Disney's The Little Mermaid

[KuramaStrassCullen]

I used to be a huge-ass TLM fan... seeing as how I'm acting now, I'm probably going to become one again shortly.

I think TLM 2: Return to the Sea is like a fangirl's version of what happens after TLM. It's like a fanfic.

But that might be why I like it so much. (Yes, I do like it anyway.) Melody's so cute! Just like my OCs... all of which have been called Sues. I think Melody is a Sue. But she's cute, and technically it's canon, so it's okay.

I went to see TLM on ice for my fifth birthday...

[Nina]

BonnieBunny, it's true that happy endings are more pleasant, but American kids are becoming more and more sheltered with all the censorship and crap. Although I admittedly enjoy Disney movies for the music, the altered storylines are making a statement that American children should be treated like pansies. At least it seems that way to me. When I was a little kid, I watched the Russian cartoon versions of TLM and The Jungle Book. Those stuck to the storylines EXACTLY. The little mermaid doesn't end up with the prince and she becomes an angel or something, and Mowgli doesn't chase away Sheer-Khan (sp?), he SKINS his ass! Oh boo hoo, somehow I didn't grow up to be a corrupt little beast.

Yeah I pretty much agree with agrajagthetesty. Kids would have to just deal with TLM becoming an angel. They shouldn't even have that much, they should deal with her blowing up or some shit.

Yeaaahh :D

[agrajagthetesty]

...Ok, so I pretty much love you now. :D

[Tatterdemalion]

Happy endings can be good, but not when it takes away from the spirit of the original work. Any sort of artistic effort is an interpretation of or commentary on the real world, so if in the real world there is sadness and hate, it is natural that some stories will reflect this. Whether or not a book or movie has a happy ending should not be the deciding factor in how good it is. Also, bear in mind that even if a book or movie has a sad or tragic ending, if it is well written/made it will not leave the audience feeling depressed, but will move the audience to some sort of strong emotion, and leave the audience feeling better for the experience (and I'm not even going to get into catharsis).

The key to what kind of ending there should be is what kind of movie it is. Some people go to the movies in the hopes of seeing an amusing, fun, pleasant distraction, while others go interested in seeing serious, artistically crafted dramatic films (I myself like both, so long as the movies are good, which few are). Naturally, these people are going to see different movies, that's a given.

Granted people who go to see a Disney movie are there to have a light-hearted good time, and if you set up a movie as a childrens comedy, then yes, they'll be disappointed if there's a sudden, unexpected tragic ending (because it's not what they were expecting to see). So I've got a solution for you that's easy, straightforward, and works for everyone: Don't friggin adapt tragic stories into Disney movies.

Is it that difficult to do? Because in the end, when you try to change a classic to make it into a light-hearted children's film, you disappoint everyone. You disappoint the people who have read the book, and hate to see a great work of literature made into commercialized crap, and you disappoint all of the children who see it, then grow up and actually read the book.

The perfect example of this: The Hunchback of Notre Dame. What the hell were they thinking when they made that movie? Anyone may say that they had to change the ending because no one would want to see a movie where Quasimodo and Esmeralda die at the end, and that may be true, but then why would you make any book into a movie when you literally have to change the ENTIRE BOOK?

Honestly, pretty much every character is lost in translation to the screen. Why would you adapt it in the first place? I may give a pass to The Little Mermaid because it's at least a fairy tale, but The Hunchback of Notre Dame, to contrast, is in no way a story for children, as it's filled with death, torture, lust, corruption, religious fanaticism, and deals with such things as love in an incredibly mature manner.

Furthermore, to hear a lot of people talk, they say that when they saw the Hunchback as a kid they didn't even really understand it, but that they do now that they're older (whereupon I am forced to point out that the book is almost infinitely better).

So if you're destroying a piece of classic literature to create something that the audience won't even fully understand, what's the point?

And by the way, Lion King is not actually based on Hamlet (which is why the two are almost entirely unalike).

[agrajagthetesty]

Oh wow. You get the Awesome Post Is Awesome Award. I could not agree more.