The Little Mermaid (Live-Action)

[UmbrellaFish]

I think you and farerb are on to something. If Vanessa is in the film, she may be a human rival to Ariel which would help stretch out the movie to a full two hours. Ursula may even still magic Vanessa into marrying Eric, either by using the real Vanessa as her pawn or transforming herself into a double of or possessing the real Vanessa’s body.

[Disney's Divinity]

Well, there are two possibilities; they're either changing that plot point or that casting is bogus. It's possible they'll make Vanessa into a human rival and not Ursula in disguise like farerb said which is more in line with the original fairytale. Personally, I don't like that option since it diminishes Ursula's role and involvement with Ariel's story. If they go that route, they might as well go all the way and not make Ursula a villain at all.

Oh, God, please no. This story does not need a singing contest.

I'm going to be hopeful they're just casting Vanessa as she was in the original film. When they start casting a crew of random girls, then I'll abandon hope.

I personally don't agree that Ariel looks more like Belle than Vanessa. Vanessa is more pointy and the eyebrows are more like Ursula, but overall she looks very much like a dark Ariel to me and always has. The fact that Eric is mesmerized is irrelevant to me. Apparently Ariel's voice is what's used to mesmerize him, otherwise the spell wouldn't break as soon as her shell is smashed, so she likely had to look close enough to the vision of the girl in his head for the spell to hold and his mind not to resist too much. The fact is we don't know the parameters of her spell to say for a fact that the way she decided to make herself look like Ariel has no relevance to it. We do see other girls in the film that don't look like Ariel, so they had other designs they could've used as a base and they chose to make Ursula look more like Ariel instead. *shrug* The face certainly looks nothing like Ursula's bone structure that we see when she dies for it to be a pretty, thin, young, human version of herself.

[UmbrellaFish]

Skyler Shuler:

THE LITTLE MERMAID cast will arrive in London on Monday, my guess is once they land, they will quarantine for two weeks for safety and begin production August 10th.

https://twitter.com/skylershuler/status ... 92672?s=21

[Disney Duster]

Since some of us think Vanessa looks like Ariel...I would say that is enough evidence that Ursula made Vanessa look a little like Ariel. Besides, Ursula saw the sun-darkened hair glimpse of Ariel in her crystal ball since she saw Ariel on the beach with Eric in her crystal ball.

Anyway, they are gonna actually make this movie this summer? Yay! Thanks UmbrellaFish!

[Farerb]

Ursula couldn't see how Ariel's front looked when she sang to Eric because the only way Ursula can see things is through Flotsam and Jetsam's eyes and there's no way they could see Ariel from Eric's angle cause they can't be on land and her back was facing the see.
And like UmbrellaFish said, wouldn't Grimsby have said "wow, You look exactly like that girl who has been living with us for three days. What a coincidence"...and wouldn't Ariel see her and become suspicious?

[Disney Duster]

It's true the eels would have seen Ariel from the back or at best, the side, but they still would have seen how the sun darkened her hair, and they would have seen that Eric opened his eyes to see her. Even Ursula didn't know her hair was darker, she still became a girl with the same body type and hair the same length as Ariel's.

Vanessa looks similar to Ariel, not the same, which is why no one comments on how they look compared to each other.

[Farerb]

I thought about this a little and I think that the thing that would bother me most when this remake arrives is not whatever unnecessary changes they make, which has no effect on the original really. The thing is I've already accepted that Ariel will be faux-woke and faux-feminist (maybe she'll be a marine biologist?) to pander to the "not feminist enough" nitpickers of the original, but that will also bring back that whole unnuanced discourse like it did with Beauty and the Beast and I'm really not here for it and it'll probably make me sick like it did back then. However, I'm prepared to only watch The Little Mermaid (the original) for a week.

[nomad2010]

I thought about this a little and I think that the thing that would bother me most when this remake arrives is not whatever unnecessary changes they make, which has no effect on the original really. The thing is I've already accepted that Ariel will be faux-woke and faux-feminist (maybe she'll be a marine biologist?) to pander to the "not feminist enough" nitpickers of the original, but that will also bring back that whole unnuanced discourse like it did with Beauty and the Beast and I'm really not here for it and it'll probably make me sick like it did back then. However, I'm prepared to only watch The Little Mermaid (the original) for a week.

We’ve just seen that tired trope so many times. I don’t understand why a girl can’t just be a girl and not be a brainiac. I understand not wanting to make a characters central motivation in a movie be a man. But no Disney Princess is actually like that. There’s always other motivations and the over simplification thing they’re trying to press on these characters is grating, especially when they still act like they’re such masterpieces. You can’t have it both ways. I just want to see Ariel be an average girl with a not so average obsession... the land. I don’t see why she couldn’t just be like a historian of humans in secret. Which she basically is already in the original but I’m sure they could intensify it a little.

[Farerb]

We’ve just seen that tired trope so many times. I don’t understand why a girl can’t just be a girl and not be a brainiac. I understand not wanting to make a characters central motivation in a movie be a man. But no Disney Princess is actually like that. There’s always other motivations and the over simplification thing they’re trying to press on these characters is grating, especially when they still act like they’re such masterpieces. You can’t have it both ways. I just want to see Ariel be an average girl with a not so average obsession... the land. I don’t see why she couldn’t just be like a historian of humans in secret. Which she basically is already in the original but I’m sure they could intensify it a little.

I agree. This whole thing is just superficial. I can totally see the guys working on Beauty and the Beast saying "I know let's make her an inventor then she'll totally be feminist! Nailed it" and then pat themselves on each other's back. To me it's about exploring the character herself, what are her emotions, her wants, her needs, etc... And I think the Renaissance films mostly did a good job at that but people who watch those films superficially don't see that, they only see Ariel giving up her tail for a man or Belle and that Stockholm Syndrome nonsense, and then that's the discourse and that's what Disney sees and they're like "see? We totally get the criticism, we're so woke now" and people will be like "yeah they totally fixed the original's problems".
That's just frustrating.

[nomad2010]

We’ve just seen that tired trope so many times. I don’t understand why a girl can’t just be a girl and not be a brainiac. I understand not wanting to make a characters central motivation in a movie be a man. But no Disney Princess is actually like that. There’s always other motivations and the over simplification thing they’re trying to press on these characters is grating, especially when they still act like they’re such masterpieces. You can’t have it both ways. I just want to see Ariel be an average girl with a not so average obsession... the land. I don’t see why she couldn’t just be like a historian of humans in secret. Which she basically is already in the original but I’m sure they could intensify it a little.

I agree. This whole thing is just superficial. I can totally see the guys working on Beauty and the Beast saying "I know let's make her an inventor then she'll totally be feminist! Nailed it" and then pat themselves on each other's back. To me it's about exploring the character herself, what are her emotions, her wants, her needs, etc... And I think the Renaissance films mostly did a good job at that but people who watch those films superficially don't see that, they only see Ariel giving up her tail for a man or Belle and that Stockholm Syndrome nonsense, and then that's the discourse and that's what Disney sees and they're like "see? We totally get the criticism, we're so woke now" and people will be like "yeah they totally fixed the original's problems".
That's just frustrating.

Exactly! And the saddest part is that in reality it not only takes away from the character but it also is added time to the runtime of the film that could be used for much more important and chore interesting additions!

[Disney's Divinity]

Tbh, this conversation reminds me so much of things I’ve heard family members say the past few weeks about the protests, riots, statues being taken down, etc. It seems like progressive change of any kind to an illusory, perfect past causes rage to those who want to retain the status quo. Personally, I think most heroines prior to Pocahontas had obvious issues, although they were certainly a huge step in the right direction at the time when all people had ever seen were Walt's characters... Ariel was actually allowed to show negative emotions, generally be imperfect, and to move without a laser-focus on what she looks like to the viewer (I'm referring to when some of the Walt animators said they didn't like how she wasn't drawn "pretty" in every frame the way Walt's princesses were....). Still, I'm willing to admit Ariel could have used a little more work in certain ways. In particular she should have been allowed to defeat her own villain (especially considering she empowers Ursula in the first place) just as much as Aladdin. Actually, I've always said Aladdin imitates TLM in a lot of ways, and Aladdin similarly is the reason Jafar finally gets a hold of the lamp like Ariel is the key to Triton's undoing. When you compare the climaxes of Aladdin and TLM, it's like night and day--and not just comparing Ariel and Aladdin, but also Ursula and Jafar. Ariel doesn't get to outwit Ursula and earn her ending the way Aladdin does, and Ursula doesn't really get to show off the way Jafar does. Ariel doesn't get to fully show she's learned the error of her ways like Aladdin does when he frees Genie either. And the way Ursula dies has unfortunate gender connotations whereas Jafar simply gets what he wanted in the darkest way possible with power becoming his prison. Thankfully, one major change the re-make can't help but make is giving Ariel a physiologically-possible waistline.

On a side note, Jasmine wasn't an inventor in the Aladdin remake (as far as I remember?), so I doubt Ariel will be here. I’m curious what “faux feminist” means though? Is Belle attempting to teach girls in the village not feminist? And according to what definition of feminism?

[Farerb]

Since I'm passively being mentioned, I'll comment.
It's so typical of you to morally compare someone who has an opinion about media and fiction to real life events. Yes I'm clinging to past values even though I'm one of the few who actually defend the "bland" heroines of the revival films, but please go off...

As for Jasmine - no she wasn't an inventor, she was just a Girl Boss™ without actually exploring what that entails and her motivation behind that, it just superficially there cause they want to make her seem "stronger" and singing about how she won't be "speechless" even though it wasn't an issue with the original or even with this movie. Probably took that idea from Jafat's line "speechless, I see". Whatever, the funny thing is that just moments after the song, Jafar shush her up and she still needs rescuing.

The thing with Belle teaching a girl to read is again just superficially there. Yes we get it - Belle opposes patriarchy and?! Did anyone learn anything from this? Did Belle make the villagers more enlightened? Or is it just there to pander or to diss the original?

Like I said before countless of times the idea that female characters need some sort of "fixing" is offensive and unfeminist in and out of itself, no one thought Aladdin needed "fixing" so why Belle? And as I see it the "is she feminist" kind of misses the forest for the trees because it is a term that eventually anyone define subjectivity, there's a range to it, some believe that the only feminists films are Mulan, The Princess and the Frog and Brave cause they are the only ones who deals with the topic of gender and women in their respective society. Regardless, I personally wanted to explore that topic and see what women had to say on the matter of the remakes, women who are also considered feminists, and they don't see Disney's remake takes as some sort of genuine effort from the company but as a cynical move in order to market the films and gain "Woke Points". Maybe uou should do a research about that, but I'm sure you're not cause your take is more about defending these films you like than actually defending women from "evil unfeminist oppressive moi"

[nomad2010]

I think where the two sides clash here is that of course it’s okay for characters to be strong women and feminist and be a strong woman, however in most cases with these remakes it’s used in the beginning to set up the character but doesn’t ever get tied back into the character or used later on. It’s superficial. It doesn’t help the story or really add to the character. Belle for example doesn’t really have a big moment where she sees the Beast adoring the fact that she invents, or is smart or literary. He appreciates her love for reading but that’s about it. Nor does that help later in the movie. When it is such a clear add-on, it makes sense that some don’t like it. I get very annoyed at it, especially because women don’t have to be flawless, strong, brainiacs. Nor do men. We all have flaws. Not everyone is an inventor. Or a cartographer. Or have the strength to run a kingdom. But we have wants and needs and desires and sometimes it’s okay to depict someone that’s not something extraordinary, and instead a regular person that is simply thrust into extraordinary circumstances.

I will say that I like Jasmines change. Was it executed well? No. But to me it makes sense that she’s passionate about her kingdom and such. Do I miss the Jasmine that wants to see the world and just explore and have a normal life? Of course. And there could’ve been a balance there. But even as a kid, it felt weird to me that Aladdin would have became Sultan. Aladdin wanted to find something beyond the life he lived and he found love and people who appreciate him for who he was deep down. He wasn’t in it to become a ruler. It made sense for Jasmine to become Sultan. But to me that makes her trapped in Agrabah again.

All this is to say that there’s nothing wrong with modernizing characters sensibilities but it has to actually be done right and be thoughtful and add to the ENTIRE story, not just the set up.

[Sotiris]

I don't think people have a problem with feminist characters; they have a problem with poorly-written characters which admittedly happens too often with the remakes. There is a general lack of care and/or competence with these films that starts from the writing stage and goes all the way to post-production.

[Disney's Divinity]

I think where the two sides clash here is that of course it’s okay for characters to be strong women and feminist and be a strong woman, however in most cases with these remakes it’s used in the beginning to set up the character but doesn’t ever get tied back into the character or used later on.

I don't really agree with that. I thought it was tied into the story moderately well with Belle and Jasmine (I can't quite remember what all they added to Cinderella. If anything, I think they made that character more passive than the original film, oddly enough. And yet that decision doesn't really attract much anger for some reason.) I actually didn't see the inventor thing as this huge upgrade to the character, personally, just as more of a story addition of her having been Maurice's daughter. No, to me there were other aspects of the film that made the character more feminist than the original, like how the film emphasizes the village's hatred for her being because of both her education and her desire for more knowledge, the fact that she attempts to provide knowledge to other women there, that there is a comparison between Belle and a beggarwoman and how her refusal to give into domesticity / Gaston is emphasized as a heroic choice because it comes with the hatred of others and the possibility of ending up destitute at some future time if she were never to marry. The beggarwoman being played by the Enchantress there was just icing on the cake for me. Many of themes are there vaguely in the original film, too, It's only made more explicit in the remake. And that's kind of what I hope for with Ariel, too, that it puts more emphasis on the deal being about her desires to the explore world instead of making it solely about Eric.

As for Jasmine, I thought her desire to want to rule made sense to me considering what an awful ruler her father was and the fact that she was his only blood relative. I guess I never really saw Jasmine from the original film as a character that wanted to go on adventures so much as someone who simply wanted to escape the restrictions her father was placing on her. Becoming the source of power is the best way to be free. I guess it felt like an even smoother change because I grew up on the series, where she often acted like the leader whenever the Sultan was absent.

[Disney Duster]

I like the idea that Belle being an inventor does further that she is so her father's daughter, but as others said it doesn't tie into anything else, and also, Belle being so hated by the village rubs me the wrong way. The village wants to kill her boyfriend and then they get chased out and then the spell is broken and suddenly everything's ok and everyone is happy with each other but the village still is probably anti-intellectual and may still hate Belle's qualities.

[D82]

Regarding the discussion about Vanessa resembling or not Ariel, I've found out that Sherri Stoner, the actress who served as live-action reference model for Ariel, did also the live-action reference for Vanessa:


Source: https://youtu.be/minDALOz8Io?t=544

Well, it makes sense they would also use her for the character of Vanessa and not hire another actress for such a small role, especially given that both characters have a similar body type. So I think this doesn't prove anything, but may be another reason why some find her similar to Ariel.

[Disney's Divinity]

Interesting to know, D82! Thank you for posting that. I agree, it doesn't confirm necessarily.

[Disney Duster]

That's a cool bit of information D82, and it does make me believe even more Vanessa is supposed to resemble Ariel!

[blackcauldron85]

Vanessa looks similar to Ariel, not the same, which is why no one comments on how they look compared to each other.

Yes, I feel the same. Ariel and Vanessa don't look like twins, but they both have similar hairstyles, similar body types,
big eyes...(Not that Ursula necessarily chose her eye shape; that's just the film/Disney's style!)