A new version isn’t destroying anything for me because when you watch the original 7,576 times with your 7 year old daughter that memory can never be removed from your memory.
I will check out this version as soon as it shows up for free on my streaming device.
As myself and others in this thread have argued - recycling culture is part of how culture works…
If that fact doesn’t make their heads explode, tell them Jesus was Jewish.
Rabbi Yeshua ben-Yosef?
I have just watched the original for the first time with my younger daughter (in preparation for the new one later this week).
It’s not great to be honest. It isn’t at the early high point of animation nor is it up with the modern greatness from Pixar etc. The songs aren’t particularly good - the best known is a cod calypso (which is only so so). Much of the plot is kind of problematic and we discussed the fact at the end where it just glosses over the fact the story is sad and meant to be so and that she loses her identity, family, friends, and life for a man she just met.
As a positive it is a good film to watch with your youngest daughter as the father in it, Triton, is a pretty good role model for a father.
I’m looking forward to the new one and I will be surprised if I don’t enjoy it more.
When my daughter saw the movie around age two and a half she remarked “Daddy, like you!” when she saw King Triton (pictured). I don’t have a beard, so I assume she just recognized the remarkable similarity in our respective physiques.
But as far as the “role model” thing goes I think the whole blasting-your-daughter’s-beloved-grotto-full-of-human-artifacts-with-a-death-ray-to-signal-disapproval-of-her-interests bit may have been a bit over the line.
Fair point. That was a dick move.
Also I felt the anti-witch thing and making the villain an octopus were also elements I couldn’t get behind.
An octopus based on a drag queen.
If anything the character of Ursula was more of an homage to Divine than some kind of anti-drag statement. People who were close friends and associates of Harris Glenn Milstead have stated they believe he would have been delighted with what Disney did with the character he created. I think John Waters’ take on Ursula was pretty spot-on:
“Ursula was an outsider. She was magic. She had a style that some people might not understand,” Waters tells TIME. “But she was proud of herself. She was confident. She never questioned her look. She never felt—as other people might have—that she looked weird or anything. She looked beautiful on her own terms.”
That’s what made Ursula such a great character. Unlike certain evil queens she never needed a man in a mirror to tell her she was beautiful.
Even if some of these racist assholes want to stick with an ‘original text’ argument, I’m not seeing it.
but the youngest was the prettiest of them all; her skin was as clear and delicate as a rose-leaf, and her eyes as blue as the deepest sea
Rose leafs, by which I assume he meant rose petals, come in ALL colors.
Source: Hans Christian Andersen: The Little Mermaid
Perhaps I give Yeats’ worst too much credit; but this case this seems so much more…pathetic…than what I imagined his worst being up to. Review bombing videos on the internet is more ‘feeling loudly because it’s easier than feeling deeply’ territory.
… hendes hud var så klar og skær som et rosenblad,
“… her skin was as clear and delicate as a rose petal, …”
En rose is “a rose”, and et blad is “a leaf” but also “a petal”. (And also “a newspaper”, thus the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet “the Daily Newspaper”.)
Skær means “bright” or “clear” of a colour, but “tender” of skin
Here; have a rose petal.
We saw it yesterday in the theater, found it well done and pretty enjoyable. I haven’t seen the original in likely over a decade, but felt this version was an upgrade. I expect a few biology professors use the “Under the Sea” dance number to illustrate biological diversity.
Mentioning that, it feels somehow symbolic that the one color rose petals don’t come in (without transgenic modification) is blue.
That was a great read, and the inclusion of specific historical knowledge is always refreshing in an op-ed.
It reminded me a lot of the giant annotated 1,000 Arabian Nights I was poring over last year. I got totally sucked into the weaving timelines, the analysis of how the stories had changed over time, what was included or excluded from various collections and how different tales emerged from different regional cultures.
I also really liked that Gill went for the meta-fairy tale angle pretty explicitly, and called out these “originalists’” conception of the stories as a fairy tale in itself that has been shaped and retold over the centuries.
This tradition has a richness to it: it is a historical record of sorts. Look at the progress of the fairy story through the ages and you get a twisty tale of dubious progress, a moral journey through the woods.
That makes way more sense!
The original text with a poor translation was making me think of a nightmare fuel clear skinned mermaid.
In the meantime, the only thing my daughter was remotely concerned about with the new film is where they found real mermaids and if she can meet them 
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
