Little Mermaid Surgery Ad Will Retroactively Destroy Your Childhood
A Little Mermaid surgery ad is making its way around the web after site BuzzFeed dug up the strange (and obviously foreign) plastic surgery promoting ad.
The Little Mermaid surgery ad seems to have been created in a world where Disney, the company that owns the iconic red-haired princess image, is notoriously litigatious. (And indeed, the company has gone so far as to sue three Florida daycare centers in the past for having unauthorized, unlicensed murals on their walls depicting Disney characters such as Minnie Mouse, Mickey Mouse, and Goofy.)
And indeed, things like the Little Mermaid surgery ad do dilute the trademark and likeness of Disney characters, especially when appropriating them in ways with which the company with the wholesome image and strong vested interest in remaining “family friendly” might not agree. One might assume augmented breasts and tummy tucks don’t jive with the Disney brand in general.
The Little Mermaid surgery ad doesn’t even just hint at Disney’s Ariel or use an image with her uniquely-red hair. The advertisement tells a whole tale of Ariel’s journey from meeting Ursula to deciding to go under the knife the human way before getting to the main part of the image where a clearly augmented and two-legged mermaid smiles sultrily at ad-readers.
The Little Mermaid surgery ad comes out of a clinic in Venezula, Clinica Dempere. And, while the image won’t put them in Disney’s good graces, it is pretty safe to say the viral ad will probably get their business a bit of worldwide attention in coming weeks as it’s passed around to the delight and horror of Disney fans everywhere.
Does the Little Mermaid surgery ad hawking fake boobs and fin removal creep you out?
Tags : little mermaid plastic surgery, little mermaid surgery, little mermaid surgery ad, little mermaid surgery advertisement, little mermaid surgery disney
Posted: August 17, 2012
![‘Ugly Baby’ Jab On ‘Footy Show’ Angers Parents [Video]](http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/ugly-baby-100x100.jpg)
![Taylor Swift’s Disgusted Reaction To Justin Bieber, Selena Gomez Kiss Goes Viral [Video]](http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Watch-Justin-Bieber-And-Selena-Gomez-Backstage-Kiss-The-Taylor-Swift-Diss-Video-100x100.jpg)
Aug 17, 2012
Obviously foreign? What's that supposed to mean? Also, if it weren't an illegitimate use of Disney characters, it's a very well-done and clever ad. I just can't get over the "obviously foreign" comment. Jesus…
Aug 17, 2012
How about that, yet another supposed journalist with little to no grasp of the English language. The word is "LITIGIOUS" the word you used "litigatious" is not even a word in the first place. The use of your new term "hawking" is a complete misuse, the word you are looking for is "hocking". What creeps me out, Kim LaCapria, is how people like you get into "journalism" in the first place when you cannot be bothered to learn your own language properly.
Aug 17, 2012
It's obviously foreign because domestic companies know better than to blatantly violate a copyright like this.
Aug 17, 2012
I thnk its clever…but something is off about her eyes now.
Aug 17, 2012
Unauthorized use is illegal, regardless how 'cute and clever'' the ad may be. And, if I'm not mistaken, copyright reaches beyond national borders under International Copyright laws.
Aug 17, 2012
Ariel is hot.
Aug 17, 2012
you said it
Aug 17, 2012
As to this ad 'destroying my childhood'… a big BS to that! I'm 65yo, and am personally responsible for the destruction of my childhood.
Aug 17, 2012
The thing is 'The Little Mermaid' isn't a Disney story any more than Snow White, Cinderella, Beauty & the Beast, Hunchback of Notre Dame, etc., were. The only thing Disney could sue over is the use of the unique appearance of their "Little Mermaid." And honestly, the picture doesn't even look that much like her; close enough that a judge wouldn't summarily throw it out, but not close enough for him to find in favor of the prosecution either, unless Disney slipped him a few bucks under the table. But, to me, the image used in the ad looks more like Shannon Dougherty.
Aug 17, 2012
There's certainly nothing wrong with your eyes… Yummy…
Aug 17, 2012
It's obvious that it's "The Little Mermaid" although you can tell it's Ariel it's nowhere near Disney quality artwork. Ariel's likeness and the name Ariel are both Disney properties. But the story of The Little Mermaid was written by Hans Christian Andersen over 150 years ago. It wasn't created by Disney. Still an ad with any mermaid before and after would have done the same job just wouldn't have gotten as much attention which is the point in the end I assume.
Aug 17, 2012
So they're saying they can make a fish tail look like legs? Someone get me a really big tuna. I want to see this magic.
Aug 17, 2012
Actually, Corey, the word is litigatious and it is a word. Look it up before you comment. Yes, this still is a crappy artical.
Aug 17, 2012
"strong family values"? How bout when the priest gets a woody during the wedding ceremony in the movie? or what about the giant dick that was drawn in on one of the castles on the original cover before they recallled them?
Aug 17, 2012
It's not like disney didn't sexualize Ariel enough already.
Aug 17, 2012
Actually, no. The word is "litigious". Look it up before you comment.
Aug 17, 2012
litigatious?
Aug 17, 2012
however, "hawking" is correct, regardless of Corey's comments.
Aug 17, 2012
Just another way to target young girls into making themselves "Prettier and Better" then what they are. Its always the females that get targeted because we put so much onto them to be perfect. The perfect size, height, weight, nose, eye color, hair, skin tones, teeth, you name we do it to them. We never say anything to the guys. Just a little here and there. This has got to stop.
Oh and it is them using disney because they couldn't come up with their own images to target young girls. They used what they knew the young girls know of Ariel and the little mermaid.
Aug 17, 2012
Just another way to target young girls into making themselves "Prettier and Better" then what they are. Its always the females that get targeted because we put so much onto them to be perfect. The perfect size, height, weight, nose, eye color, hair, skin tones, teeth, you name we do it to them. We never say anything to the guys. Just a little here and there. This has got to stop.
Oh and it is them using disney because they couldn't come up with their own images to target young girls. They used what they knew the young girls know of Ariel and the little mermaid.
Aug 17, 2012
Just another way to target young girls into making themselves "Prettier and Better" then what they are. Its always the females that get targeted because we put so much onto them to be perfect. The perfect size, height, weight, nose, eye color, hair, skin tones, teeth, you name we do it to them. We never say anything to the guys. Just a little here and there. This has got to stop.
Oh and it is them using disney because they couldn't come up with their own images to target young girls. They used what they knew the young girls know of Ariel and the little mermaid.
Aug 17, 2012
Just another way to target young girls into making themselves "Prettier and Better" then what they are. Its always the females that get targeted because we put so much onto them to be perfect. The perfect size, height, weight, nose, eye color, hair, skin tones, teeth, you name we do it to them. We never say anything to the guys. Just a little here and there. This has got to stop.
Oh and it is them using disney because they couldn't come up with their own images to target young girls. They used what they knew the young girls know of Ariel and the little mermaid.
Aug 17, 2012
Just another way to target young girls into making themselves "Prettier and Better" then what they are. Its always the females that get targeted because we put so much onto them to be perfect. The perfect size, height, weight, nose, eye color, hair, skin tones, teeth, you name we do it to them. We never say anything to the guys. Just a little here and there. This has got to stop.
Oh and it is them using disney because they couldn't come up with their own images to target young girls. They used what they knew the young girls know of Ariel and the little mermaid.
Aug 17, 2012
Just another way to target young girls into making themselves "Prettier and Better" then what they are. Its always the females that get targeted because we put so much onto them to be perfect. The perfect size, height, weight, nose, eye color, hair, skin tones, teeth, you name we do it to them. We never say anything to the guys. Just a little here and there. This has got to stop.
Oh and it is them using disney because they couldn't come up with their own images to target young girls. They used what they knew the young girls know of Ariel and the little mermaid.
Aug 17, 2012
Just another way to target young girls into making themselves "Prettier and Better" then what they are. Its always the females that get targeted because we put so much onto them to be perfect. The perfect size, height, weight, nose, eye color, hair, skin tones, teeth, you name we do it to them. We never say anything to the guys. Just a little here and there. This has got to stop.
Oh and it is them using disney because they couldn't come up with their own images to target young girls. They used what they knew the young girls know of Ariel and the little mermaid.
Aug 17, 2012
Just another way to target young girls into making themselves "Prettier and Better" then what they are. Its always the females that get targeted because we put so much onto them to be perfect. The perfect size, height, weight, nose, eye color, hair, skin tones, teeth, you name we do it to them. We never say anything to the guys. Just a little here and there. This has got to stop.
Oh and it is them using disney because they couldn't come up with their own images to target young girls. They used what they knew the young girls know of Ariel and the little mermaid.
Aug 17, 2012
Just another way to target young girls into making themselves "Prettier and Better" then what they are. Its always the females that get targeted because we put so much onto them to be perfect. The perfect size, height, weight, nose, eye color, hair, skin tones, teeth, you name we do it to them. We never say anything to the guys. Just a little here and there. This has got to stop.
Oh and it is them using disney because they couldn't come up with their own images to target young girls. They used what they knew the young girls know of Ariel and the little mermaid.
Aug 17, 2012
Just another way to target young girls into making themselves "Prettier and Better" then what they are. Its always the females that get targeted because we put so much onto them to be perfect. The perfect size, height, weight, nose, eye color, hair, skin tones, teeth, you name we do it to them. We never say anything to the guys. Just a little here and there. This has got to stop.
Oh and it is them using disney because they couldn't come up with their own images to target young girls. They used what they knew the young girls know of Ariel and the little mermaid.
Aug 17, 2012
LOL Am I to understand this doctor wants to turn all your fish into two legged humans? Sorry I don't see anything in this ad that would make me fly off and want that creepo doctor cutting into anyof my body parts.
Aug 17, 2012
Matthew D. Wilson lol do they???
Aug 17, 2012
And it is splled "litigatious" but hey…..words are hard, I would never question your intelligence or job choice in a hateful manner. That would make it seem that I am perfect….which I am not
http://www.webster-dictionary.net/definition/litigatious
Aug 17, 2012
And it is splled "litigatious" but hey…..words are hard, I would never question your intelligence or job choice in a hateful manner. That would make it seem that I am perfect….which I am not
http://www.webster-dictionary.net/definition/litigatious
Aug 17, 2012
And it is splled "litigatious" but hey…..words are hard, I would never question your intelligence or job choice in a hateful manner. That would make it seem that I am perfect….which I am not
http://www.webster-dictionary.net/definition/litigatious
Aug 17, 2012
In general, yes.
Aug 17, 2012
Yes, it is really discouraging to see articles written by a 'journatlist' that can't spell, can't write, does not know correct usage of grammar and English, and has no interest in learning how to speak English properly.
Aug 17, 2012
Yes, it is really discouraging to see articles written by a 'journatlist' that can't spell, can't write, does not know correct usage of grammar and English, and has no interest in learning how to speak English properly.
Aug 17, 2012
Ash Oat, both words can be used in this context. Look up litigatious, and it IS a word. Litigious is just used more often.
Aug 17, 2012
Ash Oat, both words can be used in this context. Look up litigatious, and it IS a word. Litigious is just used more often.
Aug 17, 2012
Fucking pervert.
Aug 17, 2012
This statement obviously didn't apply to you, so why even comment?
Aug 17, 2012
That's funny. Dictionary.com shows you're wrong. but to be fair, the word that is needed in this case is Litigious. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/litigious
Aug 17, 2012
"litigatious" is not in Black's Law Dictionary while "litigious is", and according to urbandictionary.com, "hawking" is when a girl is staring down a guy she wants to hook up with and does whatever is neccessary to get with him
Aug 17, 2012
Actually the word was used correctly. The definition of litigatious is "prone to initiate litigation."
As in "Disney, the company that owns the iconic red-haired princess image, is notoriously prone to initiate litigation."
But don't worry we know a simple Google search is hard. You have to type in Google.com followed by a single word.
Aug 17, 2012
Also "Hawking" in the sense of Ad Hawking pertains to "the act of selling goods for a living" and is a completely acceptable use of the term in advertising.
Aug 17, 2012
Jason Eppie Epperson Despite not being in Black's Law Dictionary the word is completely acceptable. It is listed in Websters as "prone to initiate litigation." While you won't see the word used in a law brief its "lay term" is 100% acceptable
Aug 17, 2012
Actually Ash, she was speaking specifically of the act pertaining to file litigation and both words are acceptable for that purpose.
Aug 17, 2012
are you kidding me? Any one who doesn't like under a rock would look at that and know who it is. And obviously they could't sue because of the story… most all of the fairy tales we know of have been around for a very long time. They would sue for using the likeliness of their Ariel.
Aug 17, 2012
are you kidding me? Any one who doesn't like under a rock would look at that and know who it is. And obviously they could't sue because of the story… most all of the fairy tales we know of have been around for a very long time. They would sue for using the likeliness of their Ariel.
Aug 17, 2012
are you kidding me? Any one who doesn't like under a rock would look at that and know who it is. And obviously they could't sue because of the story… most all of the fairy tales we know of have been around for a very long time. They would sue for using the likeliness of their Ariel.
Aug 17, 2012
are you kidding me? Any one who doesn't like under a rock would look at that and know who it is. And obviously they could't sue because of the story… most all of the fairy tales we know of have been around for a very long time. They would sue for using the likeliness of their Ariel.
Aug 17, 2012
are you kidding me? Any one who doesn't like under a rock would look at that and know who it is. And obviously they could't sue because of the story… most all of the fairy tales we know of have been around for a very long time. They would sue for using the likeliness of their Ariel.
Aug 17, 2012
The artwork is atrocious….The whole ad is, but ugh. That art.
Aug 17, 2012
ew.
Aug 17, 2012
Dude. They may not be able to say that the little mermaid is their story but THAT looks like Ariel. The shade of green for the fin, the green eyes, the same color red hair, and correct me if I'm wrong but that's Ursula in the background. She may be skinnier but that's her. In the original Hans Christain Anderson story there was only a name, the sea witch, no description, it was Disneys idea to go with the black and purple octopuss bottem, so therefore they copied her likeness at the least. So why doesn't that look like Ariel again?
Aug 17, 2012
Rigt onh litigious, but "Hawking" is correct.
hawk(2) v.: 2. To advertize or offer for sale.
"hock" as a verb means either "to hamstring" or "pawn."
Aug 17, 2012
My apologies to Tasha. I retract my statement, and apologize for my rude tone. I still prefer "litigious". Maybe not as much as "litiginous". We should choose one and dispose of the rest.
Aug 17, 2012
I never said "litigatious" was wrong, but "litigious" would more commonly be used there. "Litigatious" is in Webster's dictionary, but not all of the others, and when you google "litigatious", it prompts a "did you mean "litigious?" message." Also, urbandictionary.com is hilarious.
Aug 17, 2012
How did they attach her legs?
Aug 17, 2012
One Fin Removal $1500, Lower Leg Transplants $50000000, One Call to a Doctor who Doesn't practice on Mermaids: Priceless!
Aug 17, 2012
I loved tjhs Disney movie. This add is creepy! It makes her look weird with those cheek bones. Why couldn't it be an ad for prince charming needing viagra or getting a tummy tuck. This is horrible!
Aug 17, 2012
well I suppose in this day in age its easier to believe she became human by a surgeons knife then by ursula the witch…maybe they are trying to make a non witchcraft version? who knows…its poor taste regardless…
Aug 18, 2012
The illustration does not creep me out at all. There are dozens of artists out there that use Disney characters to make them sexier in their own style of painting, drawing, etc. However the fact that they are using it and saying it's ok to alter your body like that is wrong. It's almost like slandering Disney.
Aug 18, 2012
Best comment here.
Aug 18, 2012
Oh,get off your high horse! I bet you have made plenty of spelling errors in your time.
Aug 18, 2012
Oh,get off your high horse! I bet you have made plenty of spelling errors in your time.
Aug 18, 2012
Oh,get off your high horse! I bet you have made plenty of spelling errors in your time.
Aug 18, 2012
Oh,get off your high horse! I bet you have made plenty of spelling errors in your time.
Aug 18, 2012
For gosh sakes, the Disney princesses are PERFECT just the way they are. I think it's STUPID that they are used for plastic surgery ads, come on people……………..GET A LIFE.
Aug 18, 2012
hilarious comment georgekovka!!!!!!!!LOL
Aug 18, 2012
hilarious comment georgekovka!!!!!!!!LOL
Aug 18, 2012
hilarious comment georgekovka!!!!!!!!LOL
Aug 18, 2012
hilarious comment georgekovka!!!!!!!!LOL
Aug 18, 2012
Are they saying they can fix my fin or do I have to get leg's.
Aug 18, 2012
You can take the fin off, but you can't remove the smell of years old fish.
Aug 18, 2012
You need new fins.
Aug 18, 2012
You need new fins.
Aug 18, 2012
Actually..it's not just the women. Another part of the ad shows a man size frog that is ostensibly supposed to be the "prince" laid out on the surgical table only to emerge as a questionably handsome"hunk".
Body image disorders are on the rise in young men around the globe and I've experienced it personally.
BDD..it's not just for girls anymore!
Aug 18, 2012
Jaqueline Darrow, wow, asshat, how about READING the definition of the word you just referenced? The word hawking means to HUNT WITH HAWKS, while Corey Nufer is correct, the word hocking means to sell or pawn your stuff, so yeah, HAWKING is nowhere near the right word, it just sounds the same (that's a homophone, look that up). And I agree with Corey, although the word litigatious is a real English word, litigious is the word that Kim LaCapria is looking for here. Litigatious refers to stuff that is related to lawsuits (litigations), while someone who is litigious is quick to bring a lawsuit against someone else (Disney is definitely a LITIGIOUS company, whether they are litigatious or not I have no idea). Aaaaaahhhhhh, my grammar nazi duties are done for today.
Aug 18, 2012
How about calling it Jessica Rabbit?
Aug 18, 2012
yeah i've been noticing it but its heavily on us women. it needs to stop on both sides.
Aug 18, 2012
Joan Stanford – wow, you misspelled journalist when trying to criticize misspelling… pretty smooth
Aug 18, 2012
Obviously the people that are 'freaked out' about this have never seen fanart…
Aug 18, 2012
The damn word is spelled L I T I G I O U S!
As long as people are on the internet, they have no excuse for not looking up stuff!!!!
But there's nothing wrong with telling people how something is spelled. And "asshat" is unnecessary, Jacqueline Darrow. WTF is an asshat??
How else are we going to learn? their there they're…need I say more?
Aug 19, 2012
Corey, before you go on another tirade against illiterate journalists, perhaps you should do some homework?
Aug 19, 2012
Jocelyn Saunders Midzinski you are totally wrong about the word hawking. I mean, who hunts with hawks these days? Whereas the word is used regularly in the advertising industry in the exact same context in which it was used here….
Aug 19, 2012
Jocelyn Saunders Midzinski and for the definition of asshat, i suggest you look in the mirror!
Aug 19, 2012
Paula M Smolik, there is nothing wrong with correcting someone on grammar, that much I agree with. But, the manner in which this man corrected the journalist was rather belligerent. The man sounded pretentious and condescending. I don't see how such traits will help anyone out in the future.
Aug 19, 2012
Oscar K Martinez Not to mention they were wrong in their corrections.
Aug 19, 2012
Oscar K Martinez Not to mention they were wrong in their corrections.
Aug 22, 2012
William Haydon I did my research, it was called school. Litigatious is not a word, try typing it in the box, see the red line under it? Not a word. Hawking is to hunt with a hawk as was brought up by a previous reply. Oscar, what, exactly, was belligerent about my response? Do you not find it abhorrent that a person that is taking the responsibility to present us with newsworthy material cannot so much as use words that exist?
Aug 22, 2012
William Haydon Correction, litigatious does exist, but is an addition to the dictionary added after consistent and constant misuse. Just like the phrase "rallied against" has been transformed by the undereducated media to "railing against".
Aug 22, 2012
Jacqueline Darrow Well, you've got me there, but I guess I missed the part of the article that had to do with hunting through the use of a hawk. Before you go calling people names, child, perhaps you should do some research on the concept of context.
hock 3 (hk) Slang
tr.v. hocked, hock·ing, hocks
To pawn
Aug 22, 2012
James Johnson What, exactly, was I wrong about?
Aug 22, 2012
William Haydon The word is hock, read a book every once in a while. Just because (not too many people) do what a word describes does not mean the definition has changed. Think of what a hawk does, it has extremely discerning vision and stares it's prey down before swooping. Now think of what a salesman does, they "hock" their wares, what do people do when they take out a loan from a pawn shop? The put their item in hock. English isn't very hard, especially if it is your first language, before you go wagging your finger at somebody that is correcting grammar, you should take the time to actually check to see if you are right.
Aug 22, 2012
Bee Bee Hollister Yes I have, but I do not pass myself off as a writer or journalist, when somebody becomes a professional writer, they should at least use proper grammar.
Aug 22, 2012
Love how offended the illiterate get when I point out the indiscretions of one of their own.
Aug 22, 2012
Diana Rosales you're a cyber bully. This applies more to argiod47 than you, obviously.
Aug 24, 2012
Corey Nufer, must I really explain the aggressive manner in which you've displayed. Anyone looking at that text, would assume that a person such as yourself, was looking to demean Kim LaCapria. And honestly, the illiterate being mad at you for correcting someone? No, that reason is buried in your crude response. Yes, she is a journalist, so she is expected to have a vast and exceptional understanding of the English language. And yes, she may have made a mistake, but all one can do is learn from that fault. But stating that you are perturbed at her being a journalist for those minor mistakes, truly a farce. There is a way to help or guide someone through a mistake, clearly you don't understand that. I hope you do learn that though, humility is a virtue one ought to have.