DVDizzy Forum

L. O. L. Thread win.

candydog wrote:I assume the fabric attached to her arms is to give the "swimming" effect a more visual impact, like rippling water.

...I'm pretty sure they're her flippers/fins. Could be wrong but...I don't see why they would be just waves...and other sea creatures don't have them...

tsom wrote:In the original story, the statue in the mermaid's garden is said to resemble the prince she saves.

But If I remember correctly, it isn't actually supposed to be him, like in the Disney version.

I am also curious what the new song they added for Ursula will be. My guess is she won't be his sister anymore, and appearantly the new song explains where she's from.

Maybe it's the song from the musical demo? Can't remember the title right now, though.

From the original fairy tale:

"She was a strange child, quiet and thoughtful; and while her sisters would be delighted with the wonderful things which they obtained from the wrecks of vessels, she cared for nothing but her pretty red flowers, like the sun, excepting a beautiful marble statue. It was the representation of a handsome boy, carved out of pure white stone, which had fallen to the bottom of the sea from a wreck. She planted by the statue a rose-colored weeping willow. It grew splendidly, and very soon hung its fresh branches over the statue, almost down to the blue sands. The shadow had a violet tint, and waved to and fro like the branches; it seemed as if the crown of the tree and the root were at play, and trying to kiss each other...Many an evening and morning did she rise to the place where she had left the prince. She saw the fruits in the garden ripen till they were gathered, the snow on the tops of the mountains melt away; but she never saw the prince, and therefore she returned home, always more sorrowful than before. It was her only comfort to sit in her own little garden, and fling her arm round the beautiful marble statue which was like the prince; but she gave up tending her flowers, and they grew in wild confusion over the paths, twining their long leaves and stems round the branches of the trees, so that the whole place became dark and gloomy."

So Im guessing the statue and the prince were the same figures?

Oh and Ursula's cut songs were Wasting Away, Ursula's Incantation II (Poor Unfortunate Souls Reprise), and All Good Things Must End.

I feel like Anderson meant for the statue just to be like the prince to her. It's handsome, it's a man, she can hold it and pretend its him. In a way, it feels more both mor real, sad, and poignantly hitting me.

But I still think Disney should keep their Disney version where it's really Eric. And it's what Flounder uses to get Ariel away from Under the Sea and for Triton to find her with.

Supertalies, if you meant the demos for the Broadway musical, in Wasting Away she said she ruled the palace but "broke a rule" and used black magic, so...I think what it means is she ruled the palace but did so evilly and unfairly with her magic so she was gotten rid of by Triton. I like what the DVD revealed was a possible concept for her - that Triton was always ruler, and Ursula tried to overthrow him, which in a way is, I guess, the other way around of what the film and musical demos say! But I guess it would give Ursula more reason to want revenge if she had already ruled before. But people always want power, it's an understandable motivation for a fairly powerful witch, and in a way, not necessarily wrong (was Triton voted into office? lol).

Yes, but there was no statue in the 2008 Broadway version. The only thing I recall Ariel getting as a reminder of Eric was his telescope.

Disney Duster wrote:Sotiris, if you meant the demos for the Broadway musical [...]

I don't think that reply was meant for me.

I forget if there was a statue or not in the Broadway version. I feel like there was, but I bet there wasn't. Either way if there wasn't...the Netherlands statue is still too big! Heh heh.

Sotiris wrote:I don't think that reply was meant for me.

I have not been sleeping, hehe!

Disney Duster wrote:Supertalies, if you meant the demos for the Broadway musical.

Yes, that's the one I meant My guess is they will just be adding Wasting Away to the show, but maybe they'll write a whole new song? *I know, probably not*

Here's the concept art in better quality.

There was no statue in the Broadway version. Ariel found Eric's telescope. Oh, and the destruction of the grotto occurred before Under the Sea.

The first one looks like concept art.

The second one looks like images pasted onto a lot of sqaure boxes/frames. That mermaid is from the Disney Dreams photos, and I doubt that water is the actual water, though I gotta say, projecting such water to cover the whole stage could very well be a marvelous idea, but from the clip we saw it looks like they're using physical sets for water which I consider better just for the mere fact of it being real theatre that way, so it's better theatre.

The boxes/window frames in the concept art and clip we saw kind of ruin the underwater effect in my opinion. I'd say they're not a good idea unless they need them for some reason.

tsom wrote:Oh, and the destruction of the grotto occurred before Under the Sea.

I know. I was saying that was a bad move and I hope they change it back for this production. : )

Disney Duster wrote:but from the clip we saw it looks like they're using physical sets for water which I consider better just for the mere fact of it being real theatre that way, so it's better theatre.

Have you ever read/seen Wilder's Our Town? No sets/props in that, and it's pretty darn good.



Anyway, I think this new version looks pretty cool; I really wasn't that satisfied with the Broadway version we got, so it's nice to see a different approach to the same thing.

TheSequelOfDisney wrote:Have you ever read/seen Wilder's Our Town? No sets/props in that, and it's pretty darn good.

First, yea there is, there's a ladder. And second, I meant to use video projections as the set is not doing theatre but doing...well, movie. I woudn't mind it, and I'd still consider it theatre for the rest of the sets and of course the live actors, but I was talking about being authentic theatre.

Disney Duster wrote:I doubt that water is the actual water, though I gotta say, projecting such water to cover the whole stage could very well be a marvelous idea, but from the clip we saw it looks like they're using physical sets for water which I consider better just for the mere fact of it being real theatre that way, so it's better theatre.

The boxes/window frames in the concept art and clip we saw kind of ruin the underwater effect in my opinion. I'd say they're not a good idea unless they need them for some reason.

I actually prefer the use of physical sets over projections as well, but both are just as valid as forms of theatrical scenery, I don't think that one makes for "better theatre" than the other.

Also, the "window frames" you see in the pictures are in fact very important and you'll notice them in most theatre productions done on a proscenium arch stage - they're known as "borders" and "legs", though their names vary in different parts of the world. Their purpose is to mask the wings and fly space/lighting rig at the sides and above the stage. They prevent the audience from seeing things that they shouldn't be able to see such as actors waiting to make entrances, set pieces in the wings and any number of pieces of equipment such as lights.

Putting Under the Sea after the Destruction of the Grotto was a bad idea! I have high hopes for this production.

Hey, a ship belonging to the royal family of Corona! Rapunzel and Eugene on a honeymoon!

tsom wrote:Putting Under the Sea after the Destruction of the Grotto was a bad idea! I have high hopes for this production.

Well, it kind of does make sense to do that because of a few things.

For one thing, King Triton destroyed Ariel's treasures, driving her to lose her respect for him and the ocean. Also, Sebastian is trying to convince her not to go to the surface to change her life.

DisneyJedi wrote:

tsom wrote:Putting Under the Sea after the Destruction of the Grotto was a bad idea! I have high hopes for this production.

Well, it kind of does make sense to do that because of a few things.

For one thing, King Triton destroyed Ariel's treasures, driving her to lose her respect for him and the ocean. Also, Sebastian is trying to convince her not to go to the surface to change her life.

But then it doesn't make sense to me that after the destruction of the grotto, Ariel is dancing and cheerfully happy during the Under the Sea number before she decides to runaway. Even if it was a ruse for Sebastian, I just don't think anyone would be in a cheerful mood as a way to trick someone right after your prized possessions were destroyed.

Yea it's also because the destruction of the grotto simply loses it's emotional impact when Under the Sea happens afterward! It flowed much more smoothly into Poor Unfortunate Souls.

candydog, I gotcha. And thanks for the explaining, I thought maybe they weren't needed but it's too bad they can't find a way around them.

The first try-out will be tonight!

I'm curious to hear what people think of it! I hope there'll be some sort of review up soon.

EDIT: According to people who've seen the show tonight it looks really good. The song 'Human Stuff' was deleted, and Ursula's new song is called 'Papa's kleine meisje' in Dutch, which translates to 'Daddy"s little girl'. Don't know if it's a completely new song, or just a translation of an old unused Ursula song, but I think it sounds like a new one. I'm curious what Ursula's dad has to do with anything and if she and Triton are still siblings

If they were to only get rid of only one scuttle song, it's Positivooty that is the one that should do. That one sucks so much, it's terrible. But of both went, that would probably be best hehe.

I don't think Ursula's new song refers to her own father. I think she's singing about Ariel being daddy's little girl when discussing her plans to use her to get Triton and take back over the kingdom. That's my guess.