The Little Mermaid on Broadway

[blackcauldron85]

tommy2.net:

Free Music!!! For a limited time, you can download a pop version of the song "Her Voice" from Disney’s The Little Mermaid performed by Drew Seeley (Prince Eric). To pick up your copy, head on over to disneyonbroadway.com.

****************************************************************************************

http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hilll ... names.aspx

For months now, musical theater fans have been wondering when Disney Theatrical’s latest production – “The Little Mermaid” – will begin touring. More importantly, where Ariel & her friends will be stopping as they make their way across the U.S.

Well, thanks to some domain names that The Walt Disney Company registered on June 21st, we now have an inkling of where the Little Mermaid may be heading once Disney Theatrical officially launches …

THELITTLEMERMAIDTOUR.COM

And these cities include …

LITTLEMERMAIDCHICAGO.COM

LITTLEMERMAIDDC.COM

LITTLEMERMAIDDENVER.COM

LITTLEMERMAIDLOSANGELES.COM

LITTLEMERMAIDSEATTLE.COM

LITTLEMERMAIDTAMPA.COM

LITTLEMERMAIDTEMPE.COM

Now please keep in mind that just because The Walt Disney Company registers a domain name doesn’t mean that it actually intends on using it. But – that said – given that the Mouse went to the trouble & expense of registering a particular domain name does suggest that it does in fact have future plans for that domain.

[nachonaco]

She never replied to me....Maybe I should email her again?

[Disney Duster]

Cheer up nachonaco, all Broadway actors are very busy and Sierra is her busiest right now. She could have replied because it was just before she left for the UK, or it could have been mere luck, sometimes she gets to answer mail, and sometimes she does not get to.

Hey, what's up with this Jim Hill wrote:

Whereas Ms. Prince … Well, while still nailing all of her songs and landing all of her laugh lines, Faith has done something bold. She grounded this fantasy character in reality. Which is why there’s now this little weird moment toward the end of “The Little Mermaid.” Where Ariel is getting ready to dispatch Ursula with King Triton’s trident and the sea witch is begging for her life … Because Faith Prince is such a good actress, for the first time ever, you sort of feel sorry for Ursula.

Which I’m not sure is exactly what “The Little Mermaid” ‘s creators were going for. I know for a fact that that’s not how this moment in the show originally played when Sherie Rene Scott was Ursula. But that’s one of the real joys of live theater, I guess. That you can drop a different actor into a particular role and suddenly scenes in a show start playing very differently.

REALLY?!!!!!! That's how it should've ended all along...

[Disney's Divinity]

That's better than the whole, smashing of the shell thing--but it still doesn't feel quite right to me. Sure, it empowers Ariel (who, frankly, didn't need empowering anyway), but it still comes off weird for a larger than life villainess to be killed on a human level. And, considering how the way it's done makes you almost feel sorry for Ursula, that kind of relates to how I felt about the alternate ending, as seen on the TLM Platinum. It's awkward and weird to see a woman killed when she doesn't pose a physical threat. At least with the shell breaking, nothing really happens except that she kind of dies. With the trident, you actually have to shoot her.

The only bad thing about destroying the shell, as far as symbols within the stage version of the show goes, is it makes it seem as if Ariel is killing dark and twisted femininity for righteous, superior masculininity. Putting the men in power like they always should be--as when a woman gets in control, everything will always go wrong. To me, that version of the show has always come off far more sexist than anyone claims the film could be considered to be.

[Disney Duster]

Ariel didn't really need empowering, but it would be fitting for Ariel to stop the villain, because then she's fixing her own problems she started, even though Eric originally returns what she did for him and proves his love.

I read in an article in another thread, I cannot find where, that Jeffrey Katzenburg didn't understand how Ariel could defeat Ursula herself. The way the article was worded, it sounded like Ariel originally beat the villain. So, if only we knew more about this.

I actually do think that Ariel destroying the villain and saving the kingdom is more feminist than the man doing so especially if it's a female villain. Yes, female killing female is bad but not as bad as male killing female, I think. Unless the male killing the female was seen as a bad thing or sort of as females are so powerful it's a great thing when a man can overcome them, as we would cheer if a female killed a male villain, I guess.

Anyway, if Ariel takes daddy's trident, someone could say she steals a man's phallic thing to become powerful. Yea. Well, what I say to that is, if Triton had to use an external object seperate from him to be powerful, and then a female does, it's equal. What do you call a girl holding a sword? Is that still sexist?

You may be one of very few who found that deleted scene hard to watch. You see, Ursula really is a physical threat. Aside from her tentacles, she has lots of mass, and I would say she's physically strong. She's not quite human either, which helps. And she's obviously really evil and powerful and hurting the guy trying to defend himself and eventually has to kill her.

That shell cannot contain Ursula's evil feminity when it came from her father Poseidon, unless it was his feminine side. LOL. But I don't think that's what you thought the shell held, it just contained her power, and she was using it badly and got destroyed for it. That reminds me of what one girl wrote on a TLM forum. She said, how do we know Ursula was a bad ruler? She tried to kill Ariel and Eric only after they threatened her and killed her companions. Then she merely grows large and makes a storm happen. But considering she created an impossibly terrible storm that brought all ships from the bottom of the sea to the surface, that was not safe or good for the kingdom. It doesn't matter she know she would've been bad and she was an evil ruler in the show anyway before Triton overthrew her.

I thought you disagreed with that reading of the show as Ariel destroying female power? I think Ariel becoming queen is fine. She will rule, just with a husband, whereas Ursula ruled without one. If that is some comment on women being single is bad but men being single is not, well, whatever, I won't buy that one. That's not nitpicking that's just plain digging when you've already hit bottom. I dunno I just made up that phrase.

Since Sherie Rene Scott tried to maker her character and probably the whole show really feminist, or if she didn't call it feminist, just better for women characters, then I just can't feel the show is sexist. Then again, women do things all the time that other women say is sexist for women to do, they write stories or Beauty and the Beast screenplays that people still see sexism against women in. Some women may not "realize" the sexism, maybe because it's so ingrained in society or something. I like talking about sexism for some reason but I've found sometimes it's plainly there and other times it's really a stretch.

[Disney's Divinity]

I read in an article in another thread, I cannot find where, that Jeffrey Katzenburg didn't understand how Ariel could defeat Ursula herself. The way the article was worded, it sounded like Ariel originally beat the villain. So, if only we knew more about this.

I sympathize on that front. I've never really understood how another ending of the film could have Ariel defeating Ursula; somehow Ariel never seemed strong enough to do it. Not even Eric was really--the ship had to do the work. I suppose she could have used the trident (like in the show now), but that's always seemed kind of silly to me, and I don't know why. Maybe because Triton and Ursula are so above everyone else's level, that I wouldn't think Ariel could use the trident properly. Or maybe I just get that impression because Ariel is so naive compared to them.

Maybe they could have had her do something clever where Ursula became her own destruction (a la Aladdin's triumph over Jafar).

I actually do think that Ariel destroying the villain and saving the kingdom is more feminist than the man doing so especially if it's a female villain. Yes, female killing female is bad but not as bad as male killing female, I think. Unless the male killing the female was seen as a bad thing or sort of as females are so powerful it's a great thing when a man can overcome them, as we would cheer if a female killed a male villain, I guess.

It kind of works either way you want to look at it. On one hand, if Ariel destroys Ursula, she's making up for her mistakes (and I've heard a lot of people say that they though Ariel should have apologized for her behavior--which she does in the stage show, too "If Only (Reprise)"). But at the same time, Eric killing monster Ursula validates his and Ariel's love, which is mocked by Ursula in her last line of the movie. Considering they don't bring up this issue in the stage show, the former ending probably does work better. The stage version kind of centers moreso around Ariel than the film, in that everything that happens goes out of its way to show Ariel's development.

Anyway, if Ariel takes daddy's trident, someone could say she steals a man's phallic thing to become powerful. Yea. Well, what I say to that is, if Triton had to use an external object seperate from him to be powerful, and then a female does, it's equal. What do you call a girl holding a sword? Is that still sexist?

No, a girl holding a sword is not sexist. But a girl holding a magical sword that represents her father's power/social order to destroy a witch who holds the counterpart element to that sword (which is detailed as the source of her dark, black powers) would be questionable. It's hard to not see them as symbols in that situation.

You may be one of very few who found that deleted scene hard to watch. You see, Ursula really is a physical threat. Aside from her tentacles, she has lots of mass, and I would say she's physically strong. She's not quite human either, which helps. And she's obviously really evil and powerful and hurting the guy trying to defend himself and eventually has to kill her.

True, Ursula is half monster, but she's half human as well. It wasn't so much the character that disturbed me about the deleted scene, but Ursula's horrible screams. Then again, maybe that would've given the film a darker edge.

That shell cannot contain Ursula's evil feminity when it came from her father Poseidon, unless it was his feminine side. LOL. But I don't think that's what you thought the shell held, it just contained her power, and she was using it badly and got destroyed for it.

I don't think it's that big of a stretch to say it represents Poseidon's anima. And why is it not notable that the man ends up with the more powerful phallic symbol, and the woman ends up with the mostly useless, except for dark magic, yonic shell? (yes, I just learned about the word yonic today, after searching for a word that would represent the opposite of phallic [strange how they don't have a more common word for that]--although I read that phallic is from Latin and yonic is from the Hindu religion, or something like that, whereas the Latin version would be cunnic, though I couldn't find that on any dictionary websites so I didn't use it) Which is why Ursula wanted the trident, because the female equivalent is inferior to it.

And it's left up in the air, based on the show, whether the shell could be used for anything other than evil.

I thought you disagreed with that reading of the show as Ariel destroying female power? I think Ariel becoming queen is fine. She will rule, just with a husband, whereas Ursula ruled without one. If that is some comment on women being single is bad but men being single is not, well, whatever, I won't buy that one. That's not nitpicking that's just plain digging when you've already hit bottom. I dunno I just made up that phrase.

What I mean is that the stage is more questionable when it comes to sexism as compared to the film. I mostly try to accept the stage version on the surface, where it's not particularly sexist, but if you think much at all, it won't be hard to find some strange ideas there. And I don't think it's wrong to go into an in-depth examination of a theatrical show--because theater is as much about symbols as anything else (as are fairy tales, even Disney ones). I think whoever was strongest behind the show (Zambello?) meant to make women seem stronger, but kind of failed to do it properly. The one good thing they did do was to concentrate moreso on the differences between Ursula and Ariel, a conclusion that could be made from the film but is never specifically brought to the forefront like in the show.

Since Sherie Rene Scott tried to maker her character and probably the whole show really feminist, or if she didn't call it feminist, just better for women characters, then I just can't feel the show is sexist. Then again, women do things all the time that other women say is sexist for women to do, they write stories or Beauty and the Beast screenplays that people still see sexism against women in. Some women may not "realize" the sexism, maybe because it's so ingrained in society or something. I like talking about sexism for some reason but I've found sometimes it's plainly there and other times it's really a stretch.

I've known for a while now that Sherie Scott, as well as others, attempted to "fix" the film's depiction of the female characters. However, I think that the inclusion of a useless shell, as a source of subversive powers, countered that effort by implying that women are naturally inferior to their male counterparts. I think this could have easily been fixed by either forgetting the shell altogether or having Ursula be killed some other way than through the shell's destruction and Ariel taking the shell as her own (as one of Poseidon's descendants) to show that the shell was not inherently evil, but twisted so by Ursula. And also show that the shell had formidable powers of its own, which Ursula could not use because she was evil in mind and intent, allowing Ariel to give herself her legs, symbolizing Ariel's development into a mature woman who's given the power to make her own decisions without depending on her father's approval to get what she wants.

[Disney Duster]

Still, I wish I knew what the original workers came up with for Ariel defeating Ursula, and knowing what other things Katzenburg didn't like about the film, I think it's probable they had something good. Will the next DVD release reveal it? We can only hope.

But you're right, Ariel not being able to defeat Ursula only makes sense when she's such a skinny, young, and well, little mermaid. And she tries to attack Ursula anyway and she saves a guy twice.

If you wanna talk about silly, LOL, silly was Sebastian possibly destroying Ursula with the trident. I swear that was considered one time. At least I have a coloring page of it, I scanned it on here to somewhere...Ariel doing so would be fine. But I like the ending in the original film. It's giant Ursula that I find weird, but it fits with sealore and mythological stuff I guess.

Speaking of clever to defeat her, I previously hoped Ariel and Eric would work together to defeat Ursula, using some clever ideas between them, in the show. If Ariel distracted Ursula while she told Eric to use the boat, I wonder how that would be.

Ariel says sorry to her dad in the film when he confronts her and Ursula. That's alright for me. As for Ursula mocking Eric and Ariel's love...well...first, I never thought Eric had to "prove" is love, Ariel loved him already. But second, I thought it was really good work seeing Ursula as mocking certain young, optimistic aspects of life with "life's full of tough choices" and "so much for true love", but I always thought so much for true love meant true love, even real, true love, was not as powerful as evil. Of course it can be seen as both ways, and it's more interesting if Ursula thought Ariel didn't truly love Eric through the picture.

You think the new show concentrates more on Ariel and everything shows more of her development? I never really thought about or realized that. Anything more you want to say about that I would love to hear but if not that's alright, too.

Because Sherie tried to make everything better for female, and especially her character, I can't see what happened with this shell. It was already in the film, so what could they have picked? ! Okay, actually want may have been best for women (not necessarily for the story, or would it be?) would be for Poseidon to give Ursula the trident because she was older and it is great that the girl gets it over the guy. Then she abuses it and so Triton takes it. So she wants her rightful power back. Then Ariel takes it to dispatch Ursula. That sounds pretty good for girls there, the only, only thing being the trident can be seen as phallic.

Well, uh, anyway, as I was saying, the shell was in the film already, they just gave it power. What may be unfortunate is that it is more cunnic (I tried to look up yonic, couldn't find it at dictionary.com, and cunnic sounds right because of other words about female anatomy, so I feel confident), in fact, it has things go inside of it, as any shell does. It wasn't sexist in the film, now it is, it's so strange. I still think it being Poseidon's feminine side sounds like a big stretch and that it going from a father to a daughter makes it neutal.


I forgot Ursula's screams are horrible in that scene, Pat Carroll did a good job! When I heard them, I swear those, or some of those screams were used in the film, just made deep and giant monstered, giving to your point of her as a giant monster being less disturbing. If she was zapped in a terrifying pose, with the lighting and angles making her look as huge and scary and monster-like as ever, oozing black ink and dying in a magical way, maybe the original scene could still work. But big Ursula is still good. Maybe it's this more comic book action manly monster movie way of doing the scene that turns my princess self off!

As I said, it's unfortunate coincidence that Ursula gets a shell that things go inside and Triton gets his bigger scepter, but why did Poseidon have both? And what did Ursula use when she ruled, just the shell? Why did her good father give her something evil? The re-plotting of the story for this show wasn't thought out well, that's the real problem over sexism here!

I definately think theater and fairy tales and Disney can and should be deeply examined, but this sexism seems contrary to what they intended, and intent is important. But it is also true that messages go out to little girls and boys that you don't intend, so... What they did wasn't well thought-out anyway, unless they can really explain it all and didn't bother to make tell anyone.

Your ideas for Ariel using the trident herself, or the shell herself, are good. I like her using that shell for herself idea. What if she used it to keep a part of the sea, something from her royal family, and even uses it to rule Eric's kingdom (yea I dunno how maybe not lol). Well, maybe she could rule both kingdoms and use the shell, I dunno how inter-kingdom marriage works. And maybe for this show, this version of Ariel's tale, your ideas are better. But Triton using the trident also shows he accepts Eric and humans, that his daughter and her boyfriend changed him, and that he is letting Ariel go and wants her to be happy with what she wants. I recently realized Ariel's sister's transforming her is nicer than seeing him zap her tail with his thing, and I just realized it could mean her whole family accepts her decision, and humans, if they expanded the sisters a little more. But the original version in the film is beautiful, of course. Maybe Ariel could says, "Daddy, do you see now? Humans aren't bad. You were right about Ursula, but I was right about him, and please, see that being with him is the only way I'll be happy" and he could let her use the trident as a "You're a big girl now" moment or something. But hey, the beauty of the silence and her on the rock is pure fairy tale magic, while his dialogue with Sebastian and realization on his own, only after Ariel and Eric's actions, is good character and cinema stuff.

[ChrisLyne]

She never replied to me....Maybe I should email her again?

It wouldn't hurt to try her email again. If that has no luck I'd suggest posting a letter. Like Disney Duster said it was probably lucky timing, but that's what worked for me. I sent it c/o the theatre. I read a few boards like Broadway World after (looking for reviews of her last night) and it sounds like if you send an SAE you have a much higher chance of a reply from Broadway cast members. I didn't as I wasn't expecting her to reply, which I guess makes it even luckier!

I don't know what address you'd use at the moment, but she should be starting Phantom rehearsals soon (if the rumours are true) so you could send it c/o Adelphi Theatre later this year once the cast/theatre/start date are officially announced.

Free Music!!! For a limited time, you can download a pop version of the song "Her Voice" from Disney’s The Little Mermaid performed by Drew Seeley (Prince Eric). To pick up your copy, head on over to disneyonbroadway.com.

It's an interesting version, but not a patch on the original. Has anyone heard Drew sing this show style yet? I was looking on youtube but there's nothing of him in the show and only 1 video of Chelsey singing POYW at a public event.

[SpringHeelJack]

It's closing.

Good riddance, says I. Maybe the next time Disney invests eighty bajillion dollars into a Broadway musical, it can produce something decent.

[Flanger-Hanger]

It's closing.

Good riddance, says I. Maybe the next time Disney invests eighty bajillion dollars into a Broadway musical, it can produce something decent.

I'd be more than willing to direct Bedknobs and Broomsticks on stage if Disney is interested.

[SpringHeelJack]

I'd be more than willing to direct Bedknobs and Broomsticks on stage if Disney is interested.

Word on the street is Disney's looking to do "Chicken Little" next.

[amazon980]

its going on tour yay!!

[DisneyJedi]

I'd be more than willing to direct Bedknobs and Broomsticks on stage if Disney is interested.

Word on the street is Disney's looking to do "Chicken Little" next.

Good God, you can't be serious! >_<

[goofystitch]

I'm sad that it is ending it's run so early, but two good things are coming from this for me. The first is that my boyfriend and I might fly out there for my birthday and see the show, which we otherwise wouldn't have done. We are pricing it out right now and seeing if it can be done. The other is the fact that they are starting a tour next year. I'm surprised by the year long hiatus between its closing and the tour, since most shows that close on Broadway start the tour a few weeks later, simply packing everything up and moving it. Since they are closing it down, they will have to recast, retrain, and possibly rebuild whatever sets they couldn't store, all of which will cost money, but probably not as much as it costs to run the show several months with smaller crowds.

So either way, I, and many of us, will have a better opportunity to see the show now. I wonder if Disney is kicking themselves for closing Beauty and the Beast?

[PeterPanfan]

I better get my butt to NYC to see this before it closes.

[tsom]

At least it's touring!!!

All I can say is:

I loved most of the new song. I also applaud the effort of putting this magical story on stage.

I understand not liking the sets, but can someone please tell me how else they could have done the whole merpeople swimming underwater without using heelies or wires?

One big mistake was the book. Why would you have "Under the Sea" sung after Triton destroys the grotto? It doesn't make sense.

Hopefully, it gets revived years from now with a better book and better creative team.

[UmbrellaFish]

I wasn't expecting that, but the reason makes sense. At least it's not closing because of low attendance...

[Disney Duster]

I wasn't expecting that, but the reason makes sense. At least it's not closing because of low attendance...

Then what is the reason it is closing?

[SpringHeelJack]

It pretty much is closing because of low attendance. It's all a business-speak way of saying. "Mermaid" hasn't been doing exceptionally well, and they figure it's best to shut down now before losses become too great. I could be wrong, but I don't think the show ever broke even. It's closing because it's losing money, simple as that.

[goofystitch]

It is closing because it is very expensive to run. The end of summer always marks the lowest period of attendance to Broadway shows. Typically, shows drop to about 70% attendance. I'm assuming that to turn a profit on a performance, Disney would need to sell more than that and therefore have decided to end the run. I know this wasn't planned in advance because Sean Palmer, the original Prince Eric, was scheduled to return to the show on September 1st, the day after Drew Seeley's run was to end. I am also assuming that this is why August 30th was chosen.

My boyfriend booked our hotel and our plane tickets. My mom and brother want to come, so I am waiting for confirmation from them to get tickets for my Birthday. I'm so excited! I haven't been to New York since April 2001 (we stayed in the World Trade Center).