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)

The black-washed version of Ariel in the the little mermaid has received wide condemnation around the world. Your comment is falsely trying to portray it as a very small group of racist whites desperately trying to hold on to relevance in an "increasingly accepting world". That is blatantly false and highly Anglo-centric. In Asia the black-washing of Ariel (and numerous other classical movies) was also met with overwhelming criticism, even though they have no stake in it as neither the original nor 2023 version featured an Asian actress as Ariel. On top of that there are also numerous black people who don't approve of the Little Mermaid's black-washing, stating that just as they wouldn't want originally/historically black characters to be white-washed, neither do they want it happening to originally/historically white characters. After all, the infamous clip of the black actress having been reversed to a ginger white woman by means of AI was done by Chinese, not whites. The fact that the 2023 trailer for the Little Mermaid received the most dislikes of any Hollywood movie in history, with a ratio of more than 3:1 for dislikes to likes says enough. Psych0-007 (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2023 (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)

One of the sources of the articles list the statement "mermaids allegedly can not be Black as they are underwater creatures" as being from a "troll." How is 1 troll saying something a legitimate form of criticism, or amount to controversy? The source from the article for "a Black mermaid does not adhere to historical accuracy" was simply "Some" and also listed a few tweets that had nothing to do with historical accuracy and didn't even have links to the tweets or user names mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendritope (talk • contribs) 21:38, 16 February 2023 (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)

Can you believe this? The sources for the controversy regarding Ariel's race is made up of meta-responses to the controversy. WHERE IS THE SOURCE MATERIAL?! DON'T GIVE ME A LINK TO TREVOR NOAH! TREVOR NOAH DIDN'T DISLIKE ARIEL BEING BLACK! GIVE ME A LINK TO THE PEOPLE WHO SAID ARIEL SHOULDN'T BE BLACK! Oh, and yeah, sweeping the controversy under the rug ain't gonna cut it either. I know you control Wikipedia, but still... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.122.28.167 (talk) 10:59, 19 September 2022 (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)

i wish you wouldnt do this i just found this and would like to see this 208.123.233.155 (talk) 21:51, 10 December 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)

White is capitalised the article also. Not understanding why you made this. If there’s inconsistencies, just change it. Corona1112 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd support capitalized race-color descriptors (White/Black). I checked the first ten sources in §Controversy (as of this edit. Seven used 'Black', two used 'black', and one didn't use either term. Most American style guides recommend capitalizing such terms, and this is an American film with a AmEng tag. Either way, we shouldn't be editing back-and-forth about this without discussion, so I hope Dudhhr and Special:Contributions/82.54.229.153 can share their view. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Jonah Hauer-King.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Is this paragraph correct?

A poll conducted from July 8–10, 2022, from Hollywood Reporter/Morning Consult found that just under half of Americans supported the idea of minorities playing the roles of characters who had been cast as white. When asked "Thinking about live-action movie remakes of classic cartoons, do you support or oppose actors who are racial and ethnic minorities playing characters who have been white in past films?", 48% answered "strongly" or "somewhat" support, 21% said "strongly" or "somewhat" oppose, while 31% either did not know or had no opinion. The same poll also found a majority in support of remakes that are "as close to their original as possible, including sticking to the race and ethnicity of each character."

When I click the link for the above source it says 48% say movies should stick to race and ethnicity of character while 25% say they should increase diversity even if it means changing the race/ethnicity of characters. It seems like the source provided for the above disagrees with what the above says. 2600:1700:1B00:15FF:A5AF:D374:3B5:CCB1 (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Halle Berry not Bailey

Did you mean to say Halle Berry when you wrote Bailey? Fluffylover1 (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

No. $chnauzer 22:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Halle Berry. Halle Bailey. Take a guess as to who plays Ariel. $chnauzer 23:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

the most-disliked movie trailer on YouTube from a major Hollywood film studio

So, according to this List of most-disliked YouTube videos article, there are two movie trailers that gained millions of dislikes on YouTube, i.e. a Hollywood movie The Little Mermaid and an Indian movie Sadak 2. This fact should also be mentioned on this page too. Here are some external sources for referencing: Newsweek and Cosmic Book News. To those who cannot see the number of dislikes on YouTube, FYI: you can install a browser add-on (like for example "Return YouTube Dislikes" extension on Firefox desktop) to be able to view the (hidden) number of dislikes for each video. Gahipaj135 (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm opposed to including this dubious trivia. It seems mostly the lower-quality sources that focus on it, and they do not appear to be doing a good job of clarifying what they're actually measuring, since YouTube no longer has a dislike button. I think the list article you link is more affected by this issue, and I posted at the talk page there as well. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

"YouTube no longer has a dislike button". This is incorrect. YouTube still has both like and dislike buttons and measures them both. What YouTube did is that it hides now the number of dislikes a video got. But viewers can still see how many dislikes a video got with the help of browser add-ons. Gahipaj135 (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Ugh you're totally right! "dislike button counter" Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

No infos about locations in Sardinia

Sardinia is the 47th island for surface in the world, it's not a town or a little rock, so it would be necessary to be more precise: the movie has been filmed in 4 municipalities along the northern coast of the island: -Santa Teresa di Gallura -Aglientu -Castelsardo -Golfo Aranci 62.10.240.36 (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2023

Regarding Ursula's part under controversy; should be further clarified that the 1989 cartoon's appearance only was based on the drag performer. Original character inspiration (the sea witch from the original story) and voice acting from cartoon had nothing to do with people being upset that a woman got the role. 2601:740:8000:7B0:BA1:92C7:B707:33AB (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)