Yes, Fiona was born Human. Shrek was born an ogre. But with the choice at the end of the movie, they prefer the ogre. Its a big difference from a Disney movie. Here, in Beauty and the Beast, they end with two beautiful Harlequin Romance cover models.
The point is that Disney sets a standard outside of real life. The character that the girl audience identifies with, ends up rich and beautiful. That’s happy ever after. What we never really notice is that our real lives are the ogre’s swamp, or towns people. There is never happiness being normal in a Disney movie. I can’t think of what the Disney people must think of A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, Life is Beautiful, or My Left Foot. Disney gives little value to actual life, and the struggles we all deal with throughout our lives.
Eh, suit yourself. Personally, having Ariel remain a mermaid and Beast remain... well, a beast would destroy the intended points of their respective stories, especially when Beast regaining his humanity was meant to showcase his redemption, and as far as Ariel, she wanted to live among humans first and foremost (Eric didn’t even factor into her desires until AFTER saving him). Pulling the Shrek model would not have worked in those cases.
Besides, I honestly think the Shrek model’s been used with Jean-Paul Marat (who deliberately left himself extremely unkempt in order to “live under the precepts of Jean-Jacques Rousseau), Bertholt Brecht, and Jean-Paul Sartre (the last regarding the girls he philandered despite his ugly looks and even uglier character), and that if anything ended disastrously, the epitome of the left-wing, as a matter of fact.