MovieChat Forums > The Little Mermaid (1989) Discussion > Ariel is a selfish and dumb character

Ariel is a selfish and dumb character

posted 9 years ago by Vberne
71 replies | jump to latest

Seriously she put her entire country in jeopardy over having a crush on a guy. And she basically had to be saved from everything first by Triton and then by Eric. I get she wanted life on land, but she complains about how bad the sea is when she lived a very pleasant and pampered life.

First world problems.

The reason the movie works is the songs are good, Ursula's so awesome as a villain, and Triton and Sebastian were really cool good guys too.

reply
formatting help
[–] otness_e 9 years ago

First of all, she already wanted to become a human well before she even knew Eric existed. The only thing Eric did was act as the final push she needed. Second of all, Ariel NEVER complained about the sea at all. If anything, she had a few friends in the sea and didn't seem to mind the sea at all, she just wanted to live among humanity and live her life the fullest extent. Third of all, her deal with Ursula and her even needing to be saved would not have even been necessary if King Triton didn't just blow a gasket at Ariel's Grotto, literally, right in front of his own daughter, just because she saved a human and also fell in love with him (not to mention Triton himself implying a desire of genocide against humanity during that same blowup) so don't think Ariel's the only one who endangered her own kingdom, as quite frankly, it was also Triton who did that as well. Also, selfish? Ariel nearly risked her own life to save Flounder from a shark, she saved Sebastian from becoming food by Grimsby despite most likely still having anger at him for squealing to her dad in the first place, and she actually nearly went through with her end of the deal if she failed just so she would allow Eric a chance to be happy with Vanessa, not to mention told Eric to escape without her. Those aren't the mark of a selfish person at all. And while Ariel did make some mistakes, she most certainly isn't dumb.

If anything, your complaints about Ariel are more indicative of Belle's character. Belle basically complained about how the village life was just bad despite living a fairly pleasant and pampered life (she certainly would have been wealthy enough to be able to afford the free time to read) and she wanted to be in the great wide somewhere (and unlike Ariel, she actually emphasizes how village life was bad for her by repeatingly referring to it as too provincial for her tastes). She actually endangered her own friends, heck, arguably the kingdom as well, by nearly having them be slaughtered by the villagers and especially her jealous suitor, even though she should have known that Gaston would most likely kill the Beast ESPECIALLY when she literally deduced Gaston's role in the blackmail plot just a few seconds beforehand (and while with Ursula, Ariel and Eric at least only needed to kill Ursula to undo her curse, killing Gaston would not have made any difference regarding whether the curse would be broken, so arguably that was going to result in an even WORSE outcome), not to mention unlike the incident with Ursula, where the latter literally had to sweet-talk Ariel and claim she had reformed Mr. Match-style while the latter was in an extremely vulnerable situation, Gaston didn't even ATTEMPT to hide that he was at the very least involved in Maurice's arrest, possibly even the guy who orchestrated his arrest in the first place, nor did Belle have any illusions to what Gaston was like (not to mention Belle has proven herself to be almost cool under fire, like how she deduced the castle was enchanted despite the extremely stressful events of her first night at the Beast's castle, or how she, as aforementioned deduced Gaston's role in Maurice's arrest just from his marriage proposal). And she actually needed to be saved from everything by Beast and Chip from her own stupidity, and Belle, unlike Ariel nearing the end of the latter's film, never even owns UP to the fact that she did bad when she was saved by the former, blaming Beast all the way, even when Beast if anything was least responsible for what happened (not to say he wasn't responsible at all for what happened, since he DID lose his temper to such an extent that he smashed furniture).

Heck, the complaints you made are a far better fit for Ariel's original characterization in Andersen's original tale especially. First of all, in the original tale, Ariel never even HAD an interest in humanity at all (if anything, she was just a gardener, while her sisters, ironically, had the kind of interest in humanity that Ariel displayed in the Disney film), and she had that statue of Eric well before she even met him (and in fact, it's strongly implied that the only reason why she even cared enough for the Prince to save his hide was because he resembled said statue). She abandoned her own family and tried to use the prince just for a soul, and her family didn't even do anything bad to her other than mention their species are soulless (AFTER she asked). Her method of gaining a soul was basically indicative of the Dementor's Kiss. And thanks to those extremely selfish actions of her, her grandma died of a broken heart, her dad met some misfortune, and her sisters were forced to undergo what is essentially chemotherapy just to give the mermaid a chance to save herself. And despite all of that, she commits suicide without even ATTEMPTING to make up for her mistakes, and she actually gets rewarded in the end anyways with the opportunity to get into Heaven. If you ask me, The Little Mermaid by Disney was FAR better than the original tale in every way, including especially the intended moral of the tale (since Ariel demonstrated self-sacrifice quite a few times, actually risking her life to save her friend Flounder from Glut, not to mention her letting Eric marry Vanessa despite the obvious pain it gave her and her impending fate just because she thought Eric would be happy with her, and only interfered when she learned from Scuttle that Vanessa was actually Ursula in disguise.).

reply
formatting help
[–] TutuAnimationPrincess 9 years ago

You've defended Ariel beautifully, as much as any of us who love her would. But would it really be too much to ask to leave Belle out of these conversations? I understand you find Beauty and the Beast "overrated", but it comes off as very petty to bring it up and bash it every chance you get.

"If life is getting you down and needs uplifting, then please come dance with me!"

reply
formatting help
[–] otness_e 9 years ago

Sorry, you're right, it was uncalled for to bring Belle into this discussion even as a comparison, but I still get pretty irritated at how a lot of Ariel's detractors also happen to be Belle fans, like with Taran Wanderer, for example (and believe me, even before I joined IMDb, I've seen it constantly that people ignore Belle's faults and treat her as sinless, yet they bash on Ariel. At least I acknowledge Ariel's faults).

In any case, I made sure that I used another example relating to the original tale.

Next time, I'll stick to the original tale for comparisons, and only bring up Belle if someone either directly brings up Belle, or otherwise is a well-known Belle fan who is known to ignore Belle's faults completely and hypocritically.

reply
formatting help
[–] Andthatismytwocents 9 years ago

WELL Not much more to add here but as the name implies.............and dare I turn this into a debate that makes the current politicians running for US President look


civilized

vberne ever read the original story?

As to the other statements unfortunatly Ariel Bashing (it IS the only phrase for it) comes from Beauty and the Beast J Katzenburg's pet project

Second YES Belle's faults are ignored why is that?

And what about Mabel of Gravity Falls (who has more Ariel inspiration then you can suspect AND I LIKE Gravity Falls sad to see it go) Does she get this kind of bashing?

As to Taran Wanderer he has a valid complaint Eliowy came before Ariel(Whats are his thoughts of Kala of Gummi Bears?)

BUT the film was not a critical and commercial succes Little Mermaid was

AND YET Disney treats it like a failure in comparison to other films hence the term love/HATE relationship

AND YEA ARIEL IS FAR FROM PERFECT................hence why she comes off as more "human" then other Disney films

AND In a recent stage adadptation Ariel apologizes to Triton for being wait for it selfish


Does it change any thing Probably not BUT IF OTHERS DO THIS...................................

As to original story I live the ending everyday wish mine could be like Ariel's

As to critics We all have our likes and dislikes but I TRY to be respectable
a definition that is lost over the last 20 years and do not bash someone

UNLESS.............. again to the original poster The Nostalgia chic and others

You are bashers there is no other way to say it try to be nice

Try some respect you may just find a little compassion something the Disney Film of the Little Mermaid seemed to create in 1989


And that's MY two cents


reply
formatting help
[–] otness_e 9 years ago

Maybe she was selfish in the musical, but she certainly wasn't in the movie (selfish people do not risk their own lives to save another, save someone who they don't exactly have positive feelings for, or let someone go without a fight if they think that someone would be happy without them).

reply
formatting help
[–] Tinny-Tinette 9 years ago

I still get pretty irritated at how a lot of Ariel's detractors also happen to be Belle fans, like with Taran Wanderer, for example (and believe me, even before I joined IMDb, I've seen it constantly that people ignore Belle's faults and treat her as sinless, yet they bash on Ariel. At least I acknowledge Ariel's faults).

Though Taran has clearly stated his affection for Belle, it's not as he is her biggest fan ever (nor does he have the huge appreciation for the movie as the majority has)

But fair enough, it's certainly true that Belle's flaws are less attacked than Ariel's. It's understandable why it irks you, but it's not as Belle's flaws are never brought up at all. Once in a while she's been criticized for her actions and faults. And though Ariel gets tarnished, she does indeed have a huge fanbase as well and people who worship her.

reply
formatting help
[–] otness_e 9 years ago

You're right, there have been instances where it's been brought up. Unfortunately, it's been far too rare to actually make much of a difference.

Well, at least Ariel's actually popular, even if she does get slandered quite a bit. I at acknowledge that Ariel has her flaws, but Taran Wanderer constantly demonizes her because of her flaws (and in fact, also falsely accuses her of having flaws that she really doesn't, like selfishness), and has the audacity to ignore Belle's flaws, and even implies that one of the reasons he hates Ariel has to do with Sebastian's line about her just being miserable for the rest of her life regarding not finding Eric. Quite honestly, I've already had to live life recently living in fear of ever experiencing happiness. Taran Wanderer has absolutely NO idea what it's like where because of things you've seen, you get the idea that happiness or joy is either insanity (like with Dr. Weil, The Joker, Kefka Palazzo, practically any sociopathic supervillain who is flamboyant or explicitly states they enjoy their horrific actions), being a hedonist (like with the May 1968ers, or at least the character Cecile Cosima Caminades, Michel Foucault, the Hippie Movement's free love portion, etc., etc.), or just being portrayed as an idiot like with the triplets from Beauty and the Beast or Maron from Dragon Ball Z, that you feel, especially when you're trying to live the rules God imposed on you, you must not ever feel happy at all. Ariel was probably the ONLY one of the characters I've seen, certainly one of the few, where her happiness and her pursuit of such was NOT depicted in that manner, and WASN'T depicted as going against God. Heck, Ariel's probably my guide as a boy to actually overcoming several challenges posed by my having autism/aspergers, so to hear Ariel picked on like that really outrages me.

I do like Belle (and while I have lost trust in Belle now, the reasons behind my loss of trust to her had absolutely nothing to do with her fans picking on Ariel and downright attacking her. Actually, it had more to do with the events of the 1950s-1970s regarding certain intellectuals promoting Communism, as well as the French Revolution and Reign of Terror, and noticing the implications that Belle may decide to become a Jacobin, plus bad experiences in College regarding a string of professors who thought just because they had a teaching degree, they should cram the leftist agenda into their lesson plan regardless of whether it actually fits or not.), so don't think I said those things because I hate her. I may have lost my trust in her, but that doesn't mean I dislike her.

reply
formatting help
[–] Block-Busted 9 years ago

Haruhi, Vberne is an idiot troll who says that all YA adaptations like 'The Hunger Games' and 'Divergent' are blatant plagiarism of 'Battle Royale'.

He also gained a notoriety among Marvel fans after hastily claiming that 'Ant-Man' will be a box office and critical failure while 'Fant4stic' will be the best comic book film of 2015.

reply
formatting help
[–] Tinny-Tinette 9 years ago

Second of all, Ariel NEVER complained about the sea at all. If anything, she had a few friends in the sea and didn't seem to mind the sea at all, she just wanted to live among humanity and live her life the fullest extent.

Perhaps she never litterally complained about it, but she indicated that she really wasn't content with it. The opening lines of Part Of Your World sites Wouldn't you think I'm the girl. The girl who has everything?. Such a line indicates clearly that she's not particularly content with her life at sea. So I'm sorry if this comes across as condescending, but Ariel clearly implied that she was miscontent with her life at the sea.

If anything, your complaints about Ariel are more indicative of Belle's character. Belle basically complained about how the village life was just bad despite living a fairly pleasant and pampered life (she certainly would have been wealthy enough to be able to afford the free time to read) and she wanted to be in the great wide somewhere (and unlike Ariel, she actually emphasizes how village life was bad for her by repeatingly referring to it as too provincial for her tastes)

Alright, fair enough. You'll have a point there. This is an Achilles heel with Belle's characterization (blame the screenwriters, haha), which I've never was quite satisfied with myself. Most villagers find her odd, but they never directly indicates that they despises her prior to the climax (at least most of them, haha). But considering that few of the villagers actually showed an honest interest in Belle, or was her soulmate, so to speak, it's logical that she wanted something more. Though it's understandable why her wants and statement are labeled as selfish.

She actually endangered her own friends, heck, arguably the kingdom as well, by nearly having them be slaughtered by the villagers and especially her jealous suitor, even though she should have known that Gaston would most likely kill the Beast ESPECIALLY when she literally deduced Gaston's role in the blackmail plot just a few seconds beforehand (and while with Ursula, Ariel and Eric at least only needed to kill Ursula to undo her curse, killing Gaston would not have made any difference regarding whether the curse would be broken, so arguably that was going to result in an even WORSE outcome), not to mention unlike the incident with Ursula, where the latter literally had to sweet-talk Ariel and claim she had reformed Mr. Match-style while the latter was in an extremely vulnerable situation, Gaston didn't even ATTEMPT to hide that he was at the very least involved in Maurice's arrest, possibly even the guy who orchestrated his arrest in the first place, nor did Belle have any illusions to what Gaston was like (not to mention Belle has proven herself to be almost cool under fire, like how she deduced the castle was enchanted despite the extremely stressful events of her first night at the Beast's castle, or how she, as aforementioned deduced Gaston's role in Maurice's arrest just from his marriage proposal).

No offense, but I really don't consider the comparisons of Belle's discovery of the curse and her actions later on to be legit. She was perhaps under stressuful events in the castle, but at least the situation made room for her to actually pounder and sorting things out. Neither the Beast nor the servants forced her to come out after rejecting the Beast's dinner request. And the movie really implies that Belle (who knows for how long) actually had the time to relax and pounder. So it's a complete different situation.

And sure, I'm not dismissing that exposing the Beast was an good idea, cause it wasn't. And yes, Belle could've and should've probably acted differently. But again, blame the screenwriters (after all, they needed a plot device to guide Gaston to the Beast). But at least that was an stressful event where she had very little choice. And if she actually would've attacked the villagers, they've would've most likely attacked her back (considering that they were a mob)

And she actually needed to be saved from everything by Beast and Chip from her own stupidity, and Belle, unlike Ariel nearing the end of the latter's film, never even owns UP to the fact that she did bad when she was saved by the former, blaming Beast all the way, even when Beast if anything was least responsible for what happened (not to say he wasn't responsible at all for what happened, since he DID lose his temper to such an extent that he smashed furniture).

Well, to take consideration of your latter stament; Belle had every right to flee from the castle, because the Beast scared her off! It's logical (for her) to assume that he could've have litterally attacked her, so therefore she ran away. But otherwise she had every right to blame him afterwards. Besides, she actually took him back to the castle and healed his wounds.

But I highly disagree with your former statement, which proves that you should watch the film again (sorry if that comes across as hostile, but it's an honest indication). When she exposed him to Gaston and the villagers, she actually regretted her actions and not only did she state it twice, she clearly showed entirely that she regretted it.

reply
formatting help
[–] otness_e 9 years ago

Perhaps she never litterally complained about it, but she indicated that she really wasn't content with it. The opening lines of Part Of Your World sites Wouldn't you think I'm the girl. The girl who has everything?. Such a line indicates clearly that she's not particularly content with her life at sea. So I'm sorry if this comes across as condescending, but Ariel clearly implied that she was miscontent with her life at the sea.


Well, okay, fair enough, but at least she didn't insult her own home, unlike Belle. Besides, why is merely being miscontent with her lot in life a sign that she's "selfish and stupid." I guess immigrants all over must automatically be that regarding their immigrating to America. Now, if they spent their time insulting their old homes in ways that WEREN'T actually warranted in any way, shape or form, NOW we're talking regarding selfishness.

Alright, fair enough. You'll have a point there. This is an Achilles heel with Belle's characterization (blame the screenwriters, haha), which I've never was quite satisfied with myself. Most villagers find her odd, but they never directly indicates that they despises her prior to the climax (at least most of them, haha). But considering that few of the villagers actually showed an honest interest in Belle, or was her soulmate, so to speak, it's logical that she wanted something more. Though it's understandable why her wants and statement are labeled as selfish.


Yeah, agreed. At least with Ariel and her desires for living among humanity, they DID justify it rather well regarding her dad's rather xenophobic attitude towards humans. They really didn't do well with Belle though, not to mention, technically, she COULD just leave the village if she wanted to, as there wasn't really anything stopping her (Snow White and Cinderella did have wicked stepfamilies stopping them by essentially binding them down, and Ariel at least had an extremely overprotective father who also happened to be a huge misanthrope. Belle really didn't have anything tying her down in the village. We can't even say she simply couldn't afford to move out, since the fact that she not only was able to afford to not only get books, but also spend time reading without even needing to work suggests she's extremely well off, so if anything she just came across as extremely spoiled, almost as bad as her sisters in the original tale.). Maybe if they, I don't know, characterized Belle as actually being victimized repeatedly by the villagers (far more than just acknowledging that she's odd, I mean), sort of like how Meg Griffin from Family Guy endured a huge amount of merciless abuse by her parents and possibly most of Quahog town throughout the show since its revival, I could actually see why she'd want out of the village, and even sympathize with her. Heck, maybe if they made the village a slummy area sort of like Gotham City or Springfield or Quahog or, heck, even the city Two and a Half Men was in, I'd actually understand why Belle would want to leave and even want her to leave as well. Heck, maybe if they made it very clear she's in a financial rut like in the prior drafts, I'd understand at the very least why she can't leave the village. But as it stands with how the film did it? Not really.

No offense, but I really don't consider the comparisons of Belle's discovery of the curse and her actions later on to be legit. She was perhaps under stressuful events in the castle, but at least the situation made room for her to actually pounder and sorting things out. Neither the Beast nor the servants forced her to come out after rejecting the Beast's dinner request. And the movie really implies that Belle (who knows for how long) actually had the time to relax and pounder. So it's a complete different situation.


I know it was stressful, and that she probably had time to sort things out, but even still... she should have put two-and-two together regarding the rose, and how it being under a belljar would mean it shouldn't be touched. That being said, she had hours at best to think this through (since it's all but said that the events of the failed wedding up to the wolf attack all occurred on the same night).

And sure, I'm not dismissing that exposing the Beast was an good idea, cause it wasn't. And yes, Belle could've and should've probably acted differently. But again, blame the screenwriters (after all, they needed a plot device to guide Gaston to the Beast). But at least that was an stressful event where she had very little choice. And if she actually would've attacked the villagers, they've would've most likely attacked her back (considering that they were a mob)


Well, yeah, if she openly attacked them, that would end very badly, but if she were to be sneaky, she could pull it off. Like knock a guy out stealthily, steal his torch, and then set the paddywagon on fire, and everyone would then be distracted with finding water, that would work, oh, and also stealthily knock Gaston out beforehand (and considering she had enough strength to lift Beast and Maurice up despite being extremely heavy, I'd argue she's more than capable of handling Gaston, besides, all she needs is a good plank hit just at the right place at the nape of Gaston's thick neck and then he's sound asleep), and then once she's got Maurice out, she also gets the heck out of dodge and makes sure she's neither followed nor does she leave behind any evidence [ie, Chip, the magic mirror] pointing to where she's headed), that's what I would do in her situation, precisely BECAUSE I realize exposing Beast would do more harm than good. Heck, that would have been a BETTER way to get Gaston involved, one that actually WOULD make some sense and make even more clear just how skilled of a hunter he's implied to be (tracking is a really essential tool when you're hunting). And since Gaston's a hunter, his eventually fighting the Beast actually WOULD work by having him track them to the castle, and naturally, good hunters need to have decent tracking skills.

Well, to take consideration of your latter stament; Belle had every right to flee from the castle, because the Beast scared her off! It's logical (for her) to assume that he could've have litterally attacked her, so therefore she ran away. But otherwise she had every right to blame him afterwards. Besides, she actually took him back to the castle and healed his wounds.


Yeah, except considering their first meeting had Beast literally ambushing her and knocking her torch into a puddle, that should have been a very big hint that he would get volatile as well (it certainly would have been enough for me to take him seriously). And I'm not saying she shouldn't have blamed him, but I DO think she should have owned up to the fact that she deliberately disobeyed the Beast and even the servants command to stay away from the West Wing and acknowledged directly that she was at fault as well. But you're right, at least she did take Beast back to the castle, which is probably the only actual compassionate thing she did in the film, which was still after she got herself and him into that mess, though.

But I highly disagree with your former statement, which proves that you should watch the film again (sorry if that comes across as hostile, but it's an honest indication). When she exposed him to Gaston and the villagers, she actually regretted her actions and not only did she state it twice, she clearly showed entirely that she regretted it.


I can see why you would think that, but when I said that, I wasn't even thinking about the mob bit (in fact, I know she expressed regret, which is why I didn't mention the mob bit). I was specifically referring to the wolf incident (I guess I should have been a bit more specific beyond saying "never even owns UP to the fact that she did bad when she was saved by the former").

reply
formatting help
[–] Tinny-Tinette 9 years ago

Okay. Sorry for my hostile, latter remark (about you needing to watch the film again, that was perhaps a little spiteful, when it actually wasn't my intention)

reply
formatting help
[–] aurorak 8 years ago

The original story by Hans has the little mermaid commit suicide because she doesn't get the man.

reply
formatting help
[–] otness_e 8 years ago

Yeah, and she managed to cause a lot of suffering to her own family because of her pursuit for that guy and a soul (I still found that plot element to be stupid, really. Do you really think something as not only sentient, but sapient even, as merpeople would NOT have, if not an immortal soul, then at least something similar?). Say what you will about Ariel, at least she actually made sure to clean up any messes she caused.

reply
formatting help
[–] Stratego 8 years ago

The original story by Hans has the little mermaid commit suicide because she doesn't get the man.


Uhm, not exactly. The prince marries another women and to save herself from dissolving into sea foam, her sisters give the little mermaid a knife to kill the prince with so she can return to being a mermaid. However, she loves him so much, she can't do it and jumps from the ship turning into foam. As a reward for her selfless act she does become a daughter of the air, still able to gain a soul eventually.

reply
formatting help
[–] otness_e 8 years ago

Which I still say was FAR too rewarding for that brat considering the amount of suffering she caused for her family by her actions, and the heartache she caused that prince who loved her like a sister. Had it been me writing the story, I'd have God give her a soul, yet cast her to hell for all of eternity for all the selfish acts she did, all of which outnumbered even the two explicit selfless acts she did.

reply
formatting help
[–] magnusplin 9 years ago

Going after your dreams isn't "dumb". It's hard to please people like you. If people don't "go after their dreams" (such as Cinderella, according to you, even though she does a lot. Sorry to burst your bubble, but she does), they're "weak". If they do actively "do" something, they're dumb.
I agree that she's selfish, but most teenagers are. It's not something to condemn her for. If anything, it gives her flaws (which makes her not a Mary-Sue, thank God) and makes her more relatable.
Also, I find it hilarious how you condemn "dumb" Ariel and "weak" Cinderella, yet I don't see a post where you talk about how freaking Merida tried to poison her own mother.

reply
formatting help
[–] otness_e 9 years ago

Agreed on all your points save for the bit about Ariel being selfish. She definitely wasn't selfish at all (she wouldn't have saved Flounder from Glut, nearly getting herself eaten in the process, nor would she have even let Eric have Vanessa, or save Sebastian from becoming dinner while she was most likely still angry with him for perfectly understandable reasons if she truly were selfish). Actually, you want to see how selfish characters generally act, look at how Woody and Kefka behaved here:

Woody Black Friday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GOxJpGI8SWc

Kefka Palazzo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=usN_NXPUt40#t=361

You can also go for Kuzco or Beast or Gaston, and the first two are HEROES.

reply
formatting help
[–] Stratego 9 years ago

One, she didn't know Ursula wanted to take control of her father's kingdom. Seeking her help was a desperate and impulsive act, but it was also the result of her father's treatment of her. Two, being pampered doesn't guarantee happiness. Clearly she wasn't enjoying her life under the sea, performing for her father's subjects. Tryig to lead your own life is not selfish.

reply
formatting help
[–] otness_e 9 years ago

Agreed with everything, but I really wouldn't call Ariel's going to Ursula as "impulsive." Now, before I explain why, I want to make clear that I'm not denying that Ariel is impulsive. Her opening scene and her discovery of fireworks makes clear she is definitely impulsive, just that her going to Ursula isn't really impulsive. It IS certainly an act of desperation, though.

See, if it were impulsive, she would not have done the following:

1. Explicitly refused Flotsam & Jetsam when they attempted to ask her directly;

2. Show extreme hesitance at going to Ursula even AFTER agreeing with them.

In other words, had she been impulsive in doing so, she would have acted exactly like Jafar when Aladdin manipulated him into wasting his wish to become a Genie.


EDIT: Actually, I'm not sure if Ariel never knew Ursula wanted to take control of Atlantica at all, but she certainly didn't know that she STILL was gunning for that (especially when Ursula had to work to convince her she had reformed, like how Mr. Match did in Mega Man Battle Network 3). Only saying that because she DID have to fight Ursula in the TV series a few times.

reply
formatting help
[–] bl82-1 9 years ago

she basically had to be saved from everything first by Triton and then by Eric.

The only time Triton comes to save her is when Ursula takes her back to her grotto to turn her into a plankton-whatever. And may I point out that it doesn't work? 'Cause Ursula still wants to steal her soul afterwards. Unless, of course, you're referring to the very end, when Triton turns her human? Because it's not like she was ever in danger at that point, so she is not actually being saved there. In fact, I would go even farther and say that not only was she not in danger, but that she was coming to peace with her existence being separate to that of Eric's.

Now, about Eric -- did you notice that Ariel in fact saved him? THREE TIMES, I might add. Once from the shipwreck, once from marrying Vanessa, and once from Ursula turning him into a plankton-whatever. The only time Eric ever actively saves her is when he drives the shipwreck into Ursula at the end, and even then, I would say that both of them are taking an active part in each other's salvation.

And I wouldn't necessarily say that she's constantly complaining about how bad the sea is. It's just that she REALLY WANTS to live on land with the humans. Haven't you ever had something like that? It's like having this craving for spaghetti, and someone gives you mac n' cheese. It's a perfectly good dish, but it just won't do, because it's not what you want. It isn't so much that Ariel thinks life in the sea is so bad. It's just not...human territory.

reply
formatting help
[–] otness_e 9 years ago

Agreed with all points. However, I should add that, technically, Eric DID save Ariel a bit earlier than that, when he proceeded to wing Ursula in the arm with a harpoon (since it was pretty obvious that Ursula was going to shoot her at point blank range or at the very least impale her, and based on her choice of words, she fully intended to kill her despite being implied to have promised Triton with not harming his daughters, Ariel included, when he enters the deal with her ["Contract or not, I'll..."]), so technically speaking, Eric saved Ariel twice.

The TC'd probably have more of a case if... well, if (s)he was complaining about a certain character in Beauty and the Beast, since unlike Ariel, she DID complain about the village life in a rather insulting manner. I'm referring to that last point, BTW.

reply
formatting help
[–] louiseculmer 8 years ago

she didn't know about ursula's plans for the kingdom. And if she hadn't yearned to become human, there wouldn't be much of a story. And she rescues Eric first before he rescues her.

reply
formatting help
[–] otness_e 8 years ago

Yeah, agreed, there's definitely no way Ariel would have known that Ursula was still after her dad, especially considering Ursula had just made a big deal of her being reformed ("Poor Unfortunate Souls", remember?). And quite honestly, I think it's less stupid than, say, what another DP did especially when unlike Ariel, she DID know what the main villain was up to. I won't give names, though.

reply
formatting help
[–] watcher101 8 years ago

I'd say she was more impulsive than stupid and selfish. She acted in a spur of the moment when she was angry and upset.

reply
formatting help
[–] otness_e 8 years ago

I wouldn't call her impulsive regarding her going to Ursula, considering she demonstrated clear reluctance to even meet Ursula, let alone do the deal with her. Heck, when F&J directly suggested she go see Ursula, she actually refused them outright DESPITE being under severe emotional trauma (remember, they only got her to agree to come with when they subtly flicked one of the remains of her statue toward her direction when about to take their leave).

Now, her going to that sunken ship or even her surfacing regarding Prince Eric's ship, yes, that's definitely impulsiveness there. But not the Ursula bit. If she were impulsive during that event, she would behaved EXACTLY like Jafar did when Aladdin tricked him into wasting his third wish and becoming a Genie.

reply
formatting help
[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

You think Ariel hasn't heard it all before? Why should she listen to someone who keeps lecturing her and doesn't seem to understand how she feels (Isn't Sebastian being selfish here)? If someone does that to me, I also walk away. I don't know why I should force myself to do something unnecessarily unpleasant. How's that "selfish"?

reply
formatting help
[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

Because she has to?


That doesn't make sense. She "has to" what? Listen to Sebastian while she doesn't want to?

Now you're talking about things that happen after the transformation while in your previous post you mentioned events from before the transformation.

she shows little to no gratitude for their help or concern for their well-being.


Actually, she kisses him when he says he won't tell her father and will stay around to help her. But the girl is mute, what do you want her to do? She can't walk around kissing crabs all the time, especially since she only has a limited time to make Eric fall in love with her. She also didn't ask him for help, she doesn't even seem to be aware of all the things he does.

(Sebastian nearly gets killed by Chef Louis in the kitchen because he agreed to stay and help her woo the prince like she wanted, and when he says "I hope you appreciate everything I do for you!" she flippantly ignores him and focuses on her fluffy bed instead. He's literally risking his life to help her and she can't even be bothered to feel thankful).


Except that Sebastian was lecturing her again and not being exactly modest, which is just annoying. But I'm pretty sure the pat on his head was meant to be appreciative. She was also clearly tired. Now if you think it's rude she ignored him, but I don't see how it's "selfish". She could only sit there and hear him talk, she couldn't even say anything back.

reply
formatting help
[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

If she is to live under Triton's rule, she's gotta do what he says, including Sebastian. Haven't your parents told you this?


No, my parents have never told me to listen to some guy who is just their music conductor. And in case you missed it, this whole movie is about how a father has to let go of his daughter who's becoming an adult. At some point you have to stop listening to your parents. And unlike Triton, my parents actually took my feelings into consideration when I was 16 and didn't force me to do everything I didn't enjoy. They never called me "selfish" because of that.

That doesn't excuse her behavior, I'm afraid. Funny how, after Sebastian discovers her secret collection, Ariel just expects him to keep her secret even though he's a tiny little crab and her father is king of the sea. Sebastian is her father's subject, bound by his laws, and can get severely punished for disobeying. Ariel disobeys? Her dad will just scold her.


That has nothing to do with her supposedly being ungrateful to him for helping her out. But is there really a law that says he has to tell on her to the king? And what law did Ariel break? There are boundaries, otherwise Triton is just a dictator. In the end, he realizes that he has been too strict, to both Ariel and Sebastian.

How does this justify her behavior?


So if all someone does is lecture you and you don't have the ability to talk back, you should just sit there and take it? No, in real life most people would walk away. That's not selfish, why would you put yourself through that?

When Sebastian is talking about how her actions will get HIM in trouble, she doesn't care


And telling her father would get HER in trouble. If he had been able to shut his mouth, he wouldn't have been in trouble either. Seems to me the problem is Triton.

Ariel has no further use for Sebastian, and so promptly forgets about him and focuses on herself and what she wants. That's selfish.


That's because before he tagged along, he didn't seem to care about her either, just about what Triton would think. If she did what Sebastian and her father wanted, then she would never do what she wanted. It's pretty ridiculous that a cave with human items found in the sea should be a secret.

reply
formatting help
[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] otness_e 8 years ago

Not listening to your parents doesn't make you selfish, it's the fact that you would do whatever and however you want, without remorse, regardless of the effect it might have on those who love you.


Had you been talking about the likes of Michel Foucault (who clearly didn't care if his spreading AIDs around and heavily contributing to the AIDs crisis even after he found out about being infected with it, even saying in a dismissal of safe sex "to die for the love of boys, what could be more beautiful?", which also just so happened to be right before he died.), I'd agree with you. However, Ariel was NOTHING like that at all. If anything, Ariel actually attempted to stop Ursula when she cursed her dad, tried to redeem herself for her unwitting role in Ursula's coup (which, BTW, she had no idea because Ursula sold her on the fact that she had redeemed herself), and she also constantly helped her friends even when it would have been in her own best interests to leave them to die, whether to save her own skin, or otherwise due to residual anger toward them for squealing on you. Ariel's not without her flaws. She was naïve, and she did have an impulsive, reckless streak to her, but the one flaw she does NOT have is selfishness. Besides, at least be glad that Ariel doesn't insult her own home when voicing her dreams, unlike a certain other Disney Princess that came after her.

I often see people cite Ariel saving Sebastian from Grimsby's plate as "proof" that she is kind or thoughtful, just like how they often cite her saving Flounder from the shark. Like Flounder though, Ariel put Sebastian in that position in the first place. She never considers that her own goal put others in danger.


First of all, Ariel never placed Sebastian in Grimsby's kitchen, Sebastian himself did so from jumping into the first window he could find after he took too long to get out of the sail. Not to mention Sebastian is the one who decided freely to help her, she never asked him to help or put a gun to his face demanding he help her, he decided to help her of her own free will. Second of all, Ariel KNEW about the risks regarding her goal, she wasn't "thoughtless" or never considered the risks posed to others. In fact, if anything, she tried to drive Flounder and Sebastian away when she went to see Ursula most likely because she didn't want them to get involved due to the risks ("Why don't you tell my father? You're good at that!" She said this when leaving with Flotsam and Jetsam.). Third of all, she KNEW about the dangers regarding her plundering the ship posed to herself and Flounder. Or have you forgotten that when Flounder obviously tried to fake illness to get out of plundering, she suggested that Flounder stay outside and watch for sharks, and she's no idiot, she knows what sharks are like. And she definitely knew the risks regarding the deal as well, and in fact, she didn't even fight Vanessa for Eric's love at all, and flat out let her marry him despite not only how much it broke her heart, but also how it would spell doom for her. Yes, she didn't think about Ursula trying to kill Triton, but on the other hand, Ursula spent a lot of time in Poor Unfortunate Souls trying to sell to Ariel that she had reformed, and while Ariel might have been suspicious (certainly, she was reluctant to go make the deal. I'm officially diagnosed as high-functioning Autistic/Aspergers, so discerning emotions is not exactly a strong suit of mine, even if I do have a bit of a leg up compared to my peers on at least discerning facial emotions due to an emotion chart, yet even I know reluctance and hesitance when I see it), she really doesn't have anything to deduce otherwise. In fact, this was extremely similar in fact to something Mega Man Battle Network 3 did regarding Lan Hikari and Mr. Match, right down to Lan inadvertently placing his dad in danger. I can forgive Ariel for thinking that Ursula had reformed, since if I had been in her position, I probably would have thought the same as well (remember, just because the audience realizes Ursula hadn't actually reformed doesn't mean the main characters have to know it as well. Dramatic Irony, you know.).

Poor writing. Telling somebody to not do something doesn't mean you go ahead and do it.


No, not really. Also, it was because of Triton blowing up Ariel's grotto that the events happened in the first place. She saved a human, who wasn't even a threat to her in any way, yet Triton gets ballistic and blows up her grotto just for not only going good Samaritan on Eric, but falling in love at all. There was absolutely NOTHING excusable with what he did. Besides, had I been in Triton's position and I did something like THAT to my kid, I'd actually be more inclined to kick the dog even more and probably even murder my child or at the very least send her to the ICU.

Not telling her father and have him find out gets both them in trouble and is a worse outcome than both.


He hated humans for no real reason. Do you really think that if he found out, he'd be even remotely merciful to his daughter? Heck no. And besides, Ariel never told Sebastian to keep her saving Eric a secret, Sebastian decided to keep it hidden of his own free will.

So he should just let her do whatever she wants, regardless of the consequences? That's not how life works.

Think about it, she falls into obsession when she sees this guy for ten seconds. She then sells her soul to a sea witch for some legs and a guy she doesn't know, also ditching her family who loves her in the process.


First of all, she already had an obsession with humanity long before she even MET Eric. Heck, she actually sang a song detailing said obsession. Part of Your World, remember? She even had an artifact shrine in a grotto. And that bit was added in specifically to EVADE that kind of insinuation you listed (besides, at least she had more of a reason than her original counterpart, who literally DID only want to become human because of the prince in more ways than one, as unlike Ariel, she had absolutely no care for humanity beyond going to the surface. Her sisters had more care for humanity than the original little mermaid did. At least they actually expressed an interest in human artifacts that WASN'T just a statue of some prince. Oh, and speaking of which, the mermaid's sole reason for even falling for that prince at all was because of the statue). Second of all, it's not just for ten seconds. She also witnessed Eric's kind treatment of his dog, his humble treatment of Grimsby, and his bravery during a storm AND his risking his life to save his dog and the other men. So she did fall for him for more than just his physical appearance, even if that's the one thing she explicitly stated about him. And that lasted for a span of minutes. Third of all, she was shown to be extremely reluctant to even go to Ursula in the first place, and even said in a hesitant tone when Ursula laid down the grounds for their deal "If I do that, I'll never see my father and sisters again", and clearly wasn't sure if giving up her voice was all that good of an idea. And did you forget that when Flotsam and Jetsam directly suggested she see Ursula, she, despite clearly being under emotional trauma due to recent events, outright told them to leave ("The sea witch? ...Well I... no, No! Get out of here! Leave me alone!"), and it was only because F&J pulled a very dirty trick by subtly knocking some statue remains toward her while "taking their leave" that they even managed to succeed in convincing her to at least consider seeing Ursula. Had it not been for Triton's actions earlier, I'm willing to bet the proverbial farm that Ariel would not have gone for Ursula even if F&J stooped down to that kind of trick. Heck, she didn't even initially intend to just go be a human to meet Eric, she actually intended to meet with him as a mermaid earlier ("I'll swim up to his castle, and then Flounder will splash around to get his attention and..." This was right before Under the Sea).

The line that really gets me is "I'm SIXTEEN years old. I'm not a child!". Like, that gets me so fired up. Sit your pretentious little butt down, Ariel.


In all fairness, 16 years old IS older than a child, and would accurately be considered a teenager, so she is right about that. Besides, I really wouldn't call that pretentious. "Little Town"? Now THAT was pretentious. Let's leave it at that to avoid opening another can of worms.

The only cool parts about her is the hair, and her singing voice, which I hate to admit that I do love. Part of Your World is the highlight of the movie and is a really amazing Disney song. Other than that, I hate Ariel.


Funny you think Part of Your World is the highlight of the movie, because if you actually paid attention to the bleeping lyrics, you'd know that she always wanted to become human, well before Eric came along I mean. All Eric did was give her the push she needed to have the motivation to pursue her dream, and even THEN, Triton's basically the last straw.

Also, the reason why I have immense reverence towards Ariel, to such an extent that, had it not been for Toy Story's anti favoritism message really affecting me as a kid to such an extent that I was reluctant to play favoritism towards even inanimate objects, which is unfortunately still the case even today, I would have listed her as my favorite character, is because like her, I myself had to struggle to get to where I am today in society, because I was born with autism and thus really had to struggle to even be able to interact with people. It's also for the same reason why I hold Beast, Aladdin, and Ariel's daughter Melody from the sequel in very high regard.

Another reason I hold her in high regard is because, quite frankly, she's one of the few characters whose happiness and pursuit of it is not only treated as a good thing, but is also not portrayed as being either hedonistic, psychopathic, or idiotic, meaning I'm more than willing to support her pursuit of it. Believe me, I've had to endure a lot of fear regarding happiness and ever letting myself express it at all because media seem to depict happiness as a bad thing, and the few things it does treat it as a good thing, it's usually for hedonistic, insane, or simply stupid depictions. For example, in Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker, there was this character named Cecile Cosima Caminades who in one briefing tape spoke positively of this event known as May 1968. I think I'll let her and Snake speak for themselves on this: https://youtu.be/gNQU-c-oDRY?t=1948 Then with psychopathic, either Weil, Volgin, Joker, or Kefka would speak well regarding their happiness being the result of insanity: https://youtu.be/yFGF4JdS-hc And for stupid, well, just look at the triplets or even that featherduster, they're happy as a clam, and they're depicted largely as idiots.

reply
formatting help
[–] Stratego 8 years ago

Not listening to your parents doesn't make you selfish, it's the fact that you would do whatever and however you want, without remorse, regardless of the effect it might have on those who love you.


Now you're making A LOT of assumptions about Ariel. You don't know what she's like in other circumstances. Ariel didn't listen to him when it came to her fascination of the human world. It was her passion and he didn't show any toleration for that at all. At some point you just have to choose yourself and that is NOT selfish

Like Flounder though, Ariel put Sebastian in that position in the first place.


He is the one who decided to hide in her makeshift dress and not get out on time. Again, she didn't ask for him to tag along. How come Flounder and Scuttle never got seriously hurt? And yes, Ariel saving Sebastian from Grimsby's plate does show she cares. I'm not sure why you want to twist that.

Poor writing. Telling somebody to not do something doesn't mean you go ahead and do it.


Rather poor interpretation. No, it means that you should not tell others what to do in the first place and let them make their own decisions. Ariel did not do those things just because Triton said she couldn't.

Not telling her father and have him find out gets both them in trouble and is a worse outcome than both.


I don't think Sebastian would get in trouble if he hadn't told Triton, as Triton would never know he knew anything about her disappearance. Now you won't hear me say that it was a good decision to go to Ursula, but Triton played a HUGE role in that.

So he should just let her do whatever she wants, regardless of the consequences? That's not how life works.


Actually, that IS how life works. Once you're an adult (and in the universe of this movie Ariel is), then your parents have nothing to say about you whatsoever. Now I can certainly understand him wanting to express his concerns, but that's not what he did. More importantly, if your child has a passion, you should encourage and guide them, it works contradictory to forbid them from having that passion.

Think about it, she falls into obsession when she sees this guy for ten seconds.


Yes, I've thought about it and it's a fairy tale where love on first sight exists. Eric only hears her voice and is in love with her and disobeys his guardian Grimsby. Almost all Disney characters suffer from this, we shouldn't take it too seriously. I would also like to point out that Eric was not the only reason she decided to become human, he was just the catalyst.

The line that really gets me is "I'm SIXTEEN years old. I'm not a child!".


This isn't exactly our world, she also gets married, so she's clearly not considered a child. And a lot of sixteen year olds say something similar to their parents. I don't think I ever did, but then again, I didn't have a parent like Triton.

Other than that, I hate Ariel.


Well, Ariel is naive, impulsive and stubborn (although not selfish). You want her to be perfect or something?

reply
formatting help
[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

I assure you, I am not.


Yes, you are. All we know is that Ariel ignores her father when it comes to her passion for the human world. And that after a huge fight with her father in which he destroys her precious belongings, she makes an impulsive decision she has never made before. We have no idea if otherwise Ariel does whatever and however she wants without remorse and regardless of the effect it might have on those she loves. That's only assumption on your part.

Because she wants to and damn anybody who is affected by this. Selfish.


Ridiculous. The only one affected is Flounder who chose himself to tag along. Triton shouldn't force her to do things she doesn't want to do and forbid things she does want to do. It's not selfish to choose yourself when you're sixteen. I'm creeped out by your suggestion that I should just obey my parents or otherwise I'm being selfish.

"He'd say he's gonna kill himself a crab, that's what her father'd say!"


That's what he always seems to say. It has never happened. If he doesn't tell her father, neither of them will be in trouble, so why should she be bothered by him freaking out about what Triton would say?

Must I remind you that it was Ariel who put them in a bad position in the first place?


Do I have to remind you that it's Sebastian himself who decided to follow her and that she did not ask him to come along? He put himself in that position. And it's actually pretty pathetic he cares so much about what Triton thinks, when he's being unreasonable.

What are you talking about? Ariel was the one who went to Ursula in the first place.


I'm saying that Triton's unreasonable behavior led to Ariel making such a bad decision.

No, I want her to not be brat.


She's not, so there ya go.

reply
formatting help
[–] otness_e 8 years ago

With the exception of your claim that Ariel made an impulsive decision to go to Ursula, I agree 100% with your post, Stratego. Only reason I disagree with that bit is because Ariel, when Flotsam and Jetsam tried to directly suggest she go see Ursula, she told them to leave, and it was only their pulling a dirty trick that they managed to convince her to even consider seeing Ursula. Not to mention even during the actual deal bit, she clearly was shown to be very hesitant to even do the deal, even looking away and grimacing when she signs the name on that soul script. That's NOT to say that Ariel's not impulsive at all, though, because she has demonstrated impulsivity regarding surfacing upon seeing Eric's ship, not to mention plundering a sunken ship and forgetting completely the concert. Just that she was not impulsive during that point and time (if she truly were impulsive during that time, she would have behaved more like how Jafar did regarding the potential of becoming a Genie when Aladdin tricked him).

Anonymous Fox, Ariel is most certainly not a brat. She has her flaws, I'll give you that much, like her being naïve, impulsive, stubborn, and the like. But selfishness and being a brat was NEVER one of those flaws. You want someone who actually BEHAVED like a brat? Look at Muffy Crosswire from Arthur. Heck, look at Francis Wilkerson or practically any of the Wilkerson children from Malcolm in the Middle, or even Emperor Kuzco from The Emperor's New Groove. And for the record, what's to say Ariel WASN'T listening to Sebastian the entire time? Back when I was in Kindergarten, I often put my head down on my desk, and looked like I was tuning the teacher out, yet I if anything was paying far better attention to the teacher than if I looked at her, even managing to recite exactly what she said ad-verbatim within the past hour as well as three adjoining conversations, which left her stunned.

reply
formatting help
[–] Stratego 8 years ago

With the exception of your claim that Ariel made an impulsive decision to go to Ursula, I agree 100% with your post, Stratego.


Fine, an improvident decision. She obviously was very emotional and not thinking with a clear head.

reply
formatting help
[–] otness_e 8 years ago

Yeah, that definitely is a far better description. At least it conveys she was going by raw emotion than a clear head (understandable, since she was exposed to extreme trauma).

reply
formatting help
[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] otness_e 8 years ago

She was leading the mer-world into danger- because the woman she signed the deal with had a hidden agenda.


At least Ursula actually played up the reform card and actually kept her agenda to herself. You can't exactly say the same with the princess who came after Ariel, where she knew full well what the villain was like, with the latter not even attempting to hide his being a scumbag when blackmailing her, yet she then proceeded to sell out her friends and her lover to him and the mob, and then acts all surprised when they decided to just kill them. If you ask me, that was far worse and far closer to the definition of selfish even if it's not quite matching (again, selfishness requires not only not caring about anyone else but yourself, but actively enjoying that people suffer from your actions so long as you're not the one suffering). Also, you want actual selfishness? How about if Ariel actually agreed to let Ursula have the kingdom and do her way with everything, like what that guy in Transformers Dark of the Moon did when he sold out Earth to the Decepticons and knew full well what Ursula intended to do with Atlantica in terms of base objectives.

She left behind the throne and her duties to her people- when she was sixth in line.


The original Little Mermaid did the exact same thing just because she didn't even have a soul. Sorry, but if you're going to claim that what Ariel did was selfish, I see no reason why that mermaid in the original tale can't be listed as such, and her family suffered even more because of it. At least Ariel actually redeemed herself of those actions, not to mention actually fixed things before it got worse and irrepairable.

It was a reckless and potentially (and ended up being in actuality) stupid decision, and it was selfish of her not to consider an ulterior motive, and it was the ultimate act of selfishness. The most selfish part of it was that she didn't consider how her family would be emotionally effected- which is selfish, yes.


Actually, she DID consider how her family might be emotionally affected. "If I do that, I'll never see my father and sisters again." She said this regarding the results of the deal, whether she succeeded or failed, and bear in mind she had a VERY hesitant tone to her. That's not selfish. Had she truly been selfish, she would have behaved more like Francis Wilkerson from Malcolm in the Middle, or even Jerome Valeska in Gotham, especially on the matter of family (here's a link depicting the latter character, after he was outed as having killed his own mom: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nB_CA_dG4s). In fact, not just "more like", as much as "exactly like."

And besides, it's a bit hypocritical for you to denounce the fact that she doesn't seem to consider Ursula having an ulterior motive as "selfish", when literally every main character in the Metal Gear series falls under that exact same description (and I know you're a Metal Gear fan because you had the FOXHOUND logo as your avatar at one point), even when their actions were supposed to be to save lives.

reply
formatting help
[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] otness_e 8 years ago

Well, of course she's selfish, she's trying to take over the kingdom by getting to the king's daughter. It's fine if people love the character, that doesn't bother me, but what does bother me is when people completely overlook her flaws and act like they're non-existent. It's okay to adore a character but still notice and be aware their flaws. Jasmine is my favourite DP but I admit she's way too forgiving of Aladdin's lies and can be intimidating or brash in certain situations. Admitting to a character's flaws doesn't mean you love them any less; Ariel clearly has flaws and when fans try to justify every single action by stating that she's 'like every other teenager' it's infuriating. Sure, she's determined which is admirable but that doesn't mean she's any less selfish. In my experience the Ariel fans (I'm not saying all!) are the most likely to take it as a personal insult if you don't like their favourite DP. Lastly I don't think she learns from her mistakes or has any remorse or regret for her actions... her 'apology' at the end doesn't come across as sincere to me, more of a "sorry I got caught, I didn't mean for you to find out this way" rather than "I'm sorry my actions have endangered you all"


In case you haven't noticed, both Stratego and I have fully acknowledged her flaws, namely her being naïve, impulsive, rebellious, and stubborn (and yes, those ARE character flaws). We just don't buy that selfishness is a flaw she possesses. And I'm one of Ariel's biggest fans, yet even I fully acknowledge she's got flaws. Now, the musical version of Ariel IS selfish though, as was the Hans Christian Andersen version (and if you ask me, even though I'm Roman Catholic, I simply couldn't sympathize with her at all).

As far as your last point, considering that immediately after Ursula cursed her father, not only did she look remorseful and shocked at what happened, but she immediately attacked Ursula and tried to avenge him, and risked her life to save him, I'd say that it was a very sincere apology, AND that she learned from her mistakes. Do you really think she'd attempt to do anything like that if she WASN'T sincere at all? Heck, she actually told Eric to leave her just before Ursula surfaced as a giant, meaning she wanted to deal with Ursula herself and didn't want Eric to get hurt.

Besides, at least Ariel actually DID acknowledge she was at fault and bore some responsibility even when it was mostly Triton's fault that the deal happened in the first place (sorry, but blowing up your kid's stuff is closer to child abuse, especially considering that the reason he even did such an action was simply because she played good Samaritan to a human, when he himself made it pretty clear that he wished humanity to go extinct, or at the very least wouldn't care if they drowned, just for their species. I know if I did that, I'd probably move on to putting the kid in the ICU). Her successor when she was saved by her co-protagonist in the next film constantly blamed him for the mess that happened and never even acknowledged that she bore some of the blame for what happened (namely, the fact that she deliberately went into the West Wing despite both the co-protagonist and even the servants telling her not to go in there, and considering the servants had explicitly disobeyed a prior order from him just to feed her, it should have been very apparent to her that going there was a bad idea, and then we get to her nearly destroying a certain object by touching it (even if you argue she couldn't have known about its fragility, the fact that it was under a glass belljar should have made it pretty apparent that it was not meant to be touched), and you know the rest, which reminds me, Ariel needed coaxing from Flotsam and Jetsam and was clearly hesitant at going there, and even harbored hesitance at potentially never seeing her father and sisters again regardless of the outcome of the deal. Her successor literally left the castle after that instance without even a second thought, which came far closer to actually BEING impulsive than Ariel did. If anything, she was more at fault than her co-protagonist was, yet the film framed it as if he was the sole guilty party by having her win that blame game). And that's not even getting into the climax where said protagonist impulsively showed the co-protagonist in a magic mirror to the congregated mob and that slimeball of a self-titled fiancée, AFTER she deduced she was being blackmailed by the latter, and then acts all surprised when they decide to kill him despite it being extremely obvious that that's EXACTLY what would happen, even moreso than the deal with Ursula resulting in her dad being killed or worse (which, I'll point out again just to make sure it's firmly in your head, Ursula had to fake being reformed just to ensure Ariel could get going with the deal, Ariel was shown to be extremely reluctant throughout, and even told F&J to leave her alone when they directly told her to see Ursula, unlike with the succeeding movie where her successor not only deduced immediately the villain was a scumbag and trying to blackmail her, the villain doesn't even attempt to deny it, and then she idiotically runs in and gets the mirror and shows them the co-protagonist, even when she knows from experience dealing with the villain that he's not the type to give up winning her love, even going as far as to arrange an arrest under false charges just to force her hand in marriage, and then he decided out of a fit of jealousy to have the co-protagonist killed and rabbleroused. Tell me, which is worse? Because a lot of Ariel's detractors (not you, specifically. In fact, from reading your commentary on the next film in another thread, you seemed to think it may not have been all that good) that I've had to deal with clearly seemed to ignore the latter bit as well as how worse that was.).

I will mention this much, though, I hated Merida for the same reasons you claim to hate Ariel, and unlike Ariel, Merida more than matched that description, especially when she went to see a witch specifically to essentially drug her mom, and even by teenage rebellion standards, that clearly was too much.

You can't blame Foxhound. Snake must have been in charge of Foxhound until he left the Patriots. After he became pissed off with Zero, he probably just wanted to live a new life and put everything behind him. But then, his past came back to him in PW, where Zero tried to frame MSF using Paz. From that point, BB started his war against Zero, and in a unknown year, Big Boss returned to the US and Foxhound, while plotting the Outer Heaven Uprising, his master plan that would defeat Zero, but *beep* Solid Snake spoiled everything. From that point, you know the story.

Oh and Liquid.


Like I said, most of the characters didn't seem to even THINK the villains or even the guys they were serving may have had an ulterior motive and did the missions, and ultimately made things worse. You might as well call the Metal Gear series "people on both sides have ulterior motives without heroes realizing it, the game", and Metal Gear Solid 2 was practically infamous with overusing the ulterior motives card, to such an extent that Solid Snake came across as a jerk by knowingly manipulating Raiden into getting himself captured just so he could sneak onto Arsenal Gear. And I wasn't talking about FOXHOUND so much as pretty much all the main protagonists (Big Boss, Venom Snake, Solid Snake, and Raiden).

reply
formatting help
[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] otness_e 8 years ago

For the record, Anonymous_Fox, she didn't force Flounder or Sebastian to accompany her. They did the actions of their own free will. And actually, Sebastian nearly getting killed by Louis or being on Grimsby's plate was his own fault, as he's the one who hid inside her "sail dress" and got himself laundered and then recklessly entered the first window he could find to get away from the clothesline which led right into the kitchen. Ariel had absolutely nothing to do with that event beyond the fact that he agreed to help her (and she didn't even ask for his help, either verbally or even via body language). Heck, considering Sebastian's the reason she ultimately decided to make the deal with Ursula in the first place (since it was thanks to his loose lips to Triton that Triton proceeded to blow up Ariel's grotto and then Ursula and F&J proceeded to exploit that to ensure Ariel did the deal as part of their agenda against Triton), and she was clearly angry with Sebastian when going to see Ursula, she could have easily just left him to his fate with Grimsby as revenge instead of, oh, I don't know, trying to save him DESPITE all of that (and believe me, she would have been perfectly justified if she just left him to the fate of becoming dinner).

And for the record, of course she didn't verbally say "thank you" to Sebastian. Have you forgotten during that time she had basically been forced to become mute? How exactly can she even thank Sebastian when she can't even talk? And besides, she was tired. I think one can forgive her for not exactly being able to thank him when she's basically tired and needed to get to sleep.

reply
formatting help
[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] otness_e 8 years ago

Ah, actually, in order to be selfish, she must not care at all about anyone around her and if anything take absolute utter joy at the fact that others are suffering instead of herself, go out of her way to cause harm. That's in fact the definition of selfishness. Just ask Kuzco, or Beast, or Scar, or Gaston, or Dr. Weil, or Yevgeny Borisovitch Volgin (you should be familiar with him, considering you once had the FOXHOUND logo as your avatar), or Karl Marx. Heck, even Kefka Palazzo who clearly reveled in the suffering of others (or, to quote his own words late in the game, "Hee hee hee! But what's the fun in destruction if there are no "precious" lives lost?").

And let me tell you, the original tale, written by Hans Christian Andersen, was FAR worse, namely she actually got away with her selfish actions and got a soul when, had the ending been moral at all, God would have granted her a soul, yet damned her to hell for all of eternity for the needless suffering she placed onto others, like her grandma and all of that. And unlike in the Disney version, there was no way to undo those actions.

reply
formatting help
[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] otness_e 8 years ago

What do you think selfishness is? Good? Because you certainly ain't acting like it's good and if anything is evil, and quite frankly, selfishness IS evil, or at the very least bad. Honestly, have you seen how Kuzco acted for most of The Emperor's New Groove? He was practically a sociopath, taking joy when people are hurt by his actions (his behavior to Pacha when he revealed his intentions to demolish the latter's village for Kuzcotopia just so he'd have a summer retreat all to himself, not caring at all if Pacha's family and the other villagers ended up homeless and even reveled in the idea, spoke volumes to this), yet being upset when HE has to be subject to pain and misery himself, and HE was the actual hero. I guess you can add Francis Wilkerson from Malcolm in the Middle who practically was a sociopath as well. I might as well add that those characters I listed clearly lacked remorse, while Ariel actually did.

As far as the original story, ah, let's see, there's the fact that the mermaid up and out abandoned her own family out of a fit from the fact that she doesn't have a soul of any kind, when they didn't do ANYTHING to hurt her at all, with absolutely no reluctance of any kind; there's also the fact that the means to gain a soul that she attempted to go for were via a means that skirted far too close to the Dementor's Kiss for my tastes (meaning, she was essentially absorbing part of the prince's own soul), she didn't care for humanity at all (unlike Ariel, she didn't even care about human artifacts, and if anything, it was her sisters who cared more about humanity than her, not to mention and even her going for the prince came across as more using him for her own reasons; and because she left her family abruptly especially when they did absolutely nothing to deserve her leaving her beyond revealing merpeople lack souls (which if you ask me is an extremely stupid plot point since, come on, merpeople save for one little thing regarding their waists and their living underwater are similar to humans, God's ultimate creation in every way, do you REALLY think God would make such a stupid decision as to NOT give them an immortal soul or at the VERY least something similar?), her dad suffered misfortune, her grandma croaked from a broken heart due to her actions, and her sisters had to sacrifice their hair just for a chance to save her sorry butt, and while I will commend her for deciding to spare the prince instead of actually killing him, it still came across more like "if I can't have him, I don't deserve to live", and quite frankly, even the whole 300 year journey through the afterlife came across as too much of a reward for her actions. Had it been me who wrote the story, I'd make sure that God damned her to Hell for all eternity specifically because of her extremely selfish actions throughout the story, which outnumbered the single good deed she ever did, well, two good deeds, counting her saving the prince the first time around (and for the record, desiring an immortal soul IS a very selfish motive for her actions on par with Lord Farquaad's marrying Fiona just to become king, or Lord Voldemort's desire for immortality). Oh, and quite frankly, her going for the prince, unlike Ariel with Eric, WAS shallow, because literally the only reason she even had some attachment to the prince was because he just so happened to resemble a statue in her garden (the only human artifact she ever cared for), and there was absolutely no indication that she even witnessed the prince's behavior and character, unlike in the Disney version, where they at least showed her actually intently observing Eric's character while being unseen. Now do you understand exactly why the original story was extremely bad? Also, the mermaid also lacked ANY remorse for what she did as well.

EDIT: Also, if Ariel truly didn't care how anyone else suffered because of her actions, she would have behaved exactly like Albert Wesker did in this video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRNsVBh89K8

reply
formatting help
[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

Ergo, he has two choices, coddle Ariel in the hopes that she'll learn to think ahead as she matures, or have a second kid and hope #2 is less rebellious and more prescient than its older sister.


Or a third choice, not be so overprotective and let her pursue her passions. If she didn't have to do it in secret, then she wouldn't have to risk her life. I'm glad that when I became an adult and started making my own decisions, my parents didn't coddle me or have another kid. I shudder at the thought

Besides, as a character, like Nostalgia Chick pointed out, Ariel doesn't change.


And this Nostalgia Chick is a psychologist? Clearly Ariel has been acting this way, because her father is being overprotective. It happens with a lot of teenagers. Once they're allowed to figure things out for themselves and find their own way, it usually turns out alright.

Don't create a straw man out of my argument, that's not what I suggested at all. What Ariel wants, Ariel gets


No strawman, you're just talking nonsense. Ariel clearly does not get what she wants. Triton wants her to perform when she doens't want to, he forbids her to go looking for human objects and destroys her whole collection when she doesn't listen. How does she get what she wants? All we see that she wants is to pursue her passion for the human world and clearly she's not allowed to.

Everyone eventually gets caught and all the band members are put in prison and the rest of her sisters are confined to the castle.


WTH???

Instead she attacks her father on his decision and brings up their mother... which is an excruciatingly painful subject for Triton


Huh???

Because he'll get in trouble if Triton finds out he was keeping something from him?


Not if he doesn't tell him.

Maybe because as advisor and servant of the king, he would have to keep an eye on her?


He's a "royal court composer", keeping an eye on the king's daughter is not in his job description.

Except it didn't. Ariel made the conscious effort to see Usula, and nobody is to blame but Ariel.


Yes, let's ignore everything that happened before that.

She is, but not as much as she is selfish and stubborn.


She's neither a brat nor selfish. She IS stubborn, just like her father.

reply
formatting help
[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

So she couldn't, you know, just have talked to him?


You don't think she tried? They don't have to show it to imply it. This is not something that came out of the blue. I think it's clearly shown what their relationship was like at that point. Triton knows about his daughter's interests and Ariel knows he gets angry about it. So she can't talk to him.

but if Ariel hadn't been disrespectful (by missing the ceremony)


On one hand I can see how rather embarrassing it was for her father that she didn't show up, on the other hand Triton shouldn't just force her to do things she doesn't want to do. I would not have accepted my parents forcing me to perform at age sixteen. It's not like she missed the concert on purpose.

Don't just go blaming one factor when there's several.


I didn't. I said Triton played a part in all of it and that Ariel was not being "selfish". She's naive, impulsive and stubborn and certainly is responsible for the decisions she makes.

No, but it's a fact that Ariel stays the same throughout the whole movie whereas Triton changes his tone.


Well, some poster suggested that Ariel should've apologized for worrying her father, although I think that's signified by the hug she gives him at the end. But what kind of change should Ariel have shown? She wasn't the one telling others how to live their life. In the finale she did try to fight Ursula, trying to save others.

Until he finds out.


How is he going to find out if he never tells him anything?

He's also a servant of Triton and was tasked by the king himself to keep an eye on his daughter.


Where does it say that? Triton apparently considers him to be loyal and a confidant, but he is not his servant. Yes, Triton ordered him to keep an eye on her, but it seems he only agreed because he was scared of him.

Just because you have a fight with your father doesn't mean you put your own family and kingdom in peril.


How could she have known that? She thought she only put her own life at stake.

Agree to disagree.


Well, I guess so...

reply
formatting help
[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

Considering she was defensive as soon as he confronted her, no.


Why would becoming defensive mean that? I think it clearly means she already had this conversation with him before. Like Triton said, "How many times must we go through this?". The fact that her response was, "But if you would just listen", indicates she has tried to talk to him before but he doesn't care what she has to say.

I agree, but considering that Ariel lives under his shelter, she does have to obey some of his rules. Straying away from the ocean is one of them.


It's not like she would be able to live on her own like in our times. She's at the age that he should let her discover things on her own, if he allowed her to pursue her interests, she wouldn't need to stray away from the ocean.

You think it's responsible for Ariel to wander off like that?


It may not be responsible, but it doesn't mean she's selfish. It's true she wasn't thinking of her father at that moment, but he wasn't thinking of her either.

Listen to such simple rule? It's those that say Ariel's so kind, caring, and/or compassionate that I think "Did we watch the same movie? Apart from bailing two characters out of the danger she put them in (Flounder to the shark and Sebastian from Grimsby's plate)


What simple rule? And again, they put themselves in danger, she didn't force them.

Because he would send somebody else to look for her?


He did and he didn't find out until it was over. Sebastian could've just walked away and pretend like he knew nothing if he really was so afraid to be in trouble.

"You're absolutely right, Sebastien. Ariel needs constant supervision"


That doesn't say he's his servant. He basically forces Sebastian to do it, like he threatens him when he wants to know whom Ariel is in love with, which is a pretty assy thing to do. Like Sebastian himself says, "How do I get myself into these situations? I should be writing symphonies, not tagging along after some headstrong teenager." He agreed to do it, even though it's not his job.

You said it yourself: Ariel "certainly is responsible for the decisions she makes."


That's no argument. Like I said, she didn't know other lives were at risk, that wasn't in the contract she signed. It makes her naive, but not selfish.

reply
formatting help
[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] otness_e 8 years ago

Because she made no attempt to talk to him about it?


Actually, saying "If you would just listen...!" implies that she DID attempt to talk to him about it, but Triton refused to hear her out. She may not have successfully talked to him about it, but she most certainly DID make an attempt to do it. If anything, it's Triton who made absolutely no attempt to hear her out at all.

And regarding that other bit, Ursula had played the reform card when trying to convince Ariel to do the deal. Ariel was in no way responsible for trying to get her dad killed, especially when she really had no way of knowing or at least confirming that Ursula was still up to no good. The only way your description of Ariel and Ursula would have had any merit is if Ursula didn't even ATTEMPT to hide the fact that she wanted Triton dead or worse when making the deal with her, and Ariel actually accepted under the promise of getting revenge on daddy. Remember, just because WE know Ursula's up to no good doesn't mean that the other characters know. Remember the term "dramatic irony."

But if she's at an age that she can pursue her own interests, she's also at an age to know the consequences of her actions.


Yeah, and she DID know the consequences, especially regarding the deal, and she was fully willing to resign to her fate when it seemed like Eric chose another girl over herself without even fighting to change it. In fact, she doesn't even attempt to interfere until she learned from Scuttle that said "other girl" was actually Ursula in disguise, and the latter had clearly broke her end of the deal. Also, she also knew the risks and consequences if a shark tried to get her and succeeded. She KNOWS them. Why else would she have said when Flounder played ill that he stay outside and watch for sharks if she didn't know the risks and consequences.

Well, not maliciously selfish but she didn't think of him, and thought of herself when she did that.


Selfishness IS inherently malicious, though, so no, she definitely isn't selfish at all. If she were truly selfish, she would have behaved like these guys:

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GOxJpGI8SWc (Black Friday Woody)
*https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=usN_NXPUt40#t=361 (Kefka taunting Kuja when the latter is dying)

And don't forget Albert Wesker, who's practically the KING, no wait, the GOD of self-serving, backstabbing characterizations (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRNsVBh89K8). I might as well add in Emperor Kuzco, and HE'S the main hero.

And I can name plenty more there.

If she truly were selfish, she would have behaved EXACTLY like the guys listed above.

Don't go to the surface? And it was Ariel who went to Ursula, which implicated everybody.


That's not a "simple rule" that's an unreasonable rule. Or do I have to remind you that merpeople would most likely see a ship coming long before humans would even be aware there's a merperson below? If they don't see a ship anywhere nearby, it's safe to surface. It's called "common sense."

Also, Flounder and Sebastian weren't put at gunpoint to help her. They could have easily decided to not go. They went with her willingly. She didn't blackmail them to force them to come with, nor did she threaten their families. Or are you the type of person who thinks they only achieve their free will if they kill their superiors and otherwise they're just pawns?

Also, Triton seemed to ignore the fact that there were PLENTY of dangers in the ocean. Like, I don't know, Ursula (yeah, he banished her, but quite frankly, considering that he planned to commit genocide against humanity based on his overall statements, that came across as more of a slap on the wrist), or how about those sharks near the sunken ships? Those eat merpeople, and fish.

Hey, your words not mine. Ariel is old enough to know better than to trust Ursula and the contract was that she find her true love or become a servant of Ursula.


First of all, she may have been old enough to know better, but Ursula DID claim she had reformed, and let's face it, Ariel's trusting, a bit too trusting in fact. And besides, are we going to claim Snow White's selfish just because she ate from the poisoned apple to "make a wish" even though she would have been old enough to know better than to trust that old crone? Because let's face it, this is EXACTLY the same situation. Or how about most of the Metal Gear characters who basically should have known better than to trust their superior officers especially when most times they have an ulterior agenda that isn't in their best interests? Are you going to call EVERYONE in that game utterly selfish as well, because that's EXACTLY what you are effectively communicating as a result.

Second of all, her successor managed to sell her lover and her friends down the river even when the villain didn't even ATTEMPT to hide that he was a scumbag or blackmailing her. Why is barely anyone complaining about THAT?

In fact, it was Ariel's selfishness and stupidity that had Triton agreeing to take Ariel's place as Ursula's prisoner, giving up his trident. If she had just listened to her father, none of this would have happened.


If she had just listened to her father, Triton would have most likely exterminated the entire human race. Have you forgotten about how, when Ariel said "But he [Eric] would have died!" when explaining why she saved Eric, he retorted "One less human to worry about" and then admitted that he didn't know him nor did he even need to know him as they were all the same? And that would place a lot of blood on her hands as well. It's exactly the same as the Nazi's excuse of "I was just following orders", and that would make her less sympathetic.

reply
formatting help
[–] Stratego 8 years ago

Because she made no attempt to talk to him about it?


She did try to talk about it. But it was implied they had talked about if before, but there was no reasoning with him. The scene set the tone, they don't have to show their whole history.

People don't think properly when they've just been lied to.


People also don't think properly when their possessions are destroyed by their father and they are told they can't be with the one they love. If it's an excuse for Triton, it's an excuse for Ariel.

But if she's at an age that she can pursue her own interests, she's also at an age to know the consequences of her actions.


Not if you have a father who's overprotective and doesn't let you find out for yourself. She was naive and impulsive, so it's correct that got her in trouble, but she wasn't selfish.

Well, not maliciously selfish but she didn't think of him, and thought of herself when she did that.


She was being inconsiderate, but not selfish. Her intention was to go to the concert.

Don't go to the surface?


That was a change Ariel should've made at the end of the movie? That doesn't make sense.

And it was Ariel who went to Ursula, which implicated everybody.


Not to her knowledge, not how Ursula presented it to her.

But it does say that he tasked Sebastian to follow Ariel and he agreed to it, nobody forced him. Since you admit that he agreed to it, this point is moot.


No, it's not moot. The point is that it was his own decision, he was not obliged to do so.

Hey, your words not mine.


My words did not say that she was responsible for the decision others made to get involved.

In fact, it was Ariel's selfishness and stupidity that had Triton agreeing to take Ariel's place as Ursula's prisoner, giving up his trident. If she had just listened to her father, none of this would have happened.


It was her naivete, impulsiveness and stubbornness and Triton's stubbornness, overprotectiveness and bigotry that made it happen. If she had listened to her father she would've been locked up in the castle performing for his subjects the rest of her life, something she obviously didn't want.

reply
formatting help
About | Contact | Privacy | Terms | Standards | Contribute
Top Movie Discussions
Beetlejuice Beetlejuice Discussion | Alien: Romulus Discussion | Deadpool & Wolverine Discussion | Longlegs Discussion | Blink Twice Discussion | It Ends with Us Discussion | Reagan Discussion | Twisters Discussion | Stree 2: Sarkate Ka Aatank Discussion | Strange Darling Discussion | Inside Out 2 Discussion | Speak No Evil Discussion | Afraid Discussion | The Forge Discussion | Despicable Me 4 Discussion
Copyright © 2017 - 2024 MovieChat LLC

MovieChat is not affiliated with IMDb, IMDb Message Boards, or Reddit