Shan Yu's defeat in Kingdom Hearts 2 does not count as "Falling To Their Death" he was defeated infront of the palace gates where he just collapses and falls onto the floor infront of Sora and Co. He didn't fall off the palace roof or a cliff or any sort of large height for this to count. They didn't even specify if he died and could have just been arrested.
Also his death in the Manga does not count either because him falling off the palace roof was obviously not what killed him. Xigbar did the part that killed him.
Weedle you need to stop this. Despite your good intentions, your constant insistence that you're right leads you into trouble and annoying the community. Have you learnt nothing from all the complains and bans you kept getting? I will not have any editing conflicts on the pages. I don't want to hear any arguments or anything to defend your speculations. The information stays where it is, though I should consider most of it to be erased because is sounds like speculation. Speculated by you.
I'm only going to say this once. No more conflict or speculation.
If it's shown in the film, OR expanded universe, it's present and thus an actual fact. Period. No exceptions. And I'm not "speculating" anything, since all of that is shown in the films and/or expanded universes. If I added in a statement claiming that, say, Ariel could fly or use the Kamehameha or anything like that, despite literally showing no capability of such in the films, comics, video games or ANYTHING of the sort, only then can you actually say I'm speculating in an article and remove it as the rules request.
Besides, Ariel's article is FAR from the only instance of this occurring regarding abilities. It's also prevalent on Gaston's article, Belle's article, Beast's article, heck, Shan Yu's article as well (and with the exception of a couple of edits there, most of those stuff on Shan Yu's article were done by other users, NOT by me, certainly not the superhuman strength bit). Even Quasimodo's article has a degree of this with the reference to him having "abnormal strength", and I never even edited that article.
And just as an FYI, I'd be perfectly content otherwise to just leave it alone. The problem, however, is that Ursula transformed Ariel while the latter was still deep underwater (in fact, based on the volcanic vents, probably close to the abyssopelagic layer). Any human that's caught down there would certainly end up like a praya creature hen exposed to the mesopelagic layer (ie, they'd explode due to oceanic pressure differences), and considering Ariel remained intact and ONLY needed to worry about getting oxygen instead of, say, her body breaking apart, that leaves any possibility of superhuman endurance being removed far too ambiguous to even claim she no longer possessed it upon becoming human. Even if I personally wanted Ariel to NOT retain her superhuman abilities, I'd still retain it precisely BECAUSE the film made clear she did via the visuals. I mean, what, should we claim Albert Wesker having superhuman speed and superhuman strength is "speculation" despite it being visually shown just because those terms aren't explicitly used in Resident Evil? Because that's what it's sounding like.
And have you not learnt I don't read your long messages anymore. It is all speculation, PERIOD, and you're too stubborn as usual to admit when your wrong. If you don't keep yourself in check I will report you next time.
Just for the record, I'm actually capable of admitting when I'm wrong. In fact, this edit here is a GOOD example of me admitting I was wrong regarding an edit I previously made and making sure to correct it. This, however, was NOT an instance where I was wrong, because it was explicitly shown in the movie, and/or expanded universe materials. It's not speculation, period (it's like claiming Palpatine using electrokinesis is speculation despite literally generating lightning from his fingertips onscreen). Want to know what actually IS speculation, though? Claiming Ariel DIDN'T retain her superhuman endurance upon becoming human. Especially when the scene with Ursula made it FAR too ambiguous to actually say for certain that she didn't retain it (if she truly didn't, she outright disintegrate at the depth she was at, not simply worry about drowning).
It has come to my attention that we need to encourage more editing into the Actor pages. Include more than just their film/show roles. They all lack any major contents which is why we delete them from the Wiki. We should try to expand them to include biography dating back to their early lives, leading up to their careers and to when they started working for Disney. There's more to actors than just acting. They have lives and history. Expand them to become more like their Wikipedia predecessors, but in our own words and research. Same goes for other pages on directors, animators, models, artists, musicians, the lot.
I share this with you because you have experience with research. If you can provide such complex information about characters you could do the same for actual people. It will be a lot of work. Are you up to it?
Let's get one thing straight Weedle. Ariel has no superhuman abilities and has no super strength. There was never any official confirmation, and what you claim is seen in the film doesn't make it proof. I hereby ban these speculations and don't want you making a fuss about it or giving me one of your long explinations that I don't care about.
Furthermore we are keeping it simple, and not over written.
Yeah, actually, she did have superhuman abilities and super strength. Otherwise, she would not have moved that boulder an inch (and let me tell you, from what I've heard about diving, if you tried to open a door underwater, no luck, because it fuses shut, and requires tools to breach). And aside from that, she also was able to swim with that weight around her tail.
Bear in mind also that the guys who did The Little Mermaid had to do a lot of research to get the effects of underwater areas right, meaning they did their homework on studying the physics and landscapes of underwater environments, so they most certainly would have known about those bits.
And last I checked, if it's in the film (or any expanded universe stuff), it's by definition confirmed. Period. This isn't like, say, Ariel using heat-vision or breathing icy gales where there's literally nothing in the movie to even remotely suggest those as being her powers and only headcanon and made up, this is directly shown in the movie and expanded media.
Contiuning our conversation because for some reason this site doesnt let me reply back twice its been assumed by many that the king is still fighting the wars that Phoebus came back from so he isnt around to stop Frollo.
Knowing the more anti-Christian messaging of the Disney version, even with the archdeacon (quite frankly, if I must be blunt, depicting one of the gargoyles of Notre Dame as a homosexual was just blasphemous just going by what the Bible says about the activity), I wouldn't even be surprised if Disney thought the king would have tacitly agreed with Frollo in his actions, even the torching of Paris. After all, if the king didn't condone or agree with his actions, Frollo would have at the very least been fired a long time prior, if not executed swiftly.
Okay. So what happened to Frollo's soldiers btw? I like to hope they were imprisoned or exectued for their crimes after all I really dont think "Just following orders" is an excuse for carrying out such sinister deeds.
How much control/influence do you think a group of power individuals, whose country sun rises in the east, and who has a large hold in Disney's pocket. Can demand the company to rethink their company's decision making whether it be filming, marketing, casting, etc?
Can you clarify what exactly you mean by that question? Are you asking if it's possible for the board of directors and/or shareholders for Disney can get them to rethink Disney's decision making for whatever it's doing?
Well, I generally don't hold to favorites, but if I must choose... I'd probably go with either the Richard Purdum draft, or the Cox draft, mostly because thematically, both versions were pretty close to the original story by Villevneue/Beaumont. Plus, in those versions, at least Belle had an actual excuse for putting up with the village life instead of leaving, not to mention actually HAD foils that represented the moral of the tale well (Belle's Sisters and Aunt Marguerite actually embodied inner ugliness, contrasted with the Bimbettes, who if you ask me looked like they not only blew Belle's outer beauty out of the water, but from what little we saw of them, they looked like they came closer to having actual inner beauty than Belle did). Quite frankly, Beauty and the Beast was one of those stories that didn't need as extensive of a rewrite that it got. At least with The Little Mermaid, the ending being changed was kind of necessary since it wasn't really child friendly (it would be like showing your four year old the scene where Senator Kinsey melts in the X-Men movie), there was nothing warranting that kind of rewrite that you'd expect from, say, The Jungle Book (doesn't help either that Linda Woolverton and Don Hahn outright boasted that they radically rewrote the tale to push a social agenda on the masses).