The Little Mermaid (Live-Action)

[Disney's Divinity]

If it's like the original, then Eric sees enough to know that the person who rescued him is a woman, and a vague idea of what her hair and skin look like. Vanessa is not a replica, but she is meant to be vaguely similar.

So I guess with Asha not being a princess, Disney really are anti-royalty now. So much for their bread and butter being "princess" films.

[Sotiris]

So I guess with Asha not being a princess, Disney really are anti-royalty now. So much for their bread and butter being "princess" films.

They're trying to have their cake and eat it too. Kowtowing to critics who complain about Disney promoting monarchy and princess culture, while at the time marketing them as "princess films" and including them in the Disney Princess franchise to maximize their profits. I would say this anti-princess trend started with Moana rejecting the label in her own film. Now we've come to a point where they don't even make these characters princesses anymore. We've had two films in a row like that; Encanto and Wish. I guess a "princess film" now just means a female-led musical set in a fantastical world.

[Sotiris]

Do you remember the Evil Manta from The Little Mermaid TV series? Disney may have been influenced by that since they've turned Ariel's mother in to a manta ray or stingray for the remake.

https://twitter.com/DisneyLABR/status/1 ... 2677537793

[D82]

First look at the Vanessa doll and more merch related images:

Ariel Singing Doll first look
Transforming Ariel Doll official images
New pictures of the Ursula Doll
Concept art of the Little Mermaid dolls
Lego Book Set first look
Ursula's Necklace
Ariel & Triton Petite Gift Set / Exploring Ariel Doll
Backpack / Backpack Set

Do you remember the Evil Manta from The Little Mermaid TV series? Disney may have been influenced by that since they've turned Ariel's mother in to a manta ray or stingray for the remake.

https://twitter.com/DisneyLABR/status/1 ... 2677537793

Interesting choice. Well, since Ursula is Triton's sister in this version and she's half octopus, plus each of Ariel's sisters' tails are inspired by different kinds of fish, I guess it's not that strange she's half manta ray/stingray. I wonder if she'll actually appear in the film or if they'll just talk about her and this design is just for the book. Do you think she could be Asian? I'd be surprised if both Ariel's parents are white.

Speaking of her, here's how she dies according to the "Guide to Merfolk" book. It seems Ursula doesn't actually kill her, but is quite responsible for her death.

[Sotiris]

Do you think she could be Asian? I'd be surprised if both Ariel's parents are white. Speaking of her, here's how she dies according to the "Guide to Merfolk" book. It seems Ursula doesn't actually kill her, but is quite responsible for her death.

She doesn't seem Asian to me in that sketch and it looks like she's got blonde hair. If she were supposed to be a person of color, I think they would have retained her natural hair color like they did with Ariel's sisters. Does she have a name? She's only referred to as The Sea Queen in that book. It seems silly to give her such a convoluted backstory, but not bother to give her a name.

[Disney Duster]

I like how every time someone insists this film is actually faithful--no, really--some new major change is revealed. First the song lyrics, then Eric is now a collector, then Grimsby being Prime Minister and F&J being nonentities, Ursula killed Ariel's mother, now Eric is adopted. That's just in the past two pages.

Would you say they're changing this movie more than they did Aladdin? I'd consider that to be a fairly faithful remake, but there were a lot of small changes to that one (remixing the sequence of events in the first thirty minutes, Aladdin goes to the palace before the Cave of Wonders, Genie gets a love interest, Jasmine wants to be Sultan, dropping the "Prince Ali" reprise etc.) that feel mostly in the same vein as the changes we've heard for this one.

Yes, you see Divinity, this movie is of the faithful type! I thought I pinpointed why you wanted this to be unfaithful, and I am sorry for the way I said it, I truly regret it because I wanted to keep being your friend (sometimes me and my friends rib each other, you know?), but here, see, I'm not the only one who sees this as a faithful Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast type! Remember, Aladdin had to change a few lyrics in "Arabian Nights", and they changed Jafar's backstory (or rather, gave him one!), made Jasmine want to be Sultan like Eric is now an explorer, and the eels don't talk just like Iago doesn't. I see these movies as expanding and making small changes, not butchering them. I WILL admit, I will admit, these changes are a bit more than what Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin got, but it still is of the faithful type!

[Sotiris]

I think The Little Mermaid stands somewhere in-between in regards to faithfulness to the original. It's less faithful than Beauty and the Beast/Aladdin/The Lion King, but more faithful than Mulan/Alice/Maleficent etc.

[DisneyFan09]

Well, regarding all these new changes: There was never a question that this remake was going to be changed, due to all the scrutinies to the original (and yes, I`ll admit that I used to criticize Ariel before, despite how I`ve never hated her. But my point of view on her has changed a bit). With that said, for all the criticisms to how these remakes are trying to fix and change the criticisms of their original predecessors, not all of the remakes have been as eager to fix them.
At least Kenneth Branagh`s Cinderella was a straight-forward retelling and didn`t bother to fix the criticisms hurled at the story (regardless of all the criticisms aimed at the original). The Lion King was also a straight-forward remake with little changes, as were Lady and the Tramp and Pinocchio. But regarding the changes for Mermaid, I truly hope that Ariel`s mother won`t be killed by humans. Because it was incongruous in The Little Mermaid III and wouldn`t truly reasonate with Ariel`s obsession with humans. Otherwise, I`m fine with Eric being a collector and that Ursula`s being the one who kills Ariel`s mother. And if Ariel kills Ursula, it would`ve certainly be a warranted change, due to how Ariel doesn`t kill her in the original.

First look at the Vanessa doll

Thanks for posting! She kinda looks like Emma Watson!

[Disney's Divinity]

@Duster: This movie isn't faithful, and I'm not the only one who feels that way either even if you choose to focus your energy on going after one person. The usual crowd hasn't changed, that's all the past page tells me; apologies for riticizing Rob Marshall doing an awful job again. You should know that attempting to dogpile someone who disagrees with you makes them much less likely to listen to you or acknowledge anything you have to say as genuine, not more. I usually just criticize louder in response to that.

@DisneyFan09: Yes, I agree, Ariel defeating Ursula is a change that was both expected and a good thing. That's equivalent to Jasmine being more of a fully-developed character in the Aladdin remake, imo, not Eric being adopted and having the same personality as Ariel now or Ariel having superpowers, none of the characters looking the same, Ursula not having polyps, F&J, or being a serial murderer now, etc. Iago does speak in the Aladdin remake, btw, he's just not OTT or comical which isn't much different from how all the sidekicks are less comical in the remakes. And, if anything, LeFou and the hyenas are more developed, not merely non-speaking CGI background effects like F&J are.

[D82]

Theatrical standee:


Source: https://twitter.com/asadayaz/status/1644916962592718848

I think they'll just have the audience assume that unlike the human world, principles and rules like genetics or accent acquisition don't apply to fantastical creatures like merfolk. I doubt they'll explain anything.

Yeah, that sounds likely. I preferred a colorblind casting. It made the film more unique and solved certain problems like the accents. But I read some people are against that type of casting as they think race shouldn't been ignored and because the actors are still playing white characters in most cases. Maybe Disney didn't want to risk getting that kind of backlash.

Yeah, it ridiculous. It's one thing for him to be an explorer given the setting, but making him a collector and an outsider too? It's just too much. Two people don't need to have the exact same interests and struggles to form a bond. Of course, that would require a more nuanced characterization and portrayal of their romance and that's not allowed in Disney remakes.

Them having some things in common didn't sound bad to me, but I have to agree it now seems there are too many parallels between them. It reminds me of the parallels they also tend to draw between the lead characters and the villains in the remakes, like they did with Aladdin and Jafar or Mulan and the witch. They're not subtle at all either.

If Ursula dies the same way as in the original, does that mean she will become a giant in the final battle?

I guess so.

I could see a story of Ariel's mother being one of Ursula's polyps being a neat addition possibly, with her being revealed at the end following Ursula's death, only Ursula's polyp victims have also been deleted from the story.

I was mistaken about the polyps. A new leaked extract from one of the books reveals they do appear in the movie after all.

She doesn't seem Asian to me in that sketch and it looks like she's got blonde hair. If she were supposed to be a person of color, I think they would have retained her natural hair color like they did with Ariel's sisters. Does she have a name? She's only referred to as The Sea Queen in that book. It seems silly to give her such a convoluted backstory, but not bother to give her a name.

You're right about the hair color. That book is a guide which expands on some elements from the film, so I suspect her backstory will be simpler in the movie. She may not even appear in it. Her story could be just told by some character.

I think The Little Mermaid stands somewhere in-between in regards to faithfulness to the original. It's less faithful than Beauty and the Beast/Aladdin/The Lion King, but more faithful than Mulan/Alice/Maleficent etc.

It's definitely less faithful than The Lion King, but I agree with Disney Duster's description that this one is of the faithful type. Representation-wise, it's true that it goes a step further than the others, which is actually in keeping with the current tendency in Hollywood. But story-wise, even after the latest changes we've learned about, it still looks on par with Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin to me. Those films seem faithful because they kept a lot of things from the original, but they added and changed a lot of stuff too. Anyway, we still haven't seen the movie and don't know how much the changes will affect the story, if the things described in the prequel novel will be part of the movie, etc. Also, this is a quite subjective subject. For some people some changes are more important than they are to others, so I doubt we'll all agree on this even after seeing the film. And that's fine. I actually would prefer it wasn't so faithful, as I have much more problems with the remakes that are.

And speaking of having different perceptions of things, to me Beauty and the Beast seemed less faithful than Aladdin, but I've only seen the films once and twice respectively, and perhaps it's because I had more of a problem with the changes and additions to the former.

With that said, for all the criticisms to how these remakes are trying to fix and change the criticisms of their original predecessors, not all of the remakes have been as eager to fix them.
At least Kenneth Branagh`s Cinderella was a straight-forward retelling and didn`t bother to fix the criticisms hurled at the story (regardless of all the criticisms aimed at the original).

That's true. They weren't that obsessed with "fixing" things at the beginning. As for The Lion King, perhaps it's because the original wasn't too criticized? Or was it?

[carolinakid]

Just that the hyenas were accused of being black stereotypes and Scar of being a gay stereotype.

As I’ve said before, the woke mob is never satisfied. They’ll always find something that offends them.

[D82]

Just that the hyenas were accused of being black stereotypes and Scar of being a gay stereotype.

Oh, yes. And I guess they fixed those things. I don't remember the film much.

[Disney's Divinity]

I don't think they 'fixed' that in TLK (not that I acknowledge those criticisms as true; the latter in particular was merely the only way for LGBT characters or coded characters to exist in animated films at all in those days)? The hyenas are less comical and more threatening (much like Iago), but that's about it. Jafar, Gaston, and Ursula are also often criticized for being gay stereotypes--if anything, they embraced those interpretations moreso in Jafar's and Gaston's case, I'd say.

Also, this is a quite subjective subject.

All opinions are. There's no such thing as an objective opinion. Maybe the solution is to accept when someone doesn't agree with you instead of trying to change them?

I would agree with Sotiris that this film is slightly "more faithful" than Alice or Mulan....that still doesn't make it "faithful" in my book.

[D82]

All opinions are. There's no such thing as an objective opinion.

I totally agree. By the way, I forgot the quotation marks when I wrote "fixed". I don't think The Lion King necessarily needed those changes, although I also understand the criticisms.

[Disney's Divinity]

Yeah, it's ridiculous. It's one thing for him to be an explorer given the setting, but making him a collector and an outsider too? It's just too much. Two people don't need to have the exact same interests and struggles to form a bond. Of course, that would require a more nuanced characterization and portrayal of their romance and that's not allowed in Disney remakes.

Not to mention it's a change that goes beyond surface level and is more fundamental to the way the character and story is because--Ariel and Eric were very much an opposites attract relationship, they were not a relationship where they identify with each other because of how similar they are.

They're trying to have their cake and eat it too. Kowtowing to critics who complain about Disney promoting monarchy and princess culture, while at the time marketing them as "princess films" and including them in the Disney Princess franchise to maximize their profits. I would say this anti-princess trend started with Moana rejecting the label in her own film. Now we've come to a point where they don't even make these characters princesses anymore. We've had two films in a row like that; Encanto and Wish. I guess a "princess film" now just means a female-led musical set in a fantastical world.

That is so dumb. Democracy doesn't work in fairytales because it's too complicated to explain, not because people emulate monarchies or a world where one person controls everything. It's because fairy tales are simplistic--when there's a King or a Queen, you don't have to explain how the world or government functions in detail, it's simple.

Sort of ties into my opinion here of how all the attempted "additions" to Ursula over the years really just dilute the character. There was a time when I sort of liked the siblings backstory when it first surfaced as deleted content on the Platinum Edition DVD because it confirmed the similarities I always saw between those two characters and Morgan le Fay and King Arthur, but as time goes by I realize this story works better for being simplistic and Ashman/M&C were right that it needlessly overcomplicates things on top of making Triton and Ursula too similar to Scar and Mufasa. Then you have to explain who the eldest is, was Ursula deposed, was their parent a god, etc. etc. It's much more simple that she was cast out of the court for stirring up trouble (because she's evil). The details are never satisfying, and that's even if they actually had someone competent coming up with a backstory like Ashman / M&C rather than the dipsticks running this thing. They're as bad as the director on the Mulan remake.

[DisneyFan09]

That's true. They weren't that obsessed with "fixing" things at the beginning. As for The Lion King, perhaps it's because the original wasn't too criticized? Or was it?

Well, it was criticized for it`s segregational overtones. For depicting the lions as superior to hyenas, which was a metaphor for racism.

[carolinakid]

There’s a reason why the lion is known as the King of Beasts and it had nothing to do with segregation. And wasn’t only one hyena voiced by a black person? I know one of the others is Latino.... I don’t know if the third hyena ever actually spoke. And weren’t Mufasa, Sarabi and young Nala all voiced by black actors?

I’m not criticizing your post, DF09, ... I’m just saying the point that was criticized is ridiculous. Do you think if Whoopi Goldberg (with whom I fundamentally disagree) thought her hyena was a black stereotype or promoter of segregation she would have agreed to do the role?

[Farerb]

Melissa McCarthy On The Inspiration Behind Her Ursula In ‘The Little Mermaid’ Live-Action Film
https://deadline.com/2023/04/melissa-mc ... 235320662/

[D82]

There was a time when I sort of liked the siblings backstory when it first surfaced as deleted content on the Platinum Edition DVD because it confirmed the similarities I always saw between those two characters and Morgan le Fay and King Arthur, but as time goes by I realize this story works better for being simplistic and Ashman/M&C were right that it needlessly overcomplicates things on top of making Triton and Ursula too similar to Scar and Mufasa.

I personally never liked the idea of them being siblings. I agree it makes Ursula too similar to Scar. Not only does it make her the king's sibling, but also the protagonist's aunt. And if in this version she kills a member of the family, that'll make her even more similar to him.

Well, it was criticized for it`s segregational overtones. For depicting the lions as superior to hyenas, which was a metaphor for racism.

I see. I don't know if it was intentional, though. It's true that wasn't really "fixed" in the remake. They could've done that by having some good hyena as a character, for example, to show they're not all evil.

There’s a reason why the lion is known as the King of Beasts and it had nothing to do with segregation. And wasn’t only one hyena voiced by a black person? I know one of the others is Latino.... I don’t know if the third hyena ever actually spoke. And weren’t Mufasa, Sarabi and young Nala all voiced by black actors?

Oh, it's true. Mufasa, Sarabi and young Nala were voiced by black actors. The third hyena doesn't talk, but makes some noises, which were done by Jim Cummings, who is white, so I think the criticism is unfounded in this case. And yes, sometimes people like to read too much into things and look for parallels with the real world everywhere. This is an animal world; you can't always compare them with the human one.

[Sotiris]

There was a time when I sort of liked the siblings backstory when it first surfaced as deleted content on the Platinum Edition DVD because it confirmed the similarities I always saw between those two characters and Morgan le Fay and King Arthur, but as time goes by I realize this story works better for being simplistic and Ashman/M&C were right that it needlessly overcomplicates things on top of making Triton and Ursula too similar to Scar and Mufasa.

I personally never liked the idea of them being siblings. I agree it makes Ursula too similar to Scar. Not only does it make her the king's sibling, but also the protagonist's aunt. And if in this version she kills a member of the family, that'll make her even more similar to him.

I agree with all of the above. To me, Triton and Ursula being siblings never made sense because they seem to be of different species. Ursula even has non-human skin tone unlike Triton and his daughters.