all 20 comments

[–]hfxB0oyA 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think the reviewer is revealing a bit too much about his interest in 'kinky' sixteen year old girls. Perhaps a visit from the local constabulary is in order?

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

The 31-year-old prince and 16-year-old Mermaid? I'll pass the pedo show!

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]jet199[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    It's a normal relationship in most seaside towns now

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Yea. They should have had school teachers getting lap dances from kids and kids using their new school approved ass fisters.

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Ummm...no, kink does not belong in a movie for young children.

    For all the controversy around this movie, it appears they made sound business decisions, as it seems to be doing quite well

    https://www.axios.com/2023/05/29/the-little-mermaid-memorial-day-weekend-box-office-hit

    [–]catfishrising 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

    As the article mentions, the word has non-sexual meanings too.

    [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Not in our culture. It means sexual perversion.

    [–]catfishrising 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Limited literacy is not a culture.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Words evolve always. Every word we use has a history and etymology - and many have changed meanings to the complete opposite. Not using archaic definitions isn't limited literacy, it's understanding that language isn't set in stone. Being obtuse to obfuscate the meaning of kink, that is only used in our culture, makes it seem like you're trying to downplay what kink is - makes me think you have an embarrassing hard drive.

    [–]jet199[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    So what's the non sexual meaning such he could have meant in this context?

    [–]catfishrising 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    Merriam-Webster dictionary lists six definitions for the word “kink,” most of which refer to various imperfections, peculiarities, or bodily cramps. Though one entry defines a “kink” as an “unconventional sexual taste or behavior,” to be fair to Morris, his intended definition was likely “a clever unusual way of doing something.”

    In the review, Morris explains that he believes the film was overly concerned with checking diversity boxes and tiptoed around potentially offensive material. As a result, he argues, the film fell flat on its face, providing the audience with no sense of creativity or fun.

    [–]LarrySwinger2 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Yeah, this movie needs more bodily cramps!

    [–]jet199[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    That's not what I asked.

    In his sentence no other definition makes sense.

    If he'd said " they ironed out every kink" that would make sense. But he didn't.

    [–]catfishrising 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    It makes perfect sense, it's right there, reading comprehension is clearly not your strong point.

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    I'll be watching you, kike

    [–]catfishrising 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Bwahahahaha, idiot.

    [–]Clown_Chan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    This is what happens when childless, perverted adults are watching children's movies.

    If you want more"kink" and maturity, you fucking pedophile, then go watch some movie for adults, there's plenty of them with sexual fetishes you so enjoy very much. Leave children's movie alone, they're not for you, stop corrupting them.

    [–]UncleWillard56 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I hate live-action remakes. I don't understand why people shell out so much money seeing something they've already seen, and in vibrant, animated colors with catchy tunes, but with actors instead? We all know Disney is just cashing in, but how is it working. Case in point, this drab disaster. Forget about the blackwashing and changing the story (for no apparent reason), it looks terrible. And they got rid of the Chef's song! How?!! That was the best thing in the hold damn movie (except for the cocks the original artist for the tape/dvd cover snuck in).

    [–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    The actress looks 30 and is ugly. Kink would not have worked. But if they made the prince a young, cute boy and her a young, cute girl then there would be a real sense of sexual tension even without the addition of sexual perversion.

    [–]jet199[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    The main sexualisation of the first film came from lesbians so that's not what they are after.

    They have an Ursula and Ariel BDSM fanfic thing.