Review: 43225 The Little Mermaid Royal Clamshell
Posted by CapnRex101,
The development of adult-oriented 18+ sets has introduced a range of innovative designs, unlike the more conventional display models produced previously. These include the spectacular 43225 The Little Mermaid Royal Clamshell, which looks completely unique!
This combination of multiple locations from The Little Mermaid is interesting, taking an odd approach to minifigure-scale vignettes. They look splendid together though, framed inside an elaborate clamshell structure, which provides an ideal backdrop for the scenes portrayed and accentuates their bright colours.
Summary
43225 The Little Mermaid Royal Clamshell, 1,808 pieces.
£139.99 / $159.99 / €159.99 | 7.7p/8.8c/8.8c per piece.
Buy at LEGO.com »
An innovative display model, 43225 The Little Mermaid Royal Clamshell looks fantastic
- Creative concept
- Beautiful colours
- Intricate construction
- Good minifigure selection
- Should perhaps have been inspired by the original film
- Quite expensive
The set was provided for review by LEGO. All opinions expressed are those of the author.
Minifigures
When this set was announced, much of the discussion focused on the decision to recreate the modern live action film, rather than the animated version. Personally, I would have preferred a set inspired by an established classic, although this decision only really affects the minifigures. Ariel is accordingly based on Halle Bailey's portrayal of the character and is very faithful to the source material.
The dark red hair element is intricately detailed, taking advantage of the complex texture which rubber can accommodate. The combination of teal, blue and metallic silver across her attire is excellent too, with a lavender accent for her tail. This mermaid piece was produced for 43102 Candy Mermaid Beatbox and I love its flowing shape.
King Triton instead features the older mermaid tail, which increases the character's height, so works well in that regard. However, its shape seems rather dated to me, despite the addition of some lovely metallic gold decoration. The silver designs on the torso look splendid though, with printed shoulder armour further enhancing this minifigure.
The head is extremely unusual. At first glance, the beard looks like a normal element which fits around a minifigure head, similar to Hagrid. However, the king's face is actually integrated with the beard and crown, completely covering a plain warm tan minifigure head. This piece returns from King Triton's mini-doll in 43207 Ariel's Underwater Palace, but is equally effective here.
Fittingly, King Triton carries a golden trident, although this accessory seems rather short, given the character's physical size. Ariel lacks accessories, but does incorporate a double-sided head, with a smile on one side and an open mouth for singing on the other.
Two of Ariel's older sisters are also provided, beginning with Karina. This lavender-haired minifigure appears as detailed as Ariel and displays even more metallic silver decoration, so really sparkles under suitable light conditions. The blending of blue shades is successful as well, especially beside that exclusive lavender hair element.
Indira seems slightly less ornate, but the differing colour schemes between the three mermaids are very welcome. Flame yellowish orange is an appropriate choice, but Indira's onscreen attire appears more organic than presented here, with uneven stripes across her chest and tail, rather than sparkly patterns.
Both minifigures include new double-sided heads, each adorned with metallic eye shadow and two smiles. These designs look great, but I think some different facial expressions would have been appropriate because smiles alone are rather restrictive.
Ursula completes the minifigure selection. The fantastic lower body piece was introduced with the sea witch's original appearance in 71012 Disney Collectable Minifigures, but suits Melissa McCarthy's depiction equally. The printed scales across the front provide welcome detail, with purple accents also continuing on both sides of Ursula's torso.
Other than her tentacles, Ursula's most memorable feature from the 1989 film is probably her hairstyle. A dedicated piece was developed for the Collectable Minifigure, but would not match the live action villain. Instead, a white version of the Joker's hair is used and looks brilliant when compared with the onscreen character.
Lavender was a reasonable choice for Ursula's skin tone, although a paler shade would have been more accurate. The brighter colour works though and I like Ursula's cruel smiles, both of which convey her personality. The minifigure comes with various ingredients for her potions, but those are stored in her cave.
The Completed Model
While the minifigures are excellent, the titular clamshell is obviously the outstanding feature of this set. The model measures 31cm across and 32cm in height, so is fairly substantial, without becoming awkward to display. However, I think the clamshell's greatest strength is its wonderful colour scheme, which is beautifully framed by the scalloped edges of the shell.
Those curved edges look marvellous, using a clever combination of curved slopes and arches to create the desired shape. There are some gaps where sections of the shell join, but those were unavoidable and they are distributed consistently, so seem natural. The contrasting colours on the lower level are appealing too, clearly distinguishing the shipwreck from Ursula's lair.
Various shades of blue are combined around the shipwreck, alongside a selection of green and pink plants. The actual shipwreck is only connected to the base in two places, but feels secure and both sections are angled, so they look realistic. The sand green sail is particularly striking, with several curved wedge slopes forming the tattered fabric.
Ariel's collection of items from the human world is found behind the shipwreck, including a pearl gold sextant, a teapot and an hourglass. Additionally, the fork that Ariel discovers in the sunken ship, dubbed a dinglehopper by Scuttle, is present beside the shipwreck. Several colourful fish are also affixed around this vessel, including three appearing in magenta for the first time.
Of course, there is no more important fish than Flounder, Ariel's close friend. Even though the character's live action design has attracted criticism, his LEGO version is accurate and stands out quite well against the surrounding blue rocks. Sebastian is represented by a standard crab, which reflects his onscreen appearance, but could perhaps have featured printed eyes.
The transition between the vibrant colours around the shipwreck and Ursula's dark lair is abrupt, as bright light blue gives way to dark bluish grey. However, the projecting rock face between the two areas disguises this transition to some degree. The trans-red pieces stand out, representing either an underwater vent or the witch's cauldron.
Further detail is found inside Ursula's cave, as various potion jars and other artefacts are stored on shelves. The animated setting also contains a mirror and I do think some additional furniture would have been good, although that depends on the nature of Ursula's home in the live action movie.
King Triton's throne occupies the upper tier, flanked by smaller seats for his daughters. Much of this section is constructed sideways, giving the impression of layered rock, which looks superb. The blend of light bluish grey, sand blue and light royal blue is attractive as well, accented with occasional trans-light blue pieces.
The minifigures cannot actually sit down, since none feature standard minifigure legs. Even so, Ariel looks reasonable when placed on her chair because her curved tail looks as though it is resting on something. King Triton's straight tail seems awkward by comparison, although the curved rock surrounding the king frames him nicely. A couple of trans-clear poles are provided too, so characters can swim around the throne.
Similar to the shipwreck section underneath, an array of leaves, flowers and coral pieces form colourful plants. However, my favourite details are the teal 1x1 hair elements, initially designed for the Minions, but serving as little corals here. The technique has evidently caught on instantly, given it returns in 80049 Dragon of the East Palace.
Despite lacking the depth of the clamshell's lower half, the backdrop for the throne includes a lovely mixture of smooth and studded surfaces. Aqua pieces provide further areas of contrast, while scattered trans-light blue 1x1 round tiles represent bubbles. Once again, there are gaps along the edge of the shell, although these are minimised.
The front of the model looks wonderful, so the rear view presents a dramatic contrast. This area includes various unsightly colours and is clearly unsuitable for display. Ideally, the model would look equally attractive from every angle, but I understand the need for compromise to keep the price relatively affordable. Also, the flat back is helpful when placing the clamshell on a shallow shelf.
Overall
43225 The Little Mermaid Royal Clamshell looks absolutely beautiful on display, representing a nice departure from more conventional adult-oriented sets. The combination of multiple scenes is remarkably successful and placing these inside a clamshell is ingenious, while the execution of the shell is exceptional, involving some unusual building techniques.
The decision to focus on the new version of The Little Mermaid, rather than its classic animated counterpart, is certainly surprising. However, most of these minifigures can be swapped for their animated equivalents, or mini-dolls, if you prefer. Given that versatility, Disney fans seem certain to enjoy this set, although I would suggest waiting for a discount because the price of £139.99, $159.99 or €159.99 is rather expensive.
101 likes
71 comments on this article
et tu, Bruté?
The mermaid figures are beautiful.
I don't like this set. I don't like the new movie.
I DO love the original animated movie.
It's a neat design, but something about the colors seems off. Individual, the pieces have a bright array of many different colors. Yet somehow when placed all together, the result just seems kinda drab. Maybe it's an issue of too many points of color all mixed together without any real definition?
It seems weird when on the one hand it is labelled as overpriced, then the reason for the ugliness of the back is put down to the desire to keep the price from being unreasonable.
And the price is quite reasonable, considering the set in comparison to a lot of others that are on my wish list. This is one of the cheaper ones, in fact, though its only Lego when you come to consider anything under £200 reasonable.
I think the back could be repaired by getting some white pieces to cover up the coloured ones, it wouldn't cost too much to do so. Alternatively, display it against a wall!
As for not basing this on the old film, as it is said, that problem is easily solvable, though I don't see why that is a problem. I haven't seen the new film, nor did I see the fuss about it until I looked for it when the launch article mentioned it. I'm not bothered which film it adheres too, I have no problem with either, nor do I see what the fuss is about, except intolerance and racism, neither of which I have any patience for.
I haven't seen the new movie and don't plan to either. The only reason being that I don't care for live action remakes of classic Disney movies.
But even if, this set, while looking interesting, is not for me. But that's ok. Not everything has to be for everyone.
@daniellesa said:
"Nor do I see what the fuss is about, except intolerance and racism, neither of which I have any patience for. "
Well I have no tolerance for people who have no patience for people who are intolerant!
Looks to me like the colours of the set just don't have anywhere near the saturation and vibrancy of previous ones based on the cartoon version. So however good the character figures might be, the setting they're in is just dull and uninspiring. So by all accounts it's quite representative of the new film.
Thank you for the review. Ultimately I only want to buy the delightful minifigures and a small portion of the bricks leading to Triton’s throne to display them. I can’t justify a purchase.
Minifigs look great, the main set not so much. But this is my opinion, not gospel.
I hope whoever does buy it gets lots of enjoyment from it as Lego is an expensive hobby!
Wow, it looks much smaller and empty in the pictures without the minifigures. It's interesting how much they add to the overall set design.
I absolutely love the set, but I’m still going to wait for a discount. While I wouldn’t mind buying it at full price, I doubt it sells well between disdain for the live-action remake and the $160 asking price. 20% off and I’m good to go.
@DekoPuma said:
"It's a neat design, but something about the colors seems off. Individual, the pieces have a bright array of many different colors. Yet somehow when placed all together, the result just seems kinda drab. Maybe it's an issue of too many points of color all mixed together without any real definition?"
This is fair--I think maybe if some of the pinks and oranges were removed, the remaining sea greens and blues would tie it together. Or at least if they were clustered in a single spot instead of spilling over across the entire set.
Cool set, but I have no interest in owning it.
@Brainslugged said:
" @daniellesa said:
"Nor do I see what the fuss is about, except intolerance and racism, neither of which I have any patience for. "
Well I have no tolerance for people who have no patience for people who are intolerant!"
Why do I need to have patience for intolerant people? This is 2023! We all need to learn that the universe is a diverse creation and accept everyone is different and unique. I accept people have different views and different opinions. I don't see why I should accept racism and intolerance, things which incite violence where there should be none.
I can, for the most part, differentiate between a set that I don't like and a set that's I'm not the target audience.
With this one, not only that I think it's one big mess, but I don't understand who the target audience even is.
It's not nostalgic, it's not really a playset, not priced as a kids set, based on the 2023 version. It's just weird.
I would prefer a version from the animated film, but then the clam shell idea probably wouldn’t be as appropriate.
@djcbs said:
"...the result of a desire to push an agenda more than to produce a set fans would actually like."
What "agenda" is that precisely?
@Dannygast said:
"I don't like this set. I don't like the new movie.
I DO love the original animated movie."
Just curious, have you actually seen the new movie? It doesn't come out till May 26th so I'm guessing you haven't. I too have a fond memories of the original, but I'll reserve judgement until I've seen the new movie.
I guess I assumed it was a set to display from the front so commenting on the back seemed weird.
I love the set, and am 50/50 on getting it myself, but I do find the decision to make it depict the modern movie while being addressed to adult fans odd. I think if I had kids of the target age for the new movie it would be an instant buy. However, as things stand it feels like I'm just feeding the monoculture machine that Disney runs to keep their copyrights active and sell to adults on nostalgia. But let's be real, I'm gonna see it on display at my local store and buy it immediately...
Maybe the set looks good IRL, but all I can think is: I just want the minifigs!
The movie may be good, we'll see. Aladdin was nice imho. Whatever one may think of remakes, I think they should just be judged by their own merits. Doesn't make the original animation any less attractive.
Looks good as a display piece, would’ve expected minifigures from both versions though. Either way, I go out of my way to not give Disney my money, so it’s a pass for me. In before the comments are shut down too lol, it’s already heating up
I've never cared for the original Little Mermaid or Disney animation in general, but this set looks fantastic to me. The white clamshell framing the vignette just makes it pop in a way I can't really describe. Ursula looks great too along with Ariel and her sisters.
Won't purchase myself but I hope it and the new movie do well enough so LEGO sees value in producing more similar sets.
@Jraptor said:
"I go out of my way to not give Disney my money"
Same here. I'm only tenuously connected to that damn Mouse through Alien and Bob's Burgers, and those are Fox acquisitions rather than actual Disney properties.
I don't speak from a position of prejudice or discrimination either. I just despise Disney as a company, and their endless assimilation of everything under the sky.
Having seen this in brick form at a Lego store, it's a much cooler build in person than it looks in pictures. It's got presence and depth and that helps the colours pop much more than I expected. It won't be one I pick up, but it's a beautiful model.
The curves and overall shaping do look good. But this set is not for me and wouldn't have been if it was based on the original cartoon version either.
@MisterBrickster said:
"Having seen this in brick form at a Lego store, it's a much cooler build in person than it looks in pictures. It's got presence and depth and that helps the colours pop much more than I expected. It won't be one I pick up, but it's a beautiful model."
I agree that it looks rather stunning in person. Unlike the seeming majority of commenters, I appreciate that this set is based on the new movie. When it eventually joins our collection, it will be displayed as a "generic" undersea fantasy scene, and the minifigures are perfect for that (they fit right in with LotR, HP, etc.). Plus, we already own the cartoon versions of the main characters (minidoll and minifig).
Seems like some people in the comments aren’t familiar with the paradox of tolerating intolerance. You can’t. So lets stop pretending we should just put up with racist commenters on here.
On another note, I’m super bummed to see the back is undetailed. Imagine having a giant clamshell as a centerpiece in your home, that sounds so cool. I think $40 to have a detailed back seems reasonable, as the price is a bit lower than I expected
So, were so many comments deleted, or has the pendulum swung to the other extreme of "if you don't like this you're racist" this time?
Nobody has commented on Ursula's obvious non flat chest area (boobs)?
Looks like a Georges Méliès set, and for that alone I am happy that such a thing exists!
@Emmafofemma said:
"Seems like some people in the comments aren’t familiar with the paradox of tolerating intolerance. You can’t. So lets stop pretending we should just put up with racist commenters on here.
On another note, I’m super bummed to see the back is undetailed. Imagine having a giant clamshell as a centerpiece in your home, that sounds so cool. I think $40 to have a detailed back seems reasonable, as the price is a bit lower than I expected"
I agree with everything you said.
I'm also a bit perplexed with the comments by @CapnRex101. I think everyone knows that I'm pretty much the furthest from being a Lego apologist (well perhaps not AustinPowers level). But, why is this "expensive"? 5 good figs, animals, less than $.10 PPP for a licensed set. If this is "expensive," then all Lego sets are.
By the way, if that's the idea, then I heartily agree! ;)
@scifiantihero said:
"I guess I assumed it was a set to display from the front so commenting on the back seemed weird."
I kinda get where people are coming from--it's like when they don't include landing gear or even a decent underside to a UCS (I'm looking at you, 10215). Sure it's a display piece and that side is probably facing the floor/table... but for a higher price tier set arguably aimed at collectors, it's disappointing to see such details ignored.
It looks good, thanks for the review.
I don't care much for either the new film or the animated one, so this set is clearly not for me, but I still think it looks pretty neat. And by Lego standards the price doesn't seem that terrible either.
That said, if Lego wanted to blow my mind, they had better made it a functional clamshell with some clever mechanism to move everything in place. That would have been truly awesome.
@behemothjosh said:
"Nobody has commented on Ursula's obvious non flat chest area (boobs)?"
It's the same part as the CMF isn't it? Nothing new.
@CapnRex101:
The Otto hair as a limpet first came to light in a Friends set (41737). Regarding the three thrones, I would think those are intended for Ariel’s sisters, since she would logically be displayed near the shipwreck, or that corner ends up empty.
@DekoPuma:
@ra226:
If you look up photos of actual coral reefs, they are colorful, but not curated. Most AFOLs make the mistake of grouping coral species in clusters, like you’d see in someone’s flower bed, because that’s the image that’s been planted in most peoples’ heads. The polyps drift with the tides, and attach to whatever they land on, so everything is scrambled like a bowl of Fruity Pebbles. Water also diffuses bright colors very quickly with distance, so it’s more like Fruity Pebbles seen in a dimly lit room. For something like Finding Nemo, however, they want bright vibrant reefscapes, and everything is in pristine shape, which is what people get used to seeing in real life. And while that is the sort of thing they were trying to match with this, it honestly looks too cartoony to be a real reef.
@AustinPowers:
I was never awed by the animated version to begin with. I mean, it’s a decent film and all, but The Lion King was the first Disney animated feature released in my lifetime that I made sure ended up in my DVD collection. I was pretty indifferent on the idea of a live-action remake from the moment it was announced. I like (and own) the Maleficent films. I own (but have never watched) the live action Cinderella(?) because it came with an at-the-time exclusive Frozen short, and I watched all but the reboot season of Once. Maleficent and Once benefit from turning these stories on their respective ears, and doing something original with them. It’s like Elseworlds, but with Disney flicks.
@EtudeTheBadger:
I’m still shocked that the FCC was fine with Disney hoovering up 40% of Hollywood and all they demanded was that they sell off one sports network because they “didn’t want them to have a monopoly”. Disney has been reportedly using this newfound mega-library of content to try to muscle independent films and as many competing studios as possible out of cinemas, which is illegal in the US. But nobody is really doing anything to stop it either.
@behemothjosh:
The octopus legs mold looks like a printed reuse of the CMF Ursula base.
@StyleCounselor:
“Expensive” as a con was discussed in the previous article. When the entry point to a non-electronic theme hits triple digits, it is objectively expensive, even if it’s good value for the price. Lightyear’s X-15, and Indiana Jones’ new temple run are both fantastic designs, but are certainly out of reach of many pockets. Having smaller sets to pair with them lowers the bar for entry to a point where it may be attainable to a wider audience. And the “haves” may like having a larger theme to collect, or at least to pick and choose from.
It's an interesting set, I doubt the set is representative of what will be in the live action movie, so the only relevance it has to movie are the minifigures, which for most will be replaced with the superior CMFs.
@MegaBlocks:
Of course, they only made minifigs of Ariel and Ursula. That, along with the animated versions of Sebastian and Flounder, covers the lower tier, but leaves the three thrones empty (unless you want the alternate version where Ursula wins and takes over the kingdom). However, they did a Poseidon CMF, which works for her dad, and between the CMF, Vidiyo, and PotC themes I can think of no less than four other mermaids. There’s also the two HP merfolk, if you just want to get weird with it.
I would really like to see this in person before I decide if I want to try and add it to my collection. It does seem like a great parts pack and has some good minifigures for underwater scenes. (Maybe swap Ariels hairpiece for generic usage.)
I think this looks fantastic. I've never seen either version of the film, but it would strike me that wanting it to adhere to the designs from the film from what must be more than 30 years ago, instead of the one that's out at the moment, is completely misguided. Specifically the diversity is very welcome, and I struggle to arrive at any decent reason for the dislike for this, especially given that minifigures of the original film's Ariel and Ursula already exist?
@Dannygast said:
"I don't like this set. I don't like the new movie.
I DO love the original animated movie."
The new film isn't even out yet
I think the visible studs on the top clam shell throws me off this set a bit. I also think they should have included minifigs from both versions. They would sell a lot more of this set.
The clam shell and reef just look like a cluttered mess. Doesn’t have anything to do with which movie it’s based on, the visual just doesn’t do anything for me.
I don't see as odd that the minifigs are based on the soon to be released film, rather than one that is 34 years old.
But I can also see that adding another $10 of "classic" Minifigs wouldn't have been hard. Maybe a DLC style pack at the till?
Lets leave the social commentary at the door shall we.
@PurpleDave said:
" @StyleCounselor:
“Expensive” as a con was discussed in the previous article. When the entry point to a non-electronic theme hits triple digits, it is objectively expensive, even if it’s good value for the price. Lightyear’s X-15, and Indiana Jones’ new temple run are both fantastic designs, but are certainly out of reach of many pockets. Having smaller sets to pair with them lowers the bar for entry to a point where it may be attainable to a wider audience. And the “haves” may like having a larger theme to collect, or at least to pick and choose from."
There's nothing objective about 'expensive,' if you believe in objectivity as an epistemological principle at all. It certainly isn't objective from any standard economic principle either.
Thus, as used here, it is totally a made-up principle. Which is fine, that's how language- more like jargon in this case- grows.
However, if we agree that any set over $100 = 'expensive,' then it really lacks any force of consequence or valuable editorial opinion. @CapnRex101 should let us know why he feels it is "expensive," or don't bother doing anything other than citing the price. It's the same thing after all.
@Reventon:
They have some sort of internal policy that they have to leave a few studs visible on official models, so it's recognizable that it's built of LEGO bricks.
@StyleCounselor:
Sure there is. Even in the US, there are families that probably spend less on food for an entire week. Lots of kids might be allowed to go pick out a CMF every day, but how many would be allowed to pick out a set this expensive on a daily basis? How many of the people who go watch this movie tomorrow won't be able to buy a single set based on the film because this is the cheapest and only set available?
The point is not to say this set shouldn't exist, but that making only one set, and setting this price on it, cuts out most of the people who might watch the film. They did the same thing with Stranger Things. It doesn't matter with Star Wars because there are over a dozen sets released each year, across a range of prices. I disagree with some of the other commenters on this site about needing to have $5-10 sets for every theme. That may have been true when I grew up, but this is no longer that time. $15-20 seems a perfectly fine entry level spend.
@PurpleDave said:
" @Reventon :
They have some sort of internal policy that they have to leave a few studs visible on official models, so it's recognizable that it's built of LEGO bricks.
@StyleCounselor :
Sure there is. Even in the US, there are families that probably spend less on food for an entire week. Lots of kids might be allowed to go pick out a CMF every day, but how many would be allowed to pick out a set this expensive on a daily basis? How many of the people who go watch this movie tomorrow won't be able to buy a single set based on the film because this is the cheapest and only set available?
The point is not to say this set shouldn't exist, but that making only one set, and setting this price on it, cuts out most of the people who might watch the film. They did the same thing with Stranger Things. It doesn't matter with Star Wars because there are over a dozen sets released each year, across a range of prices. I disagree with some of the other commenters on this site about needing to have $5-10 sets for every theme. That may have been true when I grew up, but this is no longer that time. $15-20 seems a perfectly fine entry level spend."
That's fine. That's a justification which is what the reviewer should provide or he's really not doing his job. However, it doesn't quite work for this situation because it is a set targeted at adults. So, the 'it's too pricey for kids' bit is merely a red herring.
I do understand what you're saying about having only one big set for a theme/movie. But, I think Lego is getting a bit stretched. Besides, conflating that argument with the idea of 'expensive' is too tenuous without exactly the connecting level of explanation that's needed here.
Let's have reviews with justification or they become mere blather. That's why I have always respected and read BS because of the educated reviews. Whether I agree or not can be sorted in the comments. But, let's have the reasons!
Head, hair and crown in one piece?!? This is not Lego!
I still posit that this set would’ve been even better if it was a complete clamshell that opened up and splayed out like the Ideas Pop-Up Book.
Still, looks like a lovely set.
@gsom7:
Review says it fits over a standard minifig head, so technically it’s just a high-end Halloween mask of Triton’s visage. You know, the kind that doesn’t have a cheap strip of rubber stapled to the sides to hold the thin plastic shell against your face.
Lol, so many whiny comments. Y'all are TOTALLY not insecure and immature.
@alegrippa said:
"Lol, so many whiny comments. Y'all are TOTALLY not insecure and immature."
Aww, thank you! And you're TOTALLY not superior and condescending!
Considering that Disney live-action remakes have a very short lifespan, I expect there will be discounts to be had quite quickly (I wonder if the typical 2 year Lego lifespan will be reduced too?).
Basing the set off of the classic film would've made the set timeless, but Disney is heavily invested in merchandise for this version, and probably many execs would prefer this movie to be the definitive version.
@daniellesa said:
" I'm not bothered which film it adheres too, I have no problem with either, nor do I see what the fuss is about, except intolerance and racism, neither of which I have any patience for. "
I probably shouldn't bother responding since this is a LEGO forum, not a Disney movie forum. Are there people that don't like the new movie because they're raciest? Probably. But the vast majority of issues I've seen people mention are:
- The live action remakes are just lazy - make new stories!
- Race swapping of Ariel takes away from an already under-represented Disney princess (red-heads)
- Race swapping an existing character in general is lazy and a somewhat degrading in a way - i.e. the new actor didn't warrant their own story with their own character.
In this case I kind of agree with all of that. I have obsoletely no problem with a darker skinned mermaid. But come on, make a new story about a new character!
As far as the set goes, it's interesting, but not wow for me. It IS nice they used minifigs instead of minidolls.
@daniellesa said:
" @Brainslugged said:
" @daniellesa said:
"Nor do I see what the fuss is about, except intolerance and racism, neither of which I have any patience for. "
Well I have no tolerance for people who have no patience for people who are intolerant!"
Why do I need to have patience for intolerant people? This is 2023! We all need to learn that the universe is a diverse creation and accept everyone is different and unique. I accept people have different views and different opinions. I don't see why I should accept racism and intolerance, things which incite violence where there should be none."
Haven't posted in a long time, but just had to chime in an Amen!
@domboy said:
"- Race swapping of Ariel takes away from an already under-represented Disney princess (red-heads)"
Um…what? I’m all for redheads (I’m still irked about the time when Shirley Manson bleached her hair), but that’s simply not true. Consider the following (I’m going to roll in a few animated princesses who aren’t official Disney Princess club for this one:
Black hair: Snow White, Jasmine, Pocahontas, Mulan, Tiana, Moana, Nancy
Blonde hair: Cinderella, Aurora, Rapunzel, Elsa
Red hair: Ariel, Merida, Giselle, Anna
Brown hair: Belle, um……………
@Ridgeheart:
Did they animate Princess Leia for the OT? I always thought Carrie Fisher did that live-action. And Bucky is neither animated nor princess.
I did kinda cheat with Nancy, since she ends the movie in animated form, where Giselle begins the film that way.
@PurpleDave said:
" @domboy said:
"- Race swapping of Ariel takes away from an already under-represented Disney princess (red-heads)"
Um…what? I’m all for redheads (I’m still irked about the time when Shirley Manson bleached her hair), but that’s simply not true. Consider the following (I’m going to roll in a few animated princesses who aren’t official Disney Princess club for this one:
Black hair: Snow White, Jasmine, Pocahontas, Mulan, Tiana, Moana, Nancy
Blonde hair: Cinderella, Aurora, Rapunzel, Elsa
Red hair: Ariel, Merida, Giselle, Anna
Brown hair: Belle, um……………"
Raya appears to be another official Disney princess with black hair you missed. I would also consider Megara a Disney princess, and she has brown hair. However, it looks like Megara is not official. Either way, I think your point still stands.
@PurpleDave said:
" @Ridgeheart:
Did they animate Princess Leia for the OT? I always thought Carrie Fisher did that live-action. And Bucky is neither animated nor princess.
I did kinda cheat with Nancy, since she ends the movie in animated form, where Giselle begins the film that way."
Probably a reference to the animated version of Leia in Rogue One (if I recall, the only Disney era film that _some_ people are willing to acknowledge)….
I'll admit this is a beautiful model, and it's really a shame its circumstances are so unfortunate. Being too expensive for the tiny handful of hardcore Little Mermaid fans (who probably exist, somewhere), while representing another controversial Disney remake.
(Halle Berry will be fine in the movie ftr; there'll be a dozen things to dislike about the remake but her casting won't be one of them)
I'm glad to see @CapnRex101 honest opinion and I totally agree. This shell display looks great but too bad they didn't go with well known classic version minifigs ESPECIALLY that it's Disney 100 years anniversary! Imho set would be great success, since parents age 30-40 were raised on that one.
To be clear: if Disney will make Aladin movie and Jasmine will be played for example by some pretty scandinavian blonde actress I will be also upset, because she wasn't from there in animation! :D
Ursula piece is splendind, didn't know about this huge low part piece.
Seen a few reviews of the movie, most rather meh about the movie itself but many praise the lead actress, she seems to have done a pretty decent job. And honestly, I don't really get the controversy here, it's about fictional characters in a very much fictional world, and it's not even an original Disney story nor is it a frame-by-frame remake. If you don't want any differences, just watch the animated film again.
To me it's only an issue when A) someone's specific ethnicity plays an important part in the story, B) it wouldn't make sense for a character to be in some real-life setting, or C) when were talking about historical characters in what is supposed to be a documentary (looking at you, Netflix Cleopatra....).
@PhantomBricks:
You’re right about Raya. She’s described as an actual princess, which at least three current and one former members of the Disney Princess club have never been outside of that merchandising gimmick. But she’s not in that club (yet?), nor have I seen the film, so I forgot to include here where I did rope four other characters in from Enchanted and Frozen.
Megara is an original character based on a combination of two of Heracles’ wives. While those two characters were actual princesses, Megara was nothing more than a con artist who had been enslaved by a god. She’s also not the star of the film, so by one definition I’ve run across, she wouldn’t be eligible for the Disney Princess club because she’s a supporting character. By another, because the movie just wasn’t popular enough that little girls would flock to buy Megara merch.
@ForestMenOfEndor:
Solo is the, *ahem*, only Disney Wars movie that I’d ever care to rewatch.
@Ridgeheart:
For several years, Leia’s only film appearances were live-action, and the Disney Princess club is animated-only. It also does not presently include characters based on TV series, and I’m not aware of any animated features that feature Leia.
Crimes-Against-Humanity Bucky and Emo MCU Bucky are not the same character, so the traits of both cannot be combined to meet the minimum height requirement to ride this ride.
Additionally, Emo Bucky’s hair is kind of stringy. I’d pit my half-Viking and twice-as-curly hair against his any day of the week and twice on Sundays (no Hollywood stylists allowed). Rocket has never once talked to him. He’s only _backtalked_ to him, which doesn’t count. I, on the other hand, once got a cat to purr even while it was growling at me, because all cats will purr for me. Rocket is also the current owner of that fancy hand, while I am still in possession of the double-jointed thumbs that once gave a 3-hour back rub in college. He’s got me on the “Kidnapped or Enslaved” count, but all of his problems _started_ because that “big strong man” showed up. He fell off the train or plane or whatever because they were teamed up. He ended up being sent to fight that same man, on behalf of a criminal organization. And didn’t he spend some time incarcerated because of that same man? Certainly that man left him, went back in time, and died with the woman he really loved, rather than keep hanging out with Emo Bucky.
@PurpleDave said:
" @domboy said:
"- Race swapping of Ariel takes away from an already under-represented Disney princess (red-heads)"
Um…what? I’m all for redheads (I’m still irked about the time when Shirley Manson bleached her hair), but that’s simply not true. Consider the following (I’m going to roll in a few animated princesses who aren’t official Disney Princess club for this one:
Black hair: Snow White, Jasmine, Pocahontas, Mulan, Tiana, Moana, Nancy
Blonde hair: Cinderella, Aurora, Rapunzel, Elsa
Red hair: Ariel, Merida, Giselle, Anna
Brown hair: Belle, um……………"
Anna is "strawberry blond"
Giselle is also "strawberry blond"
And neither are considered a Disney princess as you say (which is quite an interesting topic to read up on), but I get your point about including them. I actually thought Anna had brown hair until I looked it up.
So take away Ariel, you're left with Merida as the lone true read-head. That said, I doubt the live action remake will be anywhere near as popular as the original animated, and also having the live action version doesn't remove the animated Ariel from the roster of Disney princesses.
You do have a good point about Bell. Seems we have a new winner for most under-represented hair color among Disney princesses lol!
Side note - I didn't say that was my argument by the way, just re-iterating reasons I've seen that people are upset about the change (that have nothing to do with being intolerant or raciest etc).
I could understand a Junior or Duplo Little Mermaid set with 180 pieces for all those princess out there, but possibly move onto other interests before ready to attempt 1800 pieces.
I'm probably one of a tiny minority who wished these were minidolls, driven by the trivial interest in getting a rerelease of minidoll Ursula, on the even more trivial interest in the lack of leg options for minidoll. (But seriously, to me the lack of comparability between minidoll torsos and a brick stud is limiting).
As for the movie, I just watched it, was anticipating it for a long time, and it was good. Not amazing, but good. The relationship between Ariel and Eric was much better.
And the stench of racism is so thick on the reactions to the movie. So forgive us if we are a little on guard about the motivations of anyone going after it. If you don't know what I'm talking about, just click around -- it's appalling. So much so that if you have nothing good to say about the movie, I suggest keeping your mouth shut, because skinheads are out seeking validation on this one
Not interested in the upcoming film (I don't even care for the original animated film much) but I think that build looks great
@Ridgeheart:
The only rule that matters is that you have to be profitable. The Disney Princess club is strictly about merchandising.
And I'm saying that the animated version _ONLY_ counts as animated. None of the other criteria apply to Drug-From-The-Depths-Off-Hell Bucky. Nor does Stan's Emo Bucky from the live-action stuff count as animated. If you want to try to pull that off, you need to find _one_ version that is all things.
@ACubeInABox said:
"I absolutely love the set, but I’m still going to wait for a discount. While I wouldn’t mind buying it at full price, I doubt it sells well between disdain for the live-action remake and the $160 asking price. 20% off and I’m good to go. "
Check eBay, I have seen a couple of sealed listings for around 120 I believe... Im going to see if it will go any cheaper or not and then will get it probably, it looks really nice!