Disney's Live Action The Little Mermaid

LittleBuford

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
Californian Elitist said:
Also, it’s entirely possible and highly likely that Walt Disney changed some content from the original sources of his movies for the sake of audiences at the time. Why doesn’t one of the step-sisters cut off part of her foot in Disney’s Cinderella? Why isn’t Pinocchio hanged in Disney’s version?
Click to expand...
The Little Mermaid itself is one of the most glaring examples of the Disneyfication of the source material. She certainly doesn't get to walk off with the prince in a sparkly dress in the original story.
 
Disney Irish

Disney Irish

Premium Member
LittleBuford said:
I believe the lyrics are credited to Ashman only. That doesn't mean they're sacrosanct and can't be changed for later iterations of the songs.
Click to expand...
You could be right, I guess my point is in a songwriting collaboration like Menken/Ashman whether one writes the lyrics or both write them if one of the team is making the change they represent both.

And I obviously agree they aren't sacrosanct, most things in life aren't.
 
LittleBuford

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
Disney Irish said:
You could be right, I guess my point is in a songwriting collaboration like Menken/Ashman whether one writes the lyrics or both write them if one of the team is making the change they represent both.

And I obviously agree they aren't sacrosanct, most things in life aren't.
Click to expand...
This isn’t the first time his lyrics have been posthumously changed anyway—it happened with Aladdin back in 1993.
 
BuddyThomas

BuddyThomas

Well-Known Member
Andrew C said:
I think there is a pretty clear difference between adapting fairy tales told in many forms to make animated features, and specifically editing out words in previously published materials as to not offend anyone....
Click to expand...
The Ashman Estate would most likely have had to approve any changes and apparently, they did so.
 
BuddyThomas

BuddyThomas

Well-Known Member
Magenta Panther said:
The content you speak of is being modified to mollify a tiny loud implacable minority of party-poopers who spazz over a ride full of talking rabbits and foxes and bears, oh my. A minority who the vast majority are pretty sick of by now, and who are therefore losing more clout by the minute and who, incidentally, has caused Disney a world of hurt. A minority who, by the way, has utterly failed, despite their best efforts, to destroy other entities such as Harry Potter, which pretty much proves how foolish Disney was to cater to it. THAT'S what needs to be understood. Does Iger have the capacity to understand that? Even if he does, it's too late. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. But he'll have to make a choice, eventually. It'll be fun to see what he chooses, and what the fallout will be when he does.
Click to expand...
Mother must have been drinkin’ at the bar or something when you went on this slightly veiled but completely bigoted rant.
 
Magenta Panther

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
Disney Irish said:
History is full of examples where change starts off by a small vocal minority before being accepted by the majority, even if that majority was vocal against the change in the first place.

However that is all beside the point. This again is about understanding that we as a society changes over time. A word or phrase or even an idea that is uttered 30-50 or even more years ago in some piece of content may no longer be acceptable by today's standards, this is what is being talked about here. And so that same word or phrase or idea may need to be changed upon future retelling of that same content.
Click to expand...

A small, vocal minority brought about Prohibition. How'd that work out?

The changing of some of the lyrics in The Little Mermaid's songs might be less objectionable if it weren't so stupid. One of the songs changed is "Kiss The Girl". The song's lyrics were, reportedly, changed to make it clear that Eric wasn't trying to force himself on Ariel. Seriously, what? If you remember the animated version, Ariel was pretty much coming on to HIM (she needed to kiss him so she could stay human), and her friend Sebastian was supplying the mood through his music. It's a lovely song and a lovely moment, and nowhere in it does Eric come off as a masher. Changing that song is the kind of overweening nonsense that's ticking people off. Everyone knows that the "Kiss The Girl" song is about an innocent flirtation. Once again, a Disney classic is being denigrated because of perceived issues that aren't really there. It's hurting the Disney legacy, and sure as heck isn't helping the Disney bottom line.
 
Disney Irish

Disney Irish

Premium Member
Magenta Panther said:
A small, vocal minority brought about Prohibition. How'd that work out?

The changing of some of the lyrics in The Little Mermaid's songs might be less objectionable if it weren't so stupid. One of the songs changed is "Kiss The Girl". The song's lyrics were, reportedly, changed to make it clear that Eric wasn't trying to force himself on Ariel. Seriously, what? If you remember the animated version, Ariel was pretty much coming on to HIM (she needed to kiss him so she could stay human), and her friend Sebastian was supplying the mood through his music. It's a lovely song and a lovely moment, and nowhere in it does Eric come off as a masher. Changing that song is the kind of overweening nonsense that's ticking people off. Everyone knows that the "Kiss The Girl" song is about an innocent flirtation. Once again, a Disney classic is being denigrated because of perceived issues that aren't really there. It's hurting the Disney legacy, and sure as heck isn't helping the Disney bottom line.
Click to expand...
And a small vocal minority started the Civil War and ended slavery, what's your point?

Just because you think changing the lyrics is stupid doesn't mean its not the right thing to do. And since you don't know what those lyrics will be you don't know if its better fit for the story today.
 
Magenta Panther

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
Vegas Disney Fan said:
I was thinking about LittleBufords post and remembered the black centaur from Fantasia, I looked it up and she was removed in 1969, this has been happening for a very long time. I don’t think anyone would argue she should have remained because she was original to the story.

I think it’s “where they draw the line” that causes the controversy, the negative stereotype black centaur, the negative stereotype Jew in 3 little pigs… I don’t think you’d find many people upset they removed them… when you get into things less controversial it becomes far more subjective though.

Some of the things they’re changing feel justified, others don’t, but that’s going to change for everyone based on their individual beliefs.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Of course the black centaur had to go. She was truly an offensive stereotype. But it's interesting what you say about drawing lines. Was anyone, anywhere, offended by the original lyrics to The Little Mermaid's songs? Were there any complaints? Then why the heck change them? It's this overreach/overreaction that's the issue. Disney's inventing trouble where there is none. And it really needs to cut it out. It's getting out of hand, ticking people off, and, again, hurting its bottom line.
 
LittleBuford

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
Magenta Panther said:
Who, apparently, wrote sexist, misogynist lyrics, according to the clods behind this unnecessary Mermaid reboot.
Click to expand...
No-one is claiming that. Times and standards change. Have you never watched something from the ’80s or ’90s and thought, “Wow, we wouldn’t say or do that today”? Only the other day, I was looking at an old email exchange with a friend of mine and surprised to see both of us using turns of phrase that I would most certainly avoid now.
 
G

GimpYancIent

Well-Known Member
Brer Panther said:
Why does every Disney remake feel the need to put down the original? Remember when the people behind the Aladdin remake claimed that Jasmine's only goal was to meet a guy, which wasn't even close to being true?
Click to expand...
The live action remakes are just copies. The originals are the enduring classics that will be around long after the remakes (live action or not) fade away into the dust bin of history.
 
LittleBuford

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
Brer Panther said:
Why does every Disney remake feel the need to put down the original? Remember when the people behind the Aladdin remake claimed that Jasmine's only goal was to meet a guy, which wasn't even close to being true?
Click to expand...
Could you please provide a quote? I think I know what you’re referring to, and if I’m right, you’re totally mangling—and thereby misrepresenting—what they said.
 
Magenta Panther

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
LittleBuford said:
They’re changing them for the new film, not removing them from the existing one. Why would you expect something made today to follow the social standards of 1989?
Click to expand...
Because there was nothing wrong with the lyrics the way they were. What an offense to the genius of Howard Ashman to change his lyrics because of an imagined offense - that most people do not see. It's just plain stupid and cringey. I admire Ashman so much - he didn't just write the lyrics to songs - he helped direct the narrative in some of the best animated films Disney has ever produced. One of my favorites of his directives is "Don't get plotty." Which means, keep the storyline crisp and clear. Don't go off on tangents that weaken the strength of the story. Wise words for any writer/director of any film. I can't imagine that he wouldn't be angry that someone would assume that his work would cause offence to anyone. I don't see how anyone could support such an idea. Despicable.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom