The Little Mermaid (2023) (1 Viewer)

[MatthewA]

I know that. I also expect the remake film to follow the 1989 film in structure, not Anderson's text.

There was a 1975 animated version narrated by Richard Chamberlain that was more like the book, which they made us watch in class when I was 10 or 11, but for my money the existing Disney movie is the one to beat.

In any case, Condon's attachment to Bride of Frankenstein makes him unavailable to direct this film, even if Disney did prefer him to Marshall.

If Disney wanted Condon but he just didn't want the job, that basically proves my point. Even they knew which one of the two is a better director if they let him do the remake of their first Best Picture nominee that actually deserved it.

Why are we arguing about who should direct a film that has no real right to exist? Think of all the new original screenplays or unadapted books and plays they could do instead.

 

[Jake Lipson]

If Disney wanted Condon but he just didn't want the job, that basically proves my point. Even they knew which one of the two is a better director if they let him do the remake of their first Best Picture nominee that actually deserved it.

No one from Disney ever actually said they wanted Condon. Lindsay Lohan said she wanted to play Ariel if Bill Condon directed it, but that's it. He was never officially attached to it.

And Rob Marshall has spent the last couple of years on Mary Poppins Returns which is a sequel to Disney's first Best Picture nominee, so he wouldn't have been available to do both that and Beauty and the Beast, anyway. Both of them are good directors who maintain good relationships with Disney.

 

[MatthewA]

Maybe Lindsay's judgement is better than I gave her credit for.

All Marshall can muster is a sequel to a ripoff of a movie they don't want people to see. The movie that's getting the sequel is the movie they should have shelved instead. Even the name of the film is offensive. "Mary" is an outdated and vaguely condescending slang term for a gay man*, and to pop someone means to hit them. And the author of the books broke up a set of twins—even Joan Crawford didn't do that—who both died from complications from alcoholism. And even though correlation isn't causation, this still is interesting.

*Tommy Kirk was fired from Disney that same year for something that is now legal in the state of California, losing out on John Wayne's The Sons of Katie Elder in the process. I have looked at that from all sides and still cannot side with the studio in firing him. I will defend Walt Disney against a lot, but he lost me there.

 

[Jake Lipson]

All Marshall can muster is a sequel to a ripoff of a movie

Disney was going to make another Mary Poppins film no matter who directed it. I don't see what's wrong with Marshall taking the job.

I'm not saying this to be mean, since your interests and views are yours and I totally respect that they differ from mine. But if you're not interested in the new Little Mermaid film, and you don't like Marshall's films at all, why spend this much time talking about it? I care about who directs it because I'm looking forward to it, and I want it to be good. You don't seem to be looking forward to it, so what is your interest in it? This is a legitimate serious question.

 

[MatthewA]

I want the studio's resources devoted towards something else. Anything else. That movie will suck with any combination of cast and crew because the source material was horrible and so was its creator, a textbook malignant narcissist. The Little Mermaid might be tolerable with someone else at the helm, but it needs to be a little bit more daring, if not quite as sleazy as you make the stage version, which I didn't see, sound. I'm sure they won't object to a PG or PG-13 like they did in the aftermath of The Black Cauldron.

Popularity and quality have no correlation one way or the other. Beauty and the Beast deserved its critical acclaim, box office success, and Oscar accolades in 1991. That other movie didn't. The stage version made money on name recognition only and was denounced by Robert B. Sherman, who along with his brother* could write better songs in his sleep than ANY song in that movie, in his autobiography Moose.

Meanwhile, you have to join the Disney Movie Club to get The Three Caballeros on Blu-ray.

*Whom I have met twice nearly 15 years apart.

 

[Edwin-S]

Popularity and quality have no correlation one way or the other. Beauty and the Beast deserved its critical acclaim, box office success, and Oscar accolades in 1991. That other movie didn't. The stage version made money on name recognition only and was denounced by Robert B. Sherman, who along with his brother* could write better songs in his sleep than ANY song in that movie, in his autobiography Moose.

By "other movie", are you referring to "The Little Mermaid"? Also, editing another person's post to make it appear that they were engaging in hate speech without any evidence of such taking place is rude.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I want the studio's resources devoted towards something else. Anything else. That movie will suck with any combination of cast and crew because the source material was horrible and so was its creator, a textbook malignant narcissist. TLM might be tolerable with someone else at the helm, but it needs to be a little bit more daring, if not quite as sleazy as you make the stage version, which I didn't see, sound. I'm sure they won't object to a PG or PG-13 like they did in the aftermath of The Black Cauldron.

Popularity and quality have no correlation one way or the other. Beauty and the Beast deserved its critical acclaim, box office success, and Oscar accolades in 1991. That other movie didn't. The stage version made money on name recognition only and was denounced by Robert B. Sherman, who along with his brother* could write better songs in his sleep than ANY song in that movie, in his autobiography Moose.

Meanwhile, you have to join the Disney Movie Club to get The Three Caballeros on Blu-ray.

*Whom I have met twice nearly 15 years apart.

You quoting another persons post and then editing it to misrepresent their POV and to cast them in a negative light is not welcome here. Either delete that misrepresentation or l’ll do it for you.

 

[MatthewA]

Gone. No, I am not referring to The Little Mermaid as such. The other one. I apologize for not being clear, and I was not accusing the poster, just the filmmakers and those who write their paychecks. My beef is with them, not anyone here.

But if you want to talk about what makes this particular bit of hate speech so hateful and why it hurts to be subjected to it in any context, saying "it's grand to be an Englishman in 1910*" is really offensive when it England banned homosexuality for men (but not for women, apparently) from 1533 when Henry VIII was King until 1967. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There is nothing to recommend about that movie or the source material. It offends me on every level—morally, ideologically, and aesthetically—in ways other Walt-era Disney movies do not. I would gladly get rid of all evidence that it ever existed. To acknowledge its existence is to give it more credit than it deserves. Millions of people CAN be wrong. Millions of people used to believe the Earth was flat, too.

And after they took Roddy McDowall out of the infinitely superior Bedknobs and Broomsticks again after all the work it took to put it back together again, the smug glorification of the (unwatchable and unspeakable) earlier movie musical from the same director really makes me sick, especially when other movie musicals (with and without animation), including but not limited to Bedknobs, have been sacrificed at its altar. I call censorship on the cuts when they included not only most of his scenes but same-sex touch dancing on Portobello Road.

*10 years after Oscar Wilde died.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Did I miss something here? I don't understand what anything in your above post has to do with The Little Mermaid, or how we got on this particular subject in this thread.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Yes.

The subject is The Little Mermaid.

The subject is not Mary Poppins.

Let's move on. Now.

 

[Jake Lipson]

To get this thread back on track...

This seems to be moving more slowly than some of Disney's other live-action remakes like Aladdin and The Lion King, and it does not yet have a release date. But let's assume for the purposes of this discussion that Rob Marshall accepts the job. I don't know how far along he is in post-production on Mary Poppins, but I assume he would move directly into pre-production and casting on The Little Mermaid whenever that gets finished. So, there are multiple ways in which they could go with this.

They could gather an all-star lineup anchored by a famous Ariel as they did for Beauty and the Beast with Emma Watson, or they have the opportunity to go the Hairspray route and surround an unknown newcomer with famous stars in the supporting roles. Aladdin is going the unknown route, with Will Smith being the only person in that cast that we know of yet who is an established star, although this decision was probably influenced by the necessity of casting Aladdin with ethnically-correct actors, since unfortunately not that many people of Middle Eastern descent have become Hollywood stars. Lion King has announced a large cast of primarily famous celebrities as voice talent for the new film.

So, it will be interesting to see which way they go on this. Like I said, Lindsay Lohan has made it known that she wants to play Ariel if Bill Condon directs (which he won't), although I can't imagine Disney going with her again, given everything that has happened in her life since the last time she appeared in a Disney film. If they can find the right pre-existing star to play Ariel, that would certainly make marketing sense, but I can't really think of anyone off the top of my head. I think it would be a great opportunity to launch some talented young woman's career by giving the role to an unknown. Diana Huey, who played the role on the recent national tour, was easily the best thing about that show. The show itself was highly problematic, especially in terms of some of the textual changes made to the show's book, but she was sensational, and demonstrates the ability for this role to make a star out of someone who deserves it.

I'm also putting it out there right now that Susan Surandon should be on Disney's list for Ursula.

Thoughts, anyone?

 

[Malcolm R]

If they can find the right pre-existing star to play Ariel, that would certainly make marketing sense, but I can't really think of anyone off the top of my head.

Ariana Grande

 

[Jake Lipson]

That's an idea. Because Ariel's defining physical characteristic is her red hair, they would have to use a wig or dye or something if they went with Ms. Grande. She has been on Broadway in Jason Robert Brown's teen musical 13, and of course she was in Hairspray Live as Penny, but I'm not sure if she has ever had as substantial of a leading role as Ariel. It seems more likely to me that they would use her for the credits single again, which will probably be Part of Your World or Kiss the Girl.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Ariana Grande

You know what? If they can keep her "within herself" (in terms of her singing) that would not be an awful choice.

 

[Charles Smith]

As of yet, I haven't found any of the live action remakes appealing. Was Cinderella the first? That was kind of okay. But I saw a few scenes of Beauty and the Beast (on Blu), found it remarkably - almost viscerally - unappealing, and didn't bother watching the rest. When it comes to Mermaid -- while I really got to like most of the stage musical score (I've played keyboards in local productions, so have gotten pretty familiar with it), I haven't yet seen any production that (here's that word again) appealed. Right out of the starting gate, the underwater world just doesn't translate to live action well at all. Of course the CGI-laden movie will make it all very "convincing", but you can just count me out for this one.

(Someone mentioned the dark original story. I loved the Metropolitan Opera's production of Dvorak's Rusalka last year, and coincidentally saw my first first ever production of the stage play Dark of the Moon soon thereafter. Wow. You want darkness in this story? It's out there in these other works, and it's amazing.)

 

[Malcolm R]

As of yet, I haven't found any of the live action remakes appealing. Was Cinderella the first?

The first Disney live-action remake was actually 101 Dalmatians with Glenn Close in 1996, followed by Alice in Wonderland in 2010, then Cinderella in 2015.

Some might also include Maleficent (Sleeping Beauty) in 2013, though that was more of a re-imagining than remake.

 

[Jake Lipson]

The first Disney live-action remake was actually 101 Dalmatians with Glenn Close in 1996.

They also had another live-action Jungle Book in 1994, albeit much less successful than the recent one. These were more one-offs, though; there is no question that Alice in Wonderland's billion-dollar worldwide gross (back when that was still a rare thing to achieve) is the one that is directly responsible for kicking off Disney's current kick of remaking everything in their library.

Right out of the starting gate, the underwater world just doesn't translate to live action well at all.

Charles, I have to agree about the difficulty in translating the underwater world to the stage. The touring production that I saw felt more like a high-end Disneyland show than a Broadway production. Ariel and the others flew/"swam" with the aid of wiring, but the wires were all visible, so it didn't really achieve much of an effect. I don't think it is technically impossible for a version of this story to work onstage, but in order to make it work, there would need to be a defining, iconic stagecraft solution to many of these issues, like how Julie Taymor's use of masks and puppetry in the stage version of The Lion King is iconic, because it was wholly unexpected, unique and special. No one has (yet) figured out an equivalent method to apply to The Little Mermaid.

The original movie worked in animation so well precisely because they were doing something that lent itself to animation, and would not work in another format.

Now, as you noted, with the advent of CGI, the new film will be able to look impressive, but a lot of it will still be animated, in actuality, just as special effects within the live-action world.

To me, the biggest problem with the stage version was the book. Most of the new additions to the score were good -- "If Only" in particular -- and prior to actually seeing the production, I was able to play the CD and imagine something better surrounding the songs than what we actually got. There are so many issues with the book of the show (which would involve a deep dive into spoilers for those who haven't seen the show) that I think it should be thrown out and rewritten. It never should have come to Broadway in the first place in this condition. So, it's a good thing that Doug Wright (who wrote it for the stage) is not involved in the movie script.

 

[Jake Lipson]

In an as-yet-unrelated development, Stephen Schwartz has reclaimed the movie rights to his musical, Pippin, which were originally purchased by Harvey Weinstein. It will be shopped to other studios soon, and apparently Rob Marshall wants to direct it.

http://deadline.com/2018/04/pippin-...tcy-stephen-schwartz-roger-hirson-1202360978/

I bring this up in this thread because, although he has been heavily rumored for the job, Marshall has NOT been officially confirmed by Disney as having signed on for The Little Mermaid. It is entirely possible that he could choose Pippin next after he finishes Mary Poppins Returns. If so, Disney might have to find someone else for The Little Mermaid, depending on how quickly they want to proceed with it.

I think Rob Marshall is a great director and I would love to see him do The Little Mermaid, but I also love Pippin, so I'd be happy for him to pick that, too.

It's also worth noting that Bride of Frankenstein seems stuck in development hell (or scrapped after The Mummy?) at Universal, so maybe Bill Condon would be available, if he wants to do another Disney fairy tale musical remake so quickly.

 

[Lord Dalek]

The Burton Alice in Wonderland was actually a loose sequel. Not a remake.

 

[Jake Lipson]

The Burton Alice in Wonderland was actually a loose sequel. Not a remake.

Yes, but it is the one which, in its financial success, prompted their current kick of remaking everything in their catalog.