Talk:The Little Mermaid (2023 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Should the draft become a page?

I mean, Jacob Tremblay already began recording his lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BestDaysofMusic (talk • contribs) 21:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Disney+ original film

This film should be a Disney+ original film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.222.83.87 (talk) 03:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Racism in the film

It should be mentioned about racism in this film: black Ariel wants to be a human, and she doesn't have a voice. I think this is a big spit towards BLM and Afro-Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.88.221.86 (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You will need to find a reliable source discussing it. See WP:V and WP:NPOV. BOVINEBOY2008 20:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Reception is different from its references

The reception says that “critics” reviewed the trailer with “mixed-to-negative reception”, but the references listed aren’t critics reviewing the trailer. I would fix this but i’m not on desktop right now so i just wanted to point it out 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚^{(🕷) - (✉)} 23:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Casting controversy

I feel like this section isn't properly fleshed out. It doesn't really explain what the controversy is. Why were people upset with Halle Bailey?Byconcept (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I've talked about this above, in a separate thread. There's no evidence in reliable sources of any sort of controversy besides certain people on social media being angry because a nonwhite actress is being cast in what used to be a white role. It happens all the time, and aside from the big names in the industry defending the casting choice, there's nothing really notable about this "controversy". Which is why I said it shouldn't be it's own subsection. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you believe this? The sources for the controversy regarding Ariel's race is made up of meta-responses to the controversy. WHERE IS THE SOURCE MATERIAL?! DON'T GIVE ME A LINK TO TREVOR NOAH! TREVOR NOAH DIDN'T DISLIKE ARIEL BEING BLACK! GIVE ME A LINK TO THE PEOPLE WHO SAID ARIEL SHOULDN'T BE BLACK! Oh, and yeah, sweeping the controversy under the rug ain't gonna cut it either. I know you control Wikipedia, but still... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.122.28.167 (talk) 10:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Jonah Hauer-King.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Why capitalize "black?"

"After the release of the trailer, videos of Black girls positively reacting to it went viral."

Is there some legitimate, neutral, encyclopedic, grammatically correct reason why "black" is capitalized in that sentence? If that is allowed, are editors then allowed to capitalize "white" on Wikipedia as well? 47.12.161.150 (talk) 08:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Both words are allowed to be either capitalized or uncapitalized, as per MOS:RACECAPS 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚^{(🕷) - (✉)} 10:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

White is capitalised the article also. Not understanding why you made this. If there’s inconsistencies, just change it. Corona1112 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd support capitalized race-color descriptors (White/Black). I checked the first ten sources in §Controversy (as of this edit. Seven used 'Black', two used 'black', and one didn't use either term. Most American style guides recommend capitalizing such terms, and this is an American film with a AmEng tag. Either way, we shouldn't be editing back-and-forth about this without discussion, so I hope Dudhhr and Special:Contributions/82.54.229.153 can share their view. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Sequel

I've recently removed the sequel section due to it being sourced to a fan site and the edit was reverted by an IP without explanation. Again without explanation, the same IP reverted another IP who removed it because "They were overreaching. Let the movie begin first". I also removed it a few months ago, but it was reverted by Chucheraya20 who wrote in their edit summary: "Do NOT Delete information". Neither reverts seem justified as they fail to provide an adequate reason for why this content should be included. Furthermore, TheDisInsider (the source used) is a blatantly unreliable source. It calls itself "an unofficial fan site", and their jobs are unpaid and experience is "preferred but not necessary". Thoughts? Pamzeis (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

From my talk page: the page you say is Fake is completely real. A lot of news they give is real. 2806:10BE:9:1B52:C00B:4F90:8ED3:65D6 (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not saying that the news is fake. I'm saying that the cite is unusable as a source since it seems no different to cites like Fandom that are run by unpaid fans. Essentially, this source seems like a WP:SELFPUB source. There is no indication that the writer is an established professional. Pamzeis (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Without a response for three days, I'm going to remove the poorly sourced information about the sequel. The WP:ONUS is on you to show why it justifies inclusion. Pamzeis (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  I say remove it. If its not backed by reliable sources then why does it need to be in there. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 20:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

TheDisInsider is 100% an unreliable source. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

i wish you wouldnt do this i just found this and would like to see this 208.123.233.155 (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this paragraph correct?

A poll conducted from July 8–10, 2022, from Hollywood Reporter/Morning Consult found that just under half of Americans supported the idea of minorities playing the roles of characters who had been cast as white. When asked "Thinking about live-action movie remakes of classic cartoons, do you support or oppose actors who are racial and ethnic minorities playing characters who have been white in past films?", 48% answered "strongly" or "somewhat" support, 21% said "strongly" or "somewhat" oppose, while 31% either did not know or had no opinion. The same poll also found a majority in support of remakes that are "as close to their original as possible, including sticking to the race and ethnicity of each character."

When I click the link for the above source it says 48% say movies should stick to race and ethnicity of character while 25% say they should increase diversity even if it means changing the race/ethnicity of characters. It seems like the source provided for the above disagrees with what the above says. 2600:1700:1B00:15FF:A5AF:D374:3B5:CCB1 (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Halle Berry not Bailey

Did you mean to say Halle Berry when you wrote Bailey? Fluffylover1 (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

No. $chnauzer 22:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Halle Berry. Halle Bailey. Take a guess as to who plays Ariel. $chnauzer 23:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

"Controversy" section

I know controversy sections are not exactly welcome on Wikipedia, and furthermore, as the section itself reveals, there wasn't even a controversy, just a bunch of racists on twitter raising a stink. This entire section needs to be reworded or removed. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@FilmandTVFan28: I made the edit for a specific reason and I explained myself on the talk page. If you're going to undo my edit, at least discuss it first. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Any unnecessary removal can and will be reverted. Your removal of sourced content made no sense whatsoever. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@FilmandTVFan28:It does because any mention of this supposed hashtag is undue. The other sources also make mention that some people supposedly didn't like the casting choice, and that major voices in the industry defended the choice. But to say there was some sort of controversy because of a twitter hashtag, is laughable. The controversy section itself fails to cite any sources that would show that there was a notable controversy in the first place. Most of the sources cited (and 90% of the section itself) speak of overwhelming support of the casting choice. At the very least, there is no reason for this to be a separate subsection from "Casting". 46.97.170.112 (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I would keep the content but remove the subheading. A brief twitter kerfuffle isn't significant enough to require the extra weight of a separate section heading. Schazjmd (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It really should be its own section. The "Production" section should remain focused on the making of the film, and the Internet criticism and related commentary is too tangential to belong. Furthermore, the coverage about the matter was not just isolated to a specific month or week. I see a couple of articles about it from 2020 here and here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone suggested putting it directly in "Production". It's a casting issue and is properly included in the "Casting" subsection as it's directly related to the casting decisions. Schazjmd (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm suggesting to move it out of the "Production" section altogether. There is a relation to the casting decision, yes, but it's no longer about the making of the film but more about representation, race, and nostalgia. It's too much to be a subsection of a subsection. Right now, there isn't even any social commentary about the backlash like what is written here. Such a subtopic has potential, and I can see it being outsized for its current placement. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

No. If the section is called "Controversy" but it's own text fails to explain that there even was a controversy in the first place, then the section has no reason to exist. When even the sources you reference put more emphasis on every big name in the industry DEFENDING the casting choice, and the supposed controversy is a single hashtag, spread by the exact same half a dozen people responsible for the racist harrassment of Kelly Marie Tran and John Boyega from the Star Wars sequels, then it's probably safe to assume there was no controversy to begin with. The way I see it, you just want to put undue weight on the irrelevant temper tantrums of a couple of racist trolls. Guess what? None of it is relevant. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I do not support a section simply called "Controversy". The point is that the Internet criticism has led to additional coverage about the nature of the casting and the surrounding context. A standalone section would be more about the latter than the specifics of the Internet criticism itself. That relevant coverage existing means that there is due weight to cover in general how a Black protagonist fits the role in these times of remakes, nostalgia, popular understandings of myths, etc. This will be covered more and more as the film gets closer and gets released. A film article is not just production and critical reception. Depending on the subject matter and certain flashpoints, there can be new and distinct sections summarizing that complementary coverage. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

All of the relevant coverage is about the pushback against what you call "criticism" (and what everybody else calls racist trolling) and statements made in support of the casting choice. Internet trolling is not a controversy. Pushback against trolling is not a controversy. All of the coverage focuses on the latter, and the story didn't even survive a one week news cycle. It is WP:UNDUE. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we agree that the relevant coverage is the pushback to the racist objections. If the section were to be standalone, it would have even more of that coverage. I'm not even looking at it as a "controversy" since that word is so loaded as to be meaningless. It's simply a distinct subtopic, like a film based on history or science will attract commentators discussing the film's accuracy in these regards, and a section would summarize that commentary. In addition, I literally linked to two articles from 2020 about this matter. And it is completely doubtful that this matter will never come up again, because the subtopic is very rooted in larger and ongoing matters in society. I'm not arguing about focusing on that as a good thing or a bad thing, I'm saying that enough coverage exists to explore the subtopic from various angles that doesn't really warrant keeping it under just the "Production" section. If you disagree, that's fine, but I think that such a section can be well-done and be an informative one for readers, like sharing how there are many non-white mermaid myths, according to one of the sources. We can have other editors weigh in also. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

We're talking about the supposed "controversy" regarding a casting choice in a movie. Not "larger and ongoing matters in society" and not the existence of "non-white mermaid myths". These are barely related tangents that are all brought up in relation to a "controversy" that's barely even covered by reliable sources. If enough reliable sources cover the subjects you speak of, then that can get an entire section of it's own, most likely under "reception". But a "controversy" section hav no reason to exist, because as far as reliable sources are concerned, there isn't even a controversy. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems that I would have to agree with the original poster. This is a non-issue. Colorblind casting has been practiced for a long time, and yet no one has raised a stink about it before. There was never any controversy over the colorblind casting choices for The Odd Couple, Catwoman, Grease, Cinderella, Annie, Nick Fury, Hamilton, Cruella De Vil, The Wizard of Oz, etc. Even a majority of Twitter users would not represent the opinions of the general public as a whole, so why should we give undue weight to a handful of Twitter complainers? The naysayers on Twitter who complained about Halle Bailey were so small in number, that Disney never should have dignified those jokers with a response. Greggens (talk) 03:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Just as with the upcoming Snow White remake, the "controversy" is nothing more that the Comicsgate hate group trying and spectacularly failing to cling to relevance in an increasingly accepting world. It should not even be dignified with an acknowledgement. Although I don't think I agree with the term "colorblind casting". Whitewashing is technically also a form of colorblind casting, and there are plenty of unsavory individuals in the alternative influencer network who use "colorblindness" as a dogwhistle. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The black-washed version of Ariel in the the little mermaid has received wide condemnation around the world. Your comment is falsely trying to portray it as a very small group of racist whites desperately trying to hold on to relevance in an "increasingly accepting world". That is blatantly false and highly Anglo-centric. In Asia the black-washing of Ariel (and numerous other classical movies) was also met with overwhelming criticism, even though they have no stake in it as neither the original nor 2023 version featured an Asian actress as Ariel. On top of that there are also numerous black people who don't approve of the Little Mermaid's black-washing, stating that just as they wouldn't want originally/historically black characters to be white-washed, neither do they want it happening to originally/historically white characters. After all, the infamous clip of the black actress having been reversed to a ginger white woman by means of AI was done by Chinese, not whites. The fact that the 2023 trailer for the Little Mermaid received the most dislikes of any Hollywood movie in history, with a ratio of more than 3:1 for dislikes to likes says enough. Psych0-007 (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

It's hard to deny that the casting of Bailey received a very polarized response from fans. I think the reaction should at least receive some kind mention. When you read the article for the 2019 film Aladdin, it does bring up the controversy when the producers decided to cast Naomi Scott as Jasmine when she wasn't of Middle-Eastern heritage. Disney's Vice President of Multicultural Engagement, Julie Ann Crommett, gave a reason to defend her casting. The film also received backlash for having a Caucasian actor Billy Magnussen playing a part in it. And1987 (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@And1987:This is false equivalence though. Alladin was set in a fictional version of the middle east, starring middle eastern humans. That's not the case here. Also, to call reactions to this casting polarized is an odd way of framing it. "Fans" weren't opposed to Bailey's casting. Members of Comicsgate were. and wikipedia has a no nonsense policy when it comes to that hate group. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

One of the sources of the articles list the statement "mermaids allegedly can not be Black as they are underwater creatures" as being from a "troll." How is 1 troll saying something a legitimate form of criticism, or amount to controversy? The source from the article for "a Black mermaid does not adhere to historical accuracy" was simply "Some" and also listed a few tweets that had nothing to do with historical accuracy and didn't even have links to the tweets or user names mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendritope (talk • contribs) 21:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

No infos about locations in Sardinia

Sardinia is the 47th island for surface in the world, it's not a town or a little rock, so it would be necessary to be more precise: the movie has been filmed in 4 municipalities along the northern coast of the island: -Santa Teresa di Gallura -Aglientu -Castelsardo -Golfo Aranci 62.10.240.36 (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2023

Regarding Ursula's part under controversy; should be further clarified that the 1989 cartoon's appearance only was based on the drag performer. Original character inspiration (the sea witch from the original story) and voice acting from cartoon had nothing to do with people being upset that a woman got the role. 2601:740:8000:7B0:BA1:92C7:B707:33AB (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2023

Near the beginning where it discusses critics praised the performances of… Diggs’ name should be removed this is false. Even in the reviews listed he is not well praised. Take his name out of this section. It’s not cited and not true. Thank you. 2600:6C5E:5B3F:FA42:6CFF:47B5:AE3C:F485 (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done AnnaMankad (talk) 09:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

the most-disliked movie trailer on YouTube from a major Hollywood film studio

So, according to this List of most-disliked YouTube videos article, there are two movie trailers that gained millions of dislikes on YouTube, i.e. a Hollywood movie The Little Mermaid and an Indian movie Sadak 2. This fact should also be mentioned on this page too. Here are some external sources for referencing: Newsweek and Cosmic Book News. To those who cannot see the number of dislikes on YouTube, FYI: you can install a browser add-on (like for example "Return YouTube Dislikes" extension on Firefox desktop) to be able to view the (hidden) number of dislikes for each video. Gahipaj135 (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm opposed to including this dubious trivia. It seems mostly the lower-quality sources that focus on it, and they do not appear to be doing a good job of clarifying what they're actually measuring, since YouTube no longer has a dislike button. I think the list article you link is more affected by this issue, and I posted at the talk page there as well. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

"YouTube no longer has a dislike button". This is incorrect. YouTube still has both like and dislike buttons and measures them both. What YouTube did is that it hides now the number of dislikes a video got. But viewers can still see how many dislikes a video got with the help of browser add-ons. Gahipaj135 (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Ugh you're totally right! "dislike button counter" Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I keep hearing about the "huge" amount of dislike buttons on YouTube. How can you track all of those dislike numbers? Every time I click on a YouTube video it doesn't show the amount of dislikes it just shows the amount of likes. It's kind of hard to track numbers of dislikes on a YouTube video when the feature does not show the amount.Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 06:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

See an explanation here. It's really just made up numbers by a browser plugin. Mike Allen 13:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Mediterranean sea

I saw the film recently. Now I'm unsure if it's because of a different localization, but when I saw the film, the Prince, Eric, speak of Europe in a way in which makes it appeear as an outside part, at least to me. In the sense, there is a scene in which he's talking to his mother and he says something like "They use them in Europe as medicinals" which to me appeared to convey what I said above, that they aren't in Europe but in another part of the world. For this I'm asking if the Mediterranean sea is indeed really confirmed to be the setting of the film. 84.220.218.104 (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention that the island they live in is clearly based on Caribbean culture and environment, not Mediterranean in any way. FunkMonk (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @FunkMonk - where are people getting the alleged "Mediterranean sea" location? I've only heard of that when people speculate on where 1989 film was set, because I don't think that film gave any clear indication of its setting aside from being possibly "generically European" and inspired by a Scandinavian fairy tale.

With that said, it's clear the remake has a Caribbean-inspiration, and sources state that the Pirates of the Caribbean, largely set in the Caribbean, provided major influences for the film, which is already noted in the article.[1] Clear Looking Glass (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

It was stated in the plot summary here, but seems to have been changed since I looked the other day. Could perhaps need a citation so it isn't drive-by changed back and forth. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@84.220.218.104 the way I saw it, the way the locals speak alone signifies that it is set in the Caribbean Jaydenwithay (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, this section is a reaction to what the article here used to say, which has since been changed, not the film itself. FunkMonk (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2023

“ The film has so far performed poorly at the box office, grossing over $236 million worldwide against a total production budget of $250 million (excluding marketing and other costs).[2] Deadline Hollywood has estimated that the film will need to gross around $560 million worldwide in order to break-even.[6]”

This quote above is made up and not factually backed. 2600:1011:B18A:253B:C4D9:1411:BEE5:16E1 (talk) 12:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

 Question: The sources that have been provided do support the content in question; are you concerned about the reliability of those sources? Actualcpscm (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The sources do not say the film is performing poorly. 2001:8F8:172B:51C3:D598:51A1:ED5F:2BB3 (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

What's wrong with The Numbers?

Yesterday, international box office outside top 40 countries was a less than $200K. This morning it grows up to 70M, but also reduced to 69M during the day. What does it mean? 77.244.17.100 (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2023

Total Production cost needs to have an additional global marketing cost of $140 Million. It was not just $250 Million.

https://movieweb.com/the-little-mermaid-box-office-success/#:~:text=With%20a%20%24250%20million%20production,reach%20its%20break%2Deven%20threshold. 2603:6011:E500:76F0:DDE:FB0C:9DC9:963B (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. From my understanding, the total production cost does not include marketing. We already mention the marketing budget in the marketing section. Cannolis (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2023

Murilo breda (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. I understand why you'd want to put this, but budget refers to the money that's put into the movie itself. Therefore, it does not include marketing costs. https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0611/why-movies-cost-so-much-to-make.aspx Cocobb8 (💬 talk to me! • ✏️ my contributions) 15:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The total budget was nearly 400M, including marketing, and not 250M, as the page says

https://www.koimoi.com/hollywood-news/the-little-mermaid-disneys-musical-fantasy-in-a-dicey-position-with-a-breakeven-mark-as-high-as-400-million-including-250-million-budget/#:~:text=As%20per%20Deadline's%20report%2C%20The,mark%20stand%20at%20%24400%20million.

"Break even" amount

As per the source added above, I am seeing $400 million being floated around in sources:

Dateline: "anything in the low $400M global threshold and this fish is apt to be sinking to a loss of around $20M." [2]

Koimoi: "As per Deadline’s report, The Little Mermaid is an expensive affair, with its production cost being $250 million. While that’s already a huge amount, another $140 million has been spent on marketing. If made a total, the overall cost of the film is $390 million, making the breakeven mark stand at $400 million. Anything below this figure would be considered a loss." [3]

MSN: "Nevertheless, if its worldwide earnings fall below the modest threshold of around $400 million, this film may incur a loss of approximately $20 million, causing it to struggle financially." [4]

Sources have also mentioned higher amounts:

Screen Rant: "The Little Mermaid Needs At Least $500 Million At The Box Office" "The general rule of thumb is for a movie to earn back at least 2.5 times its budget" [5]

I understand this is a sensitive topic, but we can't not include what financial experts are saying here based on the amount spent and how the industry works. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

"Historical Accuracy"

Writing as someone with a history degree, I think that bad-faith-acting, concern-trolling racists confuse (whether stupidly or maliciously) "historical accuracy" with "adherence to the original materials" (Andersen's fictional story, which by definition can not be "historically accurate"). I think we wikipedians should not accept racists' framing; and should reword "does not adhere to historical accuracy" to "does not adhere to Anderson's original materials". Erminwin (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

How does this relate to improving the article? If you suspect editors of blatant racism then I would bring this up at WP:ANI. I don't think this is the right place to debate about the origin's history as we rely on reliable sources that give a balanced point of view. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I did not "suspect editors of blatant racism"; I stated that editors "should not accept racists' framing"; however, I acknowledged that I should have stated that, in almost all likelihoods, wikipedia's editors only did so inadvertently. EDIT: I regret having not done so in my original posting.

My point is this: to cover up their racist motivation for hating the Black little mermaid, racists actually wanted to allege that the little mermaid being Black is not found to Andersen's original materials, but racists (out of either stupidity or malice) confuse 'adherence to Andersen's original materials' with 'historical accuracy' and consequently feign concerns about 'historical accuracy'.

The two sources cited (Rolling Stone article, Vox article) for the statement "a Black mermaid does not adhere to historical accuracy" actually criticize racists for feigning concerns about 'historical accuracy' to clumsily cover up their racism. Erminwin (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

This sounds like a high degree of speculation on your side (or "original research") and is reckless without proof (WP:AOBF, WP:ORIGINAL). Unless you have proof of these accusations against some of the editors here, I would assume these edits were done in good faith (WP:GOODFAITH). srsrox ^{BlahBlahBlah...}

Splitting proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose that the section about the film's music and soundtrack be split into a separate page called The Little Mermaid (2023 soundtrack). The content of the section is only marginally related to the main article, and this section is large and well-sourced enough to make its own page. 223.178.86.76 (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd support that split. Commonly done for these Disney remakes, and I'm seeing sufficient coverage of the soundtrack itself. I just added a template to the article to notify others of this discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty uncontroversial request, but adding my support as well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I support this too DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd support that split as it is commonly done for Disney live-action remakes soundtrack articles. LancedSoul (talk) 08:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I support splitting the article and creating a separate page for The Little Mermaid (2023) soundtrack. I think there is enough music and score for it to stand alone and have it's own article.Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 03:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I support this split. Much like others have suggested, this is commonly done amongst various movies, and there is sufficient information that can be discussed. Georgia.Kri1341 (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I also support the split. It's been done for many movies including other Disney remakes. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support as it is a musical, so it should have it's own soundtrack. By the way, @223.178.86.76, can you create a draft?

TheCorvetteZR1^{(The Garage)} 22:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

There is already a draft article. See here, Draft:The Little Mermaid (2023 film soundtrack). LancedSoul (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Why hasn't this been closed yet? InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2023

It should be added the 140 millón of marketing costs of the movie, which has been one of the highest in the last years. 189.146.133.166 (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2023

Please change the content from X to Y in the music section:

X: On March 17, 2017, it was announced that Alan Menken, who previously scored and co-wrote songs for the original film, would return as the film's composer and to write new songs alongside producer Lin-Manuel Miranda. Three months later, Menken stated that his work on the film's music had been put on hold due to Miranda and Marc Platt's schedules with Mary Poppins Returns. On May 20, 2019, Menken stated that The Little Mermaid would be his next project, following the release of the live-action adaptation of Aladdin, and on July 9, he and Miranda started working on new songs for the film. On replacing the original film's lyricist, the late Howard Ashman, Miranda felt that "[he] will definitely fall short" to Ashman's work, arguing that "no one can write like him". On January 16, 2020, Halle Bailey confirmed that the song "Part of Your World", from the original film, will appear in the remake. On February 10, 2020, Miranda revealed that he and Menken wrote four new songs for the film. On February 19, 2021, Menken said that the new songs would be a "blend" of his and Miranda's styles. He elaborated that the songs would feature "some rapping" in the vein of Miranda's previous works, as well as a closer style to his usual work. Menken also stated that he updated the lyrics to "Kiss the Girl" and "Poor Unfortunate Souls" to reflect modern times.

On September 22, 2021, Menken sat down with Disney's For Scores podcast and confirmed that the film will feature four new songs. He also recalled that Miranda was "daunted" by the prospect of following on in the footsteps of the late Howard Ashman, the lyricist who worked with Menken to write the original film's songs. On November 24, 2021, in an interview with Collider, Miranda talked about his admiration for The Little Mermaid and how Ashman and Menken helped shape his childhood. He said:

"Oh, man. So much of my work on The Little Mermaid was that wish fulfillment. I actually didn't write any new songs for Sebastian the Crab because I love his songs so much. I was like, 'I can't. Nope, not me. I can't do it.' I did get to write for some of the other characters in that movie. Every song you love in The Little Mermaid is still in The Little Mermaid, we just found some new moments to musicalise. That's really tricky."

— Lin-Manuel Miranda

On January 20, 2022, Bailey spoke with Stylecater, saying that she was so emotional while filming "Part of Your World". She said:

"It was really surreal to film. It was really emotional for me. It was three days of intense being all over the place. I was crying the whole time because I was just like, 'What the heck?' We're all connected to that song and it means a lot to each of us."

— Halle Bailey

On February 17, 2022, during a podcast interview with Variety, Miranda revealed that one of the new songs for the live-action film, "For the First Time", will take place when Ariel is on land in her human form. He also revealed that star Daveed Diggs might rap in the film. This was confirmed later on March 31, 2023, by Menken, revealing the title of the new rap song as "The Scuttlebutt". He described it as a "harebrained" song for Scuttle and Sebastian "…trying to figure out what's going on because they hear rumors that the prince has decided to marry. They think it must be Ariel but of course it's Ursula in the form of Vanessa. It's all this delicious imagination. Lin's lyrics are to die for."

Menken then provided more details on the new songs, revealing that the first of the four that was written during the film's development was a solo for Prince Eric, "Wild Unchartered Waters", resulting from Marshall wanting "…a new song for this moment of waves and all the wildness of what's out there in the ocean…[Ariel] represented that to [Prince Eric]; she being the girl who saved his life. Live action films are really a director's medium." He then revealed that the fourth song did not make the final cut and was supposed to be a new song for King Triton entitled "Impossible Child", as he and the filmmakers felt that it "dramaturgically" was not needed, but did say that the song would be released to the public at a later date, possibly on the film's home media release. The song was featured as an additional track on a physical version of the soundtrack released as a HSN exclusive. Some of the lyrics for "Poor Unfortunate Souls" and "Kiss the Girl" were updated as well, with Menken explaining that for "Kiss the Girl", it was because "people have gotten very sensitive about the idea that [Prince Eric] would, in any way, force himself on [Ariel]," while that for "Poor Unfortunate Souls", it was because of "…lines that might make young girls somehow feel that they shouldn't speak out of turn, even though Ursula is clearly manipulating Ariel to give up her voice."

Two songs from the original film were cut: "Daughters of Triton", sung by Ariel's sisters and "Les Poissons", sung by the character of Eric's french cook Chef Louis, who also was cut from the film. Menken explained the reasons for cutting the former, saying that it felt "not needed" given the new approach the filmmakers gave to the sisters, and that they wanted the film to begin "with a much more of a live-action feel of the ocean and meeting Ariel, and then we wait a little bit, make you wait until we get to 'Part of Your World.' And I think that was, you know, it was an amazing choice because it just builds the power and anticipation." On cutting the latter, Marshall explained "It's literally a Saturday morning cartoon section. If we had filmed it – I don't know how we would've filmed it –- it never would have played. It's also a vacation from the story and has nothing to do with the story, so you can't do that in a live-action film."

The soundtrack album was made available to pre-save and pre-order on March 13, 2023, and was released digitally on May 19, and on CD and vinyl on May 26, 2023, by Walt Disney Records. Bailey's version of "Part of Your World" was released as a digital download single on April 26, 2023, one month before the film's release, as well as the Korean version by Danielle of NewJeans.

In June 2023, the soundtrack reached number 1 on the Billboard Top Soundtracks chart, and number 21 on the Billboard 200.

Y: Alan Menken, who previously scored and co-wrote songs for the original film, returned as the film's composer and also co-wrote new songs alongside producer Lin-Manuel Miranda. He started working on the new songs on July 2019, and had completed within February 2020. who described it as a "blend" of his and Miranda's styles and would feature "some rapping" in the vein of Miranda's previous works, as well as a closer style to his usual work. Menken also stated that he updated the lyrics to "Kiss the Girl" and "Poor Unfortunate Souls" to reflect modern times. The album also featured the song "Part of Your World", from the original film, with Bailey performing. Two songs from the original film, "Daughters of Triton" and "Les Poissons" were cut from the film.

The soundtrack was announced on March 13, 2023, for pre-save and pre-order, which was set for a digital release on May 19, and a physical release on May 26 by Walt Disney Records. Bailey's version of "Part of Your World" preceded as the lead single from the album on April 26, 2023, one month before the film's release, as well as the Korean version by Danielle of NewJeans. In June 2023, the soundtrack reached number 1 on the Billboard Top Soundtracks chart, and number 21 on the Billboard 200. 223.178.80.43 (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2023

(…) The film has grossed $503 million worldwide against a total production budget of $250 million and an advertisement budget of $140 million, becoming (…) Wikiih (talk) 08:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kpgjhpjm 08:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

https://movieweb.com/the-little-mermaid-box-office-success/

(…)With a $250 million production cost and a reported $140 million marketing cost, The Little Mermaid, under the most generous of projections, needs to gross approximately $560 million at the worldwide box office, according to Hollywood insiders, to reach its break-even threshold.(…) Wikiih (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

You changed the break even total!

It is 560 million and that is what the linked article says. This page used to accurately reflect that. You changed it to 467 million which is coincidentally exactly the same as the total box office take. 74.105.97.230 (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

This is correct Wikiih (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The worst film ever made

This film received generally unfavorable reviews from critics and is considered to be the one of the worst films ever made. 2001:48F8:300B:3DB:2011:8BBD:F42F:6A77 (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

68% Rotten Tomatoes mean it's far from that bad Indagate (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s not rewatchable (By any stretch…) but it’s certainly better than Cats. See Wikipedia is not a forum. Unfortunately, it is unofficial site policy that IMDB ratings are not held at the forefront of each page; they are usually put in the section See Also. This may be helpful. 3vvww661 (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

"Casting controversy": Part III

I renamed the section "Casting of Ariel" and moved it under the "Reception" section. It's literally the reception (of both sides, as it should) of the casting of Halle Bailey as Ariel. I thought removing the word "controversy" would make the section more neutral. It was undid and now I am here to open up a discussion on if "Casting controversy" is the right choice of wording or is it pushing a point of view. Mike Allen 01:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I think "Casting of Ariel" is a straightforward improvement. The essay section WP:CSECTION captures my thoughts on this:

Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies". Instead, titles should simply name the event, for example, "2009 boycott" or "Hunting incident". The word "controversy" should not appear in the title except in the rare situations when it has become part of the commonly accepted name for the event, such as Creation–evolution controversy.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

There was a second casting controversy that had not been added to the page yet. The capitalization may be unnecessary, but the ambiguity is now justified. I felt as though I should inform anyone who may see the change / suggested the change, so… yeah. 3vvww661 (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

3vvww661, isn't "controversy" a very strong term to describe this situation ? The word means a "lot of disagreement or argument about something," but I did not find a lot of notable websites dealing with the cast of this actor. And some websites just report the cast of the actor you are talking about, and are not necessarily saying that the public is furious or anything about his presence in the film. Higher Further Faster (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Controversy embodies the state of both dramas with both actors. If you would like to create a substantive argument that explicitly contradicts the sources’ own validity as a reliable source, then do so. I believe it is reasonable that having an adult film star in a Disney movie intended for younger audiences fulfills criteria for the term controversy, mitigating the need or want for public outrage.

I understand the term “Controversy” is subjective and is debated. If you have an alternative wording, I will gladly listen and respond with my input! 3vvww661 (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

From my point of view, the issue here seems that there are not enough reliable sources talking about the the actor you are mentioning.

For instance, if Variety or The Hollywood Reporter were dealing with that, it would probably be an actual controversy. But I do not see this situation as a controversy because this is an information many people do not acknowledge as of today. Having a few blogs talking about it does not make this situation a controversy, in my opinion, unless several journalists writing for notable websites are clearly saying that many people are upset about the actor in question being on screen.

I disagree when it comes to say there is still a type of controversy even if notable websites do not adress it when you say, "a Disney movie intended for younger audiences fulfills criteria for the term," because it seems to be based on your opinion regarding the fact that there is an adult movie star in a family-friendly film. But children are not meant to be aware of this information. And to be honest, you really need to be interested in that actor to have access such information. He really is not a big adult movie star, from what I can understand.

I am not saying this is not problematic, but if it does not "bother" or "interest" a lot of people / journalists, it seems to be anecdotical, in my opinion. To compare, Halle Bailey as Ariel was discussed a lot by journalists and also by "non-journalists." But this is exactly because people who are not journalists talked about this that notable sources published articles, this is because a controversy was born that journalists reported there was a controversy. Not the other way around. Higher Further Faster (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

So if I understand your argument correctly, Marca and National Post are not considered reliable sources because they are not natively American? Despite both sources being verified public news platforms located respectively in Spain and Canada? 3vvww661 (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I would like to mention that if I had used David Portnoy’s site “Barstoolsports” https://www.barstoolsports.com/blog/3470848/disney-reportedly-unknowingly-cast-a-porn-star-in-the-live-action-version-of-the-little-mermaid in the citations, that would an explicit blog and not a Reliable source. 3vvww661 (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I did not say that you had no reliable sources in the first place whatsoever, Mike Allen did in "Revision history." I said, "From my point of view, the issue here seems that there are not enough reliable sources talking about the the actor you are mentioning." That said, I do not think this is a controversy as only a few journalists are talking about it, which matters as you wrote secondary controversy," and I explained what a controversy is. The casting of Ariel is an actual controversy. It was a big deal. What you are talking about seems, to me, not to be an actual controversy. And I also believe two sources are not enough, but this is just my opinion. Higher Further Faster (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Searching the term “Stefano Tomadini little mermaid” reveals an excess amount of sources (8+) when using either Google or DuckDuckGo. Toronto Sun, Marca, National Post, The Province, MSN, Yahoo! News and ScreenGeek (https://www.screengeek.net/about/) have covered this, so if it is a problem of coverage, then alternate sources can be provided and replace the existing sources. 3vvww661 (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Why can't it be added under the casting section? Why does it have to be a "controversy"? The "Casting of Ariel" is (was) under the Reception section because it's the reception of the character's casting. And you start the sentence with "Another controversy has arisen with actor". Not very WP:NPOV for an encyclopedia. I propose it be reworded and added under Casting section and revert the section back to "Casting of Ariel". Also, it's odd it took 2 months for this to become a "controversy", maybe because the actor Stefano Tomadini is not even that notable... Mike Allen 00:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Despite asserting, "I understand the term “Controversy” is subjective and is debated. If you have an alternative wording, I will gladly listen and respond with my input!," you did not provide actual arguments in favor of the word "Controversy." You expressed your opinion (which is subjective by definition) regarding if the word should be used or not, but you did not really listen to what have been said here.

You ignored what editors Mike Allen and Firefangledfeathers expressed across this discussion, with one of them even saying, "The essay section WP:CSECTION captures my thoughts on this," which shows that Allen was merely following one of Wikipedia's rules in the first place, and that Firefangledfeathers supported their edit. Thus, I believe Allen's edit is the "alternative wording" you were looking for.

I agree with Allen's idea / edit. Stefano Tomadini does not seem notable at all. Your argument is that some journalists are saying that there is an adult movie "star" in a family-friendly film, and that should be enough to call it a "controversy," even if the public does not care. Again, just because a few journalists are talking about this actor does not make it an actual controversy. Many journalists talked about Halle Bailey because a lot of people across the globe who are not journalists were talking about her being cast in the film. This is absolutely not the case here. There is no controversy at all. There is no "state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view." But this is still the word you chose to use.

All of this makes me believe that you do not really want to "debate." You even reverted Allen's edit and immediately said, "Please maintain Good faith and check citations before reverting revisions," as if anyone who would disagree with you would be lacking good faith.

I am very surprised, as you often mention WP:PEACOCK when you interact on an article, telling other editors to keep a page neutral. But this is not really what you are doing here. You think there is a controversy, which is a very strong word and subjective, and you do not even try to come to an agreement with other editors who think otherwise, which means that you are imposing your thoughts.

In other words, yes, I see no problem with reverting the section back to "Casting of Ariel." Higher Further Faster (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

For readability's sake the source of this discussion has been edited instead of responded and indented. I just would like if this would remain civil so I might settle the process first. 3vvww661 (talk) 05:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Established fact: Reliable sources exist on the topic of Stefano Tomadini.

I believe this is a good thing to establish; it is no longer about the validity of the topic, it is about if the topic's sources should be included, if and where they should be included in the article, and the line of reasoning supporting this.

Established argument: Both participating users Higher Further Faster (talk) and Mike Allen believe the material is not relevant enough to exist in the article.

By not including the content (The content being a negative criticism/assessment), this would violate Wikipedia policies of Due and undue weight in NPOV and the revision history reveals that the length of the section on Stefano should balance compared to the source material. 8+ sources exist on the internet which can be found with short effort, please, I do not want to insist and argue against the topic of a false balance and you are both reasonable users. I believe because of this that it is reasonable to include the sources on Stefano in the article, and the discussion should be about the implementation of where and why the sources are mentioned. This is especially the case because, after checking, no policy in the article Content removal was violated, and as it is another casting issue, it is reasonably relevant to mention.

Established argument: Both participating users Higher Further Faster (talk) and Mike Allen believe the material is not a controversy. Both argue appropriate wording would be Casting of Ariel.

I believe this is a realistic and accurate representation of the belief of both users. If this is not, and there is a higher degree of unexplored nuance, I am listening. Notably this excludes Stefano from only the section Casting of Ariel, and not from any other section.

Established argument: Both participating users Higher Further Faster (talk) and Mike Allen would like to move the lede into the section casting if it is included.

This is a version of integrating a negative criticism into the article per Criticism. My line of reasoning is that both actors received poor feedback in their casting for different reasons; integration is a poor method because in this film article the mention would be out of place with the tone and theme of the rest of the article (Except for Critical response, Casting of Ariel/Casting controversy and in an unlikely manner, Development) as the rest is exposition.

I will address these statements:

All of this makes me believe that you do not really want to "debate." You even reverted Allen's edit and immediately said, "Please maintain Good faith and check citations before reverting revisions," as if anyone who would disagree with you would be lacking good faith. Higher Further Faster (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I am very surprised, as you often mention WP:PEACOCK when you interact on an article, telling other editors to keep a page neutral. But this is not really what you are doing here. You think there is a controversy, which is a very strong word and subjective, and you do not even try to come to an agreement with other editors who think otherwise, which means that you are imposing your thoughts. Higher Further Faster (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

And I said this in the revision history as you can see here that the sources are reliable sources, not a blog. I assume that the standard Wikipedian is a reasonable human being. ad hominem suits no one gracefully. This is because ad hominem contributes to Wikilawyering, Gaming the system and Wrongful consensus, three well documented happenings on this site. Competence is required here.

Why does it have to be a "controversy"? The "Casting of Ariel" is (was) under the Reception section because it's the reception of the character's casting. And you start the sentence with "Another controversy has arisen with actor". Not very WP:NPOV for an encyclopedia.

Falls into Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete and Competence is required here policy violation/recommendations.

Your argument is that some journalists are saying that there is an adult movie "star" in a family-friendly film, and that should be enough to call it a "controversy," even if the public does not care.

The core of this argument can be categorized into What Wikipedia is not's article on newspapers. Quote, "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." [sic] Clearly, the topic is about the casting of the movie. The context is primarily Ariel's casting, and is able to embody the overall casting of the movie. But, once the question "Does Disney have casting issues in live action movies other than TLM?" is asked, then the context can be expanded reasonably.

https://www.google.com/search?ei=JK2jZNa0K9KC0PEPor2F6A4&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzIFCCEQoAEyCAghEBYQHhAdOgoIABBHENYEELADOgYIABAWEB46CAgAEIoFEIYDOgUIIRCrAkoECEEYAFCbAlilCmCaC2gBcAF4AIABlQGIAewFkgEDMC42mAEAoAEBwAEByAEI&oq=disney+casting+issues+movies&q=disney+casting+issues+movies&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS1056US1056&safe=active&sclient=gws-wiz-serp&surl=1&tbs=li%3A1&uact=5&ved=0ahUKEwjW1tWFqPT_AhVSATQIHaJeAe0Q4dUDCBE#ip=1
https://www.google.com/search?bih=625&biw=1366&dpr=1&q=disney+casting+issues+movies&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS1056US1056&sa=X&safe=active&surl=1&tbm=vid&tbs=li%3A1&ved=2ahUKEwjTvuaJqPT_AhX1JjQIHVX_D0EQ0pQJegQIQRAB

And then we see Lilo and Stitch having a casting controversy.

I'm going to continue my day cycle now. Please read this thoroughly.

Marker for response 3vvww661 (talk) 05:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

"The Little Mermaid (upcoming Disney film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The Little Mermaid (upcoming Disney film) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 13 § The Little Mermaid (upcoming Disney film) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Success at the box office

The wikipedia article says the film has been successful at the box office. I loved the film, but that is simply not true. It did okay in the US, but almost everywhere else it flopped. Bombed hard in South Korea, Bombed hard in China, Bombed hard in India and across Asia to be honest. In Europe it also disappointed, grossing less than comparable films like 'Aladdin' or 'Cinderella'. In Latin America it also did meh.

Outside of the US, the film grossed 68 million on it's opening weekend, which is considerably less than the second weekend of 'Fast X' which had 89 million. This means outside of the US, in most countries 'The Little Mermaid opened in second place.

According to most reputable Box Office trackers, such as Charlie Jatinder[6] it is looking like it will end up grossing between $500 million and $525 million worldwide when it's run is over. Keep in mind that out of that 500-525 million, a little less than half will go to theaters, and the rest goes to studios. Also, the budget was reported by Variety as $250 million production and $100 million marketing, for $350 million total budget. The conventional wisdom is that movie needs to make 2.5 times it's budget to be a success, and 'The Little Mermaid' is highly unlikely to reach that.

This largely means that by theatrical revenue it will not be profitable, and will need to rely on things like ancillary revenues and streaming to break even. This is in contrast to previous live-action remakes like 'Aladdin' 'The Lion King' 'Cinderella' 'Alice in Wonderland' 'Beauty and the Beast', which were profitable from just theatrical revenue.

For the time being, instead of just pretending The Little Mermaid is a success, I think the wiki should say how much The Little Mermaid has made, but without calling it a success, because it's unclear if it is a success yet. That could end up being a premature call. Just because it's being called a success by news publications and trades like Deadline or Variety, which want to keep their insider access to Disney doesn't mean it's actually a success yet. People don't want to hear this, but there's been nothing to indicate that 'The Little Mermaid' is successful at the Box Office yet, and we will have to see if it could be, but it isn't looking good so far given the extremely high budget. 73.246.35.189 (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you a box office analyst? Thanks for your opinion but content on Wikipedia must come from third party reliable sources. Mike Allen 20:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Here are some sources on 'the little mermaid' disappointing box office.

https://deadline.com/2023/05/little-mermaid-box-office-profit-loss-halle-bailey-1235383099/

https://www.thewrap.com/little-mermaid-fast-x-box-office-analysis/

https://screenrant.com/little-mermaid-box-office-opening-weekend-results/

https://www.thewrap.com/little-mermaid-box-office-opening/

Based off all this, it's clear that painting it as a Box Office success is wrong. 73.246.35.189 (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Be bold and fix it. Mike Allen 05:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Could please somebody correct the section where it is stated that it is the 5th most successful film of all time at the box office for Memorial Day. In fact, the film is inflation adjusted on a solid 20th. Incredibly, still better than Star Wars Episode VI. https://www.the-numbers.com/box-office-records/domestic/all-movies/holiday-4-day-all-movies-infl-adj/memorial-day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.97.122.33 (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

please put a comma in this phrase: "... shipwreck before time runs out."

comma should go after "shipwreck." It's near the opening paragraph, at the end of one of the introductory ones. The sentence that describes Ariel TEMPORARILY trading her voice for human legs, to impress Prince Eric, whom she saved from a shipwreck.

Since the time limit has to do with Ariel's deal with Ursula, then the sentence, without that comma, could also be interpreted as Ariel having saved Eric from a shipwreck before [his] time ran out.

Thanks. 99.229.43.127 (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Pirates of the Caribbean mention

On May 19, 2023, Marshall revealed that his work on Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (which featured a mermaid character named Tamara) helped influence his work on The Little Mermaid

This is the first sentence regarding the Pirates influence over The Little Mermaid. Not that I disagree, given the apparent connection betweeen productions, but can we exclude the bit about Tamara or at least make clear she is not the mermaid "featured" in the film. Yes, as the original article source states, Tamara is the first mermaid to appear in the film, but the mermaid featured in the film is actually Syrena. Either clarifying the above sentence with this information or the removal of the parenthesized information would suffice. 147.124.239.44 (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Character designs.

In the opening section it says that the film was criticized regarding the "character designs" - but I can't see that being mentioned in the section about reception. -- Beardo (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2023

I'd like to change the budget for this movie to 300 million dollars. My source for this is a recent article by Forbes. 2600:1700:DB37:4010:10B4:3907:39C3:84CF (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Articles by Forbes contributors are considered generally unreliable by the Wikipedia community due to a lack of editorial standards. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Makes one wonder how Rotten Tomatoes is considered reliable source and Forbes.com isn't. But here we are. 82.131.33.39 (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2023

The film now classifies as a box-office bomb with the budget going 300 million. https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2023/10/02/disney-sinks-300-million-into-over-budget-little-mermaid-movie/?sh=7fd349d64b56 A00837420 (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 12:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Projections of box office

Regarding the box office, I believe the film's box office projections could be on the page. I included this but they removed it saying it wasn't relevant. But, in the specific case of this film, I believe it is relevant because many have doubts as to whether the film did well at the box office or not, so it would be important to include the projections. It's a sugestion. JoãoRI (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

"many have doubts" I don't. 570 million against a budget of at least 250 is, according to simple math, a very likely flop. Of course, this is (or would be, if I'd put it on the page) "OR". jae (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)