Disney legend wants a drag star to play Ursula in The Little Mermaid remake

[xoxo cupcakke 4,781]

14 minutes ago, DemeLarell said:

Lol. Pressed? What you said had nothing to do with why I said that. But personally these characters have vague character descriptions so it's easier to rewrite the subtext hence why Lefou could be easily portrayed as gay. Ursula on the other hand was inspired by a drag queen so I can see the reasoning behind that. The villains are my favorite characters so that makes me happy personally.  Dominant characters usually have strong character developments so making such changes, manipulates the actual story and text rather than the subtext. This is something i learned (I have a degree and career in musical theatre). Another thing I learned is to be true to the text. We can add all the subtext we want, but to change the text is highly disrespectful to the writer. I'm all for a gay hero/heroine, but, being an actor, I would never change someones work to do that. I feel like a gay protagonist should be created for us. 

As far as the personal digs at me, I really could care less. Keep them coming, but I'm not gonna disrespect you like that. 

 

I mean... that's cool and all, but even Disney is not true to the text of most of its stories, fables, lore, and myths which constitute a lot of its movies. Like, the actual Little Mermaid ends with Ariel being heartbroken and turning to seafoam. If they have the gall to completely rewrite the story of the original writer, Disney should have the same capacity to rewrite its own stories as well

Like I said, it's great that Disney is breaking with tradition, but in some ways, it's starting to create a new tradition that inadvertently and unknowingly alienates and denormalizes LGBT individuals. Is it so much to ask for an LGBT character that can be considered normal by society and not made into a caricature for the entertainment of others? There is still something sinister under the impression of goodwill here, and it's disturbing. Representation is great, but things have to be looked at objectively in order to determine what future impact certain actions or inactions will have on greater society

Also, I'm glad Disney is one of the first companies recently to do away with whitewashing the best it can, but that's not to say it wasn't guilty of it in the past. You can have a positive view of Disney, its films, and endeavors, but you cannot ignore the fact it takes great liberty in storytelling, meaning they change a work in ways you don't consider is natural. And I agree that an LGBT should be created for the community, but honestly what is the harm in drastically changing a character in how they were originally portrayed if Disney already did it anyway when they first liberallt translated that character onto the big screen? There is no harm to people or the art since its Disney and pretty much tells the story how they decide

[Pacify Him 9,073]

Tbh.. it's a neat idea.

The more exposure they receive, the more acceptable they become 

[DemeLarell 931]

2 hours ago, CautiousLurker said:

What does inspiration for a character have to do with the actual character? In the animated film Ursula is clearly meant to be a female. If it's ok to change Ursula, does it mean that if Ariel's design was inspired by a man in drag, it would be ok to change her too? Cuz I can drop a note to Glen Keane and ask...

Also, Disney's 'The Little Mermaid' is an adaptation of Han's Christian Andersen's 'The Little Mermaid'. Ron Clements didn't bother sticking to the original, so why should they stick to Ron's version now and have it deemed disrespectful? The animated film is done. It's not going away, nobody's making any changes to it. They're creating a new body of work, and for all anyone cares, whoever is making it can morph and pull and twist it however they please - it's their body of work now. All that matters is whether the result is any good.

 

2 hours ago, CowSiss said:

I mean... that's cool and all, but even Disney is not true to the text of most of its stories, fables, lore, and myths which constitute a lot of its movies. Like, the actual Little Mermaid ends with Ariel being heartbroken and turning to seafoam. If they have the gall to completely rewrite the story of the original writer, Disney should have the same capacity to rewrite its own stories as well

Like I said, it's great that Disney is breaking with tradition, but in some ways, it's starting to create a new tradition that inadvertently and unknowingly alienates and denormalizes LGBT individuals. Is it so much to ask for an LGBT character that can be considered normal by society and not made into a caricature for the entertainment of others? There is still something sinister under the impression of goodwill here, and it's disturbing. Representation is great, but things have to be looked at objectively in order to determine what future impact certain actions or inactions will have on greater society

Also, I'm glad Disney is one of the first companies recently to do away with whitewashing the best it can, but that's not to say it wasn't guilty of it in the past. You can have a positive view of Disney, its films, and endeavors, but you cannot ignore the fact it takes great liberty in storytelling, meaning they change a work in ways you don't consider is natural. And I agree that an LGBT should be created for the community, but honestly what is the harm in drastically changing a character in how they were originally portrayed if Disney already did it anyway when they first liberallt translated that character onto the big screen? There is no harm to people or the art since its Disney and pretty much tells the story how they decide

I'm not going to hit on every point because I already discussed it. 

1. I was explaining why it is easier for the villains to have more interpretation in scripts than it does the lead protagonist. Read other post for more info.

2. While disney does make adaptations their story is their story and if it steers to much from their original adaptation then basically it's not the original disney story. Once on This Island is also a Little Mermaid adaptation but if it steered to much from it original adaptation it is no longer Once on This Island. To change a character so crucial to the script changes the movie. Changes the story. Thanks for flexing the fact that it is an adaptation like it's some new news but just bc it is an adaptation doesn't mean we should mess around with vital characters. 

3. "What does inspiration for a character have to do with the actual character?" Not entertaining this. I said what I said. The premises in this paragraph is hypothetical so there is no reason for debate.

4. This is my own opinion: They are not demoralizing gay people by making the villains. What's demoralizing the lgbt community is the depiction of us acting on lust and sexualizing us in entertainment. I don't think that the films should change crucial roles sexuality. I would probably hate it because it's not like the original (I'm gay btw). I feel like we should create a new gay disney hero/heroine. Idk why some gay people are bent on turning obviously straight characters gay.

[Chaymie 883]

Can Gaga please still play Vanessa?  I just want to see her dance on that vanity "What a lovely little bride I'll make my dear I'll look DIVINE"

Upon research Harvey is already a part of Disney as Yao in Mulan! I never knew he voiced him! 

[bitchimtrying 2,495]

I'm sorry but Harvey Fierstein isn't a drag performer. He has dressed up as women for roles but that doesn't make him a drag queen. Hell, John Travolta dressed up as a woman for hairspray and no one calls him a drag queen. 

[CautiousLurker 19,511]

2 hours ago, DemeLarell said:

 

I'm not going to hit on every point because I already discussed it. 

1. I was explaining why it is easier for the villains to have more interpretation in scripts than it does the lead protagonist. Read other post for more info.

2. While disney does make adaptations their story is their story and if it steers to much from their original adaptation then basically it's not the original disney story. Once on This Island is also a Little Mermaid adaptation but if it steered to much from it original adaptation it is no longer Once on This Island. To change a character so crucial to the script changes the movie. Changes the story. Thanks for flexing the fact that it is an adaptation like it's some new news but just bc it is an adaptation doesn't mean we should mess around with vital characters. 

3. "What does inspiration for a character have to do with the actual character?" Not entertaining this. I said what I said. The premises in this paragraph is hypothetical so there is no reason for debate.

4. This is my own opinion: They are not demoralizing gay people by making the villains. What's demoralizing the lgbt community is the depiction of us acting on lust and sexualizing us in entertainment. I don't think that the films should change crucial roles sexuality. I would probably hate it because it's not like the original (I'm gay btw). I feel like we should create a new gay disney hero/heroine. Idk why some gay people are bent on turning obviously straight characters gay.

Disney's bent their own material plenty of times.

And I'm not bent on the idea of making every existing character gay any more than you are on the idea of the live action Little Mermaid sticking to the original as much as possible :P

You may hate the film if it's not like the original, but there is no good reason you could come up with that would justify why it shouldn't be changed. Learning at school that it's disrespectful to do that doesn't make it a rule, and I'd also argue that that's not true either, but that's a different argument.

For all you know they could rewrite the entire story and it will blow the original out of the water - unlikely since it's Disney, but still... It's not like there is no room for improvement - Ariel is not an interesting character. In fact, she's probably the worst character in that whole shebang. That's a waaaaaay more valid a reason to rewrite someone.

 

[holy scheisse 22,401]

Or a truly revolutionary concept : have a woman play her who is just as masculine in vocal depth, aggressiveness, intimidation, and in "power" as Ursula was, a reverse feminist expedition where these traits can exist within a woman. No need for drag queen imo. Maybe they could make Sebastian the crab gay instead. Lol. But on the other hand it still is a nice thought of Disney to incorporate a little queerness even if the character in question being cast as a villain  can be picked apart as problematic. 

[DemeLarell 931]

1 minute ago, CautiousLurker said:

Disney's bent their own material plenty of times.

And I'm not bent on the idea of making every existing character gay any more than you are on the idea of the live action Little Mermaid sticking to the original as much as possible :P

You may hate the film if it's not like the original, but there is no good reason you could come up with that would justify why it shouldn't be changed. Learning at school that it's disrespectful to do that doesn't make it a rule, and I'd also argue that that's not true either, but that's a different argument.

For all you know they could rewrite the entire story and it will blow the original out of the water - unlikely since it's Disney, but still... It's not like there is no room for improvement - Ariel is not an interesting character. In fact, she's probably the worst character in that whole shebang. That's a waaaaaay more valid a reason to rewrite someone.

 

I'm done talking honestly. I have my opinions and I even included logical reasoning with in it. I included valid points that you invalidate yet back up your opinions with vague hypothetical scenarios. Literally omitting half of the stuff I already explained. 

That first sentence. .... already explained why that is. 

 

Any way... you have your opinions and I have mind. But I guarantee you they will never dramatically venture off from their own story lines are. 

Even though I agree with what I learned, my point was to show why it wouldn't happen. Not why it shouldn't happen. 

I can also pose the statement that there is no good reason for changing the original. 

Any who I'm done with this argument. I understand where you are coming from, I just, as an actor, disagree with you heavily. I truly don't mean any disrespect but there is no point in carrying the discussion on. 

[VOLANTIS 16,423]

15 hours ago, CowSiss said:

Ursula is iconic, but I just realized she is still the villain. Why couldn't they have made Ariel lesbian? You can roll your eyes all you want, or did you need to do your research over the implications that would be had if an iconic heroine like Ariel would be made LGBT 

OMG This actually would be so fitting and perfect. It's also alluding to the controversy surrounding the original Andersen tale.  It'd be so fitting to the memory. And also relatable how something so innocent and out of place (a mermaid wishing to fit in with humans) can be elevated into something so meaningful and metaphoric. Aka the struggle. 

[hELXIG 43,611]

Well the character of Ursula in the Disney animated film was actually inspired by a drag queen named Divine

[Jenniferella 2,774]

That's great ! Bring them queer demographics to the theaters 

[CautiousLurker 19,511]

9 hours ago, DemeLarell said:

I'm done talking honestly. I have my opinions and I even included logical reasoning with in it. I included valid points that you invalidate yet back up your opinions with vague hypothetical scenarios. Literally omitting half of the stuff I already explained. 

That first sentence. .... already explained why that is. 

 

Any way... you have your opinions and I have mind. But I guarantee you they will never dramatically venture off from their own story lines are. 

Even though I agree with what I learned, my point was to show why it wouldn't happen. Not why it shouldn't happen. 

I can also pose the statement that there is no good reason for changing the original. 

Any who I'm done with this argument. I understand where you are coming from, I just, as an actor, disagree with you heavily. I truly don't mean any disrespect but there is no point in carrying the discussion on. 

Your reasoning wasn't logical, and my hypothetical scenarios have as much merit as YOUR hypothetical scenarios.

You have also omitted some of the things I've mentioned, so?

And I know they won't venture off of their original story - I mentioned that myself. My point was that if they did, it would have been fine, and there is plenty of room for improvement. Nowhere is it set in stone that writers have to follow the original story to a T.

And no, you argued specifically as to why it shouldn't happen. Do I really need to quote your first reply to point that out?

Again, Ariel is a boring character - that's a much better reason to change the original.

And I do agree, actors shouldn't make changes, that's not what their function is when it comes to putting the final body of work togethers. But the writers who are deciding on the fate of the script can have as much freedom as they want, so long as the result is good.

[DemeLarell 931]

2 hours ago, CautiousLurker said:

Your reasoning wasn't logical, and my hypothetical scenarios have as much merit as YOUR hypothetical scenarios.

You have also omitted some of the things I've mentioned, so?

And I know they won't venture off of their original story - I mentioned that myself. My point was that if they did, it would have been fine, and there is plenty of room for improvement. Nowhere is it set in stone that writers have to follow the original story to a T.

And no, you argued specifically as to why it shouldn't happen. Do I really need to quote your first reply to point that out?

Again, Ariel is a boring character - that's a much better reason to change the original.

And I do agree, actors shouldn't make changes, that's not what their function is when it comes to putting the final body of work togethers. But the writers who are deciding on the fate of the script can have as much freedom as they want, so long as the result is good.

[dlioncourt91 765]

If only Divine could play her. 

I always wondered how Bea Arthur would have done Ursula's voice but she rejected it.

[Haroon 49,685]

I always saw Ursula as a drag queen of sorts anyway