Last Seen Blogs
thesnakesoup
The Snake Soup
crimson0-0-blog
Crimson
thefmannyc2
Lovely Feet And Legs
fitnessandrecoveryjourney
Happiness, Health, Wanderlust
te-echo-de-menos-mi-amor
Te echo de menos
Text
This is why I prefer keeping my older platforms.
*Every day someone bruisingly encounters the realities of "dead media"
4K notes
·
View notes
Note
Linda Woolverton was one of the earliest figures to push that lie, did so around 1991 during BATB's release in fact. She doesn't even have an excuse for Ariel since she was the then-most recent movie princess.
Where do people get the idea Disney Princesses just to fall in love and that's it? The only ones who wanted just that were Snow White and Sleeping Beauty. Cinderella wanted to leave her abusive home and Ariel wanted to be a human.
Exactly. Cinderella just wanted to have a fun night out and Ariel wanted to be amongst humans. They just happened to get the cute guy.
6 notes
·
View notes
Text
Why does it have to be "instead"? Why not empathize with BOTH? That's what I do.
I realized I was a grown up when I caught myself empathizing with King Triton instead of Ariel
3K notes
·
View notes
Photo
Don't forget that she was aiming to usurp King Triton, and had to lie about reforming to have a chance at succeeding. Oh, and nearly tried to KILL Ariel once she got the Trident from him in the lowest form of blackmail/human shielding possible, AND after implicitly promising Triton as part of the deal to not harm her or kill her.
She's if anything one of the more realistic villains in SPITE of being a magical octopus kind of creature.
Old Ursula is always a villain that I really liked just because she never did anything wrong. She gave Ariel all the details right up front and didn’t keep anything from her. Honestly, I have to say that it is completely Ariel’s fault that all the things happened. Besides her bad intentions, Ursula did nothing wrong. She made an honest deal with Ariel and she didn’t break any rules.
Honestly, I think this is a good lesson. Some people who may appear to be evil cheats may be completely honest people who just play you. “Love can overcome the biggest of obstacles,” isn’t the only moral of The Little Mermaid. “Be cautious around strangers,” and “Do not commit to something you can’t handle” are both more relevant and more apparent themes.
1K notes
·
View notes
Text
Too bad that's the exact rationale Jeffrey Katzenberg used to not only insist that Belle be rewritten to be a radfem, but also hire Linda Woolverton to ensure it (then again, his disrespectful rejection towards Jim Cox's story treatment of Beauty and the Beast while TLM was still in post-production would suggest he just needed a convenient excuse). And yes, Ariel's motives for wanting to become human WASN'T because she wanted Eric. If anything, Eric was more the nudge in the right direction. She deserves a LOT more respect than she's getting lately.
“Betcha on land They understand Bet they don’t reprimand their daughters Bright young women Sick o’ swimmin’ Ready to stand”
—
Ariel, The Little Mermaid
YOU LOOK AT THAT LINE AND TRY TO TELL ME WITH A STRAIGHT FACE THAT ARIEL ONLY BECAME HUMAN BECAUSE SHE WANTED ERIC!
YOU CAN’T, BECAUSE YOU’D BE LYING!
18 notes
·
View notes
Text
Let's just say Ariel DEFINITELY won't be bored with the village in the beginning.
Ariel as Belle ❤️
One of my favourites! Hope you enjoy this piece☺️
17 notes
·
View notes
Photo
If she really wanted to play a redhead that much, she could always audition for that Zelda movie as one of the Gerudo. At least there she'd fit right in.
Halle Bailey as
PRINCESS ARIEL
— in The Little Mermaid (2023)
6K notes
·
View notes
Photo
Ariel wasn't even black originally, she was white (and besides, it makes little sense for her to be black especially when in the remake she spent even LESS time in the surface). It was pure DEI in motion (that, and Lin-Manuel Miranda overhelming the production by forcing in his Hamilton-style casting).
Halle Bailey as
PRINCESS ARIEL
— in The Little Mermaid (2023)
6K notes
·
View notes
Text
Agreed with everything except for maybe Beauty and the Beast 1991. They definitely do deal with sacrificial love yes, but it comes across more like you end up suffering with little to no reward at all, and when you are in danger, you don't even bother trying to save your friends (doesn't help that Linda Woolverton implied those were the same themes she used in the Maleficent movie, aka the movie that disrespected Sleeping Beauty).
In the Original Beauty & the Beast, the story is about sacrificial love. In the Live Action, it’s about freedom. One is fundamentally selfless, the other is not.
In the Original The Little Mermaid, Ariel is willing to sacrifice everything to go where she is understood (by Eric.) In the Live Action, Ariel is willing to sacrifice a few things to go where she can explore some more. Another “let’s change the main theme from love to freedom.”
In the Original Mulan, Mulan left her family to save her father and prove she could do things right—when all along, her father loved her regardless of how well she performed. In the Live Action, Mulan left her family to save her father—even though all along she had chi superpowers that she was dying to use anyway. Once more, the remake subtly shifts so that the main character values something within themself, taking the spotlight off of sacrificial love.
In the Original Aladdin, Jasmine teaches Aladdin trust. In the Live Action, Jasmine teaches Aladdin nothing because she’s busy wanting to be Sultan.
What I’m saying is, it used to be enough for female characters to have actual character and integrity, and their stories highlighted those aspects of their nature. Then every other character in the movie learns from or changes because of the Princess’ heart. Nowadays, her character is not powerful. It’s what she does, what she forces and fights her way into, that is focused on—usually to the detriment of all the other characters around her.
In Aladdin, the main character does not believe anyone will see him for who he really is and still choose him. He doesn’t trust anyone in Agrabah to love him the way he is. But when Jasmine first meets him, she trusts him. When she sees him again as a suitor, she trusts him again, despite knowing he lied to her. When he is faced with the reality that he, not Jasmine, has to be Sultan, that’s when he wakes up and realizes that not only does he have to trust Jasmine with the truth, but he can trust her with the truth the way she trusts him.
In Beauty and the Beast, the Beast starts out hopeless and brutal, and then gains hope. Not because Belle talks him into it with powerful-woman speeches or savage one-liners. Not because she hunts down the Enchantress and defeats her, breaking the spell. But because the Beast witnesses that Belle is the kind of woman who’s love and compassion would give up freedom. He’s betting that kind of love can break his curse, even though he started the movie with “who could ever learn to love a Beast?” And then her continued love for him teaches him how to love her, sacrificially.
In The Little Mermaid, Ariel sacrifices her tail and her safety to have a chance at being with Eric—because she knows she understands him, and he can understand her. That, in turn, reinforces Eric’s one big character trait: he believes in the idea of “the right girl” and when he learns that Ariel is a mermaid who saved his life, he sacrifices his life and safety for her, too.
I can go on and on.
My point is: If you’re a Princess in a Remake, you make decisions based on what you want, not on what you love.
Unless you’re Cinderella.
1K notes
·
View notes
Text
Really hated the Ariel dig (and I suspect knowing the development history of The Little Mermaid that Katzenberg just hated Ariel and her movie for being a massive success without his thumb print on it).
As far as Jack Horner, I'd also liken him regarding at least disrespect towards fairy tales towards Dreamworks' own CEO as well as the initial chairman of Disney, Jeffrey Katzenberg. He showed a LOT of disrespect to the original fairy tales when he was directly at the helm. Just look at either the Villeneuve or Beaumont versions of Beauty and the Beast, compare them to the Disney version, and you'll see what I mean: They're as starkly different as night and day. What's worse is that unlike The Jungle Book (which had it being adapted from a more kid-unfriendly source material), it had nothing to do with making it appealing to kids, it had to do with pushing a socio-political agenda on kids. Though I will say that Horner, aka Iger, was DEFINITELY similar enough to Katzenberg, including being huge political louts, that they're peas in a pod.
Jack Horner Represents Disney!
So theres a thing where Lord farquad was a reference to Micheal Eisner the ceo of disney at the time and farquad meant fuckward.
Given that there were many middle fingers to Disney making Shrek the anti-Disney and making a ton of digs whenever it can.
[Fiona tossing ariel to then be eaten by sharks]
With so many other references I can't help but look at Jack Horner.
This villain is kinda ignored in favour of DEATH. But looking at the trailers I cant help but think its another dig. [Could be reaching here but indulge me]
Jack is a collector, part of a big corporation selling pies, his office is full of magical crap, He collects everything even some of the things he doesn't need. He takes these 'things' and uses them as tools to further his own plans.
He takes what would get him somewhere faster, but disregards what he finds useless he has no respect for any of the trinkets he has in his care.
Here he is breaking cinderellas shoe not given a fu-
so heres the thing.
Him being a COLLECTOR, and having no RESPECT for what he has- and he's still trying to get MORE?
Thats Disney.
Disney is buying franchices left right and center, Sony, Simpsons, Avatar, and do they need them? The disregard they have for their OWN classics? The crappy reboots? The souless remakes just because they can?
Disney as a whole is also a big giant gluttonous asshole who cares for no one. So when I look at Jack Horner I think he's another dig at Disney.
50 notes
·
View notes
Text
Yeah, no kidding (well, probably the only real exception to my anti-remake stance, or the closest thing to one, is BATB, though that's only because that film unfortunately NEEDED a remake especially after not only several glaring plot errors in that film as well as bad writing, but Woolverton herself stupidly shooting her own feet off by boasting about that movie's direct ties theme-wise to that awful Maleficent remake). And even by Disney remake standards, The Little Mermaid was deeply disrespectful to the source material. Literally the only one worse was Maleficent. As bad as the other remakes were, at least they TRIED to be somewhat respectful to the original.
And yes, animated Eric deserves respect. He shouldn't be bashed, especially when he's sort-of my namesake (an accidental namesake, but still...).
FOR REAL!!!! live action ariel/eric >>> animation
6K notes
·
View notes
Photo
I'd rather take Final Fantasy XV over those jerks (well, the vanilla game anyways. I'd punt Dawn of the Future into the trash with Kojima).
31K notes
·
View notes
Text
Dead or Alive was a similar story: It was Tecmo's last gamble at a success before bankruptcy.
The fact that Pokemon became as famous as it did is iconic: its creators were pretty much broke and the only composer couldn’t actually play any instruments.
I am genuinely inspired by the growth of this series.
2K notes
·
View notes
Photo
You think it was bad when he edited that scene? George Lucas decades later (incidentally the same year he literally sold out to Disney) later tried to gaslight his audience by claiming they essentially imagined the original scene and made it sound as though they experienced a Mandela Effect (and the shooting script proved otherwise). Basically tried to pull the same crap the Ministry of Truth did for Oceania in 1984 (Bill Whittle, when covering that bit, even made an explicit comparison to that bit in his Afterburner episode dealing with that precise edit. For the record, that same episode is where I first learned that Lucas actually modeled the Empire after us Americans, NOT the Rebels as we were led to believe).
Han shot first (original scene)
2K notes
·
View notes
Text
To be fair, the guy right at the bottom DOES look similar to the guy in the left picture.
531 notes
·
View notes
Photo
Ironically, George Lucas SUPPORTS the Kent State stuff, and the guys who got killed literally tried to instigate a riot.
EDIT: Okay, correction, two of the four were actually innocent (in fact, one of the victims was himself enlisting into the ROTC, ironically enough). However, there's a lot more to that event than just the US Government killing innocents for protesting a war. To quote the Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War, Page 124-5 to be precise:
"In the United States, this alleged 'widening of the war [in Vietnam]' caused an explosion of protests on college campuses, including the killing of four students by poorly trained, nervous, and scared Ohio National Guardsmen at Kent State on May 4, 1970. Often forgotten was that the 'Kent State Massacre' was preceded by days of violent rioting (including the burning of the ROTC building), reaching its climax on May 4, and that the troops, already under attack by a rock-throwing mob, fired only after one of the radicals pistol-whipped another student and then charged, pointed gun in hand, at the guardsmen. Tragically, two of the killed were innocent bystanders, one of whom, in fact, was enrolled in ROTC."
Might as well also note the Gallup polls afterward indicated Nixon's popularity was NOT impacted negatively in the slightest. And to clarify on my remark about Lucas, he supported the rioters, sided with the Vietcong.
Kent State is the one school shooting that the US government wants you to forget!
Read More: https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop-watch/kent-state-school-shooting
251 notes
·
View notes
Text
To be fair regarding the bit about authors being talentless hacks, you COULD make the case for hating the author precisely because they disrespected their own vision, what they themselves said about a character or event. We've got quite a few people who like Metal Gear yet hate Hideo Kojima due to his ruining several of his own characters by making them EXTREMELY OOC, contradicted himself regarding them, all because he hated being constrained by plot.
Fandom Problem #4768:
If you don’t like the plot of most to all works in the franchise, you don’t like the franchise. If you only like the characters when they’re ridiculously OOC, you don’t like the characters. If you think the writing of a work is terrible, you dislike that work. If you think the writer is a talentless hack, you don’t like the stuff they’ve written. All of these feel like cartoonishly obvious statements, and yet I can’t help but constantly be questioning why the hell people are even in fandoms they’re in when they have nothing but loathing for the work. You’re not a fan, you’re someone with a ridiculous obsession with hating a work and remaking it to how you want it.
341 notes
·
View notes