You asked “why are they doing this” well here is the terrible answer. The reason all this race swapping & blackwashing is happening in film ONLY to white characters in film and television, with both actual historical figures & “fictional” characters is for one reason & one reason alone. The reason is to promote & normalize the Kalergi Plan of white racial replacement in the minds of the masses. It is all there for propaganda. And they will keep doing race swapping & blackwashing of whites even if they lose lots of money & have horrible ratings, because it was never about money or ratings. Cinderella & Beauty & the Beast for example are ancient European fairytales that likely predate even Christianity & there should be ZERO black people in those live action films. Just like, in a live action Moana film (even though it is not ancient) there should be an entirely Polynesian cast. Just as in a live action Mulan should be an entirely East Asian cast. There is a reason they ONLY race swap & blackwash WHITE characters. And again, the reason is about promoting & normalizing the Kalergi Plan agenda. Nothing more, nothing less.
When Eric saved Ariel, it showed Triton that not all humans are bad and he can trust him protecting her which is why he let Ariel go. Swapping them was a terrible idea!
I always thought the casting managers for the Harry Potter movies were geniuses. The managed to find kids who not only looked the part for the first film, but also weren't entirely insufferably bad actors when they were young. And then they grew into a group of decent to excellent actors as the got older, which was either amazing good luck or outstanding prescience, because it only would have taken one of the three leads to grow up to be weird looking and/or a terrible actor to have sunk that franchise.
Yeah, they also grew up to be decent looking and solid actors. The guy who played Harry Potter (blanking on his name at-Daniel Radcliffe!) is a bit of a Shai LeBeauf (sp?) type, doing interesting things with surprising acting chops. The movie wasn't perfect, but I recommend Guns Akimbo. A surprising number of funny moments.
Eh, yeah though now more than a few of them have become insufferable activist types who happily bad mouth JK Rowling for her opinions despite the fact she's the reason they have careers.
That's because the casting choices were influenced by Rowling herself. Some would say thst Hermione was too pretty, but I disagree, because Hermione in the books was in fact pretty. It was just hard to see at first because she doesn't care about her looks.
I thought Harry and Ron looked the part. But Hermione was just bad casting. Emma was a pretty bad child actor. Daniel Radcliffe was ok as an actor but he got much better when he was a bit older.
@@vetarlittorf1807she wasn't pretty in the books,there is an interview where rowling says that the actors looked way better than she imagined the characters. There is also an interesting video about Adaptional attractiveness on TH-cam about that topic.
It doesn’t matter who has more experience behind the microphone. In the original, Scuttle was voiced by Buddy Hackett, a comedic actor who had very little previous experience in voice acting. It’s not about experience, it’s about how much the actor commits to their part. Unfortunately, there are a lot big name actors who don’t take voice acting roles as seriously as they do with on-camera roles. I haven’t seen the movie and I probably never will, but given her past roles in animation and how well she’s done with them, Awkwafina, to me, seems like a good pick.
It's odd to think that they thought that Ariel should be more "badass", when she wasn't even a damsel in distress in the original. She was the one who saved Eric from drowning and went against her father's will to see the human world (though definitely a risky choice on her part). Also, she was interested in the human world before she even knew about Eric, so they really didn't need to remove the love story. Overall, it's sad that they decided to change so much about the original story, which didn't do the movie any justice😑
And she fucked up as any teenager not listening to her dad, but her dad loved her no matter what and chose to sacrifice himself to save his little girl.. ❤ Ofc Ariel understood how much her dad loved her and tried to correct her mistake that lead to him suffering. All in all a great sum up of many families, dads can be overprotective at times, even if we don’t agree we know they care for us and will be there to protect us from our mistakes at any cost.
Netflix did exactly the same things in the Witcher That's why Henry Calpil left He wanted to stick.close to the source material but the narcissistic men hating feminist cows at Netflix want to change it for" modern audiences " Part way through season 2 in came the woke and identity politics ,prefect Mary sues and any male character was treated like crap The witcher to me was dead part way through season 2 And I was a fan of the show and the games Then they released " blood origins " and session 3 of the witcher Fans just up and left Jamming woke and identity politics down people's throats and attacking anyone who dares to complain is not the way to run a business Yet all the studios are doing the same things Disney, Amazon ,Netflix ,MSHEU , Marvel etc I've boycotted the lot
That's how I felt about Emma Watson in Beauty and the Beast. In the be our guest song she had absolutely no reaction she wasn't good, and on top of everything else she could not sing.
So they basically flipped the original story. Not the Disney one, the very original one, where the mermaid was simpling and hurting from love, while the prince fell in love with another girl 😐 What's even the point of this movie 😂
They changed the species of the bird to make it able to dive under water while the original seagull don't do that, I think they did this because they want to soften that rebellious streak in Ariel so they change the bird to a bird that can dive and Ariel won't have to disobey Triton to talk to the bird anymore, which is stupid because it takes away Ariel's character and one of the reasons why she's relatable, which is being a rebellious teenager.
@@SoWhatHo But in the original she is constantly going to the surface, which is why Triton is frustrated, but with that minor change, she didn't really have the reason to constantly do that and it wouldn't really explain why Triton was mad that she went up to the surface to see the bird and ask questions about the human world, which they still kept it in for this remake.
@@clairelin0216 I understand that. But in this one, instead of always going to the surface, she goes farther out into the ocean where she isn’t supposed to be (ex: the ship wrecks). And she was already curious about humans which is where Triton’s frustration come from.
Shad summed the film up nicely by saying in essence “there are a few changes here and there, none of which were necessary, all making the film a bit worse”.
@@suzygirl1843 No plenty kids share the same sentiment. And really it’s been said the people 20 and up saw this. I still don’t care for it, and I’m not male or 40 years old.
@@twilightfades_7 we are done with this topic. Africans have moved on. If you pay attention, all this DEI was actually The West trying to appeal to Africa Market but now that China is there, Africans have focused on East Asian entertainment. There's a Nigerian KDrama series and USA is Nepotist country anyway. We are not interested in this topic anymore. Let it die.
10:43: Her acting in the scene where Triton destroys her treasure, genuinely, reminded me of the Gene Wilder Willy Wonka’s response to Mike Teevee’s mom: “No. Wait. Stop.” No emotion in that scene whatsoever. And Javier Bardem’s acting was almost a repeat of Jet Li’s acting in the Mulan remake where you could see Li barely moving his mouth. I hate that they got rid of “Le Poissons” and the chef character, they just simply reference Sebastian escaping the kitchen, and “Under the Sea” and “Kiss the Girl” where insulting without all the additional animal characters singing and dancing along, (especially in Under the Sea where Sebastian literally references all the other animals and the instruments they play). Not to mention Ariel singing along with Under the Sea, a song designed to convince her to stay away from the surface, is nonsensical.
Yeah, the original song was saying that under the sea is better than the surface. If she's singing along, then....is she agreeing with Sebastian? If so, if it's truly worse than under the sea, why be obsessed with the surface world?🤔 Why abandon the sea for a world you think isn't worth being in? Figures. One of the few times she looks happy is during the one song when she should have looked bored out of her mind....
Their bread and butter is princess stories. But the princess stories rarely have the princess in a postion of power. Imagine trying to remake Cinderella and somehow she is the hero of the story. Or Snow White. She has to be the one to save the prince who is now asleep. Even Lilo and Stitch and Stitch now has to be Stitchette because the hero can't be male. The princesses now all have to be African American because keeping them white isn't diverse enough. The villians all have to be white male because women can't be doing wrong to another female. (Can't be a Karen.) These are the sort of things the writers have to deal with. They are given a list of things to make happen in the story and something as simple as a character's motivation might sabotage the whole storyline. Imagine Lady and the Tramp and Lady has do some very not lady like things to save Tramp. Who is a beta male but living on the streets ... somehow.
I don't think it's that simple. I've seen some old school writers describe the fact that a huge cost savings for these big companies has been to lay off the talented experienced writers and hire untested grad students. I'd buy that explanation for a dollar. And aside from that it's also top down corporate decision making. Meaning the big execs are stifling creativity and telling the studios to pump stuff out as cheaply and quickly as possible with little to no effort to be spent on writing things that are entertaining or make sense. Just remake something already made, slap some woke messaging on it. And print us money. But at the end of the day we have to stop moaning about this stuff but seeing the movies anyway. Stop going to see this crap. You know before you enter the line at the theatre that it's going to be some rubbish that places its political messaging ahead of its value as entertainment. So just don't see it. We dont win this fight by complaining online. Theyre perfectly happy generating controversy because it's free marketing and drives chatter. We win by refusing to participate altogether and hold these companies accountable for a bad product by refusing to buy it.
Disney missed the point of what made their own Little Mermaid great (Let's put Hans Christian Andersen's version on the back burner and focus on the 1989 one) Ariel was indeed curious about the human world but the romance was a decent factor in it. Plus, let's not forget that Eric and Ariel protected each other in the final battle. They were equal partners. Here? Eric isn't needed and Ariel just "woke up perfect". You're right: there are no strong motivations for anyone
Thank God, a person with a intellect that sees my exact point of view, I actually had made an exact similar comment like this one I got annoyed one of the person said they were going to see be excited to see Eric kill Ursula with the boat and I put we can’t have “that because of women empowerment” and a person argued with me. It was good that Ariel did it but I highly disagree. It’s fair that Eric helps because it shows he’s not a cheap douche bag. He actually cares for Ariel, like she did for him when he fell off the boat, so I get annoyed with the argument, Ariel’s a damsel in distress. She literally went into shark infested waters, literally saved a man from going overboard lol! P.s sorry for the long comment XD
@@Heavilune I'm cool with the long comment I'm not always a huge fan of romance but it was fine in the 1989 movie. Eric had a personality and cared about Ariel, helping her when she needed it. It's okay to ask for help when you need it and that's what this remake refuses to understand
Please don't refer to them as "partners." Don't make love sound like a job. They were equal as people, mates, or a couple. They were equal to each other. Literally no reason to tack the word "partners" on there. They wouldn't need it to know they're equal, unlike insecure people today.
@@englishatheart And yet some people are cool with describing their romantic relationship as an "equal partnership" Love ain't easy,in this world or any world You don't like the word "partner"? Fine, that's you. There are plenty of people out there who are fine with it,so tolerate it.
...but not the opposite point of the original tragedy. "The Little Mermaid" is *supposed* to be dark. Disney made a bad Mermaid movie the first time around. I admit to being amused that anybody thought a remake in Current Year was ever going to be a thing.
I just saw that and there's one disturbing scene with dead bodies but other than that (and really only one part with a bunch of skimpy clad women) it is pretty family friendly
When the _Akwafina🦀*'Scuttle-butt'*🦀 Musical_ Number finished, my Kids looked over at me & asked if we could "Go Home" to either "Do Chores" or "Work on Homework" instead. 'Little Mermaid '23 was _that _*_good._*
@@Selrisitai yeah, good point. That's a better descriptor! Because they aren't really adapting a source material (like a book or play) called "Hook" they took characters from the original and reimagined them with a continuation of their stories.
Hook was not well received at the time, and I don't think it's a very good movie. The premise is well-done, and there are some iconic portrayals to be sure. Dustin Hoffman's portrayal of Hook is iconic, as is Bob Hoskins as Smee. But even though it has an excellent opening act that build suspense and mystery, by the time Peter makes it to Neverland the film quickly drops off a cliff. In the end I like the film, and remember it fondly. But it needed a lot of work to really be regarded as "fantastic." Although, it definitely justified its own existence, so I think I agree with your central point
Helps that Hook was essentially exploring Peter Pan in an actual interesting angle, namely what would happen if Peter grew up. There are things they could've done with the Little Mermaid, granted they kind of did some of that with the sequel and prequel but there have to be other story options.
I like hearing your kids' perspectives. I rarely, if ever, hear what kids themselves actually think about kids' movies. And, yes, it's interesting to hear the different opinions at the different ages. I hope you add this as a regular feature in the future!
It may be best for him to ask them to rerate the movie a few days later. Sometimes you don't realise how terrible a terrible movie was until a few days later. I had that experience with seeing The Last Jedi in cinemas.
@@cassiefuchs3657 I had the reverse with Guardians VoL3 where I thought it was just a weird movie, not even good or bad. Now I say it’s decent, and shoot, at least they kept the tone serious when they were actually in those serious moments.
At least in korea it's already creating issues among kids with them arguing about ariel's skin color when coloring the original ariel and 6~7 years old needing to say i am not being discrminatory it isnt how she looks like and etc and another saying but in the MOVIE 🤷🏻♀️☠i feel bad for the kids
Regarding Eric being adopted ... Back in the days of kingdoms, the most important thing was to continue the royal bloodline ... the purpose of royal marriages was to "produce an heir to the throne" ... Royalty did not marry for love, they had arranged marriages between kingdoms ... If a queen did not give birth to a male baby, she could be divorced or beheaded. So, my point is, no kingdom would ever adopt a child, regardless of the child's race ... royal blood is too important to them.
Ariel was always in love with the human world before she met Eric. But meeting him was that last push that made her decide that she was going to do something about it. Idk why disney doesn't get that, they don't have to hide the romance for it to work.
The oddest switch I found was Ariel doing the work at the end to save Eric. In the original Prince Eric saving Ariel was the catalyst for his character arc changing from hating humans to seeing they aren't bad as he previously perceived. Triton gave his blessing to Ariel to marry Eric and finally creating the rainbow from sea to land symbolizing the friendship and connection between the two worlds. How exactly does the arc work in the new version?
The changes were absurd for plot consistency. At one point they are complaining that the humans keep littering the sea floor with the pieces of their wrecked ships. As the king of the ocean, I feel like Triton has an easy fix for that...
I really appreciate hearing your wife and kids' perspectives too - I think it'll be very helpful for other families in deciding whether or not this movie is for them. I've heard from other reviewers that young children couldn't stand the movie and were very squirmy in the theatre. Shoutout for the kid who said, "This is the $5-6 rental that you've got to wait for". That cracked me up!
Can confirm, movie-theatre popcorn is the best popcorn. I used to work at a theatre. They use special oil, and a REALLY weird looking, school-bus yellow salt which I cannot confirm is cancerous or not. But the flavor is a cut above the rest.
They tweaked a few things but it entirely breaks the characters Removing Eric's humble displays, things like how he frowns of getting a chad statue of himself, Ariel not being to the surface beforehand, when in the original movie it was a very 'wow she's risking her life just to satisfy her fascination', the ursula fight doesn't make sense since she didn't want to kill ariel until she thanos'd her eels while saving Eric which is what gave Eric time to drive the ship
…. But the movie was really good? Took my mom and she loved it so much she cried by the end. I loved it. Boyfriend saw it with two friends and they all loved it. Entire audience seemed extremely happy with it. Now if you want a bad remake: Pinocchio. Also lion king was literally shot for shot. But it’s funny seeing how up in arms people like you get
Can’t wait for the exaggerated she was so amazing as the character all the haters were wrong and when you mention her bad acting it’s you just don’t like her cause of her skin color.
Wow. That sounds awful. So basically Ariel and Eric had a one-sided green card marriage of convenience. She doesn’t want Eric, she just wants access to his world and is using him to get there. Great message, Disney!! Edit: Just jokin around, people! I haven’t seen the film. If the movie isn’t as I said it was, or you loved it, that’s great. Just havin a little fun, that’s all.
In the original animated version it was very well established that Ariel was strong and knew what she wanted AND that she wanted to be part of the human world LONG before she saw Eric
Establishing why Triton and Ursula wouldn't like each other is completely unnecessary. Ursula is a witch who does selfish and malicious things during the central plot. Is it that difficult to imagine Triton already knew that about her?
yeah she mentions in the original she was banished and we end up seeing why by the end of the film because she has been slugifying merpeople. Its also clear she is angry at Triton for banishing her and wants his crown. There was really no mystery in the original why she was doing what she was doing and why no one liked her.
My niece didn't like the movie either, she didn't like the songs, she usually sings some songs from Disney movies, but she was quiet with these. The rapping one she barely had any interest at all 😂
Not to mention the fact that Ariel *already* had a very active interest in exploring the humans on the surface world *before* she ever even saw Eric in the original Disney animated movie, so she had greater motivation than *just* a man to go to the surface there, too. So, she saw a kind hearted and physically attractive young human man around her age, and decided to romantically pursue him by trading her voice and fins to get legs in a moment of desperation after her father decided to recklessly destroy her entire collection to punish her in a moment of weakness after finding out she rescued him? That still didn’t mean he was her one and only motivation to be human. Eric was a ticket to the world above who came as a personal bonus with the package deal to become human, not the end all be all of Ariel’s character and motivation in 1989 animated Disney film. I get so tired of critics reducing the Little Mermaid to a story about “a girl who gives up everything for a man she saw once because she thought he was hot.” No, Ariel is not Bella Swan from Twilight! She is her own character with her own personality, hobbies, and motivations outside of *just* Eric. Did Hallie Bailey, Rob Marshall, and the writers of the live action remake, even *watch* the opening introduction scene to Ariel’s character in the 1989 animated film at all? Did they even listen to Ariel’s lyrics in “Part of Your World” that was all about wanting to know what it was to be human, and to explore the world above? The only thing I’m getting from all of them is a blatant disregard and disrespect of the 1989 animated classic film and its fans, so that they could turn it into a vehicle for a nonsensically and shallowly “progressive” political agenda to make money. The same girl who fell in love with the human Prince Eric shortly after was already being complained about for never showing up to rehearsals to practice with her sisters in Sebastian’s concert and missed its premiere because she got sidetracked by exploring a sunken ship full of human artifacts, knick-knacks, and silverware, which she then took up to the surface to ask Scuttle questions about. Ariel was so into collecting and examining human things that *Flounder* actually had to be the one to warn her to swim away when they were about to be attacked by a shark because he was the only one paying attention. Ariel sang her big “I want/My Greatest Dream” number “Part of Your World” *before* she ever even saw Eric, and it had absolutely *nothing* to do with falling in love and getting married to a hot human guy. It was about wanting to explore the human world above and experience what it was like to be able to be able to move on two legs above the shore. She didn’t even know Eric existed at this point, and Ariel was already obsessed with the idea of being a part of the human world above for a while now. When Triton found out that Ariel actually came into direct contact with a human, rescued him, and now loved him, she was actively risking her life from his perspective, regardless of his warnings and the potential consequences. No longer was it just this phase she’d get over, if he let her do her thing. From his perspective, Ariel was now actively risking her life by coming into direct contact with human beings, which is why he lost his shit on her in that grotto scene. She wasn’t deliberately cruel or malicious, but Ariel was somewhat inconsiderate and selfish in her desire to explore the human world, which is why she finally does apologize at the end when she faces unexpected interference from Ursula. Yeah, falling for Eric strengthened her preexisting desire to be human, but he *wasn’t* the *only* aspect of the human world that she longed to explore and experience. Moreover, even *after* she fell for Eric and rescued him, she wasn’t really planning on leaving behind her family to go live with him by becoming a human behind their backs. Ariel was just planning to get Eric to notice her with Flounder’s help by splashing around to get him to notice her, so they could talk and get to know each other better. Triton destroying her entire collection of human things to “get through to her” after finding out she had fallen in love and rescued one, was the thing that pushed her to impulsively make the deal to be human with Ursula. Saying that a man was Ariel’s “only” motivation to sacrifice her fins, her voice, and her family to become human is completely untrue and a total misinterpretation of her character. Ariel dreamed of being human and exploring the world above to learn about them more long before she ever even saw him. She just happened to fall for a cute guy with a similarly adventurous, brave, kind, and passionate heart, who gave her an opportunity to be heard and understood.
It wasnt even that shallow either. She didnt even trade her fins for legs for him either. At that point she was told she could become human and Ursula was the one that pushed her to get true loves kiss. It was more of a bonus for her that she happened to have a crush on him. I think her real motivations were to get on land and away from her overbearing father.
@@charg1nmalaz0r51 This live action movie also really turned Ariel into this hyper feminist unbelievably strong woman trope who never needs to be rescued or supported by anyone else, especially another man. Now, she’s just another unbelievably competent, independent, self-reliant and strong Mary Sue, who never has any moments of vulnerability in this live action films that put her in a position where she needs to be rescued or supported by another character, especially if it happens to be a man. I’m so sick of female characters getting this sort of writing in modern day media. I’m so tired of these females characters who are written or rewritten to be impossibly resilient, resourceful, and self-reliant *all the time.* No, women shouldn’t *always* be portrayed as being clingy, dependent, and helpless in media either. In real life, no one would need to even have relationships to survive happily, if we were actually as impossibly one-dimensional in our capabilities, independence, strengths, and vulnerabilities. We’re much more emotionally and socially complex creatures who should display both strengths *and* vulnerabilities in equal measure, just as we usually do in real life. The live action movie seems so intent on making Ariel look like she can accomplish everything by herself and doesn’t ever need any help from anyone else, especially not another man. It’s just a hyper-feminist interpretation of the character that I don’t like, and it’s not *just* in this scene at the ending where she kills Ursula instead of Eric in which they’ve made her such an impossibly competent, independent, and strong woman who can do anything and everything herself either. Ariel magically being the one to kill Ursula instead of Eric when she is trying to kill her for revenge also undermines King Triton’s character development of getting over his xenophobia towards humans, and eventually being able to let his favorite youngest daughter go be with the right one, now trusting that she’ll be able to be safe. However, this live action movie doesn’t care about character development, storytelling, and the overarching theme of being able to let your children be true to themselves. It’s only about showing what a “Strong WAHMAN” Ariel is at the expense of all that. In the “Kiss the Girl” scene of the 1989 animated film where Eric expresses that he feels bad not knowing Ariel’s name because she can’t speak, Sebastian is the one to whisper it in his ear to offer his aid because he still can speak and sing. In this live action version after less than three days on land, Ariel magically knows more about astronomy and constellation patterns in the sky than the average human land dweller will know in their entire lives. She comes up with a way to tell him her name is “Ariel” by showing him the constellation of Aries in the night sky, and gets him to say “Ariel” by moving his lips in the shape of her name with her hands. Yeah, I can see how that might look cute, but it also makes Ariel kind of look like a Mary Sue. In the 1989 animated film, after Scuttle finds out about Vanessa actually being Ursula in disguise hypnotizing Eric to marry her with Ariel’s voice, he tells Ariel, Sebastian, and Flounder, and they plan an ambush to stop the impending wedding before the three days are up. Ariel tries to get to the site of the wedding as fast as she can to help with Flounder’s aid. However, she is still very new to using human legs, she really isn’t as fast or as strong of a swimmer without her fins, and Flounder is the one who helps get her there with a rope from a barrel tied between him and one of her legs. As a result, by the time she gets to the site of Eric’s wedding with Vanessa, Scuttle has already been doing his best to stall the vows until, and it’s a bit too late for Ariel to just intervene. That’s why Scuttle is the one to grab Vanessa’s necklace with his beak and break it, so that Ariel can get her voice back. You might say that the scene where Ariel gets swam to the site of the wedding would be much more difficult to animate with a tiny fish, but what even was the point of Scuttle’s animal ambush to stop Vanessa/Ursula when Ariel decided to just get into a cat fight with her to rip off her seashell necklace and break it to get her voice back herself after Scuttle told them what was going on, anyway? They also made it so that Ariel is the first one to notice the shark about to attack her and Flounder in the 2023 film in the opening scene when they’re exploring the sunken ship for human things at her insistence, which, is again, turning her into more of a Mary Sue. In the Disney animated 1989 film, Ariel does save Flounder’s life from the shark when he accidentally knocks himself out swimming away, but she’s not the first one to notice the shark behind them on the sunken ship. Flounder, her anxious companion, is the one to first notice the shark behind them posed for sneak attack when they are exploring the sunken ship at her insistence, and that’s when they quickly swim away. She was too caught up in collecting and examining human artifacts, knick knacks, and silverware to immediately notice that she an Flounder were about to be attacked by a shark. It also is a moment that gives us insight into Ariel’s greatest character flaws in the 1989 animated film in her opening scene with Flounder when she isn’t the first one to notice the shark because she’s too distracted by her obsession with the world above to be considerate. Ariel’s essentially a good person at heart, who is brave and loyal enough to those she loves to always be there to bravely rescue them when she notices that they need her. However, she also is obsessive about her personal desires, dreams, and interests in exploring the world above to the point of distractibility, impulsivity, naïveté, and selfishness. It’s just annoying to me. Ariel wasn’t a perpetually helpless and weak damsel-in-distress, who only wanted a man, and constantly needed to be spoon-fed in the 1989 animated film either, but she was still allowed to be rescued, be vulnerable, and have character flaws, too. She was an independent heroine with her own agency, personal interests, and hobbies. However, she also wasn’t this impossibly perfect female role model who never needed to be rescued and supported by others in moments of vulnerability either. Regardless of our strengths, just like real men need to be rescued by other people at times in moments of t vulnerability, there are times when those of us who are women need to be rescued by others in those moments too. Just because we were given equal rights as men, it doesn’t mean we need to be independent and strong all the time around them to be of value. It is just as problematic to portray women with no vulnerabilities as it is to portray men with no vulnerabilities in fiction. Believe it or not, but presenting yourself as *completely* emotionally/physically invulnerable and self-reliant *all the time* in relationships with other people is just as much of a turn off as being exceedingly clingy, codependent, desperate, and helpless *all the time.* The point is to be able to have a healthy balance between independence and vulnerability in relationships with other people to be able to develop and maintain long-term and meaningful ones. You don’t want to be too clingy, desperate, and dependent on others to be rescued and supported by others *all the time,* if you can help it, because then you’ll never be able to grow and often push them away by suffocating them. However, you also won’t be able to develop and maintain deep and meaningful relationships with others, if you never can be vulnerable around them and rely on them for support in your times of need from time to time either. That’s a major problem with how “strong “female characters keep getting portrayed in modern day media. Yes, having female characters with greater motivations than *just* romantic love for a man is important, but Hollywood has gotten so “woke” these days that we’re not allowed to have many female characters who can be portrayed as vulnerable sometimes, too. Real women aren’t strong *all the time,* just like real men aren’t strong *all the time.* We’re not allowed to be portrayed as being people with meaningful friendships and relationships in which we are allowed to ever expect aid, consolation, and support from them in situations where we are vulnerable in return for having their back when they experience those moments of vulnerability by our side and need us, especially not women. I just find that really frustrating with female characters in modern day media, like Ariel in this TLM live action remake, Mulan in the 2020 live action remake, Belle in the 2017 live action BATB remake, Bo Peep in Toy Story 4, Rey from the new Star Wars movies, Daenerys throughout much of GOT after S1, and so on. Just stop trying to portray female characters as impossibly strong female archetypes all the time, and focus on making them human instead. Those were some of the great things about fictional female characters like Ariel, Anna, Elsa, and Mulan. They were allowed to be both strong and vulnerable around other people in relationships. They struggled to achieve some goals without help, and also had moments where they saved others. They weren’t just these impossibly strong archetypes who never needed help. Like, why do Eric, Sebastian, Flounder, and Scuttle even have to exist in this live action remake of TLM anymore, if Ariel is able to magically be so independent, intelligent, and resourceful *all the time* that she never needs them to support her in return? Just for the sake of appealing to nostalgia and creating comic relief.
@@charg1nmalaz0r51 Yeah, I said that Triton didn’t seem too bad as a parent, aside from that scene where he destroys Ariel’s grotto collection as punishment to “get through to her” for rescuing and falling in love with a human in the movie. However, upon reevaluation of his character, the TV series prequel, and Ariel’s Beginning, it does seem to be this recurring trait for him to be a somewhat emotionally/psychologically abusive parent in the exceedingly avoidant, controlling, harsh, impatient, and illogically unfair manners his rules and reactions to disobedience of his authority take place. I Granted, I don’t think Ariel is completely without her own flaws in the animated movie either. Triton’s too controlling overbearing, overprotective, and he was absolutely being an abusive dad when he destroyed her collection to punish her for falling in love with and rescuing one. However, Ariel also did have an impulsive, naive, sassy, and selfish streak. I’m not saying she was wrong to want to get away from an overbearing dad who refused to understand her point of view after he destroyed her entire collection of everything she loved from the human world to “get through to her,” but she also was making a deal which meant leaving behind her sisters and many friends forever for her own gain. They weren’t ever exceedingly harsh or overbearing disciplinarians. In her introductory scene, she was kind of bullying poor Flounder to peer pressure him into following her onto that sunken ship to collect human odds and ends with her, even though he repeatedly tried to tell her that he wasn’t comfortable doing this with her. There’s also the fact that Sebastian said she missed many rehearsals with her sisters for the concert he was composing for her sisters. Yes, it isn’t fair to push your kid to perform in something they don’t want to be a part of, but it is also made obvious that Ariel loves dancing, music, and singing. She was the one who pushed for it be brought back into the kingdom when an angry, grief stricken, and widowed Triton forbid it after his wife accidentally got killed because of it. Not to mention the fact that by missing those rehearsals and that performance with her sisters in Sebastian’s concert, she really was letting down him, her father, and her sisters in favor of doing her own thing. When you’re a performer in an ensemble, particularly one where you have a feature role, it is your responsibility to either notify other people involved that you’re not interested in performing before rehearsals get under way, so that they can hire someone else, improvise without you, or hire an understudy to fill in for you when you’re out. As this was a family musical performance by all the daughters of Triton composed by his advisor and court composer, Ariel wasn’t going to get an understudy. Triton definitely was a domineering and overbearing father, regardless of pure intent, but in the instance of the musical recital with her sisters, I actually don’t buy that anyone pushed Ariel into performing in it because she is shown to love dancing, music, and singing several times to herself and others throughout both the 1989 animated film and its follow-ups. She even names her child Melody. That being said, yes, I do agree that Triton had emotionally/psychologically abusive overprotective parent traits. I think there is this misconception that any adult who displays abusive behaviors and traits in their relationships are deliberately malicious cartoon villains who delight in controlling and hurting their victims, so we must never forgive them because they will definitely never change and definitely never experience genuine remorse. Triton is a rather abusive parent to Ariel at times, but not in the same way that Lady Tremaine abuses Cinderella, or Mother Gothel abuses Rapunzel. He does genuinely love his daughters, particularly Ariel. He doesn’t belittle and mock them, delight in making them unhappy, physically harm them, and/or go looking to start fights with them. His avoidance of dealing with his grief and insecurities in a completely healthy, honest, and open manner with his family and friends out of fear of being seen as “weak” and not being taken seriously by them, helicopter parent tendencies with Ariel, hot temper, and xenophobia bring him into that bad parent territory on occasion. However, he’s not ill-intended. You’re never obligated to forgive or take back someone who abused you as their victim, even if they apologize or claim to have changed. You shouldn’t ever enable their abuse of power, or stick around them when they refuse to change. However, Ariel really doesn’t do that with Triton. She rebels against his illogically harsh restrictions and rules, and little by little, he grows as a parent and a person because he does love his daughter. She leaves after he destroys her grotto. Moreover, she also gets her freedom and space from him at the end when he grows. Ariel was never obligated to forgive her father, but she did because she had a kind heart.
"Just bc we were given equal rights as men it doesn't mean we need to be independent and strong all the time around them to be of value". Yes, we were given back rights that were taken from us, that never should have been taken in the first place. The response to being "given back" our literal human rights isn't gratitude or a gold star for those willing to see us as equal humans. They don't get a cookie for doing the right thing. Also the rights were fought for, not just given benevolently. And so now, bc we have those rights, we don't need to be independent and strong all the time around them to be of value. How are the two even connected? People should emote how they feel, whether that be a vulnerable emotion or the desire for independence and not sharing their feelings, regardless of their status of equality. Value doesn't factor into that argument. Why are you so concerned with how we are of value to men, rather than just your value as a human and a person?
They could've totally done cartoony underwater characters that had realistic textures. Spongebob: Sponge out of water did this perfectly and looks amazing even now... and that movie came out in 2014. It's sad that a movie that comes out 9 years later can't even hold a candle to that
@@nematoaddd idk what you’re talking about, but Hans Christian Anderson was heavily inspired by Italy and it’s literally been stated by the Disney TH-cam channel that the og Ariel grew up in the Mediterranean Sea and that Prince Eric’s castle is somewhere in Italy
@@brendajameson5093 all I’m saying is the movie is based on the location being Italy. You can have your opinion, or you can spend 30 seconds looking it up yourself and see that the original was heavily inspired by Italy and Mediterranean architecture. I love under the sea and it’s a fun song, but that doesn’t change that the location of Atlantica is in the Mediterranean (similar to where Atlantis is based) and Eric’s castle is in Italy
They should've kept it classic and not concerned themselves with a political agenda. Disney could have made an African Princess story because there isnt one. But Halle was Ok with being Disney's Copy & Paste. The lesson, is Never Settle. She had a chance to carve out something Great.
Was curious about the “Scuttlebutt” song so I paused this video to have a quick listen…. 5 seconds in I was praying to god to get rickrolled to make it stop.
Finally a sincere review. I saw a lot review saying Halle is great in this movie, totally bs. Txs man, we need this kind of review and view of the world we live in .
Racewashing always seems to have an agenda behind it. Like with Jesus becoming white passing despite being middle eastern. Ariel and Cleopatra seems like something like Jesus white washing.
It's probably worth noting that The Little Mermaid wasn't just the start of the Disney Renaissance - it was a proof of concept. The guys behind it saw animation as uniquely fitted to musicals, because you could raise the emotion visually the same way you do musically. When it's too emotional to say, you sing; when it's too much for song, you also dance. Animation lets you amplify this with the color, the expressiveness, and the impossible (like dancing musician fish).
Oh dear, just imagining Spirit, the Stallion of the Cimarron, as a live action remake. I know it's not Disney, but it would just be normal-looking animated horses running around doing stuff horses usually don't do. What made those animated horses so fascinating were the eyebrows added to their faces, giving them immediately understandable expressions and emotions.
Turning a white character (or a character of any race that isn't black) into a black character is actually incredibly insulting and demeaning to unique and original black characters. Essentially, filmmakers are saying that they don't find making original black characters to be worthwhile. Instead, they'd rather change a white character. This is so immeasurably fucked up that I'm having trouble with making sense of it all.
It's insanely insulting. A 20 second Google search tells me that Africa has a myth about the Mami Wata, a sea spirit that can kill people, similar to a siren. But writing an entire story about that would take effort. Just dust off an old story and change the cast. Presto! Representation!!!
@@TheStrawberryCloud why are you automatically assuming it was about race. Why can’t you accept the possibility that they did not see color…. Unlike u. I’m so tired of ppl making such a big deal about skin pigmentation. We all bleed red. All lives matter you know!
@@trhansen3244 She's half black, incredibly favored by casting agency cause they don't like fully dark black actress, she's the favored light tan of Hollywood skin tone, you will never see Keke Palmer have the same opportunity as Zendaya due to that alone, even her role in Showman was awful, always looking like somebody fart in her way when the camera is focused on her Srsly, Zendaya is just the half black version of Emma Watson
I keep hearing the "blank slate" thing for Eric a lot but I never got that. Sleeping Beauty? Sure, I'd buy it, blank slate, but Eric had a clear character. Maybe it was a bit too "Disney Princess Syndrome"-esque where his main trait was just not liking being a royal and preferring to be more adventerous, but it's shown in a very distinct an natural way that gives him a lot more character beyond just "I don't like having everything I want". We see him interacting with the normal people and helping out, and we see his negative reaction to a statue of himself. It's not just that he doesn't like being locked into a life of royalty, as he's really not, he lives his life fairly normally. Instead, it's more directly that he doesn't like his internal feeling that he's supposed to be better than everyone else. He sees himself as any other normal person and that contrasts with his royal pressence. It may not be the deepest part of the story since, well, he's not the main character, but I just never got the blank slate argument. It's clear this characterization is intentional to because when we first see him he's on a boat with sailors enjoying it as much as everyone else. However, while this could just look like a generic "oh look at the royal getting along with the townspeople" scene, the sailors are animated missing teeth, being gritty, etc. They're animated as actual sailors would be several hundred years ago. The fact that they were explicitly animated like this proves this isn't supposed to be him just getting along with people, and they WERE trying to illustrate an apparent class difference contrasted against his general attitude. This is doubly reinforced by Grimsby who they COULD have made a generic up-his-own-ass-royal, but instead they presented him as fairly normal like anyone else. He isn't disgusted by the sailors when we see him, he's just a bit sea sick. They aren't trying to show Eric as being a generic good guy, they're trying to show he explciitly just doesn't fit into the class difference that he thinks is expected of him
I believe in the original film there was intended to be an Ursula Triton sibling relationship. It got cut somewhere along the line. If not, then it was a popular fan theory and the remake crews seem to love throwing them in there. They don't stop to think about why something wasn't included in the final draft.
10:43 Pfft,I knew it. I knew Halle couldn't act well to save her life from the first time I saw the trailer and I was right (I bet Ben Stein could emote better than her)
Yeah, and she's been cast in a remake of The Color Purple. If she can't act in a kids' film, just imagine how bad she's going to be in a serious drama.
I busted out laughing when you said: "The popcorn was incredible" Only because it's true! Too bad the movie wasn't on the same level of the popcorn. Great review, sir!
I grew up with the actual Little Mermaid movie. It was genuinely the only Disney movie I truly loved and still do today. It helps that I see myself in Ariel. Not just because we're both pale redheads, but also because we both put love first (neither one of us intentionally seek it, but we know it's worth fighting and sacrificing for when we do find it), we both sing, and we both feel out of place in this world and know what it's like to have parents or a parent try to take/keep away everything you love. I was never once negatively influenced by the movie nor did I find anything remotely "offensive" about it. These people claim to care about the animated movie and its fans, yet they find so much about the original offensive or questionable that they have to change everything about it? Why not just make an original movie then? And give black girls and other girls of different races an original character to see themselves in? And let those of us who already saw ourselves in Ariel keep our princess. This movie does nothing but shit on the original, and I am not okay with it. Too bad I know my opinion doesn't matter and won't change anything.
@@ErgoDog I disagree. While being Disney, they obviously weren't going to keep the bittersweet ending, (they didn't have the guts to do that until Pocahontas), they did keep the essence of the theme which WAS largely the self-sacrifice for another's happiness. I WILL agree that King Triton giving her legs was a LITTLE out of left field, but at that point, Ariel had TOTALLY proven her worth for being granted such a gift.
Christine, Love your response and thoughts on this. Especially as to why don't they come up with original stories. Too bad they have no creativity to do anything past cash grabs.
A story about Crumble Cookie: One time my coworker bought crumble cookies for all the admin girls and so i had half a cookie on my desk that I was working on. The girl who bought it put the rest of the cookies across from me and said to the Sales team, "Cookies are by Leanna if you want one." Because there were extra. I dont know what possessed this man, but this 37 year old man walks up, grabs my half eaten cookie off my desk and starts eating it in front of me while talking to me. I just stared at him Shocked because it was so out of character for him. It turns out he didnt see the box that was in front of me, and just thought the cookie (which had bites in it) was up for grabs. It was hilarious and just straight shocking haha
I used to work in an office and oh booooy! Did they do and say crazy things that no one should do or say in public. Heck! I could write a whole book on what not to do in a professional environment. And, your story made me laugh so much it reminds me of Matt, I used to work with him. He got himself fired. I don't know exactly what happened but by the next week we arrived and there was someone new at his desk. 🙅♀ 🤷♀
Given that the run time is longer than the OG animated film; did they at least spend some time showing how Ariel knows how to steer a ship? (never mind the question on how she's able to support herself to do such a thing when she literally has no legs to stand on - being she's a mermaid when she deal with Ursula).
'Hook' is a great Spielberg film. It's a good example of how a story can be revisited showing another side of the characters. Plus I've always considered 'Hook' to be an excellent Christmas movie.
women weren't on board cause they thought they would have the same reasonability as men coruse that never happen and now they got same power but none of reasonability
I call it Twitter Brain. The producers and writers pretty much make scripts and dialogue like they are talking to others via social media and Instagram bubble, parroting "We support the current thing!" narrative. They do not know how to interact with others in real life.
I haven't seen Little Mermaid and I don't plan too. It is my favorite Disney movie, I grew up with it. I don't want to see it be destroyed by bad acting and woke crap. I have to say though that, for me at least, not all adaptations are bad. I absolutely loved Cinderella's live action (the one with Kate Blanchet). It was faithful to the original but it had its own identity. Same with Aladdin; I laughed so much and truly enjoyed myself. Btw, there are mix races in the Caribbean. They shouldn't have tried to justified Eric's appearance. Stupid.
Aladdin was a complete joke. Growing up that was my favourite movie and I hate the remake. Aladdin is some nervous awkward low self esteem guy and Jasmine is all about being the Sultan and girl power. Hated it. Jafar was a joke as well.
I don't know if it's hilarious or incredibly sad to watch grown people lose their minds over a Disney movie because of a mythological character's skin color. Is it 2023 or 1923?
S. Valens. Something else that I've noticed too is the alleged cast for Lilo & Stitch (Live C-V-Ctrl) that some of the main cast actors are being put under scrutiny by media and Twitter trolling bad-mouths. The main leads were supposed to be this colour and another colour, and this hair colour. In case Disney or the US population hasn't done their research in the most recent years, most of Hawaii is mixed race, today they look completely different. Some of the Natives do remain but because people from other countries have visited, toured, and married into the main population; some people in Hawaii do have different skin tones. My friend, her boyfriend, my BF and myself, went to Hawaii last year and there were many changes. Although, my aunt's family does look the same as they did ten years ago. Lol! They were happy to see us and enjoy the holidays together. What I dislike is the hate and microscopic details and dumb misconceptions about what we look like and what we sound like. We've changed, that's good.
It's funny you say it was basically the same story as the earlier version then you go on to say that they gutted the love story significantly. Well the love story WAS the story! The scene where Ariel says Isn't he handsome, and, He's so beautiful, is the heart of the whole thing. It's unabashed love from both of the lead characters and that is what makes it fun and exciting. Without that, it's not The Little Mermaid at all.
Thank you for talking about what makes animation so great! It's virtually impossible for live-action to improve on animation to begin with, even when it's done well. Sounds like this was not done well 😆
*reads title* No one can. I doubt even the people who were bribed by Disney enjoyed it. I don't think I would even if I was paid anywhere from $1 million to $10 million dollars to watch it
@@DragonGoddess18 Hmmm.... Honestly. Disney adults are weird. I don't think I want to be buying toys for myself or watching kids movies alone. If I didn't have my niece then I would avoid all these movies and rather watch Succession on Streaming. It's weird trying to relive what's passed. America is behind China because they're stuck debating the past and present and refuse to move to the future
Unrelated, but I wonder how many of Greg's subs would also be interested in a separate channel from him about parenting. I would absolutely love watching & learning from his opinions & experiences.
The sad thing is that they could have just completely rewritten Anderson's The Little Mermaid to suit their needs. There didn't need to be a father/daughter relationship and a romance tale woven into it. That was Disney wanting to address a modern audience and also wanting to stick to their princess formula. Even Ursula was added as a part of that formula.They could have made something completely new and original that fit the narrative they were going for. But I'm convinced that these people just don't know how to write so they just copy/paste other works while trying to force their own messages into the film. 😒 On a side note, Eric saving Ariel (or not) is a big deal. It demonstrated a need for each other by showing them save each other's life twice each. It balances them out and demonstrates a sense of equality between them. If Ariel does all the rescuing, what's Eric even there for? Though, I guess that was the point, wasn't it. 🙄 Oh, and if anyone doesn't like that scuttlebutt song, you can actually hear the original Scuttle sing a song from the series. It's called "Just Give Me A Chance" and is super fun. He sings in character, but much better than his attempt at romantic stimulation in the movie, lol
Disney: Teaching girls how to be lonely and unhappy for the rest of their lives and teaching boys to be queer and gay. Also Disney: "Why do you hate me?"
I hate how accurately of a summation that is. Old Disney taught guys to strive to be strong, confident, brave and the like, now it's all about being submissive doormats while Woman are encouraged to be rude, career driven to the point of insanity and generally selfish.
Bruh. As sooon as you opened up saying how great the popcorn was...I KNEW at that moment you were on demon time with this review🤣 Cheers brethren, Subscribed.
They changed the bird to a species that can be underwater, but that just makes it make less sense.. How would Scuttle know anything about humans at all if he is a bird species that isn't typically around humans and sticks to the ocean bed? Scuttle being a seagull made sense, because seagulls are pests that bother humans for food; therefore, giving a reason for him to know some things about them. As for the actors not really knowing how to act and doing distracting movements consistently, this is really on Disney for casting people for their singing ability instead of acting experience on top of just horrible acting direction. I knew this movie was going to be a mess the second they said, "We cast Ariel from the first audition the second she sang".
Thank you for including your kid's reactions, I was curious about that. The big advantage of animation with respect to kids entertainment is it can be so bright and colorful and attention-drawing. You have to put in a *lot* of action and fast-pace to even try to get the same level in live action.
makes me wonder why Disney just didn't reverse Ariel's and Eric's roles in the first place - like they should've just had him be the main focus...the ONE searching and singing about finding Ariel cause he "fell in love" or better yet "was entranced by her voice" (keeping with the actual legends of mermaids) and THEN he finds her only to find out she has no interest in him at all since you know she's a strong and independent womaid...or would she be a merlady? 😂
Because that is even worse and people would be even more pissed off. It makes Ariel even more horrible and Disney would avoid that because cancel culture would eat them up.
I'm never giving Dizzy another dollar of my money. I want entertainment, not lectures. I'm not going to spend 12 bucks for the privilege of being insulted and belittled.
It’s so sad that they continue to do this. The love story aspect of Arial and Eric was such a crucial plot point of the original animated movie and it’s unforgivable in my opinion that they took that out.
Another thing to note. Not only does Scuttle being under water make zero sense but the species of crab they made Sebastian in this movie would not be able to breath / survive underwater either. The choices they made to make it realistic were so dumb as it all falls apart the minute you start to analyze the movie with even the slightest bit of logic. I mean, you have to make the fish all super realistic, but when they talk underwater every thing sounds clear as a bell. Sound waves don’t carry under water like that. Yet they are demanding a suspension of disbelief for that but demand us be okay with ugly hyper realistic CGI talking fish?!
My biggest gripes: 1. Disrespectful ESG skinswap. HAD this been a fully reimagined interpretation of a Nordic fairytale (speaking as a Nordic person) into a honest balls-to-the-walls Caribbean-set homage, I would’ve been more okay with it. But this is half-assed. It’s not grounded in any mythology, history or geography. It’s like fanfiction made by a gradeschooler who doesn’t have a good grasp of any of the aforementioned subjects. 2. Eric doesn’t save Ariel. The original works beautifully as both Ariel and Eric are capable and brave. Ariel defies her family, saves Eric from drowning and in return Eric risks his life and goes against Ursula. A magical force he has no knowledge of, but he is willing to take a leap into the deep for Ariel. In the live-action Eric is a simp that’s saved multiple times by Ariel. He’s reduced into a wide-eyed damsel in distress. And we wonder why women complain men being man-children, useless and not stepping up to the plate in real world. Well. It’s no wonder since the current social climate (and thereby movies) likes to offer young men only with male role models that are “emotionally multi-dimensional” = cucks and simps. 3. Changing lyrics to pander to modern audiences. Removing Ursula’s sexists comments just make her less of a villain. SHE’S THE VILLAIN. SHE’S SUPPOSED TO SPOUT SHIT. And I’m shaking with anger how they fingered Howard Ashman’s lyrics of “Kiss the Girl”. Was it not for Ashman/Menken/Musker/Clements we would not be having Disney. I daresay Ashman was instrumental to the Disney renaissance that saved the company. After he died of AIDS he has also become somewhat of a gay icon. And in 2023 his legacy has been reduced to writing “toxic and problematic lyrics.” 🤦🏻♀️ There never was any issue with the original lyrics if you have half a brain. 4. Scuttle/Scuttlebutt 5. Drab color saturation 6. “Under the sea” is completely soulless without the backing vocalists. 7. Ariel’s wardrobe is abysmal. They dress her like she was a chambermaid. My 8yo liked the movie but she also dozed off at couple points. Good points: 1. Halle Bailey. She has the pipes and I honestly bought her wide-eyed naïve yet savvy Ariel performance. I hate how her hair is styled and I don’t necessarily think she’s the most beautiful woman. She reminds me too much of the Splice girl.. But I absolutely enjoyed her performance. 2. Melissa McCarthy slayed.
Agree with pretty much everything, just wanted to comment that your first point is exactly what this feels like. It feels like a middle schooler's self insert fanfiction
Leaving comment just by the title. As a person who watched animation for 20+ years, that includes Dreamworks, Laika, Cartoon Saloon and all the other animation companies’ works, Disney was bound to be like this I think. They already had some signs where they keep using the same or very similar story messages over and over again. In other words, they’re just out of ideas when it comes to storytelling, and now they don’t even know what kind of storytelling is popular nowadays. (There used to be twist villain era or “no actual villain” era, but now.. it’s kinda vague to what kind of story people really like) For example, they always used to run some kind of test through Disney channel movies, whether this story will work or not. If that movie somewhat succeed they take that story/messages to their next big movie they’ve been working on. Like how in Descendants 3 and Zombies (most popular disney channel films) have both same exact messages at the end (embrace the differences and live in harmony together or there’s always this divided kingdom or world itself is divided) after this film succeeded, they took this plot directly to Frozen 2, which also has a story of.. divided two people and how they.. take down the bridge at the end and live in harmony..etc etc.. Most story structure are similar to one another but the problem was..it was very telling how they start to make films. You can see they start heavily rely on popularity and what kind of story people will like, and not..try to be creative. People don’t like twist villain or no villain stories so.. they have to think of something else But since Disney is always trying to play it safe, all the live remakes feel like their backup plans. And I’m pretty sure it is. All the remakes, they say it’s for diversity and for new generation of kids which partially true I believe, it’s always more about money. They’re just throwing out every live action movies they can make so they can earn some amount of money just in case they fail on their new films. So to many surprise (I guess) live actions were never meant to be taken seriously. It’s just their backup plan. So I think currently disney doesn’t REALLY know what people like? EXCEPT what they do know is how people often talks about diversity and “strong women character” kind of stuffs so they just sprinkle those in their films to make SOME people satisfy and just really..to stall for a bit. Because it’s just right amount of keeping the company stable enough to make the next film. They do realize the trend of OTT service, so in order to make Disney+ success is another reason why they spew out so many remakes but doing so poorly on advertising because again, those were never meant to be taken serious But people do not know this, and Disney KNOW people don’t know this because they know people will just watch their content as long as there’s “Disney” logo on it.
The funny thing is their movies (including Pixar in the mix) Moana, Encanto, Coco, Luca, and even Raya were all diverse and interesting and visually beautiful and new. So they CAN do it. But they don't advertise these movies as much (Moana and Encanto and Coco got some marketing love, but the others not so much). Even Soul and Big Hero Six had charm all their own. No one had a problem with the ethnicities of these characters. They were organic to their stories. It's the "Princess" genre where they get lazy. It drives me crazy, e.g., that of the entire multi country African continent, with so many diverse cultures and myths and fairytales of their own - we've got one lion remake of Hamlet. Come on! It's this laziness of plugging in a POC just to say you did that's infuriating. The success of movies like Encanto and Coco should convince them that they could go to Africa and even other places around the world to find more "Princess" movies. As a side note,.I bet Encanto would be a great live action. But I would still prefer the live action actors resemble the animated ones.
@@rsent4026 I don’t think Raya is a good representation since they got it all wrong from clothing and..almost everything, there’s a reason why people didn’t like that film, it’s because of inaccuracy, and..so many of them are. Also big hero 6 was I believe it was for Japan. Because in history of animation Disney and Japan are pretty close to each other. The first “character design” ever created from Japan was “Atom” which was inspired from Disney’s character designs. So disney was not trying to do diversity, it was more of a..love letter to Japan. It’s weird how they get diversity right when they’re not intended to do so. Trying out different stories and “putting in diversity” is different I think. It’s a matter of whether you THINK of diversity first and THEN think of the story, or you think of good storytelling first and THEN diversity next. I feel like recent years, Disney definitely think of diversity first more than good storytelling. Also, l consider Pixar different from Disney. So Coco is an exception. Still, Moana and Encanto was great, like I said, because they thought of good story first.
I watched it last night. Yeah, it was fine. I didn't hate it. One of my big issues with it was they weren't consistent with the changes. For instance, in the original, after Ariel "falls in lust" with Eric, she goes back home and her sisters notice that she is obviously head over heals with someone. She is humming to herself while looking in the mirror putting flowers in her hair and being aloof in that moment she is pining. This causes Tritan to wonder who this boy is. In this one, she is upset and irritated about something, so when Tritan gets the idea in his head she is in love, it just doesn't work. Lots of weird little changes that don't make sense. All the new songs suck. The worst part of the movie for me was Sebastian. Aside from the awful CGI, the new voice actor just doesn't work for me at all (he was my favorite character in the original). Theater was empty, by the way. Just me. All the way until the movie was just about to start and some chick in her 30s came in and sat somewhere behind me. Weird for an opening day.
I still don't understand the amnesia part and why Vanessa still exists afterwards. Because in the animated movie, she didnt give her amnesia because Ursula was confident that Ariel won't make it. Then turns out after Kiss the Girl, she claimed that "She's better than I thought!" so turning into Vanessa was her last resort.
Bravo! I really appreciate an honest review, and not the ones that the obviously paid critics gave at first, I also loved that you gave the rating of all your kids so that people can´t say you didn't like this movie because you're racist like they are doing on and on. Thank you!👏👏👏
Call me Chato answered your question. This former network executive said movie was made to retain IP rights. Turning a profit or quality is an added bonus.
I don't understand how the remake could have been released after Avatar The Way of Water. The Way of Water is so incredibly vibrant and alive in their sea scenes, hell even the climax of that movie where there was a whole eclipse going on and it was incredibly dark, they still made sure to keep some life in the movie. They couldn't have at least made the mermaids bioluminescent like the Navi. This is a fantasy movie, even if it's supposed to be realistic and gritty, it's still a fantasy movie, give the people fantasy. Even Tim Burton's live action Alice was more fantastical and that movie arguably has a darker and moodier colour palette.
The fight with Ursula where Bailey is the one steering the ship into her rather than Eric is garbage. It makes no sense. Eric in the original is a MARINER, which is why him steering the sunken ship into Ursula makes sense. Ariel is a mermaid with no experience in the human world, including seafaring, which is why Bailey being the one to deal the deathblow with the ship is terrible.
Tbf... By the time she's actually introduced to Max she can't talk at all iirc (at least in the animated movie). Just cause the movie doesn't translate dog, doesn't mean Ariel can't understand it.
It's disturbing to me the number of people (even critics) saying Halle was essentially born to be Ariel when she can't act to save her life. Is this seriously where we're at as a society? We can't even be honest and constructively criticize a black person's performance?
Disney made sure Moana had a polynesian cast, Aladdin had a middle easten cast, Encanto had a latino cast, Lion King had an African cast. Then The Little Mermaid, the Danish fairytale, ok, lets relocate to the Caribbean and race change the characters.
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
Kids all over the theater were fidgeting in their seats by the end, its terribly boring. You won't regret skipping this one in theaters.
Should've watched Fool's Paradise instead.
Not only that but I had adults constantly getting up and leaving and then coming back?? It was very distracting
You asked “why are they doing this” well here is the terrible answer. The reason all this race swapping & blackwashing is happening in film ONLY to white characters in film and television, with both actual historical figures & “fictional” characters is for one reason & one reason alone. The reason is to promote & normalize the Kalergi Plan of white racial replacement in the minds of the masses. It is all there for propaganda. And they will keep doing race swapping & blackwashing of whites even if they lose lots of money & have horrible ratings, because it was never about money or ratings. Cinderella & Beauty & the Beast for example are ancient European fairytales that likely predate even Christianity & there should be ZERO black people in those live action films. Just like, in a live action Moana film (even though it is not ancient) there should be an entirely Polynesian cast. Just as in a live action Mulan should be an entirely East Asian cast. There is a reason they ONLY race swap & blackwash WHITE characters. And again, the reason is about promoting & normalizing the Kalergi Plan agenda. Nothing more, nothing less.
People in my theatre were clapping throughout. Different experiences I guess
If kids are bored that’s a problem. I’m glad I’m single and childfree, so I don’t have to watch this movie.
When Eric saved Ariel, it showed Triton that not all humans are bad and he can trust him protecting her which is why he let Ariel go. Swapping them was a terrible idea!
Ugh. I know, they did this with Beauty & the Beast to.
@@steflondon88
Did what?
I agreed. I was big mad about the change 😂
💯💯💯
@@Gaia_Seraphina I’m assuming Belle killed Gaston
I always thought the casting managers for the Harry Potter movies were geniuses. The managed to find kids who not only looked the part for the first film, but also weren't entirely insufferably bad actors when they were young. And then they grew into a group of decent to excellent actors as the got older, which was either amazing good luck or outstanding prescience, because it only would have taken one of the three leads to grow up to be weird looking and/or a terrible actor to have sunk that franchise.
Yeah, they also grew up to be decent looking and solid actors. The guy who played Harry Potter (blanking on his name at-Daniel Radcliffe!) is a bit of a Shai LeBeauf (sp?) type, doing interesting things with surprising acting chops.
The movie wasn't perfect, but I recommend Guns Akimbo. A surprising number of funny moments.
Eh, yeah though now more than a few of them have become insufferable activist types who happily bad mouth JK Rowling for her opinions despite the fact she's the reason they have careers.
That's because the casting choices were influenced by Rowling herself.
Some would say thst Hermione was too pretty, but I disagree, because Hermione in the books was in fact pretty. It was just hard to see at first because she doesn't care about her looks.
I thought Harry and Ron looked the part. But Hermione was just bad casting. Emma was a pretty bad child actor. Daniel Radcliffe was ok as an actor but he got much better when he was a bit older.
@@vetarlittorf1807she wasn't pretty in the books,there is an interview where rowling says that the actors looked way better than she imagined the characters. There is also an interesting video about Adaptional attractiveness on TH-cam about that topic.
Thanks for mentioning the importance of PROFESSIONAL voice actors for animation. How did we get from Mel Blanc to Akwardfina???
Because she is asian.thats all
Mel Blanc was the GOAT, nobody could hold a candle to him. RIP Mel
Don't forget June Foray. The biggest mystery is how we got from June Foray to Awkwardfina.
It doesn’t matter who has more experience behind the microphone. In the original, Scuttle was voiced by Buddy Hackett, a comedic actor who had very little previous experience in voice acting. It’s not about experience, it’s about how much the actor commits to their part. Unfortunately, there are a lot big name actors who don’t take voice acting roles as seriously as they do with on-camera roles. I haven’t seen the movie and I probably never will, but given her past roles in animation and how well she’s done with them, Awkwafina, to me, seems like a good pick.
@@Unqualifiedmedicalperson maybe she needs to pick better animation roles then?
It's odd to think that they thought that Ariel should be more "badass", when she wasn't even a damsel in distress in the original. She was the one who saved Eric from drowning and went against her father's will to see the human world (though definitely a risky choice on her part). Also, she was interested in the human world before she even knew about Eric, so they really didn't need to remove the love story. Overall, it's sad that they decided to change so much about the original story, which didn't do the movie any justice😑
And she fucked up as any teenager not listening to her dad, but her dad loved her no matter what and chose to sacrifice himself to save his little girl.. ❤
Ofc Ariel understood how much her dad loved her and tried to correct her mistake that lead to him suffering.
All in all a great sum up of many families, dads can be overprotective at times, even if we don’t agree we know they care for us and will be there to protect us from our mistakes at any cost.
Netflix did exactly the same things in the Witcher
That's why Henry Calpil left
He wanted to stick.close to the source material but the narcissistic men hating feminist cows at Netflix want to change it for" modern audiences "
Part way through season 2 in came the woke and identity politics ,prefect Mary sues and any male character was treated like crap
The witcher to me was dead part way through season 2
And I was a fan of the show and the games
Then they released " blood origins " and session 3 of the witcher
Fans just up and left
Jamming woke and identity politics down people's throats and attacking anyone who dares to complain is not the way to run a business
Yet all the studios are doing the same things Disney, Amazon ,Netflix ,MSHEU , Marvel etc
I've boycotted the lot
Yes! This is what I’ve been saying!
They removed the love story? That’s the whole point of the little mermaid. Bad enough the mermaid doesn’t even look like the mermaid in the cartoon.
That's how I felt about Emma Watson in Beauty and the Beast. In the be our guest song she had absolutely no reaction she wasn't good, and on top of everything else she could not sing.
Wow. I said the EXACT same thing just now to my boyfriend and specifically referred to the "Be Our Guest" scene with Emma Watson. That's nuts.
@@missmerbella I'm glad it wasn't just me who noticed that.
So they basically flipped the original story. Not the Disney one, the very original one, where the mermaid was simpling and hurting from love, while the prince fell in love with another girl 😐 What's even the point of this movie 😂
Incorrect. That’s part is still there. He was confused the whole time just like in the first movie and unlike the original written story.
They changed the species of the bird to make it able to dive under water while the original seagull don't do that, I think they did this because they want to soften that rebellious streak in Ariel so they change the bird to a bird that can dive and Ariel won't have to disobey Triton to talk to the bird anymore, which is stupid because it takes away Ariel's character and one of the reasons why she's relatable, which is being a rebellious teenager.
Wow. They just strip all the humanity from these terrible remakes.
@@kurtdewittphoto Yep, and now we just proved that we don't have to look like a certain character to relate to that character.
She still went to the surface tho…she still goes beyond her kingdom when her father says not to. Her rebellion isn’t gone.
@@SoWhatHo But in the original she is constantly going to the surface, which is why Triton is frustrated, but with that minor change, she didn't really have the reason to constantly do that and it wouldn't really explain why Triton was mad that she went up to the surface to see the bird and ask questions about the human world, which they still kept it in for this remake.
@@clairelin0216 I understand that. But in this one, instead of always going to the surface, she goes farther out into the ocean where she isn’t supposed to be (ex: the ship wrecks). And she was already curious about humans which is where Triton’s frustration come from.
Shad summed the film up nicely by saying in essence “there are a few changes here and there, none of which were necessary, all making the film a bit worse”.
Clearly this movie wasn't for a 40 year old man. Little girls love it
@@suzygirl1843 No plenty kids share the same sentiment. And really it’s been said the people 20 and up saw this. I still don’t care for it, and I’m not male or 40 years old.
@@twilightfades_7 we are done with this topic. Africans have moved on. If you pay attention, all this DEI was actually The West trying to appeal to Africa Market but now that China is there, Africans have focused on East Asian entertainment. There's a Nigerian KDrama series and USA is Nepotist country anyway. We are not interested in this topic anymore. Let it die.
"His lines were so flat, You could iron clothes on" Best line ever
Actually I'll take some of her flat lines and fold those clothes next
Soooooo good!
Yeah, I liked that one too! The man knows how to turn a phrase!!!😂😂😂😂
Ha ha
🙄 wow, original.
10:43: Her acting in the scene where Triton destroys her treasure, genuinely, reminded me of the Gene Wilder Willy Wonka’s response to Mike Teevee’s mom: “No. Wait. Stop.” No emotion in that scene whatsoever. And Javier Bardem’s acting was almost a repeat of Jet Li’s acting in the Mulan remake where you could see Li barely moving his mouth.
I hate that they got rid of “Le Poissons” and the chef character, they just simply reference Sebastian escaping the kitchen, and “Under the Sea” and “Kiss the Girl” where insulting without all the additional animal characters singing and dancing along, (especially in Under the Sea where Sebastian literally references all the other animals and the instruments they play). Not to mention Ariel singing along with Under the Sea, a song designed to convince her to stay away from the surface, is nonsensical.
Yeah, the original song was saying that under the sea is better than the surface. If she's singing along, then....is she agreeing with Sebastian? If so, if it's truly worse than under the sea, why be obsessed with the surface world?🤔 Why abandon the sea for a world you think isn't worth being in? Figures. One of the few times she looks happy is during the one song when she should have looked bored out of her mind....
Whaaa? No Chef Louie? :(
Gene Wilder, though, was brilliant as Mr Wonka!
@@SteveCarrashe’s a LEGEND. His sarcasm was on POINT
That “no wait stop” was freaking hilarious. But unlike Halles role, it was supposed to be delivered that way
They've hit a level of creative bankruptcy at Disney. That's really it. No one there has a story to tell.
Oh they do, but the whole point is to twist and destroy White heritage.
Their bread and butter is princess stories. But the princess stories rarely have the princess in a postion of power. Imagine trying to remake Cinderella and somehow she is the hero of the story. Or Snow White. She has to be the one to save the prince who is now asleep. Even Lilo and Stitch and Stitch now has to be Stitchette because the hero can't be male.
The princesses now all have to be African American because keeping them white isn't diverse enough. The villians all have to be white male because women can't be doing wrong to another female. (Can't be a Karen.)
These are the sort of things the writers have to deal with. They are given a list of things to make happen in the story and something as simple as a character's motivation might sabotage the whole storyline.
Imagine Lady and the Tramp and Lady has do some very not lady like things to save Tramp. Who is a beta male but living on the streets ... somehow.
They don’t even have the ability to retell. Bankruptcy is the right word.
Which is why DreamWorks is burying Disney with top-notch animated films like Puss in Boots: The Last Wish.
I don't think it's that simple. I've seen some old school writers describe the fact that a huge cost savings for these big companies has been to lay off the talented experienced writers and hire untested grad students. I'd buy that explanation for a dollar. And aside from that it's also top down corporate decision making. Meaning the big execs are stifling creativity and telling the studios to pump stuff out as cheaply and quickly as possible with little to no effort to be spent on writing things that are entertaining or make sense. Just remake something already made, slap some woke messaging on it. And print us money. But at the end of the day we have to stop moaning about this stuff but seeing the movies anyway. Stop going to see this crap. You know before you enter the line at the theatre that it's going to be some rubbish that places its political messaging ahead of its value as entertainment. So just don't see it. We dont win this fight by complaining online. Theyre perfectly happy generating controversy because it's free marketing and drives chatter. We win by refusing to participate altogether and hold these companies accountable for a bad product by refusing to buy it.
Disney missed the point of what made their own Little Mermaid great (Let's put Hans Christian Andersen's version on the back burner and focus on the 1989 one)
Ariel was indeed curious about the human world but the romance was a decent factor in it. Plus, let's not forget that Eric and Ariel protected each other in the final battle. They were equal partners.
Here? Eric isn't needed and Ariel just "woke up perfect". You're right: there are no strong motivations for anyone
Thank God, a person with a intellect that sees my exact point of view, I actually had made an exact similar comment like this one I got annoyed one of the person said they were going to see be excited to see Eric kill Ursula with the boat and I put we can’t have “that because of women empowerment” and a person argued with me. It was good that Ariel did it but I highly disagree. It’s fair that Eric helps because it shows he’s not a cheap douche bag. He actually cares for Ariel, like she did for him when he fell off the boat, so I get annoyed with the argument, Ariel’s a damsel in distress. She literally went into shark infested waters, literally saved a man from going overboard lol!
P.s sorry for the long comment XD
@@Heavilune I'm cool with the long comment
I'm not always a huge fan of romance but it was fine in the 1989 movie. Eric had a personality and cared about Ariel, helping her when she needed it. It's okay to ask for help when you need it and that's what this remake refuses to understand
@@DragonGoddess18 exactly!
Please don't refer to them as "partners." Don't make love sound like a job. They were equal as people, mates, or a couple. They were equal to each other. Literally no reason to tack the word "partners" on there. They wouldn't need it to know they're equal, unlike insecure people today.
@@englishatheart And yet some people are cool with describing their romantic relationship as an "equal partnership"
Love ain't easy,in this world or any world
You don't like the word "partner"? Fine, that's you. There are plenty of people out there who are fine with it,so tolerate it.
I showed the trailer to my niece who thought it was a new horror movie because of how dark it was. The opposite point of the original movie.
It’s not as dark as the trailer makes it look when you watch the whole thing. I thought it was goin to be dark to but it wasn’t.
It isn’t dark!
@@Libra3705 The word 'dark' is a very bad word. We now say 'less Caucasian'.
...but not the opposite point of the original tragedy. "The Little Mermaid" is *supposed* to be dark.
Disney made a bad Mermaid movie the first time around. I admit to being amused that anybody thought a remake in Current Year was ever going to be a thing.
Uhh, the original story WAS a horror story. Shows just how ignorant and bandwagoned you people are.
I think Fast and the Furious X is more appropriate kids movie than the Little Propaganda. I mean Fast and the Furious X at least they got "FAMILY!"
I just saw that and there's one disturbing scene with dead bodies but other than that (and really only one part with a bunch of skimpy clad women) it is pretty family friendly
Dude. Congratulations
36 likes on your BS trap.
Must be proud
Shut up
When the _Akwafina🦀*'Scuttle-butt'*🦀 Musical_ Number finished, my Kids looked over at me & asked if we could "Go Home" to either "Do Chores" or "Work on Homework" instead. 'Little Mermaid '23 was _that _*_good._*
Wowie 😆
Hook is a fantastic adaptation. This "The Little Mermaid" remake struggles to justify its own existence.
I'd even call it a re-imagining.
@@Selrisitai yeah, good point. That's a better descriptor! Because they aren't really adapting a source material (like a book or play) called "Hook" they took characters from the original and reimagined them with a continuation of their stories.
Hook was not well received at the time, and I don't think it's a very good movie. The premise is well-done, and there are some iconic portrayals to be sure. Dustin Hoffman's portrayal of Hook is iconic, as is Bob Hoskins as Smee. But even though it has an excellent opening act that build suspense and mystery, by the time Peter makes it to Neverland the film quickly drops off a cliff. In the end I like the film, and remember it fondly. But it needed a lot of work to really be regarded as "fantastic." Although, it definitely justified its own existence, so I think I agree with your central point
Helps that Hook was essentially exploring Peter Pan in an actual interesting angle, namely what would happen if Peter grew up. There are things they could've done with the Little Mermaid, granted they kind of did some of that with the sequel and prequel but there have to be other story options.
You mean a de-imagining because nothing about it looks imaginative.
I like hearing your kids' perspectives. I rarely, if ever, hear what kids themselves actually think about kids' movies. And, yes, it's interesting to hear the different opinions at the different ages. I hope you add this as a regular feature in the future!
It may be best for him to ask them to rerate the movie a few days later. Sometimes you don't realise how terrible a terrible movie was until a few days later. I had that experience with seeing The Last Jedi in cinemas.
@@cassiefuchs3657 I had the reverse with Guardians VoL3 where I thought it was just a weird movie, not even good or bad. Now I say it’s decent, and shoot, at least they kept the tone serious when they were actually in those serious moments.
At least in korea it's already creating issues among kids with them arguing about ariel's skin color when coloring the original ariel and 6~7 years old needing to say i am not being discrminatory it isnt how she looks like and etc and another saying but in the MOVIE 🤷🏻♀️☠i feel bad for the kids
Regarding Eric being adopted ...
Back in the days of kingdoms, the most important thing was to continue the royal bloodline ... the purpose of royal marriages was to "produce an heir to the throne" ...
Royalty did not marry for love, they had arranged marriages between kingdoms ... If a queen did not give birth to a male baby, she could be divorced or beheaded.
So, my point is, no kingdom would ever adopt a child, regardless of the child's race ... royal blood is too important to them.
Amen
Ariel was always in love with the human world before she met Eric. But meeting him was that last push that made her decide that she was going to do something about it. Idk why disney doesn't get that, they don't have to hide the romance for it to work.
I agree, It was always a nuanced and layered story. Nuance is something in short supply in Hollywood these days
The oddest switch I found was Ariel doing the work at the end to save Eric. In the original Prince Eric saving Ariel was the catalyst for his character arc changing from hating humans to seeing they aren't bad as he previously perceived. Triton gave his blessing to Ariel to marry Eric and finally creating the rainbow from sea to land symbolizing the friendship and connection between the two worlds.
How exactly does the arc work in the new version?
The changes were absurd for plot consistency. At one point they are complaining that the humans keep littering the sea floor with the pieces of their wrecked ships. As the king of the ocean, I feel like Triton has an easy fix for that...
Flounder in the remake looks like I wanna feed this to my cats
I really appreciate hearing your wife and kids' perspectives too - I think it'll be very helpful for other families in deciding whether or not this movie is for them. I've heard from other reviewers that young children couldn't stand the movie and were very squirmy in the theatre.
Shoutout for the kid who said, "This is the $5-6 rental that you've got to wait for". That cracked me up!
Can confirm, movie-theatre popcorn is the best popcorn. I used to work at a theatre. They use special oil, and a REALLY weird looking, school-bus yellow salt which I cannot confirm is cancerous or not. But the flavor is a cut above the rest.
So THAT the secret! I always wondered what magic they are doing because I can't replicate it, even on the stove
They tweaked a few things but it entirely breaks the characters
Removing Eric's humble displays, things like how he frowns of getting a chad statue of himself, Ariel not being to the surface beforehand, when in the original movie it was a very 'wow she's risking her life just to satisfy her fascination', the ursula fight doesn't make sense since she didn't want to kill ariel until she thanos'd her eels while saving Eric which is what gave Eric time to drive the ship
I've only seen the novelization but it's embarrassing how they didn't GET what they were rewriting
I'm glad more and more people are calling out Disney for their BS.
…. But the movie was really good? Took my mom and she loved it so much she cried by the end. I loved it. Boyfriend saw it with two friends and they all loved it. Entire audience seemed extremely happy with it. Now if you want a bad remake: Pinocchio. Also lion king was literally shot for shot. But it’s funny seeing how up in arms people like you get
@@ryanb4940 🍆🚴
What bullshit. Dude
@@PPolendina 🖕🫵
@@PPolendina leave them alone they’re just giving their opinions.
I am glad you called out Halle Bailey cant act as everyone seems to be scared to say that in the reviews.
They're just scared to say it because they'll get called racist
I was waiting for him to say she was so wooden she should have been cast in Pinocchio
I'm calling Halle Barry princess Tiana not Ariel lol nice joke 😂.
Yeah cause no one wants to be labeled as a “racist” just for calling out ANY non-white actors inability to act…
Halle Berry isn’t in this film
"Hailey can't act" 😂😂😂
BUT SHE WAS THE BEST CHOICE FOR THE ROLE!!
-CHOICE- COLOR
After their casting choice for Peter Pan in his remake did such a bad job at the role, they can never use the "best actor for the role" excuse again.
Can’t wait for the exaggerated she was so amazing as the character all the haters were wrong and when you mention her bad acting it’s you just don’t like her cause of her skin color.
If she was the best choice, I would like to see who else they auditioned
Was thinking the same thing, they kept saying she was best choice as Arielle. 🤣 At least, she can really sing. 😬😅
Wow. That sounds awful.
So basically Ariel and Eric had a one-sided green card marriage of convenience. She doesn’t want Eric, she just wants access to his world and is using him to get there. Great message, Disney!!
Edit: Just jokin around, people! I haven’t seen the film. If the movie isn’t as I said it was, or you loved it, that’s great. Just havin a little fun, that’s all.
What a great way to convince guys to marry! /s
They did say that it’s a “modern” take of the story. Never a good idea
oh my god ariel is melania!
Disney's vain attemp to normalize the Communist Democrat Party policies of pampering illegal aliens at the expense of tax paying citizens.
Woooooow!
This was one of the best unbiased takes I have heard, excellent job Sir.
LMMFAO I went to see The Little Mermaid. Well to start with the positives. The theater popcorn was amazing."
In the original animated version it was very well established that Ariel was strong and knew what she wanted AND that she wanted to be part of the human world LONG before she saw Eric
Establishing why Triton and Ursula wouldn't like each other is completely unnecessary. Ursula is a witch who does selfish and malicious things during the central plot. Is it that difficult to imagine Triton already knew that about her?
yeah she mentions in the original she was banished and we end up seeing why by the end of the film because she has been slugifying merpeople. Its also clear she is angry at Triton for banishing her and wants his crown. There was really no mystery in the original why she was doing what she was doing and why no one liked her.
My niece didn't like the movie either, she didn't like the songs, she usually sings some songs from Disney movies, but she was quiet with these. The rapping one she barely had any interest at all 😂
Not to mention the fact that Ariel *already* had a very active interest in exploring the humans on the surface world *before* she ever even saw Eric in the original Disney animated movie, so she had greater motivation than *just* a man to go to the surface there, too. So, she saw a kind hearted and physically attractive young human man around her age, and decided to romantically pursue him by trading her voice and fins to get legs in a moment of desperation after her father decided to recklessly destroy her entire collection to punish her in a moment of weakness after finding out she rescued him? That still didn’t mean he was her one and only motivation to be human. Eric was a ticket to the world above who came as a personal bonus with the package deal to become human, not the end all be all of Ariel’s character and motivation in 1989 animated Disney film. I get so tired of critics reducing the Little Mermaid to a story about “a girl who gives up everything for a man she saw once because she thought he was hot.”
No, Ariel is not Bella Swan from Twilight! She is her own character with her own personality, hobbies, and motivations outside of *just* Eric.
Did Hallie Bailey, Rob Marshall, and the writers of the live action remake, even *watch* the opening introduction scene to Ariel’s character in the 1989 animated film at all? Did they even listen to Ariel’s lyrics in “Part of Your World” that was all about wanting to know what it was to be human, and to explore the world above?
The only thing I’m getting from all of them is a blatant disregard and disrespect of the 1989 animated classic film and its fans, so that they could turn it into a vehicle for a nonsensically and shallowly “progressive” political agenda to make money.
The same girl who fell in love with the human Prince Eric shortly after was already being complained about for never showing up to rehearsals to practice with her sisters in Sebastian’s concert and missed its premiere because she got sidetracked by exploring a sunken ship full of human artifacts, knick-knacks, and silverware, which she then took up to the surface to ask Scuttle questions about. Ariel was so into collecting and examining human things that *Flounder* actually had to be the one to warn her to swim away when they were about to be attacked by a shark because he was the only one paying attention.
Ariel sang her big “I want/My Greatest Dream” number “Part of Your World” *before* she ever even saw Eric, and it had absolutely *nothing* to do with falling in love and getting married to a hot human guy. It was about wanting to explore the human world above and experience what it was like to be able to be able to move on two legs above the shore. She didn’t even know Eric existed at this point, and Ariel was already obsessed with the idea of being a part of the human world above for a while now.
When Triton found out that Ariel actually came into direct contact with a human, rescued him, and now loved him, she was actively risking her life from his perspective, regardless of his warnings and the potential consequences. No longer was it just this phase she’d get over, if he let her do her thing. From his perspective, Ariel was now actively risking her life by coming into direct contact with human beings, which is why he lost his shit on her in that grotto scene.
She wasn’t deliberately cruel or malicious, but Ariel was somewhat inconsiderate and selfish in her desire to explore the human world, which is why she finally does apologize at the end when she faces unexpected interference from Ursula.
Yeah, falling for Eric strengthened her preexisting desire to be human, but he *wasn’t* the *only* aspect of the human world that she longed to explore and experience. Moreover, even *after* she fell for Eric and rescued him, she wasn’t really planning on leaving behind her family to go live with him by becoming a human behind their backs. Ariel was just planning to get Eric to notice her with Flounder’s help by splashing around to get him to notice her, so they could talk and get to know each other better. Triton destroying her entire collection of human things to “get through to her” after finding out she had fallen in love and rescued one, was the thing that pushed her to impulsively make the deal to be human with Ursula.
Saying that a man was Ariel’s “only” motivation to sacrifice her fins, her voice, and her family to become human is completely untrue and a total misinterpretation of her character. Ariel dreamed of being human and exploring the world above to learn about them more long before she ever even saw him. She just happened to fall for a cute guy with a similarly adventurous, brave, kind, and passionate heart, who gave her an opportunity to be heard and understood.
It wasnt even that shallow either. She didnt even trade her fins for legs for him either. At that point she was told she could become human and Ursula was the one that pushed her to get true loves kiss. It was more of a bonus for her that she happened to have a crush on him. I think her real motivations were to get on land and away from her overbearing father.
@@charg1nmalaz0r51 This live action movie also really turned Ariel into this hyper feminist unbelievably strong woman trope who never needs to be rescued or supported by anyone else, especially another man. Now, she’s just another unbelievably competent, independent, self-reliant and strong Mary Sue, who never has any moments of vulnerability in this live action films that put her in a position where she needs to be rescued or supported by another character, especially if it happens to be a man. I’m so sick of female characters getting this sort of writing in modern day media. I’m so tired of these females characters who are written or rewritten to be impossibly resilient, resourceful, and self-reliant *all the time.* No, women shouldn’t *always* be portrayed as being clingy, dependent, and helpless in media either. In real life, no one would need to even have relationships to survive happily, if we were actually as impossibly one-dimensional in our capabilities, independence, strengths, and vulnerabilities. We’re much more emotionally and socially complex creatures who should display both strengths *and* vulnerabilities in equal measure, just as we usually do in real life.
The live action movie seems so intent on making Ariel look like she can accomplish everything by herself and doesn’t ever need any help from anyone else, especially not another man. It’s just a hyper-feminist interpretation of the character that I don’t like, and it’s not *just* in this scene at the ending where she kills Ursula instead of Eric in which they’ve made her such an impossibly competent, independent, and strong woman who can do anything and everything herself either.
Ariel magically being the one to kill Ursula instead of Eric when she is trying to kill her for revenge also undermines King Triton’s character development of getting over his xenophobia towards humans, and eventually being able to let his favorite youngest daughter go be with the right one, now trusting that she’ll be able to be safe. However, this live action movie doesn’t care about character development, storytelling, and the overarching theme of being able to let your children be true to themselves. It’s only about showing what a “Strong WAHMAN” Ariel is at the expense of all that.
In the “Kiss the Girl” scene of the 1989 animated film where Eric expresses that he feels bad not knowing Ariel’s name because she can’t speak, Sebastian is the one to whisper it in his ear to offer his aid because he still can speak and sing. In this live action version after less than three days on land, Ariel magically knows more about astronomy and constellation patterns in the sky than the average human land dweller will know in their entire lives. She comes up with a way to tell him her name is “Ariel” by showing him the constellation of Aries in the night sky, and gets him to say “Ariel” by moving his lips in the shape of her name with her hands. Yeah, I can see how that might look cute, but it also makes Ariel kind of look like a Mary Sue.
In the 1989 animated film, after Scuttle finds out about Vanessa actually being Ursula in disguise hypnotizing Eric to marry her with Ariel’s voice, he tells Ariel, Sebastian, and Flounder, and they plan an ambush to stop the impending wedding before the three days are up. Ariel tries to get to the site of the wedding as fast as she can to help with Flounder’s aid. However, she is still very new to using human legs, she really isn’t as fast or as strong of a swimmer without her fins, and Flounder is the one who helps get her there with a rope from a barrel tied between him and one of her legs. As a result, by the time she gets to the site of Eric’s wedding with Vanessa, Scuttle has already been doing his best to stall the vows until, and it’s a bit too late for Ariel to just intervene. That’s why Scuttle is the one to grab Vanessa’s necklace with his beak and break it, so that Ariel can get her voice back.
You might say that the scene where Ariel gets swam to the site of the wedding would be much more difficult to animate with a tiny fish, but what even was the point of Scuttle’s animal ambush to stop Vanessa/Ursula when Ariel decided to just get into a cat fight with her to rip off her seashell necklace and break it to get her voice back herself after Scuttle told them what was going on, anyway?
They also made it so that Ariel is the first one to notice the shark about to attack her and Flounder in the 2023 film in the opening scene when they’re exploring the sunken ship for human things at her insistence, which, is again, turning her into more of a Mary Sue. In the Disney animated 1989 film, Ariel does save Flounder’s life from the shark when he accidentally knocks himself out swimming away, but she’s not the first one to notice the shark behind them on the sunken ship. Flounder, her anxious companion, is the one to first notice the shark behind them posed for sneak attack when they are exploring the sunken ship at her insistence, and that’s when they quickly swim away. She was too caught up in collecting and examining human artifacts, knick knacks, and silverware to immediately notice that she an Flounder were about to be attacked by a shark.
It also is a moment that gives us insight into Ariel’s greatest character flaws in the 1989 animated film in her opening scene with Flounder when she isn’t the first one to notice the shark because she’s too distracted by her obsession with the world above to be considerate. Ariel’s essentially a good person at heart, who is brave and loyal enough to those she loves to always be there to bravely rescue them when she notices that they need her. However, she also is obsessive about her personal desires, dreams, and interests in exploring the world above to the point of distractibility, impulsivity, naïveté, and selfishness.
It’s just annoying to me. Ariel wasn’t a perpetually helpless and weak damsel-in-distress, who only wanted a man, and constantly needed to be spoon-fed in the 1989 animated film either, but she was still allowed to be rescued, be vulnerable, and have character flaws, too. She was an independent heroine with her own agency, personal interests, and hobbies. However, she also wasn’t this impossibly perfect female role model who never needed to be rescued and supported by others in moments of vulnerability either. Regardless of our strengths, just like real men need to be rescued by other people at times in moments of t vulnerability, there are times when those of us who are women need to be rescued by others in those moments too. Just because we were given equal rights as men, it doesn’t mean we need to be independent and strong all the time around them to be of value. It is just as problematic to portray women with no vulnerabilities as it is to portray men with no vulnerabilities in fiction.
Believe it or not, but presenting yourself as *completely* emotionally/physically invulnerable and self-reliant *all the time* in relationships with other people is just as much of a turn off as being exceedingly clingy, codependent, desperate, and helpless *all the time.* The point is to be able to have a healthy balance between independence and vulnerability in relationships with other people to be able to develop and maintain long-term and meaningful ones. You don’t want to be too clingy, desperate, and dependent on others to be rescued and supported by others *all the time,* if you can help it, because then you’ll never be able to grow and often push them away by suffocating them. However, you also won’t be able to develop and maintain deep and meaningful relationships with others, if you never can be vulnerable around them and rely on them for support in your times of need from time to time either.
That’s a major problem with how “strong “female characters keep getting portrayed in modern day media. Yes, having female characters with greater motivations than *just* romantic love for a man is important, but Hollywood has gotten so “woke” these days that we’re not allowed to have many female characters who can be portrayed as vulnerable sometimes, too. Real women aren’t strong *all the time,* just like real men aren’t strong *all the time.*
We’re not allowed to be portrayed as being people with meaningful friendships and relationships in which we are allowed to ever expect aid, consolation, and support from them in situations where we are vulnerable in return for having their back when they experience those moments of vulnerability by our side and need us, especially not women.
I just find that really frustrating with female characters in modern day media, like Ariel in this TLM live action remake, Mulan in the 2020 live action remake, Belle in the 2017 live action BATB remake, Bo Peep in Toy Story 4, Rey from the new Star Wars movies, Daenerys throughout much of GOT after S1, and so on. Just stop trying to portray female characters as impossibly strong female archetypes all the time, and focus on making them human instead. Those were some of the great things about fictional female characters like Ariel, Anna, Elsa, and Mulan. They were allowed to be both strong and vulnerable around other people in relationships. They struggled to achieve some goals without help, and also had moments where they saved others. They weren’t just these impossibly strong archetypes who never needed help.
Like, why do Eric, Sebastian, Flounder, and Scuttle even have to exist in this live action remake of TLM anymore, if Ariel is able to magically be so independent, intelligent, and resourceful *all the time* that she never needs them to support her in return? Just for the sake of appealing to nostalgia and creating comic relief.
@@charg1nmalaz0r51 Yeah, I said that Triton didn’t seem too bad as a parent, aside from that scene where he destroys Ariel’s grotto collection as punishment to “get through to her” for rescuing and falling in love with a human in the movie. However, upon reevaluation of his character, the TV series prequel, and Ariel’s Beginning, it does seem to be this recurring trait for him to be a somewhat emotionally/psychologically abusive parent in the exceedingly avoidant, controlling, harsh, impatient, and illogically unfair manners his rules and reactions to disobedience of his authority take place. I
Granted, I don’t think Ariel is completely without her own flaws in the animated movie either. Triton’s too controlling overbearing, overprotective, and he was absolutely being an abusive dad when he destroyed her collection to punish her for falling in love with and rescuing one. However, Ariel also did have an impulsive, naive, sassy, and selfish streak. I’m not saying she was wrong to want to get away from an overbearing dad who refused to understand her point of view after he destroyed her entire collection of everything she loved from the human world to “get through to her,” but she also was making a deal which meant leaving behind her sisters and many friends forever for her own gain. They weren’t ever exceedingly harsh or overbearing disciplinarians.
In her introductory scene, she was kind of bullying poor Flounder to peer pressure him into following her onto that sunken ship to collect human odds and ends with her, even though he repeatedly tried to tell her that he wasn’t comfortable doing this with her. There’s also the fact that Sebastian said she missed many rehearsals with her sisters for the concert he was composing for her sisters.
Yes, it isn’t fair to push your kid to perform in something they don’t want to be a part of, but it is also made obvious that Ariel loves dancing, music, and singing. She was the one who pushed for it be brought back into the kingdom when an angry, grief stricken, and widowed Triton forbid it after his wife accidentally got killed because of it.
Not to mention the fact that by missing those rehearsals and that performance with her sisters in Sebastian’s concert, she really was letting down him, her father, and her sisters in favor of doing her own thing. When you’re a performer in an ensemble, particularly one where you have a feature role, it is your responsibility to either notify other people involved that you’re not interested in performing before rehearsals get under way, so that they can hire someone else, improvise without you, or hire an understudy to fill in for you when you’re out. As this was a family musical performance by all the daughters of Triton composed by his advisor and court composer, Ariel wasn’t going to get an understudy. Triton definitely was a domineering and overbearing father, regardless of pure intent, but in the instance of the musical recital with her sisters, I actually don’t buy that anyone pushed Ariel into performing in it because she is shown to love dancing, music, and singing several times to herself and others throughout both the 1989 animated film and its follow-ups. She even names her child Melody.
That being said, yes, I do agree that Triton had emotionally/psychologically abusive overprotective parent traits. I think there is this misconception that any adult who displays abusive behaviors and traits in their relationships are deliberately malicious cartoon villains who delight in controlling and hurting their victims, so we must never forgive them because they will definitely never change and definitely never experience genuine remorse.
Triton is a rather abusive parent to Ariel at times, but not in the same way that Lady Tremaine abuses Cinderella, or Mother Gothel abuses Rapunzel. He does genuinely love his daughters, particularly Ariel. He doesn’t belittle and mock them, delight in making them unhappy, physically harm them, and/or go looking to start fights with them. His avoidance of dealing with his grief and insecurities in a completely healthy, honest, and open manner with his family and friends out of fear of being seen as “weak”
and not being taken seriously by them, helicopter parent tendencies with Ariel, hot temper, and xenophobia bring him into that bad parent territory on occasion. However, he’s not ill-intended.
You’re never obligated to forgive or take back someone who abused you as their victim, even if they apologize or claim to have changed. You shouldn’t ever enable their abuse of power, or stick around them when they refuse to change. However, Ariel really doesn’t do that with Triton. She rebels against his illogically harsh restrictions and rules, and little by little, he grows as a parent and a person because he does love his daughter. She leaves after he destroys her grotto. Moreover, she also gets her freedom and space from him at the end when he grows. Ariel was never obligated to forgive her father, but she did because she had a kind heart.
Can I get the short verson?
"Just bc we were given equal rights as men it doesn't mean we need to be independent and strong all the time around them to be of value". Yes, we were given back rights that were taken from us, that never should have been taken in the first place. The response to being "given back" our literal human rights isn't gratitude or a gold star for those willing to see us as equal humans. They don't get a cookie for doing the right thing. Also the rights were fought for, not just given benevolently.
And so now, bc we have those rights, we don't need to be independent and strong all the time around them to be of value. How are the two even connected? People should emote how they feel, whether that be a vulnerable emotion or the desire for independence and not sharing their feelings, regardless of their status of equality. Value doesn't factor into that argument. Why are you so concerned with how we are of value to men, rather than just your value as a human and a person?
They could've totally done cartoony underwater characters that had realistic textures. Spongebob: Sponge out of water did this perfectly and looks amazing even now... and that movie came out in 2014. It's sad that a movie that comes out 9 years later can't even hold a candle to that
SpongeBob movie was actually 2015 but I see your point
"A Disney remake that ISN'T GOOD?! I'm shocked!" - No one.
"I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you! Well, not that shocked" - Fry, Futurama
I love that Disney completely disregarded that the original was in the Mediterranean and not the Caribbean and that Eric is an Italian prince 😂😂
You didn’t watch it then and decided whether you enjoyed it yourself. That part of it was really fun.
@@nematoaddd idk what you’re talking about, but Hans Christian Anderson was heavily inspired by Italy and it’s literally been stated by the Disney TH-cam channel that the og Ariel grew up in the Mediterranean Sea and that Prince Eric’s castle is somewhere in Italy
@@nematoadddthe movie was complete dogshit but I’m not surprised you’d defend it, you look like someone that would enjoy a Disney remake.
Yep. I remember listening to Sabastian sing "under the sea" in the original and how much of a Mediterranean vibe it had 🙄
@@brendajameson5093 all I’m saying is the movie is based on the location being Italy. You can have your opinion, or you can spend 30 seconds looking it up yourself and see that the original was heavily inspired by Italy and Mediterranean architecture. I love under the sea and it’s a fun song, but that doesn’t change that the location of Atlantica is in the Mediterranean (similar to where Atlantis is based) and Eric’s castle is in Italy
They should've kept it classic and not concerned themselves with a political agenda. Disney could have made an African Princess story because there isnt one. But Halle was Ok with being Disney's Copy & Paste. The lesson, is Never Settle. She had a chance to carve out something Great.
Guess Halle either loves money or attention. Maybe both
Or the contract she signed with Disney told her to say what she said
Did u have the same complaint regarding the actors in all the other remakes because those are also copy/paste too.
@@brendajameson5093 All of them are terrible except for Cinderella 2015
Whats the political Agenda you speak of ? Only brain dead people and losers fall for the agenda crap
Was curious about the “Scuttlebutt” song so I paused this video to have a quick listen…. 5 seconds in I was praying to god to get rickrolled to make it stop.
Finally a sincere review. I saw a lot review saying Halle is great in this movie, totally bs. Txs man, we need this kind of review and view of the world we live in .
Instead of a live-action remake I would have done a prequel with Trition battling his half-sister Ursula for the throne leading to her exile.
I love this idea - that would have been a much better idea.
No way that a raceswapped Ariel with an agenda is boring and a cashgrab, just no way.
Nowaying right now 😭
THank you. It's time we had a black little mermaid. I'm tired of white people stealing all the parts!
Sarcasm. Love it.😂
Racewashing always seems to have an agenda behind it. Like with Jesus becoming white passing despite being middle eastern. Ariel and Cleopatra seems like something like Jesus white washing.
Wow so glad normal people loved it lol
It's probably worth noting that The Little Mermaid wasn't just the start of the Disney Renaissance - it was a proof of concept.
The guys behind it saw animation as uniquely fitted to musicals, because you could raise the emotion visually the same way you do musically. When it's too emotional to say, you sing; when it's too much for song, you also dance. Animation lets you amplify this with the color, the expressiveness, and the impossible (like dancing musician fish).
I read somewhere that The Little Mermaid (original) saved Disney. They were having some kind of financial problems and The Little Mermaid saved them.
Oh dear, just imagining Spirit, the Stallion of the Cimarron, as a live action remake. I know it's not Disney, but it would just be normal-looking animated horses running around doing stuff horses usually don't do. What made those animated horses so fascinating were the eyebrows added to their faces, giving them immediately understandable expressions and emotions.
Turning a white character (or a character of any race that isn't black) into a black character is actually incredibly insulting and demeaning to unique and original black characters. Essentially, filmmakers are saying that they don't find making original black characters to be worthwhile. Instead, they'd rather change a white character. This is so immeasurably fucked up that I'm having trouble with making sense of it all.
Don't forget that they're the same people who would cry and shout at you when it comes to whitewashing.
It's insanely insulting. A 20 second Google search tells me that Africa has a myth about the Mami Wata, a sea spirit that can kill people, similar to a siren.
But writing an entire story about that would take effort. Just dust off an old story and change the cast. Presto! Representation!!!
Why is color that important to you? Words like “immeasurably fucked up”. Over a skin color?????? That makes absolutely no since….
@@FF-fd4tmWhy was color so important to Disney that they felt the need to raceswap Ariel to begin with?
@@TheStrawberryCloud why are you automatically assuming it was about race. Why can’t you accept the possibility that they did not see color…. Unlike u. I’m so tired of ppl making such a big deal about skin pigmentation. We all bleed red. All lives matter you know!
The 9 year old’s review was the best. ‘Ursula was gross’ 🤣
I’m subscribing, you’re hilarious
I appreciate it, I'm glad you're here!
No way! You mean a racebaiting remake of an old Disney movie turned out to suck?! I'm so shocked!!!!!!
They should have cast Zendaya, who is widely considered the best actress in the world.
@@trhansen3244 But she's not, Zendaya is extremely mediocre, she's just good at modeling bruh 😂
@@alexandersmith4731 Wow, what a claim you had over Zendaya. Where did you get that from? 😀
@@alexandersmith4731 I have to wonder if your objection to her as a thespian is because she is black?
@@trhansen3244 She's half black, incredibly favored by casting agency cause they don't like fully dark black actress, she's the favored light tan of Hollywood skin tone, you will never see Keke Palmer have the same opportunity as Zendaya due to that alone, even her role in Showman was awful, always looking like somebody fart in her way when the camera is focused on her
Srsly, Zendaya is just the half black version of Emma Watson
Hilarious to see your honesty. Every review i saw bashec the movie but no one had the guts to criticize the main actress.
I keep hearing the "blank slate" thing for Eric a lot but I never got that. Sleeping Beauty? Sure, I'd buy it, blank slate, but Eric had a clear character. Maybe it was a bit too "Disney Princess Syndrome"-esque where his main trait was just not liking being a royal and preferring to be more adventerous, but it's shown in a very distinct an natural way that gives him a lot more character beyond just "I don't like having everything I want". We see him interacting with the normal people and helping out, and we see his negative reaction to a statue of himself. It's not just that he doesn't like being locked into a life of royalty, as he's really not, he lives his life fairly normally. Instead, it's more directly that he doesn't like his internal feeling that he's supposed to be better than everyone else. He sees himself as any other normal person and that contrasts with his royal pressence.
It may not be the deepest part of the story since, well, he's not the main character, but I just never got the blank slate argument. It's clear this characterization is intentional to because when we first see him he's on a boat with sailors enjoying it as much as everyone else. However, while this could just look like a generic "oh look at the royal getting along with the townspeople" scene, the sailors are animated missing teeth, being gritty, etc. They're animated as actual sailors would be several hundred years ago. The fact that they were explicitly animated like this proves this isn't supposed to be him just getting along with people, and they WERE trying to illustrate an apparent class difference contrasted against his general attitude. This is doubly reinforced by Grimsby who they COULD have made a generic up-his-own-ass-royal, but instead they presented him as fairly normal like anyone else. He isn't disgusted by the sailors when we see him, he's just a bit sea sick. They aren't trying to show Eric as being a generic good guy, they're trying to show he explciitly just doesn't fit into the class difference that he thinks is expected of him
I believe in the original film there was intended to be an Ursula Triton sibling relationship. It got cut somewhere along the line. If not, then it was a popular fan theory and the remake crews seem to love throwing them in there. They don't stop to think about why something wasn't included in the final draft.
10:43 Pfft,I knew it. I knew Halle couldn't act well to save her life from the first time I saw the trailer and I was right
(I bet Ben Stein could emote better than her)
Yeah, and she's been cast in a remake of The Color Purple. If she can't act in a kids' film, just imagine how bad she's going to be in a serious drama.
@@matane2465 ... She's a masochist, isn't she?
Melissa is basically a living cartoon, so yeah she fits perfectly.
She is a typecast actress too, so it isn't a stretch to play as Ursula either.
Dude, no wedding!? That was one of the best parts of the original. The way Triton used his magic to make Ariel's dress was super touching!
I busted out laughing when you said: "The popcorn was incredible"
Only because it's true!
Too bad the movie wasn't on the same level of the popcorn. Great review, sir!
I had that experience on my birthday with Brian and Charles
I grew up with the actual Little Mermaid movie. It was genuinely the only Disney movie I truly loved and still do today. It helps that I see myself in Ariel. Not just because we're both pale redheads, but also because we both put love first (neither one of us intentionally seek it, but we know it's worth fighting and sacrificing for when we do find it), we both sing, and we both feel out of place in this world and know what it's like to have parents or a parent try to take/keep away everything you love. I was never once negatively influenced by the movie nor did I find anything remotely "offensive" about it. These people claim to care about the animated movie and its fans, yet they find so much about the original offensive or questionable that they have to change everything about it? Why not just make an original movie then? And give black girls and other girls of different races an original character to see themselves in? And let those of us who already saw ourselves in Ariel keep our princess. This movie does nothing but shit on the original, and I am not okay with it. Too bad I know my opinion doesn't matter and won't change anything.
It does. You vote with your wallet. Go woke go broke.
The animated Disney version from the 90s shat on the original story to begin with 😅
Definitely does not shit on the original. Maybe watch it first. You can still see yourself in Ariel and the first Ariel athletically.
@@ErgoDog I disagree. While being Disney, they obviously weren't going to keep the bittersweet ending, (they didn't have the guts to do that until Pocahontas), they did keep the essence of the theme which WAS largely the self-sacrifice for another's happiness. I WILL agree that King Triton giving her legs was a LITTLE out of left field, but at that point, Ariel had TOTALLY proven her worth for being granted such a gift.
Christine, Love your response and thoughts on this. Especially as to why don't they come up with original stories. Too bad they have no creativity to do anything past cash grabs.
A story about Crumble Cookie: One time my coworker bought crumble cookies for all the admin girls and so i had half a cookie on my desk that I was working on. The girl who bought it put the rest of the cookies across from me and said to the Sales team, "Cookies are by Leanna if you want one." Because there were extra. I dont know what possessed this man, but this 37 year old man walks up, grabs my half eaten cookie off my desk and starts eating it in front of me while talking to me. I just stared at him Shocked because it was so out of character for him. It turns out he didnt see the box that was in front of me, and just thought the cookie (which had bites in it) was up for grabs. It was hilarious and just straight shocking haha
I used to work in an office and oh booooy! Did they do and say crazy things that no one should do or say in public. Heck! I could write a whole book on what not to do in a professional environment. And, your story made me laugh so much it reminds me of Matt, I used to work with him. He got himself fired. I don't know exactly what happened but by the next week we arrived and there was someone new at his desk. 🙅♀ 🤷♀
Gasp! You’re not ALLOWED to criticize the lead actress!! Great review. I believe every word.
Given that the run time is longer than the OG animated film; did they at least spend some time showing how Ariel knows how to steer a ship? (never mind the question on how she's able to support herself to do such a thing when she literally has no legs to stand on - being she's a mermaid when she deal with Ursula).
'Hook' is a great Spielberg film.
It's a good example of how a story can be revisited showing another side of the characters.
Plus I've always considered 'Hook' to be an excellent Christmas movie.
Hook was great. I also should have mentioned Maleficent. That was live action, but a different take on the character
Regardless of race, studios need to choose talented beautiful actors for glamour roles....😩
"Actresses" when it comes to girls and women.
@@englishatheart Actors covers all people who work in front of the camera.
Go check a dictionary...
@@englishatheart What is a woman? 😏
I see prettier girls at church on Sunday.
Kid ratings need to be a thing. Adorable. My 7yo also likes just about any movie he watches lol
At least they kept it all Danish folk story with all Danish looking cast. Sarcasm.
The story never took place in Denmark though, but in Italy.
50 years of feminism and fatherlessness leaves a generation of producers making love stories with no idea of what love is... poetic
Forget anti wyite propaganda in colleges
You can get the exact same experience for a lot less money just by buying *The Jeffersons* on DVD.
I never thought about that but it's so true.
women weren't on board cause they thought they would have the same reasonability as men coruse that never happen and now they got same power but none of reasonability
I call it Twitter Brain. The producers and writers pretty much make scripts and dialogue like they are talking to others via social media and Instagram bubble, parroting "We support the current thing!" narrative. They do not know how to interact with others in real life.
I haven't seen Little Mermaid and I don't plan too. It is my favorite Disney movie, I grew up with it. I don't want to see it be destroyed by bad acting and woke crap.
I have to say though that, for me at least, not all adaptations are bad. I absolutely loved Cinderella's live action (the one with Kate Blanchet). It was faithful to the original but it had its own identity. Same with Aladdin; I laughed so much and truly enjoyed myself.
Btw, there are mix races in the Caribbean. They shouldn't have tried to justified Eric's appearance. Stupid.
They race swapped everyone except Eric. It makes no damn sense.
If it’s your favorite you should watch it. The story was faithful
Aladdin was a complete joke. Growing up that was my favourite movie and I hate the remake. Aladdin is some nervous awkward low self esteem guy and Jasmine is all about being the Sultan and girl power. Hated it. Jafar was a joke as well.
I don't know if it's hilarious or incredibly sad to watch grown people lose their minds over a Disney movie because of a mythological character's skin color. Is it 2023 or 1923?
S. Valens. Something else that I've noticed too is the alleged cast for Lilo & Stitch (Live C-V-Ctrl) that some of the main cast actors are being put under scrutiny by media and Twitter trolling bad-mouths. The main leads were supposed to be this colour and another colour, and this hair colour. In case Disney or the US population hasn't done their research in the most recent years, most of Hawaii is mixed race, today they look completely different. Some of the Natives do remain but because people from other countries have visited, toured, and married into the main population; some people in Hawaii do have different skin tones. My friend, her boyfriend, my BF and myself, went to Hawaii last year and there were many changes. Although, my aunt's family does look the same as they did ten years ago. Lol! They were happy to see us and enjoy the holidays together. What I dislike is the hate and microscopic details and dumb misconceptions about what we look like and what we sound like. We've changed, that's good.
Your kid reviews were hilarious! I would love to hear more of them
I would love to hear kids honest Opinions on movie remakes like this more often…same goes for other kids movies
Despot of Atrium pointed out how Halle's singing is obviously both synthetic as well as autotuned.
It's funny you say it was basically the same story as the earlier version then you go on to say that they gutted the love story significantly. Well the love story WAS the story! The scene where Ariel says Isn't he handsome, and, He's so beautiful, is the heart of the whole thing. It's unabashed love from both of the lead characters and that is what makes it fun and exciting. Without that, it's not The Little Mermaid at all.
Thank you for talking about what makes animation so great! It's virtually impossible for live-action to improve on animation to begin with, even when it's done well. Sounds like this was not done well 😆
Going to the cinema with so many kids must take some logistics.
I appreciate that one of Greg's kids specified exactly the amount of money they would spend on renting this hahaha
*reads title*
No one can. I doubt even the people who were bribed by Disney enjoyed it. I don't think I would even if I was paid anywhere from $1 million to $10 million dollars to watch it
It's not meant for adults. And so what if his kids don't like it. Plenty of others did. This guy is a nobody trying to ride that hate train
@@suzygirl1843 "If you aim for kids alone, you'll fail. After all, adults are just kids grown up."
-Walt Disney
@@DragonGoddess18 Hmmm.... Honestly. Disney adults are weird. I don't think I want to be buying toys for myself or watching kids movies alone. If I didn't have my niece then I would avoid all these movies and rather watch Succession on Streaming. It's weird trying to relive what's passed. America is behind China because they're stuck debating the past and present and refuse to move to the future
That's because The Little Mermaid is not to be enjoyed, its to be watched for virtue points
Well I enjoyed it
I loved it!!!!!!!!! Period.
Unrelated, but I wonder how many of Greg's subs would also be interested in a separate channel from him about parenting. I would absolutely love watching & learning from his opinions & experiences.
I definitely would love that!
The sad thing is that they could have just completely rewritten Anderson's The Little Mermaid to suit their needs. There didn't need to be a father/daughter relationship and a romance tale woven into it. That was Disney wanting to address a modern audience and also wanting to stick to their princess formula. Even Ursula was added as a part of that formula.They could have made something completely new and original that fit the narrative they were going for. But I'm convinced that these people just don't know how to write so they just copy/paste other works while trying to force their own messages into the film. 😒
On a side note, Eric saving Ariel (or not) is a big deal. It demonstrated a need for each other by showing them save each other's life twice each. It balances them out and demonstrates a sense of equality between them. If Ariel does all the rescuing, what's Eric even there for? Though, I guess that was the point, wasn't it. 🙄
Oh, and if anyone doesn't like that scuttlebutt song, you can actually hear the original Scuttle sing a song from the series. It's called "Just Give Me A Chance" and is super fun. He sings in character, but much better than his attempt at romantic stimulation in the movie, lol
Disney: Teaching girls how to be lonely and unhappy for the rest of their lives and teaching boys to be queer and gay.
Also Disney:
"Why do you hate me?"
They keep making this crap and playing the victim. It's amazing
You went to Little Mermaid and were surprised it was a remake? Wtf, dude? Have you not been paying attention since Jungle Book?
@@davestr7031 who here is surprised?
I hate how accurately of a summation that is. Old Disney taught guys to strive to be strong, confident, brave and the like, now it's all about being submissive doormats while Woman are encouraged to be rude, career driven to the point of insanity and generally selfish.
@@ravissary79 I think no one SHOULD be surprised
Bruh. As sooon as you opened up saying how great the popcorn was...I KNEW at that moment you were on demon time with this review🤣 Cheers brethren, Subscribed.
They changed the bird to a species that can be underwater, but that just makes it make less sense.. How would Scuttle know anything about humans at all if he is a bird species that isn't typically around humans and sticks to the ocean bed? Scuttle being a seagull made sense, because seagulls are pests that bother humans for food; therefore, giving a reason for him to know some things about them. As for the actors not really knowing how to act and doing distracting movements consistently, this is really on Disney for casting people for their singing ability instead of acting experience on top of just horrible acting direction. I knew this movie was going to be a mess the second they said, "We cast Ariel from the first audition the second she sang".
Thank you for including your kid's reactions, I was curious about that. The big advantage of animation with respect to kids entertainment is it can be so bright and colorful and attention-drawing. You have to put in a *lot* of action and fast-pace to even try to get the same level in live action.
makes me wonder why Disney just didn't reverse Ariel's and Eric's roles in the first place - like they should've just had him be the main focus...the ONE searching and singing about finding Ariel cause he "fell in love" or better yet "was entranced by her voice" (keeping with the actual legends of mermaids) and THEN he finds her only to find out she has no interest in him at all since you know she's a strong and independent womaid...or would she be a merlady? 😂
Because that is even worse and people would be even more pissed off. It makes Ariel even more horrible and Disney would avoid that because cancel culture would eat them up.
I'm never giving Dizzy another dollar of my money.
I want entertainment, not lectures.
I'm not going to spend 12 bucks for the privilege of being insulted and belittled.
I liked the addition of your kids points of view. Enjoyed hearing their thoughts.
It’s so sad that they continue to do this. The love story aspect of Arial and Eric was such a crucial plot point of the original animated movie and it’s unforgivable in my opinion that they took that out.
Another thing to note. Not only does Scuttle being under water make zero sense but the species of crab they made Sebastian in this movie would not be able to breath / survive underwater either. The choices they made to make it realistic were so dumb as it all falls apart the minute you start to analyze the movie with even the slightest bit of logic.
I mean, you have to make the fish all super realistic, but when they talk underwater every thing sounds clear as a bell. Sound waves don’t carry under water like that. Yet they are demanding a suspension of disbelief for that but demand us be okay with ugly hyper realistic CGI talking fish?!
My biggest gripes:
1. Disrespectful ESG skinswap. HAD this been a fully reimagined interpretation of a Nordic fairytale (speaking as a Nordic person) into a honest balls-to-the-walls Caribbean-set homage, I would’ve been more okay with it. But this is half-assed. It’s not grounded in any mythology, history or geography. It’s like fanfiction made by a gradeschooler who doesn’t have a good grasp of any of the aforementioned subjects.
2. Eric doesn’t save Ariel. The original works beautifully as both Ariel and Eric are capable and brave. Ariel defies her family, saves Eric from drowning and in return Eric risks his life and goes against Ursula. A magical force he has no knowledge of, but he is willing to take a leap into the deep for Ariel. In the live-action Eric is a simp that’s saved multiple times by Ariel. He’s reduced into a wide-eyed damsel in distress. And we wonder why women complain men being man-children, useless and not stepping up to the plate in real world. Well. It’s no wonder since the current social climate (and thereby movies) likes to offer young men only with male role models that are “emotionally multi-dimensional” = cucks and simps.
3. Changing lyrics to pander to modern audiences. Removing Ursula’s sexists comments just make her less of a villain. SHE’S THE VILLAIN. SHE’S SUPPOSED TO SPOUT SHIT. And I’m shaking with anger how they fingered Howard Ashman’s lyrics of “Kiss the Girl”. Was it not for Ashman/Menken/Musker/Clements we would not be having Disney. I daresay Ashman was instrumental to the Disney renaissance that saved the company. After he died of AIDS he has also become somewhat of a gay icon. And in 2023 his legacy has been reduced to writing “toxic and problematic lyrics.” 🤦🏻♀️ There never was any issue with the original lyrics if you have half a brain.
4. Scuttle/Scuttlebutt
5. Drab color saturation
6. “Under the sea” is completely soulless without the backing vocalists.
7. Ariel’s wardrobe is abysmal. They dress her like she was a chambermaid.
My 8yo liked the movie but she also dozed off at couple points.
Good points:
1. Halle Bailey. She has the pipes and I honestly bought her wide-eyed naïve yet savvy Ariel performance. I hate how her hair is styled and I don’t necessarily think she’s the most beautiful woman. She reminds me too much of the Splice girl.. But I absolutely enjoyed her performance.
2. Melissa McCarthy slayed.
Agree with pretty much everything, just wanted to comment that your first point is exactly what this feels like. It feels like a middle schooler's self insert fanfiction
"Hey SpongeBob how do we have a campfire going if we're underwa--"
Leaving comment just by the title.
As a person who watched animation for 20+ years, that includes Dreamworks, Laika, Cartoon Saloon and all the other animation companies’ works, Disney was bound to be like this I think.
They already had some signs where they keep using the same or very similar story messages over and over again.
In other words, they’re just out of ideas when it comes to storytelling, and now they don’t even know what kind of storytelling is popular nowadays.
(There used to be twist villain era or “no actual villain” era, but now.. it’s kinda vague to what kind of story people really like)
For example, they always used to run some kind of test through Disney channel movies, whether this story will work or not.
If that movie somewhat succeed they take that story/messages to their next big movie they’ve been working on.
Like how in Descendants 3 and Zombies (most popular disney channel films) have both same exact messages at the end (embrace the differences and live in harmony together or there’s always this divided kingdom or world itself is divided) after this film succeeded, they took this plot directly to Frozen 2, which also has a story of.. divided two people and how they.. take down the bridge at the end and live in harmony..etc etc..
Most story structure are similar to one another but the problem was..it was very telling how they start to make films.
You can see they start heavily rely on popularity and what kind of story people will like, and not..try to be creative.
People don’t like twist villain or no villain stories so.. they have to think of something else
But since Disney is always trying to play it safe, all the live remakes feel like their backup plans.
And I’m pretty sure it is.
All the remakes, they say it’s for diversity and for new generation of kids which partially true I believe, it’s always more about money.
They’re just throwing out every live action movies they can make so they can earn some amount of money just in case they fail on their new films.
So to many surprise (I guess) live actions were never meant to be taken seriously. It’s just their backup plan. So I think currently disney doesn’t REALLY know what people like? EXCEPT what they do know is how people often talks about diversity and “strong women character” kind of stuffs so they just sprinkle those in their films to make SOME people satisfy and just really..to stall for a bit.
Because it’s just right amount of keeping the company stable enough to make the next film.
They do realize the trend of OTT service, so in order to make Disney+ success is another reason why they spew out so many remakes but doing so poorly on advertising because again, those were never meant to be taken serious
But people do not know this, and Disney KNOW people don’t know this because they know people will just watch their content as long as there’s “Disney” logo on it.
The funny thing is their movies (including Pixar in the mix) Moana, Encanto, Coco, Luca, and even Raya were all diverse and interesting and visually beautiful and new. So they CAN do it. But they don't advertise these movies as much (Moana and Encanto and Coco got some marketing love, but the others not so much). Even Soul and Big Hero Six had charm all their own. No one had a problem with the ethnicities of these characters. They were organic to their stories. It's the "Princess" genre where they get lazy.
It drives me crazy, e.g., that of the entire multi country African continent, with so many diverse cultures and myths and fairytales of their own - we've got one lion remake of Hamlet. Come on! It's this laziness of plugging in a POC just to say you did that's infuriating. The success of movies like Encanto and Coco should convince them that they could go to Africa and even other places around the world to find more "Princess" movies.
As a side note,.I bet Encanto would be a great live action. But I would still prefer the live action actors resemble the animated ones.
@@rsent4026 I don’t think Raya is a good representation since they got it all wrong from clothing and..almost everything, there’s a reason why people didn’t like that film, it’s because of inaccuracy, and..so many of them are.
Also big hero 6 was I believe it was for Japan.
Because in history of animation Disney and Japan are pretty close to each other.
The first “character design” ever created from Japan was “Atom” which was inspired from Disney’s character designs. So disney was not trying to do diversity, it was more of a..love letter to Japan.
It’s weird how they get diversity right when they’re not intended to do so.
Trying out different stories and “putting in diversity” is different I think.
It’s a matter of whether you THINK of diversity first and THEN think of the story, or you think of good storytelling first and THEN diversity next.
I feel like recent years, Disney definitely think of diversity first more than good storytelling.
Also, l consider Pixar different from Disney.
So Coco is an exception.
Still, Moana and Encanto was great, like I said, because they thought of good story first.
This review says it all. Oh my god,you say every single thing on my mind!!!!
"I went in with low expectations... and they were met"
I watched it last night. Yeah, it was fine. I didn't hate it. One of my big issues with it was they weren't consistent with the changes. For instance, in the original, after Ariel "falls in lust" with Eric, she goes back home and her sisters notice that she is obviously head over heals with someone. She is humming to herself while looking in the mirror putting flowers in her hair and being aloof in that moment she is pining. This causes Tritan to wonder who this boy is. In this one, she is upset and irritated about something, so when Tritan gets the idea in his head she is in love, it just doesn't work. Lots of weird little changes that don't make sense. All the new songs suck. The worst part of the movie for me was Sebastian. Aside from the awful CGI, the new voice actor just doesn't work for me at all (he was my favorite character in the original). Theater was empty, by the way. Just me. All the way until the movie was just about to start and some chick in her 30s came in and sat somewhere behind me. Weird for an opening day.
I still don't understand the amnesia part and why Vanessa still exists afterwards. Because in the animated movie, she didnt give her amnesia because Ursula was confident that Ariel won't make it. Then turns out after Kiss the Girl, she claimed that "She's better than I thought!" so turning into Vanessa was her last resort.
@@nukita718exactly
"The Popcorn was incredible." LMAO
Bravo! I really appreciate an honest review, and not the ones that the obviously paid critics gave at first, I also loved that you gave the rating of all your kids so that people can´t say you didn't like this movie because you're racist like they are doing on and on. Thank you!👏👏👏
Call me Chato answered your question. This former network executive said movie was made to retain IP rights. Turning a profit or quality is an added bonus.
I don't understand how the remake could have been released after Avatar The Way of Water. The Way of Water is so incredibly vibrant and alive in their sea scenes, hell even the climax of that movie where there was a whole eclipse going on and it was incredibly dark, they still made sure to keep some life in the movie. They couldn't have at least made the mermaids bioluminescent like the Navi. This is a fantasy movie, even if it's supposed to be realistic and gritty, it's still a fantasy movie, give the people fantasy. Even Tim Burton's live action Alice was more fantastical and that movie arguably has a darker and moodier colour palette.
The fight with Ursula where Bailey is the one steering the ship into her rather than Eric is garbage. It makes no sense. Eric in the original is a MARINER, which is why him steering the sunken ship into Ursula makes sense. Ariel is a mermaid with no experience in the human world, including seafaring, which is why Bailey being the one to deal the deathblow with the ship is terrible.
“Ariel can talk to all the animals except for the dog.” What the hell, I’ve never noticed that.
Yeah thats in the original, i always assumed that its because shes a mermaid and can talk to fish.. if we ignore scuttle lol
I never noticed until my wife brought it up. Weird
Tbf... By the time she's actually introduced to Max she can't talk at all iirc (at least in the animated movie). Just cause the movie doesn't translate dog, doesn't mean Ariel can't understand it.
It's disturbing to me the number of people (even critics) saying Halle was essentially born to be Ariel when she can't act to save her life. Is this seriously where we're at as a society? We can't even be honest and constructively criticize a black person's performance?
Yep.
Stfu, she did great y'all are just mad.
Yeah cause people don’t wanna be labeled as “racist” for calling out Any black actors inability to act
Gotta read the cheat cards that Disney provides, or you will lose access.
You people are ridiculous and when I say that it’s not about color it’s the fact that you guys wanna hate on Halle so much.
Have you ever thought about that they are doing a live action of an animated movie and then they CGI half the movie?
Disney made sure Moana had a polynesian cast, Aladdin had a middle easten cast, Encanto had a latino cast, Lion King had an African cast. Then The Little Mermaid, the Danish fairytale, ok, lets relocate to the Caribbean and race change the characters.
They did some race swapping in The Lion King as well, it’s just more subtle. You have to pay attention to whose voicing the characters.
Well guess what .... 😂 Snow White is coming and Snow White's skin is NOT white as snow and NO dwarves. 😮 Disney has lost their minds
Snow black
Greg is sitting down, this is serious...