The whole "Women shouldn't talk to get a man" segment is PERFECT coming from Ursula. It shows what little regard she has for both men and women, and relationships in general.
Yup. Plus she's the VILLIAN disney. Like christ in hell. They're supposed to have bad ideas. Ideals like that are only an issue if the film portrays them positively
I actually loved Ursula's line about woman being seen and not heard because throughout the movie it's proven to be wrong. As a kid it made me realize that some people don't have my best interests at heart. Some are going to say whatever they think is going to make me do what they want. And later in the movie Ursula's sentiment is proven wrong because on their first date Eric just wants to know everything about her. He wants her to talk to him. Cutting out that part was a hindrance to the villain. It's probably safe to say Ursala herself didn't even believe those lines because she was trying to overthrow her brother lol
Heck, Ariel's own voice was what entranced Eric to force him to fall for "Vanessa" and Ariel was clearly shown to be at a severe disadvantage without it. It's not even really subtext at that point. It's just... text. Edit: Also, if all the bad messages are stripped from the villains, doesn't that leave them with only good/true messages? But they're still bad. That seems... problematic. More so than leaving the bad messages to them.
I'm so glad you mentioned how Ursula just says "Pathetic" RIGHT TO ARIEL'S FACE LIKE WHAT. It takes away like 85% of the deception from the first verse. Ursula's supposed to be this ungenuine trickster, not someone who'd be dumb enough to just say how she genuinely feels out loud. Great video! You earned a sub
I COMPLETELY AGREE. It’s the part that irked me the most when I heard it. This was my favorite song in the original and to hear how they completely destroyed a singular but important word’s meaning in the song just shows how sloppy they were being. It just made me go rewatch the original to just appreciate the animation/expressions and how it plays well with each song
She's so brutally honest about her nature and shadiness, that only someone very dumb, overly desperate, and willing to abandon their loved ones for their own wishes would be taking her deals
it gives me negging vibes like that cliche where insecure men will degrade a woman's self-esteem with backhanded compliments so she feels less entitled to reject his advances lmao like its a subtle difference but it really works well to make them both way more unlikable. not only does ursula look way less confident in her superficial charm enough to verbally acknowledge her disdain to the person she's actively trying to negotiate with but ariel looks equally incompetent, naive and insecure for being so desperate as to thoughtlessly compromise with a stranger who quite literally advertises how little they expect of her ability to advocate for herself against contemptuous persuasion. where are the stakes even? ursula expends little effort to feign a flattering image that can successfully manipulate ariel and ariel expends little effort to feel rightfully skeptical of whether her end of the deal is actually being considered or respected. it's regarded like such a low risk-low reward interaction from both parties as if they literally just have no standards for each other, if i had to put it nicely both of them look dumb as fuck in the remake and should never be allowed to negotiate again.
That is what I was thinking this whole time!! How does her voice seem so off from her expressions? Could they make it any more obvious that it's just overlapping? I never saw the movie (so many things I hated from the trailers that I just couldn't do it) so this is the first time I'm seeing anything about this song and it makes me so glad I didn't put myself through that movie.
YES SAME. It's annoying because original Ursula always had a cruel humourous face while film Ursula had static face syndrome. She was no longer had an evil smile it was just grumpy Ursula
I get frustrated when Ursula's "pathetic!" is acted as just a normal part of the song, or even as something grandiose, instead of an aside that Ariel isn't supposed to hear. It's very clear she wouldn't actually say something like that directly to Ariel, since she's pretending to be kind and helpful, and calling the people she helps pathetic would contradict that narrative. Plus, even her body language in the original scene, like holding a hand close to her mouth, shows she doesn't want Ariel to hear it.
Even though it makes Ursula seem less cunning. You have to remember that it wouldn't have really mattered in the original, since Ariel was a fucking idiot! Not only was she still able to see and in ear-distance of hearing Ursula say that to Flatsom and Jetsom, but said Eels literally tied up Sebastian and Flounder AND SHE ACKNOWLEDGES IT! LIKE BRUH- I DON'T THINK URSULA NEEDS TO SEEM CUNNING IF YOUR PROTAG IS DENCE AF 😂
@@toastyeditz Okay, so we went from Ariel being naive and possibly an idiot in the original, to Ariel and Ursula both being complete morons in the remake. What progress.
@@toastyeditzWoah, it's almost like Ursula was THAT convincing over a naive 16 year old who just had a fight with her father who destroyed the things she was passionate about her entire life, can't wonder on why Ariel felt so conflicted on her actions into the point of feeling unsure of being human or being with her family, it would be crazy if that was the case 🤯
@@heiranima4534 heck, even making Ariel selfish in the deal scene, i find it funny since people were treating the OG like that because "she left her family for a man 🥺" yet the remake literally shows that.
"Big and overbearing instrumentals would work better for a giant monster than for a manipulator." Honestly the whole time you were pointing out these differences you had me thinking: did Disney just go "Overweight Woman = Overbearing Giant Monster With No Capacity For Subtlety Or Intelligence Whatsoever" ? 😬😬😬 Also: having a villain recite sexist lines to be manipulative is a way stronger stance against sexism than deleting those lines.
"Also: having a villain recite sexist lines to be manipulative is a way stronger stance against sexism than deleting those lines." Yes, yes, *yes*. A thousand times, yes!
@@RachelOSullivan And unlike all the writers who seem to use "lampshading" to mean trying to be self-aware about problematic jokes, but still using them for the punchlines, the text of the movie actively disproves Ursula
I swear Disney has like an AI analyze social ques to get their politically correct stuff. It comes off as both Disney not giving a shit aside from making money AND misinterpreting activism to tell a version that could actively damage leanring minds. Removing Ursula's cynical gaslighting of Ariel removes a chance for children to be exposed to the type of malipulation and abuse they can be subject to, at least in a safe environment where they can learn from it.
Just look at Disney removing and then poorly putting back the Be Prepared sequence for the Lion King remake, it's like they fear letting the villains actually act like villains is somehow offensive to someone (who? I don't know, people that can't tell the difference between fiction and reality maybe?).
Just a small evaluation/opinion. The verse "And I'm afraid I had to rake 'em across the coals" In the original, she's trying to seem trustworthy to Ariel. This has been covered in the video and is the theme of the song. When Ursula delivers that line, its in a manipulators way. Saying "I tried to help them, I really did. But they brought it onto themselves." It's softer, a subtle way of displaying how she is trying to seem like the good guy while simultaneously showing that she won't hesitate to "punish" others, for lack of a better word. When in reality it's just her being the antagonist, as evident as that is. But the delivery and the choreography in Melissa's version is different. So much emphasis on being driven by a villainous attitude that the true subtle scheming of being a villain is lost. From the harsher, and frankly obvious statement of the line, to the poking the eye sockets and throwing the skull. Its just so different to me.
Agreed. In the original she's pretending to be contrite. That she doesn't want to collect but she's got a business to run. That if she doesn't, how else can she "help" others like Ariel? It keeps Ariel second guessing and any red flags Ursula throws up. Suddenly she seems like the best and only choice and so long as Ariel follows by the rules (she's a good person after all) then they won't have problems. I like to discuss Ursula as an aggressive Avon Lady or an MLM "aunt" who is a high earner through verbal and emotional abuse. Nice to your face but she will manipulate you to buy things so she can be the top of the list. She desires power and the facade rarely cracks. Imagine if she pops into your messages. The "hey hon" is quite close to her affectionate "angelfish". In reality she delights in collecting and grinding people down and driving them to extremes. But she can pretend she doesn't want to do this. Watching people squirm is a bonus of the job. Feigning that she's "on the whole I've been a saint" and those slip ups are "only" because others needed a sort of firmness makes her look good. And her lie looks like the truth if you weren't the person being victimized. She manages to keep things neat and tidy all through her contracts. Fascinating and sleazy. Delightful to examine.
I actually agree with the sentiment, but I did laugh a little because Ursula being subtle is still tinged with drag queen Divine-style over-the-topness. She takes seaweed and imitates a nun's habit as church instrumentation plays, right before rubbing the seaweed behind her back and shaking like it's a cabaret performance. And that's a big part of why I think Melissa's version failed on almost every level. By ripping out her more theatrical nature and washing out her makeup (OG Ursula literally applies her lipstick perfectly and the live action makeup artist says 'it was supposed to look like she did it herself'), you're pretty much erasing the drag queen influence. Yes, she *is* very bold and in your face, but only the good parts. She isn't supposed to say 'pathetic' directly to you, she's supposed to read you with the other queens backstage. I felt they critically misunderstood Ursula because of that.
What pissed me to hell and back was knowing they removed the song's segment where Ursula cynically tells Ariel men are annoyed by women who talk. It was so deliciously sardonic and bold because it hits too close to home and the assigment was understood perfectly: she is the villain, she lies, she gaslights to convince people to sign the deals she dishes out, it's her whole thing! And in comes Alan Menken in an interview, saying that specific verse was removed because "it could lead young girls into thinking they aren't allowed to have their turn to speak". Tell me you are pushing pandering agenda without telling me you're pushing a pandering agenda. Mother Gothel *exists* . Gothel literally gaslights Rapunzel to keep her in the tower, telling her how the world outside is extremely dangerous and how she'll never learn how to fend off for herself, but you don't see people complaning about or censoring that because the story shows us that Gothel is a liar and the very fact she carries the label of villain infers her worldview is eskewed, and kids KNOW better than to trust the villain's words! Disney tries respecting a female demographic, low-key insults part of that female demographic's intelligence in the process. 😂 Wouldn't expect any less from the company that didn't know Peter Pan's OG novel tells there are only lost boys because girls are too smart to fall off their prams.
Oh, and, about the whole "ariel can write" thing... -they could've made it much more interesting and preserve the sense of urgency of the kiss if they had shown Ariel writing or drawing but everything looks like chicken scratch, and it dawns on her that Ursula's contract not only took her voice as payment, it prevents her from communicating clearly to nullify the loophole, just like Sophie's mouth gets magically shut whenever she tries telling others she's been cursed in Howl's Moving Castle. Mimicking would obviously be out of question just like in the OG because her situation is just too complex and superstitious for a human to figure out with signing alone. And she's bad at it to boot- EDIT: (as of July 23rd 2023) Scratch what I said earlier. I was too caught up in trying to find solutions for the writing bit in the remake when I could've gone straight to the simpler but effective solution. It brings nothing new to the remake, but it's fundamentally necessary that it stays that way as to preserve the underlying layer of cleverness of the character. Ariel wouldn't try writing to Eric that she was the one who saved him because he'd still doubt it. He remembers the person who saved him had a voice, she could say she lost it, but he could parse that she might be lying because being royalty makes you common target to opportunists, and it wouldn't do Ariel any favors if she came across as one. Plus there's a lesson about not rushing yourself into a marriage for surface-level reasons addressed in Eric's arc. Being saved and having a beautiful voice aren't solid foundations for a long-term relationsip. Eric had to realize he was infatuated with the idea of someone rather than in love with someone, that's why his decision to pursue Ariel after having spent time to get to know her, whilst not knowing she's the one who saved him, was so important.
@@IMayOrMayHaveNot I once read a fanfic on AO3 where Ariel's FIRST THOUGHT was to try and write what happened to her, but she literally cannot write due to the spell, so she has to draw it all out as best she can
@@Vincent.E.M.Thorn.Author -That too, it's called Synchronic Digraphia. There would still be the matter of being able to draw, and the prince believing rather than thinking she's a lunatic would be another barrier. This possibility sounds like a good reason for you not to even dare try and rely on charms alone to swoon them.-
There are several things that bug me about the scrapped Body language verse: 1. The “body language” line is iconic. 2. A bad message coming from a villain makes total sense. Ursula is clearly trying to convince Ariel to give away her voice by telling her that she doesn’t need it to woo a man. 3. The verse also plays a big role in the mood/tempo of the song. It builds up the intensity before the climax where Ursula is more aggressively pressuring Ariel into making the deal. 4. If they did want to get rid of that verse, they could have replaced it with the original scrapped verse of the song that Howard Ashman planned to be in the middle of the song in 1989 to solve the temp problem rather than going straight into the chorus with the tempo immediately turned up to an 11.
The most ironic thing about this is that the live action lacks a lot of body language in the animation that could have worked in the live action. One of the biggest is showing the Triton felt guilty about the destruction of the grotto after waking up from his blind rage.
@@user-th1qo4cq9g this is a problem al live actions have. Same for camera angles. This version is just so static compared to the original one. The original had interesting camera angles and movement. This one not so much. And the build up to Triton destroying the cave was so rushed and just stupid.
@@rowantic6539and Triton didn’t even care and didn’t regret what he did, while in the animation he was also sad when he saw his daughter cry while leaving!
@@chrysanthemumcat2791 there were a few. Come on, I know you need a little magic And magic is my specialty du jour Don't just stand there looking sick Would I kid you? Play a trick? Like I told you, I don't do that anymore So I think you ought to take my little bargain Yes, I think you ought to make my little deal Sure, it's hard to leave your life But you could be a prince's wife Why don't you let me take that dream and make it real? Come on, you poor unfortunate soul Poor child! Poor fish! Aren't you glad you brought your problem To a lady you can trust? Won't you let me grant your wish? You poor unfortunate soul Poor sweet! Poor dear! Aren't you lucky that I'm ready With a potion and a plan? Aren't you glad you came and asked If I could help you? And I can When a mermaid comes to Ursula She always gets her man You poor unfortunate soul source: www.lyricsondemand.com/l/littlemermaidlyrics/poorunfortunatesoulsdeletedlyricslyrics.html
You hit the nail on the head when you mentioned that the characters shouldn't be so dramatic and loud during a musical, because the songs they're singing aren't for the audience, but for themselves. Ariel's Part Of Your World isn't being sung to a huge school of fish, it's being sung to herself; quietly wishing she could be in that land above she adores so much. Same with Poor Unfortunate Souls. Yeah, Ursula isn't singing it to herself, but she IS singing it to Ariel.
Yes, we all know how subtle broadway solos are performed. I still remember how nuanced and introspective "Memory" was performed as Grizabella's inner struggle.
Yeahhhh idk about this one. I get very dramatic when I'm thinking to myself and feeling feelings, and songs in musicals are a representation of a character's strongest feelings. Many of the most memorable songs in musical theater are the Act I finales, which are usually the most loud and intense, because that's when the characters' feelings are the most intense. Like for example Santa Fe. Huge emotions exist all the time without being played up for an audience.
"You'll have your looks. Your pretty face. And don't underestimate the importance of BODY LANGUAGE HA!" The removal of this line was the sole deciding factor in whether or not I was seeing this movie.
Why didn't Ariel just write to the prince? Answer: somewhere in that contract there's small print saying that she is unable to discuss anything involving the contract. Meaning she can't just write on a piece of paper and tell the prince she made a deal with the sea devil. It's a NDA.
Or maybe its in a merlanguage and she doesn't know how to write in human language yet and obviously it was put in english for our understanding also the reason why she can understand human speech and talk it is because she has observed their languaged and mimiced it due to her obsession with humans bt she didn't have access to their written language so on shore she was illetrate but not under the sea
Or even just the fact that she wasn't presented with a pen at any point in the story. What's she supposed to do, search the castle she doesn't know for one? He doesn't even ask her name until the boat, and she's way too interested in exploring the human world before that to care!
@@carolinpurayidom4570no, she red a book in "Part of your world". Anyway, what she should had written? "Hi I am Ariel and I was a mermaid before a octopus witch cursed me. Please kiss me to break the spell"😑
Hot take, honestly I can't back this up, but here goes: the live action version of Poor Unfortunate Souls just goes on to show that collectively we are so obsessed with belting and bravado in contemporary music that maybe we are forgetting that subtle, downplayed and soft can be much more impactful.
Same with the writing. I've notice that many films like this, now a days, do a lot of dialogue exposition, as to having a nice balance with visual exposition where viewers can connect the dots on their own. as if they think we're too dumb to connect the dots on our own. this level of hand holding is kind of getting annoying. especially when Disney did use to tell stories better, in the past.
an accurate hot take. People associate loud belting singing with "good" singing and skill and while I love a good belt just as much as the next musical lovin' gal... there is a time and place.
precisely. when it came to classic disney villains, they did more acting than singing perfectly, which i believe is why theyre so iconic to this day. it doesnt _need_ to be pitch perfect and super impressive to have an impact.
I think they also forget that a lot of their villain songs start softer so when the song is at it's peak it hits so perfectly. A song starts to drag on if it stays the same speed the whole time.
A lot of the songs in the remake reflect that mindset in my opinion. Especially Part of your World and that god awful new song they gave Eric. Everyone keeps talking about how great a singer Halle is but all she did was sing it louder with more showboating. and Eric was just screaming in some parts of that other song. There was no subtlety at all. It was plain awful.
2:07 "Pathetic" is literally also written AS an aside in the lyrics you showed earlier in the video! When we did TLM at my theatre, that part WAS written in a way to show that it IS an aside, not meant to be said to Ariel. And it's IMPORTANT that it is an aside and not said outright.
I think one of the main things that made Ursula such an engaging villain was that, aside from pretending to be a better person than she was, Ursula kept to her word. And that went completely out the window with this version. Ursula added in an entirely new aspect of the spell that made it so that Ariel couldn't remember that she was supposed to kiss Eric within three days. Which begs the question: Why did Ursula even bother holding up any part of her deal if she could've just added parts that Ariel didn't agree to? Why did Ursula even keep in the part about the spell being broken by true love's kiss? Hell, why did she even actually make Ariel human? It just completely throws off the entire point of what made Ursula a threat. She couldn't just do whatever she wanted with the spell, she could only go along with the conditions her victims agreed to. The threat was Ursula's manipulation. By making her act cartoonishly evil even when she's tricking Ariel into trusting her, and then not even having Ursula keep her word, you've completely messed up not just the point of this song, but also the main thing that made Ursula such a fun villain in the first place. Ursula doesn't lie, she manipulates. The difference between those two things couldn't be more clear when you compare both versions of this song.
Ursula in the original is lawful evil. She will keep loopholes in the small print of her contracts, but she will follow them to the letter because that's just the kind of person she is. Sure, she bends the rules, but she never outright breaks them herself, and uses the loopholes so that she always wins in the end. In the remake she's just a megalomaniacal witch who likes seeing people suffer for being too stupid to realise how obviously evil she is
See I think Disney realized that a bunch of powerful people who write contracts do the same thing Ursula did in the original and were like "wait that's not evil that's kind of normal actually... We have to make her Eviler!" I of course have no proof of this other than just going through some contract drama recently.
Not to defend the remake but I think your assessment of the original is a bit off. Ursula is clearly more than capable and willing to interfere with the bet using magic, she just does not feel the need to. She likely knew that just meeting the prince of a kingdom within 3 days was nearly impossible, let alone get a kiss when you cannot not speak. I do agree that if Ursula was going to interfere from the beginning she should have just locked Ariel in a cage for 3 days to eliminate any chance of failure.
Disney is ruining the catalogue of their masterpiece classics. Live-action can't, and never will, be able to capture the magic of animation. I love your takes and this channel deserves so much more attention!
I cant remember who it was but I recently watched a video essay on how the live-action remakes are Disneys responce to not being able to have the "Disney Vault" in the era of streaming and it just makes complete sense with how corprate this song feels in the remake, Disney is one of the richest companies on the planet youd think theyd allow themselves to focus on art but its just greed that drives everything :(
@@sigvifYou can ignore them but others can't when Disney shills fight tooth and nail about how "amazing" they are Once upon a time, I used to worship the ground Disney walked on but today, I wouldn't even spit in their direction
@Nicholas Cardelia Two of the most "realistic beauty" animated classsics, The Fox and the Hound (1981) and Bambi (1942). . . If Disney INTENTIONALLY RUINS THESE . . . I will have lost ALL FAITH in these remakes.
I recommend seeking out the documentary called "Ashman". Incredible look at the very man that truly revived Disney in the 80's into the Renaissance Era that made them titans in the Media Industry.
Every video of Howard Ashman coaching the performers through recording the songs shows how brilliant he really was and how the songs were his exact vision, brought to life. He closes in on the smallest details, giving references on how the syllables must sound, what the rhythm of the verse is, and even on inflexions sometimes. There's so much art and care and love being poured into these songs. Everything about it is art. The people involved cared SO deeply. That (plus his sheer genius) is why it's unbeatable.
That’s exactly the sort of thing Walt would have done. I knew very early on that *The Little Mermaid* would be a hit because every little girl in school ( I was in kindergarten) was talking about it and singing like Ariel. I also knew it would be a hit because the studio’s last full-fledged musicals before it, *Bedknobs and Broomsticks* and *Pete’s Dragon,* were set in or around the ocean and did very well on home video compared to their inauspicious theatrical releases after the mega-movie musical boom of the previous decade went bust. Now Disney is paying a hefty price for learning the wrong lessons of their post-Walt boom and bust cycles.
I saw a clip of Ashman coaching Paige O'Hara (voice of Belle) to very specifically enunciate the word "provincial" as "pro-vin-chill" - with emphasis on "chill" - as she sang the opening song, "Belle" in Beauty and the Breast. The intonation and cadence was very integral and intentional.. He worked with the final product in mind as a perfectionist, as well as gifted lyricist and producer. In his documentary, Disney executives say that he even accomplished something Walt had struggled with for years, and was able to animate Beauty and the Beast. So sad that his life ended early , and just as he'd hit his stride. For the short time they had Howard, Disney musicals were sheer magic.
It's actually impressive to me that I can read Ariel's facial expressions in the original and see she really isn't sure about this up to the point when she signs the contract. I hadn't looked at her before when OG Ursula says "true? Yes!" Seems like the remake is making it The Ursula Show, which can work in its own way, but there's a bit less going on emotionally because I can't see what Ariel is feeling at all.
Just saw Ariel's face in the remake version for the first time, looks like she's mostly just one-note impressed where original Ariel was battling disgust and interest.
It’s because they chose a singer not an actor to play Ariel if they when with an actor that knows how to sing for example luke evens or Josh gad then you’d actually get facial expressions
I feel like you just can’t communicate those feelings well in live action… It was the opposite problem for Beauty and the Beast where Emma Watson had a little more expression as Belle but just couldn’t sing. And now with Ariel, she can sing but just doesn’t know how to properly act. I’ve said it before, but in order for these Disney live action films to be successful, you need to have Broadway actors playing the lead roles. They have the ability to not only sing powerfully, but also have the dynamic acting range required to properly communicate what and how the character is feeling.
the thing that really struck me about McCarthy's performance is that... she's overacting on the lyrics, but way underacting everywhere else...? like, damn, girl! I'm sure it's hard in that makeup but move your eyebrows! your eyes! your cheeks, anything!!! she has a very soft face, and honestly most of the time I watch her remake performance I just get the impression that she's... a kind lady, behind those eyes? I don't feel menaced or threatened by her at all. I've always had gripes with the Broadway version of PUS because the actress there does pretty much all of this, but... way more intensely. she throws off the tempo on almost every line, and screams every lyric in the most dramatic way possible (that "pathetic" line? it's literally BELTED at full volume to rising music. tell me you misunderstood the source material without telling me you misunderstood the source material). all the "tightness" and "subtlty" of the original's musical pacing and tone of voice is totally lost. but it's also just... a totally different take on the character, which is unique to this performer and kind of feels like... a different villain altogether...? which makes it easier for me to distinguish the two. it's not a bad performance, necessarily. just so different to the original that it's almost unrecognizable. (honestly, I forgive it because it makes up for it with 'I Want The Good Times Back,' which, while open to criticism story-wise... KILLS. I would die for this song.) so it seems like.. this song in general is just kinda' hard for people to nail, but I feel like it would be so much easier if they just, understood what made the original so great? the deep "husk" to Ursula's voice, the very patiently growing tension and rhythm, the sharp snappiness to every lyric's pronunciation, the raw intensity in the climax that is so hard-worked for and built up to... these things are so easy to notice. I'm not a singer, but I replicate them as accurately as I can every time I sing this song to myself. because they're what this song IS. what this song was DESIGNED to be, with a purpose and an artistry! EDIT: OH-- and, it always struck me as incredibly obvious that the lines about women being 'better when they're silent' were meant to be incredibly knowing, self-aware and satirical, especially given Ariel's journey of finding her voice against her ruthless controlling father. like, a snide note from Ursula about the experiences SHE'S had being silenced as a woman. Broadway even adds in this line from her that's like... "a woman doesn't know how how precious her voice is until it's been *silenced."* which is like, so funny. she thinks the reason people don't like her is because she's too much of a girlboss. queen honestly. I haven't seen the full clip of the remake version. did they leave in Ursula's cool demonic chanting? I love that part.
watched the remake clip. really weird choice to have Ariel actively say "no, I don't want this," almost entirely make it to the exit and then have to be dragged back in...? like, the og doesn't give her NEARLY that much agency or room to think. Ursula is oppressive, commanding - just subtle enough to worm her way into Ariel's head to begin with, then overstimulating and overwhelming enough to drown out any other thought. that's kind of like. her power as a villain!! so weird to unwrite that...
@@FleurMarigoldwell to be honest I don’t think it’s such a big deal Ariel thought about leaving. It doesn’t take away from Ursula but adds to Ariel. It makes Ariel much less naive while still naive.
THANKYOU! Go look at how Vanessa in the remake acted, we didn't get ANY of that from Ursula, it's just a BLAND version of the tale. Yes she still does her curse at the end, but some of the lyrics have slightly changed.
@@Rev4mpz I went back to rewatch the original before making that point - (which I'd really recommend for comparison!) - I don't think Ariel was ever really 'naive.' you can see her wriggling and grimacing in fear, concern and discomfort almost constantly through the scene. every time Ursula comes near her she flinches away and tries to look away or free herself. (it's a really strong piece of character acting that's carried really well by the animation - I can't fault Halle, but I think it's a lot stronger than most of the expressions the remake uses for both characters in this scene.) Ariel very clearly knows something is wrong here, and doesn't like it one bit - but is lured in by this being her *one* hope at her dream come true. she knows fully well that it's a bad choice, but she makes it anyway - because Ursula has convinced her it's the *only* way she'll ever be with her prince, and she wants that more than anything! which is *why* Ursula being so strongly manipulative is so much more powerful in the original - she plays her cards exactly when she needs to. for example - - the first verse is very calm and subtle, laying down a trustworthy facade of who she is. it's... pretty obviously phoney, and Ariel doesn't fall for it one bit, because she trusts her instincts. - Ursula piques Ariel's interest by suggesting the human spell, and Ariel is intrigued - but she objects, mentioning her care for her family. Ursula very passionately agrees - "that's *right!"* - reassuring Ariel that she's on *her* side, and trying to pretend Ariel's voice still has any autonomy here by agreeing with her. classic manipulation tactic! - *"but...* you'll have your *man."* Ursula refocuses Ariel on her primary goal, the thing her heart longs for most, which Ariel is ultimately swept over by. she is not naive, though - she alternates rapidly between keen interest and disturbed fear for the rest of the scene. - Ursula gradually raises her tempo/volume and doubles down on the overwhelm/overstimulation tactic - trying to suffocate Ariel out of having any room to think or process her hesitations. Ariel's passion wins out - and she signs the scroll in an act of stubborn defiance and drive to take this chance on her dreams, despite the risk. the manipulation has this sense of... rhythm, and flow, and it's all very... well, *musical!* it's intentionally planned out by Ursula to have the maximum effect on Ariel's psyche possible, because she KNOWS Ariel isn't naive, and that she's gonna' be a hard one to win over. it shows how well she's already clocked Ariel - it shows how much *power* she has over her, despite how strong of a character Ariel really is. it's much more insidious than letting Ariel effectively say a hard "no" and almost make it to the exit, then just... yelling at her out of nowhere??? it's not very subtle and doesn't lend itself well to the playful but intense back-and-forth struggle between the wills of these 2 very stubborn characters. you're free to disagree! I've just analyzed the original a lot (I'm very passionate about it), and every single movement, expression, line of dialogue and tone of voice is placed there intentionally to contribute to a very dramatic gravity between 2 characters who have very different souls and very different hopes/desires. it's such good drama! it's fine that this version is different - but character/story wise, I don't think it's nearly as strong.
@@ellenino that's a real shame!! I haven't seen any Vanessa clips yet but she was always such a Baddie in the original. god forbid a girlboss do anything :-( the 2023 lyrics switch "Larynx" (in Larynx Glossitis) with "Amnesia" (Amnesia Glossitis). can anyone tell me why? 🤔
You mentioned the unusual voice direction in the remake, and it's worth mentioning this: The sultry yet sob-like singing of Ursula in the original is top notch because it contrasts so sharply to her normal voice. She has a wicked, maniacal voice during times of ecstasy, but when singing about these poor unfortunate souls, how they're "miserable, lonely and depressed" and "in pain, in need", she uses a sobbing resonance, you can imagine what she sounds like when she's saying "boo-hoo" or whatever because she's literally singing like that- it's a simple stylistic choice but extremely effective. She's clearly trying to manipulate Ariel into thinking she understands these souls' poor plight, with the harsher, more wicked singing only being used when she's giving Ariel an ultimatum: "Give me your voice, or leave and never be with him". But the remake just sounds wicked and forceful throughout with zero variation.
What truly bothered me was a really small detail but that I think makes a huge difference, THE EYEBROWS weren't moving! To me what makes Ursula complete and iconic in the animation is her facial expression range and I felt like that took a lot away from the character as insignificant as it may seem
The whole point in 1989 with the “women should talk less” verses was that she was the VILLAIN, that it was outmoded, it’s one of the key arguments that seems to win Ariel over as she’s too naive to believe Ursula would make a deal with draw backs, she’s 16 guys, and incredibly sheltered by her Father. It makes sense she takes Ursula at her word, that human behave this way, she has no other point of reference making her an easy target.
I was so apprehensive about the treatment of this movie, simply because The Little Mermaid was so clearly fuelled by the emotions and passion of Howard Ashman. Disney seem to have all but forgotten the man who literally saved their animation studio, and arguably the company as a whole, from bankruptcy. Worse, they’re actively undoing or distancing themselves to what he worked so hard to achieve. I’m so glad you mentioned about part of your world nearly being cut, not that you could tell from Disneys subsequent noise about this number. I just want to also mention that the voice of Ariel (Jodi Benson) has often been quoted with attributing her entire performance to Ashman, and that she was simply a vessel for him. Lastly I find it an almost unbearable irony that the Disney renaissance movies started with Ashman refusing to work in their live action studio (as he was originally brought from Paramount to do) because he felt that the suspension of disbelief was insufficient for broadway style musicals to work in live action, and that he animation studio was where this style would thrive. The “live action” remake essentially breaks everything the original stood for. 😢 sorry this has turned into an essay. 😅
I think that's what upsets me the most. A gay man saved this studio, died before he saw the movie he cared about released (Aladdin), and was generally forgotten. He wrote so much of his pain and observations of a world that rejected him into his lyrics and they're masterful, really. And Disney chooses to ignore all of this in their rainbow washing because they want the suburban white moms taking their kids to this. They can try to make it as diverse as it once, but the problem is it's really an empty showing. More should have been done and Ashman's life should have been honored with all of these films, but they didn't do it. That's the problem with all three films. Throw them out.
Yup exactly. Disney’s forgotten all about Ashman and clearly has no interest in honoring his memory or his work (which literally saved their ass). Because of that, Disney will never have a remake that isn’t a soulless corporate cash grab. Can’t wait to see them run all of their properties into the ground until there’s nothing left to bastardize 🙄
@@jamie1602 So true. Forget their lazy attempts to include diverse people into their movies. They have real true diversity in the people that make their films. The fact they could be celebrating this but aren’t speaks volumes about their true feelings.
I was so frustrated with how she called Ariel pathetic straight to her face unlike the original and she still went with signing contract with her I'm glad you made this video and pointed out more issues with this remake,The question that comes to mind is...why even remake movie if its going to be downgrade from original?
Honestly, the remakes only exist for the Disney Adults who'll shovel even the bottom of the barrel Disney schlock into their mouths... It's all about the money. Creative integrity be damned...
Money. Fortunately it isn't on track to do what they hoped so maybe they'll learn. Apparently they needed to make 560mill to turn a profit, and as of today, six weeks into its run its still 100mill short, and that's with alot of online review pages putting their thumb on the scales to make it look better. And this is one of their most iconic properties. The original kick-started the Disney Renaissance, and the remake might not even turn a profit? That's got to have them scared of what's in the future for their other remakes.
It comes down to two things. Firstly, hoping to make money from it from a combo of new audiences and nostalgic old ones; and renewing IP. It's that simple, and pathetic.
The original is a song that manages the difficult task of being full of subtelties, nuance, innuendo, performative statements, insecurity-inducing words, brilliant wordplay and YET still show a stark contrast of evil against good. And even more awesome is that, even though you know Ursula is being dishonest, you can't help but understand how was it that Ariel fell for Ursula's trick hook, line and sinker. A song that is so deliciously evil in it's manipulation, with a cadence that starts soothingly, like Ursula's tentacles tenderly creeping all over you until it's too late when you finally realize you are firmly in her grasp, timed perfectly with the song's crescendo and climax. Melissa's version squirms indeed like a worm on a hook, and Pat Carroll's version will continue to reign supreme. I want to add that it's also important to mention the moment this song is placed in the film. It happens right after King Triton very cruelly destroys Ariel's treasures with a raw display of the trident's terrible power. Ursula witness this through Flotsam and Jetsam, so she knows that initially she has to be soothing and understanding in dealing with Ariel. Displays of raw power this early could scare Ariel away. So when Ursula sparingly emphasizes stuff with her singing and magic in the first half of the song is when she shows Ariel that she does indeed possess the power to make her dreams come true. There is an element similar to that of a Fairy Godmother, no? So indeed, she's got to downplay everything initially to appeal to Ariel and prey on her dreams and insecurities and ignorance.
The original song belongs in a cartoon. Their dedication to realism kills it. Part of why they had to make Ursula call Ariel pathetic rather than have her whisper it to Flotsam and Jetsam.
i love pat caroll's voice acting as ursula. she did an amazing job and its one of my favourite villain songs despite not liking little mermaid that much
@@ulyx9804which doesn't work as excuse, because don't they know owners like to talk and confide secrets to their pets? Ursula also talking to her eels like that also showed how she trusts them just as much as she loves them, they're both her babies and henchmen, which makes her heartbreak after Ariel makes her kill them both more impactful, and her rage even more personal far beyond just losing a pair of random goons
@@dustymcwari4468 I misread your comment. Sorry, I was sleepy. It also shows how desperate Ariel is that she's going to ignore all the red flags the audience sees.
@@ulyx9804 that's my main problem with the song here, and not just the audience, Ariel knows that too, because this Ursula rubs it in her face so much with little to no subtlety, that she gets spooked and runs away, which forces Ursula to be more aggressive and gambles it by angrily telling her what could happen if she leaves, and this Ariel... comes back? Despite knowing very well she's up to no good and cannot be trusted one bit, like what the hecc?? Why listening to this freak at that point, or is it that family is WORSE than what Ursula could do? She was given a bit of time to think about it and was already halfway through the door, while og Ariel was bombarded with bargains and lies while Ursula began dancing all around her more and more as soon as she began questioning things, and actually forced her onto an all or nothing situation because of how much Ursula was pressing her, while making sure to keep her gentle facade at all times precisely to avoid doing what live action Ursula did, or worse, this Ursula SUCKS at doing business, if she didn't have that specific info, she completely loses the girl, and Ariel is dumb and super desperate here, she gave herself control over the sitution by backing away and giving herself distance to run away, and yet she CHOSE to stay and carry on with Ursula's deal anyways Which is a running issue in this remake, characters doing something cool or smart seemingly to respond criticisms of the original and for the sake of buying people into thinking the remake is more mature, complex, and realistic compared to the original, only for them to drop the ball and forget about it immediately, making the characters dumber, more selfish and rude than they used to be
Even more incredible is, I've seen Queen Latifah and Rebel Wilson both perform this track to a live audience and despite needing to project far more because of that, they managed to still capture the essence of Pat Carolls original extremely well. Why, when you’ve got two Hollywood actors that have proven they can do the role and physically fit the part, do you then cast an actor who so clearly couldnt. Did they just already have Melissa McCarthy under contract for something else that fell through? 😅
Damn it! Queen Latifah would've KILLED IT as Ursula. The race-swapping would actually make sense, too.... Then again, this is *modern* DISNEY, who for TLK 2019: instead of making a faux-documentary w/TLK's plot beats narrated by JAMES EARL JONES and songs sung by Beyonce (including SHADOWLAND) that would play to the strengths of the CGI photorealism Favreau was going for...they instead went full UNCANNY VALLEY and wanted Mr. Jones (a man in his mid-90s) to reprise his role as Mufasa -- something which, God bless him, he could not *do* in 2019 w/the same punch he gave in 1994. (b/c TWENTY-FIVE YEARS have passed!) They also managed to fuck up BE PREPARED.
@@ginsover Queen Latifah was already a villain protagonist in SET IT OFF, and...look: BLACK-ON-BLACK crime is real. Latifah's a good actor and a skilled recording artist: more than enough to hard-carry this live-action adaptation.
It does seem like the remake's all about making Ursela seem threatening in an overt and chest-puffing way, while the original was very much Ursela trying to sound sympathetic (both as a figure of sympathy, and sympathetic to Ariel's plight). "I'm afraid I had to rake 'em 'cross the coals," said by the new Ursela, is a terrible and threatening line; she sounds angry. Original Ursela sang it gently, almost mournfully, like it was this thing she had to do no matter how much she wishes she didn't.
The original does a good job in making Ursula and Ariel seem like different sides. Ursula gets a little line that betrays she used to be accepted among the other Atlanteans but no longer is. Ariel is "odd". They're both odd. Ursula's magic, however, does dangerous things and can potentially kill. When you become an adult you can get the idea that if left unchecked, Ariel's resentment towards her father could have become something a lot more dark and uncomfortable. She could have very well ended up in Ursula's place; an outcast and harming others because of being ostracized. It's likely Ashman had influence on this. Ashman was able to influence who Ursula was and asked that animators look at Divine, a drag queen, for ideas. Divine died before being able to even voice the role. So women with deeper registers were asked to voice the role. Bea Arthur was the first asked. She rejected it. Pat Carroll said yes. Ashman took special interest in certain characters and I suspect Ariel and Ursula were those he intended to leave a special mark with.
One of my big issues with the live action Ursula is how she's not fat. Hollywood may see this actress and think shes "plus sized" but shes really not. Theres also ZERO of the Shakespearean/drag influences.
Wait… has anyone else realised there’s a maybe yikes-y implication at how they made the black Ariel illiterate? Disney really did that. Why not just have Ursula say, “And no writing it out either. True love isn’t born out of pity.” Own the cinema sins folks with an easy and real line.
Or, give the merpeople a different written language. You can't communicate your problem in writing if the other person has never even seen your alphabet before.
@helenanilsson5666 *Temporary puts on cinema sins hat* But if she doesn't understand the same spoken language of the contract then the contract is non-enforceable. Contracts have to be understood by both parties to be valid. *Takes off hat,*
@@helenanilsson5666 I'm writing a fanfic inspired by The Little Mermaid and that's what I did: even though human and merpeople spoken language sounds the same, their writing systems are totally different. My idea came from Serbian language, which has both a Cyrillic and a Latin alphabet.
Honestly an easier thing to do would have just to make the Atlanteans written language be either old Greek or their own unique alphabet. Solves the "Why can't she just write to Eric" issue while keeping Ariel Signing the scroll.
Pat Carroll's voice was naturally deep and powerful, she didn't need to yell to sound menacing. Her performance was perfectly nuanced. Melissa is trying too hard, she's all over the place, yells too much on top of the arrangement that's way less effective... The original is a masterpiece, while the remake version is just alright I guess.
I just find it incredibly ironic that in Disney's crusade to become more safe and marketable, they're losing their audiences. They're trying so hard but fail to realize that they've lost the magic and are attempting to replicate it unsuccessfully.
Changing the line to imply a blood contract as compared to an actual contract seemed so bizarre to me because showing Triton the contract seemed so much more definitive when compared to saying “it’s a blood pact”. I remember when my sister and I watched it she just turned to me like “?” And I had to explain to her afterwards that she picked a scab to sign the contract. Similar to the colors and the intonation of words, I just feel like the original made this clearer in a way the live action made a little blurry.
I absolutely LOVE Pat Carrol's Poor Unfortunate Souls. The original will NEVER compare to the remake. I too was pissed off that they cut out the part where Ursula needed Ariel's voice to turn into a human. The whole premise of Ariel going to Ursula was to be a human so she could be with her prince on land. the live action took that section out and even took out the infamous line "you have your looks, your pretty face, and don't underestimate the importance of body language". That whole section was cut out because Disney thought that children shouldn't be thinking about sexual behavior. I absolutely hate the live action film, this is why I tell my friends, "don't fucking mess with the original film" Disney ruined Beauty and the Beast The Jungle Book and The Lion King with mediocre live action films that was lackluster. I like the concept but the delivery of these films were mediocre, or just unnecessary.
Going back to the visuals segment, maybe it's just the clips shown, but Ursula's tentacles are incredibly still looking. Even when swimming straight up rapidly with off water forced past; an octopus's arms would sway a bit or go off in a slightly different direction.
The tentacels are also a thing Disney wanted to fix because original Ursula only had six arms. They kinda forgot that original Ursula has eight arms, but six of them are octopus arms and two human. Meaning this Ursula has ten arms😂 gotta love it when Disney"fixes" non problems.
@rowantic6539 Pat Carroll - ursula's VA - is on record, many many years ago, stating Ursula was always a squid, not an octopus. She said disney thought eight arm was too busy looking, so they cut down to six arms, plus her human arms. So if anything, disney *is* fixing a decades-old mistake.
As a former marine biologist, I was very impressed with the CGI department for their work on the marine life in this movie. Ursula's arms look very lifelike to how Giant Pacific Octopus arms behave in water. There were a couple places in the movie where the fluid dynamics weren't correct. But overall, they did a fantastic job. And this is coming from someone who dislikes Disney's Live Action adaptations.
Your take is 100% spot on! Thank you! Rather than deleting a whole verse of "Poor Unfortunate Souls," they should have instead added one that was cut the first time: [Right after "Life's full of tough choices, innit?"] Come on, I know you need a little magic And magic is my specialty du jour Don't just stand there looking sick Would I kid you? Play a trick? Like I told you, I don't do that anymore So I think you ought to take my little bargain Yes, I think you ought to make my little deal Sure, it's hard to leave your life But you could be a prince's wife Why don't you let me take that dream and make it real? Oh, oh, oh --- I almost forgot! We haven't discussed the subject of payment. ... (And so it goes on) Now *that* would have been a good change.
Other thing is that when she says "Yes indeed", in the animated film her mannerisms while saying the lines are speaking; "Trust me, I'm not as evil as before". But in the live-action her mannerisms are saying; "Do you not trust me?" Which is weird again, because she is trying to win Ariels trust, and that live-action mannerism is almost as if Ursula is trying to be purposefully rude to Ariel.
What McCarthy did with her voice is so incredibly impressive. She found a place and she went there. That being said, it wasn’t true to the source material or motivations. And the fact the cut part of the song is unforgivable. Ursula is a villain, she’s manipulative-but that one line about men liking silent women is so sardonically self aware, and teenage girls are at the age to slowly realize this harsh truth. It’s all part of Ursula being manipulative and gaining Ariel’s trust.
Even within the context of the movie (both original and remake), wouldn't Ursula's whole speech (if she believes it and isn't just being manipulative) be proven wrong by Eric and Ariel having their love "solidified" by her getting her voice back and them speaking?
Eh, it’s broadway without the years of belting practice and a previously subtle song with no subtlety. I’m glad you found something impressive in it but I just see someone who doesn’t know what they doing with a role being directed by people who ALSO don’t know what they’re doing.
@papershadow actually he did love her while she was silent, But the siren song (aka Vanessa using ariels voice) put him in a trance. Once the trance was broken it was just a bonus she could talk.
What’s difficult about remaking the renaissance Disney films is that they are already technically perfect, the story is well told and succinct and the songs are incredible. So any changes you make are sort of making it worse😬
Not to mention the few "minor plot issues" these "movies" claim to fix were already figured out in the broadway remakes. The LAMs contribute literally nothing of substance
@@racheldeschaine Honestly, instead of making stupid LAMs, I’ve always thought Disney should’ve just put out pro-shot recordings of their musical adaptations on Disney+ or something
What people don't realize is that the more you treat kids as stupid the more they will actually become stupid. Which in turn causes stupid adults. Thanks disney
Indeed. Watching old Disney there are so many SAT words in the music... Domicile in lady and the tramp. Nouveau in Hercules. Licentious in hunchback. They were secretly teaching us and now they think our kids are dumb.
The finale of the song took me off guard because it was missing it's intensity visually. Of course the colors, but also the cutting. In the original the end "Poor. Un. Fortunate souuuls!" Has rapid cuts between Ariel and Ursula, and that always stuck with me. The new one just has the camera hanging on one shot, as if the camera had disconnected from the music.
OMG THANK YOU for this review of this song! I cannot agree more! Poor Unfortunate Souls is my favorite Disney villain song and Ursula my favorite Disney Villain. When I sat in the theater anticipating this song I felt dropped to the floor with disappointment when it began. You eloquently pointed out everything I felt and a lot of the criticisms I had for this iteration of the song. Even my father who went to see the film with my mom on their anniversary dinner night said that he felt that the feel was totally off for that number, but he couldn't quite place why. I pointed out sone of the things you also said here and he was like "That's it! Yes...! Ursula just seemed overtly bitter the whole song and it doesn't make any sense that Ariel would be tricked into thinking this lady would help her." I watched a CZcamsr who's a professional vocal coach review this song and she had nothing but praise for the new version. Which I found baffling! 🤔 So it's great to see your take on this. This Little Mermaid fan truly thanks you.
It is usually because these vocal coaches do pop as well.They do not understand genres such as opera and broadway due to the 2 of these need not only a good singer and actor but also needs to make sense in the context of character and story development. This is the reason why the live action movies and Disney’s recent movie (wish) suck when it comes to songs. It like asking an author to write a script and a animation director to direct a live action movie and via versa,while they may seem relatively close there are countless of rules that make it hard for one to do the others job(It’s also why Disney’s recent series Percy Jackson seems awkward with the author becoming a writer for the series).
I agree with every word. I don't really know the actual names or how certain things are supposed to be called, but it's great to know that there's an actual concept behind those things that the new version is lacking, besides just saying "feels underwhelming, feels off, it's too much without being it", which is just as far as I can go if I had to explain it myself (since I haven't studied music or composition before). I guess they were just trying to be extra, taking away those subtleties that make that piece so powerful. As if a villain needs to be so in-your-face, so kids would know who the villain is, which is not really the point. Ariel is making, as you said, a deal with the devil. Ursula sounds convincing, she is "making sense", she's being approachable. Now THAT'S the scary part. Sometimes "bad people" can make good arguments and that's how they get things done. I feel Ursula's character is a lesson for that. But well, maybe they really think kids are dumb or something. I think if that were the case, they SHOULD try to teach them lessons like this, instead of trying to make it seem as if it's always so obvious to know. I really enjoyed how you explain everything in your video, adding concepts to the intentions behind every line and the music. It's awesome 😁
Okay so your comparisons are incredibly on point but tbh I would happily, and i do mean HAPPILY, watch videos of you just breaking down the original songs and why they're so good without the need to compare them to their remakes. I always loved them and you somehow made me care about them even more.
@@astorrhymemaster What first came to mind - since you were talking about Ashman and Menken - were primarily Aladdin or maybe BatB, but if you feel passionately about any specific movie or music I'd be very willing to listen! I loved how passionate you've been on your little mermaid videos so if it gets you excited to talk about it like that, I'd be a happy viewer!
i can’t express how happy i am you made this video, i was thinking EVERYTHING you said while watching and comparing the original. i do love melissa mccarthy here but i think the studio ruined this scene. when ariel said she trusted her i couldn’t understand how in this one. In the original it’s easy to see why ariel would trust her.
I agree with you on so much of this. To be honest, her performance is "good" in the sense that you can see she has the skill to execute theatrical emphasis and sing and add emotion to her delivery. But whoever directed her to do things a certain way and went "yup that's a good take" needs a career change.
Glad to know I'm not crazy lol. In my opinion Ursula is beautiful, the tentacle designs and all of that but she wasn't giving off "evil witch disguising as a fairy godmother" energy... It was more of like you said, sarcastic, comedic, not really caring about the actual character and trying too hard to come across as evil which is the exact opposite of Ursula. I wish there was more anticipation instead of her yelling all of her plans. Like, kids aren't smooth-brained imbeciles they can tell when someone is lying and has ulterior motives. Ursula was just giving it all away, they made her and Ariel, and honestly everyone (mainly them though) out of character. I did chuckle at some of Ursula's snarky remarks but singing and actually acting I don't think it was the best. My apologies if this is wordered in an incomprehensible manner I'm not that good at english.
I couldn't agree more! One thing that irks me about the songs on the remake is how it feels like they're trying to prove that it's better the the original because look at all this belting and amazing vocals we have. Part of your world is my favourite Disney song and Halle Bailey's version is just not it, yes her voice and all those belting is great but it fails to capture the feeling of longing that makes the OG version amazing.
Yes. I don't know why people think that singing well simply means singing high notes, belting and vibrato when, there is simply so much more. Her voice is lovely, but it really didn't feel like Ariel
@@Ola-cb1xt absolutely! Singing well is one thing, but singing with emotions is another. Halle's version feel like showing off her great vocals instead of conveying a message.
YMS brought it up with his viewing of the trailers, it's the same "National Anthem" singing variations he attributed to "The Lion King" remake, where the performance is about the singer showing off their talent rather than performing the song as it is part of the story. Halle Bailey has pretty good range and singing ability, but "Part of Your World" is written to be sung a very specific way rather than doing one's own "take" on it compared to, say, "Under the Sea" (which the remake still screwed up by having Ariel enthusiastically sing along to given its purpose)
I think the soundtrack is based more off of broadway style singing. Which means everything is loud and over the top. In fact soon as I heard PUS I knew it was going to blend broadway with animation. Which isn’t a bad thing necessarily but it will not whatsoever mirror the animation to a T. Halle’s version of “Part of your world” though was one of the best covers of an animated Disney classic ever. Not only is it theatrical but she’s also acting with her voice. The amount of vocal quivering, whining, gasps and urgency in her tone really gave that song a kick. In the original Jodie wanted to do the same with it but Howard stopped her because he wanted it to sound subdued and held in. Which again, is fine and dandy if that’s what your into. But the 2023 one really took the song in an alternate direction where it could have been in the past. It’s all a preference thing really. Halle overall did a phenomenal performance.
@@BozeDoesGodsWork It's not. The original movie is Broadway style which is what Menken and Ashman did. I don't know what this is. I absolutely don't know what this is. We're not trained this way. This is not how we sing. This illustrates a lot of actors who didn't get instruction on how to sing for a musical because we don't sing like this. You're trained to build, emphasize, and sing in character. This isn't singing in character. This is just yelling. If done for prolonged periods you'll ruin your voice like this.
The Little Mermaid series from the 90s played into that line "I admit in the past I've been a Nasty." There are some episodes where Ursula has been a main villain but not outright a evil villain compared to her role in the Movie version of the Little Mermaid. She has plotted overthrowing Triton's Kingdom via her Scylla tribe in the episode "Heroes" but she has been in the background villain role pulling the strings of manipulation. So that is one thing to keep in mind when Disney Toons were making the Little Mermaid series, have Ursula as a villain in some episodes but when she does have a villain role, make her a background manipulator. At least that was what it appeared in my view when remembering different episodes in the series.
Omg guuuurl, this is everything I've ever wanted to watch. This video is perfect in every way, and I got so much more than I ever hoped to see in a fair critical review. You even discussed the subtle use of the instruments, I'm so happy that there are still people out there who appreciate these meaningful and important small (but ever so crucial little tiny) details that are present in the original movies. To someone else it might go unnoticed, but for me hearing these butchered songs is just super-painful.
They need to drop the "realism" shit. If they wanted realism, they wouldn't be singing underwater. Realism seems to be an excuse for them to be lazy with everything else, i mean, the hyper realistic CGI takes up 90% of the damn budget. Forget writing and directing because the other 10% goes toward their actors.
The sexist lyrics from the original are problematic but it kinda fits the Villain aspect like Ursula is manipulating Ariel with those accusations of woman in land to give up her voice. still mad they removed "BODY LANGUAGE"😭😭😭😭
Yeah cutting those lyrics out would be like cutting all the lyrics in which mother Gothel says that Rapunzel can't make it in the real world. She's a villain. Gaslighing is the point.
If howard ashman was still alive, we probably wouldn't have gotten these soulless live action remakes and might have versions of aladdin, mulan, hercules, etc that are different from what we got
You say that like Howard was in charge 😂 Had he lived he woulda been the one doing the rewrites himself. I’m sure he wouldn’t be the same person he was in the 80’s and I’m sure there’s some work he would rewrite given the opportunity like the live action films provide.
@@RemyEdits in a way, howard had this commanding presence during productions. He literally directed and oversaw the recording sessions and met with the animators to choose the designs to be used in the film (he would sometimes throw tempers just because the animators didn't understand his requests). You think he would revert back to the live action (lsoh) medium after finding animation to be the superior medium for translating his ideas? That would be like having him change his mind about bringing his offbroadway shows to broadway; which he just found very wrong. Howard just has this view on things that we may never truly understand and he tended to stick to those ideas very strongly
@@idk-zt8rx Simple answer: Ashman made art, even if that wasn't always maximum marketable money maker in the Executives' eyes (as in Disney would pass art that makes $500 Million for junk that makes $600 Million). They wouldn't push for him to work on the remakes because they want more money and I doubt Howard Ashman would compromise his visions at the behest of the suits (considering things like fighting to keep PoYW against Katzenberg's Focus Group Cynicism).
I blame Lin Manuel Miranda. He did not understand the nuances that the original had. I feel that Melissa could’ve done even better with better direction.
The whole "Why didn't Ariel just communicate through writing" is so easily solved by just having the merfolk use a different script from the humans. Even if they _speak_ the same language, Ariel's not gonna spend time studying (so she can translate between scripts) when she's on a three day time limit to make someone fall in love with her.
Damn, this is one of the best well-researched videos I've seen of the songs. The attention to detail in which musical instruments were used, the vocals, the characterizations in the voices, and the careful direction Howard Ashman did, and which the remake is horribly lacking, are spot-on. The moment I heard they claimed they were going to "fix" Poor Unfortunate Souls and Kiss the Girl, I knew they were going to screw them up by doing what they've been doing all along: Mischaracterizing and lying about the original to make the reboot look "better". They did not make "Poor Unfortunate Souls" better by removing the "body language" line, and they did not make "Kiss the Girl" better by removing the “Possible she want you too, there is one way to ask her/It don’t take a word, not a single word/Go on and kiss the girl" verse, or by giving Ariel amnesia anytime someone reminds her of the damn kiss. Ursula is the fucking VILLAIN. She's SUPPOSED to say harmful things because that's who she is as a character. The audience is not supposed to root for her. She's giving Ariel problematic misinformation to manipulate her further into selling her voice, because she clearly thinks that the prince won't be attracted to her if she cannot verbally communicate, because she wants Ariel to FAIL. Just because the main antagonist does and says horrible problematic things, that doesn't mean the creators are endorsing those beliefs. And as for "Kiss the Girl", Sebastian was not telling Eric to "in any way, force himself on Ariel", like these new execs behind Disney want to believe. Clearly Ariel's body language, consisting of her leaning in towards him and puckering her lips to kiss him and then silently pouting in disappointment when he shies away from her, show that she WANTS him to kiss her. Have these "critics" never heard of nonverbal consent?? Ariel WANTS Eric to kiss her so she can fulfill her end of the bargain, but Eric is shy and introverted and wants to remain faithful to the girl that saved his life. Because while he likes Ariel, at this point, he doesn't know she's the girl who saved him, so he doesn't want to kiss her because he still has his heart set on the one who rescued him. WHERE does the scene in any way show Eric wants to "force himself on Ariel"? Because, from what the scene shows, it's the opposite. XD Ugh... The audacity they have to claim their film is dedicated to Howard Ashman, after going out of their way to change integral parts of his lyrics to make themselves look more "progressive". It's not that Disney doesn't understand their own movies anymore. Its the new people running Disney that don't understand Disney's movies.
@@EnderOfFlops original costed ~40 mil and made ~235 mil total, huge budget difference from the remake which costed 250mil and has made around 414mil, though it's still showing in theatres.. for a movie to be successful in box office terms it has to at the very least double its budget in sales. the original did, the remake hasn't yet.
9:26-9:56 The most depressing thing is, they could have written their way around that by depicting the scroll with, like, mermaid glyphs or something, and have Ariel sign it with the same glyphs. "Yes, she can write, but not any language a human can read." That's it, that's all you needed to close that plothole.
Ursula was having so much fun in this scene she is literally sashaying around her little cavern shaking her ass and using her eels as a feather boa. In the new one she seems kinda bored and Ariel walked on in so she's just fucking with her because she has nothing better to do. Her tentacles look really cool though I like how they glow. Her expression seems really flat which should never be an issue in drag inspired makeup but they didn't wanna go too hard on it in case it was off putting and the over all look suffered as a result. The new one just isn't fun tbh at all
The way you explain everything is just *chef's kiss*. A note on timing, since I'm so glad you brought this up! That was honestly the first thing I noticed. In fact, as soon as I noticed it it was pretty much the only thing I could focus on for the number. It sounded really off to my ears. It seemed like she was singing too fast for the instrumental and it didn't match. It's disappointing 'cause I was excited to see her as Ursula, and then we got...this. I'll also say that to me it seemed like Disney felt like they needed to go 'bigger' with this number, but it missed the mark entirely and ended up shrinking it. They took out and changed everything that made the number as iconic and important as it was, and essentially went [tried] for flash and stripped it of any substance in the process, destroying it. (We can't expect Melissa McCarthy to give the same exact performance as Pat Carroll, but I thought this was gonna be better ya know?)
9:34 Something I found crazy is that the remake version of the song they thought it was wrong for the villain to say “sexist things” to convince Ariel to give up her voice but they were totally okay with adding a line to basically hint that Ariel is a dumb girl who can’t read/write
OMG I AGREE WITH SO MUCH OF THIS!!! I'm happy you made it clear that a lot fo these stylistic changes that hurt the song and sequence come from the lack of direction from directors instead of blaming Melissa McCarthy herself. I was actually pleasantly surprised by her singing voice and I think she DEFINITELY has the what it takes to sing naturally and sinisterly as Pat Carrol in the original version - the directors of the live action just didn't give her the direction to. I was hoping you were gonna touch on Ariel's transformation from mermaid to human too in this scene. I have my thoughts on it, but what are yours? 👀 THANK YOU FOR THIS VIDEO!!!
I feel like Melissa wasn't a bad casting choice it was the writing and direction that ruined it. She looks great and given different song directions she absolutely could have delivered!
This is such a good analysis omg. The part about the colours in the original vs live action - as you said, the original uses colour to bring the viewers into that state of overwhelm that Ariel is feeling, it's really part of the storytelling. I notice that use of colour is and lighting is very static in the live action - where the dynamicness of the original really contributed to the atmosphere of frenzy and confusion, the live action colour use mirrors the effect that the changes made to the music have, of overall lacking drama, tension, and buildup. I also feel the colour palette itself is not appropriate as the soft blues shadows combined with the glowing pink and orange midtone/highlight gives the scene this beautiful, glowy, soft and ethereal vibe. It's pretty obvious that marketable visual appeal was the priority here, not storytelling. The part that's frustrating is that this ethereal light and colour could have been ok if it then shifted as the drama and tension built. Like slowly the shadows lean more to dark grey-blue and the orange becomes more red. Or, at least use purple shadows and green highlights to get that visually appealing Aesthetic Lighting while still bringing in a sinister vibe.
P.U. Souls went into my head earlier today and I decided to search it up. Forgot there was a "live action" remake, so I watched the 2D version and then the live version before coming here. The two big things I noticed were that the person playing Ursula was being over dramatic and shouty too early in the song, which you covered, but something you didn't mention is that at the close of the song, she takes away Ariel's agency in the plot. In the 2D movie, Ariel is pressured and conned into signing the deal, but she does it by her own hand, whereas Live Action Ariel plucks her scale but doesn't actually make the decision to put it into Ursula's bowl -- Ursula herself snatches the scale and throws it in. I feel that's damaging to the story in a way I don't have the Video Essay Creator skill to properly discuss.
I could be wrong, but I think the animated Little Mermaid music for Ursula is heavily influenced by Bob Fosse and Burlesque. Howard Ashman and Marvin Hamlisch worked on a play called Smile for Broadway with Bob Fosse in 1985. Ursula's Poor Unfortunate Souls sound seems to take a page from Fosse's earlier work of Cabaret and Sweet Charity's Big Spender as the two were clearly big fans of Fosse from an interview they did together discussing the play. The make-up for Ursula is exactly like the women in those films. Heavy green or blue on the eyelids and thick lashes with red lips styled by Fosse and Verdon which were developed for his earlier productions from growing up backstage at burlesque shows. In my opinion, it's also where the heavy tuba sounds come from, that burlesque style. Reminds me of the song Willkommen in Cabaret. I think they mentioned Ursula herself was designed after a drag queen, but that only solidifies the burlesque theme for her. The subtleties of a slow build to a big finish were what Fosse was a master at achieving, which is why they wanted to work with him so badly on Smile. Also to note, Jodi Benson sang on the demo of Smile, which you can find online, so they had already worked with her before The Little Mermaid. This live version is inferior to the original, in my opinion, and just didn't land for me. Unfortunately, many of the songs in this film didn't work. But this one was the most disappointing.
For the contract, I feel like it would have been so easy to have Arial sign with an X rather than doing away with the contract entirely. It would imply she can't write, and having her not able to read the contract yet still signing it would add an extra level to Ursula's manipulation
So about your comment on the tempo of the songs. I am not a conductor, but am a classical pianist. The original song's tempo is roughly 90bpm and the new one's is 75bpm. So it is definetly noticable. Your analysis is really thorough and interesting. I couldn't exactly understand what was wrong with McCarthy's performance, until you mentioned her singing being too dramatized. It really feels like she is singing in an opera house, but at the same time not able to fill the space so she has to yell out every word. I really wanted to like this remake, Halle deserves recognition for her acting skills, but it's sadly just another lifeless corporate cashgrab
High quality hand drawn animation is delightful because by its nature, it has to be extremely deliberate. Every motion, color, and expression has to be carefully crafted and there for a reason. You don't see that kind of care in this new slop.
Have people not realized that Ariel writing that "she's the mermaid that rescued him" makes her look CRAZY. Like, why would Eric just believe her, especially since she's mute? It makes her look like she just wants to marry him in his POV, and he wouldn't want to get to know her or go on a date with her.
I liked the live action but I love how you drag music and color theory into this!!! It's amazing how much care went into it in the past, and I just don't understand how they seem to forget these details in the remake. I just hope that Disney will take the time to make good movies again, paying their workers fairly, so they can really create something new again. However, seeing for example how much Halle trained and put her heart into this, I really enjoyed this film. It's just really on another level as the originals, and for me that's fine - I don't think the goal is to make a better movie, but a sentimental remake. I'd love it though if Disney focused their energy on creating new stuff.
The rake across the coals with little creatures was better that a LITERAL SKULL. Also the ariel signing could have been easy to fix have the contract show Atlantian type letters (simular to like Atlantis the lost empire was an entirely different language) and have it flash English for us or not at all. The only thing we really needed was ariels writing a different language
Apparently the kids are to sensitive to be terrified. A lost soul doomed to live forever in ursula's lair? Nah, too scary, let's just say she is a stereotypical witch killing them.
@@comradekitty3759 My kid self is watching goosebumps, the black cauldron, are you afraid of the dark, any cliche horror flick and laughs at all of this xD
Or show a scene with letters of girls claiming to be Eric's savior thrown to the trash to tell everyone that Eric ain't that naive, and just writing it down to him won't do the trick But then again, the proof he was asking for was the voice, something no words written anywhere could provide, so that probably wouldn't have worked either, and could've made Ariel's situation worse, because she could've come up as faker that wanted to exploit his obsession with that mysterious girl
I was in awe when I first saw the remake version of the poor unfortunate souls but after watching your video I went back to the original as the better version. This was a very eye opening for me. THANK YOU! ❤
Something else I notice when watching the live action, is that Live-Ursula is almost constantly sneering, whereas cartoon-Ursula is smiling or being "sad" on behalf of the "poor unfortunate souls". She only really lets down her facade of faux-sympathy when whispering to the eels. That acting choice alone dramatically changes my impression of the scene, because it really puts into question why anyone would trust Ursula. For my money, I don't think I'd accept help from someone who was sneering in my face while trying to tell me how much they could help me. It doesn't look the slightest bit understanding, and rather makes her look antagonistic which is not what she wants at this point in the story.
There are a lot of detailed nuances that have gotten lost in modern movies. Impressed with all the film you could play. Good introspection on why your explanations make sense.
9:49 many fans speculated that the writing written by Ariel is not in human language although it looks like English in the viewer's POV in the animated version. Mostly for viewers' benefit 08:52 I also think that regarding Howard Ashman's original lyrics if there's anyone qualified to make a judgment about what is or isn't respectful to his legacy it's Alan Menken, his main collaborator, but what's most interesting to me is that it seems like he himself was hesitant about the changes making me wonder where they even came from because when talking about the changes to Poor Unfortunate Souls, he references that the lyrics were changed even though Ursula is clearly manipulating Ariel. It seems like he was referring to the lines about men on land not liking women who talk. It's she who holds her tongue who gets her manbut Ursula is the villain and she's trying to convince Ariel that voices are not that important. I don't think that those lines are essential for understanding the song but changing them brings up an important question just how evil are villains allowed to be? Im bad at explaining so here's the full explanation czcams.com/video/6EG54kUo5PU/video.html They added amnesia to Ursula's spell so Ariel will forget about true love kiss. But this is completely unnecessary because Sebastian still reminds her. This change made Kiss the Girl scene very less romantic because Ariel is way more reluctant to kiss him in this scene. Also if Ariel didn't kiss him for true love so what's the point of the song and the scene? Imagine if they actually managed to kissing but because Ariel's not too serious about it because she forgot about the terms of true love then nothing happen, she doesnt get her voice back and cant be human permanently.
I hadn't seen the little mermaid in decades and one random day (before the remake) I found this song in my head and have been playing it periodically. It is epic. I didn't even notice the Tuba before you mentioned it, there's so many quirks and things to discover about the song like that little voice thing when she says 'Magic'. The original is a masterpiece and Pat Carole's voice is a force of nature and I haven't heard any other cover stand up to her.
Wait, does remake Ursula seriously just kill the people who can’t pay their debts instead of turning them into creepy worm things? That feels like a downgrade.
Amazing video! I wish you included the incantation part as well, because the biggest climax of the song is there (the vortex that Ursula summons), and in the live action remake it fails on two fronts: 1) it looks so much more subdued 2) she summons boring non-descript tendrils, as opposed to those creepy skeletal arms. In short, whenever they could mute the creativity of the original, they did it.
You can also cover the removal of Vanessa’s song which was called the reprise of Poor Unfortunate Souls, and how it was replaced with Halle Bailey showing off her vocals like she did with her version of Part Of Your World.
Thank you so much for explaining why the remake makes my teeth ache and grind when I didn't know quite why. If you haven't covered the rest of the songs please do.
Wow, thank you for the insight! I don't know too much on how music is made but I like how you show different clips and analyze the music score side by side with specific examples. Makes me, a casual listener, understand why some modern Disney music just seems "off" to me. It fails to touch my soul (sounds dramatic I know lol, but good music gives me goosebumps and have me in awe sometimes XD) Although I may not understand music terminology or the theoretics behind on how songs are made, Disney is really treating us like we are stupid :/ We can tell, I just can't put it into words. Your explanation did just that!
The whole "Women shouldn't talk to get a man" segment is PERFECT coming from Ursula. It shows what little regard she has for both men and women, and relationships in general.
Also, she is just saying it to get Ariel's voice. Because she knows very well that that's worth a lot
Yup. Plus she's the VILLIAN disney.
Like christ in hell. They're supposed to have bad ideas. Ideals like that are only an issue if the film portrays them positively
And that she will say *anything* that will convince a person to strike a deal with her, that includes lies. That was the whole point of the song.
Also she Gay
@@melissagola3786 Some have somewhat good ideals, but have warped and twisted them at times
I actually loved Ursula's line about woman being seen and not heard because throughout the movie it's proven to be wrong. As a kid it made me realize that some people don't have my best interests at heart. Some are going to say whatever they think is going to make me do what they want.
And later in the movie Ursula's sentiment is proven wrong because on their first date Eric just wants to know everything about her. He wants her to talk to him.
Cutting out that part was a hindrance to the villain. It's probably safe to say Ursala herself didn't even believe those lines because she was trying to overthrow her brother lol
Heck, Ariel's own voice was what entranced Eric to force him to fall for "Vanessa" and Ariel was clearly shown to be at a severe disadvantage without it. It's not even really subtext at that point. It's just... text.
Edit: Also, if all the bad messages are stripped from the villains, doesn't that leave them with only good/true messages? But they're still bad. That seems... problematic. More so than leaving the bad messages to them.
Great point. It doesn't work in the live action version still because Halle Bailey's Ariel is functionally omnipotent.
@@ulyx9804How is she omnipotent exactly ?
gregory officer venessa has woo'd a prince@@lulu_9000
yeah it makes her feel LESS evil for not saying that
Ursula is a villain. If shes sexist, GOOD. It shows kids that its wrong to be like her
Exactly! Finally someone that also thinks that way
I'm so glad you mentioned how Ursula just says "Pathetic" RIGHT TO ARIEL'S FACE LIKE WHAT. It takes away like 85% of the deception from the first verse. Ursula's supposed to be this ungenuine trickster, not someone who'd be dumb enough to just say how she genuinely feels out loud.
Great video! You earned a sub
I COMPLETELY AGREE.
It’s the part that irked me the most when I heard it. This was my favorite song in the original and to hear how they completely destroyed a singular but important word’s meaning in the song just shows how sloppy they were being. It just made me go rewatch the original to just appreciate the animation/expressions and how it plays well with each song
She's so brutally honest about her nature and shadiness, that only someone very dumb, overly desperate, and willing to abandon their loved ones for their own wishes would be taking her deals
excellent point
@@dustymcwari4468and Ariel (normally) is none of that but she's so lazily written in this movie.
it gives me negging vibes like that cliche where insecure men will degrade a woman's self-esteem with backhanded compliments so she feels less entitled to reject his advances lmao
like its a subtle difference but it really works well to make them both way more unlikable. not only does ursula look way less confident in her superficial charm enough to verbally acknowledge her disdain to the person she's actively trying to negotiate with but ariel looks equally incompetent, naive and insecure for being so desperate as to thoughtlessly compromise with a stranger who quite literally advertises how little they expect of her ability to advocate for herself against contemptuous persuasion.
where are the stakes even? ursula expends little effort to feign a flattering image that can successfully manipulate ariel and ariel expends little effort to feel rightfully skeptical of whether her end of the deal is actually being considered or respected. it's regarded like such a low risk-low reward interaction from both parties as if they literally just have no standards for each other, if i had to put it nicely both of them look dumb as fuck in the remake and should never be allowed to negotiate again.
Her face being calm and snarky, while the voice was highly emotive and loud threw me off so badly. It pushed everything further into uncanny valley
That is what I was thinking this whole time!! How does her voice seem so off from her expressions? Could they make it any more obvious that it's just overlapping? I never saw the movie (so many things I hated from the trailers that I just couldn't do it) so this is the first time I'm seeing anything about this song and it makes me so glad I didn't put myself through that movie.
thats why it feels so unnatural!!
She obviously doesn't know how to lipsync 🤫
Everyone is so cool these days. Too cool to emote.
YES SAME. It's annoying because original Ursula always had a cruel humourous face while film Ursula had static face syndrome.
She was no longer had an evil smile it was just grumpy Ursula
I get frustrated when Ursula's "pathetic!" is acted as just a normal part of the song, or even as something grandiose, instead of an aside that Ariel isn't supposed to hear. It's very clear she wouldn't actually say something like that directly to Ariel, since she's pretending to be kind and helpful, and calling the people she helps pathetic would contradict that narrative. Plus, even her body language in the original scene, like holding a hand close to her mouth, shows she doesn't want Ariel to hear it.
Even though it makes Ursula seem less cunning. You have to remember that it wouldn't have really mattered in the original, since Ariel was a fucking idiot!
Not only was she still able to see and in ear-distance of hearing Ursula say that to Flatsom and Jetsom, but said Eels literally tied up Sebastian and Flounder AND SHE ACKNOWLEDGES IT! LIKE BRUH- I DON'T THINK URSULA NEEDS TO SEEM CUNNING IF YOUR PROTAG IS DENCE AF 😂
@@toastyeditz Okay, so we went from Ariel being naive and possibly an idiot in the original, to Ariel and Ursula both being complete morons in the remake. What progress.
@@toastyeditzWoah, it's almost like Ursula was THAT convincing over a naive 16 year old who just had a fight with her father who destroyed the things she was passionate about her entire life, can't wonder on why Ariel felt so conflicted on her actions into the point of feeling unsure of being human or being with her family, it would be crazy if that was the case 🤯
@@toastyeditzin other words, rewatch the movie bro
@@heiranima4534 heck, even making Ariel selfish in the deal scene, i find it funny since people were treating the OG like that because "she left her family for a man 🥺" yet the remake literally shows that.
"Big and overbearing instrumentals would work better for a giant monster than for a manipulator." Honestly the whole time you were pointing out these differences you had me thinking: did Disney just go "Overweight Woman = Overbearing Giant Monster With No Capacity For Subtlety Or Intelligence Whatsoever" ? 😬😬😬
Also: having a villain recite sexist lines to be manipulative is a way stronger stance against sexism than deleting those lines.
"Also: having a villain recite sexist lines to be manipulative is a way stronger stance against sexism than deleting those lines."
Yes, yes, *yes*. A thousand times, yes!
Frrrr
@@RachelOSullivan And unlike all the writers who seem to use "lampshading" to mean trying to be self-aware about problematic jokes, but still using them for the punchlines, the text of the movie actively disproves Ursula
I swear Disney has like an AI analyze social ques to get their politically correct stuff. It comes off as both Disney not giving a shit aside from making money AND misinterpreting activism to tell a version that could actively damage leanring minds. Removing Ursula's cynical gaslighting of Ariel removes a chance for children to be exposed to the type of malipulation and abuse they can be subject to, at least in a safe environment where they can learn from it.
Just look at Disney removing and then poorly putting back the Be Prepared sequence for the Lion King remake, it's like they fear letting the villains actually act like villains is somehow offensive to someone (who? I don't know, people that can't tell the difference between fiction and reality maybe?).
Just a small evaluation/opinion. The verse "And I'm afraid I had to rake 'em across the coals"
In the original, she's trying to seem trustworthy to Ariel. This has been covered in the video and is the theme of the song. When Ursula delivers that line, its in a manipulators way. Saying "I tried to help them, I really did. But they brought it onto themselves."
It's softer, a subtle way of displaying how she is trying to seem like the good guy while simultaneously showing that she won't hesitate to "punish" others, for lack of a better word. When in reality it's just her being the antagonist, as evident as that is.
But the delivery and the choreography in Melissa's version is different. So much emphasis on being driven by a villainous attitude that the true subtle scheming of being a villain is lost. From the harsher, and frankly obvious statement of the line, to the poking the eye sockets and throwing the skull. Its just so different to me.
Agreed. In the original she's pretending to be contrite. That she doesn't want to collect but she's got a business to run. That if she doesn't, how else can she "help" others like Ariel? It keeps Ariel second guessing and any red flags Ursula throws up. Suddenly she seems like the best and only choice and so long as Ariel follows by the rules (she's a good person after all) then they won't have problems.
I like to discuss Ursula as an aggressive Avon Lady or an MLM "aunt" who is a high earner through verbal and emotional abuse. Nice to your face but she will manipulate you to buy things so she can be the top of the list. She desires power and the facade rarely cracks. Imagine if she pops into your messages. The "hey hon" is quite close to her affectionate "angelfish". In reality she delights in collecting and grinding people down and driving them to extremes. But she can pretend she doesn't want to do this. Watching people squirm is a bonus of the job.
Feigning that she's "on the whole I've been a saint" and those slip ups are "only" because others needed a sort of firmness makes her look good. And her lie looks like the truth if you weren't the person being victimized. She manages to keep things neat and tidy all through her contracts.
Fascinating and sleazy. Delightful to examine.
I actually agree with the sentiment, but I did laugh a little because Ursula being subtle is still tinged with drag queen Divine-style over-the-topness. She takes seaweed and imitates a nun's habit as church instrumentation plays, right before rubbing the seaweed behind her back and shaking like it's a cabaret performance. And that's a big part of why I think Melissa's version failed on almost every level. By ripping out her more theatrical nature and washing out her makeup (OG Ursula literally applies her lipstick perfectly and the live action makeup artist says 'it was supposed to look like she did it herself'), you're pretty much erasing the drag queen influence. Yes, she *is* very bold and in your face, but only the good parts. She isn't supposed to say 'pathetic' directly to you, she's supposed to read you with the other queens backstage. I felt they critically misunderstood Ursula because of that.
What pissed me to hell and back was knowing they removed the song's segment where Ursula cynically tells Ariel men are annoyed by women who talk. It was so deliciously sardonic and bold because it hits too close to home and the assigment was understood perfectly: she is the villain, she lies, she gaslights to convince people to sign the deals she dishes out, it's her whole thing! And in comes Alan Menken in an interview, saying that specific verse was removed because "it could lead young girls into thinking they aren't allowed to have their turn to speak".
Tell me you are pushing pandering agenda without telling me you're pushing a pandering agenda. Mother Gothel *exists* .
Gothel literally gaslights Rapunzel to keep her in the tower, telling her how the world outside is extremely dangerous and how she'll never learn how to fend off for herself, but you don't see people complaning about or censoring that because the story shows us that Gothel is a liar and the very fact she carries the label of villain infers her worldview is eskewed, and kids KNOW better than to trust the villain's words! Disney tries respecting a female demographic, low-key insults part of that female demographic's intelligence in the process. 😂
Wouldn't expect any less from the company that didn't know Peter Pan's OG novel tells there are only lost boys because girls are too smart to fall off their prams.
Oh, and, about the whole "ariel can write" thing... -they could've made it much more interesting and preserve the sense of urgency of the kiss if they had shown Ariel writing or drawing but everything looks like chicken scratch, and it dawns on her that Ursula's contract not only took her voice as payment, it prevents her from communicating clearly to nullify the loophole, just like Sophie's mouth gets magically shut whenever she tries telling others she's been cursed in Howl's Moving Castle. Mimicking would obviously be out of question just like in the OG because her situation is just too complex and superstitious for a human to figure out with signing alone. And she's bad at it to boot-
EDIT: (as of July 23rd 2023) Scratch what I said earlier. I was too caught up in trying to find solutions for the writing bit in the remake when I could've gone straight to the simpler but effective solution. It brings nothing new to the remake, but it's fundamentally necessary that it stays that way as to preserve the underlying layer of cleverness of the character.
Ariel wouldn't try writing to Eric that she was the one who saved him because he'd still doubt it. He remembers the person who saved him had a voice, she could say she lost it, but he could parse that she might be lying because being royalty makes you common target to opportunists, and it wouldn't do Ariel any favors if she came across as one.
Plus there's a lesson about not rushing yourself into a marriage for surface-level reasons addressed in Eric's arc. Being saved and having a beautiful voice aren't solid foundations for a long-term relationsip. Eric had to realize he was infatuated with the idea of someone rather than in love with someone, that's why his decision to pursue Ariel after having spent time to get to know her, whilst not knowing she's the one who saved him, was so important.
@@IMayOrMayHaveNot I once read a fanfic on AO3 where Ariel's FIRST THOUGHT was to try and write what happened to her, but she literally cannot write due to the spell, so she has to draw it all out as best she can
@@IMayOrMayHaveNot That's a good one. Another alternative could be that mermaids and the humans use a completely different written language
@@Vincent.E.M.Thorn.Author -That too, it's called Synchronic Digraphia. There would still be the matter of being able to draw, and the prince believing rather than thinking she's a lunatic would be another barrier. This possibility sounds like a good reason for you not to even dare try and rely on charms alone to swoon them.-
PREACH!!!
There are several things that bug me about the scrapped Body language verse:
1. The “body language” line is iconic.
2. A bad message coming from a villain makes total sense. Ursula is clearly trying to convince Ariel to give away her voice by telling her that she doesn’t need it to woo a man.
3. The verse also plays a big role in the mood/tempo of the song. It builds up the intensity before the climax where Ursula is more aggressively pressuring Ariel into making the deal.
4. If they did want to get rid of that verse, they could have replaced it with the original scrapped verse of the song that Howard Ashman planned to be in the middle of the song in 1989 to solve the temp problem rather than going straight into the chorus with the tempo immediately turned up to an 11.
The most ironic thing about this is that the live action lacks a lot of body language in the animation that could have worked in the live action. One of the biggest is showing the Triton felt guilty about the destruction of the grotto after waking up from his blind rage.
What was the scrapped verse?
@@user-th1qo4cq9g this is a problem al live actions have. Same for camera angles. This version is just so static compared to the original one. The original had interesting camera angles and movement. This one not so much. And the build up to Triton destroying the cave was so rushed and just stupid.
@@rowantic6539and Triton didn’t even care and didn’t regret what he did, while in the animation he was also sad when he saw his daughter cry while leaving!
@@chrysanthemumcat2791 there were a few.
Come on, I know you need a little magic
And magic is my specialty du jour
Don't just stand there looking sick
Would I kid you? Play a trick?
Like I told you, I don't do that anymore
So I think you ought to take my little bargain
Yes, I think you ought to make my little deal
Sure, it's hard to leave your life
But you could be a prince's wife
Why don't you let me take that dream and make it real?
Come on, you poor unfortunate soul
Poor child! Poor fish!
Aren't you glad you brought your problem
To a lady you can trust?
Won't you let me grant your wish?
You poor unfortunate soul
Poor sweet! Poor dear!
Aren't you lucky that I'm ready
With a potion and a plan?
Aren't you glad you came and asked
If I could help you? And I can
When a mermaid comes to Ursula
She always gets her man
You poor unfortunate soul
source: www.lyricsondemand.com/l/littlemermaidlyrics/poorunfortunatesoulsdeletedlyricslyrics.html
You hit the nail on the head when you mentioned that the characters shouldn't be so dramatic and loud during a musical, because the songs they're singing aren't for the audience, but for themselves. Ariel's Part Of Your World isn't being sung to a huge school of fish, it's being sung to herself; quietly wishing she could be in that land above she adores so much.
Same with Poor Unfortunate Souls. Yeah, Ursula isn't singing it to herself, but she IS singing it to Ariel.
Yes, we all know how subtle broadway solos are performed. I still remember how nuanced and introspective "Memory" was performed as Grizabella's inner struggle.
Yeahhhh idk about this one. I get very dramatic when I'm thinking to myself and feeling feelings, and songs in musicals are a representation of a character's strongest feelings. Many of the most memorable songs in musical theater are the Act I finales, which are usually the most loud and intense, because that's when the characters' feelings are the most intense. Like for example Santa Fe. Huge emotions exist all the time without being played up for an audience.
"You'll have your looks. Your pretty face. And don't underestimate the importance of BODY LANGUAGE HA!"
The removal of this line was the sole deciding factor in whether or not I was seeing this movie.
Why didn't Ariel just write to the prince?
Answer: somewhere in that contract there's small print saying that she is unable to discuss anything involving the contract. Meaning she can't just write on a piece of paper and tell the prince she made a deal with the sea devil. It's a NDA.
Or maybe its in a merlanguage and she doesn't know how to write in human language yet and obviously it was put in english for our understanding also the reason why she can understand human speech and talk it is because she has observed their languaged and mimiced it due to her obsession with humans bt she didn't have access to their written language so on shore she was illetrate but not under the sea
Or even just the fact that she wasn't presented with a pen at any point in the story. What's she supposed to do, search the castle she doesn't know for one? He doesn't even ask her name until the boat, and she's way too interested in exploring the human world before that to care!
@@carolinpurayidom4570 That actually makes sense, she woudln't know how to write in human language.
@@carolinpurayidom4570no, she red a book in "Part of your world".
Anyway, what she should had written? "Hi I am Ariel and I was a mermaid before a octopus witch cursed me. Please kiss me to break the spell"😑
@@Gabry4777 yeah that probably wouldn’t work
Hot take, honestly I can't back this up, but here goes: the live action version of Poor Unfortunate Souls just goes on to show that collectively we are so obsessed with belting and bravado in contemporary music that maybe we are forgetting that subtle, downplayed and soft can be much more impactful.
Same with the writing. I've notice that many films like this, now a days, do a lot of dialogue exposition, as to having a nice balance with visual exposition where viewers can connect the dots on their own. as if they think we're too dumb to connect the dots on our own.
this level of hand holding is kind of getting annoying. especially when Disney did use to tell stories better, in the past.
an accurate hot take. People associate loud belting singing with "good" singing and skill and while I love a good belt just as much as the next musical lovin' gal... there is a time and place.
precisely. when it came to classic disney villains, they did more acting than singing perfectly, which i believe is why theyre so iconic to this day. it doesnt _need_ to be pitch perfect and super impressive to have an impact.
I think they also forget that a lot of their villain songs start softer so when the song is at it's peak it hits so perfectly. A song starts to drag on if it stays the same speed the whole time.
A lot of the songs in the remake reflect that mindset in my opinion. Especially Part of your World and that god awful new song they gave Eric. Everyone keeps talking about how great a singer Halle is but all she did was sing it louder with more showboating. and Eric was just screaming in some parts of that other song. There was no subtlety at all. It was plain awful.
2:07 "Pathetic" is literally also written AS an aside in the lyrics you showed earlier in the video! When we did TLM at my theatre, that part WAS written in a way to show that it IS an aside, not meant to be said to Ariel. And it's IMPORTANT that it is an aside and not said outright.
I think one of the main things that made Ursula such an engaging villain was that, aside from pretending to be a better person than she was, Ursula kept to her word.
And that went completely out the window with this version. Ursula added in an entirely new aspect of the spell that made it so that Ariel couldn't remember that she was supposed to kiss Eric within three days. Which begs the question: Why did Ursula even bother holding up any part of her deal if she could've just added parts that Ariel didn't agree to?
Why did Ursula even keep in the part about the spell being broken by true love's kiss? Hell, why did she even actually make Ariel human?
It just completely throws off the entire point of what made Ursula a threat. She couldn't just do whatever she wanted with the spell, she could only go along with the conditions her victims agreed to. The threat was Ursula's manipulation.
By making her act cartoonishly evil even when she's tricking Ariel into trusting her, and then not even having Ursula keep her word, you've completely messed up not just the point of this song, but also the main thing that made Ursula such a fun villain in the first place.
Ursula doesn't lie, she manipulates. The difference between those two things couldn't be more clear when you compare both versions of this song.
Ursula in the original is lawful evil. She will keep loopholes in the small print of her contracts, but she will follow them to the letter because that's just the kind of person she is. Sure, she bends the rules, but she never outright breaks them herself, and uses the loopholes so that she always wins in the end.
In the remake she's just a megalomaniacal witch who likes seeing people suffer for being too stupid to realise how obviously evil she is
See I think Disney realized that a bunch of powerful people who write contracts do the same thing Ursula did in the original and were like "wait that's not evil that's kind of normal actually... We have to make her Eviler!"
I of course have no proof of this other than just going through some contract drama recently.
This! So much this!
Not to defend the remake but I think your assessment of the original is a bit off. Ursula is clearly more than capable and willing to interfere with the bet using magic, she just does not feel the need to. She likely knew that just meeting the prince of a kingdom within 3 days was nearly impossible, let alone get a kiss when you cannot not speak. I do agree that if Ursula was going to interfere from the beginning she should have just locked Ariel in a cage for 3 days to eliminate any chance of failure.
You seem to forget Ursula literally sabotaging Ariel and bewitching Eric to draw out the timer-
Disney is ruining the catalogue of their masterpiece classics. Live-action can't, and never will, be able to capture the magic of animation. I love your takes and this channel deserves so much more attention!
I cant remember who it was but I recently watched a video essay on how the live-action remakes are Disneys responce to not being able to have the "Disney Vault" in the era of streaming and it just makes complete sense with how corprate this song feels in the remake, Disney is one of the richest companies on the planet youd think theyd allow themselves to focus on art but its just greed that drives everything :(
Remakes don't ruin the original classics. You can ignore those.
It would have if they didn't change all the plots by adding woke values into the past
@@sigvifYou can ignore them but others can't when Disney shills fight tooth and nail about how "amazing" they are
Once upon a time, I used to worship the ground Disney walked on but today, I wouldn't even spit in their direction
@Nicholas Cardelia Two of the most "realistic beauty" animated classsics, The Fox and the Hound (1981) and Bambi (1942). . .
If Disney INTENTIONALLY RUINS THESE . . . I will have lost ALL FAITH in these remakes.
Wow this video made me appreciate ashman’s work 10 time more than I did before.
I recommend seeking out the documentary called "Ashman". Incredible look at the very man that truly revived Disney in the 80's into the Renaissance Era that made them titans in the Media Industry.
I'm appreciating Ashman while thinking Menken is overrated now.
There's a channel I like that analyzes some of Ashman's work called Sideways
lizzo shouldve gotten the role
yoo that would've been legendary!
She would’ve done so good!
I think Melissa McCarthy was the best choice as she’s a professional actress
Ok, no
I think Queen Latifah's performance as Ursula in the live action play was better
Every video of Howard Ashman coaching the performers through recording the songs shows how brilliant he really was and how the songs were his exact vision, brought to life. He closes in on the smallest details, giving references on how the syllables must sound, what the rhythm of the verse is, and even on inflexions sometimes. There's so much art and care and love being poured into these songs. Everything about it is art. The people involved cared SO deeply. That (plus his sheer genius) is why it's unbeatable.
That’s exactly the sort of thing Walt would have done. I knew very early on that *The Little Mermaid* would be a hit because every little girl in school ( I was in kindergarten) was talking about it and singing like Ariel. I also knew it would be a hit because the studio’s last full-fledged musicals before it, *Bedknobs and Broomsticks* and *Pete’s Dragon,* were set in or around the ocean and did very well on home video compared to their inauspicious theatrical releases after the mega-movie musical boom of the previous decade went bust.
Now Disney is paying a hefty price for learning the wrong lessons of their post-Walt boom and bust cycles.
I saw a clip of Ashman coaching Paige O'Hara (voice of Belle) to very specifically enunciate the word "provincial" as "pro-vin-chill" - with emphasis on "chill" - as she sang the opening song, "Belle" in Beauty and the Breast. The intonation and cadence was very integral and intentional.. He worked with the final product in mind as a perfectionist, as well as gifted lyricist and producer. In his documentary, Disney executives say that he even accomplished something Walt had struggled with for years, and was able to animate Beauty and the Beast. So sad that his life ended early , and just as he'd hit his stride. For the short time they had Howard, Disney musicals were sheer magic.
It's actually impressive to me that I can read Ariel's facial expressions in the original and see she really isn't sure about this up to the point when she signs the contract. I hadn't looked at her before when OG Ursula says "true? Yes!" Seems like the remake is making it The Ursula Show, which can work in its own way, but there's a bit less going on emotionally because I can't see what Ariel is feeling at all.
Just saw Ariel's face in the remake version for the first time, looks like she's mostly just one-note impressed where original Ariel was battling disgust and interest.
It’s because they chose a singer not an actor to play Ariel if they when with an actor that knows how to sing for example luke evens or Josh gad then you’d actually get facial expressions
It’s the lack of strong eyebrows. Halle has a soft cherub face
I feel like you just can’t communicate those feelings well in live action… It was the opposite problem for Beauty and the Beast where Emma Watson had a little more expression as Belle but just couldn’t sing. And now with Ariel, she can sing but just doesn’t know how to properly act. I’ve said it before, but in order for these Disney live action films to be successful, you need to have Broadway actors playing the lead roles. They have the ability to not only sing powerfully, but also have the dynamic acting range required to properly communicate what and how the character is feeling.
@@13animeholic1314Halle is an actor
the thing that really struck me about McCarthy's performance is that... she's overacting on the lyrics, but way underacting everywhere else...? like, damn, girl! I'm sure it's hard in that makeup but move your eyebrows! your eyes! your cheeks, anything!!! she has a very soft face, and honestly most of the time I watch her remake performance I just get the impression that she's... a kind lady, behind those eyes? I don't feel menaced or threatened by her at all.
I've always had gripes with the Broadway version of PUS because the actress there does pretty much all of this, but... way more intensely. she throws off the tempo on almost every line, and screams every lyric in the most dramatic way possible (that "pathetic" line? it's literally BELTED at full volume to rising music. tell me you misunderstood the source material without telling me you misunderstood the source material). all the "tightness" and "subtlty" of the original's musical pacing and tone of voice is totally lost.
but it's also just... a totally different take on the character, which is unique to this performer and kind of feels like... a different villain altogether...? which makes it easier for me to distinguish the two. it's not a bad performance, necessarily. just so different to the original that it's almost unrecognizable. (honestly, I forgive it because it makes up for it with 'I Want The Good Times Back,' which, while open to criticism story-wise... KILLS. I would die for this song.)
so it seems like.. this song in general is just kinda' hard for people to nail, but I feel like it would be so much easier if they just, understood what made the original so great? the deep "husk" to Ursula's voice, the very patiently growing tension and rhythm, the sharp snappiness to every lyric's pronunciation, the raw intensity in the climax that is so hard-worked for and built up to... these things are so easy to notice. I'm not a singer, but I replicate them as accurately as I can every time I sing this song to myself. because they're what this song IS. what this song was DESIGNED to be, with a purpose and an artistry!
EDIT: OH-- and, it always struck me as incredibly obvious that the lines about women being 'better when they're silent' were meant to be incredibly knowing, self-aware and satirical, especially given Ariel's journey of finding her voice against her ruthless controlling father. like, a snide note from Ursula about the experiences SHE'S had being silenced as a woman. Broadway even adds in this line from her that's like... "a woman doesn't know how how precious her voice is until it's been *silenced."* which is like, so funny. she thinks the reason people don't like her is because she's too much of a girlboss. queen honestly.
I haven't seen the full clip of the remake version. did they leave in Ursula's cool demonic chanting? I love that part.
watched the remake clip. really weird choice to have Ariel actively say "no, I don't want this," almost entirely make it to the exit and then have to be dragged back in...? like, the og doesn't give her NEARLY that much agency or room to think. Ursula is oppressive, commanding - just subtle enough to worm her way into Ariel's head to begin with, then overstimulating and overwhelming enough to drown out any other thought. that's kind of like. her power as a villain!! so weird to unwrite that...
@@FleurMarigoldwell to be honest I don’t think it’s such a big deal Ariel thought about leaving. It doesn’t take away from Ursula but adds to Ariel. It makes Ariel much less naive while still naive.
THANKYOU! Go look at how Vanessa in the remake acted, we didn't get ANY of that from Ursula, it's just a BLAND version of the tale.
Yes she still does her curse at the end, but some of the lyrics have slightly changed.
@@Rev4mpz I went back to rewatch the original before making that point - (which I'd really recommend for comparison!) - I don't think Ariel was ever really 'naive.' you can see her wriggling and grimacing in fear, concern and discomfort almost constantly through the scene. every time Ursula comes near her she flinches away and tries to look away or free herself. (it's a really strong piece of character acting that's carried really well by the animation - I can't fault Halle, but I think it's a lot stronger than most of the expressions the remake uses for both characters in this scene.)
Ariel very clearly knows something is wrong here, and doesn't like it one bit - but is lured in by this being her *one* hope at her dream come true. she knows fully well that it's a bad choice, but she makes it anyway - because Ursula has convinced her it's the *only* way she'll ever be with her prince, and she wants that more than anything! which is *why* Ursula being so strongly manipulative is so much more powerful in the original - she plays her cards exactly when she needs to. for example -
- the first verse is very calm and subtle, laying down a trustworthy facade of who she is. it's... pretty obviously phoney, and Ariel doesn't fall for it one bit, because she trusts her instincts.
- Ursula piques Ariel's interest by suggesting the human spell, and Ariel is intrigued - but she objects, mentioning her care for her family. Ursula very passionately agrees - "that's *right!"* - reassuring Ariel that she's on *her* side, and trying to pretend Ariel's voice still has any autonomy here by agreeing with her. classic manipulation tactic!
- *"but...* you'll have your *man."* Ursula refocuses Ariel on her primary goal, the thing her heart longs for most, which Ariel is ultimately swept over by. she is not naive, though - she alternates rapidly between keen interest and disturbed fear for the rest of the scene.
- Ursula gradually raises her tempo/volume and doubles down on the overwhelm/overstimulation tactic - trying to suffocate Ariel out of having any room to think or process her hesitations. Ariel's passion wins out - and she signs the scroll in an act of stubborn defiance and drive to take this chance on her dreams, despite the risk.
the manipulation has this sense of... rhythm, and flow, and it's all very... well, *musical!* it's intentionally planned out by Ursula to have the maximum effect on Ariel's psyche possible, because she KNOWS Ariel isn't naive, and that she's gonna' be a hard one to win over. it shows how well she's already clocked Ariel - it shows how much *power* she has over her, despite how strong of a character Ariel really is. it's much more insidious than letting Ariel effectively say a hard "no" and almost make it to the exit, then just... yelling at her out of nowhere??? it's not very subtle and doesn't lend itself well to the playful but intense back-and-forth struggle between the wills of these 2 very stubborn characters.
you're free to disagree! I've just analyzed the original a lot (I'm very passionate about it), and every single movement, expression, line of dialogue and tone of voice is placed there intentionally to contribute to a very dramatic gravity between 2 characters who have very different souls and very different hopes/desires. it's such good drama! it's fine that this version is different - but character/story wise, I don't think it's nearly as strong.
@@ellenino that's a real shame!! I haven't seen any Vanessa clips yet but she was always such a Baddie in the original. god forbid a girlboss do anything :-(
the 2023 lyrics switch "Larynx" (in Larynx Glossitis) with "Amnesia" (Amnesia Glossitis). can anyone tell me why? 🤔
You mentioned the unusual voice direction in the remake, and it's worth mentioning this:
The sultry yet sob-like singing of Ursula in the original is top notch because it contrasts so sharply to her normal voice. She has a wicked, maniacal voice during times of ecstasy, but when singing about these poor unfortunate souls, how they're "miserable, lonely and depressed" and "in pain, in need", she uses a sobbing resonance, you can imagine what she sounds like when she's saying "boo-hoo" or whatever because she's literally singing like that- it's a simple stylistic choice but extremely effective.
She's clearly trying to manipulate Ariel into thinking she understands these souls' poor plight, with the harsher, more wicked singing only being used when she's giving Ariel an ultimatum: "Give me your voice, or leave and never be with him". But the remake just sounds wicked and forceful throughout with zero variation.
They replaced “It’s a talent that I always have possessed” with “it’s a quality I always have possessed” as well.
god forbid the literal villain be "sexist" to further her goals, im sure thats not exactly what the story was implying to begin with!
What truly bothered me was a really small detail but that I think makes a huge difference, THE EYEBROWS weren't moving! To me what makes Ursula complete and iconic in the animation is her facial expression range and I felt like that took a lot away from the character as insignificant as it may seem
the eyebrows were also uneven like I cannot unsee that who let that happen 😭
The whole point in 1989 with the “women should talk less” verses was that she was the VILLAIN, that it was outmoded, it’s one of the key arguments that seems to win Ariel over as she’s too naive to believe Ursula would make a deal with draw backs, she’s 16 guys, and incredibly sheltered by her Father. It makes sense she takes Ursula at her word, that human behave this way, she has no other point of reference making her an easy target.
I was so apprehensive about the treatment of this movie, simply because The Little Mermaid was so clearly fuelled by the emotions and passion of Howard Ashman. Disney seem to have all but forgotten the man who literally saved their animation studio, and arguably the company as a whole, from bankruptcy. Worse, they’re actively undoing or distancing themselves to what he worked so hard to achieve. I’m so glad you mentioned about part of your world nearly being cut, not that you could tell from Disneys subsequent noise about this number. I just want to also mention that the voice of Ariel (Jodi Benson) has often been quoted with attributing her entire performance to Ashman, and that she was simply a vessel for him. Lastly I find it an almost unbearable irony that the Disney renaissance movies started with Ashman refusing to work in their live action studio (as he was originally brought from Paramount to do) because he felt that the suspension of disbelief was insufficient for broadway style musicals to work in live action, and that he animation studio was where this style would thrive. The “live action” remake essentially breaks everything the original stood for. 😢 sorry this has turned into an essay. 😅
I think that's what upsets me the most.
A gay man saved this studio, died before he saw the movie he cared about released (Aladdin), and was generally forgotten. He wrote so much of his pain and observations of a world that rejected him into his lyrics and they're masterful, really. And Disney chooses to ignore all of this in their rainbow washing because they want the suburban white moms taking their kids to this. They can try to make it as diverse as it once, but the problem is it's really an empty showing. More should have been done and Ashman's life should have been honored with all of these films, but they didn't do it.
That's the problem with all three films.
Throw them out.
Yup exactly. Disney’s forgotten all about Ashman and clearly has no interest in honoring his memory or his work (which literally saved their ass). Because of that, Disney will never have a remake that isn’t a soulless corporate cash grab. Can’t wait to see them run all of their properties into the ground until there’s nothing left to bastardize 🙄
@@jamie1602 So true. Forget their lazy attempts to include diverse people into their movies. They have real true diversity in the people that make their films. The fact they could be celebrating this but aren’t speaks volumes about their true feelings.
I was so frustrated with how she called Ariel pathetic straight to her face unlike the original and she still went with signing contract with her
I'm glad you made this video and pointed out more issues with this remake,The question that comes to mind is...why even remake movie if its going to be downgrade from original?
Yeah it makes Arial getting fooled into signing seem dumb. Rather then tricked by a master manipulater.
Honestly, the remakes only exist for the Disney Adults who'll shovel even the bottom of the barrel Disney schlock into their mouths...
It's all about the money. Creative integrity be damned...
Money. Fortunately it isn't on track to do what they hoped so maybe they'll learn. Apparently they needed to make 560mill to turn a profit, and as of today, six weeks into its run its still 100mill short, and that's with alot of online review pages putting their thumb on the scales to make it look better.
And this is one of their most iconic properties. The original kick-started the Disney Renaissance, and the remake might not even turn a profit? That's got to have them scared of what's in the future for their other remakes.
It comes down to two things. Firstly, hoping to make money from it from a combo of new audiences and nostalgic old ones; and renewing IP. It's that simple, and pathetic.
The original is a song that manages the difficult task of being full of subtelties, nuance, innuendo, performative statements, insecurity-inducing words, brilliant wordplay and YET still show a stark contrast of evil against good. And even more awesome is that, even though you know Ursula is being dishonest, you can't help but understand how was it that Ariel fell for Ursula's trick hook, line and sinker.
A song that is so deliciously evil in it's manipulation, with a cadence that starts soothingly, like Ursula's tentacles tenderly creeping all over you until it's too late when you finally realize you are firmly in her grasp, timed perfectly with the song's crescendo and climax.
Melissa's version squirms indeed like a worm on a hook, and Pat Carroll's version will continue to reign supreme.
I want to add that it's also important to mention the moment this song is placed in the film. It happens right after King Triton very cruelly destroys Ariel's treasures with a raw display of the trident's terrible power. Ursula witness this through Flotsam and Jetsam, so she knows that initially she has to be soothing and understanding in dealing with Ariel. Displays of raw power this early could scare Ariel away. So when Ursula sparingly emphasizes stuff with her singing and magic in the first half of the song is when she shows Ariel that she does indeed possess the power to make her dreams come true.
There is an element similar to that of a Fairy Godmother, no? So indeed, she's got to downplay everything initially to appeal to Ariel and prey on her dreams and insecurities and ignorance.
The original song belongs in a cartoon. Their dedication to realism kills it. Part of why they had to make Ursula call Ariel pathetic rather than have her whisper it to Flotsam and Jetsam.
i love pat caroll's voice acting as ursula. she did an amazing job and its one of my favourite villain songs despite not liking little mermaid that much
@@ulyx9804which doesn't work as excuse, because don't they know owners like to talk and confide secrets to their pets? Ursula also talking to her eels like that also showed how she trusts them just as much as she loves them, they're both her babies and henchmen, which makes her heartbreak after Ariel makes her kill them both more impactful, and her rage even more personal far beyond just losing a pair of random goons
@@dustymcwari4468 I misread your comment. Sorry, I was sleepy.
It also shows how desperate Ariel is that she's going to ignore all the red flags the audience sees.
@@ulyx9804 that's my main problem with the song here, and not just the audience, Ariel knows that too, because this Ursula rubs it in her face so much with little to no subtlety, that she gets spooked and runs away, which forces Ursula to be more aggressive and gambles
it by angrily telling her what could happen if she leaves, and this Ariel... comes back? Despite knowing very well she's up to no good and cannot be trusted one bit, like what the hecc?? Why listening to this freak at that point, or is it that family is WORSE than what Ursula could do? She was given a bit of time to think about it and was already halfway through the door, while og Ariel was bombarded with bargains and lies while Ursula began dancing all around her more and more as soon as she began questioning things, and actually forced her onto an all or nothing situation because of how much Ursula was pressing her, while making sure to keep her gentle facade at all times precisely to avoid doing what live action Ursula did, or worse, this Ursula SUCKS at doing business, if she didn't have that specific info, she completely loses the girl, and Ariel is dumb and super desperate here, she gave herself control over the sitution by backing away and giving herself distance to run away, and yet she CHOSE to stay and carry on with Ursula's deal anyways
Which is a running issue in this remake, characters doing something cool or smart seemingly to respond criticisms of the original and for the sake of buying people into thinking the remake is more mature, complex, and realistic compared to the original, only for them to drop the ball and forget about it immediately, making the characters dumber, more selfish and rude than they used to be
Watching the original as a little girl, I distinctly remember thinking “but boys don’t like quiet girls” 🤔
Well Eric certainly didn’t!
That was the point lol
Kids got it, but some adults got offended anyway
Even more incredible is, I've seen Queen Latifah and Rebel Wilson both perform this track to a live audience and despite needing to project far more because of that, they managed to still capture the essence of Pat Carolls original extremely well. Why, when you’ve got two Hollywood actors that have proven they can do the role and physically fit the part, do you then cast an actor who so clearly couldnt. Did they just already have Melissa McCarthy under contract for something else that fell through? 😅
Damn it! Queen Latifah would've KILLED IT as Ursula. The race-swapping would actually make sense, too....
Then again, this is *modern* DISNEY, who for TLK 2019: instead of making a faux-documentary w/TLK's plot beats narrated by JAMES EARL JONES and songs sung by Beyonce (including SHADOWLAND) that would play to the strengths of the CGI photorealism Favreau was going for...they instead went full UNCANNY VALLEY and wanted Mr. Jones (a man in his mid-90s) to reprise his role as Mufasa -- something which, God bless him, he could not *do* in 2019 w/the same punch he gave in 1994. (b/c TWENTY-FIVE YEARS have passed!) They also managed to fuck up BE PREPARED.
@@acsoundan Afro-American villain in a Disney's live action movie? In this economy? Are you out of your mind?
@@ginsover Queen Latifah was already a villain protagonist in SET IT OFF, and...look: BLACK-ON-BLACK crime is real. Latifah's a good actor and a skilled recording artist: more than enough to hard-carry this live-action adaptation.
@@acsoundSo is white-on-white crime.
@@matxalenc8410 True. Crime sucks in general.
It does seem like the remake's all about making Ursela seem threatening in an overt and chest-puffing way, while the original was very much Ursela trying to sound sympathetic (both as a figure of sympathy, and sympathetic to Ariel's plight). "I'm afraid I had to rake 'em 'cross the coals," said by the new Ursela, is a terrible and threatening line; she sounds angry. Original Ursela sang it gently, almost mournfully, like it was this thing she had to do no matter how much she wishes she didn't.
The original does a good job in making Ursula and Ariel seem like different sides. Ursula gets a little line that betrays she used to be accepted among the other Atlanteans but no longer is. Ariel is "odd". They're both odd. Ursula's magic, however, does dangerous things and can potentially kill. When you become an adult you can get the idea that if left unchecked, Ariel's resentment towards her father could have become something a lot more dark and uncomfortable. She could have very well ended up in Ursula's place; an outcast and harming others because of being ostracized.
It's likely Ashman had influence on this. Ashman was able to influence who Ursula was and asked that animators look at Divine, a drag queen, for ideas. Divine died before being able to even voice the role. So women with deeper registers were asked to voice the role. Bea Arthur was the first asked. She rejected it. Pat Carroll said yes.
Ashman took special interest in certain characters and I suspect Ariel and Ursula were those he intended to leave a special mark with.
One of my big issues with the live action Ursula is how she's not fat. Hollywood may see this actress and think shes "plus sized" but shes really not. Theres also ZERO of the Shakespearean/drag influences.
They probably didn't make her fat because she's a villan and didn't want people to complain that it's fatphobic
@@_lLexa_l And yet them doing that was fat phobic itself. Ironic.
Ironically by skinnifying her, they actually were kinda fat phobic
Wait… has anyone else realised there’s a maybe yikes-y implication at how they made the black Ariel illiterate? Disney really did that.
Why not just have Ursula say, “And no writing it out either. True love isn’t born out of pity.” Own the cinema sins folks with an easy and real line.
Wait, what do you mean pity?
Or, give the merpeople a different written language. You can't communicate your problem in writing if the other person has never even seen your alphabet before.
@helenanilsson5666 *Temporary puts on cinema sins hat* But if she doesn't understand the same spoken language of the contract then the contract is non-enforceable. Contracts have to be understood by both parties to be valid. *Takes off hat,*
@@helenanilsson5666 I'm writing a fanfic inspired by The Little Mermaid and that's what I did: even though human and merpeople spoken language sounds the same, their writing systems are totally different. My idea came from Serbian language, which has both a Cyrillic and a Latin alphabet.
Honestly an easier thing to do would have just to make the Atlanteans written language be either old Greek or their own unique alphabet. Solves the "Why can't she just write to Eric" issue while keeping Ariel Signing the scroll.
It sucks that there's a focus on realism when the strength of animation is the distinct lack of realism :(
Pat Carroll's voice was naturally deep and powerful, she didn't need to yell to sound menacing. Her performance was perfectly nuanced. Melissa is trying too hard, she's all over the place, yells too much on top of the arrangement that's way less effective... The original is a masterpiece, while the remake version is just alright I guess.
I just find it incredibly ironic that in Disney's crusade to become more safe and marketable, they're losing their audiences. They're trying so hard but fail to realize that they've lost the magic and are attempting to replicate it unsuccessfully.
Changing the line to imply a blood contract as compared to an actual contract seemed so bizarre to me because showing Triton the contract seemed so much more definitive when compared to saying “it’s a blood pact”. I remember when my sister and I watched it she just turned to me like “?” And I had to explain to her afterwards that she picked a scab to sign the contract. Similar to the colors and the intonation of words, I just feel like the original made this clearer in a way the live action made a little blurry.
I absolutely LOVE Pat Carrol's Poor Unfortunate Souls. The original will NEVER compare to the remake. I too was pissed off that they cut out the part where Ursula needed Ariel's voice to turn into a human. The whole premise of Ariel going to Ursula was to be a human so she could be with her prince on land. the live action took that section out and even took out the infamous line "you have your looks, your pretty face, and don't underestimate the importance of body language". That whole section was cut out because Disney thought that children shouldn't be thinking about sexual behavior. I absolutely hate the live action film, this is why I tell my friends, "don't fucking mess with the original film" Disney ruined Beauty and the Beast The Jungle Book and The Lion King with mediocre live action films that was lackluster. I like the concept but the delivery of these films were mediocre, or just unnecessary.
Going back to the visuals segment, maybe it's just the clips shown, but Ursula's tentacles are incredibly still looking. Even when swimming straight up rapidly with off water forced past; an octopus's arms would sway a bit or go off in a slightly different direction.
To me, her tentacles look more like they're either from a stuffed-animal, or are filled with Styrofoam tubes.
The tentacels are also a thing Disney wanted to fix because original Ursula only had six arms. They kinda forgot that original Ursula has eight arms, but six of them are octopus arms and two human. Meaning this Ursula has ten arms😂 gotta love it when Disney"fixes" non problems.
@rowantic6539 Pat Carroll - ursula's VA - is on record, many many years ago, stating Ursula was always a squid, not an octopus. She said disney thought eight arm was too busy looking, so they cut down to six arms, plus her human arms. So if anything, disney *is* fixing a decades-old mistake.
As a former marine biologist, I was very impressed with the CGI department for their work on the marine life in this movie. Ursula's arms look very lifelike to how Giant Pacific Octopus arms behave in water. There were a couple places in the movie where the fluid dynamics weren't correct. But overall, they did a fantastic job. And this is coming from someone who dislikes Disney's Live Action adaptations.
Your take is 100% spot on! Thank you! Rather than deleting a whole verse of "Poor Unfortunate Souls," they should have instead added one that was cut the first time:
[Right after "Life's full of tough choices, innit?"]
Come on, I know you need a little magic
And magic is my specialty du jour
Don't just stand there looking sick
Would I kid you? Play a trick?
Like I told you, I don't do that anymore
So I think you ought to take my little bargain
Yes, I think you ought to make my little deal
Sure, it's hard to leave your life
But you could be a prince's wife
Why don't you let me take that dream and make it real?
Oh, oh, oh --- I almost forgot! We haven't discussed the subject of payment. ... (And so it goes on)
Now *that* would have been a good change.
👏🏻
Other thing is that when she says "Yes indeed", in the animated film her mannerisms while saying the lines are speaking; "Trust me, I'm not as evil as before". But in the live-action her mannerisms are saying; "Do you not trust me?" Which is weird again, because she is trying to win Ariels trust, and that live-action mannerism is almost as if Ursula is trying to be purposefully rude to Ariel.
I’m almost 30 years old and I still go back and watch the original poor unfortunate souls sometimes. It’s amazing
What McCarthy did with her voice is so incredibly impressive. She found a place and she went there. That being said, it wasn’t true to the source material or motivations.
And the fact the cut part of the song is unforgivable. Ursula is a villain, she’s manipulative-but that one line about men liking silent women is so sardonically self aware, and teenage girls are at the age to slowly realize this harsh truth. It’s all part of Ursula being manipulative and gaining Ariel’s trust.
Even within the context of the movie (both original and remake), wouldn't Ursula's whole speech (if she believes it and isn't just being manipulative) be proven wrong by Eric and Ariel having their love "solidified" by her getting her voice back and them speaking?
@@papershadow ☝🏽
Eh, it’s broadway without the years of belting practice and a previously subtle song with no subtlety. I’m glad you found something impressive in it but I just see someone who doesn’t know what they doing with a role being directed by people who ALSO don’t know what they’re doing.
@papershadow actually he did love her while she was silent, But the siren song (aka Vanessa using ariels voice) put him in a trance. Once the trance was broken it was just a bonus she could talk.
What’s difficult about remaking the renaissance Disney films is that they are already technically perfect, the story is well told and succinct and the songs are incredible. So any changes you make are sort of making it worse😬
Not to mention the few "minor plot issues" these "movies" claim to fix were already figured out in the broadway remakes. The LAMs contribute literally nothing of substance
@@Carlhero-ce2xq omigod yes! The amount of times I wish they’d taken a cue from the broadway versions
@@racheldeschaine Honestly, instead of making stupid LAMs, I’ve always thought Disney should’ve just put out pro-shot recordings of their musical adaptations on Disney+ or something
What people don't realize is that the more you treat kids as stupid the more they will actually become stupid. Which in turn causes stupid adults. Thanks disney
Indeed. Watching old Disney there are so many SAT words in the music... Domicile in lady and the tramp. Nouveau in Hercules.
Licentious in hunchback.
They were secretly teaching us and now they think our kids are dumb.
The finale of the song took me off guard because it was missing it's intensity visually. Of course the colors, but also the cutting.
In the original the end "Poor. Un. Fortunate souuuls!" Has rapid cuts between Ariel and Ursula, and that always stuck with me.
The new one just has the camera hanging on one shot, as if the camera had disconnected from the music.
OMG THANK YOU for this review of this song! I cannot agree more! Poor Unfortunate Souls is my favorite Disney villain song and Ursula my favorite Disney Villain. When I sat in the theater anticipating this song I felt dropped to the floor with disappointment when it began. You eloquently pointed out everything I felt and a lot of the criticisms I had for this iteration of the song. Even my father who went to see the film with my mom on their anniversary dinner night said that he felt that the feel was totally off for that number, but he couldn't quite place why. I pointed out sone of the things you also said here and he was like "That's it! Yes...! Ursula just seemed overtly bitter the whole song and it doesn't make any sense that Ariel would be tricked into thinking this lady would help her."
I watched a CZcamsr who's a professional vocal coach review this song and she had nothing but praise for the new version. Which I found baffling! 🤔 So it's great to see your take on this. This Little Mermaid fan truly thanks you.
theres a particular vocal coach youtuber who i found always makes questionable commentary that i stopped watching, i wonder if its the same person 😷
It is usually because these vocal coaches do pop as well.They do not understand genres such as opera and broadway due to the 2 of these need not only a good singer and actor but also needs to make sense in the context of character and story development.
This is the reason why the live action movies and Disney’s recent movie (wish) suck when it comes to songs.
It like asking an author to write a script and a animation director to direct a live action movie and via versa,while they may seem relatively close there are countless of rules that make it hard for one to do the others job(It’s also why Disney’s recent series Percy Jackson seems awkward with the author becoming a writer for the series).
@@Mialikesthings excellent points!
@@jartist4 Thank you.
I agree with every word. I don't really know the actual names or how certain things are supposed to be called, but it's great to know that there's an actual concept behind those things that the new version is lacking, besides just saying "feels underwhelming, feels off, it's too much without being it", which is just as far as I can go if I had to explain it myself (since I haven't studied music or composition before). I guess they were just trying to be extra, taking away those subtleties that make that piece so powerful. As if a villain needs to be so in-your-face, so kids would know who the villain is, which is not really the point. Ariel is making, as you said, a deal with the devil. Ursula sounds convincing, she is "making sense", she's being approachable. Now THAT'S the scary part. Sometimes "bad people" can make good arguments and that's how they get things done. I feel Ursula's character is a lesson for that. But well, maybe they really think kids are dumb or something. I think if that were the case, they SHOULD try to teach them lessons like this, instead of trying to make it seem as if it's always so obvious to know.
I really enjoyed how you explain everything in your video, adding concepts to the intentions behind every line and the music. It's awesome 😁
Melissa acted like a drunk rolling around the entire movie and it was unintentionally hilarious 😂😂😂😂
Okay so your comparisons are incredibly on point but tbh I would happily, and i do mean HAPPILY, watch videos of you just breaking down the original songs and why they're so good without the need to compare them to their remakes. I always loved them and you somehow made me care about them even more.
Do you have any suggestions for what you'd like to see specifically?
@@astorrhymemaster What first came to mind - since you were talking about Ashman and Menken - were primarily Aladdin or maybe BatB, but if you feel passionately about any specific movie or music I'd be very willing to listen! I loved how passionate you've been on your little mermaid videos so if it gets you excited to talk about it like that, I'd be a happy viewer!
i can’t express how happy i am you made this video, i was thinking EVERYTHING you said while watching and comparing the original. i do love melissa mccarthy here but i think the studio ruined this scene. when ariel said she trusted her i couldn’t understand how in this one. In the original it’s easy to see why ariel would trust her.
I agree with you on so much of this. To be honest, her performance is "good" in the sense that you can see she has the skill to execute theatrical emphasis and sing and add emotion to her delivery. But whoever directed her to do things a certain way and went "yup that's a good take" needs a career change.
Glad to know I'm not crazy lol. In my opinion Ursula is beautiful, the tentacle designs and all of that but she wasn't giving off "evil witch disguising as a fairy godmother" energy... It was more of like you said, sarcastic, comedic, not really caring about the actual character and trying too hard to come across as evil which is the exact opposite of Ursula. I wish there was more anticipation instead of her yelling all of her plans. Like, kids aren't smooth-brained imbeciles they can tell when someone is lying and has ulterior motives. Ursula was just giving it all away, they made her and Ariel, and honestly everyone (mainly them though) out of character. I did chuckle at some of Ursula's snarky remarks but singing and actually acting I don't think it was the best. My apologies if this is wordered in an incomprehensible manner I'm not that good at english.
This is what I tried to say in my comment but I didn't think of the evil witch disguised as a fairy godmother so thank you. That's it exactly
The biggest crime is they cut out:
"And don't forget the importance of Body language hah"😂😂😂
Complete with arse shake from technically arseless lady
That was iconic
I couldn't agree more! One thing that irks me about the songs on the remake is how it feels like they're trying to prove that it's better the the original because look at all this belting and amazing vocals we have.
Part of your world is my favourite Disney song and Halle Bailey's version is just not it, yes her voice and all those belting is great but it fails to capture the feeling of longing that makes the OG version amazing.
Yes. I don't know why people think that singing well simply means singing high notes, belting and vibrato when, there is simply so much more. Her voice is lovely, but it really didn't feel like Ariel
@@Ola-cb1xt absolutely! Singing well is one thing, but singing with emotions is another. Halle's version feel like showing off her great vocals instead of conveying a message.
YMS brought it up with his viewing of the trailers, it's the same "National Anthem" singing variations he attributed to "The Lion King" remake, where the performance is about the singer showing off their talent rather than performing the song as it is part of the story. Halle Bailey has pretty good range and singing ability, but "Part of Your World" is written to be sung a very specific way rather than doing one's own "take" on it compared to, say, "Under the Sea" (which the remake still screwed up by having Ariel enthusiastically sing along to given its purpose)
I think the soundtrack is based more off of broadway style singing. Which means everything is loud and over the top. In fact soon as I heard PUS I knew it was going to blend broadway with animation. Which isn’t a bad thing necessarily but it will not whatsoever mirror the animation to a T. Halle’s version of “Part of your world” though was one of the best covers of an animated Disney classic ever. Not only is it theatrical but she’s also acting with her voice. The amount of vocal quivering, whining, gasps and urgency in her tone really gave that song a kick. In the original Jodie wanted to do the same with it but Howard stopped her because he wanted it to sound subdued and held in. Which again, is fine and dandy if that’s what your into. But the 2023 one really took the song in an alternate direction where it could have been in the past. It’s all a preference thing really. Halle overall did a phenomenal performance.
@@BozeDoesGodsWork It's not. The original movie is Broadway style which is what Menken and Ashman did. I don't know what this is. I absolutely don't know what this is.
We're not trained this way. This is not how we sing. This illustrates a lot of actors who didn't get instruction on how to sing for a musical because we don't sing like this. You're trained to build, emphasize, and sing in character. This isn't singing in character. This is just yelling. If done for prolonged periods you'll ruin your voice like this.
The Little Mermaid series from the 90s played into that line "I admit in the past I've been a Nasty."
There are some episodes where Ursula has been a main villain but not outright a evil villain compared to her role in the Movie version of the Little Mermaid.
She has plotted overthrowing Triton's Kingdom via her Scylla tribe in the episode "Heroes" but she has been in the background villain role pulling the strings of manipulation.
So that is one thing to keep in mind when Disney Toons were making the Little Mermaid series, have Ursula as a villain in some episodes but when she does have a villain role, make her a background manipulator.
At least that was what it appeared in my view when remembering different episodes in the series.
Yet another reason why the Little Mermaid series is so amazing
Omg guuuurl, this is everything I've ever wanted to watch. This video is perfect in every way, and I got so much more than I ever hoped to see in a fair critical review. You even discussed the subtle use of the instruments, I'm so happy that there are still people out there who appreciate these meaningful and important small (but ever so crucial little tiny) details that are present in the original movies. To someone else it might go unnoticed, but for me hearing these butchered songs is just super-painful.
They need to drop the "realism" shit. If they wanted realism, they wouldn't be singing underwater.
Realism seems to be an excuse for them to be lazy with everything else, i mean, the hyper realistic CGI takes up 90% of the damn budget. Forget writing and directing because the other 10% goes toward their actors.
The sexist lyrics from the original are problematic but it kinda fits the Villain aspect like Ursula is manipulating Ariel with those accusations of woman in land to give up her voice. still mad they removed "BODY LANGUAGE"😭😭😭😭
Yeah cutting those lyrics out would be like cutting all the lyrics in which mother Gothel says that Rapunzel can't make it in the real world. She's a villain. Gaslighing is the point.
If howard ashman was still alive, we probably wouldn't have gotten these soulless live action remakes and might have versions of aladdin, mulan, hercules, etc that are different from what we got
Yes we would because Disney wouldn't hire him
@@aminity133 Why wouldn't they hire him after all that he's done for them? He would be like the walt disney of that generation
You say that like Howard was in charge 😂 Had he lived he woulda been the one doing the rewrites himself. I’m sure he wouldn’t be the same person he was in the 80’s and I’m sure there’s some work he would rewrite given the opportunity like the live action films provide.
@@RemyEdits in a way, howard had this commanding presence during productions. He literally directed and oversaw the recording sessions and met with the animators to choose the designs to be used in the film (he would sometimes throw tempers just because the animators didn't understand his requests). You think he would revert back to the live action (lsoh) medium after finding animation to be the superior medium for translating his ideas? That would be like having him change his mind about bringing his offbroadway shows to broadway; which he just found very wrong. Howard just has this view on things that we may never truly understand and he tended to stick to those ideas very strongly
@@idk-zt8rx Simple answer: Ashman made art, even if that wasn't always maximum marketable money maker in the Executives' eyes (as in Disney would pass art that makes $500 Million for junk that makes $600 Million).
They wouldn't push for him to work on the remakes because they want more money and I doubt Howard Ashman would compromise his visions at the behest of the suits (considering things like fighting to keep PoYW against Katzenberg's Focus Group Cynicism).
I blame Lin Manuel Miranda. He did not understand the nuances that the original had. I feel that Melissa could’ve done even better with better direction.
The whole "Why didn't Ariel just communicate through writing" is so easily solved by just having the merfolk use a different script from the humans. Even if they _speak_ the same language, Ariel's not gonna spend time studying (so she can translate between scripts) when she's on a three day time limit to make someone fall in love with her.
Damn, this is one of the best well-researched videos I've seen of the songs. The attention to detail in which musical instruments were used, the vocals, the characterizations in the voices, and the careful direction Howard Ashman did, and which the remake is horribly lacking, are spot-on. The moment I heard they claimed they were going to "fix" Poor Unfortunate Souls and Kiss the Girl, I knew they were going to screw them up by doing what they've been doing all along: Mischaracterizing and lying about the original to make the reboot look "better". They did not make "Poor Unfortunate Souls" better by removing the "body language" line, and they did not make "Kiss the Girl" better by removing the “Possible she want you too, there is one way to ask her/It don’t take a word, not a single word/Go on and kiss the girl" verse, or by giving Ariel amnesia anytime someone reminds her of the damn kiss.
Ursula is the fucking VILLAIN. She's SUPPOSED to say harmful things because that's who she is as a character. The audience is not supposed to root for her. She's giving Ariel problematic misinformation to manipulate her further into selling her voice, because she clearly thinks that the prince won't be attracted to her if she cannot verbally communicate, because she wants Ariel to FAIL. Just because the main antagonist does and says horrible problematic things, that doesn't mean the creators are endorsing those beliefs.
And as for "Kiss the Girl", Sebastian was not telling Eric to "in any way, force himself on Ariel", like these new execs behind Disney want to believe. Clearly Ariel's body language, consisting of her leaning in towards him and puckering her lips to kiss him and then silently pouting in disappointment when he shies away from her, show that she WANTS him to kiss her. Have these "critics" never heard of nonverbal consent?? Ariel WANTS Eric to kiss her so she can fulfill her end of the bargain, but Eric is shy and introverted and wants to remain faithful to the girl that saved his life. Because while he likes Ariel, at this point, he doesn't know she's the girl who saved him, so he doesn't want to kiss her because he still has his heart set on the one who rescued him. WHERE does the scene in any way show Eric wants to "force himself on Ariel"? Because, from what the scene shows, it's the opposite. XD
Ugh... The audacity they have to claim their film is dedicated to Howard Ashman, after going out of their way to change integral parts of his lyrics to make themselves look more "progressive".
It's not that Disney doesn't understand their own movies anymore. Its the new people running Disney that don't understand Disney's movies.
Pure incompetence on the part of these individuals pretending to be filmmakers.
calm tf down
"Geez, mon, I'm surrounded by amateurs! 😫😫😫😫😫" - Sebastian the Crab's reaction to the filmmakers' incompetence towards his live-action remake
I wouldn't call it incompetence given the remake has already made more than the original made in its entire theater run (adjusted for inflation)
@@EnderOfFlops original costed ~40 mil and made ~235 mil total, huge budget difference from the remake which costed 250mil and has made around 414mil, though it's still showing in theatres.. for a movie to be successful in box office terms it has to at the very least double its budget in sales. the original did, the remake hasn't yet.
@@cxiuart the remake 100% will since its still extremely new.
Exactly. I saw a clip on Melissa's performance and it extememely bothered me how she didnt whisper to he pet eels "Pathetic" and just blurted it out.
9:26-9:56 The most depressing thing is, they could have written their way around that by depicting the scroll with, like, mermaid glyphs or something, and have Ariel sign it with the same glyphs. "Yes, she can write, but not any language a human can read." That's it, that's all you needed to close that plothole.
Ursula was having so much fun in this scene she is literally sashaying around her little cavern shaking her ass and using her eels as a feather boa. In the new one she seems kinda bored and Ariel walked on in so she's just fucking with her because she has nothing better to do. Her tentacles look really cool though I like how they glow. Her expression seems really flat which should never be an issue in drag inspired makeup but they didn't wanna go too hard on it in case it was off putting and the over all look suffered as a result. The new one just isn't fun tbh at all
Thank you for brining up how the OG song had tons of colors from the red, blue, and yellow with all the magic.
The way you explain everything is just *chef's kiss*. A note on timing, since I'm so glad you brought this up! That was honestly the first thing I noticed. In fact, as soon as I noticed it it was pretty much the only thing I could focus on for the number. It sounded really off to my ears. It seemed like she was singing too fast for the instrumental and it didn't match. It's disappointing 'cause I was excited to see her as Ursula, and then we got...this. I'll also say that to me it seemed like Disney felt like they needed to go 'bigger' with this number, but it missed the mark entirely and ended up shrinking it. They took out and changed everything that made the number as iconic and important as it was, and essentially went [tried] for flash and stripped it of any substance in the process, destroying it. (We can't expect Melissa McCarthy to give the same exact performance as Pat Carroll, but I thought this was gonna be better ya know?)
Titus Burgess should have gotten the role. He does an EXCELLENT Ursula.
HELL YES!
9:34 Something I found crazy is that the remake version of the song they thought it was wrong for the villain to say “sexist things” to convince Ariel to give up her voice but they were totally okay with adding a line to basically hint that Ariel is a dumb girl who can’t read/write
OMG I AGREE WITH SO MUCH OF THIS!!! I'm happy you made it clear that a lot fo these stylistic changes that hurt the song and sequence come from the lack of direction from directors instead of blaming Melissa McCarthy herself. I was actually pleasantly surprised by her singing voice and I think she DEFINITELY has the what it takes to sing naturally and sinisterly as Pat Carrol in the original version - the directors of the live action just didn't give her the direction to. I was hoping you were gonna touch on Ariel's transformation from mermaid to human too in this scene. I have my thoughts on it, but what are yours? 👀
THANK YOU FOR THIS VIDEO!!!
I feel like Melissa wasn't a bad casting choice it was the writing and direction that ruined it. She looks great and given different song directions she absolutely could have delivered!
This is such a good analysis omg. The part about the colours in the original vs live action - as you said, the original uses colour to bring the viewers into that state of overwhelm that Ariel is feeling, it's really part of the storytelling. I notice that use of colour is and lighting is very static in the live action - where the dynamicness of the original really contributed to the atmosphere of frenzy and confusion, the live action colour use mirrors the effect that the changes made to the music have, of overall lacking drama, tension, and buildup. I also feel the colour palette itself is not appropriate as the soft blues shadows combined with the glowing pink and orange midtone/highlight gives the scene this beautiful, glowy, soft and ethereal vibe. It's pretty obvious that marketable visual appeal was the priority here, not storytelling. The part that's frustrating is that this ethereal light and colour could have been ok if it then shifted as the drama and tension built. Like slowly the shadows lean more to dark grey-blue and the orange becomes more red. Or, at least use purple shadows and green highlights to get that visually appealing Aesthetic Lighting while still bringing in a sinister vibe.
P.U. Souls went into my head earlier today and I decided to search it up. Forgot there was a "live action" remake, so I watched the 2D version and then the live version before coming here. The two big things I noticed were that the person playing Ursula was being over dramatic and shouty too early in the song, which you covered, but something you didn't mention is that at the close of the song, she takes away Ariel's agency in the plot. In the 2D movie, Ariel is pressured and conned into signing the deal, but she does it by her own hand, whereas Live Action Ariel plucks her scale but doesn't actually make the decision to put it into Ursula's bowl -- Ursula herself snatches the scale and throws it in. I feel that's damaging to the story in a way I don't have the Video Essay Creator skill to properly discuss.
I could be wrong, but I think the animated Little Mermaid music for Ursula is heavily influenced by Bob Fosse and Burlesque. Howard Ashman and Marvin Hamlisch worked on a play called Smile for Broadway with Bob Fosse in 1985. Ursula's Poor Unfortunate Souls sound seems to take a page from Fosse's earlier work of Cabaret and Sweet Charity's Big Spender as the two were clearly big fans of Fosse from an interview they did together discussing the play. The make-up for Ursula is exactly like the women in those films. Heavy green or blue on the eyelids and thick lashes with red lips styled by Fosse and Verdon which were developed for his earlier productions from growing up backstage at burlesque shows. In my opinion, it's also where the heavy tuba sounds come from, that burlesque style. Reminds me of the song Willkommen in Cabaret. I think they mentioned Ursula herself was designed after a drag queen, but that only solidifies the burlesque theme for her. The subtleties of a slow build to a big finish were what Fosse was a master at achieving, which is why they wanted to work with him so badly on Smile. Also to note, Jodi Benson sang on the demo of Smile, which you can find online, so they had already worked with her before The Little Mermaid. This live version is inferior to the original, in my opinion, and just didn't land for me. Unfortunately, many of the songs in this film didn't work. But this one was the most disappointing.
Thank you for the insight, that was an interesting read!
@@astorrhymemaster I appreciate your thorough review! Well done, and thank you for saying the things I also noticed.
She was inspired by Divine the Drag Queen, who was even going to voice her, but passed away before it could happen.
Jodi actually was part of the original Broadway cast for Smile! Her song "Disneyland" totally sums up my childhood.
For the contract, I feel like it would have been so easy to have Arial sign with an X rather than doing away with the contract entirely. It would imply she can't write, and having her not able to read the contract yet still signing it would add an extra level to Ursula's manipulation
So about your comment on the tempo of the songs. I am not a conductor, but am a classical pianist. The original song's tempo is roughly 90bpm and the new one's is 75bpm. So it is definetly noticable. Your analysis is really thorough and interesting. I couldn't exactly understand what was wrong with McCarthy's performance, until you mentioned her singing being too dramatized. It really feels like she is singing in an opera house, but at the same time not able to fill the space so she has to yell out every word. I really wanted to like this remake, Halle deserves recognition for her acting skills, but it's sadly just another lifeless corporate cashgrab
The lack of emotions on Ariel in the live action is so boring also the latín spanish 1989 cartoon version is chef kiss
High quality hand drawn animation is delightful because by its nature, it has to be extremely deliberate. Every motion, color, and expression has to be carefully crafted and there for a reason. You don't see that kind of care in this new slop.
Have people not realized that Ariel writing that "she's the mermaid that rescued him" makes her look CRAZY. Like, why would Eric just believe her, especially since she's mute? It makes her look like she just wants to marry him in his POV, and he wouldn't want to get to know her or go on a date with her.
I liked the live action but I love how you drag music and color theory into this!!! It's amazing how much care went into it in the past, and I just don't understand how they seem to forget these details in the remake. I just hope that Disney will take the time to make good movies again, paying their workers fairly, so they can really create something new again. However, seeing for example how much Halle trained and put her heart into this, I really enjoyed this film. It's just really on another level as the originals, and for me that's fine - I don't think the goal is to make a better movie, but a sentimental remake. I'd love it though if Disney focused their energy on creating new stuff.
The rake across the coals with little creatures was better that a LITERAL SKULL. Also the ariel signing could have been easy to fix have the contract show Atlantian type letters (simular to like Atlantis the lost empire was an entirely different language) and have it flash English for us or not at all. The only thing we really needed was ariels writing a different language
Apparently the kids are to sensitive to be terrified. A lost soul doomed to live forever in ursula's lair? Nah, too scary, let's just say she is a stereotypical witch killing them.
@@evanmak7837 and my kid self with my 80s horror movies laughs at the weakness
@@comradekitty3759 My kid self is watching goosebumps, the black cauldron, are you afraid of the dark, any cliche horror flick and laughs at all of this xD
@@evanmak7837 same honestly
Or show a scene with letters of girls claiming to be Eric's savior thrown to the trash to tell everyone that Eric ain't that naive, and just writing it down to him won't do the trick
But then again, the proof he was asking for was the voice, something no words written anywhere could provide, so that probably wouldn't have worked either, and could've made Ariel's situation worse, because she could've come up as faker that wanted to exploit his obsession with that mysterious girl
I was in awe when I first saw the remake version of the poor unfortunate souls but after watching your video I went back to the original as the better version. This was a very eye opening for me. THANK YOU! ❤
It's nice to hear this from someone who is knowledgeable about music explains what's wrong where I know something is wrong but not how or why.
Something else I notice when watching the live action, is that Live-Ursula is almost constantly sneering, whereas cartoon-Ursula is smiling or being "sad" on behalf of the "poor unfortunate souls". She only really lets down her facade of faux-sympathy when whispering to the eels. That acting choice alone dramatically changes my impression of the scene, because it really puts into question why anyone would trust Ursula.
For my money, I don't think I'd accept help from someone who was sneering in my face while trying to tell me how much they could help me. It doesn't look the slightest bit understanding, and rather makes her look antagonistic which is not what she wants at this point in the story.
There are a lot of detailed nuances that have gotten lost in modern movies. Impressed with all the film you could play. Good introspection on why your explanations make sense.
9:49 many fans speculated that the writing written by Ariel is not in human language although it looks like English in the viewer's POV in the animated version. Mostly for viewers' benefit
08:52 I also think that regarding Howard Ashman's original lyrics if there's anyone qualified to make a judgment about what is or isn't respectful to his legacy it's Alan Menken, his main collaborator, but what's most interesting to me is that it seems like he himself was hesitant about the changes making me wonder where they even came from because when talking about the changes to Poor Unfortunate Souls, he references that the lyrics were changed even though Ursula is clearly manipulating Ariel. It seems like he was referring to the lines about men on land not liking women who talk. It's she who holds her tongue who gets her manbut Ursula is the villain and she's trying to convince Ariel that voices are not that important. I don't think that those lines are essential for understanding the song but changing them brings up an important question just how evil are villains allowed to be? Im bad at explaining so here's the full explanation
czcams.com/video/6EG54kUo5PU/video.html
They added amnesia to Ursula's spell so Ariel will forget about true love kiss. But this is completely unnecessary because Sebastian still reminds her. This change made Kiss the Girl scene very less romantic because Ariel is way more reluctant to kiss him in this scene. Also if Ariel didn't kiss him for true love so what's the point of the song and the scene? Imagine if they actually managed to kissing but because Ariel's not too serious about it because she forgot about the terms of true love then nothing happen, she doesnt get her voice back and cant be human permanently.
I hadn't seen the little mermaid in decades and one random day (before the remake) I found this song in my head and have been playing it periodically. It is epic. I didn't even notice the Tuba before you mentioned it, there's so many quirks and things to discover about the song like that little voice thing when she says 'Magic'. The original is a masterpiece and Pat Carole's voice is a force of nature and I haven't heard any other cover stand up to her.
Wait, does remake Ursula seriously just kill the people who can’t pay their debts instead of turning them into creepy worm things? That feels like a downgrade.
Amazing video!
I wish you included the incantation part as well, because the biggest climax of the song is there (the vortex that Ursula summons), and in the live action remake it fails on two fronts: 1) it looks so much more subdued 2) she summons boring non-descript tendrils, as opposed to those creepy skeletal arms. In short, whenever they could mute the creativity of the original, they did it.
Just hope future parents show their kids the originals
I always thought "well, a witch" plus the little giggles was supposed to be a pun on the word "b*tch"
You can also cover the removal of Vanessa’s song which was called the reprise of Poor Unfortunate Souls, and how it was replaced with Halle Bailey showing off her vocals like she did with her version of Part Of Your World.
i got mad at that part when i saw it on you tube i was wtf!?
@@eveningowl9443 also, why would the shell be glowing on its own when she’s not around? Better yet, why did she take it off?
This is an awesome video! Very straight to the point, I didn’t think of the song this way until now
Thank you so much for explaining why the remake makes my teeth ache and grind when I didn't know quite why.
If you haven't covered the rest of the songs please do.
Wow, thank you for the insight! I don't know too much on how music is made but I like how you show different clips and analyze the music score side by side with specific examples. Makes me, a casual listener, understand why some modern Disney music just seems "off" to me. It fails to touch my soul (sounds dramatic I know lol, but good music gives me goosebumps and have me in awe sometimes XD) Although I may not understand music terminology or the theoretics behind on how songs are made, Disney is really treating us like we are stupid :/ We can tell, I just can't put it into words. Your explanation did just that!
When she said that Ariel would be helpless without her voice, my first thought was "the importance of body language"💀