogatory.

There is nothing derogatory.
Even the actor doesn't feel it's derogatory who is a dwarf. He doesn't care and he says he is a dwarf. He only cares about the gaffe made by Disney and the fact their roles have been taken by other actors who are not dwarfs.

Racism and inclusivity?! Ha! That must be a joke.

The only people who see no issue with this change and who make argue for racism and inclusivity are those who subscribe to the radical left ideology.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: AlienBorg

Referring you back to the simple fact that a fictional character's skin pigment does not change history.

And if in doubt please inform us how Jesus being portrayed as being white.

So as to mollycoddle the minds of the weak.

In any way changes the message behind the man?

Because books and plays are part of our culture and history and if changes are made of the original stories that have been told for many many years then it is a change of history.

I have described well why the change in plays and the change in books and stories are changes of our history. It's better if you try to understand this detail.

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: AlienBorg
They went woke and lost the game.

What did they lose? LOL!

Who would be a good actress for this in your opinion?

Can she sing like this?

Ya think maybe it was her talent that landed her the role? Would you even know she was part Columbian if MAGA news didn't tell you?

They went woke and the entire world laughs at them.

You go woke you go broke.

originally posted by: AlienBorg
Try watch the video I linked with Piers Morgan interviewing a woke activist and a dwarf actor who is well known for his role in movies.

I'm not giving Piers Morgan any clicks, but I searched and found out who the actor is. He's played a Leprechaun and voiced a Muppet. That's it lol. "Well known". He may not mind being called a dwarf, but many of them do. It is very much considered derogatory in this day and age.

a reply to: AlienBorg

There is nothing derogatory.

From your point of view that may well be but from societies im afraid that's a different matter.

Try going about calling your employees or fellow workers "dwarf" and see how long it takes HR to intervene AlienBorg.

Even the actor doesn't feel it's derogatory who is a dwarf. He doesn't care and he says he is a dwarf. He only cares about the gaffe made by Disney and the fact their roles have been taken by other actors who are not dwarfs.

The actor is simply an individual, again the majority of small people would seem to consider the term "dwarf" in a derogatory manner.

Racism and inclusivity?! Ha! That must be a joke.

Care to expand on that after all are we not all Jock Tamson's bairns?

The only people who see no issue with this change and who make argue for racism and inclusivity are those who subscribe to the radical left ideology.

So anyone that chooses not to think just like you.

And also every kid on the planet, that does not know, or care, about which colour a fictional character happens to be?

originally posted by: AlienBorg
They went woke and the entire world laughs at them.

You go woke you go broke.

The entire world is laughing at you 🤡

This movie will do fine, as did The Little Mermaid.

I wish I was Disney "broke". They're worth $109 billion.

a reply to: AlienBorg

Its better that you simply accept it matters not one iota as to the colour of ""fictional characters"" skin.

And it speaks volumes that you are unwilling to entertain or address the conundrum that a white Jesus does not change the meaning behind the man.

As to understanding, well i understand the colour of characters in a movie about a fictional fairy tale is of little relevance to the story being conveyed.

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: AlienBorg

I imagine that's exactly what they have went for.

After all "there is no such thing as bad publicity".

Out with a bit of a wooden spoon really, but as you can see, it's having the desired effect, hence the discussion and controversy that has arisen over the mere colour of a fictional character in a book.

They may as well look for discussion and controversy. Bud Light did too but it came at a price with a massive sale drop. I am sure they can both survive if they only depend on their woke customers.

And they all will survive and do very well in the future because future generations will be awake and inclusive and representation of all peoples in all social media formats will generate big profits. Keyword = representation.

Excuses excuses excuses.
As someone said earlier, everyone who subscribes to the radical left ideology sees no issue with what Disney tried to do.

Inclusion spans all ideologies and all political parties whereas racism does not.

Alternatively, the Snow White story could be turned completely on it's heels. In that, the people in the story could all be brown except Snow White who may also be brown but suffers with Vitiligo. Anything is possible with an open mind.

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: jedi_hamster
nice try. there are other photos from that event though that show her in a different light, pun intended.

sorry for the domain name, not my site.

Even in that photo, lighter than I. How many people in this day and age are pure Caucasian?

originally posted by: jedi_hamster
I also have nothing against her ethnical background (part Colombian, part Polish). but the truth is, her skin is nowhere near "snow white", period.

I honestly don't know anyone with skin that is snow white, do you? Do you want them to find an albino actress?

More likely Snow White was anemic and should be eating iron-rich foods rather than apples.

Justifying the gaffe?
Come on! You can do better.
No need to give support to the woke ideology. They have embarrassed themselves again.

Within a fictional story/premise anything is possible.

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: AlienBorg

And does this actor speak for all little people.

Nope.

Again the term "dwarf" is considered derogatory in this day of age, just a thought.

The world spun buddy.

And it got a lot less racist and more inclusive since the 1930s.

That's just another fact people will have to deal with.

They do not use the term "dwarf" for the same reason they don't call people who are Down Syndrome the M word or
people with disabilities the S word.

For a start its bad manners and poor form, not just derogatory.

There is nothing derogatory.
Even the actor doesn't feel it's derogatory who is a dwarf. He doesn't care and he says he is a dwarf. He only cares about the gaffe made by Disney and the fact their roles have been taken by other actors who are not dwarfs.

Racism and inclusivity?! Ha! That must be a joke.

The only people who see no issue with this change and who make argue for racism and inclusivity are those who subscribe to the radical left ideology.

Again, 'representation' for little people and others taking away their potential work in the biz.

originally posted by: LordAhriman

Ya think maybe it was her talent that landed her the role? Would you even know she was part Columbian if MAGA news didn't tell you?

It is interesting that you suggest this is no big deal and it is all about talent, and I agree with the point that there is also the need in picking the right person for the part. With all these redoing of the classics, I would say talent is not their primary objective here.

I remember a couple of Oscars ago there was an uproar over too many White people and not enough diversity in the winners, so it seems talent has taken a back seat to meeting some Woke agenda. With the left, it seems they see something they want to correct and it ends up going way past any form of neutrality and just spirals hard in the other direction, so what ends up happening is what starts as a good idea turns into a WTF moment.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
It is interesting that you suggest this is no big deal and it is all about talent, and I agree with the point that there is also the need in picking the right person for the part.

It is not a big deal. It's an almost white chick, playing a FICTIONAL white chick. She IS very talented, in acting and singing. Did you listen to the video I posted? You don't think her voice may have something to do with her selection?

Here. Try this one. No studio trickery, just her and a guitar in a bathtub. Fast forward to 1:55.

Yep. It's definitely her skin color that got her the role.

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: AlienBorg

And does this actor speak for all little people.

Nope.

Again the term "dwarf" is considered derogatory in this day of age, just a thought.

The world spun buddy.

And it got a lot less racist and more inclusive since the 1930s.

That's just another fact people will have to deal with.

They do not use the term "dwarf" for the same reason they don't call people who are Down Syndrome the M word or
people with disabilities the S word.

For a start its bad manners and poor form, not just derogatory.

There is nothing derogatory.
Even the actor doesn't feel it's derogatory who is a dwarf. He doesn't care and he says he is a dwarf. He only cares about the gaffe made by Disney and the fact their roles have been taken by other actors who are not dwarfs.

Racism and inclusivity?! Ha! That must be a joke.

The only people who see no issue with this change and who make argue for racism and inclusivity are those who subscribe to the radical left ideology.

Yet you made a thread about it.....
Kinda foot in mouth

The Oscars' new diversity rules. Perhaps this is the reason for the casting choices... end goal... win an Oscar.

These live action Disney movies could be nominated for Best Picture. Their animations normally run for Best Animation.

From ABC News4

Under the new rules, movies won't be considered for Best Picture nominations unless they meet two of the four new standards set in place that are, according to the Academy, "designed to encourage equitable representation on and off screen in order to better reflect the diversity of the movie-going audience."

One of the new standards is that a movie features a lead or supporting character who is from an "underrepresented racial or ethnic group." Another standard can be that the movie has a main storyline focused on an underrepresented group in some way. Also, a movie can meet a standard by having at least 30% of its cast come from two or more underrepresented groups.

"Underrepresented" groups include, according to The Oscars' new guidelines, Asian people, Hispanic people, Black people, Indigenous/Native American people, Middle Eastern people, women, LGBTQ+ people, people with disabilities and "other underrepresented" race or ethnic groups.

The Oscars announced the new standards back in September 2020, but it won't be until the 96th Oscars (2024) that they take effect.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: AlienBorg

I imagine that's exactly what they have went for.

After all "there is no such thing as bad publicity".

Out with a bit of a wooden spoon really, but as you can see, it's having the desired effect, hence the discussion and controversy that has arisen over the mere colour of a fictional character in a book.

They may as well look for discussion and controversy. Bud Light did too but it came at a price with a massive sale drop. I am sure they can both survive if they only depend on their woke customers.

And they all will survive and do very well in the future because future generations will be awake and inclusive and representation of all peoples in all social media formats will generate big profits. Keyword = representation.

Excuses excuses excuses.
As someone said earlier, everyone who subscribes to the radical left ideology sees no issue with what Disney tried to do.

Inclusion spans all ideologies and all political parties whereas racism does not.

Alternatively, the Snow White story could be turned completely on it's heels. In that, the people in the story could all be brown except Snow White who may also be brown but suffers with Vitiligo. Anything is possible with an open mind.

so taking folk tales from one people and reworking it to suit another cultures tastes and thinking it ok to delete parts is what if not cultural imperialism.. I guess that its natural the neo liberalism like new liberalism would create its own neo imperialism

i say that as an English person who can see that the Victorians did the exact same thing to other cultures and think it wrong, so if the modern cultural imperialists think it ago to alter the folk tales of other cultures then they sit in the same pot as the Victorians..

a reply to: Xtrozero

She has a Golden Globe for performing as a lead in a musical. Are you really going to suggest somebody more talented than her was turned down for the role?

a reply to: nickyw

The original Snow White story ends with the Queen having red-hot iron shoes strapped to her feet and being ordered to dance until she dies. I don't seem to recall that scene from the Disney cartoon.