This isn't meant to be an argument - just possibly an explanation of some of the responses.
What someone "hears" or perceives is often a function of their age, life experiences and other factors. I grew up in the '60's and '70's and some of the comments I'm seeing remind me of: Why do they [insert minority] have to have our existing [movie, ride, restaurant, school - it's a slippery slope]? We can make a separate one for them that is equal to - or maybe even better than - the one that we have for ourselves.
I totally get the "I never saw myself in XYZ..." positions, etc. I also understand when someone says "all the movies are only of this style" whatever. And I'm totally for someone saying "we should have more movies that represent X...".
A simple example from our previous generations... where there wasn't film or media that represented life for young black men. Or shows that represented real urban life challenges instead of just white bread Happy Days stuff.
But to me, that is not the same as say Hamilton. I cite Hamilton because there is no debate over the reasoning in the casting - casting non-white performers was part of a specific creative choice. This is not casting 'because this is 'reality' being represented... or color-blind casting. It was intentional.
Now I'm not saying every retelling is done the same way as Hamilton. I use it to contrast because in many projects if someone even suggests the choices are intentional, it's attacked as someone being anti-something... instead of just acknowledging people often ARE making choices. Either to specifically be color-blind, even in contrast to the subject matter, and not just 'casting the best person', or 'casting to be representative'.
But for many of the Disney remakes we are talking about - these are not films made from scratch. They are basing on stories with known content.. in addition to existing (and in many cases, cherished) interpretations. So I think it's head-in-sand when people go 'why are you bothered by XYZ change? This is representation!' etc.
Or examples when the inclusion causes specific conflicts with the character or setting. For instance, you shouldn't cast a black Roman Casear. Just the same as you shouldn't cast an overweight, lazy guy as John Wick. Their attributes conflict with the expectations of the character as known in the story.
Inclusion seems forced at first because it's different and people aren't used to it. The more people are exposed to something the more common it seems.
Inclusion is great. Inclusion that causes conflict and then telling people "You should ignore that you bigot!" is not the same thing.
I mean, if you want to tell Sleeping Beauty, but instead want to make Auroa a lesbian to be saved by her handmaid instead of the prince... go for it.. but it's not Sleeping Beauty anymore. Make your film and call it something else (See... Wicked). Or if you want to remake Romeo and Juliet but make it a same sex couple fighting for acceptance from their families... that's fine, but don't launch it as a Romeo and Juliet remake!
Some people think that's a good thing; others think it's unnecessary because there isn't a problem in the first place (or at least one that shouldn't be solved by Disney); still others don't like what's being included. The motives of those three groups are sometimes lumped together, which makes for heated arguments.
I think in defense of inclusion or initiatives, people attack any questioning of choices made and lump all criticism into hate buckets. Instead of being able to accept people just didn't like something because of changes or conflicts with things.
It's not insane to recognize casting involves matching the performer with THE ROLE. The ROLE can include things like gender, physical attributes, race, sexual orientation, etc. Many times, changing those attributes introduces conflict with the story as known, or the environment, etc. Not wanting a black Roman Emperor is not because you hate black people, it's not wanting the conflict between the performer and the role as known.
