Talk:The Little Mermaid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 February 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aggiegal19.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 January 2021 and 19 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tylercharlyy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamagotchi - Episode 40 - The little mermaid[edit]

Lovelin and Hapihapitchi were shown in "The Little Mermaid" story and They need to use "The Legendary Marine Blue" to Evolve Themselves into Land form, that's almost like "The Little Mermaid" has to Permanently Give Up her Singing Voice In Order to become Human by using a Magical Potion to drink it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ONS3Tnow (talk • contribs) 23:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Links[edit]

Some history links are broken from a yahoo news site. I Suggest finding alternate sites. A Gigantic Panda 02:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I Being Needlessly Nordic-Centered[edit]

I find it offensive that The Little Mermaid is primarily a discussion of the animated movie and not the story by Hans Christian Andersen. Maybe I am being too sensitive, but... Don't really know what avenue of remedy I should seek. Would someone want to rebut my concern or advice in some other manner? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick

I suppose the best avenue of remedy would be to write more about the Hans Christian Andersen story. If enough is written, the stuff on the film could be spun off into The Little Mermaid (movie). --Camembert
I don't think that anyone wanted to offend someone by writing about the film. Just be bold, if you feel offended, you can change it. ;-) Fantasy 14:06, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I don't think it's offensive, but I do think it's wrong. I think originals should have naming precedence over derivities. CGS 17:30, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC).
I don't see this as a case of one having precedence over the other. When two subjects are closely related, and have the same title, there is no need to split the page unless it is otherwise becoming too large. No need to say that either should have precedence. Andre Engels 18:18, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I split it (see below) because the original fairy tale is something else than the WD commercialized movie adaption, and the Little Mermaid page was only about the latter one, which just gives a wrong picture. Two articles make it more clear what is a derived work and what is the original. -- till we *) 18:25, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)
I splitted into The Little Mermaid (1836) and The Little Mermaid (movie) (1989). -- till we *) 18:02, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)

There was another movie[edit]

I think this summary might be missing an adaptation..I remember seeing this very sad film about "marina" who had blond hair and ends up dying at the end of the movie.

  • My sister has it in her possesion, and it's almost hentai (anime porn), what with topless mermaids and such. The translation lapses in some places, and the villain shows up for about, I don't know, 5 minutes. Not as good as the Disney version. (A short description has been added between when you wrote that and when I wrote this.) Davidizer13 22:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned; it is the Toei film version. Technically, it was a kid's movie, not hentai; while the mermaids were topless, their hair covered their "private parts," and while human-Marina was shown naked, it was not graphic (once again, she had long hair), and she was clothed for most of the film. Still, that is a bit innappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.77.13 (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is the same one I am thinking of, I saw this other movie in theaters when I was 8 years old so it had to be around 1979. It was actually called "The Littlest Mermaid", I have been searching for this movie for years, cannot find anyone else who remembers it. I did find an animated version of the tale on VHS but it just wasn't the same. I remember the ending VIVIDLY! She was standing over the prince and his bride as they lay sleeping holding the knife she was suppose to stab him with; she can't bring herself to do it so as dawn breaks, she dives into the ocean and turns into seafoam leaving her hair comb and either the knife or a scale from her tail behind on the edge of the boat. Darkangel3863 (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're talking about this film "Rusalochka", which was a Russian live-action adaptation released in the US in 1979. It's mentioned in the adaptations section already. Here's a link to the English cover: [1].Luminum (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't Hentai. What a silly thing to say, nudity does not automatically equal sex, and in most cases nudity is outside any sort of sexual context. In my experience, people who are uncomfortable with nudity, and instantly sexualize, are repressed prudes. A lot of the illustrations of The Little Mermaid depict her as topless. She's a mermaid, what would she wear? Also, when you say the villain only appears for 'about five minutes' are you talking about the Sea Witch? Because she was only expanded to a villain, and maybe a few other adaptations. In the original story by Hans Christian Anderson she plays a neutral role, she's a means to an end. The Little Mermaid wants legs, she goes to the sea witch. The Sea Witch tells her there's a price and that there are consequences. The Little Mermaid agrees and the Sea Witch gives her legs in exchange for her voice. How is that villainous? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.200.22 (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I used to have the alternate animated version you're talking about, and there's certainly no confusing it with hentai. I used to watch it all the time when I was little, and never thought twice about the mermaids not wearing clothing. There's really nothing sexual about it. Also, the previous commenter is correct about the witch not serving as the villain here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.28.244 (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Acurracy of the Article[edit]

It is inaccurate to say that it required three hundred years for the little mermaid and the beings to permitted to enter Paradise. For, the period of three centuries was reduced by a year whenever they saw a good child but lengthened by a day whenever they saw a naughty child. Therefore, they were probably permitted to enter Heaven in less than one hundred years. One must also remember that the time of the story was probably in the Dark Ages (after Scandinavia was Christianised, of course. Perhaps in the twelfth century).

Good point about the lengthening and shortening of the 300 years, that needs to be there so I added it. The story was written in 1836 by H. C. Andersen though (as the article says), so I don't think your theories about the story being from the twelfth century holds :). Thue | talk 22:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The setting of most fairy-tales is during the Dark Ages(Middle Ages), but I thank you, hr, for your effort.
"Anenst" is a synonym of "about." That photograph, hr, is already in the article about Copenhagen.

Anime Version is Not Hentai[edit]

This was my favorite movie as a child. I still own this movie today; in no way is it Hentai. Hentai is graphic sex and detailed explicit nudity. Yes, the mermaids are bare breasted but their long hair covers them modestly. If you think this is porn then make sure you never visit The Louvre where the paintings of masters are (and gasp!-images of bare breasted women) It might interest you to know that the movie is rated "G".

So anyone looking to view this beautiful film for the first time, just know that it is not Hentai.

-By *-giggle-* Jan. 20, 2006

hello, the japanese version is my favourite movie at all, i watch it since i was a little girl and till now i am 26 and still like it, please if someone has the version and is able to send it to me contact me on my mail : lindatrz@hotmail.com , please my whole childhood revolves around this movie!

Yeah, could someone inform the rest of us where we can find the Japanese 1970s film?

In Japan[edit]

The Japanese stuff was taking up to much room in the Adoptions, so I created moved all Japanese stuff into it's own section. Hope you don't mind. By *-DocPoke-* April 28

Adaptation section, notice to editors[edit]

The Adaptations section is to be used for works that are adaptations of the story, not to mention every film, show, or movie that mentions "The Little Mermaid." I trimmed the list down so that only conclusive retellings and/or adaptations are included, though truthfully there are still a few listed that can possibly go, as well. Please be careful in adding new material so that the section does not become overly bloated with superfluous trivia. María (habla conmigo) 18:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel is a girl who loves Eric and tries to convince her father that it is ok to see humans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.22.10 (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merperson?[edit]

We can all guess what "merperson" is supposed to mean, but the word is not well-established. The word is probably too analytical to be used in connection with a work of fantasy. Monomoit (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which years into which languages?[edit]

Did the Danish version get translated into German, Norwegian, Swedish, and Dutch before it was translated into English? Which years were they translated (or published), if ever? The main page of this article implies it was only published once in Danish - the first year it came out. Am I right to assume that initial sales were so disappointing that publication picked up in England and the United States after the Danish publisher gave up on it?

Which publishing companies were responsible for the various translations prior to 1837? The main page of this article confuses me, and somebody should clear it up.

Do any of these early copies still exist? If they have ever passed through an auction block, what prices have they commanded? Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure what you mean by "main page" of the article, but the "Publication" section clearly states that it was published at least 3 times (possibly more) in Danish before the first English translation appeared in 1872, and it has been reprinted countless times since then. Except for the early years of his authorship, Hans Christian Andersen has never really been unpopular in Denmark, his works was mostly well recieved by the Danish readers and sold very well. And yes it is very likely that the story would have been translated into German, Norwegian, Swedish and Dutch before being translated into English. At the time the cultural ties were much stronger between Denmark and those countries than with the English speaking countries. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious about that too — especially the English translations. In the meantime, I changed the final sentence to be more clear and to read thus: "In May 2010, [the statue] was moved from its Copenhagen harbor emplacement for the first time ever, for transport to Expo 2010 in Shanghai where it will remain until late October 2010." Asteriks (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:LittleMermaidStatuealshami.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:LittleMermaidStatuealshami.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary Section Edits[edit]

The summary section has been subject to a number of recent edits, none of which has included an edit summary or a discussion here on Talk. I have reverted to the last clean edit, one which is perfectly serviceable and that does not begin with "Once upon a time" (appropriate for the tale itself but not an encyclopedia summary thereof), contractions, serious format spacing issues, and the repeated grammatical error of beginning a sentence with a coordinate conjunction. If an editor feels that this section is in need of an edit, well and good - but the edits need to be justified by an explanatory edit summary at the very least (and preferably some discussion on this page), and they need to meet the standards of the MOS and of proper English. Sensei48 (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. The IP editor seemed to have returned this morning, but I replaced back to your version. What is going on, with this "Once upon a time" stuff?! EdumaGator (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bøggild and Heegaard "quote"[edit]

As this source is a summary of these authors' original work, quoting directly from it shouldn't really be attributed to them. I think it would be best for the article if this quotation were paraphrased.Musicandnintendo (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptations[edit]

The current paragraph on the Disney film violates [[WP:POV], and the fact that it's sourced criticism is irrelevant. The movie exists; some people like it, some people hate it, but discussion of the movie's merits isn't appropriate for this article. The referenced sentence would be fine for a criticism section in the film's article, but there's no way that "betrays" and "exploits" are neutral, and adding praise of the film to balance would be too much here. Better to just mention it and the sequels and leave the commentary for the film's article. PaulGS (talk) 02:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Objection noted. As you know, I disagree with removing it for reasons mentioned in my edit summaries. However, I would strongly suggest that should we and other editors decide collaboratively to remove it, a substitute notation should be included. With nearly every other item in the "Adaptations" section, where the adaptation differs significantly from the original story, the differences are presented at least in summary form. The 1989 cartoon has so many major differences from Andersen's story that it seemed to me the shorthand quotation was more succinct and useful. Maybe we could sandbox a replacement note here. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Themes[edit]

I'm wondering if we should add themes to this page like how the Little Red Riding Hood fairytale has themes about it. There were quite a few themes in this fairytale including: Religion, Loyalty, etc. Does anyone else think this should be added to the wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sluppino (talk • contribs) 18:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Little Mermaid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undine/Ondine[edit]

Perhaps there should be some discussion on the extent to which Anderson's Mermaid plot itself borrows elements from the de la Motte German romance: notable probably is the matter of gaining a human soul, which I suspect is borrowed. The witch is definitely not in Undine. The question then collides with which element is from which story when we get to Dvorak's Rusalka. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foiled circuitous wanderer (talk • contribs) 09:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "potential homosexuality" section[edit]

I think the title could be worded a bit better. Given HCA's complicated sexuality, or some might even say might say lack thereof, or , alternatively, "bisexuality". it all seems a bit assumptive. Subtext is also the the wrong word choice, too, as such would be plain and obvious to most readers exactly what the subtext was upon simple reading. Perhaps something like "Possible allegory for personal life". A bit more semantic but "possible" is also the more appropriate word here, as potential often implies ability to transform/change in the future.

Sourcing Tag For "Potential homosexual subtext"[edit]

This is a worthy and important addition to the article, but the cited sources are not generally up to the task that they are assigned. Norton is a RS, but he makes only a passing remark in the cited source. Brooke Allen's NYT piece mentions LM and touches on Andersen's sexuality, but she does not link them explicitly, making the attempt to use this as a source an example of WP:SYNTH. The Turner article is completely off-topic since it is discussing the 1989 Disney cartoon and not Andersen's story, to which the film bears only a skeletal resemblance. The problem with von Essen is also a focus on the movie, and I wonder if a self-described "novelist and blogger who reads while walking and believes in magic" on a user-generated site qualifies as RS.

The points raised about Andersen and this story are worthy ones, but they need greatly improved and relevant sources. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sensei48:I have an idea to bring back information from a previous version of the article where this section was called "Psychoanalytic Interpretations" which had some better sources that have been lost. See my new talk page section below for details, and if you're still interested in working on this section, I'd be happy to work with you and would appreciate any help as my assignment is editing related, not research based. Thanks! Aggiegal19 (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Planned Revisions[edit]

Hello, I have been assigned this article for my Technical Editing class, and I will be working on it heavily for the next two weeks (until about 17 March 2019). This is a summary of my editorial goals, and I will start implementing organizational changes towards the end of next week and stylistic revision/copy-editing the following week.

  • Organization
    • Debate Over Ending could be changed to “Critical Response” with subsections for debate over ending. This will allow for further subsections about critical interpretations related to entire story
    • Previous version of article had a “Psychoanalytic Interpretations” subsection instead of the current “Potential Homosexual Subtext” section (see previous versions from Aug 2013 such as: [[2]]. I think incorporating the information that was previously there with what is currently here can help flesh out this section and also bring back some better citations that were lost with the change.
      • Also, renaming this section to “Themes and Interpretations” could be a good start in allowing a place for the incorporation of more information about the actual text and it’s interpretations
    • “Mermaid Statue” section could be renamed to “Pop Culture” (with “Mermaid Statue” as a subheading) to allow for space for the potential addition of more information relating to current monuments, events, etc. related to Anderson’s story.

Here is a link to my sandbox where I will be conceptualizing my ideas: User:Aggiegal19/sandbox2 Thank you! Aggiegal19 (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This looks pretty good to me in general. I think "Psychoanalytic Interpretations" would be a good move. As I note above, the current section veers OT since some of the sourcing alludes to the movie. This article is about the real story, and that is why it would not give any special prominence to the Disney film. It's terrible as an interpretation of Anderson. In fact, by taking a story that is at its heart a religious one and turning it into an unimaginative Hollywood romance is a complete distortion of Anderson's intent and narrative. It makes the statue in Copehnagen incomprehensible to anyone who knows only Disney since it depicts the precise moment at which the Mermaid thinks she is about to turn into sea foam since the prince does not love her and marries another girl. Of course, the Mermaid ia actually about to be transformed into a Daughter of the Air and will after a period of time get what she really wants - not a husband but an immortal soul like humans have but that the mer-people do not. The emphasis of the article must stay on the story; the Disney thing has its own article anyway. Sensei48 (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. Thank you for responding Sensei48. As for the Interpretations section, I went ahead and added back the information from the previous version that actually had a paragraph on the "homosexual subtext" saying the same things but with better sources (I took out the Vice and NYT refs for this reason; not too sure why it was changed in the first place). I'll leave this section titled "Themes and Interpretations" for now in the hopes that someone with good research can add in things relating directly to themes (it wouldn't make sense for me to add in themes in it's own section as I don't have anything to add to it), and in the future there can be discussion about breaking the two apart or into subsections if need be.
As for relevancy, I want to bring up the Adaptations list again: I will be moving it to a stand-alone list page towards the end of the week to give a little more time for anyone to present arguments against doing so (my arguments for this move are as stated above). Thank you! Aggiegal19 (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have implemented all of the revisions I had planned, including separating the adaptations list into its own article (see: List of The Little Mermaid Adaptations). My Wikiedu project is now complete. Thank you! Aggiegal19 (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Original Ending[edit]

I was confused when I read the synopsis because it's not quite what I remembered. The version that I read as a child didn't feature redemption for the title character:

"She fled from the room, knowing that she must soon die. By dawn, she felt the change coming on. Just as the witch had threatened, she was turning into foam -- the beautiful white foam that caps the waves as they roll over the endless blue sea." The end.

I vividly remembered an illustration of her turning to foam as the prince and his new bride walked along the beach. After racking my brain, I figured out that it was published in 1971's Disney's Wonderful World of Knowledge, Volume 14 (https://archive.org/details/disneyswonderful14walt), which is an English translation of the Italian Enciclopedia Disney by Elisa Penna.

There's mention on this page that the original ending "climaxed in the mermaid's dissolution," but there's nothing to suggest that this version was ever published. Clearly, it was (in Italy, at least!).

VinnieRattolle (talk) 06:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this reference! I'm coming at it from the other perspective; I've been mystified by the line about the ending with "the mermaid's dissolution." I've been searching and haven't found anything to indicate Andersen added a new ending; in fact, as mentioned on the page, the original working title was "The Daughters of the Air." Maria Tatar's book mentions that in the draft, the Daughters of the Air ending was longer and featured more dialogue. I've also been eyeballing the included picture of the manuscript page (do we have any idea where that image came from?) and comparing it to the Danish text (https://www.andersenstories.com/da/andersen_fortaellinger/den_lille_havfrue), I'm pretty sure they have the same ending paragraph about children affecting the Daughters' time before Heaven. Sgallison (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statues Section[edit]

In the statues section, under the Statues in Italy subheading, there is a sentence which reads: "A second always portraying a mermaid Post on a depth of sea about 18 meters." Does anyone know what this is supposed to mean? Can it be edited for clarity? Amashelle (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category[edit]

71.80.203.159 (talk) 03:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Den lille havfrue" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Den lille havfrue. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 11#Den lille havfrue until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Stefan2 (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works based on The Little Mermaid[edit]

I removed Category:Works based on The Little Mermaid from this article, because it's not about a work based on The Little Mermaid. This was reverted by Northernhenge who said it is "in effect" an eponymous category. I contest this: the vast majority of all articles have no eponymous category and that's perfectly fine, there's no need to shoehorn articles into a category like this. The article is in Category:Short stories by Hans Christian Andersen, which is where it belongs. It does not belong in a subcategory of Category:Adaptations of works by Hans Christian Andersen, which is part of a different category tree. Category:Works based on The Little Mermaid is the eponymous category of List of The Little Mermaid adaptations, not of this article. Ffranc (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having a closely related category, in this case Category:Works based on The Little Mermaid, makes it easy for a reader to find other articles on the same topic. If I found this article, how would I easily know what else was on Wikipedia on the same topic? In this particular case, having the category linked in a “See Also” section would achieve that, but surely a better general solution is to apply wp:CATMAIN and include the category as a category. —Northernhenge (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Andersen fairytale is based on general mermaid lore and Undine (novella), so its not a completely novel creation. Having it in the category aids navigation.לילך5 (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's already categorised in "Works based on folklore". I don't think the influence from Undine is strong enough to warrant categorisation, but if it was it would belong in Category:Works based on Undine (novella), not in Works based on The Little Mermaid. Ffranc (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ffranc's view here. It doesn't make much sense to add the original work in the category reserved for works based on it. Northernhenge: the category contains the List of The Little Mermaid adaptations as its main article, which can be added in the "See also" section to help navigation, if it's not already linked in the body of this article. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 20:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if there turns out to be no consensus for the category, “see also” seems like a good alternative.—Northernhenge (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quick, simple navigation is already handled better by {{The Little Mermaid}}. Navigation templates are better alternatives to See also links when there are many relevant articles to link to, like there is here. If we use categorisation as a form of see also links based on gut feeling we just make the category system arbitrary, and less useful. A link to the category in the article is also just strange, and unnecessary because of the navbox. Ffranc (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We haven’t heard from @Foiled circuitous wanderer: who initially reverted the removal of the category, but – given the navigation template rationale – I’m happy to move on now. —Northernhenge (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

version that I think didn't get made -at one point Sofia Coppola was going to direct it[edit]

https://www.joblo.com/sofia-coppola-reveals-why-she-dropped-out-of-universals-the-little-mermaid-156/ 94.197.168.107 (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Grace Moretz was going to star, but Coppola wanted Maya Hawke. Then Coppola dropped out, and a bit later Moretz dropped out too. The sources are conflicting, but I think that it was going to be based directly on the Andersen tale, and not on the 1980s Disney film, so wouldn't have had songs. It is said that Coppola wanted it to be a dark fairy tale, and filmed underwater, while Moretz said it would be revisionist and progressive for young women. Richard Curtis, Abi Morgan, Kelly Marcel and Caroline Thompson were in talks to write the script. It would have been Coppola's first big-budget film, and she was uncomfortable with that. It's completely separate from the Halle Bailey Disney remake.
https://www.inquisitr.com/2620323/sofia-coppola-little-mermaid-chloe-moretz/
https://www.yournextshoes.com/little-mermaid-chloe-moretz/
https://www.vulture.com/2017/06/sofia-coppola-little-mermaid-filmed-underwater.html
https://screenrant.com/sofia-coppola-little-mermaid-movie/
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/film-tv/news/a21822/little-mermaid-live-action-movie-guide/
https://hiddenremote.com/2018/09/04/disneys-little-mermaid/ 94.197.168.107 (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not the original[edit]

Just to say Hans Christian Andersen version is not the original, there are earliest versions in countries like italy at least since the 13th century 190.73.95.189 (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Little_Mermaid&oldid=1194059898"