Talk:The Little Mermaid (1989 film)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

release date confusion

The beginning of the article lists the release date as November 15, but the infobox lists it as the 17th; imdb as well as other sources list it as the 17th. The article lists the Brazil release date as the 15th, so I'm guessing why its listed as the 15th. This is all just confusing --Dood77 16:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

extensive plot information

Do we really need all of this extensive plot information? RickK 02:18, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with it. It is useful content about a well-known movie. The more detailed, the better.Vancouverguy 02:25, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I trimmed some of the extraneous details and odd and/or awkward idioms Cbradshaw 19:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


This film had no low successes, it is SUPER-POPULAR, like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, Aladdin, and Cinderella, although this film is a LOT more popular than Alice in Wonderland that had reactions and criticisms. --PJ Pete

The Little Mermaid II

Someone created a page for The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea, I've cleaned up a little bit, but haven't seen it nor do I intend to. Anyone know more about the film and care to take a stab? Elde 01:48, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to trash talk Disney, but that movie really stunk big time.It totally crushed the image one had of The Little Mermaid and "happily ever after". Totally stupid.My 10 year old sister, after watching it, said: "I want to watch the 1st movie again so I can forget this".

It gave the story an ending typical "new" Disney (i.e. when they have to give it an ending or "what happened afterwards"). --- Hackeru

Is it just me or is it Disney sequels aren't all that good?

It isn't that disney sequals aren't that good, it's that some films (like this one) have no loose ends to tie up,therefore when Disney attempts to engineer a 2nd film out of it what they end up doing is killing the 1st film entirely. Take Toy Story for example,in that film the ending (christmas at the house) left room for a sequal because they introduced new toys and had a whole new setting,there for the 2nd film didn't stink.If Disney could just learn which films can have 2's and 3's and which ones were finished when they were finished we would all be better off I think. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Images to be allowed or forbidden in this article or on Wikipedia

The 1989 poster with a large cast of characters and the palace, and the 1990 VHS cover are both NOT allowed in this article or on Wikipedia, because it contains obscene content. --PJ Pete

  • Uh-huh. And you'll decide that all on your own, will you? There is no censorship on Wikipedia. Every other Disney animated feature includes the image of the original release poster (with the exception of Fantasia 2000, which uses the IMAX version). This title should be no exception. PacificBoy 15:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You do understand that it was not intentional right? It was an accident and most the spires on the palace look that way anyways. The minister in the movie is supposed to have a boner but if you really look at it it's his knees. You are blowing this one way out of proportion. Mermaidmia 01:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)MermaidMia

How dare you try and censor wikipedia articles to suit your own agenda. A penis is just a body part, it is not offensive. If it was someone involved in a sexual act, I might understand. But you are not to bring your agenda into this!

Limited Issue DVD Cover

For the 1999 Limited Issue DVD cover, that means that they make as many until they no longer make copies of these, and in this article, you should put a date of when it went out of print or when The Walt Disney Company quit making copies of it. --PJ Pete

Red Links

I'm inclined to unlink some of the characters with red links. Many of them are unimportant except in the context of this article. Would anyone think this unreasonable? -rasd

I took care of it. PacificBoy 17:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

An edit war has erupted

...with a vandal by the IP number of (See history now for evidence.) I feel this page should be semi-protected for a day or two. --Slgrandson 21:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Article contradiction

I noticed a contradiction in the article from the. following two lines. The first is from the "Production" part of the article:

"In 1985, "The Great Mouse Detective" co-director Ron Clements discovered a collection of Hans C. Anderson's fairy tales while browsing a bookstore. He presented a two-page draft of a movie based on "The Little Mermaid" to CEO Michael Eisner and Walt Disney Pictures boss Jeffrey Katzenberg, who green-lighted the idea for possible development, along with "Oliver & Company".

Howeverm later in the article, in the trivia section, it states:

"The film was originally planned as one of Disney's earliest films. Production started soon after Snow White, but was put on hold due to several circumstances."

Which is correct? Mouse Nightshirt 21:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

They don't contradict one another. Just because a Little Mermaid film was planned in the 1940s doesn't mean that it was in any way related to the project that began in the 80s. - Debuskjt 01:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

To tell the truth, it's NOT true that it was originally planned as one of the earliest films, otherwise if they put it on hold, they would have cancelled it, because the year it was released is a lot of years away from the year the earliest films were first released, and for real, The Walt Disney Company company actually started producing this film in either 1985, 1986, OR 1987. --PJ Pete

Also the article mentions that this film was the first to be animated using CAPS, then later says it was the last film to be traditionally animated before the introduction of CAPS (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

2006 Singles

I removed the entire section. A web search of major retailers and a general Google reveals no evidence that either song was ever released for sale as a separate single. - Debuskjt 14:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they can be listed as promotional covers? Annie D 04:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Should This Be Included?

I'm almost positive in the scene where Ariel is getting married the priest has an erection. Wasn't sure if something like that should be included in the article.

It's his knee, which is clear in the faraway shots and just animated wrongly in the close-up. That shot has also been "fixed" for the oncoming Platinum DVD release. Annie D 04:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


Many of the items in the trivia section are uncited, so why are they included? Is there any reason to believe that any of them are factual or just made up? 19:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Tim

What's going on?!

Yesterday, a group of links to a porn site were removed. Why are they back?! I don't see any more edits listed in the history!

P.S.IS SEBASTIEN A CRAB OR A LOBSTER????????!!!!!!!!!!! Crab.--SUIT-n-tie 07:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

ALL RIGHT.......WHO DID THIS???????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All right, some editor basically vandalized the main plot section.Here is what (s)he added:

"While the spell gets into Ariel's body, Ariel falls for a moment in a kind of jucnture when the spell's taking out her voice. After that, Ursula's spell traps Ariel in a bubble and splits Ariel's tail into two legs and changing her into a human. Ariel's seashell bra breaks apart exposing her breasts. When the bubble plops, Ariel can't swim to the surface. She trashes around, kicks her legs, shakes her hips, and jiggles her boobs.So Sebastian and Flounder drag Ariel to the surface in the iconic scene where she breaks into the sky and takes her 1st breath of air as a human. She lays in the shallow shoreline naked.In a matter of minutes, Eric comes along and sees Ariel sitting on a rock, naked. His initial hopes that Ariel is the one he is looking for are dashed when he learns that she can't speak. But, he is happy to find a beautiful naked woman, so he helps her up, shows her to a cave, and they make out."

Not only is that a very bad thing to mention in a plot for a CHILDREN'S FILM, but that is not even close to what had happened at all. The only thing that is true about the statement is Flounder and Sebastian helping Ariel to break the surface to breathe and Prince Eric's initial hopes of Ariel being the one who saved him are dashed when he finds out she cannot speak.Her seashell bra never broke,she never was naked, and obviously Eric never took her to a cave. So someone please edit out this obviously false garbage from this article. It was just some vandalism. It seems to have been removed--$UIT 21:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Your right that it was vandalism and your mostly right about it not being true because Ariel was shortly "naked", her seashell bra obviously didn't break, but her tail was gone and her legs and crotch were bare. But we didn't see anything, nor did Eric because before he got there, Scuttle put an odd dress on her. 21:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite tag

What's up with the rewrite tag on the top of the article? What issues are there that the article needs to be re-written? If nothing comes up, I'm going to remove it. Annie D 02:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Urban Legend?

There is an urban legend with The Little Mermaid.I have that VHS version, and it does in fact show a man's penis. From what I am told multiple sexual things have been left in disney films due to animators being fired after production. A Gigantic Panda 13:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Since people insist on putting this in, I tried to make it as tasteful as possible.Cbradshaw 01:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

i think that the last paragraph of controversy need to be more neutral, what i mean is that it says that several movies contains sexual innuendo, that's not true, most of that sexual innuendo have been removed, and is not longer on the movies. i suggest to edit that paragraph indicating that all that is not longer on the movies.--Humberto c49 (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


One of the biggest controversies in this film was, Ariel smoking out of a snarfblat (or sometimes referred to as a pipe) in which the smoke hit Grim in the face and then Grim wipes his face with canvas which the part of the scene where Ariel smokes was the tobacco use in this film, in which the use of tobacco or tobacco references is usually unsuitable for younger children in films, by which the part of the scene where Ariel smokes was cut when the film aired on television, although when you smoke from a pipe, cigar, or cigarette, it is extremely harmful for your lungs, although in the musical, Grease and its film adaptation, the Pink Ladies had bad habits where they neglect their lungs by smoking from cigarettes and drink alcoholic wine, though getting Sandy addicted to those habits, although Sandy is smarter than they are. --PJ Pete

I always thought it was clear that Ariel blew on the snarfblat, thinking it was some sort of musical instrument. Also, pipes and cigars are not typically inhaled on. Frotz661 01:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What about the penis in the palace?

Debunked by Snopes. ([1]) -Jéské(v^_^v) 03:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't this section be removed if it was debunked? --TravisBernard (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
No, the controversy happened even though the claim was not true. The section has multiple reliable sources discussing the controversy, so it is kind of part of the film's history. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The problem with the VHS cover was that the prince's left hand appeared to be reaching toward his crotch and the mermaid appeared to be looking in that direction. The "penis in the tower" story is nonsense. Look at later covers and you see that the prince's left hand is visible and the mermaid is looking away.Edahlem (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense you say. According to this website, the Artist who drew the castle knew he was going to be fired by Disney, so he drew it in. That same artist then notified the press forcing Disney to re-release the VHS casette and fix the artwork. That's the rumor. Although, Disney has spoken to the artist, and the artist claims he did not know about what he had drawn. :\ Majinsnake (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

VHS/DVD Covers

It is very controversial that the 1990 VHS cover had content that was quite obscene, which was the thing drawn outside the castle with an unmistakeable resemblance to a phallus, and later the 1990 VHS cover was banned from stores that do not allow X-rated films on VHS/DVD, so the 1990 VHS cover was discontinued because of the content, and if you were looking for the 1990 VHS cover of The Little Mermaid on eBay, most of them are referred to as banned covers. --PJ Pete

Should the existence of this cover controversy be mentioned in the main article? I would think it is worth at least a phrase, considering the number of units sold. By the way, I have the old cover, and now that you point it out, it is there clear as day. Does anyone know why the cover was drawn that way, why it passed to the public seemingly unnoticed? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
It already is in the article.--SUIT 00:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Freud gone wild

I have deleted the rather lengthy part about the supposed Freudian undercurrent in this film as it seems to be nothing more than original research and hearsay. Any Objections? Finite 18:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. I've edited the smaller sections and intend to work on the "plot" and "production" when time permits, focusing on the POV statements, wordiness, and length.--Marysunshine 04:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've worked on the "plot" section to make it more standard with Wikipedia style-- feel free to step in and fix anything I've missed. I removed some uncited claims (such as the one that claims Tianamen Square may have jeopardized TLM's release because some of the drawings for the film were in a vault a few blocks away...), and request that sources be added if possible for the other ones.--Marysunshine 04:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Worked on the summary; mostly just trimming sentences and rewording some stuff. That's about all I can help with for now.-- Marysunshine 20:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Mark Hamill

I'm not disputing this or anything, I'm just curious. Is he listed in the movie credits as a voice actor? -- Annie D 02:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I could've sworn I heard him somewhere.. Maybe we just remove it?--$UIT 02:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Neither he nor Tim Curry have the movie credited BUT they both did voices in episodes of the TELEVISION series The Little Mermaid according to their own wikipedia filmography pages. Perhaps someone got confused? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

That could be it. It's poorly sourced anyway, so I'll remove it. AD (talk) 04:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Sebastian is a Crab

I have reverted this info twice, but anonymous user(s) keep inserting Lobster. Since I don't want to get into an editing war, is there an alternate solution? Semi-protected,perhaps?This page gets vandalized alot.Cbradshaw 19:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


Should the article make mention of the visible erection the priest gets during the marriage scene?It's right when he says "dearly beloved". I know it was on the original VHS release but I don't know if they altered it for later releases.Check for yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC) It wasn't intended to be an erection, it was supposed to be his knee. It was edited out of later editions, and it was mentioned in the article before, but was deemed more trivial than encyclopedic, so it was removed.--60 Delta 02:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible influence from anime

I recently found a site that compares certain elements from the Disney version of The Little Mermaid to the 1975 anime adaptation of the story. Given that this is not the only time Disney has been accused of copying anime (Kimba the White Lion VS. The Lion King and Nadia: The Secret of Blue Water VS. Atlantis: The Lost Empire) I think this should probably be mentioned in the article.--SeizureDog 08:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC) I took a look at the examples on the linked website.They are so minor that I would hesitate to call them "copies". At most, perhaps, they thought the pipe joke was cute and did something similer. But looking in a mirror, having a friend, and picking petals from a flower are tiny details. However, if you wish to add something--go ahead and submit it. But it would have to be a section on all the artwork and films ever made that influenced the art of Disney's TLM, not these examples of minor import from this one Anime film. --Cbradshaw 06:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Reminder:Any criticism/comparison of this nature needs to be based on reliable sources and not be original research. I'm pretty doubtful the linked website would qualify as a reliable source. AUTiger » talk 16:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The website is down as of 2016, but I'm watching the anime right now, and the influence is really obvious. The character designs for Ariel and Eric come directly from the anime, and have no prior basis in any other depiction of The Little Mermaid of which I'm aware. Mahō no Mako-chan (1970) (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Something's missing

I think an explanation should be made on this article as to why the film was re-released in theaters in 1997, because I felt it was completely pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comment. Do you feel the article is pointless? The re-release? The re-release in year 1997? In any case, if you are questioning the reason for a re-release, Disney Studios has a long standing tradition to release many of their films from time to time (usually 8 yrs), basically, for profit and furthering the brand. (Not sure if they still do this much in the video/dvd age) This is not special to TLM and I am doubtful it merits inclusion on this specific article. It may be an appropriate bit of info for Disney Studios page. Cheers, Cbradshaw (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Little Mermaid Ariel's Beginning Logo.jpg

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:The Little Mermaid Ariel's Beginning Logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering this movie as a version of the original

I removed the sentence, "All the above gives some grounds for people who assert that the Disney film should not be regarded as a version of the Andersen tale, but rather as an independent creation sharing some plot points with it."

While what is said makes sense, it's still a point of view statement, not allowed by Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Total Gross

At first, I thought Little Mermaid gross $211,000,000 - $111 million in the United States and $99 millionin foreign countries. It's listed there on the film page of Box Office Mojo. However, it was edited and it states the film grossed 84 million in the United States and an additional $99 million internationally at the top of the page. That gross doesn't equal $211 million. Somebody help me out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christianster45 (talkcontribs) 01:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it for you. The figures you saw at Box Office Mojo were correct. The other editor forgot to take into account the short re-release in 1997 that accumulated more revenue for the domestic gross. DrNegative (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but if the film grossed $111 million domestically, then why isn't the film in the table of the highest films released in 1989 between Back to the Future Part II and Ghostbusters II. And if you can't answer that, then the film grossed $84 million in the United States. Plus on the figures on Box Office Mojo says that the film's lifetime gross. We're not looking for the lifetime gross, only the initial gross, so the re-release in 1997 doesn't count. Type your way out of this one! Christianster45 20:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It was also found that in some communistic countries, the ending of the film included the harpooning of ariel by Japanese whalers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary sections

Do we really need the sections on things like the film's musical themes and the casts from its various foreign-language dubbings? We don't do that for any other films, and they appear excessively trivial, as in this example from the "Musical themes" section:

The Major Second (add2 or add9 in chord symbols) as a broken chord is an interval commonly used in the film's score. The best examples can be heard in the first measures of Part of Your World (Bb,C,D,F) followed by (C,D,E,G).

I'd delete them myself, but I didn't want to make such a drastic change without discussion.--Unscented (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, since no one seems to have any objections, I guess I'll be bold and remove them myself, and if anyone objects, they can revert it and continue the discussion here.--Unscented (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

For reference, this is the diff that removes those sections.[2] I agree, though my opinion is unskilled in the music department. If the musical themes are mentioned in reliable sources rather than through original research, it could be encyclopedic and integrated into Music. The dubbed actors seems like trivia, at least at this point of the article's existence. Locationx3 (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of things unnecessary, was the edit block for the article really necessary? Besides, I needed to change the plot section a bit (Ariel wasn't completely naked when she woke up in the bay. If she was, she wouldn't be wearing a seashell-bra.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Actual Story of the Little Mermaid

Did the Little Mermaid of the original story ever have a voice? I thought I read or heard that she never said anything. (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The Disney movie is based more on the anime adaptation of the fairy tale Mahō no Mako-chan (1970) than it is on Hans Christian Anderson's original story. It is common for anime studios to use Western fairy tales and literature in general as launching points for newly inventive narratives. (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


"Lyrics Howard Ashman" should be included in the initial information box, immediately below "Music Alan Menken", but I'm not sure how to make that change. Unclemikejb (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


There is a note on reviews that says the New York Times called the film "charm free." I checked the original review ( in the New York Times and found this to be both incorrect and a poor characterization of the review which was overwhelmingly positive. I can't edit the page to correct this error, but someone should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The NYT review you provided above is for the original motion picture, however the line you mentioned changing is in regards to the Broadway production. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary internal links

Does this article really need internal links to articles such as seagull, fish, and shipwrecks? If it is just going to link to random nouns, should internal links also be provided for life, ocean, polyp, and perhaps blue? Since protagonist has a link, does villain deserve one too? Pgoff (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Link to The Numbers

I just wanted to suggest that someone updates this page in the section that gives a link to the website known as "The Numbers". The current link contains an invalid web address. This is the correct link to the intended website ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tragic Mr Magic (talkcontribs) 22:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


After extensive web research, a small group of colleagues decided it is set in Croatia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akoppen (talkcontribs) 05:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


I've started a section for the critical reception and all that. Could use some expansion--GroovySandwich 06:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

"prince that likes to sail" = wrong

Just want to point out: when the noun refers to a person, the proper relative pronoun referring back to that noun is "who," not "that." The article should read, "prince who likes to sail." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Missinformation99 (talkcontribs) 08:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


I removed the following paragraphs about Cecaelia from the article, as not only are they not referenced, Google turns up no references of any kind for them. If you have verifiable references for this material, please provide them before adding this info back into the article again. Though, I suppose, it doesn't help that there's no references at the octopus person article either:

"Ursula is perhaps the first example of a cecaelia – a hybrid mythological creature not unlike a mermaid that is half-human and half-octopus – to appear in a motion picture. Due to the success and popularity of Mermaid and its villain, the usage of cecaelia in art (particularly online), literature, video games, and even aquatic-themed parades increased dramatically. Additionally, cecaelia are now more frequently referred to as "sea witches"." [citation needed]

Are you sure that the first half-human and half-octopus to appear in a motion picture wouldn't be Cthulhu? Or has He never featured in a movie before that?--75* 00:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit request from Owjacoby, 21 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Hey, the stuff about the controversial images is interesting, but I think it should be moved to a separate page - this is the webpage for the kids' movie. It could be really bad if a kid was just reading the article and stumbled across that - it could damage him/her.

So please, allocate that section to a new site. Anyone really interested won't mind opening a new window, and that'll protect some kids.

Owjacoby (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Algebraist 10:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
While i can understand your concern it is a valid point to raise in the article and it is referenced. You might wish to familiarise yourself with WP:NOTCENSORED. It is a bit of a shame that a kids movie has this "rushed error" about the cover art and a scene in the film however the coverage of the matter in the article appears appropriate to me and with 8 references it would be rather bias to summarily remove it from the article and there is not enough to warrant a separate article. If you are wishing to access a more "kid friendly" version you can go to for a selection of approximately 5500 articles, though it appears that The Little Mermaid is not included in that selection of articles. Sorry. delirious & lost~talk to her~ 11:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


I've noticed the underlining theme of feminism in the film; rather than just embracing women empowerment, this film was striving for it. Like, when Ariel was singing "Part of Your World", she perceived the Human World as a place where "they understand/That they don't reprimand their daughters" implying the gender equality in today's society (which still needs some work). Also, it shows in the scene where Ariel and Ursula was going to make their bargain to trade a human life for her voice. Metaphorically, in order to "get her man", she should not be allowed to speak for her own and express herself, she can only rely on her sexuality. In "Poor Unfortunate Souls", Ursula sings "You'll have your looks, your pretty face/And don't underestimate the importance of body language, ha!/The men up there don't like a lot of blabber/They think a girl who gossips is a bore!" still impersonating what a "perfect" woman should be for a man's fantasy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathandy (talkcontribs) 07:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


What's the benefit of using re-release poster art instead of original art? Wouldn't it be more encyclopedic to use the original art? --Mika1h (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The article incorrectly places "Under the Sea" right after Ariel sings "Part of That World". He actually sings it AFTER Ariel rescues and falls in love with Eric. It's right before Triton calls Sebastian in to talk about Ariel being in love.

I know this because I've watched the DVD around 500 times or so (may be a slight exaggeration) with my 2 1/2 year old granddaughter who LOVES the Ariel movie.MantellaFrog (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Feminist criticism

Like many other Disney movies that were written and released in the 20th century, The Little Mermaid has received some criticism from feminists. It has been noted that the plot premise of The Little Mermaid is problematic from a feminist point of view because Ariel agrees to give up her voice for a pair of legs for the chance to get to know Prince Eric. Her romantic triumph comes from the way she sacrifices herself to Ursula in hopes that she will get to marry Prince Eric. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aescher88 (talkcontribs) 02:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

About the "penis" thing...

I don't think a picture of it was necessary to put in the article. And why? Well, for one thing, it's sort of disturbing. Another thing, there could be children looking at it. And I'm not saying to get rid of the Controversy section, I'm just saying to get rid of the picture is all. 'Kay?

Edit: Oh wait a second, someone already wrote something like this. Uh...okay... (Hey, it was at the bottom of the page. You can't just expect me to notice it right away.) (talk) 06:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this image looks weird and is unnecessary in this context. Most "controversy" sections in articles about films and figures in the media don't include such illustrative materials, and in the case it's against Wikipedia fair use guidelines. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 07:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Film Vs. Original

There is nary a word in the entire article regarding the liberties - distortions, actually - that the Disney studio took with the original Anderson tale, so much so in fact that this 1989 film is a cartoon of the complex, controversial, and entirely different original. Relatively few plot points remain the same, and some note needs to be made of the assertion by most critics that this film is a Disney creation and not really an "adaptation" of Anderson at all. I will add a subsection to this effect, completely sourced, of course.Sensei48 (talk) 07:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

How is your subsection going? It's been over a year! ;) I certainly agree that something needs to be mentioned about at least the major plot differences. The original story tries to show the potential folly of mixed-marriage and not listening to your parents, whereas the Disney version encourages following your dreams regardless of what your parents say. --Thoric (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Flounder the Tropical reef fish

Flounder is not an actual flounder and he's also not a guppy neither. The other atlantic tropical fish species in real life doesn't have the same colors and/or patterns as him. But all the other fish that has the same patterns and/or colors as Flounder are all in Indian and Pacific Oceans. That's way I inserted him as a juvenile blue tang because of his colors and still more similar in appearance to a Indo-Pacific convict surgeonfish or a clownfish, but anonymous user(s) keep saying he's not (which made me look up other websites and I couldn't find the other exact species for him).

Does it say anywhere in the movie which ocean it's supposed to be set in? I am not anonymous, and I am not necessarily saying he isn't a tang, I am just saying he doesn't look like a tang, so you need to find a Reliable source that says he is in order to put that in. You can't just rely on your guesses or opinions here, and not all other websites are reliable sources either. Unless you can find a reliable source for what species he is, the best thing is to just say that he is not a flounder (which is quite obviously correct.)Koumz (talk)

3D re-release The Little Mermaid.....dead!!

No Ariel 3D. No Tarzan 3D, either? (Screams, and turns Super Saiyan) I WANNA SEE TARZAN IN 3D!! I WANT SEE IT!! (Cries) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 January 2013

For grammatical concerns, the following:

"After the success of the 3D re-release of The Lion King, Disney announced a 3D re-release of The Little Mermaid that was scheduled for September 13, 2013[15], but was later cancelled on January 14, 2013 due to the underperformances of other Disney 3D re-releases."

should be changed to:

"After the success of the 3D re-release of The Lion King, Disney announced a 3D re-release of The Little Mermaid that was scheduled for September 13, 2013[15], but later cancelled the theatrical release on January 14, 2013 due to the underperformances of other Disney 3D re-releases."

"Disney" is the subject, and certain verbs are assumed to refer to it. Also, while theatrical release was cancelled, a 3D home video release was neither confirmed nor cancelled, so the sentence should be specific. Or, because this sentence seems a bit long and contains a redundancy, you could simplify and break it apart as follows:

"After the success of the 3D re-release of The Lion King, Disney announced a 3D conversion for The Little Mermaid that was scheduled to debut in theaters on September 13, 2013[15]. The theatrical release was then cancelled on January 14, 2013 due to the underperformances of other Disney 3D re-releases." (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Done AD (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)