Aside from the nostalgia, the songs, the art design it's just bad. To sum everything up: Ariel openly and secretly disobeys her father. She risks her life for human tools she doesn't know what they are. She complains many times. She's gorgeous but she dreams of more. She blindly follows fireworks she got enchanted by. She can't get one man out of his mind who she never knew. Ursula gives her help and is very smart and subtle but ends up as a power hungry monster. Ariel is almost killed mostly because of her decision but the villain is brutally defeated, Ariel gets what she wants and everything's cherish.
Don't forget that Ariel willingly signs a treaty which makes her to gain Prince Eric's true love in 3 days with no ability to talk. Just how stupid she is? Come on!
A father who was also proven multiple times to be xenophobic.
She risks her life for human tools she doesn't know what they are.
You know, Indiana Jones does many of the same things as well, and he's not considered a moron.
She complains many times.
Actually, she rarely even complains, and the times she does, it's usually perfectly justified, unlike with say Belle.
She's gorgeous but she dreams of more.
I would suggest you not tell that to immigrants to America, legal immigrants I should point out.
She blindly follows fireworks she got enchanted by.
How the heck would that make the film bad. If you were someone who didn't know what fireworks were and you saw them above, what would you have done?
Ursula gives her help and is very smart and subtle but ends up as a power hungry monster.
We already got how Ursula was a monster well before Ariel went to her. And for the record, the only reason she even considered going to Ursula was because her dad blew up her stuff, and even THEN, it took a dirty trick from F&J to have her come with (as directly suggesting she do it actually failed in spite of her being an emotional wreck).
Ariel is almost killed mostly because of her decision but the villain is brutally defeated, Ariel gets what she wants and everything's cherish.
Which is definitely better than the original tale since at least she actually cleaned up her mess, unlike in the original tale where the mermaid got what she wanted despite not only committing suicide over killing the prince, but also basically putting upon needless suffering to her friends and family in the process of trying to get what she wants.
Don't forget that Ariel willingly signs a treaty which makes her to gain Prince Eric's true love in 3 days with no ability to talk. Just how stupid she is? Come on!
I really wouldn't say "willingly", since her reaction when she signed it made clear she didn't exactly want to do that but felt she had no other options. And also, she even tried to point that exact problem before Ursula basically cut her off by suggesting she basically flaunt her body.
And anyways, that movie is what saved Disney from being bankrupted or bought out, so give it some credit. I can name far more problematic stuff in Beauty and the Beast, one that DOESN'T have any real justification anyways.
reply share
It would be very unhealthy for a 16-year old girl to always obey her parents. Ít's an age at which you have to start making your own decisions and, in Ariel's world, to start your own life. Ariel was not interested in performing, why did Triton force her?
She complains many times.
She complains about her father controlling her life. But a character complains and it automatically makes a movie bad?
She's gorgeous but she dreams of more.
How shallow. Being gorgeous ia a goal in life? You should just be satisfied with that?
She blindly follows
Who does she blindly follow? After a huge argument with her father who also destroyed her possessions, she was so desperate she hoped Ursula could help her out.
fireworks she got enchanted by.
Yeah, I HATE when movies do that...
She can't get one man out of his mind who she never knew.
How does that make her different from most Disney Princesses? How does that make her different from Eric?
Ursula gives her help and is very smart and subtle but ends up as a power hungry monster.
Yeah, that's the point.
Ariel is almost killed mostly because of her decision but the villain is brutally defeated, Ariel gets what she wants and everything's cherish.
Ariel made a mistake and someone with bad intentions took advantage of that. But her father played a big part in that as well. It had a negative impact on all of them. But what's wrong with Ariel being able to live the life she wants and Triton accepting that and everyone being happy in the end?
Don't forget that Ariel willingly signs a treaty which makes her to gain Prince Eric's true love in 3 days with no ability to talk. Just how stupid she is? Come on!
There was no other way to become human, she didn't want to go back home at that time anyway.
reply share
Well, this so-called "worst Disney animated movie" is pretty much the movie that GOT Disney out of its slump since at the very least Black Cauldron if not Black Hole or even since Disney himself croaked, so I strongly suggest you give it some respect (and considering how even now its vastly popular, I'd say Disney did SOMETHING right). And quite honestly, it at least had a better story, characterizations, and morals than Beauty and the Beast.
LOL OP, that was very shallow and stupid arguments. Have you never obeyed your father or parents You always listened even if turns out he constantly got it wrong? And were xenophobic? You never went your own way?
You never had dreams then and achieved to full-fill them? You just relied on your looks to get through life? Also quite a strange comment to advice someone to not follow their dreams but just be happy with with how things are and hoping their appearance helps them.
None of these shallow arguments are valid reasons as to why the film is bad.
Black Cauldron at least had originality and good, better things that this movie could ever deliver. For me, the most memorable is the awesome design of the villain
Yeah, well, Black Cauldron didn't get Disney out of its slump while The Little Mermaid did (well, TLM and Who Framed Roger Rabbit, though I'm not sure whether to count the latter since it seemed to be a joint project with Warner Bros due to its use of Looney Toons characters as well as Disney characters.). I'm just stating the facts, and besides, at least it had a better story and moral than Beauty and the Beast, you have to admit that much.
Granted, Black Cauldron could have done far better than it did (not necessarily being a smash hit, though) if Jeffrey Katzenberg didn't end up cutting literally ten minutes of animation out and then some, but nevertheless...
Hi there, as always, I love your passionate defenses of The Little Mermaid. But I do have a few things to respond to in your post here.
Point one, the above user is probably just a troll or a rabid member of the Lion Pack. Either way, not worth responding to.
Point two and I've brought this up before can you leave Beauty and the Beast out of these conversations? At the very least, don't worry about it unless someone else brings it up.
Last point, Disney attempting to adapt the Prydain Chronicles was always a bad idea that no amount of lost footage could fix.
"Unless you're an alien, time traveler, or esper, your opinion doesn't matter."
Point two and I've brought this up before can you leave Beauty and the Beast out of these conversations? At the very least, don't worry about it unless someone else brings it up.
Right, sorry. But I wasn't sure how else to tell them to stop slagging on The Little Mermaid anyways.
Last point, Disney attempting to adapt the Prydain Chronicles was always a bad idea that no amount of lost footage could fix.
Right, probably wasn't, but it at least would have done a bit better than becoming an outright bomb if they didn't cut out a lot of footage.
reply share
I'm just stating the facts, and besides, at least it had a better story and moral than Beauty and the Beast, you have to admit that much.
He doesn't HAVE to do anything. What is this bizarre obsession of yours that everyone should agree with your view of the world? And like the other poster said, leave BatB out of it.
reply share
Agreed, I'm tired of reading his Beauty and the Beast bashings. I've read them in other posts too. I love both these movies. No need to bag one to prove the others good. They're both timeless classics
I think the whole world knows how he feels about the movie by now. Yes, we get it, you hate the movie because of some feminist professor at your college. The logic...
Multiple feminist/left-wing professors, actually: one female (and I uploaded the recordings of her. I didn't specifically have you in mind so much as a future blog post on DisneyWiki, but I'm MORE than willing to show you the lecture tapes if it at least gets you to understand: https://www.mediafire.com/folder/e02pmeur6q4yb/World_History_up_to_the_1500s The more incriminating one is I think around the time of March. I definitely know it was around the time of the mid-point of the semester.), several male. And actually, not even that, there was also what various sources on Wikipedia revealed from interviews and covering development regarding Beauty and the Beast and the agenda they pushed.
Don't believe me? Just read up on all these links, all of which were actually used as source material for Wikipedia:
You were talking ABOUT me, so I have more than a right to respond to that.
Also, the French analogy does not work because while there are some bad apples in French society, there have also been some good ones, while with Feminism today, they are mostly bad apples, and the only good ones are in the by now nearly forgotten Susan B. Anthony brand. And besides, the stuff I cited came from Woolverton and/or Katzenberg's mouth.
No, you don't have the right as you not being able to shut up is the whole problem.
The French analogy makes acually more sense because the characters are established as French, while no character in the movie is established as being the supposedly radical, men-hating feminist professor from your college.
You know, once upon a time, I actually did hold Beauty and the Beast up in high regard. But unfortunately, things happened, and if anything, I HATE the fact that I have to cite all the bad things that happened in that film, but unfortunately, I have to.
Also, I suggest you say the same thing to the likes of Taran Wanderer 2, since he basically makes it utterly obvious that he hates The Little Mermaid and Ariel especially.
Hey you want to bag Beauty and the Beast? Go there and do it. This is the Little Mermaid board, not the anti B&tB board. I think I speak for most people here by saying we are getting pretty tired of you turning EVERY topic you post into an essay what you think's wrong with B&tB. Ok we get it, you don't like it. Can you post something new for once?
TLM is a classic movie. There's no reason to bag another movie to do it. Incidentally there are a few Disney movies I don't like, but there's better places to vent frustrations
It's mainly as a response to dealing with particular fans who bag TLM in favor of either the original tale or... well, you know. One of the more notorious examples was with this guy named Taran Wanderer 2, as he frequently bags TLM and does not offer any criticism of any kind to BATB, and even lies about Ariel's character, not to mention frequently ignores similar events that are arguably far worse than... okay I'll stop. I get irritated at that.
I don't need to bag any other films just to prop up TLM. But I do think I have to make it a point to counter anyone who DOES bag TLM for BATB.
Incorrect. Beauty and the Beast had the better story, characterizations morals and visual appeal to the general public than The Little Mermaid. Furthermore, in 1989, the most successful film from both financial and critical point of view was Batman by Tim Burton.
No, Beauty and the Beast DEFINITELY had a bad story (I and plenty of others can name a LOT of plotholes within the story, like how Beast's castle in the beginning seemed to take a day at best to get there, yet in The Mob Song, it's at best a couple of hours away, not to mention Belle getting there around the same amount of time as the latter based on dialogue from Mrs. Potts and the Beast, the exact timetable of the curse, the villagers not hearing about the Prince or the curse despite the forest being implied to have suffered through the curse, and all of that, or how Belle's actions for the first half of the film actually CONFLICTED with the moral of the tale, or how Chip managed to find and get that device to save Maurice and Belle despite the fact that it was still under a tarp and on a wagon, or how Belle apparently was superhuman in the times she saved Beast and Maurice, yet ended up doing something as stupid as exposing him to Gaston and the villagers instead of just knocking Gaston out and setting the paddywagon on fire. Don't get me started on the Gaston reprise, which is a huge plot problem in itself, as in real life, whoever does what Gaston did regarding the reprise would at the very least find their popularity decrease, if not find themselves arrested for conspiracy, blackmail, and false witness; they most certainly would not be cheered on even if they personally didn't like the guy he was doing that kind of act against.), characterizations (Belle behaved more like how you would expect Belle's wicked sisters to behave, NOT the protagonist of a true beauty coming from within tale [you want a good idea of an actual pure-of-heart protagonist of a true beauty comes from within tale and how they behave, look at Terra Branford here: https://youtu.be/UstFWEOt28Y], and the triplets do not demonstrate ANYTHING indicating inner ugliness DESPITE being her foils [in fact, ironically, they came far closer to actually MATCHING the original Belle in terms of overall demeanor even with their crushing on a jackal like Gaston], and most of the cast, Beast aside, probably the one good character in the film, were massive stereotypes), morals (Let's see, Belle essentially gets away with deliberately breaking Beast's rule, with absolutely NO hesitance on her part and nearly getting herself killed out of sheer stupidity, and wins a blame game with Beast without even ATTEMPTING to acknowledge she herself was ALSO at fault for what happened, Belle largely acted like a spoiled brat for most of the first night, and it also teaches you that it's perfectly alright to just sell out your friends just to get yourself out of a lam and nearly get them killed. Besides, I get pretty irritated when people insist true beauty comes from within and imply as this film did that only people who are ugly on the outside can be beautiful on the inside, considering the likes of Jean-Paul Sartre exploited this and basically gave hell to those girls back during the 20th century. I might as well point out that with the way Belle's bookworm status was depicted, she'd actually become gullible enough to backstab Adam by the time the French Revolution occurs. Also, Lumiere's womanizing is treated as being in a good light, certainly he's not called out for that behavior at all, not even by Belle, which essentially makes her dislike of Gaston somewhat hypocritical.), and even visual appeal (Honestly, most of the characters just didn't look good at all, Belle at times looked like she was wearing makeup, and the villagers just looked off many times). The Little Mermaid beats that out in every area, though I don't even need to be a fan of The Little Mermaid to tell how Beauty and the Beast was a very badly done film. Heck, I might as well point out that Linda Woolverton not only made that awful Maleficent movie, but she and Time Magazine made VERY clear that she reused elements of that movie into Maleficent.
Also, if The Little Mermaid wasn't even close to the most successful Disney film from both a financial and critical point of view, please explain how it even MANAGED to single-handedly save Disney from certain bankruptcy/corporate merging, which should be evident by how it actually managed to delay a video release of Black Cauldron which was just out of the door specifically because of how The Little Mermaid was a runaway hit.
No, Beauty and the Beast DEFINITELY had a bad story
No, Beauty and the Beast DEFINITELY did NOT have a bad story.
like how Beast's castle in the beginning seemed to take a day at best to get there, yet in The Mob Song, it's at best a couple of hours away, not to mention Belle getting there around the same amount of time as the latter based on dialogue from Mrs. Potts and the Beast
I have explained to you a thousand times. Have you ever considered that Maurice left at the end of the day and arrived at the castle at night? So no, his journey did NOT take a day. Maurice also gets lost, so ofcourse he takes longer than the mob who's guided to the castle by the mirror. And ofcourse Belle gets there quicker, as Philippe went to the castle straightaway. Having found his way back to the village, he now knew where the castle was.
the villagers not hearing about the Prince or the curse despite the forest being implied to have suffered through the curse
Also explained to you a thousand times. The villagers could very well know about the existence of the prince, they just don't know he was cursed because they never went up to the castle and he never came down to the village. For all I know my next-door neighbour could've been turned into a beast, because we never socialize.
or how Chip managed to find and get that device to save Maurice and Belle despite the fact that it was still under a tarp and on a wagon,
How the hell do you know that nor Belle, nor Maurice, nor anybody else took the machine of the wagon?!
All other things you mention are NOT plotholes, but ridiculous expectations and interpretations based on your ridiculous views of the world.
I do NOT want a reply from you, I just want you to get all of this through your thick skull!
reply share
You constantly complain whenever I butt in to your conversation, yet you yourself butt in when I was talking to someone who ISN'T you?
Well, since you addressed those things, maybe I should address them back:
I have explained to you a thousand times. Have you ever considered that Maurice left at the end of the day and arrived at the castle at night? So no, his journey did NOT take a day. Maurice also gets lost, so ofcourse he takes longer than the mob who's guided to the castle by the mirror. And ofcourse Belle gets there quicker, as Philippe went to the castle straightaway. Having found his way back to the village, he now knew where the castle was.
Despite the fact that Phillipe never even saw the castle? Also, it was definitely not "the end of the day", considering that it wasn't even sunset when Maurice left. At best, it was noon, maybe 2:00 PM at most. We actually see a montage regarding how long it took for him to get to the forest. And for the record, I don't deny that the villagers had help from that mirror (though even with a guide, it still should not take THAT long). Now, the Belle reprise? That was CLEARLY at the end of the day, yet even THEN, she somehow managed to get to the castle at a very short amount of time, and UNLIKE the villagers, she didn't even have a mirror (oh, and BTW, Phillipe should NOT know the location of the castle since he was too busy trying to flee from the wolves to even see the castle). Oh, and I might as well point out that even in the original movie in Something There, it was made clear that at least a few days had passed.
Also explained to you a thousand times. The villagers could very well know about the existence of the prince, they just don't know he was cursed because they never went up to the castle and he never came down to the village. For all I know my next-door neighbour could've been turned into a beast, because we never socialize.
The president never comes down to socialize with the common folk either, at best he only manages to do stump speeches. Yet if the President managed to get shot, guess what? The news would be all over it. Also, considering the stained glass prologue pretty clearly shows the forest transforming just like the castle, the villagers would at the very least get somewhat suspicious about the forest being suddenly warped.
How the hell do you know that nor Belle, nor Maurice, nor anybody else took the machine of the wagon?!
First of all, Belle would have been in too much of a hurry to find Maurice as soon as Phillipe got back and he wasn't with the horse to even consider removing the machine from there. Second of all, Maurice, similarly, would have been too busy trying to pack up and try to find Belle ASAP and try to get back to the Castle. Third of all, neither Belle nor Maurice would have had the time by the time they got home and the mob arrived to even get the machine off the tarp and off the wagon, since Maurice was unconscious due to his being extremely ill, and Belle was too busy trying to nurse her dad back to health. Long and the short is, there's absolutely no way Belle and/or Maurice would have had the time to try to remove the machine especially when they had extremely little time to waste for far more serious measures. We could go for one of the villagers, but the problem is, none of the villagers save for possibly either the triplets or the book-keeper would have cared for Maurice's inventions (the triplets showed absolutely no indication whatsoever of thinking Maurice was insane), and even if they did, they wouldn't have known about Chip trying to activate it, and in fact, they wouldn't have even KNOWN about Chip's existence.
All other things you mention are NOT plotholes, but ridiculous expectations and interpretations based on your ridiculous views of the world.
Ridiculous views? These were grounded in history. If they were ridiculous, do you honestly think they would have even happened as they did? I'm not even the only one who cited this, but plenty of others, like Milton Friedman, or Paul Johnson, or Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, or Timothy Dwight, or the American Founding Fathers, have said much of the same things and made the same observations I had listed, and in fact, I actually incorporated them INTO my line of thinking.
I do NOT want a reply from you, I just want you to get all of this through your thick skull!
If you don't want a reply from me, DON'T even attempt to respond to or talk to me at all. Heck, add me to your ignore list if you must, at least THAT would ensure you don't listen to me at all.
reply share
You constantly complain whenever I butt in to your conversation, yet you yourself butt in when I was talking to someone who ISN'T you?
Ofcourse, how do you like the taste of your own medicine? Because again you had to tell someone off because they don't share your opinion.
Despite the fact that Phillipe never even saw the castle?
Who the f cares if he saw the castle, it was only a few meters away.
Also, it was definitely not "the end of the day", considering that it wasn't even sunset when Maurice left.
In the summer the sun doesn't go down till 10 o'clock, but still the day has been long over. But try to think logically for once. How long does it take to go from day to sunset to evening? NOT a whole day. He could've left at 4 or 5 o'clock and arrived at the castle at night. Philippe knew where he last saw Maurice, so ofcourse it wouldn't take as long to bring Belle to him! This is so logical, even YOU should get it!
Second of all, Maurice, similarly, would have been too busy trying to pack up and try to find Belle ASAP and try to get back to the Castle.
How about Maurice unloading the wagon because he thought he needed it or the machine to save Belle?! Or maybe the mob thought they could use the wagon to attack the castle? Maybe the damn machine fell off when Belle unbuckled the wagon? Anything could've happened in the meantime! If anything, it's a continuity error, but NOT a plothole. TLM has plenty of those.
The president never comes down to socialize with the common folk either, at best he only manages to do stump speeches. Yet if the President managed to get shot, guess what?
You are completely moronic to compare a modern head of a state to an 18th-century prince living an isolated life in the mountains.
Ridiculous views?
Yes, ridiculous. You read that correctly.
If you don't want a reply from me, DON'T even attempt to respond to or talk to me at all. Heck, add me to your ignore list if you must, at least THAT would ensure you don't listen to me at all.
I don't want a reply from you because I don't want a BatB discussion on the TLM board. My point was simply to repeat what everybody has been saying to you for years but you're just too stubborn to accept.
Ofcourse, how do you like the taste of your own medicine? Because again you had to tell someone off because they don't share your opinion.
Actually, that speaks more of you than it does of me. I don't buy into opinions at all (I don't even let MYSELF have an opinion), but guess what, I'd STILL let them have their own opinion precisely BECAUSE I realize I can't sway opinions anyways. I CAN correct actual mistakes.
Who the f cares if he saw the castle, it was only a few meters away.
If he knew where it was, he obviously would have SEEN it! And it's pretty clear from those scenes that he couldn't have seen it since he never even go so much as a brief glance.
In the summer the sun doesn't go down till 10 o'clock, but still the day has been long over. But try to think logically for once. How long does it take to go from day to sunset to evening? NOT a whole day. He could've left at 4 or 5 o'clock and arrived at the castle at night. Philippe knew where he last saw Maurice, so ofcourse it wouldn't take as long to bring Belle to him! This is so logical, even YOU should get it!
1. During the summer, the sun actually doesn't go down until 8:30 PM.
2. The movie takes place during the Autumn, meaning night-time would actually be arriving FAR sooner than that.
3. It was definitely not the end of the day at all (heck, Belle even passed through a busy marketplace during the late stages of the song, which considering most of their commentary was about food, it was most likely during the lunch period.
4. Last Phillipe saw Maurice, it was near a cliff, NOT near the castle. Maurice only GOT to the castle long after Phillipe left when he was forced to do a country run and stumbled before seeing the castle gates. If it was truly just going by where he last saw Maurice, he would have taken Belle to the cliff, NOT the castle directly.
5. Fair enough, but it definitely was a lot longer than when Gaston/mob of villagers or even Belle took to get to the castle.
How about Maurice unloading the wagon because he thought he needed it or the machine to save Belle?!
Based on the scene where he left for the castle, not much time had passed between his attempting to rally the villagers/failing, and his departing from the cottage, meaning he definitely couldn't have had time to fix up the machine.
Or maybe the mob thought they could use the wagon to attack the castle?
The mob didn't even know or believe the Beast existed until Belle opened her big mouth and exposed him via the mirror, and based on the amount of time between that and their marching to the castle, they definitely couldn't have had enough time to actually fix the machine (not to mention wouldn't have even SEEN a need to do so). Not to mention, if they were planning to use the machine, don't you think they would have, I don't know, actually made SURE to bring it along?
Maybe the damn machine fell off when Belle unbuckled the wagon?
Considering the machine didn't fall out during the rather wild rides and hijynxes by Maurice and Phillipe during their time in the forest, the machine was definitely secure and thus wouldn't have simply fallen out just from Belle unbuckling it.
Anything could've happened in the meantime! If anything, it's a continuity error, but NOT a plothole. TLM has plenty of those.
TLM doesn't really have many plotholes. It has artistry mistakes, which was largely thanks to Disney being in the red at the time the movie was being made, yes, but not plot holes. Probably the closest it's got to a true plot hole is when Caroletta inferred that weeks passed between Eric and Ariel's first encounter.
Also, continuity errors and plot holes are one and the same. After all, plot requires a story, and a story requires continuity, therefore plot requires continuity. Hence, one and the same.
You are completely moronic to compare a modern head of a state to an 18th-century prince living an isolated life in the mountains.
King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinet largely lived an isolated life in the palace, yet when they were murdered during the French Revolution, all hell broke loose, so that's an even better example.
Besides, it's not just our current president that's like this, I'm referring to every president since George Washington. Heck, even the writing of our Constitution was done behind closed doors.
Yes, ridiculous. You read that correctly.
Then cite history as ridiculous, because what I cited was taken DIRECTLY from history.
I don't want a reply from you because I don't want a BatB discussion on the TLM board. My point was simply to repeat what everybody has been saying to you for years but you're just too stubborn to accept.
Actually, I've seen plenty of people say what I've been saying as well, so it's not even "everybody." And besides, by that logic, we shouldn't even MENTION any other Disney films that aren't TLM on this board, and yes, that especially comes from you, since you frequently make references to Frozen on here, and there have been topics comparing TLM to various other Disney films. I'm just doing what everyone else is doing. And like I said, you really don't want to respond, put me on the ignore list.
reply share
Good god, once again you show how pathetic you are. You're responding to a post from April even though I explicitly said I'm not interested in having a BatB discussion here on the TLM board. Your arguments are VERY, VERY weak, by the way. Take them to the BatB board and I'll show you how weak they are. Moron.
My arguments are not weak because they are directly related to the film, and besides which, they have firm basis in history rather than being flimsy hearsay.
Anyways, to end it, if you're going to blame anyone for making this discussion about BATB, blame jsele-38952, he's the one who brought up BATB when trying to claim it had a better storyline, characters, morals, and all that shebang than TLM. All I did was respond to him when you butted in.
Jsele did, however, compare BATB to TLM, though. I will acknowledge I was guilty of possibly bringing it up. And for the last time, they are NOT weak, not when I actually backed up my arguments by citing my sources, which is HOW arguments are strong, as stated in school, journalism, everything. Verifiability is derived from "Veritas", which is Latin for "Truth." And Truth = facts. And facts, truth, is the strongest thing out there.
You brought up BatB in your very first post, before jsele even posted, so stop blaming them. Did you really go to college? Arguments are not strong just because they cite sources. And look again, most of your arguments didn't even use sources. The problem is that your arguments are just completely farfetched and nonsensical. But again, I'M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS THAT HERE!
I HAVE experienced people who HAVE constantly bashed The Little Mermaid while conveniently ignoring problems posed by Beauty and the Beast. Like Taran Wanderer 2 for example. Name me one time he hated on the climax of Beauty and the Beast for the exact same reasons he hated on The Little Mermaid's climax. He doesn't, and if anything tries to justify Belle's behavior while demonizing Ariel even though unlike Ariel, Belle DID know what kind of scumbag Gaston was.
As far as my arguments, actually, they DID have sources. They came straight from the scenes of the film. I even make sure to list the scenes in full detail from exactly when they occurred specifically to PROVE they were cited from the scenes by those who've seen them. And college and school reinforced that you NEED to cite your sources in your work in order to prove your arguments are strong especially if they are opinion pieces. In fact, a few of my teachers said they would even give a good grade for essays even if they don't agree with the thesis as long as they were at least argued well, and I've gotten QUITE a few good grades when doing that AND citing my sources.
And like I said, don't like my arguments, there's an ignore button right on top of my posts. Use that.
EDIT: And yes, I HAVE gone to college. In fact, I can even NAME the colleges I went to: Georgia Perimeter College Dunwoody Campus, 2009-2012, and Oglethorpe University, 2012-2014. I may have had a very bad experience in college by professors cramming their agendas onto us (though not in terms of grades. Actually, I got pretty good grades by sheer hard work, and in fact, when I did poorly in regards to my first exam, I actually redid it to see when exactly it matches up with college-level exam work to my professor's standards, all without even expecting a regrade at all. And I fully expected College work to be difficult thanks to Gifted Hands by Ben Carson, so I had no illusions that the coursework was going to be easy).
EDIT 2: But hey, I'll humor you, if you think my arguments are horrible, try actually citing how they are that, and NOT by ad hominems. And I suggest you do it here.
Just shut up. I simply gave some quick feedback on your essay. It was not an invitation to yet another off-topic discussion on THE LITTLE MERMAID board. Again, take your arguments to the BatB board.
And as I've told you multiple times, I never put people on ignore or report them. If you don't like anyone criticising your posts, then don't post!
I can tolerate people criticizing me. After all, it's how I get better. Heck, Haruhi criticized me for bashing Beauty and the Beast, and guess what, I acknowledged her point and took it to heart. I also took Coolman229's criticisms on Tumblr to heart when I alluded to my current views on Beauty and the Beast. Heck, I even attempted to do some digging of my own regarding what the other writing staff besides Linda Woolverton herself had in mind when writing the character at his advice.
However, you HAVEN'T offered any constructive criticism, just destructive criticism.
And if you have nothing good to say regarding my posts, then DON'T REPLY at all and take your own advice.
If I am to criticize something as being faulty logic or something, I always make SURE to explain in full detail exactly why it's faulty logic. I've always been taught that simply saying it is that is NEVER enough, that you must explain why you must, so why don't you do that? Don't they teach anyone at school anything these days?
We can agree on one thing, though, The Little Mermaid is certainly not a bad movie.
Not until you actually ADDRESS why my reasoning is faulty. You can also PM me if you wish.
And for the record, I made SURE to include something in my last post that actually WAS on topic. Namely, stating we can agree that The Little Mermaid was certainly NOT a bad movie at all.
Where exactly do I put them on the BatB board? It will only humiliate you if I do that, either that or me or even both of us, and really highlight you anyways. A PM's far more effective at resolving the dispute without drawing a circus to a board.
if she didn't disobey her father there would be no story. she is fascinated by the human world which is why she collects human things. Who doesn't complain sometimes? of course she dreams of more, otherwise as alreAdy observed, there'd be no story. She doesn't 'blindly follow' fireworks, she has never seen fireworks before and so is curious, as she is about everything human. She falls in love with Eric quite quickly, but that is what happens in the original story. And sudden love is quite common in many stories. ursula is shown as evil from the start, different from the original story, where she is a neutral figure.
yes, signing that treAty was pretty stupid, but again the story would not advance if she did not. And in the orginal it is even worse - not only will she lose her life if she doesn't make the prince love her (though there is no three day time limit, she will only lose her life when the prince mArries someone else) , but every step she takes is like walaking on a knife edge. Nice.
Pretty much agreed on everything. I will mention this much though: In all fairness, Ariel wasn't exactly left which much options but to go through the deal, so I really wouldn't call it stupid (stupid would imply the kind of stuff Homer Simpson or Peter Griffin do). Besides, I'd personally consider going there and doing the deed and actually knowing Ursula is going after your dad and her making no secret to it, and then getting all shocked when she does backstab you and then goes after daddy is a lot more stupid (and FYI, I'm referencing a certain climax to a Disney film with that statement. I always get irritated when people bash on Ariel for this, yet completely ignore the other instance which if you ask me is far worse).
Ariel's father was crazy. He loved her, but damn he had a temper. I fell in love and became a die hard fan of Ariel and TLM when I was 7 years old (when it first came out), and I remember thinking he was a SCARY dad. I was so glad he wasn't my father! What kind of parent goes into their daughter's room and destroy all of her collections??? My 1 year old niece cries when I have to take away her stuffed dog when it's time to eat!
And you seem like one of those idiots that crucifies Ariel just because she wanted to fall in love. What's so bad about wanting to find true love? How is that anti feminist by wanting to fall in love?