Gemma not taking enforced retirement too well

Stop moaning ffs

Blueshoe wrote: »

She was posting about the new little mermaid movie. The mermaid has been cast as a black person.

Danish fairytale. Written in 1836.

The Iconoclast. One of my favourite YouTube channels

https://youtu.be/gzIuqi8tkH4

Does the colour of the characters skin in a retelling, change the story somehow?

pixelburp

Blueshoe wrote: »

She was posting about the new little mermaid movie. The mermaid has been cast as a black person.

Danish fairytale. Written in 1836.

The Iconoclast. One of my favourite YouTube channels

https://youtu.be/gzIuqi8tkH4

No, it's going to be a remake of the 1989 animated film, which had a distinct calypso, Caribbean vibe going on (see "Under the Sea"), so casting a black person makes perfect artistic sense. Ya know, if you're casting fictional teenage mermaids that is. I don't even know how faithful that '89 film was to the original tale. Fewer songs and vampy Octopus ladies one presumes.

Many public domain works have been overtaken by the media adaptations, where the iconography of the adaptation has superseded the original text. A good example is the Boris Karloff version of Frankenstein, where the 'bolted neck, flattop hair' version is the go-to image of what was originally just a sewn-up corpse. Heck, you can include Disney's own catalogue with that one, if you throw in the likes of Mary Poppins, where the musical adaptation overtook PL Travers' original books.

But then I'm forgetting what this thread's about of course.

Kimsang

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Cos she’s a fvkin idiot and anyone taking her seriously is an even bigger one.

Well you moved the goalposts there just a tad. You were questioning her integrity by implying she's doing it just for a youtube following. I don't know her too well and there's not a lot I agree with her... but to question her integrity seems unfair. It's clear she's not making money from this.

It shows the smearing tactics of people that one doesn't agree with. Why not just let her bad ideas show for themselves, instead of smearing people?

Kimsang

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Does the colour of the characters skin in a retelling, change the story somehow?

Tell that to people trying to remove "Zwarte Piet" from Christmas stories in the Netherlands.

Timberrrrrrrr

pixelburp wrote: »

No, it's going to be a remake of the 1989 animated film, which had a distinct calypso, Caribbean vibe going on (see "Under the Sea"), so casting a black person makes perfect artistic sense. Ya know, if you're casting fictional teenage mermaids that is. I don't even know how faithful that '89 film was to the original tale. Fewer songs and vampy Octopus ladies one presumes.

Many public domain works have been overtaken by the media adaptations, where the iconography of the adaptation has superseded the original text. A good example is the Boris Karloff version of Frankenstein, where the 'bolted neck, flattop hair' version is the go-to image of what was originally just a sewn-up corpse. Heck, you can include Disney's own catalogue with that one, if you throw in the likes of Mary Poppins, where the musical adaptation overtook PL Travers' original books.

But then I'm forgetting what this thread's about of course.

That movie is all sorts of wrong anyway!

Stop moaning ffs

Stop moaning ffs wrote:

Does the colour of the characters skin in a retelling, change the story somehow?

Hahahahahahaha.... Really?

Really?

Hahahahahahahahahaha.

Brilliant.

The left really need to start being consistent with their outrage of cultural appropriation.

Odhinn

Kimsang wrote: »

Well you moved the goalposts there just a tad. You were questioning her integrity by implying she's doing it just for a youtube following. I don't know her too well and there's not a lot I agree with her... but to question her integrity seems unfair. It's clear she's not making money from this.

It shows the smearing tactics of people that one doesn't agree with. Why not just let her bad ideas show for themselves, instead of smearing people?

Isn't that exactly what you were doing vis a vis some guardian journalist?

Stop moaning ffs

Kimsang wrote: »

Well you moved the goalposts there just a tad. You were questioning her integrity by implying she's doing it just for a youtube following. I don't know her too well and there's not a lot I agree with her... but to question her integrity seems unfair. It's clear she's not making money from this.

It shows the smearing tactics of people that one doesn't agree with. Why not just let her bad ideas show for themselves, instead of smearing people?

Her integrity?

Benefit of the doubt you may not be fully aware of her actions and behaviour over the past few years.
But she’s behaved appallingly.
Look up her disgusting theory about Veronica Guerin and how that affected Guerin’s family.

Stop moaning ffs

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Hahahahahahaha.... Really?

Really?

Hahahahahahahahahaha.

Brilliant.

The left really need to start being consistent with their outrage of cultural appropriation.

Again. ‘The left’

Who are this evil ominous organisation called ‘the left’??

Seriously you have issues if you think actually I give up. What is this ‘left’ you speak of??

marieholmfan

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Her integrity?

Benefit of the doubt you may not be fully aware of her actions and behaviour over the past few years.
But she’s behaved appallingly.
Look up her disgusting theory about Veronica Guerin and how that affected Guerin’s family.

Sorry that theory is not disgusting !

Kimsang

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Her integrity?

Benefit of the doubt you may not be fully aware of her actions and behaviour over the past few years.
But she’s behaved appallingly.
Look up her disgusting theory about Veronica Guerin and how that affected Guerin’s family.

Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware and it seems these can be seen as disgusting and offensive theories.
Does that prove that she doesn't have integrity though? She could still be doing what she thinks is right. If you argue shes making money from this, I would question her integrity.
But it seems she brings nothing but hate on herself.

pixelburp

Kimsang wrote: »

Tell that to people trying to remove "Zwarte Piet" from Christmas stories in the Netherlands.

Not the point; ask 1000 people and for all intents and purposes The Little Mermaid is a Disney cartoon, much like Mary Poppins is too, and not a book by PL Travers. Aladdin is a Robin Williams feature. Superman flies and is an alien, because the radio adaptation made him that way and the comics followed the popular perception. And so on. Pop culture takes primacy.

The live action Little Mermaid remake is just leaning further into a calypso tone that was already there, and most of the remakes have been cynical copies of the animated films, which themselves took liberties with the source story. So I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that the 89 film was not a faithful recreation of a 19th century Danish fairytale.

Nobody cares Cinderella no longer ends with the ugly sisters chopping their feet off to fit the slipper, but change the skin colour of a teenage mermaid to match a Carribbean vibe and cue the outrage. This isn't PC culture gone made. It's a remake embracing what was already there.

Kimsang

pixelburp wrote: »

Not the point; .

My point was that changing the skin colour can change the story. Black Pete in the Netherlands is an example of this. I'm sure no one argues the Netherlands are racist.

I don't know why you quote me to argue about Cinderella, but I'm outraged feet no longer get chopped off at the end, that sounds like a much more exciting ending :pac:

pixelburp

Kimsang wrote: »

My point was that changing the skin colour can change the story. Black Pete in the Netherlands is an example of this. I'm sure no one argues the Netherlands are racist.

I don't know why you quote me to argue about Cinderella, but I'm outraged feet no longer get chopped off at the end, that sounds like a much more exciting ending :pac:

Yes I see your point, and mine is that it doesn't change the story to swap the mermaids race, those who wail over the dead version of a Danish fairytale are indulging in literary pedantism. Swapping to a story of Black Pete doesn't prove or disprove anything.

This is a nothing story, because the Little Mermaid is now a Carribbean tale and has been since 1989. Her being black, if anything, connects dots. Those who cry SJW are indulging in kneejerk outrage. Have they even heard "Under the Sea"?

pinkyeye

We're actually arguing over the Little Mermaid now??

Does it really affect anyone's life if the Little Mermaid is black or white??

Seriously, some people need to get a life and real problems.

Kimsang

pixelburp wrote: »

Swapping to a story of Black Pete doesn't prove or disprove anything.

It proves that people are selectively outraged when it suits their agenda.

batgoat

Kimsang wrote: »

Well you moved the goalposts there just a tad. You were questioning her integrity by implying she's doing it just for a youtube following. I don't know her too well and there's not a lot I agree with her... but to question her integrity seems unfair. It's clear she's not making money from this.

It shows the smearing tactics of people that one doesn't agree with. Why not just let her bad ideas show for themselves, instead of smearing people?

To be honest, I'd say she's lost it a bit. I don't believe she has an anti corruption intention. She definitely lacks actual credibility.

Kimsang wrote: »

Tell that to people trying to remove "Zwarte Piet" from Christmas stories in the Netherlands.

I find it a tad odd for a person to be so aware of the character. Stereotypes and racist tropes are going to be way less popular as time goes on. A person going black face is most definitely not comparable to the little mermaid not being white.

Annasopra

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

she is gaining traction though, her Youtube channel was blocked in January, she started a new one and has since gained 26k subscribers and almost 2 and a half million views.
She's on course for maybe 40k subscribers by the end of the year (although at least half of them I would imagine are not from Ireland)

She even said herself most are American

Annasopra

Kimsang wrote: »

Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware and it seems these can be seen as disgusting and offensive theories.
Does that prove that she doesn't have integrity though? She could still be doing what she thinks is right. If you argue shes making money from this, I would question her integrity.
But it seems she brings nothing but hate on herself.

How can you prove she isn't making money on this though?

ollkiller

Looks like the 20 core tenets of Anti Corruption Ireland will have to be expanded to 21 to accommodate "All actors in remakes have to be the same colour as in the original piece"

This is what I want my anti corruption party to fight for.

pixelburp

Kimsang wrote: »

It proves that people are selectively outraged when it suits their agenda.

Less selective outrage in this case, more that Gemma and others haven't a bloody clue. An agenda I suppose ("SJW are ruining our 18th cnetury Danish fairytales" apparently), that's shown to be myopic, misplaced and utterly premature in its haste to roll eyes at another PC-gone-mad'ism.

Blueshoe

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Again. ‘The left’

Who are this evil ominous organisation called ‘the left’??

Seriously you have issues if you think actually I give up. What is this ‘left’ you speak of??

People with left wing views. As opposed to people with right wing views

Kimsang

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

How can you prove she isn't making money on this though?

I can't, but the burden of proof isn't on me.

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Gemma just wants to create a brand and revenue through YouTube clicks.
A yellow pack Katie Hopkins knock off.
Is anyone in any doubt about that?

Kimsang wrote: »

You might have a point if Youtube didn't de-monetize everything even vaguely controversial or political.

How do you argue she makes money?

Kimsang wrote: »

What is the end game that brings in the big bucks?

Annasopra

Kimsang wrote: »

I can't, but the burden of proof isn't on me.


How do you argue she makes money?

To be fair there is really a burden on those who say she does and those who say she doesnt. You claim she doesnt.

Blueshoe

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

To be fair there is really a burden on those who say she does and those who say she doesnt. You claim she doesnt.

Tommy Robinson is going to jail probably

super_furry

So are the mermaids in league with the unicorns?

Kimsang

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

To be fair there is really a burden on those who say she does and those who say she doesnt. You claim she doesnt.

I just showed how I was replying to stopmoaning's claim that she was just creating a brand. Can you prove she was just creating a brand?
I'm inclined to believe she believes what she says. Can you prove otherwise? I would like to know. How do you argue she makes money?

Timberrrrrrrr

Gemma's whinging again because youtube have suspended her channel

Kimsang

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Gemma's whinging again because youtube have suspended her channel

They are de-monetizing just about everyone who engages in anything political/controversial anymore. Go check for yourself. All 'sides' are now being hit. I hope this is what the left want, this is what they asked for.

Blueshoe

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Gemma's whinging again because youtube have suspended her channel

You must be delighted. Plenty of right wing personalities with both large and small followings are being demonized or banned from social media. And Tommy Robinson heading for prison.

You are winning and will eventually reach your goal of having no right wing opinions being broadcast on social media. A great day for lefties