What's the problem with Little Mermaid??

[Samara.tanner]

Posted: 8/19/17 at 11:34pm

After reading the Frozen thread quite a few times, I've seen it being compared to TLM. I happened to have seen Little Mermaid and loved it, especially the sets and technical elements. Norm Lewis was a stand out for me. I understand it didn't run for very long on Broadway, but why? What made it so unappealing? I'm just wondering because it's been one of my favorite shows for as long as I can remember, especially since it was one of the first musicals I was in. 

[BobPopa]

Posted: 8/19/17 at 11:42pm

It's just doesn't transfer to stage well. The script fleshed out from the 90 minute movie becomes very week.  Only a few of the new songs are good. The Junior Version is much better...because it's only 75 minutes long. The current tour out is pretty bad, and it's not the performers...it's the show (and I love the film)

[Scarlet Leigh]

Posted: 8/20/17 at 12:01am

Mermaid is one that everyone will give you a totally different opinion on why they like or in more cases don't like it. For me personally it comes down to two big things that made the show unforgivable 1.) the change of the ending and 2.) the overall look of the show designs.

So first, cutting the plot point of Vanessa and replacing her with a head scratching 'princess singing contest' was one of the most dumb, what were they actually thinking moves I have ever seen. And unnecessary as well. There was no reason why Vanessa would not still work in the stage show. It seemed like they needed to tack on another song for the ensemble women to sing so they tossed that in there.

And second, there was something just very UGLY about the look of everything in the show. Things did not go well together. These big obnoxious set pieces that were trying to be abstract but were just too much. And that THING they rolled out during Under the Sea and Kiss the Girl that was like sad carnival ride with flying performers spinning around as they waved their arms? I still remember my jaw dropping in amazement over that ridiculous thing. And then we had the mermaid costumes with those tails flopping around behind everyone as they heelied around the stage?.They have proven since in other productions that there are MUCH better ways to get the idea of mermaid tails across without looking like your performers are pooping out a dolphin the whole time.

The one thing I DID appreciated was the color scheme of very cool colors when under water switching to warm tones when on land and then combining them in the end. THAT worked well.

Updated On: 8/20/17 at 12:01 AM

[rattleNwoolypenguin]

Posted: 8/20/17 at 12:12am

I agree too that the story just doesn't lend itself to being padded to 2 and a half hours. And as much as I love Alan Menken, I find time and time again anytime he writes new material for a property of his that was a film adapted to the stage, it's just very very forgettable. "She's In Love" is very fun but Scuttle's songs are atrocious and the ballads all run together as blander variations of "Part of Your World" and then takes away the power and beautiful simplicity of the melody of "Part of Your World"

And really, it's just one of those cartoons where everything was written FOR the freedom that animation allows. Part of Your World is gorgeous cause she's truly swimming and the music matches her flowing hair etc. Poor Unfortunate Souls is so lively and frightening in animated form as is Ursula period. Ursula in the film is very funny but she is also GENUINELY scary, which I found in the Broadway show she was not. She was camp and nothing else. 

[Itonlytakesajourney]

Posted: 8/20/17 at 12:30am

The Little Mermaid is just not a good show period. As mentioned above, the singing contest was about one of the most atrocious things ever done when transferring screen to stage shows. What on earth were they actually thinking? Ursula was campy and a joke. She looked and sounded a hot mess in the obc, and managed to make Poor Unfortunate Souls one of the worst things my musical theatre-loving ears have ever heard. Also the production just looked really cheap. I still do not understand why wearing Heelys onstage was ever a considered and approved thought. The ensemble was a mixture of gaudy plastic-looking costumes, and it managed to look more like a Red Room studios show than a Broadway one. I loved the added songs, but everything else was unfortunately bad. 

[Scarlet Leigh]

Posted: 8/20/17 at 12:56am

The thing about the whole singing contest replacing Vanessa thing is that they could have had BOTH if they REALLY wanted. They kinda TRIED to do that with having the singing stop him from kissing Ariel but.... okay that doesn't work because he has already chosen Ariel. To have him then hesitate when he hears the voice does not show the strength of his feelings for Ariel, even if he throws out a, "she's to late" comment. He still hesitates.
 
How to fix this, keeping both ideas? 

Have Vanessa actually physically show up and sing at the contest. You can put an ensemble woman in a black wig and play the Ariel audio, they were already half doing that. Have Eric be drawn to her as if in a trance and declare her the winner, having Sebastian or Scuttle make a comment from the side like "Look at that around her neck! The shell! It must be Ursula!" Exchange some looks between her and Ariel. That evil looks of victory from Vanessa/Ursula and at first in Ariel we see defeat but it turns to determination as she steps forward and dances. Everyone laughs at her like they have already written but she only keeps dancing as they laugh, but Eric is not laughing. She is able to snap him out of his trance because it wasn't about the voice, it was about Ariel. Even without her voice, she still speaks to him through Ursula's magic influence.

There! You can keep Vanessa and the contest (even through the contest is still super dumb) but it adds some much needed suspense to the moment.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 8/20/17 at 1:22am

I haven't seen a design concept that truly works for the mermaids. I will say I liked the heelys better than the current tour stringing Ariel up on a wire in a long flowing skirt. It doesn't look like a tail and it doesn't afford her the fluidity of movement comparable to the way the mermaids swim about in the film. Also I liked "I Want the Good Times Back" much more than "Daddy's Little Angel." The revisions and reordering of scenes and songs doesn't seem to have helped make the show any better.

[Xman8]

Posted: 8/20/17 at 1:34am

What I felt the problem with The Little Mermaid on stage was that it was sterile and felt like a paint by numbers style of musical. The sets were too gaudy and the mermaid costumes weren't effective. The singing competition cheapened the mood, basically making Eric look like a jerk than someone who we root for to end up with Ariel like we did in the movie. The modern references in "She's In Love" is too distracting. How can you add "sashimi" into the lyrics.

 

Now onto Ursula. Ursula is one of my favorite Disney villains tied with Gaston. Ursula is the opposite of everything. As a woman she comes across as manly and she is not like the Mermaids with her Octopus/Squid torso. Ursula is supposed to be a legit threat and actually scary in the film. As well as Flotsam and Jetsam who on stage were portrayed as sassy bitches instead of scary henchmen. Ursula actually cares for them in the movie unlike on stage she treats them as lackeys. "Poor Unfortunate Souls" is supposed to have that oomph and power instead of being the sugary mess we get on the OBC. Also, I've always believed that Ursula had to be portrayed by a man instead of woman. Her character was based on Divine..a man in drag. On stage Ursula is way too feminine.

[GeorgeandDot]

Posted: 8/20/17 at 2:24am

Harvey Fierstein should have played Ursula.

[haterobics]

Posted: 8/20/17 at 3:08am

If I recall properly, the problem with the little mermaid is she isn't happy living underwater and it curious about humans and she ends up falling in love with a prince after she rescues him...

Updated On: 8/22/17 at 03:08 AM

[Dave28282]

Posted: 8/20/17 at 4:23am

The Disney Classic has the wonderful fluidity and magic of animation, no unnecessary songs, a 35 piece orchestra, normal sized animals, everything moving naturally underwater, elegance, etc.

The stage version has none of this. It looks like a sack of potatoes on a stage.

Updated On: 8/20/17 at 04:23 AM

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 8/20/17 at 5:14am

rattleNwoolypenguin said: " And as much as I love Alan Menken, I find time and time again anytime he writes new material for a property of his that was a film adapted to the stage, it's just very very forgettable. "She's In Love" is very fun but Scuttle's songs are atrocious and the ballads all run together as blander variations of "Part of Your World" and then takes away the power and beautiful simplicity of the melody of "Part of Your World"
 

*Cough Glenn Slater cough*

Also, it's hard to depict underwater creatures on stage. They needed a concept as brilliant as The Lion King to convey what was comparatively easy to depict in animation. And they didn't have one because... fish. Spongebob appears to just be actors running around stylized as the characters without animal costumes. We'll see what happens if they ever get desperate enough to make Finding Nemo a musical. 

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 8/20/17 at 10:42am

Disney already made a Finding Nemo musical at the Animal Kingdom park utilizing puppets with songs by Robert and Kristen-Anderson Lopez.

[BobPopa]

Posted: 8/20/17 at 11:16am

"She's in Love" is the best song of those added for the musical and in the original was adorable with a little boy and the adult sisters. It's just cute (and it's that written that way in the junior). But since they have revised the script since Broadway Flounder is now typically "a teenager" and cast as a young adult male, and it loses it's cuteness factor, plus they changed Flounder from being jealous that his "best friend" is falling in love, to this subplot that he loves Ariel...Yuck! 

It's also one role that even in Junior version that loses it's punch when played by a girl. IMO the songs ONLY works with a little boy and older girls. 

[BwayDreamer00]

Posted: 8/22/17 at 12:17pm

The problem with The Little Mermaid on stage is that it often comes off way too bloated because too many ideas are crammed into one. The original broadway production in my opponion was OK but no where near as good at The Lion King, Beauty and The Beast or Aida. I thought the cast was great. Sierra Boggess and Norm Lewis both have BEAUTIFUL voices and strong acting. Sherie Rene Scott got mixed reviews as Ursula but I thought she was fine a bit more an over the top diva comic relief Ursula then a melicious vengeful Ursula from the original.....Eric was very attractive but seemed a bit bored but Flounder seemed like he was having a fun time (despite his ugly costume) speaking about the costumes.....at times they were fine but most of the time especially when they were under water the costumes looked horrible. They looked like a merge of aliens that had a party with drag queens just very bleh. I did like the design of the mermaids though. I liked how they stuck with the seashell tops and tails. Ursulas costume was okay but I was expecting more. Founders costume was well a disgrace to the costume society (it was a yellow t shirt with blue cut outs, gym shorts, and some sketchers like shoes off of amazon.) I thought the on land costumes were much more pleasing to look at. In terms of the very poloarized heelys, I liked them. I thought it gave a very nice effect as they flowed aroun the stage. And I loved the set as well. But this was mainly because of the lighting design. The lighting design of this show was jaw dropping beautiful. The color schemes and backdrops were stunning. It was a huge saving grace. In terms of the score I love Alan Menken and Howard Ashman. There music is so catchy and beautiful. The news songs (since there were so many) were now with lyrics by Glenn Slater. Some of the songs I loved. She's In Love has literally nothing to do with the plot but it's so catchy and fun that it doesn't matter. The World Above is also very beautiful and nice even if it is only 2 minutes long. The finale is also very beautiful. But Human Stuff and Positoovity? And The Contest?????? What was that???????????????? Just very bad lyrics and very poor melodies. If it wasn't for those songs then this would've been one of favorite scores of all time. I also didn't like the dancing? It felt very flat? I liked Under the Sea and that tap break in Positoovity but everything else was so meh. Mainly because of the heelys so. Overall I found the production to be enjoyable but it could've been so much better!! 

[raddersons]

Posted: 8/22/17 at 12:29pm

Recently saw the tour. Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King are able to escape the fact that the source material was made for children. The Little Mermaid is not for whatever reason... and that seems to be the biggest issue with it. 

[uncageg]

Posted: 8/22/17 at 1:48pm

I just remember walking out of the theater when I saw the pre-Broadway run in Denver thinking that Sierra Bogges was the only one who's body language/movement suggested that they were under water. 

The show itself was entertaining but not something I would have seen a second time.

[Rakstovall]

Posted: 8/22/17 at 2:17pm

Granted it's been years since I saw it -- and I saw it during previews since official opening was delayed due to the writers' strike that year, so it's possible they changed some things after I saw it -- but I remember loving parts and being so disappointed at other parts. Little Mermaid was my absolute favorite movie growing up so being a Broadway lover I was determined to see it right away. My opinions line up with most others here but I think overall the reason is that it just didn't have the innovation or wow-factor some of the other Disney Broadway shows have had.

I was skeptical of how they would do the underwater scenes but after Lion King I had such high hopes they'd come up with something innovative...my response was meh. I didn't mind the heelies as much as I thought I would but I agree that some actors pulled them off better than others. I thought the underwater sets were so bad, almost something out of the live 30 min show they do at Disney World, not Broadway-caliber at all. It just looked like a chunk of plastic with things stuck to it (plastic pipe, plastic fork, plastic starfish -- just bad). That being said, the lighting was beautiful, and I loved the way they pulled off the scene when she swims to the surface when she gets her legs (on a wire swimming to the top of the set and then popping up on the stage on the shore), I thought that was cool. The costumes were pretty bad, particularly for the animal sidekick roles.

I remember thinking Ursula was just not menacing nor was her voice soulful enough, and I agree with other posters that a man playing her part might have worked better. I, too, was disappointed with the elimination of Vanessa's role (I always loved that part of the movie) and the addition of the singing contest scene was dumb, but that being said I did like how it ended up that Eric fell for Ariel despite thinking she wasn't "the voice" -- as in, he actually fell in love with her as a person vs. some mysterious voice on the beach. Sierra Boggess's voice was just beautiful, like Ariel come to life. I thought she was great.

As for the new songs, I loved "She's in Love," "The World Above," and "If Only" (the quartet is very beautiful) but, as others have said, Scuttle's songs were really weak. 

[James885]

Posted: 8/22/17 at 3:01pm

Everyone else has pretty much hit the nail on the head. It was a combination of the bad book which inflated the story, the additional songs by Menken/Slater, none of which matched the original Ashman/Menken songs (although I do like 'Her Voice', all of which add up to a mediocre show.

The Broadway production still is probably one of the ugliest shows I've seen - and I say this as a fan of George Tyspin's work. Those two giant bong towers which dominated the stage for most of the show were just ridiculous.

Cutting Vanessa was detrimental to the story as it sucked nearly all the tension out of the second act. I would love to know what the rationale was behind that decision.

Updated On: 8/22/17 at 03:01 PM

[Christoph]

Posted: 8/22/17 at 3:10pm

I have seen all of the Disney shows so far.  The Little Mermaid was one of my favorite Disney films, but I have to say that I rank the show near the bottom of the transfers.  I do not think it transfers well at all.  I remember thinking Sherie Rene Scott made a wonderful Ursula and there were certain other things I did like - including Norm Lewis and the young boy that played Flounder.  However, someone forgot to write a part for Prince Eric, who literally does practically nothing for his entire duration on stage.  Truly the only thing I can remember is that the actor had dark hair and wore breeches two sizes too tight, which caused me to have concern for his health.  Act II was a real disaster if memory serves.  The pacing is sluggish and the ending was such a non-event that I could not believe it was over and that Ursula was vanquished so easily.  I kept waiting for the character to reappear and then they were taking bows and kept thinking "Was that it?"  I just found it profoundly disappointing, especially given the source material.  Disney could have splurged for some Act II spectacle.

[LYLS3637]

Posted: 8/22/17 at 3:12pm

Once they cast a younger woman as Ursula, you knew it wasn't going to be anything worthwhile. If any character cried out for a Edna Turnblad-treatment, it's freaking Ursula. 

Or at the very least, cast a Bea Arthur/Rosalind Russell-type.

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 8/22/17 at 3:56pm

LYLS3637 said: "Once they cast a younger woman as Ursula, you knew it wasn't going to be anything worthwhile. If any character cried out for a Edna Turnblad-treatment, it's freaking Ursula. 

Or at the very least, cast a Bea Arthur/Rosalind Russell-type.

 

Mary Testa?

 

[MrsSallyAdams]

Posted: 8/22/17 at 3:57pm

Back in 2006 there was a demo recording floating around of Emily Skinner as Ursula. She had a one-joke song called "Wasting Away" and a Vanessa reprise of "Poor Unfortunate Souls."

Gossip on the boards said they wanted to cast a young actress who could step out of the Ursula costume to transform into Vanessa. Then the costume they ended up putting Sherie Rene Scott in didn't work (I recall she could barely move in the thing) so they wrote Vanessa out during/before the Denver try out. Can anyone here confirm?

[Justin D]

Posted: 8/22/17 at 4:00pm

I haven't seen it, but reading the above comments makes me wonder, do you all feel that it might have done better if Lion King was NOT done?

Would this have been seen as being innovative without the Lion King comparison?

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 8/22/17 at 4:02pm

The only thing I really remember with this show was being excited about Sherie Renee Scott as Ursula, and then actually hearing her perform "Poor Unfortunate Souls" in character and being incredibly disappointed. All she did was scream throughout it with no character and without good timing.