What’s your opinion on the new Little Mermaid movie?

[AGXStarseed]

I'll give my own points of view on the film here:

Spoiler: Review

First, I'm personally not too bothered about Ariel's skin colour in this, as she's a mermaid rather than a human and Merfolk from different mythologies can have wildly varying appearances depending on the culture/story - be it the Iara from Brazil, the Merrows from Ireland, the Ningyo from Japan, the Mami Wata from Africa, etc.
What I don't get is how she and her sisters all apparently had one mother, but then each of them are a different ethnicity. Couldn't the film have thrown in a line about Merfolk all been born with a set skin, scale and hair colour before been able to magically change it later when they've grown a bit?
If they did that, you could have had a young Ariel playing with this and simultaneously provide a reference to the Little Mermaid design from the Hans Christian Anderson book and Ariel's design from the original film before settling on Halle Bailey's appearance.

Second, I think the new film is definitely too long. The originally clocked in at a healthy 83 minutes (not too short of the "1 hour, 30 minutes" mark that most kid movies would try to reach) but it still got in all the story it needed. This one was 2 hours, 15 minutes and it dragged. Considering the attention span of most people nowadays, how many kids are going to sit quietly for that length of time?

Third, the CGI does not look good in my opinion - which doesn't surprise me considering the horror stories you hear about Disney treating their VFX artists like garbage. It's not helped by the fact that James Cameron showed how amazing the ocean could look with Avatar 2, which just makes the Little Mermaid's portrayal of the ocean in this film look worse. Heck, the film Splash! with Daryl Hannah had better underwater scenes in my opinion.
As a nitpick that I find rather funny (in how stupid an oversight it is), why is Sebastian modeled after a species of crab that can't swim or breathe underwater?

Fourth, the filmmakers have tried to apply Disney's more modern trope of trying to empower women; showing them focusing on their careers instead of relationships because they "don't need men to define or save them". Now, in other shows/movies, that could be fine and dandy.
The problem here is that the romance plot of the original Little Mermaid (the book and original Disney film) is a core element of the story, while Eric's selfless rescue of Ariel from Ursula in the finale of the original film - watched by Flounder and Sebastian - helped change King Triton's previously prejudiced views towards humans and thus convinced him to let Ariel be together with Eric as the prince had proven himself; the two royals even bowing to each other out of respect at the end.
As such, having the romance plot toned down here (to the point where Ariel and Eric don't even get married but instead go off to find trading partners to improve the kingdom) and also having Ariel be the one to kill Ursula by steering the ship instead - despite having no knowledge of how to control a ship, let alone controlling one that is heavily damaged and in the middle of a storm caused by Ursula's use of the Trident - just rings hollow.

Finally, Awkafina's rap song...Why? (what's weird is that it's even worse if you speed it up).

What I find interesting is that I've seen a few people suggest in YouTube comments that Disney should have just done a live action adaptation of the book Sukey and the Mermaid. After seeing the book and its plot, I do think it could have worked. Interestingly, here's the first review of it on Goodreads:
"This short story by Robert D. San Souci has been developed from African lore, not a cut and paste black mermaid put by Disney on a Danish story, The Little Mermaid. The author concludes with a note about the long tradition of mermaids and sea goddesses in a variety of African countries. Stories from West Africa found their way to the Caribbean and the Sea Islands and Gullah-Geechee folklore in the Americas.

Sukey and the Mermaid doesn’t connect directly to Africa but is good for its rural feel, magic, and a moral about being a good person. It could be read by older elementary school children or to younger ones. The art work by Brian Pinkney is outstanding."

Here's a YouTube "read-along" of the book if you're interested:

 

[Au Naturel]

You have basically summed up current parenting and young people who were born after the 00's.
I work in a school and this development in character in young people if frightning.

That trend started in the 70s and really started gathering steam in the 80s and 90s. There is altogether too much raising of children by theory and discarding experience when it doesn't fit the theory. Needs to work the other way around.

 

[kenaij]

That trend started in the 70s and really started gathering steam in the 80s and 90s. There is altogether too much raising of children by theory and discarding experience when it doesn't fit the theory. Needs to work the other way around.

I agree it started earlier. But currently it has gone totally bonkers. So basically the kids from the periods your point out are the current parents that have taken it a step beyond. Because a lot of parents these days think about themselves first and their children afterwards. They no longer parent. Then just provide food and a bed. And let their children be their own free selves without enough clear boundaries and consequences.

 

[Hypnalis]

I think the cause of this can be traced, and the process analyzed.

And that there's a connection with the non-ironic use of MarySue characters and the associated negative effect on storytelling and its traditional role in providing moral guidance.

But I'm not sure it can be discussed here.
I can provide a link to a movie critic who, despite an eccentric online persona, covers the topic quite well in general, and reviewed the live-action Little Mermaid, but I'm not prepared to put the link into a thread.
It's just youtube though - anyone else can do it.

PS
@AGXStarseed
Your review may have been influenced by my favorite youtube film critic My post above certainly was.
Agree 100% about using a different cultural source for a similar story. I don't think 2020's Disney is up to it though - I think they've literally forgotten how to make children's movies.

@Au Naturel
An interesting "probably not a coincidence" - the beginning of the coming population collapse turned out to be in the mid 1970s.
The change in the numbers was due to a significant increase in the age of first time mothers in "the western world".
I'll leave the back-trace up to you

 

[Captain Jigglypuff]

I haven’t seen it yet but I really don’t see what the big deal is with Ariel not being white. Hans Christian Andersen never actually did describe what the mermaid looked like and in his mind she could have had electric blue skin with purple spots and had neon green hair. It’s a mermaid. As long as it’s a woman’s torso on top of a fish’s tail, it doesn’t matter what the mermaid looks like!

 

[AGXStarseed]

I haven’t seen it yet but I really don’t see what the big deal is with Ariel not being white. Hans Christian Andersen never actually did describe what the mermaid looked like and in his mind she could have had electric blue skin with purple spots and had neon green hair. It’s a mermaid. As long as it’s a woman’s torso on top of a fish’s tail, it doesn’t matter what the mermaid looks like!

I believe the main issue many people had is because of Ariel's father and of the story's supposed location.
While the original book just referred to him as "The Sea King", the Disney animated version made him into King Triton; Triton been the son of Poseidon/Neptune - the Greek/Roman God of the Sea - so you can imagine that Triton would be portrayed as white.
Add in the fact that the Disney version supposedly set the Undersea Kingdom of Atlantica off the coast of Denmark in the film (which would make sense as Denmark has a Monarchy and Eric is a Scandanavian name), and you again get the expectation of the character been white.

Now, having Ariel be black could still make sense if the film explained it better.
African stories of their mermaids (like Mami Wata or Jengu) did spread to the Caribbean and other places due to Africans been taken as slaves in the past, so you could maybe have a younger Triton following a group of Dutch sailors to the Caribbean, where he would meet and fall in love with a Mami Wata who lived in the Caribbean (maybe with the two rescuing each other from sailors who spotted and tried to catch them in their nets), with her coming back to Atlantica with him to become his Queen. This in turn could be how Sebastian ends up been the King's advisor, with the Mami Wata been friends with him beforehand and bringing him along with her.

As I said in my review above, the film could also explain - regarding all of Triton's children's been different ethnicities despite all having the same mother - that Mermaids are born a certain colour (like been blue-skinned initially so they're harder for predators like Sharks to spot) before been able to change the colour of their skin, scales and hair via magic when they're older; a young Ariel playing with this and simultaneously providing both a reference to the Little Mermaid design from the Hans Christian Anderson book and Ariel's design from the original film before settling on Halle Bailey's appearance.
As I said in my review, though, I personally wasn't bothered by the skin colour change; she's a mermaid rather than a human and Merfolk from different mythologies can have wildly varying appearances depending on the culture/story.

 

[Hypnalis]

I think there's a brief answer to @Captain Jigglypuff 's reference to commentary about public reactions to "The Little Mermaid".

It's almost certainly not about racism at all. It's just not a good movie.

IMO the entertainment business is way too casual about claiming racism without evidence.

 

[kenaij]

I believe the main issue many people had is because of Ariel's father and of the story's supposed location.
While the original book just referred to him as "The Sea King", the Disney animated version made him into King Triton; Triton been the son of Poseidon/Neptune - the Greek/Roman God of the Sea - so you can imagine that Triton would be portrayed as white.
Add in the fact that the Disney version supposedly set the Undersea Kingdom of Atlantica off the coast of Denmark in the film (which would make sense as Denmark has a Monarchy and Eric is a Scandanavian name), and you again get the expectation of the character been white.

Now, having Ariel be black could still make sense if the film explained it better.
African stories of their mermaids (like Mami Wata or Jengu) did spread to the Caribbean and other places due to Africans been taken as slaves in the past, so you could maybe have a younger Triton following a group of Dutch sailors to the Caribbean, where he would meet and fall in love with a Mami Wata who lived in the Caribbean (maybe with the two rescuing each other from sailors who spotted and tried to catch them in their nets), with her coming back to Atlantica with him to become his Queen. This in turn could be how Sebastian ends up been the King's advisor, with the Mami Wata been friends with him beforehand and bringing him along with her.

As I said in my review above, the film could also explain - regarding all of Triton's children's been different ethnicities despite all having the same mother - that Mermaids are born a certain colour (like been blue-skinned initially so they're harder for predators like Sharks to spot) before been able to change the colour of their skin, scales and hair via magic when they're older; a young Ariel playing with this and simultaneously providing both a reference to the Little Mermaid design from the Hans Christian Anderson book and Ariel's design from the original film before settling on Halle Bailey's appearance.
As I said in my review, though, I personally wasn't bothered by the skin colour change; she's a mermaid rather than a human and Merfolk from different mythologies can have wildly varying appearances depending on the culture/story.

I very much like that as the beginning of the story. Very good write-up.

 

[AGXStarseed]

I very much like that as the beginning of the story. Very good write-up.

Thank you.
I'd probably make Triton and Mami Wata's meeting/union a flashback that Triton and/or Sebastian have rather than the beginning of the film, though, otherwise you introduce a new character just to kill her off immediately (especially as you wouldn't have a lot of time to develop her) - which might rub some people the wrong way.
Likewise, I'd make the whole thing with the daughters all starting blue before cycling through different skin, scale and hair colours as youngsters a flashback that Triton, Sebastian or Ariel have.

 

[Au Naturel]

Tempest in a teapot. If you don't want to see the movie, don't watch it.

I avoid remakes of classics like the plague. They try to jazz them up in ways that destroy the chemistry of the original. Especially true of animation to live action.

I don't care what color Ariel's skin is. They are doing a Hans Christian Anderson story; he would have envisioned her as white. But merpeople could reasonably have been any color of the rainbow or striped or spotted or even random colors. Have her change like a chameleon. But when you make her a color, the rest of the story must match the choice. Convoluted arguments about how she is the exception to a rule or complicated explanations about merperson development only detract from the story.

 

[AGXStarseed]

If we are saying that Triton is part of a specific Mediterranean pantheon, then Triton would absolutely not be white in the stereotypical Western European idea of whiteness.

Natural Selection would dictate that he would be of a Mediterranean complexion. Which skin color could range anywhere from Spanish, to French, to Italian, to Slavic, to Bosnian, to Greek, to Arab, to Sabra, to Bedouin, to Egyptian, to Moroccan, to Sub Saharan African, and beyond.

I think you might have misunderstood. Triton is part of the Greek Pantheon (been Poseidon's son).
For the situation I described above, I simply hypothesized that other mermaid groups from different parts of the world/folklore existed - some of them traveling with their people when their people chose/were forced to travel to other parts of the world, like how African folklore/mythology ended up in the Americas when the slaves were brought over and European folklore/mythology came over with European explorers/settlers.
As such, it would be a case of a younger Triton choosing to follow one of his people's ships to the "New World" to explore himself and meeting one of the Mami Wata (African Mermaids) who had settled in the Caribbean; the two falling in love for this version of the Little Mermaid story.
Hope that makes more sense.

 

[kenaij]

This is quite an old post now, but I remembered @Yeshuasdaughter opinion about the movie and finally got the chance to see it today with my kids.
Overall I think it is a pretty fun movie. I really love the original disney movie so I am biased. And I can`t help but admit I really compare it to that movie.
So:

Things I liked (over the original)
- I like how they expanded on the relationship between Ariel and Eric more. Showing how they have things in common like collecting stuff. In the cartoon they pretty much only had that she saved him, and that was it.
- I like they showed early in the movie that Eric is someone that wants to unite people. He wants to expand his knowledge of the world and sees progress instead of what has always been.
- I like the explenation she used her siren`s call to bring Eric back after saving him. This also explains better that he is under Ursula's spell later on.
- End shot with humans and mermaids together.

What I didn`t like, or liked less compared to the original.
- The movie felt a little to slow for me. It was also to long for my 6 year old son. Which was done with the movie about 2/3 or 3/4 of the total length.
- I don`t like the songs they have added. This is something I feel with all the remakes. I don`t mind little changes to original songs but the new songs are just bad generally.
- I don`t like we still have Ariel singing after losing her voice, even if it is just in her head. The cartoon was better at portraying her thoughts and emotions without any sound.
- I don`t like the movie takes place in another location compared to the original.
- I don`t like Ariel killing Ursula. Eric saving Ariel would have been a better choice. Since they would have both saved eachother. And it would show Triton not all humans want to kill mermaids but some will save them.
- And I still think they should have gone with a pale red head girl. But watching the movie it never bothered me too much. The actress did a good job.
- No kitchen sebastian scene.

Things I don`t mind which I have seen a lot of people dislike.
- Lots of people have stated they completely 'nerfed' Eric for the lack of a better word. And I do not agree with it at all. Besides Ariel killing Ursula he was actually a pretty heroic person. Just not in the old school sense. Intellectual Heroic.
- Prince Eric not being a real prince, since he was adopted.
- Ursula's actress (although I would have loved a really big man in drag tbh)

 

[lovely_darlingprettybaby]

I don’t like the new movie because of her race, but because many people grew up with a different version of Ariel. She has had her same appearance since 1989. I think Disney should have created their own black mermaid as a new Disney princess. Along the line, they could have a crossover with Ariel and the new mermaid Disney princess. Disney has proven that they can make new Disney princesses that become a huge success.

For example, Moana, Elsa, Raya, etc. I would have liked that idea much more than what they did. I’m not racist because she’s black it has nothing to do with that. I found this detailed explanation on this topic on YouTube. I’m gonna link it if anyone is interested. This topic is explained much better.

I’m personally not a fan of it, probably because I grew up with old Disney movies and 80s/90s movies. I’m a bit biased, but I’d love to hear your thoughts on it.

—Dyl

My thoughts are I hate live actions because they never replace the original.
However sometimes I wish they could have done a ginger haired Ariel with pale skin who actually swam under the sea and they made it lifelike without computer generated nonsense.
But it would still never probably be the same.
Computer generated nonsense has wrecked movies and often looks so fake and takes away charm and class of movies
Even Tim Burton was a way better director eg edward scissorhands, Batman, beetlejuice
Before...alice in wonderland, dumbo, etc
Ya know what I am trying to say, technological advances ruined him like it has ruined most things

 

[lovely_darlingprettybaby]

I haven't seen the movie but I have seen the original little mermaid a few times. She is sitting on a stone in Denmark, she has been sitting there since 1913. It's a bronze statue, back in the 1960s someone actually stole her head. Denmark was in an uproar. It was never recovered and a new head had to be made. Then someone stole her arm in the 80s and then her head again in the 90s. She has had a rough life.

I wish mermaids were real. Maybe they are real they just hide from humans or are not visible to those that do not believe.
Same with unicorns in Scotland.the reason people do not see them is they do not believe.

 

[Au Naturel]

It's strange to me that anyone acts like those movies are sacred, let alone good or even "perfect" lol They were blatant cash grabs at the time. And they can keep making these live-action remakes without taking anything away from the originals. I'm a diehard Disney devotee and I don't see the issue. Do you really like the original that much? You think it's perfect? Have you always felt that way? Or do you only care now because it's a hot-button issue?

Yes. I think the animated Little Mermaid was an excellent animated movie.

Dude, I grew up watching Walt Disney's Wonderful World of Color. I watched 101 Dalmations when it first came out in theaters, 1961. My daughter grew up on Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast. Do not lecture me on Disney.

Disney had become moribund. The Little Mermaid won 2 Oscars and made Disney more money than any other film to that date. It was a brilliant piece of animation that saved the company.

Remakes are rarely as good as the original. Remakes - and often sequels - are almost always an attempt to capitalize on a preexisting fan base rather than putting in the effort to develop a new idea. It is a financially secure move because you are guaranteed some people will go see it because of their memories of the original. Doing a live-action remake of an animated classic is even worse because you lose the charm of the animation. Things work in animation that live-action can't get away with. Animation encourages imagination.

They could have done an original Little Mermaid movie without stomping everyone's memories. I have no problem with a powerful black mermaid. That's not the issue here. Make a new effing movie with a new plot.

I find it curious that your immediate thought as to why someone says they don't like remakes is that they want to jump on a hot-button issue, not that they don't like remakes. Takes away their agency and impugns their motives. At least on this forum, one should assume that people mean what they say.