The Little Mermaid - Poor Unfortunate Film
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 июн 2024
- The Little Mermaid remake is a masterclass in sucking the life out of a story. The songs are there, the magic simply isn't.
Thanks to @ozkii95 for his help with the editing!
The @Alteori video: • Disney Turns REMAKE So...
The @VexElectronica video: • The Little Mermaid Eli...
Monday night LIVE: The Best Show in the Universe (Probably): • The Best Show In The U...
Support the channel!
Patreon: / thelittleplatoon
Subscribestar: www.subscribestar.com/the-lit...
Channel memberships are open!
More from The Little Platoon
@LostChord - My second channel.
@ozkii95 - Affiliated channel.
... And Ozkii's Substack: platoonpost.substack.com/
VTuber design and rigging by Fritz:
vecchiofryt...
Twitter!
The Little Platoon: / platoonpod
Ozkii: / ozkii95
Fritz: / vecchiofritz
Friends of the channel!
@MrBrownAlliance
@TheMovieCynic
@GEEKWHATInc
Timestamps
Intro - Tales for Boys & Tales for Girls: 00:00 - 08:38
Weird Setups, Weird Fishes: 08:39 - 14:20
Wasted Symbols: 14:21 - 16:33
Ariel's Sisters: 16:34 - 20:00
Animation vs Pseudo-Live Action: 20:01 - 22:24
Problems With Scuttle: 22:25 - 26:20
Ursula & Triton: 26:20 - 28:25
Part of Your World & Musical Egoism: 28:26 - 33:00
Ariel, Halle Baile & The Race Question 33:01 - 37:12
Literature vs Film Part One: 37:13 - 40:24
Under The Sea: 40:25 - 43:34
Wild Uncharted Waters: 43:35 - 47:12
Lazy Environmentalism: 47:13 - 49:00
Melissa McCarthy's Ursula: 49:01 - 54:30
I Am Altering the Deal: 54:31 - 01:02:11
Prince Eric the Slaver: 01:02:12 - 01:04:40
A Slowly Ticking Clock: 01:04:41 - 01:08:38
Kiss The Girl = Sexual Harassment: 01:08:39 - 01:10:34
The Scuttlebutt Travesty: 01:10:35 - 01:14:41
Drunken Punch-Up At A Wedding: 01:14:42 - 01:17:09
Pointless Switch-Ups: 01:17:10
Outro: Kids Matter: 01:17:11 - 01:30:50 
Кино
![Velma - This Isn't Funny [Re-Up]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/aIHrMdNRObo/mqdefault.jpg)
Ariel joining in during “Under the Sea” is a particularly compelling piece of evidence that the filmmakers genuinely made no effort to understand the basic plot of the original.
Or they wanted their Strong Female Heroine to be so empty-headed that she didn’t realize she was arguing against herself…
FR I was so confused like literally two minutes ago she was singing about how she didn't want to be here 😭
this is precisely what I was saying to my daughter when we were in the movie theater!
Why is Ariel singing about how great it is to live under the sea when she doesn’t want to live under the sea. And why were the fish not singing about how great it is under the sea?
In the original they’re joining in singing about how they love life under the sea.
And Sebastian is talking about how this section of fish do this and this section of fish do that but they couldn’t do that for the live adaption?! They couldn’t get a chorus of singers to be fish?
Very confusing musical number.
I interpreted it as her 'agreeing' and seeing the beauty in living under the sea in order for them to let their guards down and make it seem like their plan was working, thus her escape was easier and even a little humorous. Of course, this might not be the case and they really just made Ariel a hypocrite.
@@hualiantheworld Ok, I can acknowledge that as a possibility. I don’t have very much faith that the writers were that subtle, but it could be
I love C.S. Lewis's quote against the dismissal of "it's just a kids movie"...
“A children's story that can only be enjoyed by children, is not a good children's story in the slightest.”
I appreciate you Jacob
exactly this, why any reviewer said that to any kids films are idiots, why crap like minions was terrible film
@@kyotheman69
*What's terrible about The Minions/Despicable Me!?*
*I find your comment completely Banana{s}!* 🍌
*{Starts talking gibberish in Minion Dialect/Language..}*
It's like food. Will it help the child grow into a healthy adult? If it infantilizes the child it is poison stunting their growth, and leaving them unprepared. If you think this means no dessert you are one of the poorly feed children alluded to.
It's not restricted to children. The process of maturation can take a lifetime.
I was thinking about that the other day. How many children grow up and still like shows like Peppa pig or Sesame street? I think not a lot of people. But a lot still love Disney classics and other media they grew up with that had good story's. Even pretty bad visuals cant ruin a good story.
I always felt that the people who claimed that "Ariel traided her voice for a man" haven't watched the movie in a really long time, like, there's an entire song about how she loves things from the surface and how much she wanted to be in it, even as a kid I could tell that Eric was just the spark that ignited her actions, not the cause.
Also, I think it's kind of baffling that people tend to ignore how young and naive she is. Ariel's 16, according to the 1989 movie, which is not an age of great maturity and reasoning, and what is worse of all, Ursula intentionally tries to bargain with her right after her father destroyed her stuff, taking advantage of her emotional susceptibility, and also strained Flounder and Sebastian with the eels, the two characters that could convince her not to strike the deal.
THIS
Yeah, she really wanted to see the surface, and it didn't help that she had just had a fight with her father. He says something along the lines of "So long as you live in my ocean, you will follow my rule!" Which to US parallels "My house, my rules," but you have to remember they are mermaids and Triton is the king. To HER it basically means, "You will obey me for as long as you live, you're only escape is to run to the surface."
Of course that is NOT what he means, he was angry at the time and heavily regretted it. But Ariel met Usala right after that and the witch pretty much railroaded her into signing the contract. "I'm a very busy woman and I will not wait all day." Ariel makes a spur of the moment decision for her dream right after an extremely emotional moment with her dad. Poor thing. But the good part of it was getting to finally see the surface and meet an amazing guy.
It's more that that. She was willing to trade away not just her voice (that is explicit) but also her EVER SEEING HER SISTERS OR FATHER AGAIN, and HER ABILITY to BREATHE UNDERWATER, by actually "becoming human," at least in 1989. She actually mentions this while musing over Ursula's deal. Therefore being with the boy was definitely the main idea since her home would be closed off and a new place to sleep would be necessary.
Naive beyond all reason! And it's not ignored by people. She's a silly girl is the point. Taken in easily by a bad deal. Breathtakingly selfish. She also has plenty of stuff from the surface, and can even go to the shore.
No, it's the boy she wants.
This is why Elsa's "you can't marry a boy you just met," from Frozen is so profound. It's not what Disney has trained us to expect. Frozen's "act of true love" was not a "true love's kiss" from some guy, but her sister Anna's sacrifice.
Like the video said, in Andersen's tale she's not even 16 but 15 in the novel as that is when they are allowed to explore closer to the human world and considering the movie is resting on their bones... Yeah, not the most well-informed adults decisions would be taken.
@@gmoose7155 ok, this sounds a little bit mean, but I get your point. Personally, I don't think the movie is perfect, but I do find that people criticize it unfairly. I don't think Ariel getting married in the end actually fulfills her character in a meaningful way, besides her being awfully young (it was another time, but the audience is modern). I personally believe that if the movie ended with Ariel and Eric parting in an adventure to see the world without getting married would be a little better, and maybe people wouldn't think much that she traded her entire life for a man, which, to me, she didn't.
Frozen does play with this trope of "marrying someone I just met", but stills falls for it anyways, Anna stays with Kristoff by the end of the movie, a guy she only knew for a few days, even if they don't marry immediately
Scuttlebutt needs to be a song that plays in criminal investigations to torture information out of people. Play it on loop and you'll get what you need in no time.
Put that abomination on a loop during interrogations instead of Demon Hunter and see how fast somebody breaks.
They have laws against that.
Underrated comment. That's hilarious
Lolol😂
Enhanced interrogation technique.
"Children are too important to be left to shitty media" should be a battle cry to up and coming artists, and is an extremely impactful statement. Thank you, sir.
I wholeheartedly agree. That being said, 12 year old girls are children and it doesn’t help them to have RUclipsrs always ridiculing their taste for being beyond comprehension. Platoon, I’d appreciate if you stuck critiquing the writing and not the prepubescent audience who has nothing to do with the creation of films we don’t like.
@@rosamy2017 Pretty sure he's not criticizing the children at all...
I think that too. Kids aren’t dumb. They, too, have standards, like we do, when it comes to entertainment.
That was damned good of him to state. Strange, for me - I'm not yet a father, but I feel that those words are somehow _correct_ .
@@rosamy2017 children are ignorant and easily manipulated that's not a radical concept
I'm so happy you pointed out that by having Ariel forget about wanting to kiss Eric it took away her charm and determination and ingenuity and *agency* as a female character.
Exactly! She was a young woman who knew what she wanted and was going for it. But because what she wanted was a guy along with life on land, well, we can't have **that**, can we ? 🙄
And finding your True Love is just not something anyone wants. What about her career? 🙄
I guess she could be the HelmsWoman of a great big trading ship with her amazingly fast ability to learn how to do something that takes most people years.
Why didn't they take the plot in that direction? None of us want families and a life partner to share life's troubles with.
@@BrcRosa she kinda did want her “career” in the original. But since Disney be Disney, they can’t understand their own films, esp cuz they’ve seen how their audiences fail to properly understand their films. So instead of setting the record straight, they strip their own films, and discredit themselves further.
TLM was always a fav despite how common it was for ppl to completely miss the point.
@@ma.2089I really wish Disney would just stop. They need to hire people passionate about the projects because they love telling good stories not because they have a message they want pushed.
It irritates me so much to hear people gripe about all the "problems" in the original.
If they had any emotional depth or were paying attention they would be able to see that these problems are mostly made up.
@@ma.2089 I wouldn't say she wanted her "career", so much as it is the standard for disney characters. Aladdin, Belle in the Beauty and The Beast, Hercules, they are just like Ariel, in that they all start the movie with their version of the "I am meant for greater things" song.
The most interesting thing about the "true love's kiss" condition in the original was that...we never saw it work. Ursula actively sabotaged all attempts until it was too late. But that raises an interesting point:
Ursula made that condition because she didn't believe in true love. She was a cynical and self-centered person who preferred basic satisfactions (power, riches, lust) to some metaphysical concepts like loyalty, friendship, or true love. So, she was confident that Ariel, a mute girl thrown to a world that is alien to her, would fail spectacularly -- and even if the prince became attracted to her enough to kiss her, it won't be love. But then the prince turns out to be a kind, noble man who provides Ariel with safety and supports her as she explore the human world, after the kiss almost happens -- Ursula panics because she is not sure what she is dealing with exactly. She doesn't understand kindness or sincerity, and she doesn't understand what is happening between Ariel and Eric, which angers her. She lured Ariel into an impossible deal, but even the possibility of Ariel fulfilling the condition rattles Ursula enough to intervene and brainwash Eric into marrying her "Vanessa" persona.
So, we never get a confirmation if the true love is magic that works. It was merely a concept weaponized by Ursula and then turned against her.
I mean, why would she panic unless it WOULD work?
@@BWMagus this is kind of "a deal is a deal" trope. Once it's made, Ursula can't change or edit the conditions, so it's out of her control. Which is why she felt threatened by the probability of true love happening between Ariel and Eric. It used to be an abstract concept for her, another thing to dangle in front of her victims ("this one wants to get a girl"), so she didn't believe it ever would happen. While turning merfolk into sentient seaweeds wasn't exactly her main goal, but I think she took a lot of pride in intentionally making them agree to conditions they could never, ever fulfill.
But then she started seeing something she couldn't put her finger on -- like a jaded, cynical person wouldn't understand what makes a more idealistic and naive person so happy about the most minor things. She saw that something was happening despite all limits she imposed on Ariel. If whatever sparked between them was strong enough to be true love, it would be the first time someone escaped her clutches -- and she couldn't entertain even the idea of that.
Well, it's my personal take on the original cartoon, but I do believe that classic Ursula did great at not just being a memorable and entertaining villain, but also showcasing the pretty much real scenario of corrupt cynicism preying on hopeful innocence.
I didn’t understand why in this film the mermaid could break the necklace and get her voice back. And killed the sea witch who was her aunt. How did her father just magically came back to life. She made a deal and didn’t want to honour it. This seemed too dark and tragic to be in a Disney fairytale.
Exactly what I'm saying. But it seems like the creators took so much from the 1989 original, but never considered what they were adapting. They borrowed so much from from the original, but the changes they made actually stripped the film's story and thematic beats of their power.
Therefore, by altering the deal Ursula makes with Ariel and adding the amnesia for Ariel to forget to kiss Eric, they basically made Ursula kind of dumb, as I don't understand why she wouldn't just give her this again and again if she ever saw Ariel and Eric getting close. And if someone's saying that "it only works a few times", then basically you're kind of admitting that this was lazy writing. Since the movie does a horrible job at establishing to what extent does Ursula's magic reach, unlike in the original.
@@osmanyousif7849 The original gave a lot of hints that Ursula's magic was more or less rule-based. She could cast spells, but she could not change or transform another being without their consent. Only when she got Triton's trident and crown, was she able to bypass those limits and do whatever she wanted.
In the remake, why did Ursula have to worry about the deal if she already had power over Ariel? If she could edit her memories and give her magic amnesia, why not just skip the part with the prince and go straight to blackmailing Triton?
Eric was a much better character than many have given him credit for. His love of the sea is shown before we even see Ariel. Later, the whole reason he has to be rescued, is because he left the safety of the launch, to save Max from the burning ship. Although Ariel admired Eric when sneaking a look at him on board the ship, her love grows for him when she rescues him from the burning ship, and brings him to the shore. This is sometimes known as the Florence Nightingale effect. I genuinely liked Eric in the film, and his destroying Ursula at the climax, saving not just Ariel, but also Triton, is what shows Triton that he is worthy of being Ariel's husband.
Also, he's not full of himself. Note when he receives a statues of himself as a birthday gift, he reacts awkwardly, implying that it wasn't what he wanted and that he prefers that simple thing in life.
@@osmanyousif7849 That bit about him is especially interesting when you consider how it directly contrasts with the characterization of King Triton. Almost the first scene in the movie is a big fancy concert in Tritons honor, with him smiling and nodding smugly at descriptions of how great he is. The whole reason Ariel is in trouble and Sebastian freaks out at her is because she was supposed to be there to sing her bit so as to appease the king's ego.
But then complete wokes are like "Oh but girls don't need man boohoo"
Seriously,they really want us to go extinct
Id say that the changes in the film say far more about how white people are seen at Disney then how men are seen at Disney.
My favorite part was when Wendy shouted “Wakanda FOREVER” and shit all over Eric’s bed sheets.
The idea of Triton setting out to impregnate mermaids of certain racial or ethnic groups so he could have the full set of diverse merdaughters is pretty damn funny.
Silence, you! Don't you know only movies about evil upper-class white cis-men can have problematic racial implications? Away with you to the rainbow-mines, until you repent for your blasphemous lack of double-thinking!
I assumed Triton's wife was running around on him, and Triton himself was just hilariously unaware of how genetics work.
@@khaight95136 That would work too. I can absolutely see Disney turning a strong masculine god like Triton into a complete cuck.
(The sad thing is I don't know if I'm _really_ joking when I say that.)
So woke. So brave.
@@khaight95136 So Triton is now Dale Gribble from King of the Hill?
When Melissa McCarthy is the best part of your movie, you did some things wrong.
Melissa McKraken
@@vespenegas261 They really shouldn't have released her.
-The Critical Drinker
You must of had a critical drink there son.
Morgan Freeman narrated: It was then, in that moment where Melissa McCarthy exceeded expectations, that he knew he’d fucked up
I was 9 years old when I saw the OG Little Mermaid. I knew what Ursula was up to in "Poor Unfortunate Souls" and I can't imagine anyone NOT understanding Ursula was tricking Ariel. I had high hopes for this movie and I was so excited...What a waste.
Ariel singing along with "Under the Sea" makes absolutely no sense and it also makes me irrationally angry.
Having high hopes for a Disney LA remake is a fool’s wish. No offense.
@@lalehiandeity1649 Well I didn't. I knew it would suck going in but I didn't know all of the ways it would suck.. I'm not sure where or how you reached your conclusion but you made a pretty big assumption.
@@shadowpuppet0312 Apparently you forgot what you wrote in your comment.
I get where your coming from. Similar reactions from my friends.
I was just baffled at their decision making In this weird adaptation.
wow, what a jerky comment@@lalehiandeity1649
59:52 There's a point missing here. In the animated film, the contract Ariel signs is considered "legally binding" which prevents Triton from zapping it into dust and forcing him to give himself up. If Ursula rigged the deal then the contract thing doesn't work. Triton could then just destroy her.
Like, it's a dumb little detail but it does so much more, representing Tritons connection with rules and order and shows Ursula to be more smart and bold than this newer counterpart to do the whole thing essentially on the level. Like they thought it was a dumb detail they could change, but it kills so much.
Exactly - Ursula's plan was to usurp Triton because she knows how much he loves Ariel. Ariel, when she realizes that the contract was up and she came to collect, she' properly panicking to her father.
Triton: "Let her go."
Ursula: "Not a chance. We. Had. A. Deal."
Ariel: "Daddy, I didn't know. I am sorry, I-"
Triton tries to blow up the contract.
The fact that Ariel "forgets" the contract in this revisionist live action is very convenient when the Little Mermaid is about a *father's love for their daughter* No strong male role models? With Father's Day around the corner, I rather have more future father's learning how hard it is for a father like Triton in the original than be subjected to some misandry from a girl who thinks they need no man.
I thought she didn’t sign a contract in this one. Didn’t she just give a scale or blood? Seriously did I miss it? Because I thought not having the contract was lame. I do agree that making Ariel forget was really dumb.
I just wanna say that in all the videos I've watched discussing these films, no one has pointed out that Eric's good bean of a dog Max was the ONLY other side character that knew that Ariel was the girl Eric was looking for by her scent alone. Max immediately LOVED Ariel and was ecstatic whenever he saw her! He found her on the boat at the party, when she saved Eric he smelled her and went swimming after her, when she was turned human he smelled Ariel AGAIN and led Eric to her because he found what Eric was searching for. Also at the wedding scene Max literally growled at Vanessa(Ursula) because he knew she was evil. I always loved Max's scenes when I was younger because I like dogs and them adding a personality to Max was nice as well.
Max is best boi confirmed
Didn’t Ariel save Max this time in the new remake rather than Eric?
@@holdencross5904 yeah she did, I was just pointing out that Max had way more personality in the animated version because you can do way more in the field of animation and that he was a very good bean ☺
Voiced by the one and only Frank Welker; the footstool in Beauty & the Beast, Abu in Aladdin, Sabor the leopard in Tarzan, etc.
@@TheCapedWanderer in other words: a legend 😂
"Children are too important to be left to shitty media."
This line hit me. How many of us remember being shaped or irreversibly impacted in some way by a compelling story?
One of the most gratifying experiences of parenthood is getting to watch the beloved, timeless stories from your youth be discovered for the first time again through the eyes of your children.
Yup! It always baffles me when people pop up (as they will here) saying “it’s just a kid’s film.” As though the most influential, informative, entertaining and enriching stories *aren’t* those you read as a kid.
If you don’t bring kids up on good stories, they’ll never make good stories. Kids’ media should be held to the highest standard, not the lowest.
It's probably not what people think of when this topic is discussed, but I was raised on Bible stories, and that definitely shaped me as a person. Say what you will about them, they have more value than a lot of kids' material these days
@@cyrus2395 For one, they have morals to teach other than, 'don't bully,' or 'it's nice to share.'
@@OneDapperFrog Yeah, religion aside there are some pretty universally good things to teach your kids, and stories are one of the best ways to do that. I mean, how have humans communicated thoughts and ideas for our entire existence but through stories? It's one of the most fundamental parts of human culture, regardless of your identity or background. So why devalue it for our most impressionable humans, who are still trying to learn what it means to be a person, and how they should feel about themselves and others? What better way is there to help them develop than through stories?
How many of us are fucking DEVASTATED after watching some if not ALL of those same heroes be “deconstructed”… this is wholesale betrayal of Art and beauty…
Your spoken word rendition of "Scuttlebutt" is going to be a clip for the ages. At least it ought to be. Every word perfectly dripping with humiliation and sarcasm, my god that was funny. Almost makes it worth having heard it to begin with.
I think it should go down as a work of art that the Last Platoon where he had to say something clearly beneath him. Peter O'Toole reciting Wannabe, Morgan Freeman reciting Thong Song and now The Last Platoon and whatever he just said.
It’s at 1:12:40 for those who just wanna hear Shakespeare roll in his grave.
Also side note: Little Platoon has such a wonderful reading voice, you need to do audiobooks or something.
This is why I love annoyed British dudes talking about stuff.
I was embarrassed for him. Having to read that is a crime against humanity.
The sad irony is, by having Ariel save Prince Eric both at the beginning and end of the Remake, they have essentially made Eric a plot device, and one that technically was unnecessary. In the original, Ariel saving Eric is what starts their relationship, and specifically changes Ariel's relationships with humans from mere curiosity from their objects, to be "Part of THAT world" to a passionate longing (specifically to be with Eric), to be "part of YOUR world". The relationship comes full circle when Eric risks his life to save not just Ariel, but all of the merfolk, which proves to King Triton that Eric is not the "barbaric fish-eater" that he was convinced humans all were, which is why Triton has no qualms giving his daughter to such a man.
In the Remake, however, since Ariel saves not just Eric (twice), but also all the Merfolk, Triton has no reason to think any differently of Eric, since it was his daughter's obsession with him that got them in trouble in the first place, thus further souring the (apparently important/unimportant) human/merfolk relations. Heck, cut out Eric entirely, and just have Ariel make a deal to be human to explore the land, have Ursula show up, have Ariel ram Ursula, and bam, nothing changes. Because heaven forbid that a girl should need rescuing in 2023, even if it is to make the story and the romance better. I keep getting the feeling that these writers want handsome yet inoffensive men, when in reality most women want confident, dynamic men, and you can see why the movie is struggling to break even. Among a myriad of other reasons, as TLP has thoroughly outlined.
Funny thing is, that the writes haven’t actually met a men that looks like they want and act how they want. Most men written by woman have the same issue, they want an innocensive handsome man that agrees with everything she says or does. Men that look like that in real life are the complete opposite, they aren’t inofensive, undecided, clueless and above all, weak. The writters and Disney tend to think that masculine behaviour, like fighting for the one you love and not crying every moment of it, is the opposite of care
They don't seem to realize that if you are worried that your audience will listen to the VILLAIN saying that girls should be quiet and take that to heart then you really don't have a lot of confidence in your protagonist, your story, or your audience 🤦
Reminds me of the period of the "Harry Potter is satanic" hullabaloo--and I got into an argument with someone who used as their proof positive that in the book there is the quote "There is no good or evil. There is only power and those too weak to seek it"--to which I retorted "that's the line the villain says. that's kind of the opposite of the point." Apparently some people just go cherry-picking for quotes without paying attention to who articulates them. *sigh*
That’s only a legitimate concern if your protagonist has less character than the antagonist. Certainly not a problem with the original, but the remake…ugh
@melissajill6174 😂 "Wizard Hitler said that. We don't root for Wizard Hitler"
Say it louder for the people in the back
I really disagree with Platoon on his whole "Eric had no character" I think he had some of the most defined character of the early Disney Prince's. Especially when you consider in some cases like snow white there was genuinely no character shown for the male love interest.
Eric was the most adventurous, humble and compassionate Prince's in the early years of Disney.
He was an experienced sailor who dressed in modest clothes among his subjects and was obsessed with the ocean and its Mysteries the same way Ariel was obsessed with the land.
Eric also showed how down to earth and humble he was when upon finding a woman washed up on the beach (presumably from a ship wreck) he takes the coat off his own back and gives it to her before taking her back to his home and taking full responsibility over her, making sure to stay with her and keep her safe and entertained after she likely had a rough time.
Her naivete also can be seen rubbing off on him and making him appreciate the land more just by her own contagious excitment. You can actually see why both of these people started falling for each other so hard and so fast. Both are dreamers with good hearts.
Again though, This man is the future king. He could have just pawned her off on his servants and ignored her. Or he could have insisted on wearing an admirals rank on every ship he set foot on but no, he wanted to dress and interact with his fellow sailors as equals.
Even the final act of the film when he rushes in to save ariel and her kingdom (which again, not his own; no one would expect the future king to risk his own life for someone else's kingdom) in an act of heroic self sacrifice. Which not only saves the woman hes grown to love but unites their kingdoms.
By changing both Eric and Ariel they actually undermined how great they were as partners/foils. Neither of these new ones look like good leaders, they look selfish and bland.
Yes. People tend to group Eric with the previous, generic, Disney princes, when in reality he was the first to have his own personality. Not saying he was a super complex character, but he had a genuine kindness about him, he was a romantic, he was brave and he had a tiny character arc in which he had to learn to accept reality over idealised fantasy. He was more than a pretty face, and he was probably the first Disney prince that had genuine chemistry with his love interest.
Animated Eric was so good. It’s a shame they had to emasculate his live action counterpart for the woke generation.
Plus, animated Eric had a good look to him. I know the OG movie was set in the Mediterranean, and he looks so much better than the guy for the live role.
"being a royal but actually a good person" is the BARE minimum for a Disney prince, it's not having a character
Literally one of the first things you see about him is that he's not really into the statue gift he got. I think it's because it portrays him in a way he doesn't see himself as.
Eric is a genuine chad 💪 💗
I don't recall a single scene where Hailey (Ariel) pulled an emotionally powerful facial expression or that being said, much emotion at all.
She’s a terrible actor
what's wild is she was considered the best choice when Disney got flack for casting her as Ariel. She was the best of all the people who tried out. Yes she can sing but is that all they were looking for? Let's be real she was a diversity hire.
She's an expressionless Ariel, just like Sebastian and Flounder
@bendietrees
Let us assume she is not a diversity hire and was, as Disney says, the best choice, that would mean that the talent in Hollywood is so lacking the best they found was someone with a strong voice and the acting chops of a brick. That’s so sad.
We all know she was a token cast member, Disney gaslighting people is just more signs of abusive behavior towards the customers.
@@bendietrees Exactly. And yet, those of us who see that are called bigots. SJWs see only what's on the surface, not the underlying layers of what true art requires. The only thing they care about is representation itself, not whether it would fit into a story. But the thing is, representation was always there, just that the story was the focus. SJWs want boring, safe, sheltered art...which isn't art at all. Like, "oooh, this character is LGBT! YAY!!" Whereas the rest of us say, "And?? What else?" They have no answer.
The biggest issue i find with changing an already established characters race, regardless of what you change it to, is that it leads to these circular arguments, and instead of appreciating and enjoying the character, we are now making compairisons between the old and new versions
This is also an issue with gender swapping or making a character gay when they were very clearly portrayed as straight and making someone straight when they were very clearly gay
I'd rather we make new original characters of representation
Disney has no idea what they’re doing and the only people writing for them are ideologues smelling like cat piss. Turning Red was an original and it is just… disgusting to say the least.
Honestly the thing I like about the original is that she does make mistakes through her own agency. The whole concept of agency means you’re going to trip up. You’re going to stumble and fall a bit, but you will also be able to make choices to improve yourself and fix your mistake
I mean her accepting Ursula’s deal was her biggest mistake…without Eric killing Ursula , her father would’ve been permanently “destroyed” and the sea would’ve been under Ursula control. Though I never remember Ariel owning up and growing from that bad choice. Ursula definitely took advantage of her during her lowest point. At the end of the day…still happy ending
I am so sick of people saying that Eric was a blank piece of wood in the original and that the romance was based on physical attraction. TLM is in fact a pretty emotionally complex movie. And I dare even say that Ariel and Eric are the healthiest Disney couple ever. They're even the only ones that had a child together (a child that I wish had a better movie, but still).
Prince Eric is first introduced by the movie narrative as adventurous young man who despite his royal heritage is not above the "dirty work": the audience is initially exposed to him helping other sailors on the ship as well as showing consideration and concern towards Grimsby in addition to being a good listener and quite an experienced storyteller informed about the subject he takes it upon himself to talk about hence the sailors discussing Triton and the sea with Eric while Grimsby sceptically brushes their theories off. Thoroughness, open mind and a down to earth attitude are established among Eric's primary characteristics from the get go and not for the sake of forcibly and obnoxiously presenting him as a multidimensional morally/intellectually superior protagonist-in fact, he can hardly even be deemed as one seeing as the movie essentially revolves around Ariel and her struggles with inability to obtain independence and fulfill herself outside of a place she feels like she belongs whereas every other character, no matter how significant, plays a part of a supporting cast-but in order to showcase his interests thus, in so much as the first few minutes of the movie we already learn up on not only the hobbies Eric is intensely invested in but the extent of his love for the sea, conflicted relationship with his guardian figure Grimsby) and are provided with a raw sketch of his mindset and the lens through which he observes the world. All of it could have easily been left out seeing as Eric's individual emotional investments are not particularly related to Ariel's story, but those aspects are outlined regardless because Eric isn't merely a love interest of a fiery red head: he has a personality, a character of his own.
Next time Eric comes off as "the guy with a flute", it being the immediate impression he gives off once Ariel first sees him, confronted with not so much his mesmerizing attractiveness as the way his eyes lit up when he produced music for his own pleasure (poignantly, the same exact way Ariel preferred to go about her musical skills: away from the crowds or pretentious grand celebrations, using a melody for self expression. It's hardly a coincidence that Melody ended up being a name of her and Eric's daughter) or when he played with his dog or when he was clearly not impressed with the the statue of himself. Speaking of which, that is a good character moment because it shows that Eric is burdened by expectations and is seen as a powerful future king when in reality, he is a shy introvert. This allows Ariel to relate to him.
Eric, however, was thankful for the attention and love coming from Grimsby regardless of how inexplicably insufficient and misinterpreted the latter's perception of Eric generally was, which is rather unfortunate given that Grimsby played some sort of a father figure role to him while being entirely unable to get the grasp of how the young man's mind functioned. Which brings us to another point: according to all the evidence Eric's parents are most likely dead, considering they didn't show up on either of his weddings-the fake one with Vanessa and the real one with Ariel-nor did they attend Melody's christening.
Admittedly, being left in charge of no one other than Grimsby who hardly understood what Eric essentially was about, and having to prepare himself to be a future effective ruler of Tirulia.
Eric is the epitome of a person who built one self up independently, firmly standing his ground confronting the standards imposed on him that he was unwilling to conform to-such as being forced into getting married before determining whether there was a right woman ("the one" as Eric referred to a person he hadn't yet been lucky enough to meet and want to spend the rest of his life with, not settling for any less) among his suitors for the sake of fitting into a certain ideal of a proper prince. His attitude of a dreamer was a part of his established characterization but he was also exceptionally analytical about his concepts of romance.
Having survived a horrific incident Eric sincerely believed he had found true love and his ideology of a dreamer took a strong grab at his outlooks on relationship seeing as he was set out to find a girl with the gorgeous voice at any cost due to said voice being quite literally the only connection to his rescuer. As some people mistakenly imply, Eric did not fall in love with a voice, in fact, at that point his feelings were all over the place and not exactly what stands for actual love, a mature fully formed feeling. Being drawn to the idea of a girl who saved him Eric-genuinely and irreversibly-projects his certitude regarding her being "the one" onto the only representation of her he had been left with so far-her voice.
And subsequently his idealistic but slightly immature romantic notions backfire with a cunning irony once he meets a girl who has everything a man can dream of but lacks what he seeks out the most. A beautiful stranger doesn't talk therefore cannot be "the one" nor would she ever-as he firmly believes-pass for "the one" hence why Ariel's beauty is essentially irrelevant to Eric. His one and only goal concerning relationship at that point revolves around finding that person he believes to be one in the whole world who is right for him. Not only doesn't he fall for Ariel's looks but is entirely indifferent to said looks due to thinking that woman is not the one he needs (frankly, the assumption about Eric being easily smitten with visual appeal is extensively incorrect considering the fact that, due to his royal status, chances quite a few attractive female suitors were eager to have his hand only to be rejected because Eric at one point explicitly stated he wasn't interested in superficial relationship and was waiting for the right person). Which doesn't mean Eric is immune to primordial instincts and cannot appreciate physical attractiveness - he does, in fact, acknowledge Ariel's captivating outer exterior once she dresses up for a dinner but it isn't until she makes him laugh for the first time in few days by being her overly excited, imaginative and adorably dorky self that he starts taking a more insightful look into her and is willing to take her on a Kingdom tour - while still not being ready to open up to her or let the endearing mysterious girl into his life due to being committed to his unrealistic ideal.
Next day Eric spends actual time with Ariel who proceeds to behave excessive and enthusiastic, never failing to amaze him. She is more invested in exploring various layers of the city life rather than paying a consistent attention to him (but... but Ariel totally "left her family behind to be with a man" and had no other agenda, right? Right?!), however, Eric is perfectly content with dedicating time and effort into making her feel happy and content, not being put off by her overflowing craziness in the slightest, but getting more and more intrigued by the unusual, eccentric nature of his accomplice - to the point of becoming largely conflicted hence the boat scene where Eric wants to get to know Ariel while still being unsure of his own feelings and pulling away when she tries to initiate a kiss-because yes, he still takes relationship incredibly seriously and is unwilling to allow himself so much as an innocent romantic interaction without being fully confident that this person is truly the one for him. He challenges himself and his initially established concepts of idealistic romance, gradually deviating from a strong commitment to an image of a girl with a sing song-ish voice he had created in his mind in favor of opening the door into the possibility of forming a bond with a real person regardless of this blooming relationship being enormously confusing, awkward and opposing to everything he had led himself to believe in before. He was GROWING out of exaggerations and teenage angst and exposing himself to a new perspective of building a mature relationship. The segment with him throwing a flute into the ocean is the ultimate representation of his character development.
Eric's love for Ariel was powerful in both dimensions: back when he was an avid dreamer with a controversial concept of romance who invested considerable amounts of emotional energy into the idea of "the one" and when he was no longer a happy go lucky kid indulging in his dreams but a man willing to fight for a person he loves both in a figurative (choosing the real Ariel over the romanticized ideal) and literal sense (once slipping out of the hypnosis Ursula had inflicted him with all of his thoughts and actions were inevitably and directly related to Ariel, to making her feel loved, to instantly accepting the immensely shocking fact of her being a mermaid and to throwing himself into the waves where he couldn't even breathe at risk of getting killed in order to make sure she doesn't remain subjected to her captor)-and in neither of those cases was Eric drawn to Ariel's looks.
Prince Eric is the kind of character to represent self awareness, intelligence, ability to respond to emotional challenges rather than cowardly running away from them and giving all of himself to his nearest and dearest and his story contains more than enough of an evidence to back it up. Thank you for coming to my TedTalk.
I totally agree with your assessment. There's clearly more than enough character in those characters than people give the movie credit for, contrary to today's drivel.
Have my like!
Long comments bad!
I agree though. A lot of this is shown and not told. People today think everything needs to be spoon fed to the audience.
My man, there is an hour long review stuck in you that needs to be let out.
I cannot stress enough how much I love this comment
Thank you so much for being passionate about what you're talking about, it's very endearing
❣️
You summed up something interesting with her singing. I couldn’t quite put it in to words myself but listening to you made me realize it. It seemed like the actress was performing the song rather than Ariel singing the song. That’s the best way I can think of to describe it.
As a child and adult, original Ariel’s character stood out as a young lovesick teen but she was at first more obsessed with a different lifestyle than a guy, all her choices were her own, she liked a man before the man knew who she was and she went out there to woo him herself. Eric was a prince worth loving coz he was respectful, kind, brave and their ‘saving the other’ moments were equal. I never once thought he was rapey or Ariel was a damsel in distress.
Eric’s ‘adopted prince’ thing must have been a lazy add-in later so the queen’s casting wasn’t questioned. Ursula was a badass who kept her victims as trophies, not straight up killed them..
The original wasn’t broke So why they felt it needing fixing and made it so it was worse and contradicting its only changes is beyond me.
Thissssss
1989 Ariel was such a powerful character to kid me, she literally shaped the attributes I personally find attractive: headstrong, talented, a little silly, musically inclined, curious, fun, enthusiastic and redheaded.
Well, kid me, I’m pleased to report that two and a half decades later, we have successfully found and married that woman.
To complete the circle, has that woman ever expressed that her attributes/personality are affected by that movie, and to add more flavor to this, was the fact that Ariel is a redhead one of the reasons she wanted to me like her?
Aww, happy for you both. ❤
I’m very glad to hear it!
this comment made me smile so much, congrats to you guys 🎉
Bravo zulu mate.
One of the stupidest parts of the movie I don't see a lot of people talk about is how mermaids are angry at people because they ''pollute'' the oceans by wrecking their ships. Because we can't have a movie that has the ocean in it without preaching about the environment.
The movie's time and place are confusing but judging by the overall look it takes place before the industrial revolution, so before pollution and overfishing became big issues. It's actually ironic now ugly this movie is when it should look even more beautiful than oceans today and there's still plenty of beauty in them.
There's actually a line ''It will take 1000 years for this coral to grow back.'' It's a huge exaggeration. Modern coral reefs need about 20 years to bounce back. In the past, it probably would grow even quicker. Also, reefs like any leaving creature die (yes, coral reefs are alive, not just pretty rocks).
Sunken ships are the least of the oceans' problems. Besides those aren't steel ships with fuel. Those are wooden ships powered by wind. When wood gets into the water it is actually good. Biodiversity, I thought diversity is a good thing.
Actually yawned reading that. You got me, bro
Coming from Disney it's especially ironic.
Yeah when you break it down it's pretty silly. The ships are wood. The oceans are much healthier in the years depicted. There's no oil etc. It doesn't make sense
This comment is dumb. Why? You forgot that WE FUCKING SINK SHIPS TODAY TO MAKE THEM INTO ARTIFICIAL CORAL REEFS. The movie is retarded for not realizing that eother
It's funny because ship wrecks are the perfect places for coral to grow.
When it comes to race-swapping, MY problem with it is that our (American) version of the story from 30ys ago, that I love, is what's being remade by the same company. She has a very iconic design and it's important to try to "bring that to life" if you're doing a remake to tickle nostalgia bones. I don't really give a fuck about her being the exact ethnic group, so long as she looks like the iconic character. Just so happens that that means she would have to be some kinda White or pale skin Latina.
I mean, people don't care that Tiana is Black even though the Frog Princess story wasn't originally set in New Orleans. The DISNEY version is all anyone really cares about, and we should all expect them to take her appearance into account when casting. If they hired some African or Brazilian or UK or w/e woman instead of a Black American woman, I wouldn't care ... so long as she looks enough like the character.
If you're gonna completely change the character's appearance and the setting of the story, might as well just make a new little mermaid that has her own story and name.
Exactly
The idea that she was made black is less offensive to people than the reason why she was made black.
It was a move meant to deflect legitimate criticism. Had they left the character's appearance unchanged, the movie would've had to defend itself on its own merits.
It should've been an original film set in the Caribbean Sea and not-Ariel should've been her own character. The fact that Disney is marketing the original Ariel more than not-Ariel ultimately means they've admitted that the remake failed and they completely wasted Halle Bailey.
At about 24:00 minutes, a clip of the original is shown with Scuttle displaying the smoking pipe. I immediately remembered what he called it... "it's a snarfblatt." The original made an impression on me. And let me be clear, I'm a 58 year old man. I was 27 when the original came out. I saw it in the theater and absolutely loved it. I watched it with my daughter and then my son and daughter hundreds of times over the following years. We ALL loved it. It made a lasting impression on all of us. It was visually stunning and FUN. The songs were (and still are) amazing and FUN. The facial expressions of all the characters were vibrant, honestly expressive, and FUN. Disney used to be FUN. Lord, I miss that FUN.
This was also my favorite film, even though I was 2 when it came out. Sadly, Disney is not for FUN anymore. Money and activism seem more important because they think that's what the masses want, so it's something to capitalize on. Art has become all about social justice, which makes money. It's so sad. 😭😭
Halle Bailey is no doubt a good singer but you have to admit, she has the emotion range of a coin.
her acting was shit, i could care less about her colour im still annoyed at the hair
And the look of a hammerhead shark.
*And She's a Narcissist!*
*Just like Emma Watson.*
@@lunathekuduruk1311nope she’s beautiful just because she has unique features that’s not European doesn’t mean you can talk down or her looks
@@takeoutthetrash6235 i am sure you would be the first one to insult someone with those "unique features"
I think the worst part is that Disney already had a brown mermaid named Gabriella from the little mermaid tv show, she was also deaf. They could have adjusted her story to be a movie. She was also latina, they could have had a Meso American version of Atlantica. Effectively have inclusivity AND a new story.
That's not the point. Disney wanted a black mermaid and basically left 500M on the table for it. The mermaid franchise could have easily fetched a billion dollar if they didn't race swap.
I loved Gabriella as a kid,she had an octopus as an interpreter and was so cool. It was my first time seeing sign language in animation and I found it fascinating
@@MandatoryMyocarditis7 Oh yeah man, they totally lost out on the racist losers who're scared of black people demographic.
*Gabriella is a GREEN eyed LATINA!*
*#DEAFPEOPLEMATTER*
*#DISABLEDPEOPLEMATTER*
@@mikayi1013 lemme jot down that octopus interpreter idea, what a gem. There's room in a comic I'm writing for a blind dude with a psychic squid for eyes too so I'm just gonna run with it since they won't
Thank you so much for mentioning the part about belting in the songs! It drives me crazy when people over do that and it ruins things for me. I loved the ABC live action Little Mermaid and felt like it did a very good job of interpreting the animated film. They could have at least made this live action version have the same candy apple red hair and overly dramatic bang sweep for the character of Ariel. I don't know what Disney was thinking with all the changes for this new version of the movie. And the multi cultural daughters having the same mother and father for each of them really does make me wonder about Triton's history. Lol Maybe the daughters are adopted too? 😅
Did you notice the Other Black mermaid was named Tiesha?😮
Ursula being Triton's sister was a dropped plot point for the animated movie. It was mentioned in an extended version of Mysterious Fathoms below that was cut. And it was used in The Little mermaid Broadway musical.
The true testament of this movie is that with the added time it made the story worse! That’s a feat in of itself. The original animated movie was around 85 minutes and it managed to tell an amazing story. Ultimate fail on Disney’s part.
Least they could have added was a scene where Eric showed Ariel what a helm was/how it worked to at least make that anti climatic final battle make some kind of logical sense (if even slightly).
@@madamefluffy4788 Lol good point.
It’s funny cuz there was content cut that ppl said would make the OG film better (extended apology scene). I wonder why didn’t just do that
True but it didn’t feel like a longer movie
Disney knows their target audience isn't small kids. All their animations are like you said 90 max. That's because kids get restless and don't want to sit still for over two hours. My sister went with her 8 year old and she fell asleep. Some smaller kids were scared and crying during the shipwreck because it looks like they are in a hurricane. And some kids were playing on their tablets with earbuds on. 🤨 most kids don't seem to like this movie. I am talking about kids under 8.
In The Little Mermaid (89 movie), I never got the sense that Ariel was super worried about the time frame in which she had to get the kiss. At least not at first. She was caught up in the emotion of it, and figured she wanted a kiss anyway and could get it in 3 days, and just needed the means. And Ursula chose a kiss because she knew that this was something that would appeal to Ariel and was a way to take advantage of her youth and overconfidence and lack of foresight. The side characters and the audience fear the time and feel how quickly it races by and feel the sense of urgency. I felt this showed a lot about Ariel, and did a lot of character work, without explicitly spelling it out. A skill that the movie was particularly adept at, and that this new reimagining significantly struggles with.
Ursula made it a kiss because Ariel was naive and didn't know how hard it would be for her to make Eric genuinely fall in love with her, and her excitement about getting to finally explore the human world proper would be a big distraction. The Sea-witch herself was frustrated and surprised that Ariel was so close to kissing Eric on the boat in the lagoon, so she disguised herself and bewitched Eric as her ace in the hole.
And days have little meaning under the sea lol
Modern movies: "look let me tell you what the art means"
@@silverscorpio24 "The Sea-witch herself was frustrated and surprised that Ariel was so close to kissing Eric...." which prompts her to shout: "The little TRAMP!" (How the late great Pat Caroll says that line still kills me to this day.) God, do I love the original film! Everything about it was close to perfect.)
As an adult woman, I can tell you that nobody truly knows the mind of a twelve year old girl.
Only when you were 12 yourself 😂..
When I was a kid I didn't think that scuttle was lying per-sey. He wasnt making up things on the spot. Rather he was using inference and what little he'd seen (Probably from way up in the sky) to make an educated guess. It's pluasable he's seen a flute or trombone or some kind of instrument being played, saw it was attached to the mouth, and then assumed the smoking pipe was a similar such instrument.
The fork has a few pointed edges, and scuttle has likewise seen humans put things with pointed edges in their hair to clean them and straighten them. Depending on the angle and particular brush being used, mistaking it for a fork (Especially when he probably does not see such items often) for a hair brush, is not impossible.
I will say that I disagree with your take that her changing her tail for legs represents a static moral of her being right. The whole premise of the story is about naïveté. Ariel wasn’t always right and that’s what she learns. It’s about compromise and recognising the rights and wrongs on both sides of a parent/child relationship. And about the importance of communication. Ariel learns that she was wrong about her father and should’ve trusted him more, and he learns that she isn’t completely incompetent despite being a child. It’s about growing up and learning to accept eachother’s strengths and flaws and has a strong message about the importance of communicating openly between children and parents, building trust and building bonds that can be repaired despite being broken in the past.
Heck, the entire premise of 1989's The Little Mermaid is the relationship between fathers and daughters.
Even the last line uttered in that film is Ariel hugging her father, saying, "I love you Daddy"
It's a daughter understanding her father isn't the tyrant she thinks he is and that disobeying him will cause actual real life serious consequences upon her, her father, her home and even the man she sought.
It's a father understanding that his daughter is indeed growing into a young woman who has her own desires and wants, not a little child and he cannot just order her around because he is King. He is first and foremost her father and he learns that being too harsh and violent has lead her to run away.
That should have been the entire focus of the 2023 movie.
@@savioblanc Exactly yeah 🙌🏽
Yep, Ariel went too far and so did her dad. Both were convinced they were right and we're driven by typical the feelings of parents and children. And both saw how things went wrong, felt regret, and did everything they could to fix it. It's a story about the difficulties of father-daughter relationships at key points of transition.
Very good analysis of the father-daughter theme. It wasn't so much the emphasis in Anderson's work, but it really was in Disney's 89 variant, and then 'tis a shame they did naught w/it.
Like transforming from a tadpole into an adult!
“Children are too important to be left to shitty media.”
I need that on a billboard
Sir, I applaud the diligent work. It is great to see that at least some people still manage to maintain the passion behind the art of writing. 🧡💛🧡
Thank you! It’s good to hear that’s appreciated. Apparently not by studio heads, but by the people that matter!
If there's anything good about these remakes is that they really make you appreciate the originals.
The only thing I’m thankful for with this movie is reminding me about how stunning the animated Little Mermaid was and still is.
The animation is wonderfully expressive. I need to watch it again. 😌
If we are lucky, the failure of The Little Mermaid in theaters will be the nail in the coffin of the Disney live action remakes. Hopefully, they will wake up after this one and realize that the audience wants new stories, not direct to DVD remakes.
@@Gyrfalcon312 The animated Disney films were just better.
The thing that pisses me off the most about the lyric changes is that they’re done by people who don’t understand why they were written in that way.
By getting rid of the part of Poor Unfortunate Souls with the body language (which is the best part of the song because it fucking slaps) you are removing the real motivation by Ursula doing it. Which is to manipulate Ariel into making a decision. No these lyrics are not problematic. They are a villain manipulating our protagonist by feeding her false information about men up on the land preferring quiet women and creating an obstacle for Ariel to overcome because her not being able to talk is forcing Eric to struggle realizing that she’s the one who saved him. Ursula uses Ariel’s being naive as a way to accept the terms of the agreement.
Or in Kiss the Girl where the lyrics are now “if the time is right and the time is tonight.” Uh Sebastian? THE DEADLINE IS TOMORROW. We do not have time to do this when Ariel will basically die tomorrow if we do not get her to kiss this guy. So why are you singing as if we do not have a deadline and like we have a week instead of three days?
God these people are so fucking stupid.
In kiss the girl I think it’s more of an ironic thing. In his head he KNOWS more than anyone (he’s been bothering about her more than anyone else after all), but there’s nothing more unromantic than “I’m dying, kiss me”. He wants the kiss to be as consensual and romantic as possible to fulfill he requirements. He’s literally saying “oh what a shame, so sad, he’s going to MISS the girl” (when the actual context is, oh she’s going to literally die please help).
Ppl say the song is problematic cuz of how demanding it is, cuz the lyrics in a vacuum a man assuming she’s consenting (legit I thought the discourse was about how HE was being forced, not the other way around). But within the context of the song, they’re quickly and desperately trying to create ridiculous reasonings for this to work and very transparently hiding what’s actually going on with the all the “maybe” and outright telling him what he “wants”. I don’t mind it not being in the movie, as it’s true the song is a bit messed up. But it’s kind of a funny messed up that I think was intentional by the creators.
👋👋👋❤
@@ma.2089 thats just it though, context matter. Yes the lyrics sound weird standalone but in context of the plot and film its clear what the meaning is. These filmakers and writers are so dense
@@charg1nmalaz0r51Removing or ignoring context to gin up anger is very common in internet outrage culture. I can't believe how many people still fall for it actually.
I never thought about consent or sexism or any such thing while watching the original film. I always figured that Ursula was just being a manipulative creep and Ariel was the one trying to initiate the kiss (therefore expressing her consent).
Sir, you are the greatest reviewer on RUclips, easily. Nobody comes close to your concise summarization and explanation of content. Thank you and please continue what you do, it is needed for people, not unlike myself, to hear a voice of reason and intelligence/common sense.
That’s very kind of you! I’ll still defer to MauLer on most of these matters as I think he’s a cut above, certainly with character analysis. But it’s good to know I’m making progress!
@@TheLittlePlatoon I need to check him out some more, i've heard him on Critical Drinker's videos. I don't know how you can improve on perfection, but there's always room for improvement, i guess. You seem humble, too, i love that. I can't wait for your next video.
This one in particular really hurts me. The animated 1989 Little Mermaid was one of the first movies I can recall that really captivated me. I must've forced my parents to take me to the theater at least 8 or 9 times to watch it, and I practically wore out the VHS tape when it was released. Ariel was little 8-year-old me's first cartoon crush. More than any other classic Disney animated movie, The Little Mermaid held a special place in my heart. Seeing it butchered and remade for "modern audiences" feels like a little part of my childhood being torn out and stomped on.
But you'll always have the original. No matter what terrible remakes they make, the original will always be special and they can't touch it. Even if they erased it from history, it will still carry a special place in your heart.
Even as a kid watching the 80s version, it was clear enough that Ariel's first and biggest motivation to change to a human, WASN'T to win the boy, she changed to get away from her father and chase the world she was interested in, the boy was another hook that Ursula took advantage of to further manipulate the contract.
*edit
Also, those sequels were never meant to be part of the lore, they were just fun, cheap, cash grabs. That's part of what made them enjoyable, you could take them or leave them without them taking anything away from the cinematic predecessor.
if the sequels are non Canon - good! Couldn't stand either of them; as Return to the Sea was just a rehash of the OG film (just with role reversals for Ariel - now an overly protective mother and Melody - her disobedient daughter who sneaks off to the ocean and longs to be part of the merfolks) and the third movie is just insulting as Ariel was present to see her mother die, so knows full well why her father forbids merfolk from venturing to the surface - making her fascination with the human world/insisting they're not all bad/falling for a human prince make zero sense at all.
@@madamefluffy4788 the 3rd film is fine cuz why would Ariel discriminate all humans due to the actions of a few? While she gained an interest in humans, she’s never seen them really to just assume they’re all evil. She knows they eat fish, but that isn’t enough to dissuade her. If literally eating ppl that she knows doesn’t cause too much moral trouble (esp since they also eat each other), she probably understands things better. Plus, Triton specifies these are pirates, and that there are regular humans that aren’t pirates.
But you do bring up a good point, there would have been some more complex emotions coming from her in regards to it.
Though I disagree with that take all that gets dropped when she gets on land and is just about Eric. Which is fine but I like this version better. The relationship is better and the story makes more sense overall.
I could care less about the direct to video sequel and prequel. I only stick with the original 1989 film and the 1992 TV series. That's it.
THANK YOU for giving Andersen's original tale its due. Truly a masterpiece.
and yet there is a version of the little mermaid that was released 20 full years before Anderson's version ; ) - which he was probably inspired by. it's... quite a bit different in some ways but the basic CORE structure and theme is identical.
But at least he didn't write pocs mermaids
@@fumomofumosarum5893 I would actually like to know where you have this information. As someone who has studied literature, and wrote a paper about H.C Andersen, I am curious to know your source on this. :)
@@missteebslook up The Little Mermaid from Toei animation from 1975. Hits almost all the beats of the literary classic. It’ll make you cry with how beautiful and sad it is, just like the written classic.
@@cakecrumb095 They were asking about the story that supposedly came out before Andersen wrote his, not the animated Disney version.
Lol I bet those guys in the blue suits when they’re filming her in mocap are like, “How the hell did I end up here?” I wonder if it’s worth it financially 😂
This writing issue seems almost generational at this point. Remakes are giving us a wonderful juxtaposition between writers/directors of the past (who could achieve so much meaningful characterisation and depth in a a few sentences/shots) vs those of today (who spend several minutes of reel time saying what the previous film said in 20 seconds). The Critical Drinker has an amazingly profound example of this point with a scene comparison between the old and new Ghostbusters films.
What's really sad? I can kind of see Ariel joining in on Under the Sea working, if she was also given lines to sing to refute her own/Sebastian's points... you know? Having an argument with herself. However, in the animated movie, her not joining in the singing also works to do two other things: 1) It hides the moment that she and Flounder bounce, because her voice isn't in the chorus. And 2) It's a pretty good metaphor for Ariel just not agreeing with how Sebastian sees things. He can sing all the positives of staying under the water, and Ariel just... doesn't agree, and can't verbalize why she longs to be on land, she can't say it in public, she can't tell her father's advisor. She only gets to put it into words when she and Flounder are all alone in her grotto, because no one there is holding expectations over her head.
Disney appears to have entirely lost why characters sing in musicals. Hell, Alan Menken said it himself: "You talk until the emotion gets to be too much for you, then you sing." Singing in a musical is the purest expression of the character's emotions. Current day musical writers don't seem to understand that. 'They sing because it's expected'. No, they sing because their feelings are too complex, too overflowing for JUST words.
What's funny is Futurana did an arguement song in the episode where Bender meets the robot devil for the first time and tries to argue against the devil if there possibly might be worse ones than him while the devil argues that no hes the worse.
Yep Matt Groening did it better
@@Thomasmemoryscentral That's a bit different, as Bender is actively trying to argue against being punished, whereas Ariel would be arguing with herself in my hypothetical as to if she really needs to go to the surface to fulfill her lifelong desire, assuming of course, she joined in with Sebastian's singing...
S: "Darlin', it's better down where it's wetter, take it from me!"
A: "Look at this stuff, isn't it neat? Wouldn't you think my collection's complete?"
That sort of argument...
They could have done something in the way of Ariel acknowledging that the sea is pretty but stating her longing and curiosity for the upside world.
"I know that just as well as you ,
Spent my life down in the blue
See all that's different, learn how they're living
Above the sea"
Ariel is a greedy princess who has it all but it is not enough she NEED's More , insert Girl meet's boy from the grand beyond
I'm not angry about Ariel being black because cultural appropriation I'm angry about it because of hypocrisy. They cannot have a standard and then blatantly ignore it
And that’s perfectly understandable. Pretty sure I say as much in the video.
@@TheLittlePlatoon fair, I've just been having this conversation a LOT as of late. with the MTG LotR cards, this movie, and many more instances.
you just don't like it because they aren't white is the first thing anyone says and no it's not why most of us think that. it is part dislike of hypocrisy and longing for a consistent standard, part caring for authorial intent and part disdain for lazy writers using it to put up smoke screens to cover for their shody work.
@@TheLittlePlatoon the bigger problem for me as a fan of history is I want an accurate representation of whatever the movie is about. Obviously the little mermaid is fantasy but if you'd ask anyone to picture it in live action it's not her and I get that she's a singer but you can't tell me there's not a redhead in the world that can't sing and that's before we get to changing hair color on an actress. The more all this bullshit goes on is the more I wish I could make a movie about a ginger Shaka Zulu to show how stupid all this shit is and if we want to go fantasy then a ginger black panther movie.
The same Twits who praised Ariel's diverse casting lost their shit at Nani having a lighter skin tone.
@@silverscorpio24is Nani native Hawaiian? If not then people have the right to be upset… but if she is then that’s a bit ridiculous
3:52 I am sure I'm an outlier, but, as a Father, I actually feel this way about Frozen. Elsa and Anna have, debateably, the most toxic sibling relationship I've found in age-appropriate media for my kids (save perhaps Peppa Pig).
Elsa is not only frequently uncaring towards Anna as a person, but she is regularly rewarded by the story for it. Only truly breaking down when Anna is at a point where she is literally sacrificing herself or her freedoms for Elsa. Meanwhile Anna is essentially a simp for Elsa. Putting aside herself for her sister, to the point where BOTH films have Anna's character anchored by what she is not getting from or giving to Elsa. Anna disregards relationships with other people and her own personal endeavors and interests for Elsa, while acting as "emotional servant" to those Elsa disregards to ensure Elsa's character remains intact to outsiders to the relationship.
Additionally, in both films, Elsa is shown to be uncaring and unsympathetic towards the people of her kingdom. Shirking responsibility for causing an environmental catastrophe that likely would have killed much fauna and flora (as well as likely a few people), and denegrating her grandfather's prejudice of magic when she disregards the potential lives she puts at risk in an effort to discover her full power (I can't stress that last part enough, not only does she NOT attempt to get word out about the pending disaster she will cause, but at the end she even makes clear the people of HER kingdom who knew nothing of the situation of hee grandfather "get to live." I would be willing to accept this, if perhaps this was the contrast with Anna. For example, Elsa is acknowledged as a bit selfish, perhaps even glory seeking, and ends up adjudicating to Anna, who is acknowledged as a more capable leader... But, obviously, that is not the case. Instead I have to pretend Hans and Elsa's grandfather are the true villains, and Elsa and Anna are not only the saviors of the realm, but the pinnacle of sisterhood.
Reality is Elsa and Anna are exactly what is wrong with modern children's fiction, and I don't want my daughters looking up to Elsa or Anna, nor do I want them thinking that is how to treat each other as sisters.
33:30 from a blk man perspective, the effort to make prince eric adopted to a black queen with a dead King without making eric himself blk, while race swapping ariel without race swapping her dad, and keeping her mom off screen shows the incredible effort disney will go through to not have a leading blk man in a respectable if not powerful position. they are deftly allergic to it. they know blk women will eat it up though..
I think you're reaching. Did you forget about Black Panther already?
@@akashajones6079 i dislike both blk panther movies for various reasons.
1. Civil war is crucial to BP’s story but hes tertiary to the plots
2.BP1 isnt compelling from tchallas pov, hes a rich prince in africa.. the actual african american villain is written ok but isnt consistent imo tchalla takes a backseat in his first movie
2.tchalla is killed off screen instead of setting this movie in between the blip and endgame, they chose to kill him off, so tchalla never got an actual narrative. shuri is cool but if we’re talking about disney and Blk men in leading positive positions, they are 0 for the3 in the Black Panther series
Man, the idea of Ariel having an internal prejudice against humans and then internal conflict as she starts to be interested in Eric is a really interesting idea. You're pretty good at attributing ideas to their stories that they were unlikely to come up with or effectively implement.
I love the thought you put into these reviews. It really shows.
Sorry state of affairs when RUclipsrs reviewing movies put more thought into the script than the writers
@@TheTGOAC Well... to be fair. Putting more thought into an idea of a script than a script. Ideas are cheap.
Still, more thought than the actual writers did. They basically just took the old script and ripped out what they found offensive... then padded out the run time. This was a cheap idea, and low effort as it didn't necessitate the entire rewrite of the script.
Ariel having an internal prejudice against humans and then growing out of it... that's more of a Little Mermaid Part 1 and 2 type of story. I guess you could squeeze it into one, but I could see that type of story feeling too rushed in its pacing, even in 2.5 hours.
This movie was so empty and soulless that I don't even have anything to say about it...
*It exists and that's bad enough.*
So there's no poor unfortunate soul, then
You might evsn say it was "Shallow"
You might evsn say it was "Shallow"
@@Skype93 My problem with this movie is the same as with the Lion King remake; when compared to the original it's inferior under pretty much every aspect. The style and colour palette is more bland, the characters have less character, especially the fish ones, because they have no expressions, I have nothing to say about the voice acting, the music and singing doesn't have the same energy or charm and skills of the main actress are decent at best. At least with the Lion King the story was pretty much 1 for 1 (I remember one or two changes), and here the changes they've introduced didn't affect the movie in a positive way.
It really makes the original animated classic, which happened to be the last Disney feature film made using hand painted cels (the bubbles were outsourced to a different studio) significantly more important as a piece of western culture.
"Children are too important to be left to shitty media"
Well said.
Perfect rebuttal for the “it’s a kids movie “ excuse
I went back and watched Ariel (OG) sing part of your world and damn! It's so good. Especially because of the messy way she sings it.
"What do call them? Feet."
It's incredibly cute and endearing.
Also, Disney has always had incredible animation quality. It's crazy! Seriously. Watch the song and pay attention to how Ariel moves. It's so ridiculously smooth.
Direction also plays a part in how the song is sung. The OG could've been more lifeless and focused on vocal power/technique if not for the directions given to Jodi Benson (the original Ariel)! There's a video of the original recording session of Part of Your World on YT, and you could see Benson basically being told to do less singing and more acting.
@@1anotherusername exactly! I feel like Bailey was majorly overacting, and the songs were not written for her. Idk if it was her fault, I feel bad for her because she is talented but her facial expressions are very stoic or her acting is too overdone in most scenes. I feel like the directing was careless since this was a cashgrab. I say this as someone who can recognize voice actors by their voice alone, btw. The movements were too stiff, the cinematography wasn’t impressive- it felt almost clinical. Sanitized. No nuance, it’s like the film is just a 6th playthrough speed run without any charm at full level in an RPG. With the brightness turned down. It’s soulless, doesn’t have any heart like most remakes now.
And this is what makes Howard Ashman’s presence in all this sorely missed. In that vid you see HA guide Jodi Benson through every single line, every inflection of her voice. He describes at length how Ariel’s feeling and what the song is supposed to be communicating. He understood that musical numbers are more about acting than being technically proficient. There’s a reason the Disney originals have stood the test of time… and it’s because you can feel the passion everyone who worked on the film had through the screen. Idk what happened, but it’s obvious Disney has lost that magic somewhere along the way. Now they produce nothing but cash grabs and it’s incredibly sad to see.
One other factor I find incredibly important, is that the removal of the "Body language" line from Ursula is an absurd writing decision. That line existed for several reasons regarding Ariel being MUTE. You know, DISABLED.
Ursula is proposing a deal in which Ariel ends up mute and what Ursula is doing here with that line is incredibly smart and beneficial to ALL characters involved. She's giving Ariel a legit way to win this deal which not only makes her come across more as a genuine business woman in this regard, it also had the affect of keeping Ariel and the other merpeople she tricked from getting victim-blamed by the narrative.
Cause even if Ursula is creepy and so many things in her lair are suspicious af The narrative is not forcing her victims to just be stupid. As you explained very well, Ursula is the kind of villain you only notice how bad she is once she already made sure you can't get away from her until you sign the contract.
What Ursula did with the Body language line is incredibly smart because it clues us in that she makes sure that her victims at least THINK there is a legitimate chance for them to win because she's GIVING them one and then sabotages them if needed.
This is a movie about a main character who goes mute, I'm baffled by the remakes decision to then go on and REMOVE the real explanation for how Ariel will now have to lay new priorities in how she communicates because of this disability. One of the things people love most about Ariel is her expressions and how much she communicates non-verbally through animation. How on earth did that translate into casting a person for the role of Ariel who's strong point ISN'T silent acting?
Ironically, Ariel's voice is of secondary importance and they even took out both instances of the original movie that made Ariel having the most beautiful singing voice a thing in the first place (the concert and Sebastian saying she has the most beautiful voice which is supported by Ariel having the special solo, and then later on Eric also says she has the most beautiful voice he ever heard), so now there is literally not a single point in prioritizing singing skills over acting skill of her actress in the casting choice. Not even narratively speaking since Ursula isn't after it specifically it's just the most useful tool she can use against Ariel in this particular situation.
This shit isn't difficult and they had all the puzzle pieces already right THERE! How did they fuck that up so hard that they went right into ableism??
Edit:
I'm sorry but I just watched the movie and this aspect was alot worse than I expected. I legit got upset in theaters.
Good god do I not care what skin color Ariel has but Ariel is the ONE major Disney character (Disney PRINCESS no less) who has a disability. Ariel is MUTE and this movie handled that very poorly.
This movie gave Ariel barely any ways to properly communicate with the world around her and she also LEARNED no way to do so. No sign language, no writing, nothing. The moment she went mute the story became more and more about Eric, this is insane. Everyone either communicates FOR her, AT her or AROUND her, but SHE often does not communicate or even properly _acknowledges_ the world and people around her as she should.
I worked as a nurse in a shared living community with disabled people and I honestly have to say that there are legit times in this movie where Ariel came across to me as having a mental disability too. That was my instinctive way to read her sometimes because Ariel does not really interact with the world around her. There can be a conversation around her and it's like Ariel is mentally not really taking that in and she just continues focusing on Eric and for example puts the hat she got from the market on him because she likes him and it's cute.
She's not really part of conversations, she's spacing out and turns away when she's spoken to, hardly reacts to the world around her and has difficulties putting into perspective how her actions can put others in danger (the carriage scene), she hyperfocuses on Eric as her favorite person, she has a special interest (sea things) and all of that is only made worse by Halle often not using alot of facial expressions or empathized body language. I don't even want to doubt that Halle can act because there were so many factors coming together here that I'm also definitely blaming the acting directions Halle were given.
No it's not all the time, fortunately there are scenes where she actually gets to have some character but in general? The moment Ariel became mute she got turned more into an "object" than the original Ariel ever EVER was.
If you have to insert 2 entire new songs for the mute character to sing in their head to let the audience know what they are feeling and to tell the story then Disney, honey, you did a shit job at writing and portraying a mute character!
This Ariel communicated so little on her own that I swear to god I FORGOT that she didn't know anymore about the 3 days time limit. And let's not even talk about the way the movie made the loss of her voice out to be such a horrible tragedy as if she's only half a person anymore because of it. If the movie had treated Ariel being mute with the proper respect than this "tragedy" approach would have never been included.
Ariel doesn't need a voice to life a fulfilled life and in my opinion giving her voice for legs is not a sacrifice, that's a sufficient exchange. Good fucking god, why on earth did they not cast an actress who is actually capable of acting the part of a MUTE main character? The Vanessa actress out-acted Halle in 5 minutes of screen-time, how is that possible?
🤷🏽♀️ *I have a Disability♿/Am Wheelchair bound for the rest of My entire life and I wholeheartedly agree!* 💯
The people who made the animated version made sure that Ariel is super expressive once she lost her voice, which is important to storytelling, whenever I watch the 1989 animated version and Ariel is mute on the screen, I can still feel her excitement for the human world, it's like I see her expressions in the animated version and I can hear all the unsaid words.
In this version, I don't really feel the excitement, yes I know how the style of art can make characters more expressive, but that's also because people who acted for references on the expressions were also expressive. And we shouldn't forget that.
The writing part for this remake just fell apart, the original, with its own flaws, is still a very well written story and wrapped up nicely in a way that made sense in the story's world and logic, that's good writing, but this remake just killed all the good writing that the 1989 animated film had.
Add to that they took away Ariel even knowing she needed to get the KISS from the Prince and it took away her motivations to lift the curse at all!
@@veeclash4157 Yes, love may not be the sole motivation but it is a strong motivation for Ariel to stay human.
The original animation didn't have a problem with that, they got straight to the point, they showed you how they're attracted to each other and they went to try the kiss, the plot progression made sense in the animated version because they focused on the love story.
Halle is not an actress, she's a musician... which still baffles me as to why she was cast to play a character that is largely silent when her own strength is singing and not acting.
I'm a woman from the continent of Europe. The Little Mermaid was my favorite Disney movie, and as I grew up I fell in love with the real OG, the Andersen fairy tale. This fairytale was more aimed towards women in the sense of it being a female coming of age tale and not a romance at all, and it's a great one. I could forgive Disney's changes to the original animation, because whilst it eliminated the themes of selflessness and feminism sprung from Ariel being reborn after her suicide as an air nymph, it did so in the usual Disney pattern of making fairy tales less dark then they actually were. I cannot forgive the 2023 changes.
I mean, the fairytales were made to be less dark, precisely because life is less harsh for the common kid nowadays. Fairy tales are made into versions that reflect their current times morals and values all the time. The first ever version of Sleeping Beauty literally had her raped in her sleep, giving birth whilst asleep until her baby sucked a splinter out of her thumb, mistaking it for her nipple. Is that seriously a story you would adapt for the children of today? It's agreeably more shallow compared to the novel and I feel like they could definitely have made up a rule for Ariel to work for her legs whilst the Prince ends up with someone else instead of a romance, but I can understand the lesser focus on heaven.
Trying to make it more feminist, whilst changing even more instead of going to to the backbone of the story and introducing more plot points of the original novel is just plain stupid. Ariel literally had agency to the point she could decide her own fate and she chose death over killing the prince who had done nothing wrong. It was always about her choices, even right until the end.
Changing the setting and her race weakens the layers of folklore the novel had. Like the sisters trading their hair for the knife, fairy creatures asking for girls to cut their beautiful hair is a pretty common staple I found in European folklore. The original animation hadn't included every folklore part, but at least it hadn't added entirely new different ideas to the folklore (I'm not talking about the direct to DVD sequel or any of that stuff). Unlike 2023 which added its own shit into it that isn't well-developped at all, like Ariel's sisters representing the 7 seas.
It makes the story that much weaker and poorer, because the fundementals of the world building are growing unstable and more confusing to the kids which is such a common problem. Too much adult politics, that don't focus on the fact most of this won't be understood by a child and that is perfectly fine! They're kids and a 6 year old doesn't needs to grasp certain politics!
People either think too much of, 'its for kids so it doesn't needs to be well-thought out' which shows like MLB often get whenever you criticize its terrible writing, or you have people wanting adult politics and/or deep themes to be present in every single fucking kids movie or else it's a 'letdown and they expected so much more'.
I genuinely think people have forgotten the fine line about a child's perspective. A kid isn't stupid, but their brain isn't developped yet so nuance and consequences, are things they don't really understand yet. Ever had the experience of really liking something as a kid, and as an adult rewatching it you were like, 'How the fuck was this allowed to be a kids movie and how did I gloss over some of the dark shit?' (examples being the numerous kids movies featuring parents dying and a kid being left to fend for themselves). THAT is your brain having developped enough to understand what you were watching opposed to being a kid and glossing over it because you cannot comprehend how dark some of the themes were.
Either people will excuse away bad writing because they deem kids as too stupid to understand jarring plotholes, or in the case of something well-written but is fun and relatable without going into deep philosophical territory people will crap on it as a major disappointment because in their eyes every kids movie needs to have like 9 layers of depth. The first reaction is just degrading to children, the second is pretentious and almost kind of selfish in the sense of adults crashing a kids party.
Stories for the sake of comfort and dreaming, are also worth fighting for, as a matter of fact this was one of the reasons why we have fairytales like Cinderella: to comfort and give hopes and dreams to girls growing up in abusive households in a time period where a husband was the best method for leaving their abusive households.
Even something that's just fun can be a masterpiece in its own right, and this is very much evidenced by The Little Mermaid original animation. One of the biggest reasons why it was so succesful is the fact it's just a fun movie. The original Under The Sea for example, was just a really fun musical banger kids could bop to.
On the topic of this specific genre: A fun, coming of age movie can be really impactful for some people and it doesn't needs to be more then that, but it should still be well-written in the sense of world building and plotholes and absolutely should be written like it understands the target audience. The novel and even the animated Little Mermaid, understood the young girls of their time and gave them a tale they could relate to (and in the case of the movie, also a lot of fun). Just look at the modern dress animated Ariel wears when she emerges from the water at the end. It's in line with the glamorous celebrities a little girl watches with starstruck eyes.
Compare the modern changes they've made to the original animated movie, to 2023. It's barely about little girls from the 21st century and their tastes, its more about woke politics then anything.
Being in my twenties, there are still coming of age movies centering the female experience that upon my first watch have me saying; 'That reminds me of myself a decade ago'. THAT is the response a coming of age movie SHOULD evoke. It should remind adults who are relatively close enough in age to the youth of today of themselves, and the kids of today should look at it and be like, 'Yup, that's how I feel sometimes,' and look at the ending wishing they grow up on such a happy note, like getting the date and dress they wanted for the prom they'll go to someday and graduating with great results. If a movie DOESN'T evokes that feeling, it's a crappy coming of age tale.
And 2023 certainly is trying their best to sabotage their own world building and themes that weakens that feeling and turning The Little Mermaid into a crappy coming of age story.
(PS: exceptions to this are coming of age tales aimed for older audiences, like 500 Days Of Summer. Tom's journey is definitely aimed at young men in their 20s figuring out manhood, and that's why there's also a bit of a lack of an happy ending. Meeting Autumn kind of makes it clear Tom is still on a journey of figuring out life, he merely completed his first lesson in love with Summer.
(PPS: Oh yeah, and before I forget, whilst the folklore was north-west European, Andersen was supposed to be really inspired by Italy and that is supposed to be the setting of the novel. The animated movie, actually has Ariel's parents named after Greek Gods and Triton actually was supposed to have his own trident, just like his father Poseidon. So the original animated Little Mermaid kingdom is *still* Mediterranean coded)
There's no media that needs to be higher quality and have good stories than children's media. They learn and think from what they see, it influences them the most when they are young, they are SMART. And recent media treats them like babies.
This one is insanely quick for TLP. Hoping for it not to get copyright struck and that it blows up to millions of views
So they wanted to make "Kiss the girl"-scene more about consent and changed the lyrics, but in the end Ariel does not want to kiss, Eric is trying again and again and Sebastian is telling him to continue? They have made it more assaulting than the previous one lol
Oh no I edited stupid typos and I lost my Little Platoon-heart. I am sad.
Well they 'll have something to redress in 20 years, and moralise how their Virtual Reality remake is leading towards progress. Disney is playing the long game here.
Lol
In the new Version Ariel is watching her friends singing to Eric about kissing her and she doesn't even understand why nor she is fully in,but somehow is more consensual 😂😂
It's funny how every attempt to make the movie more progressive ultimately made it less so.
Female agency? Gone
Discussion of reducing women to their bodies? Gone
The struggles of falling in love while disabled? Kneecapped.
I mean, Ursula's origin originally had a woman who gained (and lost) massive political power independent of the system and of her own ability. B b In the new version the beef with Triton is a family thing and her political sway is bloodline related. Like replacing Frank Underwood with Hunter Biden.
Used to have a storytime book with like a 100 stories as a kid and they were brutal.
They were all like:
2 hares were running away from hunting dogs but they got into an argument about what breed of dogs they were, didn't pay attention and got snatched and killed by the dogs.
or
A female tiger always hunted baby animals because they were tender.
When she got her own cubs they got killed by hunters. No animal in the jungle gave her sympathy because she freaking ate all their babies.
or
Toddler mouse doesn't listen to dad, toddler mouse graps a piece of cheese, toddler mouse gets crushed in a mouse trap.
All stories came with cartoony drawings.
You really hit on something when you said, "Children are too important to be left to shitty media". I can still hear the words in my head. It feels like it could be an entire series of thoughtful analysis, just saying.
PERFECT rebuttals for the “it’s a kids movie “ excuse
Its amazing that you continue to pump out high quality critiques with such length my guy.
Why thank you! I’d have done at least one more if I’d not been locked in copyright hell all damn month.
@@TheLittlePlatoon I wanted to ask you how you managed to include so much music and film from the movies in your videos without getting demonitized. What's the status update on that?
@@TheLittlePlatoon Tell me your secrets lmfao. Good job broski!
I have nothing against a black character playing the role if it's done in good faith, but we know casting like this isn't done in good faith, it's done to fill a quota. If that weren't true, they wouldn't have banged on about it so loudly in the media and had the actress calling anyone who didn't like it a racist. Instead, she'd say "watch the movie, see for yourself, I hope you like it" and leave the race baiting arguments with nowhere to go.
Same here. I had no objections in principle, and before current day madness had enjoyed movies that did that on at least several occasions (not even thinking about it, until the madness we live in today)! But we all know this is being done maliciously, and also - if they start with a race swap (or any other kind of identity politics swap), that’s not even close to the only thing they’ll change!
There is a difference between the race swap with Director Fury and the swap here. There is plenty of evidence that modern Disney has an anti white bias
Wahhhhh there’s too many non whites in my fairytale.
I mean god forbid a black person apply for an acting role and get it. Might as well put "Blacks need no apply" on all casting calls for movie positions to ensure noone thinks they're "filling a quota" or something like that.
I have to ask. Did it ever occur to you that maybe they hired her because they saw her as talented for the job? Or do you obsess over race a bit more than they do?
Also, it's not Disney going "See look, we have a black in our movies.", it's third party sites and journalists talking about the movie. Even then when Disney toots its horn on how diverse it's willing to be for international standards, it's hardly as big a deal as people make it out to be.
Honestly, you might as well just not put in the "I have nothing against a black character playing the role if it's in good faith.", because god knows you're never going to find anything in what you consider "good faith". It will always be considered a "diversity hire" every time.
@@seventeenseventythirteen7465 You know better than that, and they already admitted as much! What’s more, you should have enough respect for people to actually listen to the video and actually read the comments of the people you are replying to! Because if you are just here to get woke points for race-baiting, you are in the wrong place!
44:07 It was so bad that people were walking out of the theatre when the Prince got his song. I think a few might've already left during Under the Sea at that time, too.
I always liked the change from The Little Mermaid never interacting with humans till her bday (the book) to her always having a love for the human world (the 1989 movie). It just made it more whimsical and that was the vibe they were going for. I also believe the big thing that made The Little Mermaid stand out was its huge musical approach. I just appreciate the differences in the book and movie, as the movie wanted to be different. What I dislike about the remake (and all remakes) is that there are no changes unless its a 'moral' concern. In which they create more problems. I was once in the camp that hated The Little Mermaid (fell for all those articles) and then learned to really love and understand the Little Mermaid (1989). I can understand the father's love and strictness on top of understanding the naive and full of agency Ariel. I don't dislike either characters. And looking back...I hate the saying that "she gave up things for a man, she left her family". We ALL have to leave our families one day, and not counting the sequel at the start...what is to say Ariel forever never sees her family? Looks like the sea will always be apart of her. It is just weird, that we don't have the same idea for when men leave for romance.
You're wrong about Eric’s personality in the original film. OG TLM is in fact a pretty emotionally complex movie. And I dare even say that Ariel and Eric are the healthiest Disney couple ever. They're even the only ones that had a child together (a child that I wish had a better movie, but still)
Prince Eric is first introduced by the movie narrative as adventurous young man who despite his royal heritage is not above the “dirty work”: the audience is initially exposed to him helping other sailors on the ship as well as showing consideration and concern towards Grimsby in addition to being a good listener and quite an experienced storyteller informed about the subject he takes it upon himself to talk about hence the sailors discussing Triton and the sea with Eric while Grimsby sceptically brushes their theories off. Thoroughness, open mind and a down to earth attitude are established among Eric’s primary characteristics from the get go and not for the sake of forcibly and obnoxiously presenting him as a multi-dimensional morally/intellectually superior protagonist - in fact, he can hardly even be deemed as one seeing as the movie essentially revolves around Ariel and her struggles with inability to obtain independence and fulfill herself outside of a place she feels like she belongs whereas every other character, no matter how significant, plays a part of a supporting cast - but in order to showcase his interests thus, in so much as the first few minutes of the movie we already learn up on not only the hobbies Eric is intensely invested in but the extent of his love for the sea, conflicted relationship with his guardian figure (Grimsby) and are provided with a raw sketch of his mindset and the lens through which he observes the world.
All of it could have easily been left out seeing as Eric’s individual emotional investments are not particularly related to Ariel’s story, but those aspects are outlined regardless because Eric isn’t merely a love interest of a fiery red head: he has a personality, a character of his own.
Next time Eric comes off as “the guy with a flute”, it being the immediate impression he gives off once Ariel first sees him, confronted with not so much his mesmerizing attractiveness as the way his eyes lit up when he produced music for his own pleasure (poignantly, the same exact way Ariel preferred to go about her musical skills: away from the crowds or pretentious grand celebrations, using a melody for self expression. It’s hardly a coincidence that Melody ended up being a name of her and Eric’s daughter) or when he played with his dog or when he was clearly not impressed with the the statue of himself. Speaking of which, that is a good character moment because it shows that Eric is burdened by expectations and is seen as a powerful future king when in reality, he is a shy introvert. This allows Ariel to relate to him. Eric, however, was thankful for the attention and love coming from Grimsby regardless of how inexplicably insufficient and misinterpreted the latter’s perception of Eric generally was, which is rather unfortunate given that Grimsby played some sort of a father figure role to him while being entirely unable to get the grasp of how the young man’s mind functioned. Which brings us to another point: according to all the evidence Eric’s parents are most likely dead, considering they didn’t show up on either of his weddings - the fake one with Vanessa and the real one with Ariel - nor did they attend Melody's christening.
Admittedly, being left in charge of no one other than Grimsby who hardly understood what Eric essentially was about, and having to prepare himself to be a future effective ruler of Tirulia.
Eric is the epitome of a person who built one self up independently, firmly standing his ground confronting the standards imposed on him that he was unwilling to conform to - such as being forced into getting married before determining whether there was a right woman (“the one” as Eric referred to a person he hadn’t yet been lucky enough to meet and want to spend the rest of his life with, not settling for any less) among his suitors for the sake of fitting into a certain ideal of a proper prince. His attitude of a dreamer was a part of his established characterization but he was also exceptionally analytical about his concepts of romance.
Having survived a horrific incident Eric sincerely believed he had found true love and his ideology of a dreamer took a strong grab at his outlooks on relationship seeing as he was set out to find a girl with the gorgeous voice at any cost due to said voice being quite literally the only connection to his rescuer. As some people mistakenly imply, Eric did not fall in love with a voice, in fact, at that point his feelings were all over the place and not exactly what stands for actual love, a mature fully formed feeling. Being drawn to the idea of a girl who saved him Eric - genuinely and irreversibly - projects his certitude regarding her being “the one” onto the only representation of her he had been left with so far - her voice. And subsequently his idealistic but slightly immature romantic notions backfire with a cunning irony once he meets a girl who has everything a man can dream of but lacks what he seeks out the most. A beautiful stranger doesn’t talk therefore cannot be “the one” nor would she ever - as he firmly believes - pass for “the one” hence why Ariel’s beauty is essentially irrelevant to Eric. His one and only goal concerning relationship at that point revolves around finding that person he believes to be one in the whole world who is right for him. Not only doesn’t he fall for Ariel’s looks but is entirely indifferent to said looks due to thinking that woman is not the one he needs (frankly, the assumption about Eric being easily smitten with visual appeal is extensively incorrect considering the fact that, due to his royal status, chances quite a few attractive female suitors were eager to have his hand only to be rejected because Eric at one point explicitly stated he wasn’t interested in superficial relationship and was waiting for the right person). Which doesn’t mean Eric is immune to primordial instincts and cannot appreciate physical attractiveness - he does, in fact, acknowledge Ariel’s captivating outer exterior once she dresses up for a dinner but it isn’t until she makes him laugh for the first time in few days by being her overly excited, imaginative and adorably dorky self that he starts taking a more insightful look into her and is willing to take her on a Kingdom tour - while still not being ready to open up to her or let the endearing mysterious girl into his life due to being committed to his unrealistic ideal.
Next day Eric spends actual time with Ariel who proceeds to behave excessive and enthusiastic, never failing to amaze him. She is more invested in exploring various layers of the city life rather than paying a consistent attention to him (but… but Ariel totally “left her family behind to be with a man” and had no other agenda, right? Right?!), however, Eric is perfectly content with dedicating time and effort into making her feel happy and content, not being put off by her overflowing craziness in the slightest, but getting more and more intrigued by the unusual, eccentric nature of his accomplice - to the point of becoming largely conflicted hence the boat scene where Eric wants to get to know Ariel while still being unsure of his own feelings and pulling away when she tries to initiate a kiss - because yes, he still takes relationship incredibly seriously and is unwilling to allow himself so much as an innocent romantic interaction without being fully confident that this person is truly the one for him. He challenges himself and his initially established concepts of idealistic romance, gradually deviating from a strong commitment to an image of a girl with a sing song-ish voice he had created in his mind in favor of opening the door into the possibility of forming a bond with a real person regardless of this blooming relationship being enormously confusing, awkward and opposing to everything he had led himself to believe in before. He was GROWING out of exaggerations and teenage angst and exposing himself to a new perspective of building a mature relationship. The segment with him throwing a flute into the ocean is the ultimate representation of his character development.
Eric’s love for Ariel was powerful in both dimensions: back when he was an avid dreamer with a controversial concept of romance who invested considerable amounts of emotional energy into the idea of “the one” and when he was no longer a happy go lucky kid indulging in his dreams but a man willing to fight for a person he loves both in a figurative (choosing the real Ariel over the romanticized ideal) and literal sense (once slipping out of the hypnosis Ursula had inflicted him with all of his thoughts and actions were inevitably and directly related to Ariel, to making her feel loved, to instantly accepting the immensely shocking fact of her being a mermaid and to throwing himself into the waves where he couldn’t even breathe at risk of getting killed in order to make sure she doesn’t remain subjected to her captor) - and in neither of those cases was Eric drawn to Ariel’s looks. Prince Eric is the kind of character to represent self awareness, intelligence, ability to respond to emotional challenges rather than cowardly running away from them and giving all of himself to his nearest and dearest and his story contains more than enough of an evidence to back it up.
Thank you for coming to my TedTalk.
Eric deserved so much more credit than what he was given. The whole movie was. So much of the movie is misinterpreted lol
A long but well thought out comment. You've highlighted the way the modern film not only weakened Ariel and her motivation, it also diminished Eric as well
I still love this. ❤
See you posted this comment here too😂. At least its seems to be more appreciated here since this channel seems more geared towards deep thinking hence the lenght of ALL the reviews on it
I was a 7 yr old boy and I loved the original Little Mermaid. Maybe for prepubescent reasons. But the songs and animation were great too. BTW the feminist look on the original all sound like they didn’t watch the movie. She is strong. She did not chase a boy. She saved the boy. And its truly about leaving home to get what you dream of. It’s pretty universal.
Anyone who gives the excuse "it's a kids' movie" doesn't deserve to watch Puss In Boots: The Last Wish. Because that movie could never exist in a world where such an excuse is accepted. Simplicity and dumbness are different!
I hate the “it’s for kids” argument 😂
a lot of people might not like what i'm about to say, but i hate the way Disney's live action on the animations i grew up with, the little mermaid is just another example, cruellla de vil, maleficent, i hate how disney changed their "nature of evil". i grew up knowing maleficent is an "evil being" from the get go, there is a huge reason for people called her the mistress of evil/hell, so did cruella, she just that nasty type of person, don't forget on how they did MULAN. now disney was trying to make the history of the character "once upon a time they are a good people/kids who got back stabbed and betrayed and mistreated and broken", i love those evil characters from the original version for reasons. it's just .... i'm so frustrated by the change that made me lose interest in watching any live action remake. and then ... this came out. i.rest.my.case saw on the trailer Ariel's sister is so diverse and in my head "wow so king Triton here is a genghis khan of the ocean", i'm done.
I loved the '89 version when they re-released it in theatres in the late '90s. Even as a toddler I think I was enchanted by Ariel, and let's not forget brave Eric who sailed a wrecked ship into a maelstrom and killed a Kraken to save her. I don't imagine there's much in this re-make for both little boys and girls to get attached to.
In the 1989 Mermaid movie I think that it makes sense that Ariel continues to visit the surface and not lose her wonder for it because it is a forbidden act by her father and she’s a teenager. It’s pretty relatable to teenager girls. I will always prefer the original Hans story bc i love a tragic ending, but the 1989 story is a wonderful reimagined telling of the tale. 2023 is trash, unfortunately. I really wish they would have just made an original mermaid movie bc I find the actress pretty and a great singer and we could have another Disney mermaid.
For me it's not necessarily the fact that it's an original Scandinavian tale, if I wanted that much accuracy I wouldn't have watched the original little mermaid. It's just the fact that I think most people just... Wanna see a new iteration of a character they know general design and all. And for Ariel's design alot of her is infact associated with her race, the bright red hair, and the blue eyes are iconic on her. And when people see a remake they generally wanna see that design and character in a reimagining, not someone not well cast. You can mish mash races here and there I don't mind Asian people playing other Asian races, or white people portraying other white races. They just need to fit the characters original portrayal. There's a reason why mark Hamill playing Luke means so much to fans, it's because he's the og. If a remake or spinoff comes out and he just randomly becomes Asian because star wars takes a lot of inspiration from there, I garentee you the fans will be pissed, just like they were with the original amazing spider man costume.
I still think raceswaps are pretty lazy, but taking what you said it got me thinking. What if they still did make a black mermaid movie based off of the little mermaid. Then do a more thoughtful movie with its own separate characters, setting and story based of the og. This would not only be better than just another soulless adaptation and not only that it would create a more original character then just race swapped Ariel. Similar to what they did with the princess and the toad.
That sucked as well
Like the friend that she had on the TV series, she was Latino and mute, and she wasn't a forced character
You made an extraordinarily well reasoned argument in terms of the casting. The story comes first and as long as that priority is maintained, you can do pretty much whatever and get away with it. but priorities that supersede the story, will invariably expose their failings and be felt by the audience on one level or another.
The Equalizer movies, Heimdall, and The Dark Tower are examples where it was done and nobody had a problem. The Dark Tower turned out to be not so great but it was certainly not the fault of its lead.
It doesn’t help that we are exposed to too much of the behind-the-scenes drama instead of just being presented the movie. We know why Disney is doing this and so many of us reflexively reject their decisions.
*Thank you!* I’ve been batting away people who only listened to “race doesn’t matter in and of itself” and so believe I defend any and all race swaps, including this one. Despite me saying, in the same paragraph, that I don’t, for the reasons *you* at least bothered listening to.
As someone who was once a young girl, I always thought that the original Little Mermaid was about the dangers of naivety. I haven't watched that movie in over a decade, though. Something in the same vein as a deal with a demon story, but Disney-style kid friendly.
Her eyes are almost like stars. Not quite as bright but as far apart.
The Eva Cassidy comparison was brilliant. Truly sad that it may have gone over a few heads. I hope some might search out her music. She was the definition of “a Star that burns twice as brightly, burns half a long”
That comparison sucks when Beyoncé is far more vocally talented and still conveys emotions. She’s not only belting out all the time if you actually listened to her body of work
@@via3155 Beyonce's voice is definitely not for everyone. Shocking, I know. I dont care for most of her songs and never understood how she reached the popularity she did.
@@destroymarxism2.0 Beyoncé voice not being for everyone does not mean vocally she’s lacking. You can literally find videos of vocal analysis and sites that agree that vocally she’s beast and has kept her voice in top shape. As for where she’s at…..Why wouldn’t she be where she’s at? She’s the best living performer out rn….hell she’s possibly the best living performer ever and that title only can be challenged by Michael jackson. If you disagree, I’m happy to hear anyone else in the industry being better than her.
@@via3155 I see you are personally invested in Beyonce, which is hilarious because she doesn't know or give a crap about you. 😂😂
What I'm saying is that if it depended on people like me, she wouldnt have an audience. She belts out songs like she is being held at gunpoint. I think Faozia, Zoe Wees, Celine Dion, even Demi Lovato have better control over their voices, just to name a few.
@@destroymarxism2.0 Being invested into Beyoncé is in no way an insult. She’s a talented performer who deserves her success. As for betting….can you give any examples of her over belting? Because I can already see this argument is coming from someone who has no idea of Bey’s massive control over her voice and is simply hating because she’s main stream. Bey has sung with Celine dion before and held her own, the others idk who they are besides Demi and ironically you’re talking about Bey belting out of control while that’s exactly what demi does LMAOOO. She has very little control over her voice if she’s not yelling. You can literally put Bey and demi against each other vocally and she would win. This is not an opinion, vocal analysis would agree. Hell I’m sure they”ll agree with Bey beating almost all of the women you listed but I don’t know who they are to compare.
Lastly….unless any of those women are top tier performers…of course they wouldn’t be in her spot. Whilst being a fantastic vocalist, Shes the greatest performer alive. Her stage presence? Dancing, singing and production are all top tier lmao. This is also objectively true. Why would any of them be above her?
I actually think you might be missing something about the '89 film that disney WANTED you to miss. Ariel gave up her power-- her voice-- because it's a representation of the Siren Song. Triton and Ursula both believe that the only reason that Eric gives her interest at all is due to the magical power that her voice has, and that by giving up her voice she is giving up the only reason he liked her at all. However, Eric has a vague understanding that she's important because he actively wants her for her-- she rescued him and he will rescue her. It's more a story about soulmates and the overwhelming power of love than anything else.
ALSO I think wrt the royal family in the live-action version we MUST discuss Roger's and Hammerstein's Cinderella from '97 starring Brandy. That story had a white king, a black queen, a prince of nebulous cultural descent and, relevantly, both Cinderella and the Godmother were black. But we didn't have to talk about it and we didn't, which is a MUCH more powerful tool for cultural acceptance of everyone. I didn't even remember the thing with the prince and his parents until today and I actually had to check the nationality of the prince because I literally forgot.
Only this awful remake called Ariel's voice a siren's song in any overt sense. The '89 animated film distinguished Ariel's golden voice from her sisters' singing voices (and anyone else's) as the most beautiful. Kinda like she had the "fairest voice in the sea".
@@RanMouri82 I think though that it’s good to give her an exceedingly beautiful voice personally but I also suspected that it would be discarded bc it means loving someone for their inherent qualities and not for… Idunno bc they spent time together? Also, isn’t it only Eric who calls her voice a siren song? I would say that’s a whole new issue
@@hannahburdge2394 And yet you managed to do just as much wrong as Disney did.
1. Siren are associate to evil by Hollywood. But its true term weren't referencing any "EVIL Incarnation". It just reference to humanoid creature with immensely irresistible song that could distract you from your goal. And for it to being related to mermaid, it's actually a new concept when its original form was actually a Humanoid-Bird. Because in reality, fishes don't sing. Birds do, that's why the first concept of Siren is depicted as Human with a Bird-head or a Bird with a Human-head.
2. Ursula taking her voice because she's cunning & smart and knew, that her voice was the only thing that could possibly link Eric to her. And without that, she mostly unable to complete her quest, it has no magical powers, Ariel certainly can't put a shark to a sleep by her singing. She has never used her voice to display power in any shape or form. As for Ursula, she never hinted that Ariel's voice be useful in any shape or form. The entire mermaid franchised for all 3 movies and plus 3 season never shown any power related to Ariel's voice other than she's being the most beautiful singer. Plus, her voice is very physical, Eric heard it, because she's literally singing in his ears. Otherwise her voice never reach further than that of a normal human. The only siren-like moment people are referencing to, it's when Ursula enchanting Eric with Ariel's voice she sings near the shore but Eric heard it all the way to his windows, clearly, it's Witchcraft. Ariel's voice is beautiful but VERY NORMAL.
3. When it's come to Eric rescuing her, it's more of an upbringing of his parents, rather than anything deep & profound like your delusion. Eric was raised well, that's all there is to it. He searched near the beach where he last lost Ariel, that's how he found her. And he realized that she's weak & needed help, that's why he took its personally to look after her. And even when hanging around with her, it's clearly showed that he wasn't clouded by her beauty as he have rejected her kiss before. In contrast to this, it's obvious that 2023 version want to make Eric a superficial man who falls head over heel with woman just by her looks.
4. In remake, I am not sure why he's after her, it's clearly, he was falling for Vanessa, another perspective they try to show by removing the scene of Eric being mind-control, that is to say loud & clear, that's Eric a f0ck boy and he went after Vanessa because she's a pretty girl. But in old version, it's clear he loves Ariel but was brainwashed & mind-control by Ursula, once he's broken free, he's immediately follow Ariel. He went after her out of love, not because she's rescue him. LOLzzz.
5. By making Eric an orphan, he's entitled to nothing. So now with this film, they finally rewrite the history... Now we have a True Princess who married down and married a worthless peasant like Eric. While since beginning of time, only a King & Prince would marry peasant girl and only Men has ever marry down.
6. Triton saw what Eric did and how brave he is, allow him to see the differences in human to which Triton truly hate since the beginning as he deemed them to be all evil. That was why he willing to let his daughter go, Eric's sacrifice & act of bravery, made him changed his mind. But removing that scene, I'm still not even sure why Triton let Ariel be with him. I wouldn't let my daughter married that pathetic excuse of a Prince. He can't even save himself, he was dangling by a rope stupidity in middle of sea. Plus, the entire movie, Eric & Triton never spoken or had any interact unlike Original where Eric pay respect to him.
7. This movie isn't a movie but a movement, a statement. Have you notice that on Ships, there's plenty of Diversity but screen switch back to a "Terribly White Balcony" or in this case, a "Terribly White Deck" as everyone on board were WHITE when they hunting mermaid. Classic Evil White, we love it, right?
8. They want to be realistic but made a Black Queen ruled with European Culture. Have bird that can speak underwater. Have a Land Crab lived in the sea. Have mermaid steering a pirate ship. Have a mute girl, sings. Have somebody with a dread-loc using comb(fork). Have a White father with 7 distinctive daughters.
They worry about words & consents, all that... but they have 3 family members, two them are sibling, stabbing each other to death with a pitch fork in middle of a kid's movie. Yey... representation!!! Disney just give a whole new meaning to Sibling Rivalry... you know... Till DEATH do us part.
If anything... this film didn't enforced inclusion or diversity, quite the opposite... It enforce stereotypes & division. Someone with small eyes ruled over China Sea, if that's not racism, what is it? An Indian, ruling Indian Ocean, how is that not Stereotyped? How inclusive is it, to have an African ruled over Atlantic Ocean (African Sea)? Clearly, this is enforced ideology that certain people, belong to certain places.
Also, at the end, they have a kid, digitally have his hand removed, to represent disable people... I guess???
But clearly, they haven't met any disable people... because these people don't wave their half-arm around for Representation. In fact, if can... they would've asked to forget that they've lost an arm. Every person with a wheel-chair, would've preferred it for you to treat them as someone without a wheel chair...
It is simply CRUEL... that Disney couldn't let an unfortunate kid enjoy 2hrs of fairy tale without snapping him back to reality & reminding him just how f0cked up his real life is. People with disability, doesn't even want to look into mirror to see themselves for the sake of not want to remind themselves constantly about their conditions yet here they are, being reminded just how pathetic their condition is, BY DISNEY, ON Building-wide Screen Projector. You can't missed that.
Are you going to talk about how King Triton has mutiracial daughters all coming from one supposed wife? That's kind of a ballsy implication for a kids movie
Also, Ursula is apparently his sister. An octopus!
Apparently it's all explained in a supplemental book. In this world merfolk can choose what kind of lower body they'll live with. Ursula chose to embrace her inner octopus but her fishtail obsessed brother couldn't abide and in his bigotry banished her.
That's supposedly the backstory, Ursula only bad because of Triton's fishtail supremacy.
@@jonnywaldis8275 What? WTF? IT'S SO STUPID!
A very thought provoking video, thank you. It has been a long time since I read the original Little Mermaid story, and your recap of it really helped underline your reasoning,
I like the 1989 version best, of course, probably because I’m a girl. But you’re right about how much this new one lost in the “modern translation.” It seems we can’t have real heroes anymore, and we can’t even have real love anymore.
58:44 An attempt was made to resolve a plothole, changing the contract from one signed in magical ink to one signed in blood. The implication of Ariel's literacy means that she could simply write out a message to Eric: "I am the mermaid that saved you." Presumably, that suggests that Ariel in '23 is illiterate, otherwise nothing changes. Looking back at it now, the missing memory doesn't fix this. If Ariel is literate, she can still write the same message. If Ariel is illiterate, it means she can't read maps like she does later in the movie...
In other words, "Disney, make up your flippin' minds!"
Thank you for pointing out the issue with the singing and music!!!!
When I started hearing people praising how much better the songs were my eyes bulged out of my head.
I hate how many female singers oversing. When they sing it's not "listen to what I'm saying" but "listen to my voice." It's like they're doing a parody of soulful singing. Sam Cooke was one of the first soul singers and his voice sounded almost completely effortless most of the time.
EDIT: I'm going to leave this comment up even though Little Platoon said pretty much the exact same thing. Great minds think alike I guess.
@@BiggieTrismegistus I do enjoy it when I rant about something and then the creator brings up the same thing later.
Makes me feel all smart and included 😂
Her singing in this makes me think she is in front of an audience looking for a standing O. Or auditioning in front of the American Idol judges.
I would love to hear a Broadway musical inclined Simon pointing out that she has missed the entire point to the song.
Conveying the emotion and the story is the point. Not, ooohhhh look what I can do.
@@BiggieTrismegistus I had to look up Halle's version of "Part of Your World" to see how it compared to the original. For the most part I thought it was okay, if lacking in OG Ariel's raw emotion, but when it got to that long note... It reminded me of every single person chosen to sing the national anthem, trying too damn hard to let people know you have a nice voice. Just sing it normally!
@@BrcRosa After reading the comments that you and Biggie Trismegistus left, I couldn’t help but reply! You both said everything I tried to put into words but couldn’t. Yes, Halle is a decent singer, but her stans drive me up the wall. According to her, she’s Beyonce Jr, and she sings better than Mariah, Celine, and Aretha. Yes, people literally commented that. I can’t stand her stans. They’ll call you a racist if you try to form any opinion that is against Halle or the way she sings.
Yes, she ruined POYW imho. I don’t like anything about her rendition of it. One part she sounds like she’s laughing, as if it took twenty takes for that one part. She sounds angry in another part. Then those trills and the runs…just…no! It doesn’t fit the scene. Ariel shouldn’t be belting out her broadway best when she’s hiding in her secret grotto that’s stuffed with her illegal human treasures. But the people who love this are in tears with how wonderful it is, and they’re shook and awed by her performance. I have to leave a comment section when I hear how Halle ate up that song. I guess that’s the new yas kween. 🤷♀️
I feel like the *m0DeRn s0ciEtY* this abomination of a movie was made for was also easily amused by brightly colored plastic keys when they were babies. Lots of them also love the scuttlebutt, as admitted to in comments, and I’m pretty sure that tells me all I need to know about them. 😂
But yes, I mean, yas, girlfriend totally sang POYW as if she already nailed the American Idol auditions and she was singing during Hollywood week. 🙄
@@mikaelafox6106 @TonyMarzipan I had a lot of trouble listening to it the 3 times I have. I managed to listen to the reprise twice.
I wanted to make sure I wasn't just reacting poorly because she isn't Jodi. There is something to say about giving something your own personal touch to an extent.
But I was right the first time. It lacks any of the proper emotion that needs to be conveyed in the scene.
You get a better sense of Ariel's personality and what exploring the human world means to her. All of that is missing in the new version.
I was trying to convince myself the reprise was slightly better. But then it is ruined at the end in a way that makes me cringe just thinking about it.
Jodi was building on emotion. She has said all of the credit goes to Howard Ashman who guided her in the booth.
This other rendition sounds a bit out of breath, emphasizes odd spots, then goes out on an oddly placed audition for a banshee note.
I know everyone's ears are sensitive to different pitches, but it just hurts me. That's the only time I can understand people saying her version gave them chills... Chills of horror... Chills when there's a noise you can't quite hear but the wildlife is in spasms?
I also veer away from the supportive fanatics. I could respect someone's opinion if they said they thought her singing was better than someone else's. I can't respect them when they viciously attack anyone who disagrees.
Disagreement is not hatred. Finding someone's performance undesirable is not a crime or a personal attack instigated by an "ist".
These unreasonable emotionally charged reactions over everything doesn't change people's minds.
Usually when someone feels attacked they wall up and hunker down. They don't suddenly see the light.
The ability to have rational conversations is becoming harder to find. It's very frustrating. The emotionally reactive mob mentality is very easy to create and grow online.
I'm a fan of the 80s original, and I'm a creaking older fella, - it's fun, heart-warming and carries decent stories and morals.
A great interpretation of the original fairytale. Have also in mind that Andersen, a gay man who's life was filled with unrequited pursuit of beautifulyoung men, may have metaphorically presented his own situation. An impossible love, that was impossible to extinguish, which only could be dealt with in a spiritual way. Ariel even has a habit of middle class gay men from time immemorial, of collecting beautiful art objects and statues of beautiful men, which most of the time were the closest they could ever be to fulfilling their happiness.
0:00: 🎥 The reviewer expresses dissatisfaction with the movie 'The Little Mermaid' and regrets watching it.
7:00: 🎥 The video discusses the differences between the 1989 film Parenthood and modern girl boss characters in terms of agency and restrictive ideas of what girls should be.
14:16: 🎥 The video discusses the differences between the 1989 animated film 'The Little Mermaid' and the live-action film 'The Little Mermaid'.
20:44: 🎥 The video discusses the lack of expressiveness in the fish characters Flounder and Sebastian in the live-action film compared to their animated counterparts.
27:54: 💬 The video discusses a scene in The Little Mermaid where Triton scolds Ariel and the character of Ariel herself.
34:49: ! The video discusses the controversy surrounding the casting of a black actress as Ariel in the live-action adaptation of The Little Mermaid.
41:44: 🎵 The video discusses the differences between the 1989 and 2008 versions of the song 'Under the Sea' in Disney's The Little Mermaid.
48:58: 🎥 The video criticizes the new Little Mermaid film for failing to match the original and conveying less content.
55:54: 🎵 The 23 version of The Little Mermaid song 'Poor Unfortunate Souls' had a line about men that was removed for being too controversial.
1:03:11: 🎥 The video discusses the film's portrayal of geography and its relationship with the story's world.
1:10:06: 🎥 The video discusses the issue of affirmative consent in the movie 'The Little Mermaid' and argues against the need for it.
1:17:18: 🧜♀ Ariel is captured by Ursula and tortured while Triton gives up trying to save her.
1:24:35: 🧜♀ The Little Mermaid story is shallow and stretched out in the 2023 Disney remake, but it has always been a problem even back in the 80s.
Recap by Tammy AI
Thanks for the timestamps! how do i download this Tammy AI?
It has been a long time since I saw the old animated The Little Mermaid. And the only thing I can think of while watching you roast this remake is: The old animation style is INCREDIBLE! Ariel was adorable. Maybe I should go re-watch the animated version...
U should. Now... Hehe. 😊
I had to rewatch the originals (to get the bad taste outa my brain) after watching the awful butcheries they shallowly made...
Pretty good for 1988
Out of all the things said in this video, nothing left me more appalled than seeing Mindy Kaling criticising the film. She fucking created fucking VELMA - SHE HAS NO SAYING OVER ANYTHING AFTER THAT!
Finding out she of all celebrities is telling us why we should listen to her of not watching the 89 classic is a funnier joke than whatever the Velma cartoon passes for comedy.
If Velma never existed, she still has that baggage of laughing of scaring a male actor she worked on some film with by randomly kissing him and then laughs at how no one will believe him.
Kaling is hardly the one fo tell us what not to watch
All I can say towards the portion addressing race is I don't care what the characters race is but it has to work, you can't just be like "ohhhh representation so people will love it" you still have to pick someone who CAN do the role properly
Cartoon Ariel was perfect.
Good actress..good singer and certainly ever inch a Sea Princess.
Ursula was Ariel's aunt in the original 1989 movie as well, however it was only brought up in the accompanied Disney story books and novels, but not the movie.
Ursula didn't want to make merfolk into seaweed, that was just a perverse joy she took in those who could not honor their contract. She just wanted power and control over the seas.
It was also in the movie's script but it got out.
I think making Ursula Ariel's aunt is a bit of an overkill. She worked just fine as a former nobility exiled after dabbling with forbidden magic or corrupting the kingdom. Her motivation to get back at Triton and steal his power for kicking her out of her cozy lifestyle is good enough.
Without knowing the particulars of why Hans Christian Andersen wrote the Little Mermaid, I always interpreted the story as a cautionary tale of a young person falling hard for another and giving up so much of their life and then having to come to terms with the reality. That's how I read it when I was 13. I wasn't a fan of the animated version as a kid but I can certainly see its strengths compared to the newest version, especially with the growth her father undergoes.
That's what a good adaptation does. It iterates on the original.
The Andersen story is a cautionary tale, with a fair bit of moralizing (which is, to be fair, what the vast majority of European fairy/folk/etc. tales were; teaching morals and life lessons to kids through storytelling).
The animated adaptation was a lighthearted musical romantic comedy, where the focus was less on the lesson, but rather the entertainment value through the combination of writing, music, and animation, and so they shifted focus to the romance, Ariel's relationship with her father, and gave everyone a happy ending. They had a vision, and they iterated on the original to convey that vision.
This one, is an adaptation of the adaptation, where they further twist the bedrock of the story, just in order to insert their own moralizing and aesops into the story, and do it in an extremely blatant and ham-fisted manner. They had no vision, only an agenda, and an insincere one at that, considering most of Disney's political posturing is for marketability and greed.
Spot on as usual, sir. The little tweaks in the script and useless implications of an extended lore in these remakes always annoyed me too (Ursula being Trident's sister, Eric's adoption, etc.)
Like you stated, even in good faith, though this extended lore gives implications of mature nuanced writing, it never bears any significant impact on the story or its characters; and if it does, it actually BREAKS the story and characters and only begs more unanswered questions. It's an identity crisis in that this movie is trying to be "different" but at the same time it's struggling to adhere to the same story beats of the original predecessor because it's too scared to go all out with a completely different approach to the story entirely.
In the end, it all serves as a mask for shallow writing (no pun intended). If you're going to make a remake, Disney, write a new story from scratch instead of giving us the same thing but slightly worse.
The thing of "they're evil because they eat fish" doesn't make any sense because there are fishes that eat smaller fishes
Good point about the over-singing in many new musicals. I think the Angela Lansbury version of Beauty and the Beast as a perfect example of song performed by someone who isn't a skilled singer, but evoked the right mood in that moment when Belle and the prince were falling in love. That song went on to win an Oscar and of course many will credit Celine Dion and Peabo Bryson in the end credits, but Lansbury definite did her part, which is something considering how hesitant she was to sing the song in the first place. The point is, sometimes letting the lyrics stand on their own is what a musical needs, not impressive acrobatics.
Unfortunately over-singing isn't just found in musicals nowadays.
I like both the original story and the 1989 cartoon. The original story is excellent and the Platoon explained it in a much better way than I ever could. At the same time, I think the Disney cartoon does a great job of teaching kids the importance of communication with your parents and reinforcing the belief that the possibility of a happy ending is very real.
The best thing that I have learnt from this movie is nothing the movie does, but Little Platoon explaining that we are sinking ships to help coral reefs to heal, which legit put me in a better mood.
I like your overall review of this movie it's fair and very balanced, also thank you for mentioning the Hans Christian Andersen version of the story, I admire that story and knowing how Hans wants the mermaid to gain an immortal soul through her own merit without being bounded by something otherworldly because of how uncertain and unfair it is brings into perspectives of how much he values integrity and sacrifice