Why Disney Changed The Little Mermaid | Dreamsounds
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- The new Little Mermaid remake has some new lyrics - let's talk about why the songs were changed!
/ dreamsounds
___________________
MUSIC USED:
"regn", "luv", and "my reverie" by bomull
"KAWAIKUNAI by Sugoi
"Woodblock Print" by Ennio Manno
"Odmjuk" by Smartface
Are you glad the lyrics were changed? Why (or why not)?
I think wokeing us a great replacement for walking
I think the lyric changes are unnecessary, but I'm not that bothered about it. The original is still there for me to enjoy.
@@hannahbrennan2131 that’s exactly how I feel, I would have preferred for it to stay the same but don’t really care if it does change.
Neither glad nor disappointed by the changing lyrics (Especially considering how much the first movie veered away from from Andersen's original). I just wish the Disney "live action" remakes would stop going for a muddy color palette in service of "realism." I'm also hoping that they'll branch out into fairy tales they haven't made movies of, yet.
Yes. Times change
Not letting a villain say something bad feels really wrong to me. Not necessarily that it's Disney's place to impart important life lessons, but having the message "shut up and know your place" put into the mouth of someone who is _clearly evil_ is valuable. Changing the lyrics so that the sentiment isn't spoken at all just removes a teachable moment that that is something a _bad_ person says.
I get that, but I always felt as a child that Ursula’s messages come across as just that, not something that only a ‘bad’ person was saying
Tho I really like what they did in the Broadway version, an extra line where Ursula says “a woman doesn’t know how powerful her voice is until she’s lost it”, and I feel like that’d be a different great way to do this
Maybe let’s wait to hear the actual changes my god.
To be honest it feels like Disney is Ironing out their products, that is making them as bland and inoffensive as possible; and that includes making villains that are not nearly as threatening as they used to
@Jay Kay we're just talking hypothetically. It's not like they just dismissed the remake dude.
To be completely honest, Eric looked pretty nervous to make a move on Ariel the entire song. He wanted to get to know her. I never thought it was him forcing himself on her.
I haven't seen this movie for years and I seem to remember Ariel giving him a dirty look because he WASN'T kissing her!
^Lmfao
That was the animators trying to get her to flirt
@@krisrhood2127 Exactly, she was getting frustrated.
Idk if the directors really paid attention to the og song but if they did then they should have recognize that Ariel's the one who want to kiss Eric. Eric pulled himself away because he's still nervous and confused, he's still thinking about his dream girl. In the animation, Grimsby advised Eric to forget about his dream girl instead focus on Ariel because she is much kinder, shows warmth, friendly and most importantly, is right in front of his eyes. But in the live action is quite opposite. When he meets Ariel, he admits to Grimsby that he forgot anything all about his dream girl. Also I dont think they improved Eric's character in the live action by gave him a new song and motivation but always tried to kill his character in every chances.
Also I mean Alan Menken in that interview was clearly annoyed about it. He very pointedly says something like "I mean she's the villain, you're not supposed to listen to her but whatever I guess".
Indeed! I think I should've cleared up I don't blame him, that decision clearly didn't come from him. Menken has artistic sensibility, and uses his brain. The decision came from Rob Marshall, the director himself. You know he has a history of directing musicals that almost nobody likes. I just wish there was a better director directed this film like Byron Howard or John Musker and Ron Clenments etc.
So glad you pointed out the CONTEXT of the song. And that The Little Mermaid was NEVER about giving up your voice for a man. It was about freedom, following your dreams and showing Triton that he was wrong to judge the human world. I love how fantasy too is NOT realistic. You can use the medium of film to be imaginative. Use visuals, sound, subtext.. to tell a meaningful story that's more interesting than just reading the message aloud.
Yeah, I think that’s why it’s an amazing song as well, everyone can relate to wanting something so deeply and hearing the background of it is just 😢❤️ why would they change that
You can say that not only is it not about giving up your voice for a man, it's how giving up your voice is a bad thing. It's the villain who coerces her into doing that.
What do you think the hollywoke disney agenda/message of the movie is going to be?...exactly that - giving up your 'voice' for a 'man',. not giving in to it and remain "independent" and "strong wahman".
Agreed with the context analysis here
The thing a *LOT* of people don't get about Ariel was summed up by Lindsay Ellis; *"She wants them legs."* (Before she even knew Eric existed.)
Agreed
Honestly idk how people miss this so often?
It's because of that weird "Disney princesses are anti-feminist / problematic" critiques.
Even Disney got involved in it by trying to say "hey wink-wink we're in on the joke" by literally saying this in Ralph Breaks the Internet:
"Did you make a deal with an evil sea witch to sell your voice to change your body to win over a guy?"
"Eww no! Who would do that?!? Do you guys need me to call you some help?"
(Cue laugh track)
Way to go Disney - thanks for validating the Karens who genuinely do not understand sarcasm or satire, they consider this confirmation.
True.
her whole song, part of that world, was BEFORE she met Eric, she doesnt want to be on land just because of Eric!!
I don't hold an issue with the idea of updating songs and stories, however, it's the over-sanitization of everything that I have an issue with. Take Pinocchio's Pleasure Island for example. In the original the boys were encouraged to be as bad as they want. It was a key part of their ultimate transformation into donkeys. They were encouraged to deface things, cause damage, bully each other, gamble, play with weapons, drink alcohol, all these things that parents teach their kids not to do or protect them from. It's stands out to kids as why it's bad when the consequences start taking effect in a frankly horrifying way. But in the Disney remake kids came off more like kids being kids. Drinking root beer rather than beer. Sure, kids don't want to drink too much soda, but they wont get more than a sugar high, which is something that is pretty normal for kids. It comes off as "If you are a little rowdy and have too many sweets you're a bad kid and that's not the message I would want any kids of mine to pick up on. Kids should be allowed to run around and have fun, to have a little too much sweets once in a while To me it seems like it's encouraging a stricter upbringing which can and have ruined family relationships. But they made the changes because they were afraid that showing actual bad behavior would encourage bad behavior. They don't think about how the messages change once they've been sanitized. When I was a little kid, if I watched a movie that had bad behavior in it mt mom thought might influence me, she would take a moment to make sure I knew that the character was being bad. It's not on pieces of media, even ones aimed at kids, to do the job of a parent. It can be used as a way to introduce lessons and open up discussions on topics.
I don't think that's the only reason Pleasure Island was changed. For more than a decade now, newer films that depict alcohol and/or smoking have been getting a lot of scrutiny, even in movies that are rated PG-13. There were even cases where angry parents tried suing the MPPA and the studios of these movies for promoting these behaviors and not giving these films an R rating by default.
And when things like that are a quick lawsuit waiting to happen, a lot of movie makers just aren't willing to depict smoking and/or alcohol lately. Add in the fact these are children characters/actors in a film that's aimed at a younger audience, I can completely get why they had to change that aspect of it. That bring said, I do think they should have delved more into the kids being rowdy other ways in the final film.
the fact with pinocchio they also violated all the moral and hisotry behind the italian story
IT'S not a coincidence this story was written few years after the italian unification(and honeslty I was always annoyed how italy wasn't homaged in the movie)
and overall they hugely misunderstood the original moral
ironically I have way more appreciated how Del Toro twisted the story, only if you understand the story you can do a "reverse morale" so brilliant
and about parents worried abou drinking ,smoking ,etc
it was established that doing this would ruin your life, see those boy turned forever into donkeys
not even in a moment the story and movie propose those things in a positive way
I really like your question "how evil are villains allowed to be?" I think that we've definitely seen a change in that regard and I would be curious to hear more of your thoughts on it in the future. I think it's interesting that people seem to be under the assumption that children would take Ursula's words at face value and be manipulated, just like Ariel is. What I remember as a child, and what I've seen from other children, is that kids are actually pretty smart and that when they're presented with a villain, they're often able to discount what that villain is saying and understand that it's false. But I've noticed that people have started assuming that if a writer has a character say something, it means that the writer is endorsing that belief. I think this misconception makes it challenging to write villains who are actually evil or villainous because writers don't want people to assume that they agree with what their characters are saying. I'm sure there's much more to it than that, but those are some of my thoughts. Great video as always :)
Yeah pretty much. I was writing a story a few years back and the villain is a VILLAIN. Truly irredeemable with bad morals and goals but whenever i was telling people about her they'd be like "umm... " and then ask if that's what i thought ???! No !?;!!!!! Of course not!! They're the VILLAIN!!! WHAT THE HEROES ARE FIGHTING AGAINST!!
I just gave up writing it, too many people are way too sensitive ((and honestly just stupid if they can't differentiate a fictional villain's evil schemes from the author's own personality and morals)). And companies like Disney have this idiot nit picking them on a global level
But other movie companies like Dreamworks are bringing the villains back and thank goodness for that!!!! I've missed them so much, and it's given me hope that I might finish my story too
@@shadowm2k7 Finish your story. We have literal *Nazis* marching in the streets.
We can't just have "villains" that are actually just misunderstood and are redeemed with a hug.
*That's* the real fairytale.
@@shadowm2k7 I'm sorry that happened to you and I hope that you're able to finish your story!
The subtle approach clearly didn’t work. I deeply dislike the sequel making Ariel an overprotective parent but De Santis is proof not everyone picked up on what that story was trying to say about hypocrisy and the toxicity of fear. I had a classmate in middle school who took issue with Jasmine chafing against an arranged marriage as being ahistorical but, in hindsight, I think that was the point. If it’s all made up and supposed to be instructive, why not aim to be more forthcoming? The reality is more like descendants and tangled where kids are sometimes raised by legit villains.
@@searchingfororion The finale of Owl House delves into this beautifully. I do think sympathetic villains can be effective warnings but it was really something to see how Owl House dealt with both sympathetic/understandable villains alongside protecting children against the ones who are unrepentant.
I truly don't know HOW EVIL the villains are supposed to be.
However, when I was a little kid I always understood that Ariel wanted to be human and Erik was just the final push she needed, it's impulsive teenage love too, something rather common for... TEENS, so of course she would make a very dumb decision and fall for Ursula's manipulation, and Ursula knows that she stated multiples times Ariel is making things too easy for her plan.
Is like Cinderella, she never wanted to meet the prince, she wanted to go to the Ball, to the point that she only found out she danced with the prince when her stepmother said it.
That's the problem with many of these remakes, they are trying to fix problems that were never problems, but at the same time creating newer ones to boost.
I'm curious about this Little Mermaid, but I'm also keeping my expectations very, very low, too.
Either way, I do hope this one is the good one and not a disappointment.
The final push was actually even better imo, because Ariel's dad just destroyed her collection of human things, at this moment in story, she had nothing to leave behind since her father betrayed her in a way and no secret hideout in sight too.
Agreed!
It's more like the people around the movie misinterpreting it that confused me on the message growing up.
I knew it one way, then all these parents and auch were throwing around this and that. Muddying up the actual message of the stories.
@@CureSmileful Sebastian also betrayed her though. He told Triton where the place was.
My first thought, as a writer myself, is that Ursula's original line hits harder now than it did when the first film came out. As you pointed out, Disney protagonists now are much more outspoken and physically active in their stories, and because Disney is an entertainment behemoth, that's become a norm in contemporary storytelling. That expectation wasn't there in the same way in the late 80s.
I saw the original Little Mermaid in the theater as a child, and I interpreted Ursula's line as repeating things I heard constantly from adults -- hell, the grandfather sitting beside me in the theater that day was constantly disapproving of outspoken women, and wouldn't come around to "girls with moxie" until I scared him witless by repeatedly standing up to him as a teenager a decade later. Yes, the 1980s were a time when more women were living independent lives, but society HATED them for it. There was a whole moral panic about it. So Ursula telling Ariel her voice wasn't important was only a shade nastier than the norm.
Now, though, in a 2020s context, that line makes Ursula seem genuinely monstrous -- perhaps more monstrous than Ashman and Menken intended. It's possible that Menken is trying to readjust Ursula's evil back to the level it had in the 80s -- just a LITTLE more evil than a misogynistic society.
It's kind of a nice problem to have, oddly enough.
Thank you for sharing your story and this is really interesting because it sounds like I'm approximately 1/2 to a generation older than you (?) and also, obviously, this was expressed very well.
With your insights and cultural social and contextualization of language throughout the eras, I couldn't help thinking myself; even without a voice - in the animated version Ariel does still have a lot of "moxie" which is what I think made *me* connect to her so strongly.
I certainly see your point regarding the silencing a young woman then versus silencing of one now and how the way that is approached in media does need to be more carefully done because of progress and I find that refreshing and hopeful. (Perhaps it's because of the very "TQ" area of creators I watch but a lot of 'elevating young girls' is actually anti-trans propaganda so it seems to feel bleak; so your perspective was a very welcome respite that maybe we can have some *real* empowerment).
I know this was bit long and I didn't even get to properly express what I wanted to in replying to your post so instead I will say this:
Please keep keep writing and I hope you *never* lose your moxie.
@@searchingfororion I have plenty of moxie, never fear! Moxie was my grandfather's word, and I always liked it a little better than the other words men and boys used for me. He didn't mean it as a compliment at first, saying things like "you've got a lot of moxie saying that to me", but I wore it as a badge of honor. By the time I was old enough to tell him to go to hell, I was about 75% moxie by volume.
I agree that media that purports to affirm young girls is often more about attacking trans people (though I think we still need media that REALLY affirms girls and simply includes trans girls in the category). It's something I've worked to root out of my own writing, knowing that I'm a product of my own culture.
I remember connecting strongly to Ariel as a very small child, although it might simply have been that she was a female protagonist and I didn't often see those. Ultimately, though, I went hard for Mulan ... and Tarzan. As a neurodivergent kid who was also a kind of non-straight that wasn't even in the dictionary yet, I connected HARD with outsiders, oddballs, and people trying to understand/find a place in a world that ignored or despised them.
I've actually got a book project coming out soonish! It'll be available for free on Royal Road. I just set up an account there under this same screen name. I hope you enjoy it. :)
@@onbearfeet Once again, forgive my brevity and faulty grammar - it's the last hours of evening (or the brief gasp before dawn depending on one's perspective) and I've yet to meet sleep.
Your response deserves much more than this, but I'm elated for you that publication is happening! I was incredibly passionate about writing from a young age (though *my* generational issue was well meaning "elders" praising my talent, but when hearing I wanted to pursue it as a career; their response being, "Don't quit your day job." - what a *lovely* mantra to instill in an 8 year-old...) so I share secondhand excitement.
I really want to know more about it, but I'm burning on both ends. Perhaps you can tell me your genre and target audience, and I can tune back in when I'm a bit more functional?
I watched it as a kid in the early 2000s and felt the same about it tbh, so if we’ve truly made that much progress that this type of talk seems that bad I’m both surprised and happy lol
@@searchingfororion I write young adult/new adult adventure stories, usually a mix of fantasy and other genres. This particular book takes place in a world that USED to have superheroes...until everyone with powers (hero, villain, whoever) mysteriously vanished. The book follows two teens as they break into the abandoned HQ of the world's premier superhero team. One of them wants to bring the heroes back ... and one wants to expose a terrible secret.
Oh. And they're not alone in the building. :)
Like I said, it'll be up for free on Royal Road under this screen name. Hope that helps!
If I recall correctly, the idea that Ariel only went to the surface for a man was initially an idea perpetuated by Ursula. She had no idea Ariel's other passions, only seeing her desire to be with some human and honed in on that to manipulate her.
With context, I always thought it was the opposite- that Sebastian was using subliminal messaging to get Eric to kiss Ariel because Sebastian knows Ariel wants it (or needs it if you consider her contract). Sebastian feeds Eric Ariel's name, but it doesn't register to Eric that someone told him her name, and the same could apply to the whole song haha.
I always thought that Sebastian was being Ariel's wing-man.
I find it a bit of a shame, really. Ursula's line proved to me that if you want to get a man, you will *need* your voice. Ursula knew full well that she was nerfing Ariel by asking for her voice. That was the goal.
And then it's really really complicated in Kiss the Girl because Ariel can't verbally express consent and even if they both really want it, Eric isn't absolutely sure and he's too much of a good guy to disregard her consent. Ariel's attempt to woo Eric without her voice ultimately _fails_ ! Looks alone are not enough! I got to that conclusion at 8 and it beats me that middle-aged execs can't seem to understand how the public is not as dumb as they think. BuzzFeed only wanted cheap controversy to generate clicks! That's their business model! They're not even relevant anymore!
That's the problem with Disney remakes at large, they weaken the stories by sanding down the conflicts and being too in-your-face (Belle didn't need that washing machine!). Even Cinderella, the so-called good movie is so nerfed compared to the 50's one. Cindy had a temper!
Anyway, I probably going to see it in theaters because I want to support Halle Bailey, omg that girl is beautiful that's insane, it's like she's an actual mermaid. So I'm intrigued.
Ps: I didn't encounter your channel on my feed for a long time and when I heard your voice, I grinned! Good for you! 🎉
Disney probably wanna make Ursula’s song less overtly villainous because they’re still on that kick of making every marketable villain just sympathetic enough to get their own spin-off (i.e. Maleficent, Cruella, etc.)
I doubt Ursula will get that treatment, she’s not interesting enough for it. We already have the stage version trying this with changes to their family tree, making Poseidon both Ursula and Triton’s father who gave them their magic items. It does make for family drama, but not enough to rewrite everything. We’ll see if that version ends up in the new film or not. It adds a reason Ariel isn’t too uncomfortable around Ursula, and maybe a way to do the whirlpool battle scene without blood, but nothing much else.
Lame
I think it might be more about the parents that wouldn’t allow their children to watch the movie if the villain was actually evil.
With her singing about how she was shun of society for being a witch, a womanly art, I could that happening xD But I really hope they dont
Eric has always been a bonus. Ariel wants to see the human world before seeing Eric, and the actual push was her dad destroying her entire collection of human things.
When I was little, I never once thought Eric was ‘forcing himself’ on Ariel because of a few words of song lyrics I was barely paying attention too. I was with the animals in the scene also telling Eric to kiss her because he was moving forward so slowly and hesitantly, it was like asking unspoken permission, and obviously we knew that Ariel also wanted it. It’s certain adult minds that see this stuff as more complicated and triggering than it really is.
Thank you for mentioning that Ariel wanted to become human because of her interest in human culture in general rather than Eric specifically and of course that the original story seems to be inherently queer
I'm personally pretty indifferent about the changes, so far the remakes are imo written worse than the original movie especially in Mulan's case for the sake of pandering and virtue signaling but it's not like the original is lost in the vault and the remake is the only way to watch it right now so it's ok no matter how hard they butcher it
I think I'm the only person in the world who liked the Cinderella live action (except Helena Bonham Carter as the fairy godmother makes me want to scream because the tone shift is all wrong and it's stupid, almost like it's from a draft from a completely different type of film) because we get to know the prince (and he *is* actually charming), we get to actually meet her mother without 100% fridging her as well as why a good loving father would marry a monsterous woman to take her place, Disney however underestimated something...
The best live-action adaptation Cinderella had already been made; it was "Ever After" it made more sense andthere was no way they could hold a candle to it. She rescues herself. The only people who wanted to see Cinderella "come to life" had watched Ever After and shared it with their children - unless they had a very specific idea about "Disney stamp of approval". But these remakes mostly were targeted for adults to come back for nostalgia.
Therefore everyone I know immediately was comparing Ever After to the live-action Cinderella (also releasing it after Into the Woods which already had essentially a live-action Cinderella made it weirdly redundant because at least Into the Woods gave us the Grimm version as a change of pace - and also sort of illustrated how simple the story beats are, even with 3 balls, so with no true musical numbers obviously stretching for time)
I know everyone loves Emma Watson and that's fine but the live-action Beauty and the Beast even had my mother flipping tables. (And she's been known to really enjoy some saccharine stuff - "Goodtime Video" level bad)
Ya I guess its better than lighting the original on fire, at least we still have it to go back to. And the fact that so many people involved in the new version don't know the basic concept of the story "Ariel independent, Ariel want to go to surface world because that's what SHE WANTS!" Makes it pretty clear its going to be trash the only real question is how bad the dumpster fire's going to be.
@@amberflageolle7626 and why do people act like its racist to be angry that they cast a black girl to play Ariel??? Im black and I thought that was one of the dumbest decisions they could have made. Significantly changing the looks of an Iconic character like that always will split the audience. I loved the little mermaid as a kid so i was stoked to see the live action remake when I heard about it. Once i learned who was cast I was completely TURNED OFF and i have no interest in watching anymore.
I think your question "how evil are villians allowed to be?" is a good one, especially when Disney seems to be going in the direction of phasing out villians in favour of a vague "family conflict", which is good once, but after movie after movie with that premise, it's tiring. I don't think Disney has the courage or the will to make compelling villians anymore- the thing about most of the Disney rennaissance films is that they had incredible villians.
Thank you! Lindsey Ellis made a really great video talking about the little mermaid and how the live action adaptations are victims to the 2010s tumblr half-baked analysis of these films with no room for the discussion of nuance. It seems that Disney doesnt trust their works anymore... Or their audience for that matter.
The level of babying from Disney in recent times is a sight to behold. It truly feels like it's spoonfeeding its audience.
The change to poor unfortunate souls is the one i'm really worried about, especially with the way Menken talks about it in the interview like you highlighted. I worry that his input wasn't the primary deciding factor in what to change/how much to change, and especially with a character like Ursula, already being cast in what I'd say is not the greatest choice of actress, I wonder if they won't just try to scrub her clean completely of any hints of her queer roots. Maybe i'm overreacting, I guess time will tell.
The fact that Ursula is dressed in some weird full body business suit is a CRIME. That's honestly one of my biggest qualms with the film.
I love Melissa McCarthy, but they really should've cast a drag queen to play Ursula.
I agree, I think not casting a drag queen as Ursula was a really missed opportunity
What people don’t understand is that the original writers put part of your world in the movie to prove that she wanted legs before wanting Eric! People today are actually so annoying because if you watch the little mermaid she actually wanted legs before Eric, and the only way to keep them was by falling in love with the prince, which was Ursula’s idea. Unfortunately today Disney princesses can’t have a soft side while knowing how to stick up for themselves because any soft side to them is known as ‘needing a man to protect them’
@@mysticalbeauty280 But that was also propagated by the stupid "Disney Princess = not feminist" critique boom illustrated perfectly when they did their own satire of the satire in Ralph Breaks The Internet
" 'Did you make a deal with an evil sea witch to sell your voice exchange for legs in order to win over a guy???'
'Eww! No. Who would do that?!?!'"
🙄
Arial was taking advantages after her father destroyed her's collection, which is an abusive tactic "Look how easy I crushes what you hold deer, I can do the same to you" is what it imply. Which change the messege from Ariel gave up her voice for a man, too she always wanted to be human and wasn't thinking clearly as she was swimming away from an abusive parent
Ppl will always go “oh it’s all for a man” without recognizing the other factors. Cinderella was abused and the only way for her to escape in that time was marriage, and it was through her nature of strength and kindness that she was able to find someone good enough for her.
Ariel is a lot like an anthropologist, her interests were what brought her to the prince, just like Cinderella. She was also very young and ignorant and her dad employed abusive tactics (and the story was also about how both of them were wrong and that the miscommunication endangered her). She wanted to like what she wanted and be herself. Both girls just wanted to be free and happy, and it didn’t necessarily require a man to make it happen.
They got together cuz Eric genuinely liked her and they made each other happy. It’s sucks when ppl just ignore the girl’s struggles in order to push a narrative they think is more empowering when it isn’t.
I wouldn't call triton abusive. He just destroyed some human stuff because he believes humans are dangerous and humans killed his wife. It is the equivalent of walking into your kid's room to find a shrine to a serial killer or something else along those lines then destroying the shrine and scolding your kid. That is the point of view triton has. He should have communicated with her better though.
@@dragonninja3655 He still lost his temper and reacted violently. His behavior and overall general temper not only scared Ariel but also did the same to Flounder and Sebastien.
We the audience know that Triton had regrets over what he did and that he loves Ariel but Ariel didn't know that. And even if she did, she still had every right to leave if she wasn't feeling safe.
Yeah, if Prince Eric had any part in that, he'd only be the subject of Ariel's limerance. In her eyes, he represents the mysteries of the human world and the potential for her to be fully understood in a way she isn't at home. It's common for kids who feel deeply dissatisfied with their lives to mentally cling on to a single person like that and fantasize about escaping to them. It's more than just 'for a man' once you consider what that man may represent to her.
@@dragonninja3655 To be fair, that's a very meta reaction. At the time of TLM, we didn't know the backstory with his wife. We _only_ knew that he thought humans were evil, so from the audience perspective at the time, yes, it's pretty freaking abusive. And frankly, it doesn't necessarily become _less_ abusive with new information, the reaction just becomes more _understandable._
If there is something I can be certain about is that a video from a channel named dream sounds about music is going to be good
You make some great points here, Marlene!
With “Kiss the Girl”, as a kid, I never thought of it like Eric was forcing himself into her. It is true that once I learned the lyrics, I did feel a little uncomfortable with what Sebastian was implying.
I think what made me uncomfortable was listening to these songs, and learning the lyrics, in isolation (without watching or remembering the movie all that well at the time). It’s when the visual context is stripped that I began to wonder if Eric was coming onto a hesitant Ariel. The movie shows he’s not, and she very much wants to kiss him.
Thanks for the video!
Yeah, the lyrics on their own seem odd, but context is very important.
If Alan Menken felt like changing the lyrics (to the song that he co-wrote) was the best move, that’s his choice.
@Random Human Yes, very true! Like Marlene said, if anyone’s qualified to “renovate” the lyrics of the song, it would be one of the original song writers.
To be honest, i didn’t see anything wrong with the lyrics even when I was younger. Mainly because I figured they liked each other.
I always saw it as, they clearly are into each other and get really close to kissing (showing their affection for one another) but then not, because they are too nervous or whatever, and so Sebastian is like “YOU BOTH ARE INTO EACHOTHER JUST KISS” and not in an intrusive way
i feel like people collectively ignore the very obvious fact that Ariel wanted to be a human BEFORE she even knew Eric existed. And even after she met and rescued him, she still wasn't motivated solely by him. Ursula gave her the opportunity to get both things (the boy and the legs). Her manipulation leads to Ariels decision. Soooo there.
Animation will always reign supreme, but im gonna give the LA movie a chance, for Halle ❤
Seriously!!! That’s what I’ve been saying for years!!!! Context! People don’t look at the context!!! And you sum it up pretty well. These are fairy tales and not things that really relate to real life situations. The prince in Snow White is grieving her loss so he kisses her goodbye. He doesn’t know it’ll break the spell. Ariel wants to kiss Eric and isn’t sure how to communicate that, so Sebastian is trying to help! We need to stop trying to fix our existing characters that don’t need fixing and create new characters and stories instead.
I recall that during the 2000 especially, it was very popular to kind of critique Disney because of how they presented their very conservative perspective that a lot of their female characters would fall into ( saw words like neoliberalism thrown around).
I'm assuming that just Disney that took a lot of this stuff to heart and have actively been building their remakes around these terminally online philosophies.
The thing is that stories will always stay the same, but how people look at them will change as time goes on
Yup, Lindsay Ellis actually has a great video about this very topic!
And now it's completely gone in the other direction. Disney never found the happy medium.
It's always stuck with me how on the nose Disney's The Little Mermaid was about catching up with the woman's liberation movement of the previous decades. Like;
"Bet they don't reprimand their daughters. Bright young women. Sick of swimming. Ready to stand'."
Um, forcing a feminist agenda into your kids movies much Disney? Telling your daughters it's good to disobey your parents?
Which always made it headscratching to me that people took issue about Ursula, the villain and the negative foil encouraging Ariel to be submissive to get her man. Like, I didn't think their being very subtle about this. If anything, playing down that contrast kind of UNwokefies the story.
I do genuinely thinks it's neat that kids gets a black mermaid heroine and black mermaid king. However I don't get the impression with these remakes that Disney intends them as much more brand extensions and short term, safe cash. I really hope Wish gets the support it needs and that Sadé hasn't and doesn't get dropped.
im almost certain ashman isnt the one who asked to make the changes; its the higher ups at disney looking at the discourse about the original movie over the years and pre-empting criticisms. personally i think both lines (that are likely to be changed) make sense in context (for "kiss the girl," sebastian is the one singing and he knows eric likes ariel, ariel wants [and needs] eric to kiss her, and ariel has already tried to kiss eric; for "poor unfortunate souls," ursula is the villain, of course a bad guy wouldnt have the healthiest advice, especially trying to convince someone to sign their voice away), and it feels like it insults the intelligence of the audience overcorrecting like this.
all of this ignores that the original little mermaid movie stands on its own and doesnt need a live action remake, and disney is mainly doing this for copyright shenaniganery, and i probably wont watch the remake anyway lol
I think Kiss the Girl walks a fine line on the consent spectrum. Like, yes, Ariel can't talk, but there are still other ways of explicit communication. I wouldn't mind the "there is only one way to ask her, it's not with words, just kiss the girl" line being taken out. Mostly because it's inaccurate, he could still ask her with words and she could nod/shake her head. But also, Ariel has been communicating through all the tools at her disposal that she wants to kiss him and Erik has been oblivious. That's why Sebastian is pushing Erik. I think the issue of consent could be addressed way better by changing it from Erik not realising she's signalling it to Erik worrying he's misinterpreting the signals. Then Sebastian can come in with "Nah dude, she is totally into you." Also, there are many ways to communicate with someone who is nonverbal, and even as a young child it frustrated me that Erik/the castle staff didn’t try out any of them. As a child I was already like "give her a pen and paper. She may or may not be able to write your language, but she should be able to draw some answers to questions or some basic needs." And Erik not realising anything at all when she's being SO obvious sounded stupid too. But I've been in plenty of conversations with people going like "I think my crush is flirting with me but I'm not sure and what if I mess up our friendship by asking her out and she's not interested???" so Erik could definitely have that panic. And of course he's also torn between liking Ariel and also the strange voice (secretly also Ariel) so he has plenty reason not to kiss her immediately even if he does notice she likely wants to kiss him too.
As for the Ursula line, it was pretty obvious to me as a kid that Ursula was the villain and she was putting a very wrong idea of what men want into Ariel's head. Especially because Erik pretty much immediately proves her wrong. He wants to talk to Ariel and learn about her, and her not being able to do so is a big hurdle in their relationship. Not to mention him being attracted to her voice and not knowing it's hers.
English is not my first language. So I didn’t know original English lyrics to most Disney song.
I was so impressed by those line in “poor unfortunate souls”. It’s old cartoon for kids but you can see villainess using sexism to lure Ariel into her trap. It’s brilliant. It’s feministic how those few lines connect evil and patriarchy.
Removing them for me is anti-woke. We will see HOW the lyrics will be changed. But i feel it will be for worse.
It's easy to say "fairy tales are complex an unrealistic and kids (indeed everybody) knows that, so why are we worried about this stuff?" The answer is that sometimes what's problematic in a story that doesn't seem to be about that problem much anyway adds up to a theme that feels more concerning when you notice how often it recurs in the oldest and most re-told of stories. There's a lot of these stories where freedom or full humanity for a woman is contingent on receiving love from a man, where romance is central in what the happy ending must be, where the plot is arranged to make it only right that a man should make all of the major power moves in a story that focuses on courtship and ends in glamourous marriage. Similarly, just because very young kids aren't reading non-consent issues into the "Kiss the Girl" situation, doesn't mean there isn't a problem, because as those kids grow older with those movies and other media, their interpretations evolve and they understand that, unlike some of the songs in Snow White, nearly all the songs in The Little Mermaid also become standalone songs, like other songs composed for classic American musical theatre works. Indeed, most of these song are covered as atandalone songs after the movies are released now.
I'm a trans woman and was about 8 years old when The Little Mermaid released. And I always identified with Ariel and would sing A Part of your World when I was alone. Her longing to be human was a good parallel to my longing to be the real me. Her desire to be a part of the human world paralleled my desire to be recognized as part of the female world. And I welcome any changes to try and give the right messages to any children who may watch this. I think Disney is doing their best to bring acceptance and equality to the world. It can feel heavy handed, but they're trying and I applaud them for it.
That being said, I don't think any of these changes really amount to anything more than adjustments to modern culture and sensibilities. The vocal minority are lashing out because misogyny and bigotry across the board is being called out.
I really don't get why so many people even care. It's going to be crap just like the other live action adaptations and will become merely a footnote to the original animated film. And I'm NOT referring to any perceived woke issues. What I'm describing is exactly how we all think of the live action remakes. It's a cash grab remake of a wildly popular movie. Most remakes in Hollywood are inferior to their original counterpart (not just the Disney ones either).
Someone once told me, "Evil is the loudest when it's dying. So take heart, my friends, we are merely in the birthing pain of a more loving and accepting world. The evil will be loud,v and many of us may not live to see it's end, but they're so loud because they're dying.
*Part Of That World
@@purpleclaws202 you are right and I am sorry ☺️
I loved your last line: " The evil is loudest when it's dying". Brings so much hope! Best wishes for you✨
I'm listening to this in the context of just recently having learned of some of the ridiculous censoring that Disney pushes in some of their children's cartoons. For example, they stream the Australian cartoon Bluey on Disney+, but made several edits, one example being cutting a 4-year-old asking how babies get in their moms' bellies after a baby shower. Note, the original didn't even answer the question, the dad just does something silly to distract the kid and then the show cuts to the next scene, but Disney decided that the question couldn't even be asked, and cut it out. It's interesting, because I feel like a lot of these kinds of cuts could be seen as coming more from the perspective of the right and the desire to keep children away from anything that even is vaguely in the area of "baby making", but now here we've got changes that look like they're catering to the left. To me, it all honestly just comes across as Disney attempting to walk that fine, fence-sitting, "apolitical" line where they try their hardest not to say or do anything that might offend people. And I mean, I actually think their is some truth about "woke" Disney, in the sense that they want to make it look like they're doing the feminist, anti-racist, anti-homophobic thing by tossing us the smallest bone possible to be able to say they're doing *something* without actually disrupting the status quo they profit off of at all. And the thing is, for a lot of middle-of-the-road liberals, it probably does work and make them feel better about supporting Disney. Honestly, sometimes it even makes me feel better, even when I *know* that's what they're doing. Anyway, I'm not sure if I've really linked all these thoughts together very well, but that's just what's come to mind after watching this.
Smallest bone?! They threw you the largest bone. where have you been?!
And honestly, yes 4 year olds ask that question all the time and parents distract them, so they shouldn;t have cut that scene. But when I was 6 Mom only gave me a basic idea of how babies were made and I learned the...ahem....rest....in sex education in 6th grade. That's when I think kids should learn that stuff, when they're ld enopugh to understand. NOT when they're still in kindergarden
Howard Ashman and Pat Carroll are shaking in their graves 😖 Yes, Ariel always wanted to be human but falling in love with Eric only solidified that, and so she made the sacrifice. People want to move mountains for love, that's the reality. And so is Ursula's line "men don't like a lot of blabber". I'm saying that as a woman - most men indeed don't like women who talk all the time, which doesn't mean they don't enjoy a nice conversation. Ursula, as a villain, expressing things the way she does, makes total sense.
“People want to move mountains for love, that’s the reality.”
Yet why is it always WOMEN sacrificing everything for men without men having to do anything in return? 🤔
I guess that’s why I like “Splash” more because it flips the ending of Disney’s “The Little Mermaid” by having the MAN (played by Tom Hanks) give up everything (his family, his friends, his business, his life on land, his home, and presumably his own species) in order to spend the rest of his life 🎶under the sea 🎶 with the mermaid he loves (played by Daryl Hannah): ruclips.net/video/sMFNp4Q5SRU/видео.html .
I also like that in "Splash", it's the MALE PROTAGONIST who wants the things typically associated with female protagonists in romantic comedies like falling in love, getting married, and having kids: ruclips.net/video/vE7-GwNmzqY/видео.htmlm3s .
Bonus points that “Splash” was released five years prior to Disney’s “The Little Mermaid”, and was produced by Disney (albeit released under the studio’s “Touchstone Pictures” banner due to the film’s mature content).
Ironically for a story that has always depicted a heterosexual relationship, I'm really worried about them straightwashing this movie. I'm worried the queer themes in Ariel's story will be downplayed in favor of making her seem more feminist. I'm worried that by casting a cis woman to play Ursula and changing lyrics to poor unfortunate souls that they're going to erase her roots in drag culture. We'll see what happens, but I worry about who is behind the scenes of this movie and influencing the way it comes across, because to me both the original tale and the animated disney adaptation had such an obvious queer voice behind them that it's impossible to extricate both versions from that. I worry this movie won't honor that legacy.
? Ursula wasn't a drag queen, she has always been a girl. She is also Poseidon's daughter and Triton's sister. Just because she wasn't conventionally attractive doesn't make her a guy.
@@dragonninja3655 Ursula actually IS a drag queen
@@CareBear2480 Her design was partially inspired by an IRL Drag Queen named Divine. But she was played by a cis woman in the original film and the film doesn't say that she is a drag queen or not.
@@dragonninja3655 Her being Triton's sister was deleted from the final film though. Don't know if they're going to incorporate that into the remake but as far as the animated films and TV show goes, they never really used that concept at all (and even contradict it a few times). Animated Ursula might not be related to him.
@@dragonninja3655 Ursula's design was directly inspired by the late drag queen Divine. No she's not canonically a drag queen in the text, but her design, mannerisms, and overall style were pulled directly from drag culture and Divine specifically.
i think the lyric changes are unnecessary and silly but i also give exactly zero shits about the new little mermaid film so if alan menken wants to make new lyrics (or if mickey mouse made him do it at gunpoint) thats w/e
As a kid I’ve always seen Ursula as this villain. Anything she said was something I shouldn’t do because she was, well, evil. When I heard the line ‘she who keeps the tongue gets the man’ i kinda just thought that she is a manipulator(which she is). Props to my english teacher who taught me that word so I could make that inference ❤.
You know how you address the potential harm of “it’s she who holds her tongue who gets a man”? Literally just have Halle’s Ariel tell her she’s wrong during the climax of the new movie and that Eric wants to hear what she has to say. Boom, I fixed it.
But the original movie already implied that, literally the only thing keeping Eric from kissing Ariel and letting himself go is the fact that she can't speak and he fell in love with the voice of the girl who saved him. As soon as Ariel gets her voice back all of his hesitation is gone and he goes for the kiss. The original script already proves Ursula wrong, there was nothing to fix here.
Disney, kids aren’t brain dead, look at the context clues because they are important! ‘’ it don’t take a word not a single word go on and kiss a girl’ might make you question what is going on… until you realize Ariel literally traded her voice to go up to the surface under the pretext that she needs a true loves kiss in 3 days!! She’s giving Eric kiss me Bambi eyes and leaning into his kiss when he’s about to do the dead!!! If anything it’s her and Sebastian that are trying to manipulate Eric. Why twist this into something that girls should be weary of?
@Whatsupconnieor that one time belle didn’t ask for consent before kissing the beast when he was dying. SMH
"Up where they *w o k e* "
Bro, go back on them pills.
I feel like the context missing also includes the societal messages we faced. I get what you're saying about Ursula being the villain, but the way she was singing was kind of a style and message we were hearing in that time. I certainly got a lot of "shut up and be sweet to get the person you want" dating advice in the late 80s and early 90s. There was a ton of "how to play it coy" advice in every Tiger Beat. I think it's possible that some of those kids are probably now adults saying, "That was fscked up to get reinforced by a cartoon octopus villain."
6:40 I had no idea Jenny Nicholson was a columnist?? Definitely gonna check out her article after this.
Hope she makes RUclips vid in this
@@zainmudassir2964 i honestly doubt it. I think she currently has a video in the works about this weird fish franchise thing, idk. She posts about it frequently on her Twitter, if you’re interested.
my first thought was, "oh they are gonna change the "this one wanting to be thinner, this one wants to get the girl" cos that scene fucked me up as a kid. imagine a spell making me finally thin- and also the implied idea that being thin is worth selling your soul to the seawitch for. I will be interested to see what they tweaked.
“Here at *Insert conservative state/news publication here*, anything we don’t like is 'Woke'. Anyway hail orange man!”
Wouldn't the changed lyrics of Poor Unfortunate Souls potentially be the ones about "this one wants to be thinner" regarding body image and all? Genuine question, because it's what came to my mind hearing the interview extract.
Yeah, then she changes the fat one to a skinny girl and she goes to the one who "wants to get the girl". That seems like it wouldn't go over well today.
I think it’s more part of the way how everything else goes in context by the time that the lines were changed for those specific parts of the song. Why should I be mad about a line changed here or there if it’s just still part of the whole entire flow of the story. And the musical journey.
I don't mind the lyric changes, I just hope they're not too crazy, y'know. What I really want to talk about, though, if your GORGEOUS VOICE- Gahh I love your song covers so so much
Ariel is my favorite Disney princess.
Being non-binary and a lesbian, I’ve always identified with her yearning for something more. I’m really worried that the changes are going to take away from the significance of Ariel. I could care less about who she’s played by, that doesn’t matter to me. What I am concerned about though is character assassination, especially with Ursula.
A lesbian is a woman who is attracted to other women. If you're "non-binary" you aren't a lesbian. Or you are and you're a woman.
You can't identify yourself into lesbianism you just are and if you are your a woman. Please stop promoting this nonsense that erases woman.
How can you be non-binary and a lesbian? Lesbian is "woman who wants to have sex with woman". If you're not a woman, you don't fit the definition. Is non-binary going to appropriate the word "lesbian" now?
Extremely unnecessary changes. The kiss the girl changes are fine. But like you said, with context, nobody was worried about consent being an issue. Poor Unfortunate Souls changes are really silly because it's a VILLAIN song and you're not supposed to agree with her! Not the biggest thing to turn me away, just really odd.
No. Kiss the Girl changes are not necessarily bad, but they're very unnecessary. The scene in the original made it very clear that Eric had Ariel's full consent despite her muteness. In fact, Ariel was a little frustrated how reluctant he was.
DO NOT! I repeat DO NOT! Blame Halle for this!!! Blame the team behind the movie.
Also, Belle didn’t have stalkholm syndrome 🤦♀️
My gay ass is so done with disney in general. At this point, I suspect Disney is intentionally trying to piss off both conservatives and nostalgic disney fans alike in order to generate rage-bait engagement. I'd be fine with them making conservatives angry if their recent stuff was actually good but frankly I'm simply not impressed with their recent movies. I watched Strange World specifically because of the gay protagonist and the 'representation' in the film was so paper thin. I mean the lead character gets ZERO time to develop a romance, unlike every straight disney lead. AND it was boring af. As for the remakes I never saw one I enjoyed. I saw the new Puss in Boots plus "Bad Guys" by DreamWorks and was BLOWN AWAY by how good both the writing and art direction was compared to the last disney movie I saw.
And yeah, I do personally think it is rather silly and pointless to edit the fun campy evil lyrics that the fun campy evil villain is meant to sing to make them less evil. And honestly pretty disrespectful to Howard Ashman. Not that I ultimately care that much because the original will always be around to enjoy. It sucks that conservatives are using how mediocre and lame this remake looks to whip up hate but what else is new? Whipping up hate over nothing is what those crybabies do best. Disney probably could have avoided all this controversy by either not changing the lyrics, which would have literally been fine and no one would have complained. Or if they really wanted to change the lyrics, just change them without making a big statement announcing these changes are being done. But then again, how else do they get that rage bait engagement?
What I'm questioning is how much are children paying attention to these sort of things anyway?
They absorb a lot.
They pay a lot more attention to it than us aces xD
Sexualised lyrics are wayyyy too commonplace in "kids" songs; like the Kidz Bop album with Barbie Girl on it, from in the early 2000s or late 90s
And that stuff does shape how they think, little by little, to get them to just see that as normal behaviour
Depends on the child really. Children aren't a monolith. Some will pick up on things like subtext in a film pretty easily but others don't and the subtext just flies over their head until they're adults.
People who complain about Ariel giving up her voice to pursue a man always seem to neglect that Ariel was a distraught, confused, and scared teenager that got manipulated and pressured by a villain into a very unfair position. Once Ursula had lured her in she wasn't really given a choice, taking the chance was better than whatever Ursula would do to her if she didn't.
Ursula saying "It's she who holds her tongue who gets a man" really foreshadows to how wrong Ursila is about life on land (or in general) especially how wrong she is about Eric. Eric is always interested in how Ariel feels and what she thinks and he does his best to communicate with her despite her not having a voice. He cares about what she has to say and that is a top-notch man in my book
I can’t wait for the classic (I hope not) rich white boy “joke” in the lyrics 😂
I'll cop to not having seen every remake yet, but with the ones I have seen, I've gotten the vague impression that the suits at Disney saw an episode of Cinema Sins once and then felt anxiously driven to plug all of those holes.
Also society takes things more literal on screen than we did 20-30 years ago. So the harder to catch context in the script is easier to miss in general. Romance in films (unless it’s a rom con) could be considered a background feature in many cases that is a coincidence/metaphor is context with the story. The Eric romance is one. I would argue other mermaid adaptations play with romance sub plots in many different ways. Hell you could rewrite Eric out of the film by having Ariel and Eric never connect on land with 2 options, she finds a different romantic/platonic partner, or she fails the contract with Ursula and has to do something to get out.
the lyrics changing was a good choice in service to the song's ability to stand on it's own. while the specific context makes the original lyrics justifiable, disney songs are often removed from their contexts and given a life of their own, like let it go. those words and suggestions will be heard by millions, so it's wise of disney to be mindful of how each lyric sounds on it's own.
i'll just speak out separately on the good and bad characters.
the ursula one reminds me of the time some girl was watching the sopranos and she got upset about the characters being racist (girl, you're watching a show about the mafia, if they don't care about killing people, they probably don't care about social awareness either).they're supposed to make people uncomfortable, that's kinda the point.
as for the good people... i never felt like kiss the girl was rapey or anything. i'd argue that tonight i'm loving you has far less regard for mutual consent than that song.
At this point i feel like either the ppl behind the remake hate the original or they want to cater to those who do. however, personally, if i were to view the original as a movie that promotes regressive views, i'd have never interacted with it or the remake and would have probably asked for disney to remove it from its library (but it's just me).
If a person can't handle VILLAINS saying anything that goes against being a decent human being, their life is gonna be hard as fuck. unfortunately, bad people exist and acting as though everyone is a misunderstood anti-hero is counterproductive. some individuals just suck and they can't and won't change because they don't want to. removing that lesson entirely is damaging and leaves future generations unprepared for reality.
I’ve been thinking about you quite often recently & was especially curious to hear your thoughts on this specifically. I hope you are well thank you for another thought-provoking video
I can feel Howard Ashman just rolling in his grave.
I'm glad we are getting another version of Kiss the Girl.
I agree with you that the original version is clearly Sebastian trying to wingman Ariel into getting her man and also avoiding becoming Ursula's little worm, and within the text it is clear that Ariel is the interested party. However, metatextually, the lyric "there is one way to ask her, it don't take a word, just kiss the girl" as a lesson in romance isn't great. I know for me as a child, the trope that boys are just supposed to "know" when to kiss without asking (or that asking spoils the romance) was a lesson I struggled to unlearn.
However, I don't understand the change to Poor Unfortunate Souls. It's a VILLAIN saying it. One could make the argument, I suppose, that it's too sharp a social commentary for kids to understand it and not take it at face value, especially given that Ariel is pretty... but ultimately the narrative proves Ursula wrong because Ariel didn't succeed in getting Eric to fall in love with her by being voiceless--she succeeded in SPITE of it, and he was never more overjoyed and unconflicted about being with her as when he heard her speak for the first time.
This is why I'm glad to stand by my decision to don't watch other remakes Disney puts out. I knew they would maybe want to ''fix'' Ariel, but Ursula's lyrics as well? These changes here made me raise an eyebrow. For me, one thing to make a new adaptation of a fairy tale and make it fit today's standards; and then there's Disney's version of doing that, which is what I don't trust. I mean, what I'm hearing from the atittude in Snow White's remake's production (my absolute favourite when I was a child, so I'm very precious about it) is already making me cringe... I think they want to ''girlboss'' the fourteen year old character created during the Great Depression.
I'm good only watching analysis like Dreamsounds', thanks. I'm looking foward to see if this film will have something for this channel to talk about.
So you want them to portray a 14 year old child? Also snow white was not 14 in the Disney version.
I don't exactly mind the change in kiss the girl, it was never really my favorite or anything and I can see them making it more of just a romantic song and such. However, the change in unfortunate souls is absolutely dumb to me, it's just completely unnecessary and is really like they don't want Ursula that evil, like they're going to try to make her empathetic or something. The more I hear about this movie the more I want to avoid it. I was really hoping they would do good with at least Ursula because she's just one of my favorites, but that doesn't seem like the case, so in a way I'm glad they're separating themselves from the song and such, I don't want them tainting what was already a perfect song
Messing with Ashman's lyrics for what I think is a *huge reach*, and honestly it sounds like Menken is being super shady from that interview and it was probably out of his hands. I think is extremely disrespectful and very likely, will make the songs worse. They changed up the "Mob Song" in the live action Beauty and the Beast and the new lyrics were... not as good.
And really that whole "the men up there don't like a lot of blather" is one of the BEST sections of lyrics Ashman ever did for Disney, in terms of rhythm and poetry. I do not see Manuel Miranda or anyone changing them without wrecking it.
To be honest, I included that line about respecting Ashman’s legacy because I don’t really think it’s appropriate to speculate about. Ashman changed lyrics during his life (“Arabian Nights” comes to mind) and though I personally don’t see the point in the new lyric changes, Menken is the person who was there with him while writing the songs and is probably the person out there who most intimately knew Ashman’s work process. I also did enjoy the new Mob Song lyrics from 2017, for what it’s worth.
And I say all of this as a huge fan of Ashman, I mean, he’s pretty much the muse of this channel, his work has clearly had more of an impact on me than any artist. When thinking about his legacy, I never knew the guy, just my interpretation of him from his work. So, I just would rather defer to Alan Menken’s actions since his passing than wonder about what if. All of that being said, I did say in the video that Menken seemed hesitant in the interview - I wonder where those changes came from and agree that it might have been out of his hands. I prefer Howard’s original lyrics to anything else and would rather just see any changes made via his main collaborator as a progression of his work, different versions of these songs. If every decision and execution came from people who never worked with him, that would be a different story.
@@DreamsoundsVideo Ashman obviously edited lyrics while he was working on the film, but if you mean changing it from "Where they cut off your ear if they don't like your face" then I don't think he was alive when they changed that, was he?
But that lyric is downright racist. They had to change that. And in that case while I think the new lyric is not as good (again, in terms of *poetry* and syntax), it's fine.
I *really* dislike LeFou's verse from the 2017 Mob Song personally, for a number of reasons but I just think it sounds so clunky. Ashman is such an efficient lyricist. Everything is so clean and well executed.
But the new version from this year messed with that song too in the actual video release for some reason (even though the OST version is in tact and is identical to the 1992 original).
There's also the fact that they're changing probably a whole verse. Not just a line or two.
The original will obviously always exist, but it is concerning to me.
Sorry, you’re correct about Arabian Nights being changed after he passed, I have been working since 6am to get this video done and it’s almost midnight where I am, so just tired and an oversight (going to sleep after writing this). And I agree that that lyric had to be changed. As for his legacy and other changes, I agree that it is more concerning that there is potentially a whole verse being changed in both songs. I just don’t think me liking or disliking that decision will change it from happening (not saying that you do, that’s just how I view it personally) so I usually just try to view it as it is, another version of the song authorized by the person who seems to have been closest to his creative process. I guess we’ll just see when the lyrics come out how they fit, but here’s hoping!
@DreamsoundsVideo oh no judgement. Sorry if my tone seems pointed at all. I'm very passionate about Ashman. yeah, I like hearing new versions/performances but it's such a downer.
Hot take: if they do change anything I wouldn’t mind if they’d change the title of Part of Your World to Part of That World (bc nowhere in the song is she referencing another person. It’s before she even sees Eric, it’s all about how she wants to be a human on land & how the human world can’t possibly be as awful as her father has painted it out to be. you could argue the “you” is us the human audience but who knows 🤷🏻♀️ maybe they named it that way to set the song up as a love song for awards, though it didn’t win anything unfortunately) and then the reprise should be the one named Part of Your World. I feel like that spells out exactly what Ariel’s story has always been about. And this is big coming from me because that song has been center to everything good that has ever happened in my life, it’s incredibly important to me.
Howard’s lyrics have changed a few times before. We all remember Arabian Nights before and after. I think the spirit of The Little Mermaid will still be intact and people are taking changes out of proportion, like I don’t think a minor lyric change in Kiss The Girl is gonna make or break the film. in fact the Disney Cruise Line live stage show of The Little Mermaid has Eric say a quick line of “May I kiss you?” (or something to that effect) with Ariel nodding, which takes place somewhere in the middle of the song around the instrumental break. Poor Unfortunate Souls has had lyric changes too, the ABC live special had a whole different verse (not the same as the extra verse that Howard wrote that was later deleted, but entirely new material and I can’t find a source on who exactly penned those new lyrics for Queen Latifah). I don’t mind these changes bc they seem minor enough and these songs have gone through edits before without much of a fuss being had over it.
I too have put a lot of faith in this production, moreso than past live action adaptations, for retaining the spirit of the original while being its own unique thing. And I think it’ll be a movie Howard would enjoy.
I have already fallen in love with the brand new lore about merfolk in the books leading up to the film release, particularly the Guide to Merfolk. As a kid I’d go to the library and try to check out or put on hold every book they had about merpeople, it’s how I eventually memorized my library card number (I still know it to this day), so I’m so glad they went above and beyond on this aspect.
Honestly the last kids movie that got the villian right was Puss in Boots 2. Jack Horner is totally a retro-Disney queen villian. He's bad, he knows it, he revels in it. I understand the need to show complex villians BUT I feel like it gives the impression that there are always "2 sides to every story" and sometimes there just isn't.
Me, not knowing what lyrics they were changing: "Oh probably 'the black fish sings' in Under the Sea."
Me, finding out what lyrics were actually changed: "....what."
Others have addressed the lyrics of Poor Unfortunate Souls so I won't go into that again but like, the Kiss The Girl also makes me twitch because... she literally CAN'T say a word. I also feel iffy about the idea of consent being boiled down to words- like yes IDEALLY ask and get answered, but people leaning forward closing their eyes and pursing their lips is a PRETTY CLEAR signal, especially when you are on a romantic date rowing around.
And even flipping it to seeming like Eric is being pressured... well you covered it, and also like...if we are getting technical Eric can't actually understand the lyrics himself? It's the atmosphere! And to get less technical (because it's a fairy tale good lord)- the pressure IS there because Ariel's life is literally on the line, like you said, but he also shows him wanting to kiss early on and debating with himself about it.
It's also kinda a key part of the story that their actual first kiss comes later? So if we do want to give the most uncharitable reading of that scene, it shows that pressuring does not work?
Like look I am just So Tired of the changes that make no sense and feel like shallow flailing to appeal to the changing demographics rather than actual thoughtful tackling of the subjects. It makes no one happy. Like I actively resent the "update" to Lafou in beauty and the beast and it feels weirdly mocking to me as a member of the alphabet mafia? Please just give us decent rep. T_T
This is such a fascinating take, it's wonderful to see the relationship you have with these stories and their different iterations - I had never thought about it like that. Thanks for sharing!
For what you said about the live actions, thank you, finally someone gets it. I like the originals but I also like the remakes and I am exited for this one. I can kind of see the reasons for changing the lyrics, although you did put the points of them really well, like kiss the girl, for why they don't need to, but I also don't mind the changes it the lyrics. When I first heard there would be some lyrics rewritten I saw part of your world and thought it would be that one, the line I was thinking of that would be changed was "up where they walk, up where they run" to a lyric that would include disabilities. I am exited for the songs because, for the people complaining about Halle Bailey? She sounds amazing!(I know there are other reasons for people not liking her as Ariel)
Poor Unfortunate Souls is such an awesome song though. ESPECIALLY that "it's she who holds her tongue gets who gets the man," just because it's exactly what a manipulative witch would say.
And also it kinda makes me think that Ursula has had an experience with land dwelling men in the past which made her so knowledgeable about men in the first place.
It's very much the "Baby It's Cold Outside" argument. Lyrically, on it's own, it's not great. But contextually, it makes sense and there's nothing wrong with it.
I'm conflicted about it. On one hand, I rather wait till we get a chance to actually see what the changes are to see how it impacts the story and messages. On the other, I think the thought of doing this is fair for something a lot of people forget: disney has a huge impact in context and out. People love these songs and will sing and play them outside of the movie, listen for fun, and put them out of context too where they see a song reflects a part of their life. This is normally a very good thing, but by unfortunate chance, disney has learned what happens when people take just one song out of context for the worse. We can't forget about the broardway version of aladdin after all.
I don't blame them too much for changing up some small lyrics. Even if many understand the old one's context, disney knows their impact now and how their songs might and probably do get used in ways that go against the original meanings. Is it misguided to change lyrics for situations they can't control? Who knows. Until we know the changes, we just have to trust Alan Menken and the rest of the crew that the changes they do make still work for the story or even enhance it.
I live under a rock - can you please tell me what happened with Broadway Aladdin?
@@searchingfororion Sure thing. One of the songs in it is called Proud of Your Boy. While originally meant for the movie but cut, the broadway version brought it back. It was about Aladdin wanting to be someone his parents could be proud of.
Unfortunately, the song's name would later be used be the Proud Boys, a far-right hate group. I believe the story goes one of the guys a part of it was dragged into see a school play and judged a parent for being happy to see her boy singing that song, so they named the group that out of "irony". Again, I believe that's the how the story goes, please search it yourself if you want to make sure.
But regardless, that's where they got their name and I'm sure disney is cursing to the heavens about that and seeing first hand just how much their songs can be taken wildly out of context. With that haunting them, I don't blame disney for trying to make sure there's nothing in their songs now that can be blown up out of context.
@@MelodyMute Thanks for the clarification and detail. My brain isn't running well today.
Oh, I'm *very* aware of the Proud of Your Boy warping (he said "No way was this dude 'proud of his boy' and I look and sure enough - single mom" which is gross on so many [more] levels. Firstly, one hell of an assumption that just because only one parent was *visibly* in attendance to the recital doesn't mean the other is absent or intentionally so - not everyone has the luxury to take the night off with no one working or watching the house. Secondly, we all know that women raising children on their own are clearly at fault for not keeping their men happy and so let's pat people on the back for ditching their parental responsibilities - amirite? (**retches**)
What I didn't know was that the deleted song was reinserted into the Broadway version.
I'm *still* elated that (with a little help from George Takei) we took over the hashtag and the collection at proudboys.gay still catalogs a *true* "love wins" moment.
@@searchingfororion Yep. Sounds like how I remember the story going. Didn't know about the hashtag and website though. Thank you for sharing that!
@@MelodyMute oh yeah please enjoy that. I'm pretty sure that it's plural, but if the website doesn't work take the "s" off the end.
It was a glorious glorious moment because the group was seething. Anytime someone tried to search for them just tons and tons and tons of queer people being joyful, kissing, (including the Canadian armed forces!), just... ahhh beautiful.
They are building up Ursula for the oh so relatable tragic backstory on the spinoff "How my disowned niece's fiance ended up impaling me with a ship"(trademark).
Because she isn't really a sea witch, she was a sea fairy and king Triton is the oh so wicked brother who wanted to rule the world!!
...
I am gonna miss the old queercoded Ursula.... At least she knew how to be sassy and evil....
Though I'm not a fan of McCarthy, she did say she still pulled from drag for Ursula. So maybe she'll still be campy.
I feel like people are more & more forgetting where the line between realistic & believable are. Sometimes things that are *realistic* aren't *believable,* & things that are *believable* aren't exactly *realistic.* This is how stories are *supposed* to work. You can't actually train a dragon in real life, but How To Train Your Dragon is still *believable.* Yes maybe it's realistic to show that in medieval times women were assaulted a lot, but in a fantasy setting it's just not believable. People's views of fantasy (& also writing generally but that's another rant entirely) has become so warped that they can no longer see past the surface level &, as a result, their attempt to make things palatable from their (shallow, incorrect) view of things has completely destroyed any nuance.
I’ll never understand why these live action remakes exist other than The Money. But I suppose they are better than most Disney live action offerings like That Darn Cat and the Shaggy Dog movies. Maybe I’m just tired of sequels and remakes and I’m ready for more original stuff like Encanto.
When people complain about the "classic" Disney films being socially antiquated, I tend to get irritated. I want to say to them, "Well, what did you expect?" These are fairy tales that Disney didn't write, so Disney shouldn't be scapegoated. The stories promote medieval Christian/monarchist/patriarchal values, not 1930s-thru-'60s Middle American, middle-class values. So excu-u-u-u-use Disney for being faithful to the source material. The Brothers Grimm themselves strove to be authentic in writing down the old legends. They didn't worry that some of them were anti-Semitic, etc.
Ehh brothers Grimm weren’t that authentic. They still changed the whole story of Little Red Riding Hood
@@ma.2089 Perhaps. But it still irks me that many people seem to believe the early 20th century was no different socially and culturally from the pre-industrial era, and think of our grandparents and great-grandparents as unenlightened and backward, when in fact they saw themselves as civilized and even progressive. But then, every generation thinks it's superior to the one before.
I don’t believe Alan Menken took it upon himself to change certain lyrics. I believe he was TOLD to change the lyrics by the top Disney brass. If I wrote a song 35 years ago that got me awards and praise, why would I want to alter it now?
I would point out, the Andersen version of The little mermaid in fact is facinated by the human world, the love interest is an addition. I belive Disney somewhat amplified the love aspect way more, but the source has it's point clearly
And that’s the problem of taking a tragic story of unrequited love and making it into a FUN EIGHTIES ROM-COM! 😂
I mean, it worked so well with the fantasy rom-com “Splash”, which Disney released five years earlier, so why not do an animated version of the fairy tale “The Little Mermaid” where the mermaid gets the human guy and lives happily ever after: ruclips.net/video/5K5_sGzckvc/видео.html .
@@beethovensfidelio I mean, yes, absolutly, but the original version with the assasination atempt of the prince, the feeling of knives when The little mermaid walks, the kinda intentional suicide and the questionable angel allegory is far less marketable, isn't it 😅?
@@benceszilagyi8442 Two years prior to Disney’s “The Little Mermaid”, “Shelley Duvall’s Faerie Tale Theatre” aired an episode of “The Little Mermaid” on Showtime which was more faithful to the fairy tale in terms of the little mermaid being told that every step that she takes on land will feel like she’s treading on a thousand sharp knives; and the foamy, heartbroken little mermaid reincarnating into an air spirit: ruclips.net/video/iMuBPz4O5Oc/видео.html
@@benceszilagyi8442 ironically, if it weren’t for Walt Disney himself ditching “The Little Mermaid” in order to make World War II propaganda shorts instead, we would’ve gotten an animated version of “The Little Mermaid” where the mermaid turns into sea foam after the prince married someone else (which means the mermaid doesn’t get to reincarnate as an air spirit).
Yes, really!
@@beethovensfidelio Hm.... Interesting choice.... I mean, why so close to the origonal, yet so different ending....
I does seem to be that villains are not allowed to be just evil for the sake of being evil now. Maleficent being a prime example!
It's been a while since there we villian
1:16- but Sebastian just wanted to make Eric KISS ariel so she wouldn;t end up being Ursula's slave! Just a kiss, NOT forcing himself on her!! Sheesh!!
NO, they're changing Poor Unfortunate Souls?! That's one of my favorite songs!!! You CAN'T change ANY of that, the song is just that good!! What's next, changing 'Under The Sea' (DON'T YOU DARE, DISNEY!!!)
That is what makes a fairy tale a fairy tale
I think its yet another case of context and the little details people have forgotten mattering so very much. Instead of the actual story/film being critiqued but instead the idea of it.
beautiful cover at the end!!
One of the reasons I didn’t like the part where Ursula says “the men up there don’t like a lot of blabber” was bc the move doesn’t show her to be wrong. They never show Eric and Ariel really talk outside of him asking for her name which makes it seems as if he did like her because she was pretty, (granted he does also love her bc she saved his life but he doesn’t know that until much later). So instead of getting rid of the line, what hey could have done was include a scene where Eric and Ariel talk to each other and just more scenes of him wanting to know more about her and her the place she came from. Maybe even have Eric encourage Ariel to keep talking when she realizes she talking too much (could have her rely the information by writing or sign language which was another criticism that people have about the film). Meaning they could kill three birds with one stone by just showing Ariel and Eric talking more and sharing their love of exploration and saying “hey, men actually like talking to girls because that’s how they bind and know more about each other! Don’t listen to Ursula, she’s a liar!”
But no, instead they change on of the most iconic Disney Villian songs, bc that won’t go over badly at all 🙄
The Little Mermaid was always my favorite movie as a child and I never took it for a girl giving her voice up for a boy. I took it as a girl being unable to be herself where she was and desperately wanting to be somewhere where she could herself.
Growing up, I felt different from the other kids my age and suffered psychological abuse from my mother. Ariel resonated with me in terms of wishing I was in another “world”.
Interestingly enough, this video reminded me of another big debate in the US right now (for clearance before we continue; scandinavian here, I'm speaking as an outsider looking in). I'm talking about all the Banning of Books that's going on. Not just in school corriculums but from libraries as well.
The connection I saw when watching this is that, well, reading comprehension seems to be severly lacking in the US. Not saying it's that great in Europe as well. I know I could've benefitted from better reading lessons on how to find metaphors etc. from the public schools system instead of (mostly) being an autodidact on the subject (mostly because I did study screen writing for two years that helped me a lot, but some of it was still self-taught before that). But I digress.
Like the points made in the article this video quoted, people have a tendency to ignore context, take things to much as face value and, well, just go with a surface reading of any text. And that, well, that's not good. Not if you want to truly understand news stories or anything really. And if you don't understand, you'll end up acting out of ignorance.
And I'm afraid this'll only get worse in America especially considering all the book banning from parents who themselves have no idea how reading comprehension works.
No, your child won't become trans by reading "Melissa" by Alex Gino. But they will have a better understanding of the trans-experience. And if they happen to later come out as trans they'll have something to point to and to better articulate their own experiences and understandings of the subject.
In short, reading Melissa wouldn't make kids trans, but it will help already trans-kids understand themselves better, and cis-kids to understand their trans-sisters, trans-brothers and trans-classmates better.
Which, finally, reminded me of a wonderful comic strip from Phoebe & her Unicorn (by trans creator Dana Simpson) where Phoebe and her classmate Dakota are discussing a book they've both read:
Phoebe: So you identified with a character in a story, and now you're having an identity crisis?
Dakota: Not just ANY character. A GOBLIN! If goblins have, like, complicated inner lives, then EVERYBODY does. Do you know what that MEANS?
Phoebe: That you have to be nice to everyone?
Dakota: This is the worst day of my life.
IMO, the original lyrics of Kiss the Girl makes sense from Ariel's perspective because we all know Ariel wants him to kiss her. It would be totally not okay if the story was any different than 1. we know she's into him 2. she would do anything to be human.
That said, I don't like the crab enticing Eric to kiss Ariel without knowing the whole story of why she wants to be kissed. It's weird.
Re listening to the lyrics does sound a bit odd. What’s interesting is that the evil characters in all the new remakes never gets race swapped.From Captain Hook to Úrsula.
Whenever you upload a new video it gives me a different perspective of how things work and allows me to have a heightened appreciation for the industry.
I have mixed thoughts on it. Although I have to say, consent doesn't have to be spoken, or else those who can't speak wouldn't be able to have input on anything. It's hard for a few reasons, and the big one I think of is even when movies are rated PG, parents often use them as babysitting. That's been happening for at least the last 20 years, but I think now that some of us who grew up with it are starting to realize that media matters, and kids often do take everything literally. So then it becomes an issue of demographic, and trying to make one thing that fits every demographic, is what Disney has been trying and failing at recently. Do they cater to kids, Disney adults, those of us who grew up with the movies, or what group?
In the original version it was also about mermaids not having souls.
Who cares about a live action version and the changes they are making. Just watch the original cartoon version that will outlast as a classic than these sad attempts at raking in people's money.
I hope this movie bombs. I certainly won't be seeing it. Disney is dead across the board. Sad to see, but at least other companies are picking up the entertainment slack.
I personally don’t care either way about the lyric changes, if Disney and the writers think this is a better choice then go for it 👍
80% of communication is actually physical amongst humans. That makes consent difficult to talk about in some ways and honestly as an introvert whose language is way more physical I loved her story as a kid. Plus, part of Disney's charm and ability was to tell stories from many perspectives like Spirit.
Because Disney is woke. That’s why. Michael Knowles has a great comment that I completely agree with on why the lyrics did not need to be changed. Look it up libs.
I don’t think it was so much Disney wanting to change the lyrics it’s the public that wanted to change.
IIRC, In the remake, Ursula will erase Ariel's memory about her needing to kiss Eric, so that's why Ariel sort of hesitated when Eric tried to kiss her during the boat scene in one of the trailer
I think they're planning on changing Ursula's lyrics since some of those lines are reminders to what some of the critiques were of the original film which is "giving up her voice for a man". It'll be interesting to see if they'll change those lines, but not anything else. I mean, if they're changing that they might as well change, "This one longing to be thinner, that one wants to get the girl," for example. I mean if they wanted to really be as "woke" as people claim they are they'd change the entire song to be honest. It'll be interesting to see how much these songs change and how.
To be honest, I think the issue now, is that this song seemed acceptable at the time (meaning some people probably agreed, or believed in some of the songs lyrics actually) and now in retrospect Disney thinks it's "cringe" (which often happens) so now Alan has to rewrite. It is part of the manipulation tactic there's no denying that, but let's be real, I'm sure a lot of the men behind the scenes in the 90's also agreed to some of those lyrics. However, I never felt they needed to change them, because it makes sense for her to talk that way.