RaeRae Rants · Remake Logic · Let the Fish Have a Face

Photorealism Is Not the Same Thing as Maturity

The remake spends extraordinary labor making impossible creatures look physically plausible, then acts surprised when realism removes the expressions a musical needs.

The wrong question keeps winning

Disney remake discussions often ask whether an image looks real. The useful question is whether the image communicates. A talking crab in a musical does not become emotionally credible because his shell obeys wildlife photography. Credibility comes from performance, timing, shape, color, rhythm, and the audience’s willingness to meet the design halfway.

The 2023 film employs enormous technical skill. Previsualization, harness work, lighting simulation, animation, compositing, hair systems, and environmental effects create a world that could never be photographed. That achievement deserves credit. The problem is the aesthetic instruction governing the labor: make fantasy behave as if expression were an embarrassment.

Animation is not the childish layer being corrected

The remake remains animated. Sebastian, Flounder, Scuttle, underwater environments, magical transformations, and much of the body movement depend on animation and visual effects. Calling the film live action obscures the artists producing the impossible image. It also encourages a hierarchy where photography is treated as adult truth and animation as material waiting to be upgraded.

A dry-for-wet production does not replace animation. It reorganizes it around filmed faces and bodies. Actors perform in rigs. Animators and effects teams construct movement, water, creatures, hair, fabric, and space around them. The hybrid belongs in an animation library because pretending otherwise erases the exact craft doing the worldbuilding.

Under the Sea exposes the cost

The song needs escalation, comic contrast, visual rhythm, and creatures whose bodies can transform music into personality. The remake delivers scale and detail, yet many participants remain constrained by plausible anatomy. The screen can be full while the emotion feels carefully contained.

The 1989 sequence is not powerful because fish are unrealistic. It is powerful because shape language and timing allow every creature to become an instrument. Exaggeration is the grammar. Removing it from a musical is like praising a singer for avoiding melody because ordinary conversation sounds more realistic.

Flounder should be allowed to look like Ariel’s friend

A biologically plausible fish face has limited tools for readable affection, alarm, annoyance, and loyalty. Voice performance can supply part of the relationship, but the design keeps refusing the emotional information the story requests. The audience is expected to accept speech while distrusting eyebrows.

That is not maturity. It is selective disbelief. The film accepts sea witches, tridents, transformations, talking animals, and spontaneous orchestration. Expressive facial design is apparently the fantasy that must be disciplined. The result protects realism at the expense of friendship.

Real labor deserves better aesthetic goals

Criticizing the design should never become an excuse to dismiss visual-effects workers. The contradiction belongs to management and direction, not to artists who executed difficult briefs under industrial pressure. The production’s underwater world required extensive planning and coordinated technical departments.

Respecting the labor means evaluating what the labor was asked to achieve. A massive technical effort can produce a coherent image and still pursue the wrong emotional target. The answer is not fewer artists. It is giving artists permission to use the medium’s expressive capacity instead of forcing every magical body through a nature-documentary filter.

The next remake can stop apologizing for animation

Stylization does not prevent emotional seriousness. Spider-Verse, Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio, and decades of hand-drawn work have already settled that argument. Different visual languages can carry grief, desire, politics, terror, and romance without borrowing the surface rules of photography.

A future hybrid adaptation should let filmed performers and animated partners belong to the same expressive world. Give the creatures faces. Let color behave emotionally. Allow movement to exceed anatomy when music requires it. The audience came to watch a mermaid sing. Nobody needed the fish to pass a biology exam.

Realism is a style, not the absence of style

The remake presents many design choices as though they are simply what reality requires. Water must scatter light this way. Fish must have these faces. Hair must move with this degree of restraint. Color must remain within this naturalistic range. Every one of those decisions is authored. A photoreal image is not neutral evidence that the camera discovered an undersea kingdom. It is a style built by artists under instructions about what the studio wants audiences to accept as mature.

Once realism is recognized as style, criticism becomes more precise. The question is not whether the artists achieved detail. They did. The question is why detail was prioritized over shape language, readable emotion, musical exaggeration, and the warm theatricality the story needs. A technically coherent choice can remain dramatically wrong for the scene.

The 1989 film understood that a musical needs elastic bodies

Hand-drawn Sebastian can stretch, snap, conduct, panic, and reorganize his entire silhouette around a beat. His body does not imitate a crab observed through a documentary lens. It translates Samuel E. Wright’s vocal performance and the music’s rhythm into movement. Flounder’s cheeks, eyes, fins, and timing allow fear and loyalty to arrive before dialogue explains them.

That elasticity is not a childish shortcut. It is an acting system. Animation decides which features carry thought and then amplifies them so an audience can read intention instantly. The remake keeps speech and song, which are already impossible for the animals, but restricts the visual performance that would make those impossibilities emotionally coherent.

A face is part of the soundtrack

Musicals depend on reaction as much as singing. A lyric lands because another character hears it, resists it, recognizes it, or changes. When a digital creature’s face remains close to animal anatomy, the voice carries nearly the entire emotional burden. The soundtrack says friend, conspirator, coward, musician, and witness while the image keeps returning to fish, bird, or crab.

The mismatch makes dialogue feel dubbed onto wildlife rather than embodied by a character. Greater facial stylization would not require human teeth or cartoon eyebrows pasted carelessly onto every creature. It would require identifying the smallest changes in eye shape, mouth articulation, posture, and timing that allow the vocal performance to inhabit the body.

Sebastian is a performer trapped inside a specimen

Daveed Diggs gives Sebastian speed, irritation, musical intelligence, and reluctant affection. The voice understands that this crab is a court employee whose assignment becomes a moral relationship. The design frequently cannot return the same complexity. Sebastian’s shell is beautifully rendered, but beauty keeps functioning like a display case around the acting.

The problem becomes sharpest when he is directing chaos. A conductor needs readable authority, panic, timing, and recovery. The remake can move his limbs and camera with precision, yet the face remains less available than the score. The audience hears a Broadway performance and watches an expensive crustacean maintain plausibility.

Flounder lost the visual argument for friendship

Flounder accompanies Ariel into danger because loyalty repeatedly outruns fear. In animation, that tension lives on his face and in the way his round body tries to retreat while still following. The remake’s juvenile reef-fish design communicates smallness but offers fewer tools for the contradiction. Jacob Tremblay supplies anxiety and devotion through sound while the image asks viewers to infer the rest.

Friendship needs more than proximity. It needs attention moving between bodies. Ariel can look at Flounder, protect him, tease him, and trust him, but the reverse side of the exchange becomes visually limited. Photorealism has protected the fish from looking too human and accidentally made the relationship feel less alive.

Scuttle works better because birds already perform loudly

Awkwafina’s Scuttle benefits from a body capable of abrupt head movement, wing gesture, hopping, intrusion, and noisy occupation of space. Birds can look theatrical without departing as far from observed behavior. The remake also gives Scuttle more verbal momentum and a rap, letting sound and movement meet in comic excess.

That relative success demonstrates the issue is not simply that digital animals cannot work. The chosen design has to support the role. Scuttle’s anatomy and characterization tolerate naturalistic exaggeration. Flounder’s emotional intimacy and Sebastian’s musical command require a broader expressive system than the production is willing to allow.

Under the Sea is full and still feels underpopulated

The sequence deploys an enormous range of creatures, colors, camera moves, and simulated choreography. On paper, it contains more biodiversity and environmental detail than the hand-drawn number. The screen can nevertheless feel less socially populated because the participants rarely become distinct personalities. They are beautiful events passing through the frame.

The 1989 number turns anatomy into instruments. Bodies bend into percussion, strings, brass, and dance. The joke is that the sea itself forms a band. In the remake, realism makes the creatures impressive as creatures, then asks editing and music to provide the community. Spectacle expands while character density shrinks.

Color grading becomes another apology for fantasy

The remake’s palette is not uniformly gray, and some underwater scenes carry rich blues, greens, corals, and warm skin tones. The broader naturalistic treatment still reduces the clean emotional separation animation can achieve. The 1989 film uses color to tell viewers where desire, danger, romance, and theatrical villainy live before dialogue catches up.

Naturalism often treats saturation as childish decoration rather than narrative information. That choice is especially costly in a fairy-tale musical. Color can organize scale, guide attention, externalize emotion, and distinguish worlds. When every hue must look plausibly filtered through water, physical consistency begins overruling dramatic clarity.

Dry-for-wet performance creates a gravity problem

Actors performed on rigs, counterweights, and specialized supports while visual teams built the water around them. The method allows human faces to remain present, but it also asks bodies to simulate resistance, buoyancy, direction, and rest without the medium creating those sensations. Movement can become posed because every gesture requires choreography across physical and digital departments.

Animation then has to reconcile filmed intention with an environment that did not surround the actor. Hair, tails, clothing, particles, and camera motion must agree about force. The labor is extraordinary. The occasional stiffness is not evidence of laziness. It is evidence that the production selected one of the hardest possible methods in pursuit of a realism whose emotional benefit remains uncertain.

The human faces prove expression was always allowed

Halle Bailey carries Ariel through microexpression, breath, eye movement, posture, and silence. Melissa McCarthy receives prosthetic, costume, lighting, and digital support while keeping a readable human face. The film clearly values facial performance when the body is human-coded. The expressive restriction falls most heavily on the animated companions.

That hierarchy tells the audience which bodies count as serious acting instruments. Human likeness receives nuance. Creature likeness receives plausible surface. Yet the story asks Sebastian, Flounder, and Scuttle to function as confidants, comic leads, rescuers, and musical partners. If the narrative grants interiority, the visual language should grant a face capable of carrying it.

The Lion King warning had already arrived

Disney’s 2019 Lion King remake demonstrated the tradeoff between photoreal animal design and expressive musical performance. The animals were rendered with astonishing surface credibility while many viewers struggled to read emotion once carried through stylized faces and bodies. The Little Mermaid had the opportunity to choose a more hybrid solution.

Instead, the production modifies the formula without fully escaping it. Human performers provide an expressive anchor, and the underwater color is more varied, but the principal animals remain committed to plausible anatomy. The lesson should not be that audiences reject digital animals. It should be that musical characters require design built for performance rather than taxidermy with dialogue.

Stylization could have united the worlds

A stronger hybrid would not need the sea to resemble the 1989 film. It could design a visual grammar unique to Bailey’s Ariel: textured light, expressive current, controlled exaggeration, creature faces that borrow from anatomy without being imprisoned by it, and colors that shift with emotional state. The human and digital performances could meet in the middle.

That approach would acknowledge the remake as animation instead of using animation to hide construction. The audience already knows the ocean is invented. Letting the invention become visible can create trust. Style says the filmmakers know this is fantasy and have chosen how fantasy behaves. Photorealism often pretends no choice occurred.

Technical achievement and artistic success are different receipts

The teams responsible for rigging, animation, effects, simulation, lighting, compositing, and performance capture solved difficult problems at enormous scale. Their achievement should not be minimized because the design philosophy is debatable. Criticism that calls the work lazy or says a computer made it reproduces the same erasure encouraged by live-action marketing.

Respecting artists means being honest about what the finished image accomplishes. A shot can be technically meticulous and emotionally distant. A creature can be anatomically convincing and dramatically unreadable. A production can contain brilliant labor in service of an aesthetic that limits the story. Those statements do not contradict each other.

Photorealism also sells an industrial story

The remake strategy promises audiences that familiar animation has been transformed into something materially new. Photographic surfaces help market that transformation even when animation remains responsible for much of what appears onscreen. The style tells investors and viewers that the property has been upgraded for another event cycle.

This industrial narrative matters because it positions hand-drawn work as source material and digital naturalism as completion. The hierarchy devalues both. The original is treated as a storyboard waiting for realism, while the new film’s animators are hidden behind the claim that the result is live. Acknowledging the remake as animation would make comparison less convenient for marketing and more honest for craft.

The chef sequence reveals selective permission to become a cartoon

Chef Louis arrives with broad timing, physical danger, comic music, and behavior that pushes closer to live-action caricature. Sebastian races through a kitchen while knives, cookware, and bodies become percussion. The sequence briefly allows the hybrid to embrace exaggeration because comedy grants permission that emotional intimacy does not.

That exception is revealing. The production knows audiences can accept elastic movement and heightened rhythm. It reserves those tools for a chase instead of making them the companions’ everyday acting language. Sebastian becomes more visually alive when the story tries to cook him than when Ariel needs him to understand her.

Ursula succeeds because theatricality is allowed to look authored

Melissa McCarthy’s Ursula benefits from a design willing to announce performance. Makeup, tentacles, posture, lighting, and vocal phrasing create a body that controls the room rather than blending into it. “Poor Unfortunate Souls” works when the camera and effects support her shifts from counselor to salesperson to threat.

The villain is permitted visual excess because excess signals danger. Ariel’s friends are denied comparable stylization because naturalism signals sincerity. That division is unnecessary. Warmth does not require visual restraint, and villainy does not own theatrical design. Sebastian can be credible and exaggerated. Flounder can be sincere and expressive.

Children were never the only audience capable of reading drawings

The drive toward realism is often defended as a way to make old material feel adult. Adults already understand drawn expression, symbolic color, impossible movement, and musical abstraction. They use those languages in comics, games, theater, advertising, and art. The claim that realism matures fantasy confuses familiarity with sophistication.

What adults may need is stronger writing, more coherent politics, richer characterization, and visual choices confident enough to sustain close attention. Surface plausibility cannot perform those jobs. A realistic scale pattern does not deepen a relationship. A physically accurate eye cannot replace a readable thought.

Accessibility includes emotional readability

Visual expression helps audiences follow relationships when dialogue is fast, songs overlap, hearing differs, or cultural and language familiarity varies. Clear silhouette, gaze, mouth shape, gesture, and color contrast are not decorative bonuses. They are routes into the performance. Naturalism can reduce those routes while claiming greater authenticity.

The remake provides captions and modern exhibition formats, but accessibility also lives inside design. When the companions’ emotions rely heavily on voice, viewers lose redundancy that animation can provide. A more expressive creature is not less real to the story. It is more available to the audience.

The ocean should not feel embarrassed by magic

The strangest result of the aesthetic is that the film sometimes seems to trust magic less than its audience does. Viewers arrive knowing the premise. They expect a mermaid, a sea king, a witch, a transforming shell, and animals who sing. The production does not need to earn belief by making every surface behave like footage from an expedition. Belief comes from consistent emotion inside the invented rules.

A confident fantasy can choose when water behaves physically and when it behaves musically. It can let a current pause for a confession, let bioluminescence answer a chord, or let a school of fish form an impossible visual rhyme. Those choices do not break immersion when they express the world’s logic. They create the immersion realism keeps trying to purchase through texture alone.

Remaking animation should mean arguing with it, not concealing it

A remake has the chance to answer the earlier film through another visual language. It can challenge a design, restore cultural material, alter whose perspective controls a sequence, or use new technology to reveal something the old production could not. Simply translating drawings into plausible surfaces treats animation as packaging rather than thought.

The 2023 film contains real reinterpretation in performance, casting, Eric’s development, Ariel’s climax, and the island world. Its creature design is where reinterpretation retreats into demonstration. The artists prove they can make fantasy look photographed. The story needed them to make fantasy feel inhabited.

My final receipt

The problem is not that the remake looks real. The problem is that realism repeatedly receives priority over emotional information. A musical about voice, desire, friendship, and theatrical persuasion needs bodies capable of responding to music. When the animals cannot fully emote, the performers are asked to sing across a visual silence the production created.

Let the fish have a face. Let the crab conduct with his whole body. Let color behave like feeling. Let water become choreography instead of a physics test. The audience accepted a mermaid before the first note. Nobody needed the impossible world to apologize for being animated.

A face can be technically detailed and emotionally unreadable

Photoreal visual effects devote enormous labor to skin, scales, wet surfaces, refraction, muscle, fur, and the behavior of light. None of that automatically produces a performance. Animation communicates through selected movement. An eyebrow, mouth shape, pause, or squash can be pushed beyond ordinary anatomy so an audience receives the feeling immediately. When realism narrows that movement, technical detail can increase while emotional information disappears.

The problem becomes obvious beside a human actor. Bailey can alter breath, posture, gaze, and timing within a shot. A companion designed to resemble a plausible fish or crab has fewer readable tools, especially when the camera avoids gestures that would expose the artificial construction. The characters may occupy the same frame, but they are not always permitted the same expressive vocabulary.

The original animals were characters because design made choices

Sebastian’s eyes, mouth, claws, and posture were never attempting marine biology. His design organized authority, panic, pride, and irritation into a shape that could change quickly with the music. Flounder’s roundness made vulnerability visible before he spoke. Scuttle’s entire body behaved like misplaced confidence. Those choices were not childish compromises waiting for better technology. They were the technology of characterization.

The remake often treats resemblance to actual animals as an upgrade, then asks dialogue and celebrity voices to restore the personality that design removed. The voices work hard. The image sometimes remains stubbornly literal. If viewers close their eyes and receive more comedy than they do while watching, the visual system is not carrying its share of the performance.

Real water does not require emotionally realistic creatures

The false choice is that a live-action environment must contain animals obeying documentary anatomy or the world will collapse. Audiences already accept mermaids, musical numbers, underwater speech, magic contracts, and a sea witch changing bodies. Stylization would not be the first impossible element. It would simply admit that the creatures are actors inside a fairy tale rather than specimens inside a tank.

A hybrid design could preserve texture and lighting while enlarging eyes, simplifying planes, and allowing mouths to shape speech more clearly. The question is not whether every frame looks possible. It is whether the image supports the dramatic job. Plausibility that weakens comedy, friendship, and fear is not maturity. It is a production priority wearing the costume of seriousness.

Labor deserves praise even when the direction was wrong

Criticizing photorealism should not become contempt for visual-effects artists. Hundreds of people solved difficult problems under schedules, budgets, revisions, and executive decisions they did not control. The ocean surfaces, hair simulations, lighting integration, and digital environments contain extraordinary craft. A bad governing aesthetic can be executed with tremendous skill.

That distinction matters because studios often market technological difficulty as proof of artistic success. Workers deserve credit for the achievement. Executives and directors remain responsible for deciding what the achievement serves. Saying the animals needed more expression is not saying the artists lacked talent. It is saying the production asked their talent to optimize the wrong definition of believable.

My final receipt on the realistic remake

The remake wants emotional intimacy and visual naturalism, but those goals keep colliding whenever an animated companion must act. Ariel’s relationships should be visible in the frame, not merely recoverable from dialogue and memory of the older film. If a design cannot show affection, terror, annoyance, or ridiculous confidence without breaking realism, then realism is the limitation, not the virtue.

Animation has never needed permission to exaggerate life in order to tell the truth about feeling. The 1989 film understood that immediately. The newer film occasionally behaves as if maturity means hiding the hand of the artist. I want the opposite. Show me the choices. Let the crab perform. Let the fish emote. A fairy tale becomes more convincing when its characters can actually reach us.

Musical timing exposes every expressive limitation

A musical depends on reaction as much as song. A joke lands because somebody recoils at the correct beat. A friendship becomes visible because a companion anticipates the singer’s fear. When the digital animals cannot change expression quickly or clearly, musical timing loses a partner. Sound tells us the scene has shifted while the face remains committed to anatomical plausibility.

This is especially costly in Under the Sea, where the original builds pleasure through impossible bodies doing exactly what rhythm requires. The remake can fill the frame with more creatures and more surface detail, yet abundance is not choreography. Movement needs personality, hierarchy, and a readable point of view.

The next remake should design from emotion outward

Studios should begin by listing what each creature must communicate, then decide how far realism can stretch around those needs. If Sebastian must scold, panic, scheme, soften, and sing, his face and claws need a grammar capable of those verbs. Texture should support that grammar rather than replace it.

The goal is not to imitate the 1989 drawings frame for frame. It is to preserve the principle that design serves performance. Technology becomes exciting when it expands what a character can express. When it merely makes the scales more measurable, the audience is being shown expense instead of life.

Believability is an emotional agreement

Audiences do not believe a sea witch because her tentacles meet zoological standards. They believe because desire, danger, humor, and consequence remain legible from shot to shot. The same principle applies to every digital animal. A creature can look impossible and feel present, or look meticulously real and feel absent. The production chose visual plausibility too often when the scene needed personality. That trade should be named clearly because future remakes will keep making it until viewers stop confusing expensive detail with expressive truth.

The clearest test is simple: can a new viewer understand the relationship before a song lyric explains it? If not, detail has failed to become character.

Keep exploring The Little Mermaid

Return to The Little Mermaid hub for films, the animated series, character files, reviews, rants, reactions, and lore guides.