It's a fun movie that I liked as a child, but it's nothing like the original. "The Little Mermaid" (1836) is a novel about unrequited love. It does not have a happy ending.
Disney had to completely change the story to make Ursula the villain. How is she even the villain in the first place? Ariel willingly sought her help, and they made a trade.
Ursula is the villain because she was evil. What more do you need?
shareI have two things to say on this subject.
1.) The original story sucked, case closed. Nobody would have wanted to see a movie where Ariel watches Eric fall in love with another woman, thinking she was the one who saved him and not Ariel. Nobody would have wanted to watch Ariel suffer emotionally, watching the man she loved marry someone else, while she walks around on knives with no tongue, longing for a man she can't have. Nobody wants to see her have the option of going back to her old life, so long as she plunged a knife into Eric's heart. And nobody wants to see Ariel decide against that, throw herself into the sea, turn into foam, die, and go to heaven. While the heaven part would be nice, that's not a story you really would love forever and want to read over and over again unless you're an emotional glutton for punishment, or just love to read tragic, sad stories and cry over them with your friends. Sorry, but I'll take Disney's reinterpretation, thank you. Theirs was better.
2.) The sea witch was always a villain, in taking advantage of a young girl and forcing her to undergo painful, dark magic rituals. She knew the little mermaid was ignorant of what she really could do, and capitalized on that so she could get something out of it.
Now in Ursula's case, she actually has some character development. Kids would not pick up on this, but adults watching and observing closely would. Based on what she said, Ursula used to live in the palace of Atlantica, so I'm guessing she was a major courtier who was thrown out by King Triton. The original script had her as King Triton's sister, though that doesn't appear to be the case in the final story. Based on how they treated each other when they came face to face, it appears she and Triton have a history of conflict. No doubt he banished her for practicing dark magic that was a threat to the mer-people in Atlantica. There might be more to it, but we'll never know. Either way, she resented the king
and wanted revenge against him, and using Ariel as a pawn made it all that much easier.
sharePlenty of people watched the 1975 version of The Little Mermaid. It had the nudity and tragic ending of the original story. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070326/
sharePretty much all of this. Also, there's a reason why making contracts with 16 year olds is illegal in the US.
shareOne, The Little Mermaid is not a "novel". It was published in a collection of fairy tales by Andersen.
Two, Disney wanted to add suspense and action and the sea witch was the ideal character to turn into a villain, especially since she's definitely not a sympathetic character in the original story. It was more than just a trade for her voice, the price she had to pay for failing was to turn into foam.
And it also makes since they combined the character with that of the maiden who steals away the prince.
[deleted]
I'm not sure if you notice but most of their cartoon adaptations are from dark stories. The only one that stayed dark was Hunchback from Notre Dame. Pocahontas even got Disney-fied. They had to make them kid friendly. I mean Sleeping Beauty got raped while sleeping. I don't think parents would want their kids watching that version.
sharewow! Sleeping beauty was my mom's fave as a little kid....I won't tell her re that. Guess Disney did better.
shareThe only one that stayed dark was Hunchback from Notre Dame.
But the Disney movie still dealt with child abuse, bullying, sexual lust, and racism.
That is pretty dark for a movie, that is meant to be watched primarily by kids.
Ursula could have just helped Ariel if she wasn't evil, but another thing that confirmed her being evil was the fact that she tried to steal the Prince for herself after witnessing Ariel doing well on land.
Everybody in the kingdom knew that Ursula was bad news except young Ariel who had to find out the hard way on her own.
The truth is that Ariel did know that Ursula was evil.
But at that point, Ariel had just had a big fight with her father and needed someone to listen to her.
Ursula managed to play that role perfectly and used the situation to her advantage.
Alas, Ariel was very young and naive and didn't know that Ursula planned to use her to defeat her father.
That is why she believed in Ursula's lies and almost got the whole kingdom into trouble.
However, most people don't seem to remember that Ariel also played a big role in Ursula's undoing.
She saved Eric's life (again) and made it possible for him to kill Ursula off.
Because big octopus creatures are automatically evil.
shareIt's not just a terrible adaptation. It's an atrocious one. Yes, the original Anderson story was about unrequited love but it was also about all the stupid and immature things young girls do when they start to get restless and fall in love for the first time. Disney literally took every important life lesson that Anderson taught and flipped it on its head.
For example, Anderson made it a point of the little mermaid being warned by her mother that life isn't necessarily better on the other side, that she had it good where she was. Disney mocked this message by having Sebastian--a goofy character--sing it, then implied that Ariel seeing the grass being greener was a good thing, because it showed how "adventurous" she was.
There are so many moments like this in the Disney version where the writers seemed to mock or hate what Anderson was saying and then go, "No, he's wrong. Life is greener on the other side. It's okay to abandon your family and sacrifice yourself for a man. It's okay to enter Faustian bargains, because it could all work out in the end and besides, it's not your fault if your mean daddy drove you to it and the person who gave you the bargain is evil."
And you happened to miss all the parts, which clearly show where Ariel was a positive role model.
Nice...
Ariel was completely right about that not all humans were bad.
And she also was brave enough to stand up to her father and save Eric's life at least twice.
When she might have been reckless and naive, she made up for it by helping Eric defeat Ursula in the end.
Which is why she truly deserved her happy ending...
And on the flip side, you seem to overlook where King Triton went wrong.
Do you believe that it's a good thing for a father to destroy his daughter's possessions like that?
Yes, it is true that he wasn't a bad guy otherwise and regretted it almost immediately.
However, that was enough to push Ariel towards Ursula and make her trust her.
So it really was his fault that things could have ended badly for the entire kingdom!
And as for HC Andersen's original tale, it is terrible and isn't a positive story for anybody at all.
Really, it is very sexist too by modern standards.
It is like HC Andersen wanted girls to never have any dreams or desires of their own.
So there's no way that I won't prefer the Disney movie....
And as for HC Andersen's original tale, it is terrible and isn't a positive story for anybody at all.
While I haven't read Andersen's story, I happened to watch a faithful re-telling of it on TV once.
That was enough for me to know what it was all about and praise Disney for their superior version.
Honestly, I don't believe that me reading the story now would change how I feel about this.
And it's hard for me to see how anybody can enjoy that depressing and sexist piece of rubbish.
Except if you think that girls must be harshly punished for having their own dreams and desires.
And I'm not a fan of Andersen's other stories with downer endings either.
So I guess that he's often simply not my cup of tea...
It is remarkable too that you still want to blame everything on Ariel.
You seem to refuse to acknowledge that she was right about not all humans being bad.
And the fact that she saved Eric's life twice and helped him defeat Ursula.
No, you even put all the blame on that King Triton destroyed Ariel's collection on her!
Which is totally unfair.
Ariel is maybe a naive and reckless teenager.
But that doesn't mean that she has no redeeming qualities and never is right about anything.
And it hardly is her fault that her father acts like a racist would in real life and destroys her possessions.
Or that Ursula has understood how she can use her vulnerable state of mind to take advantage of her...
Frankly, I haven't read the original novel this is based off of, but frankly, Ariel was wrong for making a deal with an evil being. And frankly there should've been bigger consequences for her doing that. So yeah. As far as I'm concerned anyone who makes a deal with an evil being to get what they want, is wrong for doing so. And now thinking on it, that was probably the author's point in having a negative ending. It's always wrong to make deals with evil beings no matter the circumstances.
It reminds me of why I don't like Spider-Man comics from the past 14 years that much because they did a horrible story called One More Day where Spider-Man makes a deal with an evil demon from Hell in order to bring his Aunt May back to life. And the stupid thing is, Peter Parker erased his marriage with his wife Mary Jane from existence in order to bring Aunt May back to life. That was the Demon's deal. It was stupid and the really stupid thing is Marvel has acted for years like it was the right thing to do. And really only because the heads of Marvel wanted Peter Parker to be single and didn't care how they had to do it even it meant having the character make a deal with an evil being.
Another big problem with it though was that Peter Parker couldn't remember making the deal right after it happened but they did have Mary Jane remember the deal. It's totally stupid.
They are now finally showing that bad things are happening to Peter because of that deal now and that's a bit pleasing to me. But for years they just had the deal have no negative consequences at all. So yeah. Ariel gets a happy ending after making a deal with an evil being because it's a movie for kids. Then again the original story from what I've heard isn't even a kids story at all making it rather baffling to me that Disney would even adapt it. Then again you could say the same thing about Hunchback of Notor Dame.
Actually, it is a short story (fairy-tale) and not a novel.
Ursula managed to convince Ariel that she had changed since King Triton banished her and wasn't evil anymore.
She had also manipulated other merepeople and turned them into those plant things.
Maybe you think that they should be punished forever as well?
And yet again, Ariel wised up and helped Eric defeat Ursula in the end.
I can't believe that people don't remember that, but they will hate on Ariel just because she was a naive teenager.
And that is really sad...
I don't hate on her but I was responding to your statement that little girls should be able to follow their dreams even if it means making a deal with an evil person. I was disagreeing with you. I admit though I never liked this movie that much. Always preferred Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast.
shareThat remark was not about you personally.
But I know that Ariel has a hatedom, that I don't understand at all.
Then again the original story from what I've heard isn't even a kids story at all making it rather baffling to me that Disney would even adapt it. Then again you could say the same thing about Hunchback of Notor Dame.
Maybe because the messages haven't aged well and come across as reactionary today.
It is one thing to tell a girl to not settle for just any guy.
That is not an uncommon theme even in modern Disney movies with pro-actice female leads.
But alas, older stories can go beyond that and encourage girls to not make any choices of their own at all.
Which I don't believe is a good message to teach anyone in our modern era.
"And now thinking on it, that was probably the author's point in having a negative ending. It's always wrong to make deals with evil beings no matter the circumstances."
No, because the sea witch in the original story isn't necessarily evil. The story had a sad ending because Andersen was a depressed man who believed you can fight for your dreams as much as you want, but it's mostly in vain. It's best to strive for the unconditional love of God.
While I haven't read Andersen's story, I happened to watch a faithful re-telling of it on TV once. That was enough for me to know what it was all about and praise Disney for their superior version.
How do you know the retelling on TV was "faithful"? if you didn't read the story. You have to have read the original story first to compare to in order to know whether the TV adaptation was faithful or not.
Nobody would have wanted to watch Ariel suffer emotionally, watching the man she loved marry someone else, while she walks around on knives with no tongue, longing for a man she can't have. Nobody wants to see her have the option of going back to her old life, so long as she plunged a knife into Eric's heart. And nobody wants to see Ariel decide against that, throw herself into the sea, turn into foam, die, and go to heaven.
There was nothing sexist about the original story. There was everything sexist about the Disney version, because it showed that Disney didn't think girls in the 1990s were smart or mature enough to handle Christensen's important messages about life and love.
Disney heavily edited other stories too--like Sleeping Beauty.
share