Comments for ‘Lady and the Tramp’ raises the bar for inclusiveness and diversity in remakes

kiersey clemons thomas mann lady and the tramp

Credit: Disney


  1. Tim O’Day

    The dog’s name in the 1955 film is Jock (not Jacques) so no name change occurred (although the sex of the character has been altered.

  2. Tom

    Sooooo… we have to make sure that we cast actors of the appropriate race or nationality for films like Aladdin and Lion King for fairness and inclusiveness, but that somehow ALSO means we have to recast white actors in films as different races? How is that fair or “inclusive”? There ARE still white people in this world, you know.

    1. CB

      Just watch the original if you feel the need to watch a more “inclusive” (to you) version. There is no shortage of white people in that one.

      1. Ann

        what if you remake a World War Two film and switch out half of the male soldiers for women so girls watching it would feel included.

        Wouldn’t that be wrong? It just wasn’t that way. Women were not soldiers on the front line in the war. So that would be a huge misrepresentation, inaccurate and confusing and wrong on so many more levels.
        It is more important to show that women were not included so that women know what it was like and where the descrinations had roots.
        How can we make things better if we sweep it under the rug?

      2. Shane

        Can Hollywood as a whole get it in their head that this woke stuff is absolutely ridiculous? Or are they that thick? IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE SOMETHING MAKE SOMETHING NEW AND ORIGINAL! It REALLY is that simple! Dear Lord!

  3. Nancy

    Sooo now a black woman is the servant?? How is that inclusive???

    1. CB

      The AUNT is a black woman AND the family is mixed-race rather than everyone being white like in the 1955 original. That is how it is inclusive.

    2. Bea

      The film, set in the early 1900’s, with an interracial couple, in Atlanta, Georgia does not make sense. Although there were some “prohibited marriages”, this was not the norm. To portray people of color as accepted, in an era where there was so much hatred is insulting. Disney should have either kept the cast white, or opted for a modern version, where diversity more readily exists.

      1. Ann

        Agree, should be a modern setting to match a modern attitude.

  4. Fred

    Yeah now the forced diversity is getting idiotic. Having black people in there just to be inclusive and screw history is stupid beyond measure. Enough already. Getting out of hand.

  5. John

    Just watched this update, and I understand why this went to video and not to the theaters. This is early america, turn of the century in the south, and we have a interracial couple, and every other person you meet on the street is black, are you kidding, Disney is trying very hard to re-write history. complete dis-service to the truth of what was really going on. SAD SAD SAD.

  6. Jen

    How about this, instead of trying so hard we do what is right. If the actor or actress is a fit for the role, regardless of gender, ethnicity or race, then cast them . Instead Disney causes more division not diversity by forcing inclusiveness. If we actually believe it’s not about the color of the skin, then none of this would occur. We live in a world now that is trying too hard to make up for the past and rewrite what already happen, instead of learning from the past to make a better future. We are going backwards with inclusiveness if you ask me.

Comments are closed.