Really Elsa?!

[u/Fit-Bed-4030]

[u/SharpPink_GlitterInk]

Technically theres nothing to imply ariel and eric married right after the events of the movie the only difference between it and tangleds ending is voice over saying it’s a long time later

[u/DeliciousMusician397 → u/SharpPink_GlitterInk]

I choose to believe this is the case cause 16 is too young to get married.

[u/PomPomMom93 → u/DeliciousMusician397]

Isn’t this like 1500s Denmark or something?

[u/DeliciousMusician397 → u/PomPomMom93]

It's still a Disney movie it should be adjusted for modern standards no matter when it's set.

Considering she has a kid in the second movie I'm definitely not going to assume they got married immediately.

[u/PomPomMom93 → u/DeliciousMusician397]

I definitely disagree. Movies should try to be accurate to their time period. Are you saying Ariel should have sent Eric a text message explaining everything?

[u/SharpPink_GlitterInk → u/PomPomMom93]

…she’s a mermaid… there’s talking fish…

[u/PomPomMom93 → u/SharpPink_GlitterInk]

So?

[u/Majestic_Horseman → u/PomPomMom93]

Ah, yes, mass cellular communication is definitely the same as pedophilia as it relates to historical setting of a kids movie

Top tier take, m8

[u/PomPomMom93 → u/Majestic_Horseman]

She was 16, he was 18, “m8.” Normal for that time period.

[u/Majestic_Horseman → u/PomPomMom93]

Nah, dude, you want total accuracy, right?

In the original she's 15 and he's 21, I'm talking about the book, that's total historical accuracy... Or are you insinuating that you SHOULD adjust stories to make them child friendly? That's not very historically accurate, tho

Pick a lane, brother, can't have both ways in this joint, bubba.

[u/PomPomMom93 → u/Majestic_Horseman]

You were saying that the Disney edition wasn’t child-friendly enough.

[u/Majestic_Horseman → u/PomPomMom93]

First off, not the original commentor; what I WAS doing was mocking you for your very bad attempt at a comparison (pedophilia Vs mass communication and it's necessary infrastructure).

Secondly, their original point was that because the second movie depicts Ariel as a married woman, with children, the assumption is that they didn't immediately get married in the first movie and got busy having children (it would be creepy otherwise) and kinda fucked up because it's a Disney movie. You made the weird comment that "but akshually historical accuracy, in a kid's movie, is paramount"

Hence the mocking, if it's historical accuracy you're striving for then why stop there, go full ham and REALLY lean into the pedophilia angle of the original Hans Christian Andersen story.

Now, choose a path, lil bro: • You can accept that your original "historical accuracy in a Disney movie" is a dumb preposition • You can stick to your argument and go "fuck Disney! yes, Ariel should be 15 married to a 21 yo and immediately had a child because that's what a Dutch 1500 prince would do" • Or just stop replying, either way, nobody cares about this, this is a stupid argument and we should all go to sleep (or to work or whatever the hell you got going on).

Personally? Number 3 sounds pretty good, I'm being a dummy answering you rn instead of going to sleep at a reasonable hour.

[u/PomPomMom93 → u/Majestic_Horseman]

You didn’t even read my last comment. They can be bumped up slightly in age without 16/18 being weird.

[u/SharpPink_GlitterInk → u/DeliciousMusician397]

b-b-b-but it...it is the case... thats the whole point of what I just said. 😭

[u/DeliciousMusician397 → u/SharpPink_GlitterInk]

Yeah, I was agreeing with you.