Talk:The Little Mermaid (2023 film)

Should the draft become a page?

I mean, Jacob Tremblay already began recording his lines.

Disney+ original film

This film should be a Disney+ original film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.222.83.87 (talk) 03:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Racism in the film

It should be mentioned about racism in this film: black Ariel wants to be a human, and she doesn't have a voice. I think this is a big spit towards BLM and Afro-Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.88.221.86 (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You will need to find a reliable source discussing it. See WP:V and WP:NPOV. BOVINEBOY2008 20:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

"Controversy" section

I know controversy sections are not exactly welcome on Wikipedia, and furthermore, as the section itself reveals, there wasn't even a controversy, just a bunch of racists on twitter raising a stink. This entire section needs to be reworded or removed. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@FilmandTVFan28: I made the edit for a specific reason and I explained myself on the talk page. If you're going to undo my edit, at least discuss it first. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Any unnecessary removal can and will be reverted. Your removal of sourced content made no sense whatsoever. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@FilmandTVFan28:It does because any mention of this supposed hashtag is undue. The other sources also make mention that some people supposedly didn't like the casting choice, and that major voices in the industry defended the choice. But to say there was some sort of controversy because of a twitter hashtag, is laughable. The controversy section itself fails to cite any sources that would show that there was a notable controversy in the first place. Most of the sources cited (and 90% of the section itself) speak of overwhelming support of the casting choice. At the very least, there is no reason for this to be a separate subsection from "Casting". 46.97.170.112 (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I would keep the content but remove the subheading. A brief twitter kerfuffle isn't significant enough to require the extra weight of a separate section heading. Schazjmd (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It really should be its own section. The "Production" section should remain focused on the making of the film, and the Internet criticism and related commentary is too tangential to belong. Furthermore, the coverage about the matter was not just isolated to a specific month or week. I see a couple of articles about it from 2020 here and here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone suggested putting it directly in "Production". It's a casting issue and is properly included in the "Casting" subsection as it's directly related to the casting decisions. Schazjmd (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm suggesting to move it out of the "Production" section altogether. There is a relation to the casting decision, yes, but it's no longer about the making of the film but more about representation, race, and nostalgia. It's too much to be a subsection of a subsection. Right now, there isn't even any social commentary about the backlash like what is written here. Such a subtopic has potential, and I can see it being outsized for its current placement. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

No. If the section is called "Controversy" but it's own text fails to explain that there even was a controversy in the first place, then the section has no reason to exist. When even the sources you reference put more emphasis on every big name in the industry DEFENDING the casting choice, and the supposed controversy is a single hashtag, spread by the exact same half a dozen people responsible for the racist harrassment of Kelly Marie Tran and John Boyega from the Star Wars sequels, then it's probably safe to assume there was no controversy to begin with. The way I see it, you just want to put undue weight on the irrelevant temper tantrums of a couple of racist trolls. Guess what? None of it is relevant. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I do not support a section simply called "Controversy". The point is that the Internet criticism has led to additional coverage about the nature of the casting and the surrounding context. A standalone section would be more about the latter than the specifics of the Internet criticism itself. That relevant coverage existing means that there is due weight to cover in general how a Black protagonist fits the role in these times of remakes, nostalgia, popular understandings of myths, etc. This will be covered more and more as the film gets closer and gets released. A film article is not just production and critical reception. Depending on the subject matter and certain flashpoints, there can be new and distinct sections summarizing that complementary coverage. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

All of the relevant coverage is about the pushback against what you call "criticism" (and what everybody else calls racist trolling) and statements made in support of the casting choice. Internet trolling is not a controversy. Pushback against trolling is not a controversy. All of the coverage focuses on the latter, and the story didn't even survive a one week news cycle. It is WP:UNDUE. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we agree that the relevant coverage is the pushback to the racist objections. If the section were to be standalone, it would have even more of that coverage. I'm not even looking at it as a "controversy" since that word is so loaded as to be meaningless. It's simply a distinct subtopic, like a film based on history or science will attract commentators discussing the film's accuracy in these regards, and a section would summarize that commentary. In addition, I literally linked to two articles from 2020 about this matter. And it is completely doubtful that this matter will never come up again, because the subtopic is very rooted in larger and ongoing matters in society. I'm not arguing about focusing on that as a good thing or a bad thing, I'm saying that enough coverage exists to explore the subtopic from various angles that doesn't really warrant keeping it under just the "Production" section. If you disagree, that's fine, but I think that such a section can be well-done and be an informative one for readers, like sharing how there are many non-white mermaid myths, according to one of the sources. We can have other editors weigh in also. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

We're talking about the supposed "controversy" regarding a casting choice in a movie. Not "larger and ongoing matters in society" and not the existence of "non-white mermaid myths". These are barely related tangents that are all brought up in relation to a "controversy" that's barely even covered by reliable sources. If enough reliable sources cover the subjects you speak of, then that can get an entire section of it's own, most likely under "reception". But a "controversy" section hav no reason to exist, because as far as reliable sources are concerned, there isn't even a controversy. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems that I would have to agree with the original poster. This is a non-issue. Colorblind casting has been practiced for a long time, and yet no one has raised a stink about it before. There was never any controversy over the colorblind casting choices for The Odd Couple, Catwoman, Grease, Cinderella, Annie, Nick Fury, Hamilton, Cruella De Vil, The Wizard of Oz, etc. Even a majority of Twitter users would not represent the opinions of the general public as a whole, so why should we give undue weight to a handful of Twitter complainers? The naysayers on Twitter who complained about Halle Bailey were so small in number, that Disney never should have dignified those jokers with a response. Greggens (talk) 03:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Just as with the upcoming Snow White remake, the "controversy" is nothing more that the Comicsgate hate group trying and spectacularly failing to cling to relevance in an increasingly accepting world. It should not even be dignified with an acknowledgement. Although I don't think I agree with the term "colorblind casting". Whitewashing is technically also a form of colorblind casting, and there are plenty of unsavory individuals in the alternative influencer network who use "colorblindness" as a dogwhistle. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

It's hard to deny that the casting of Bailey received a very polarized response from fans. I think the reaction should at least receive some kind mention. When you read the article for the 2019 film Aladdin, it does bring up the controversy when the producers decided to cast Naomi Scott as Jasmine when she wasn't of Middle-Eastern heritage. Disney's Vice President of Multicultural Engagement, Julie Ann Crommett, gave a reason to defend her casting. The film also received backlash for having a Caucasian actor Billy Magnussen playing a part in it. And1987 (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@And1987:This is false equivalence though. Alladin was set in a fictional version of the middle east, starring middle eastern humans. That's not the case here. Also, to call reactions to this casting polarized is an odd way of framing it. "Fans" weren't opposed to Bailey's casting. Members of Comicsgate were. and wikipedia has a no nonsense policy when it comes to that hate group. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Casting controversy

I feel like this section isn't properly fleshed out. It doesn't really explain what the controversy is. Why were people upset with Halle Bailey?Byconcept (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I've talked about this above, in a separate thread. There's no evidence in reliable sources of any sort of controversy besides certain people on social media being angry because a nonwhite actress is being cast in what used to be a white role. It happens all the time, and aside from the big names in the industry defending the casting choice, there's nothing really notable about this "controversy". Which is why I said it shouldn't be it's own subsection. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Sequel

I've recently removed the sequel section due to it being sourced to a fan site and the edit was reverted by an IP without explanation. Again without explanation, the same IP reverted another IP who removed it because "They were overreaching. Let the movie begin first". I also removed it a few months ago, but it was reverted by Chucheraya20 who wrote in their edit summary: "Do NOT Delete information". Neither reverts seem justified as they fail to provide an adequate reason for why this content should be included. Furthermore, TheDisInsider (the source used) is a blatantly unreliable source. It calls itself "an unofficial fan site", and their jobs are unpaid and experience is "preferred but not necessary". Thoughts? Pamzeis (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

From my talk page: the page you say is Fake is completely real. A lot of news they give is real. 2806:10BE:9:1B52:C00B:4F90:8ED3:65D6 (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not saying that the news is fake. I'm saying that the cite is unusable as a source since it seems no different to cites like Fandom that are run by unpaid fans. Essentially, this source seems like a WP:SELFPUB source. There is no indication that the writer is an established professional. Pamzeis (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Without a response for three days, I'm going to remove the poorly sourced information about the sequel. The WP:ONUS is on you to show why it justifies inclusion. Pamzeis (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  I say remove it. If its not backed by reliable sources then why does it need to be in there. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 20:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

TheDisInsider is 100% an unreliable source. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Reception is different from its references

The reception says that “critics” reviewed the trailer with “mixed-to-negative reception”, but the references listed aren’t critics reviewing the trailer. I would fix this but i’m not on desktop right now so i just wanted to point it out 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚^{(🕷) - (✉)} 23:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Why capitalize "black?"

"After the release of the trailer, videos of Black girls positively reacting to it went viral."

Is there some legitimate, neutral, encyclopedic, grammatically correct reason why "black" is capitalized in that sentence? If that is allowed, are editors then allowed to capitalize "white" on Wikipedia as well? 47.12.161.150 (talk) 08:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Both words are allowed to be either capitalized or uncapitalized, as per MOS:RACECAPS 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚^{(🕷) - (✉)} 10:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)