Disney Girls versus American Girls Deathmatch: who will win, the Fiesty one or the Spunky one?
Duh. Disney Girls have animal friends.
Disagree. Hans Cristian Andersen did give the story a happy ending: the prince marries some broad who he thinks rescued him. The mermaid knows that on the day her Prince marrries that other woman, she will die a mermaids deat and become nothng but seafoam. Her sisters buy her a knife she should use to stab her prince, so his blood will turn her eeet and legs back into a fistail. But she can’t bring herself to stab her prince. And yes, she feels her heart break and falls off the boat and changes into seafoam. But then she is granted mercy, and becomes a a spirit of the air. And, as a spirit, she has a chance to earn an ticket into Heaven, but only if she meets enough “good” children. Happy ending, no? (Andersens’ stories are heavy on accepting death and teaching kids morals. They are also hauntingly beautiful.)
Edited on preview: God yes, Anderson WAS the original Emo.
In a sense, that’s true. Still, the phrase “Too little, too late” comes to mind.
Of course they exist, Darryl Hannah is one…just chuck a bucket of water over her, you’ll see
I’m not sure he invented the stereotype, but he certainly created at least one cartoon to support it. Commando Duck, starring Donald Duck.
–FCOD
Wartime propaganda poster — by Dr. Seuss!
You can see White Wilderness here on YouTube. It’s a bit … grim, once you know that it’s all faked for the camera.
Outrage!
Why do people insist that The Mermaid’s original ending was the tragic one, while Disney’s was the happy one? The Disney one is the tacked-on maudlin ending that trivializes the story… The Disney ending has the Mermaid denying her nature in some incredibly unrealistic, sappy, and self-centered wish-fulfillment.
The original ending is much more nuanced and not merely tragic, but bittersweet, even sublime:
It’s an ending that actually shows the Mermaid not cheapening her true nature (a daughter of the sea, not a human), as happens in the Disney dreckfest, but transcending it. Also, it’s only tragic superficially–her original selfish wish-fulfillment is now directed toward a higher purpose. Remember, her infatuation with the prince was always pure fantasy. Furthermore, the original serves as a much better metaphor for teaching children about real human relationships. The Disney version is just sappy crap. People’s hearts get broken all the time, especially when people chase after something that is unrealistic. In The Little Mermaid, the beautiful ending shows in metaphor how one can survive a broken heart and find meaning in life that comes from within, and isn’t dependent on the likely transient affection of another. In Andersen ending, she is now entirely responsible for herself, and doesn’t need “a prince’s love.”
It baffles me how anyone could prefer Disney’s much shallower version.
Walt Disney taught me that animals of different species can be friends, romp and play together and help each other out…
…instead of trying to eat each other’s hot entrails.
Dude, the Disney version is a LOVE story. Don’t call it crap just because it has a happy ending. (plus it’s a Broadway musical masquerading as animation)
Walt Disney will teach us more when he comes out of his cryogenic sleep.
Elephants can fly, especially baby ones.
Crickets wear waistcoats and carry a cane
Not to mention they only have four limbs.
…and wear top hats
and vests!
Dalmatians can give birth to 101 puppies.
All cats are evil and have their own agenda.
And how is this a lie?
–FCOD
I already said that, a vest is what we call a waistcoat.
They also wear spats
Not true – in the movie it’s made clear that most of the puppies were gathered from elsewhere. There were only about seven in Purdie’s litter.
You gotta pay attention to your Disney movies.
(I have no idea what happens in the original book, but suspect it’s the same.)
Cthulhu Fthagn!
Ia! Ia! Shub-Purdirath! The Dalmation with 101 young!