#anti Disney live action the little mermaid

[gch1995]

The same can be said about Belle from the 1991 Disney Beauty and the Beast animated classic. Yes, she fell in love with the Beast/Prince Adam, but she never stopped having her own aspirations, beliefs, interests, and goals. She never let the Beast get away with taking over her entire life. He had to become more deserving of he by learning to be kinder before she even was willing to interact with him.

Even Ariel’s story in 1989 Disney animated version of The Little Mermaid, wasn’t really about falling in love with a guy she saw once, and throwing away her whole life for him. It was about a 16 year old girl escaping an emotionally abusive father, and finding the ability and freedom to explore something she loved. No, I’m not saying that Triton was a malicious sort of abuser who ever intended for Ariel to get hurt. I’m not saying he didn’t love his daughter, but he was unreasonably restrictive and exceedingly cruel in his intolerance towards his daughter’s fascination with the human world above, which helped drive Ariel away. was too selfish in his pain and fear to open his mind.

Ariel was obsessed with the human world before she ever even saw Eric. He just happened to be an outlet for Ariel to turn her dreams of exploring the world above into a reality, and she fell for him. It still didn’t stop her from saving Eric’s life three times, stop her from saving Flounder’s life from the shark attack at the beginning, or stop her from standing up for what she believed in.

I’m really tired of this trend throughout the 2010s-2020s of fictional writers portraying women as these amazingly strong™️ girl bosses, who don’t ever desire and/or need to rely on anyone else for family, friendship, love, and/or support, especially not if it’s from a man. I get that it’s unhealthy to be so codependent and needy that you refuse to have any sort of independent life and/or interests of your own all the time, but the opposite extreme is also just as unhealthy. People are social creatures with limitations and weaknesses, who also do naturally seek out close family, friendship, love, and support from others to depend upon to an extent too because we instinctively know we can’t be perfectly capable, independent, and strong all the time either.

The princesses and other heroines from the animated Disney adaptations of these fairytales were never poor role models of strength and independence for young women. They felt more like real people, rather than impossibly perfect and, frankly, sexist, dark fantasy archetypes of strong™️ women written by misogynistic men in Hollywood who likely have no appreciation for real women, though.

The weird thing about Rachel Zegler playing Snow White, isn't her not being white. It's her talking as if she hates the older thing.

Also, someone please tell her (and Gal Gadot who also missed the memo) that falling in love doesn't make you any less of a powerful woman. Mulan fell in love, Tiana fell in love, Esmeralda fell in love. And they are feminist icons.

[doverstar]

disney. stop making live-action remakes. stop it. you're not hip. it's not cool. you're not cute. sorry you thought we wanted this. ever. we did not and you are a disease, either make new stories or go away. anyway bye. off to watch those universally acclaimed animated masterpieces circa 1953-

[flower1622]

Versions I Liked:

Nothing against the new live actions, but for me...I liked these versions better :

. Little Mermaid:

. Snow White:

. Percy Jackson:

. Peter Pan:

. Harry Potter:

. How to train your dragon:

. Mean girls:

[notsolittlemerman]

this is it, I'm at my limit now.

of all the countless classics you could've remade, y'all decided to choose the one that doesn't even qualify as a classic, one that's still SEVEN FUCKING YEARS OLD fresh off the minds of today's generation, one that actually touched my heart and had me wishing we'd get a sequel or series like they did with Frozen, Tangled, Big Hero 6, and Zootopia.

BUT NOPE.

it's official, Disney does not give a flying fuck about animation, not even their newer 3D ones, because really they only care about Marvel, Star Wars, live-action remakes, and James Cameron's sci-fi white savior power fantasy franchise because they're the ones giving them money, albeit not much since their stocks have been going down lately

so, I'm out. Eat your heart out, Disney.

[fancylala4]

I saw a bunch of people on Twitter who are angry at Halle Bailey. From what people are saying, she said what Disney has been saying about the Disney princesses since 2010. Which is basically “this Disney princess is super strong and independent unlike the others in the past!” This turned out to be a lie, since some of them are still dependent on men throughout the movie (Anna, Rapunzel). Nothing wrong with that, though. It’s just that the Disney princesses in the past like belle and Mulan actually have more independence and have more character to them. It was just a marketing strategy that Disney used to be seen as more progressive. They used the same tactics when they started making live action movies. That they “improved” the Disney character from the past. However, this turned out to be a lie. They just added some unnecessary details to the character that had no impact on the plot(belle from the live action) or just missed the point of the character (jasmine, Cinderella). I finally saw what Halle said, and she wasn’t really saying that her version was better or that the movie improved Ariel’s character.

The headline makes it seems like she did, but she didn’t. All she said was that the movie will change the PERSPECTIVE of Ariel leaving for a man. The public think Ariel left her family for a guy, but this movie will make it clearer that she didn’t. What she said wasn’t nearly as bad as what Emma Watson said about belle.

[gch1995]

I haven’t actually seen the live action remake, and I’m certainly not going to go see it in theaters. This is why, though. The director and writers are trying way too hard to be “progressive” by “fixing” what were never actually issues in the first place, and they’ve ruined the spirit of the animated film, the characters, and even the music as a result. Awkwafina is annoying as fuck as Scuttle, and not in the same charming and funny way that Buddy Hackett was as Scuttle in the role. I get that they couldn’t use Buddy Hackett to voice the character again since he’s been dead for some time now. However, they decided on using an actress who has an irritating voice, and decided to give her parts to sing in it.

Why? Even in the 1989 film, Scuttle wasn’t given a song because he was meant to be that annoyingly dim witted, but well-meaning friend. Jacob Tremblay sounded cute as Flounder. He actually sounded quite a bit like Jason Marin as a kid voicing the role in the 1989 film, but he also wasn’t a singer.

Of the voice actors playing Ariel’s sidekicks in the live action film, Daveed Diggs is the most competent at singing and rapping as Sebastian, but neither his singing nor his faux Jamaican accent are even half as impressive as Samuel E Wright’s spot onJamaican accent, and his rich baritone in Under the Sea and Kiss the Girl. I loved Daveed Diggs as Jefferson/Lafayette in Hamilton, but he’s clearly more of a rapper than a singer.

Growing up, Ariel was always my favorite Disney Princess, too, because she was the first one who actually had a well-rounded personality with both strengths and weaknesses that went beyond just being too kind and naive for her own good. She was adventurous, brave, bossy, distractible, impulsive, kind, naive, obsessive, misunderstood, protective of those she loved, sassy, and selfish at times. She was such a typical teenager, who was flawed, but still essentially a goodhearted person at heart. Before her, we had such impossibly goody-goody Disney Princesses

It also helped that the animation was beautiful, the cast was highly talented, the music was catchy, and the side characters were entertaining. Also, the fact that the animators actually used the model Sherri Stoner as a reference point to animate Ariel’s expression, hairstyle, and movements on screen made me love it even more. You can tell a lot of love, hard work, and passion went into animating The Little Mermaid movie, casting it, directing it, recreating these characters, and composing the music score.

In the 1989 film, Ariel already had a very active interest in exploring the humans on the surface world before she ever even saw Eric in the original Disney animated movie, so she had greater motivation than just a man from the beginning.

No, Ariel is not Bella Swan in her relationship with Edward Cullen from Twilight, or Anastasia Steele in her relationship with Christian Gray in 50 Shades of Gray. She is her own character with her own personality, hobbies, and motivations outside of just Eric.

Did Hallie Bailey, Rob Marshall, and the writers of the live action remake, even watch the opening introduction scene to Ariel’s character in the 1989 animated film at all? Did they even listen to Ariel’s lyrics in “Part of Your World” that was all about wanting to know what it was to be human, and to explore the world above?

The only thing I’m getting from all of them is a blatant disregard and disrespect of the 1989 animated classic film and its fans, so that they could turn it into a vehicle for a nonsensically and shallowly “progressive” political agenda to make money. It also sucks because I really wanted to be able to like Hallie Bailey playing the role of Ariel, and I do think it’s fucked up how there were racists in the audience bashing her for playing a character who doesn’t have to be any specific race to tell the story. Plus, she does have a beautiful, light, and soulful soprano voice that is reminiscent of Jodie Benson’s when singing Ariel’s songs and speaking at some points in the live action TLM.

Unfortunately, Hallie’s answers to questions about the movie and misinterpretation Ariel’s character in interviews and press conferences really made me dislike her for being the Mouse’s arrogant political agenda mouthpiece. Ariel’s race/ethnicity in the film doesn’t make her more or less of a relatable character because her skin color has nothing to do with the story, but Hallie is acting like the character being POC somehow made this huge thing that made her more relatable.

No, Ariel is a half fish half human girl with an exceedingly strict dad who trades her voice to get a chance to achieve her dream to be human. She is not Esmerelda, Jasmine, Pocahontas, Mulan, Tiana, the Madrigal family in Encanto, or the Rivera family in Coco, who all have arcs, cultural backgrounds, plots, and storylines that directly relate to them often being POC who are of direct African American, Colombian, Chinese, Native American, Middle-Eastern, Mexican, or Romanian descent. Ariel could be black, white, Asian, or biracial, and you would still have the same character with the same personality and storyline of wanting to be able to feel free to be true to yourself without being belittled, misunderstood, restricted, or ignored all the time that pretty much anyone can relate to at some point in their lives. Moreover, she is spouting the same misinterpretation of Ariel’s character in the original Disney animated movie being all about trading her fins for a man, and needing to give Ariel more agency and personality in the live action outside of just that, and it made me dislike her because she also claims to be so in love with Ariel from The Little Mermaid animated movie from her childhood. Yet, she keeps trashing the character 1989 movie by blatantly misrepresenting her in interviews to brag about how she thinks the 2023 live action movie starring her in the role of Ariel is far superior for being more “nuanced” and “independent.” I get that the Mouse is likely also paying Hallie to promote the movie, but rather than stating that any fan who doesn’t like it is a “racist,” she could say I hope to live up to your expectations.” I get that Hallie’s young, but she’s still only around 4-5 years younger than me. Plus, she’s been a professional actress since her childhood. I feel like she should know better than to treat critics and fans of the Disney movie this way.

The same Ariel who fell in love with the human Prince Eric shortly after was already being complained about for never showing up to rehearsals to practice with her sisters in Sebastian’s concert and missed its premiere because she got sidetracked by exploring a sunken ship full of human artifacts, knick-knacks, and silverware, which she then took up to the surface to ask Scuttle questions about. Ariel was so into collecting and examining human things that *Flounder* actually had to be the one to warn her to swim away when they were about to be attacked by a shark because he was the only one paying attention.

Ariel sang her big “I want” number “Part of Your World” before she ever even saw Eric, and it had absolutely nothing to do with falling in love, banging, and getting married to a hot human guy. It was about wanting to explore the human world above and experience what it was like to be able to be able to move on two legs above the shore. She didn’t even know Eric existed at this point, and Ariel was already obsessed with the idea of being a part of the human world above for a while now.

When Triton found out that Ariel actually came into direct contact with a human, rescued him, and now loved him, she was actively risking her life from his perspective, regardless of his warnings and the potential consequences. No longer was it just this phase she’d get over, if he let her do her thing. From his perspective, Ariel was now actively risking her life by coming into direct contact with human beings, which is why he lost his shit on her in that grotto scene.

She wasn’t deliberately cruel or malicious, but Ariel was somewhat inconsiderate and selfish in her desire to explore the human world, which is why she finally does apologize at the end when she faces unexpected interference from Ursula.

Yeah, falling for Eric strengthened her preexisting desire to be human, but he wasn’t the only aspect of the human world that she longed to explore and experience. Moreover, even after she fell for Eric and rescued him, Ariel wasn’t really planning on leaving behind her family to go live with him by becoming a human behind their backs. Ariel was just planning to get Eric to notice her with Flounder’s help by splashing around to get him to notice her, so they could talk and get to know each other better. Triton destroying her entire collection of human things to “get through to her” after finding out she had fallen in love and rescued one, was the thing that pushed her to impulsively make the deal to be human with Ursula.

I hate how impossibly perfect they’ve made Ariel in this garbage live action remake to be more “progressive.” They’ve actually taken away her agency by having Ursula erase her memory of having to share TLK with Eric within three days to break the spell to remain human permanently. Not to mention the fact that making that stupid change does nothing to change the overall plot, anyway. Eric still starts to fall for Ariel, and almost kisses her. Ursula still disguises herself as Vanessa to try to stop Eric and Ariel from kissing, which logically couldn’t even be true love’s kiss under those circumstances where her mind “wanders” every time Eric tries to kiss her, anyway. Ariel is not allowed to be aware of the fact that she actually had feelings for Eric at one point. She’s only giving in because Eric is closest to her all the time in the live action, not because she feels something.

The only thing they’ve succeeded in doing by making that pointless plot change was actually creating a big power imbalance between their characters by putting Ariel in a position where she’ll feel pressured to fall for him instead of actually falling for Eric because now she doesn’t remember ever liking him in the first place, and gets confused, creeped out, and evasive every time he does try to kiss her as a result.

It’s also just an irritating message to me that so much of the media for those of us are Gen Z and younger Millennials has become so against portraying healthy heterosexual romantic relationships between men and women. No, you don’t have to be heterosexual, fall in love with a man, get married, and have kids with that guy to be a woman of value to the rest of the world. Now, it’s like we’re living in a society that is absolutely cynical and resentful towards seeing anyone developing, maintaining, and seeking committed and healthy heterosexual romances and lives, though. I’m glad the gay community can have the right to marry people they’re attracted to of the same sex as adults. I’m glad more women were brave enough to expose creepy and powerful male Hollywood actors, directors, and performers in the #MeToo movement. I’m glad no one has to feel pressured to fulfill gender stereotypes, if they don’t want to anymore. Just stop treating people who engage and follow heterosexual/heteronormative lives as “wrong” and “weak” in media because “how dare a woman ever actually feel romantically/sexually attracted to a man, and want him to make a move on her?”

Saying that a man was Ariel’s “only” motivation to sacrifice her fins, her voice, and her family to become human is completely untrue and a total misinterpretation of her character. Ariel dreamed of being human and exploring the world above to learn about them more long before she ever even saw him. She just happened to fall for a cute guy with a similarly adventurous, brave, kind, and passionate heart, who gave her an opportunity to be heard and understood.

This live action movie also really turned Ariel into this hyper feminist unbelievably strong woman trope who never needs to be rescued or supported by anyone else, especially another man. Now, she’s just another unbelievably competent, independent, self-reliant and strong Mary Sue, who never has any moments of vulnerability in this live action films that put her in a position where she needs to be rescued or supported by another character, especially if it happens to be a man. I’m so sick of female characters getting this sort of writing in modern day media. I’m so tired of these females characters who are written or rewritten to be impossibly resilient, resourceful, and self-reliant *all the time.* No, women shouldn’t *always* be portrayed as being clingy, dependent, and helpless in media either. In real life, no one would need to even have relationships to survive happily, if we were actually as impossibly one-dimensional in our capabilities, independence, strengths, and vulnerabilities. We’re much more emotionally and socially complex creatures who are supposed to display both strengths and vulnerabilities in equal measure.

The live action movie seems so intent on making Ariel look like she can accomplish everything by herself and doesn’t ever need any help from anyone else, especially not another man. It’s just a hyper-feminist interpretation of the character that I don’t like, and it’s not *just* in this scene at the ending where she kills Ursula instead of Eric in which they’ve made her such an impossibly competent, independent, and strong woman who can do anything and everything herself either.

Ariel magically being the one to kill Ursula instead of Eric when she is trying to kill her for revenge also undermines King Triton’s character development of getting over his xenophobia towards humans, and eventually being able to let his favorite youngest daughter go be with the right one, now trusting that she’ll be able to be safe. However, this live action movie doesn’t care about character development, storytelling, and the overarching theme of being able to let your children be true to themselves. It’s only about showing what a “Strong WAHMAN” Ariel is at the expense of all that.

In the “Kiss the Girl” scene of the 1989 animated film where Eric expresses that he feels bad not knowing Ariel’s name because she can’t speak, Sebastian is the one to whisper it in his ear to offer his aid because he still can speak and sing. In this live action version after less than three days on land, Ariel magically knows more about astronomy and constellation patterns in the sky than the average human land dweller will know in their entire lives. She comes up with a way to tell him her name is “Ariel” by showing him the constellation of Aries in the night sky, and gets him to say “Ariel” by moving his lips in the shape of her name with her hands. Yeah, I can see how that might look cute, but it also makes Ariel kind of look like a Mary Sue.

In the 1989 animated film, after Scuttle finds out about Vanessa actually being Ursula in disguise hypnotizing Eric to marry her with Ariel’s voice, he tells Ariel, Sebastian, and Flounder, and they plan an ambush to stop the impending wedding before the three days are up. Ariel tries to get to the site of the wedding as fast as she can to help with Flounder’s aid. However, she is still very new to using human legs, she really isn’t as fast or as strong of a swimmer without her fins, and Flounder is the one who helps get her there with a rope from a barrel tied between him and one of her legs. As a result, by the time she gets to the site of Eric’s wedding with Vanessa, Scuttle has already been doing his best to stall the vows until, and it’s a bit too late for Ariel to just intervene. That’s why Scuttle is the one to grab Vanessa’s necklace with his beak and break it, so that Ariel can get her voice back.

You might say that the scene where Ariel gets swam to the site of the wedding would be much more difficult to animate with a tiny fish, but what even was the point of Scuttle’s animal ambush to stop Vanessa/Ursula when Ariel decided to just get into a cat fight with her to rip off her seashell necklace and break it to get her voice back herself after Scuttle told them what was going on, anyway?

They also made it so that Ariel is the first one to notice the shark about to attack her and Flounder in the 2023 film in the opening scene when they’re exploring the sunken ship for human things at her insistence, which, is again, turning her into more of a Mary Sue. In the Disney animated 1989 film, Ariel does save Flounder’s life from the shark when he accidentally knocks himself out swimming away, but she’s not the first one to notice the shark behind them on the sunken ship. Flounder, her anxious companion, is the one to first notice the shark behind them posed for sneak attack when they are exploring the sunken ship at her insistence, and that’s when they quickly swim away. She was too caught up in collecting and examining human artifacts, knick knacks, and silverware to immediately notice that she an Flounder were about to be attacked by a shark.

It also is a moment that gives us insight into Ariel’s greatest character flaws in the 1989 animated film in her opening scene with Flounder when she isn’t the first one to notice the shark because she’s too distracted by her obsession with the world above to be considerate. Ariel’s essentially a good person at heart, who is brave and loyal enough to those she loves to always be there to bravely rescue them when she notices that they need her. However, she also is obsessive about her personal desires, dreams, and interests in exploring the world above to the point of distractibility, impulsivity, naïveté, and selfishness.

It’s just annoying to me. Ariel wasn’t a perpetually helpless and weak damsel-in-distress, who only wanted a man, and constantly needed to be spoon-fed in the 1989 animated film either, but she was still allowed to be rescued, be vulnerable, and have character flaws, too. She was an independent heroine with her own agency, personal interests, and hobbies. However, she also wasn’t this impossibly perfect female role model who never needed to be rescued and supported by others in moments of vulnerability either. Regardless of our strengths, just like real men need to be rescued by other people at times in moments of t vulnerability, there are times when those of us who are women need to be rescued by others in those moments too. Just because we were given equal rights as men, it doesn’t mean we need to be independent and strong all the time around them to be of value. It is just as problematic to portray women with no vulnerabilities as it is to portray men with no vulnerabilities in fiction.

Believe it or not, but presenting yourself as *completely* emotionally/physically invulnerable and self-reliant *all the time* in relationships with other people is just as much of a turn off as being exceedingly clingy, codependent, desperate, and helpless *all the time.* The point is to be able to have a healthy balance between independence and vulnerability in relationships with other people to be able to develop and maintain long-term and meaningful ones. You don’t want to be too clingy, desperate, and dependent on others to be rescued and supported by others *all the time,* if you can help it, because then you’ll never be able to grow and often push them away by suffocating them. However, you also won’t be able to develop and maintain deep and meaningful relationships with others, if you never can be vulnerable around them and rely on them for support in your times of need from time to time either.

That’s a major problem with how “strong “female characters keep getting portrayed in modern day media. Yes, having female characters with greater motivations than just romantic love for a man is important, but Ariel already did have previously established motivations to become human in secret from her family in the 1989 Disney animated film, anyway. She also had plenty of moments where she wasn’t just a damsel-in-distress for Eric, Flounder, Triton, Sebastian, and everyone else to rescue. Generally speaking, Eric was actually the dude-in-distress in their relationship who needed to be saved by Ariel in the 1989 animated film. He had one moment where he returned the favor to Ariel when she needed him to rescue her in the Disney animated movie, and it’s a critical moment of character development and storytelling in the movie that gives Triton the ability to finally understand that he can let his daughter go to live on the surface as a human with the right one by her side to protect her because Eric proved her right that not all human beings are barbarians.

It’s also just irritating to me how young women in modern day media keep getting portrayed as being so perfectly strong and self-reliant all the time, no matter the circumstances. We’re not allowed to be portrayed as being real people with meaningful friendships and relationships in which we can expect aid, consolation, and support from them in situations where we are vulnerable in return for having their back when they experience those moments of vulnerability by our side and need us, especially not those of us who are young women.

I just find that really frustrating with female characters in modern day media, like Ariel in this TLM live action remake, Mulan in the 2020 live action remake, Belle in the 2017 live action BATB remake, Bo Peep in Toy Story 4, Rey from the new Star Wars movies, Daenerys throughout much of GOT after S1, and so on. Just stop trying to portray female characters as impossibly strong female archetypes all the time, and focus on making them human instead. Those were some of the great things about fictional female characters like Ariel, Anna, Elsa, and Mulan. They were allowed to be both strong and vulnerable at different points around other people in relationships. They struggled to achieve some goals without help, but also had moments where they independently achieved their goals and saved others. They weren’t just these impossibly strong archetypes who never needed help.

Like, why do Eric, Sebastian, Flounder, and Scuttle even have to exist in this live action remake of TLM anymore, if Ariel is able to magically be so perfectly independent, intelligent, and resourceful all the time that she never needs them to support her in return? Just for the sake of appealing to nostalgia and creating comic relief.

@

And another thing.

The original The Little Mermaid is about understanding. One of the main plot devices is that the witch takes what from Ariel, ladies and gentlemen?

Her voice.

Ariel did not leave the sea “for a boy.”

Ariel left the sea to be understood. Because for the whole first part of the movie, we’re shown hints of what her life is already like, and how she’s tried to be understood but nobody’s listening or communicating.

She’s introduced by describing a ship as amazing and wonderful, while her fish friend clearly does not understand and wants to get out of there.

Even her best friend doesn’t share her love for another world.

Her first interaction with her father, count how many times he’s speaking over her.

He has this prejudice against humans, and because she’s disobeyed him, he won’t listen to any of her evidence that they may not all be bad.

Even when she has a voice and a cavern full of proof that humans aren’t all barbarians, her father won’t listen to her, so he can’t understand.

And the truth is, she doesn’t have that much proof. She knows that humans are clever and make “wonderful things,” and that’s what she bases her belief in them on. But those beautiful objects, and her pretty ideals, are not enough to make her abandon her family and culture and world.

When she sings and talks about why she wants to be Part of That World, it’s because she wants to understand it. And, subconsciously, Ariel also hopes to be understood up there. Where they make cool devices, and maybe daughters can stand instead of being reprimanded. There’s this hope for freedom and being known associated with the surface.

But it’s not until she meets Eric that those ideals are really, actually, proven true.

Ariel sees Eric out on the sea exploring instead of staying in a palace on his birthday. He gets a gift from the closest person to him, and it’s clear that even the closest person to him doesn’t understand his tastes—he doesn’t want an over-dramatic statue of himself. He sticks to his ideals in an argument that somewhere out there, is the right girl for him. But he doesn’t have to leave the argument in frustrated tears. In the end, he risks his life to not only watch out for his friend, but nearly dies going back to a burning ship to save his dog.

Eric personifies everything Ariel has always idealized about the Human World—AND he might understand her.

In her one observation of him, she finds out that he, a human, is:

A Prince, but nobody can tell him what to do.

More interested in activity and exploration than palace ceremony.

Unable to relate to his closest companions.

Handsome—beautiful, not a savage.

Criticized for “silly, romantic notions” but sticks to the idea of something wonderful out there in the great beyond.

Brave, self-sacrificial, and compassionate to animals.

Eric is, all at once, everything Ariel always hoped a human could be, and yet still so like herself. They have twin souls.

She’d rather be exploring human ships, he’d rather be out exploring the sea. She believes the surface world is good and beautiful, he believes in the girl of his dreams, no matter what anyone says. She has nobody who gets excited about new adventures, and he has nobody who gets excited about new adventures.

When she sees him, she falls in love not just with his upstanding character, or even the human world he represents—she falls in love with the hope that he might understand her in away nobody under the sea does.

Then the ironic thing is, she’s got to make him understand who she is and what she should mean to him without a voice. And unfortunately, that’s really hard because he is suddenly associating his dream girl with a voice and a magical rescue.

As close as they may get when she finally does meet him face to face and gets herself human legs, Ariel and Eric can’t be together until he knows who she is, for real. After all, how can love be true without understanding?

And we’re not DONE with understanding. Because even after he learns what and who she is and still commits to her and saves her and loves her, Ariel’s back to having a tail. She’s back to being in a world where he can’t be.

Except now, Triton is the one who understands. He finally sees what they’ll do for each other—and that Eric, ”savage, spineless, harpooning fish eater with no regard” saved his daughter. He sees that they love each other and are each worthy of the other’s love.

It’s not until Triton understands what Ariel has known and felt all along that he gives her human legs the right way.

That’s the point of Disney’s The Little Mermaid. “True love is found in understanding and sacrificing for one another.”

Triton had the sacrificing idea down, but he didn’t have understanding. Eric had understanding, but he didn’t have the chance to sacrifice for it.

Ariel has both. She understands that Eric’s world is not only barbaric, but beautiful, and she’s willing to sacrifice her tail to be understood in that world.

That is what this movie is all about. And because they’re probably willing to sacrifice critical scenes, like the Prince saving the day (which is important because it provides Triton with a new understanding of humans) or the girl leaving the ocean to be with the boy (which is important because what she really wants is to be understood) the creators of the Live Action Little Mermaid are going to miss the point and ruin the movie.

[grimlocksword]

The Little Mermaid TANKS with LOW NUMBERS domestically and TERRIBLE numb...

[adarkrainbow]

By the way, speaking of the erasure of actors with dwarfism... Right after I have been hit by this Time Bandits mess, I have just watched the trailer for the live-action Disney's Snow-White. And... honestly all of the problems talked about and issues raised before seem truly non-significant compared to what I actually got out of this trailer. Which I think is the real problem with this movie.

The feeling of... unecessary. I watched the trailer, and I was left with nothing out of it, except a neutral "Why would they make that?" coupled with a tired "Why would I watch it?" Because there was nothing in this trailer that encouraged the audience or gave the audience the desire to go watch it if they already knew the original movie.

Here's my point: when the whole Disney live-action movies trend started (I am going to say "live-action remakes" to differentiate it from older live-action movies like the excellent 101 Dalmatians live-action movie), it worked with an immense success. Why? Because these movies had something to them. Yes they reused classic movies and stuck to them... but in their own, unique way and they didn't hesitate to change things up, to differentiate themselves from it. The most obvious being the Maleficent movie, which was a literal "perspective flip" with a ton of new stuff (moral reversal, backstory given to a villain, anti-villain situation, etc) ; but even the Cinderella live-action "remake" worked hard on having its own style, not hesitating to change the design of some key characters (Lady Tremaine would be my main example). Thus, they worked extremely well. Whether you like them or not, you can't deny they're their own thing and stand up on their own.

Cut to today. I am going to use mainly Disney's remakes of The Little Mermaid and Snow-White (though I could also use stuff like Aladdin or other movies). What's the difference? These movies are remake. Absolute remakes trying to stick as closest to the original as possible: same story, same shots, same designs. They are basically... transpositions. Sure there are some changes (in The Little Mermaid, making Ariel a different skin color and having a whole Caribean style) but they still feel very minor compared to all the efforts made to stick to the original animated piece. Compare the Lady Tremaine case above with Ursula or the Evil Queen in those live-action movies - there isn't an effort to reinvent the character to better fit a live-action universe or a different style of story. They are both created as an attempt to reproduce the original cartoon design as faithfully as possible. And this is what I mean by how "unecessary" these movies are feeling right now. They are literaly just retelling the same story, with minor changes. It feels like so much money and effort and special effects and acting is being thrown away at just... a repetition o what we already have instead of creating anything new.

It's not like Disney run out of fairytales to work with! Imagine that, we could have had a whole new range of live-action fairytale movies! But not it is just... recreating the exact same shots, over and over (I was particularly puzzled by how they worked so hard to recreate the shot of the Evil Queen going down the stairs while having her cape float behind her. You put a lot of effort to recreate this old animated shot, okay... But what's the point? Why would I pay to watch this same shot in live-action when I already did tons of time animated?)

In fact this is why these live-action remakes are bound to feel inferior to the original animated pieces - precisely BECAUSE they are trying to recreate and stick to the original... while being limited by budget and real-life physics and visuals, meaning they will have to tweak it slightly in unsatisfying way. If they had decided to go with their own style and stuff it wouldn't have been a problem (again, Disney's Cinderella live-action, the two Lady Tremaines feel like different characters and thus it is easier to separate these things and look at each on their own).

(It also doesn't help that Disney has been working a LOT of doing live-action versions of their own characters before, from Once Upon a Time to Descendants, so again... trying to recreate exactly things is just bound to cause unpleasant comparisons).

[faeriexqueen]

I don’t make a lot of opinion posts when it comes to Disney live-action remakes, but the hate Snow White is getting is really making me side-eye a lot of people. -____- I’m pretty sure I could do a whole dissertation on how Snow White (in the original 1930s animation) exhibits qualities of leadership, grace, kindness, perseverance, and a backbone despite what many try to say. But so many people seem to write her off as being uninteresting or not developed because she wanted true love and remained soft? Honestly, I feel like so many remakes (especially where princesses are involved) try to erase that softness where they can, working to give the princesses more developed personalities (but in turn erasing the grace that makes them princesses). I don’t know. If anything, it feels anti-feminist to me. There’s nothing wrong with being soft and pursuing love? That doesn’t negate strength, hardships faced, and even the more negative emotions they experience? The obsession with modernizing princesses to make them “palatable” to these weird, modernized takes that lack any nuance is...just really strange and feels like a major step back. (On a side note, this is probably why the only live-action remakes I’ve loved have been Cinderella and The Little Mermaid. I feel like those remakes thankfully kept the gentleness and romance while elevating it/expanding upon the story in a way that feels authentic to the original fairytales, and honestly, I really hope that’s what happens with Snow White. Mirror, Mirror and Snow White in the Huntsman back in 2012 were already attempts at a girlboss Snow White that frankly both entirely missed the mark for me, so I’m crossing my fingers that Disney tries something different.) Anyways, just some ramblings for the evening.

[cosmic-kiwi]

I've been saying for a while that DEI to me just feels like the new form of tokenism -- instead of the "token black friend" it's the:

"token-race-or-gender-swapped-main-character-in-a-one-off-trash-remake-that-will-be-promptly-forgotten-about-as-soon-as-the-hype-dies-down-and-everyone-goes-back-to-imagining-the-character-in-their-original-form"

or the "token Diverse™ Mary Sue/Gary Stu" who has no actual character traits beyond their diversity, has no flaws, and undergoes no development

[prying-pandora666]

Are you this impassioned about the shitty, race-swapping live action Disney remakes that are obvious cash grabs as well? Disney will never make anything of quality again with all the money the remakes are earning.

I don’t approve of thoughtless race swapping because people aren’t palette swaps, no. Different interpretations and adaptations can be good, including race changes, but only when writers put in the work to make it an organic part of the story and not just lazy pandering.

In any case, I much prefer an original character being made (ex: Miles Morales) rather than changing an existing character for no reason (ex: The Little Mermaid).

I am only one person though and cannot give full focus to every single piece of media that comes out. So I don’t know what Disney’s latest BS controversy is, but I assure you I am critical of everything they do.

They’re the pioneers of so much of the anti-worker and anti-consumer practices we are suffering under.

[flower1622]

For people who don't know:

Woke Stan in this context is when a person approves the changes in the live actions with their ideologies and many other things.

I presume Anti - Woke is the person who wants the live actions to be like the original version, such as the appeareances and... without the new ideologies.

[jimmythejiver]

I don't have the citations and receipts to prove it, but I swear most creative decisions in the post-Eisner era of Disney has been fueled by the fact that their biggest rival Universal owned the rights to Wicked.

Think about the fact that they had Stephen Schwartz on Pocahontas and Hunchback of Notre Dame during the Renaissance and got him for their send up Enchanted with Idina Menzel in the cast) which like Tangled and Frozen would not be what they are without Wicked, from the stupid titling scheme to initially hiring Kristen Chenoweth as Rapunzel before replacing her with Mandy Moore and ultimately hiring Idina Menzel (again) for Elsa and deciding she ain't so bad after all and hell let's delete Kai and invent Anna the plucky contrast to her to really drive it home.

How about the fact that they bought and made a meh adaptation of Into The Woods, the original 'Kind is not Good' fairytale subversion broadway show. The okay that was a thing Maleficent movies where the king rips off her wings and Mal was misunderstood she was Briar Rose's real protector, see.

The fact that they sure love to market their villains, but boy do they not like to make new ones that aren't corrupted forces of nature that need their heart back to be good again or c.e.o.'s who gave us utopia only to find out he killing the planet oopsies or deceptive seemingly trustworthy Wizard-like authority figures who will stab you in the back in their best interest. A villain is either a twist to be subverted or is the hero you followed along, see. Something tells me the Mufasa movie is their half-apology or reasoning for why Scar is like that when the new Aladdin and Little Mermaid did shit for Jafar or Ursula but make them bland because they didn't have time to bake another uwu, babied misunderstood anti-villain so they made sure they can't chew the scenery or have too big of personalities to latch onto by children either, that be irresponsible.

Disney wants Elphaba and they're mad they don't have the special sauce that Broadway somehow wrangled out of a confusing book full of misdirection that pleased no one but the author and people who hate the Judy Garland film and would never read Frank L. Baum anyway to understand these characters are just different from that film and the shoes were not the Wicked Witch's birthright she wanted their power, it was not that deep, but so much of Maguire's decisions don't work once you account for Baum's that never accounted for the future MGM's art and costuming department, casting and script consolidations, but all Disney sees is, 'That Judy Garland movie should've been ours and fuck these people making sequels and prequels, those should've been ours.'

We see the root of this problem that existed before Eisner took over with Return to Oz under Ron Miller. As a company they've never forgiven anyone for having piece of the Oz pie. Oh, post-Eisner they swung their dick again and made that forgettable James Franco prequel, I almost forgot! A warning to Universal who guarded Wicked's movie rights for decades and the anger they have that Warner Bros. still owns the rights to the Judy Garland film while all of Baum's books are in the public domain before Eisner's lawyers could lobby with Senator Bono to extend copyright law in the 90's.

Eisner cooperated with Warner Bros. to license an Oz sequence with an advance for it's time Wicked Witch animatronic in the Great Movie Ride, in fact a majority of the films i. Thatbride came from WB's vault. Bob Iger let that ride get scrapped for Pirates of the Carribean's update for Red. You know what else Eisner didn't do that Bob Iger did? Not make a stupid Cruella prequel to explain why she's so misunderstood, just a straight live action remake of the cartoon and Jungle Book that was boring, and not a whole lot of these were as churned out in his era as there was bad sequels to the cartoons, but oops Iger's doing that too.

Real point is Wicked the musical premiered in 2003, Eisner stepped down in 2005. Eisner and his people couldn't figure out the Snow Queen as anything but a romantic comedy co-starring a villain love interest because he forgot Ariel existed as a misunderstood and manipulated hero who could have served as a template for another similar Andersen character. Under Iger's people they casted og Elphaba and decided halfway they needed to not make her a villain after all. Coincidence? I think not!

[tetsunabouquet]

I came across this post because of the Little Mermaid tag, and I couldn't agree more. Like, take diversifying Ariel and her family. Other then the controversy about most of them being racially altered, this is just plain bad writing. None of them look related, and I've seen people post comments on YT under reviews of the movie saying they've had kids confused at that. You can say 'They are supposed to represent the 7 Seas' all you want, but how many children know what the 7 Seas are? On top of the fact that the 7 Seas themselves differ upon culture. The Gulf of Mexico, for example, isn't one of them where I'm from, but it is in the US. I can go on with examples, like how the Red Sea is one of the 7 Seas where I'm from and it isn't in the US. So they've essentially written themselves in a corner where only bookworms of Hermione Granger level who are American, will understand what the 7 mermaids are supposed to represent. Another thing, that I mentioned briefly in a previous post which this OP will probably recognize considering they're stating to be more of a reader then movie watcher, is the whole Roald Dahl sensitivity reader debacle. Take how they've made alterings about how 'there was nothing wrong with wearing a wig', etc. I follow writing classes, children's literature to be specific. One of the things I literally got taught by my textbook is that the younger a child is, the more difficulty it has understanding nuance. They like the good guys to be good looking, and the bad guys to be ugly. They actually use a paragraph from Harry Potter regarding his aunt Petunia to illustrate how bad guys are even written to SOUND mean AF. Petunia isn't a beauty either, and none of the Dursleys are. Voldemort literally lost his looks the worse he became. One can introduce more nuance if it's meant for older children, or if it is like Harry Potter,- a franchise in which the reader grows up alongside the protagonist in a sense, with more nuance and psychological depth being introduced with each novel. If it's a stand-alone story meant to be enjoyed by children of ALL ages? That's a BIG no-no. You cannot have something as well-thought out as masterpieces like Avatar: The Last Airbender in a 120 minute run-time and have the children understand. The closest thing we get to that are movies like Puss In Boots: The Last Wish, and that movie actually does have major flat-characters like Jack Horner. Even adults could appreciate that for once, we had a one-dimensional villain again. When adults are practically crying in happiness at seeing children-tropes in a children's movie, then that should be considered a major red flag of the current state of the movie industry. Stop hammering down adult politics in children's stories- you're creating a movie for yourself and not the children. They don't get it, they just want fun and there's nothing wrong with that. You could subtly play around with some messages, sure, but there is a gigantic difference between making a movie or book comprehensible for kids and having like one character or event written to be with a little subtle nuance - and having the entire movie written from an adult perspective that is ALSO supposed to please kids. Many corporations like Disney are doing the latter. Just that line from the newest Peter Pan reboot that they use in the trailer, when Wendy points out there are girls amongst The Lost Boys. It's just plainly sowing confusion amongst young kids and always with little to no explanation in the story. The novel stated why the Lost Boys are boys. If you're going to change that, at least change the lore in a way that you know, kids can understand? Disney's Cinderella remake was perfect in the sense they introduced changes that worked for the story and introduced elements that actually stem from versions of the fairy tale like how she got the name 'Cinderella' from sleeping by the fireplace and being covered in ashes. Why has the movie industry forgotten what their target demographic wants? Why has it forgotten what made fairy tales work? It's sad.

I’m more of a reader than a movie watcher…but the same thing applies.  woke writers do NOT know how to “story”.  look how the mcu and starwars is crashing and burning….you can’t just blame that all on the fans - oh wait….aren’t they owned by disney who is ALSO crashing and burning because their employees keep getting arrested as pedos?  not to mention the fact that they just keep rehashing old stories and can’t seem to come up with anything new….and they keep attacking their customers….yeeeaaahhhh….

then you have the BIGGEST LANDMINE which amazon stepped on called LotR. they woked that up and raised a sleeping beast. the LotR fandom was upset with the Hobbit movies…..but then the fans aptly forgave Jackson for the Hobbit movies when the trailers came out for the amazon disaster and all the articles and cast members started telling us that THEY were the stars and telling THEIR story and how “WRONG TOLKIEN WAS” (they actually said that and shoulda been kicked off screen JUST for that)…….and then even the most STUBBORN of fans forgave the Hobbit movies when the amazon disaster actually came out….THAT is how BAD “Rings of Woke” is…just so you know. allz i’m saying….is focus on the STORY and forget about the politics WHATEVER they may be!  stop trying to HAMMER down a POINT!  it comes off as PREACHY and CRINGE.  TELL the STORY.  the end.

[fancylala4]

The beauty and the beast live action remake deserved all the hate the little mermaid remake got. That movie sucked and Emma was miscast as belle!

[foureyedfreezy]

I'm not going to deny that Disney execs exploited the TLM controversy for financial gain. as much as I hate Disney's capitalistic ways, I can't get mad at them this time. Anti-woke people and far-righters only have themselves to blame for Disney overly exposing the new Ariel. For over four years, they've harassed Halle Bailey, her sister Chloe, and anyone who like the new Little Mermaid (mainly black girls and black women who support it.) Right now, those same haters are called the actresses for the new Ariel in the Disney theme parks "ugly" and calling them racial and sexist slurs. If people just brush it off as another mid-remake like the others, Disney would not have the reason to have a black Ariel in their parks or a Disney Junior spin-off. The only reason why the new Little Mermaid is getting most support than the other live-action remakes is because it generated the most money thanks to the outrage. So this is the anti-woke community's fault for Disney "shoving black Ariel in their face." Halle and Disney really had the last laugh on this one.

Disclaimer: I actually love Halle's Ariel and excited for the cute spin-off show.