Here it is. The famous “utterly refuse to engage the point that has been raised” discussion style.
Each of the first three Indy films have have a female character of similar level of importance to the film, each at times as antagonistic to Indy as the Waller Bridge character was.
This new film was shit. But the criticism of Waller Bridge’s character for being the cause of that is based on a film that doesn’t exist (one where she becomes the new Indy).
In fairness, this all got sidetracked back to mermaids. The point is a person who isn’t white as snow and 6 people who aren’t dwarfs playing the leads in a story that’s called exactly that.
I dont expect you to have memorized every post here, but I would expect that these comments about the film would be taken at face value as being formed as a result of having watched it.
If you go back to my posts about this at the time, you’ll see I was outraged that a manc was playing a role from one of my fav childhood books. BYW, they would all have been white because, ahem, THEY LIVE UNDER THE GROUND!!!
My point was hardly that they were white, but they weren’t being played by dwarf actors, which is what you were claiming was the problem with the Snow White film.
“6 people who aren’t dwarfs”
Since none of the actors in the Hobbit playing dwarfs were dwarfs you should have been equally outraged But you weren’t because the problem for you is actually the skin color.
Though you’ll never admit it, if 7 white non-dwarfs had been cast in this film, there wouldn’t be any problem here.
Yes because brightly coloured small fluffy mammals last a really long time with foxes about. You should read about Darwin’s thoughts on the subject, fascinating stuff. Why do you think all wild rabbits are grey? And mice?