If Disney's Little Mermaid had been faithful, would it have been better?

[jklinders]

*Shrugs*

Disney has been doing this for a pretty long time. rebranding old tales and putting a shiny new varnish on them. Personally I don't think the existence of one invalidates the other. It's been a pretty long journey for me to come to this point but I have come to the conclusion that adaptation does not mean bringing the original form down to the last page and scene to the screen.

I'm actually not nearly as bothered by the notion of the ending of these classic tales being revised or even completely changed as i am by this notion that it has to be only one way, this way. That is a really good way to stifle a medium, a story. Times and circumstances and most importantly audiences change. Perhaps a good way to keep these tales in view is have them available in this format and hope that people can be driven to read the original material.

The changes are not always for the better. Hans Christian Anderson was utterly depressing so I would argue that maybe it was a good thing to change those stories in that medium. I personally prefer the original Aladdin over the Disney version. Mostly it's a matter of taste.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Yeah, exactly. I think I saw a bunch of those classics adaptations, now that you mention it. There's something weirdly interesting about them. Watership Down was another one that would fit in that category. I certainly can't speak for all kids, but I was easily traumatized by literally everything as a kid (I was afraid of purple balloons for years, now I'm just afraid of ALL balloons). But it wasn't so much the tragic themes themselves in those movies and cartoons that freaked me out, it was usually the special effects of the movies themselves or something about the animation, especially when it was not very believable, which was so common in the 80s. It was the confusion that messed with my head the most. If Disney did it in typical Disney quality of the time, it might not have had the same effect on me.

I think I know what you mean -- I remember those Spitting Image puppets scaring the shit out of me. Genesis' 'Land of Confusion' was enough to send me into a panic.

 

[K12]

I think the best known version of virtually all fairy stories have been sanitised for children, it isn't just Disney.

Jack and Jill was about two people secretly fucking who then get found out and have their heads smashed in (Jack's crown that he breaks is referring to his skull).

I love when children's films are brave and confident enough to deal with darker tones and refuse to shy away from depicting real consequences but it's not going to work in every story. Plus a lot of them have morals and themes that are really retrogressive and nasty. It's part of cultural evolution that these stories get changed to reflect the time in which they are told. The older versions still exist for people who want the.

Personally I blame the fact that this is even being asked on the current swathe of comic book films which get judged obsessively (and sometimes exclusively) by how "accurate" they are.

 

[Lunar Templar]

well, since they don't keep faithful to any source material ....

 

[Something Amyss]

Del Toro film. Set after the Spanish Civil War. It's.... phenomenal. But it makes you less happy-shiny.

Wouldnt worry about that. I'm apparently not a very happy person.