Little Mermaid Special effects

[italianpride888]

Posted: 6/23/08 at 2:38am

I was watching various clips from the little mermaid on you tube, and I was noticing how unimaginative some of the effects were. Some were pretty cool like the Eric drowning. But for instance, when they show Ariel at the end getting her legs for real, (yawn).. they could have done so much more with that. There were some other things that I thought would have been 100% Disney imagineered out. I guess not.

I mean even in the powerful song "Poor Unfortunate Souls" it was a snoozer when it came to really cool effects. (with the exception of the costume and the unstable shell)
Updated On: 6/23/08 at 02:38 AM

[fnyboi88]

Posted: 6/23/08 at 10:29am

A lot of people had high expectations for the Disney magic with this show. It fell way below short for a lot. I don't mind, from what I've seen it's still an okay show.

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 6/23/08 at 10:32am

Special effects?! SPECIAL EFFECTS?!

What special effects?

[Robert Taylor]

Posted: 6/23/08 at 10:45am

I know I'm in the minority here, but I loved the fact that the show mixed old-school stage effects with newer technology.

[toanythingtaboo 2]

Posted: 6/23/08 at 10:57am

i find the Prince Eric drowning and the Ariel transformation into a human, pretty cool.

its the only part that really convinced me that i was watching a high end expensive show.

that, and Ursula's costume haha.

I always wondered how they did the Ariel transformation scene, not the actually wire bit, because thats obviously a stunt double + wires, but the fact Sierra must go into that globe thing, go down through it into a drap door...then when the tide, em, 'goes back to the stage level'? she comes up from that trap door in a change of costume to rise on the surface...

i guessed thats what happens? anyone know for sure?

slash, was anyone else kind of let down by Ursula's 'Poor Unfortunate Souls (Reprise)' when she turns up all 'evil' and such? in the film she grows into this huge sea beast and creates havoc, but on the stage show...nothing really happened?

bit of a let down.

[DrewBill]

Posted: 6/23/08 at 11:11am

Yes, "The Little Mermaid" is sadly a missed opportunity -- it's very disappointing.

But what bothers me more than the lack of "special effects" is that nearly everything on stage appears to be made of plastic (or something that looks like plastic). As many have mentioned in past threads/reviews, the plastic "water" has the look and feel of shower curtains.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 6/23/08 at 11:14am

Is it any wonder that rumors abound about Disney closing this show after the summer and reviving BEAUTY AND THE BEAST for the Holiday Season?

[Robert Taylor]

Posted: 6/23/08 at 11:20am

I love rumors.

Because Disney is really that lame-brained to replace a million-a-week show that has standing ovations every night with a show that (until its final three weeks) only grossed an average of 500-700K a week and was just as big of a critical disappointment.

Yeah, I love rumors. They make me laugh more than "Arrested Development."

[Dollypop]

Posted: 6/23/08 at 11:23am

Almost every show gets standing ovulations these days.

[Robert Taylor]

Posted: 6/23/08 at 11:26am

But does every show hit 900K-1 million a week?

*crickets*

[DrewBill]

Posted: 6/23/08 at 11:27am

Robert: Tourists will stand for anything. Actually, the night I saw "Mermaid," I was surprised that only about half of the audience gave it an ovation. The rest just headed to the doors.

[Robert Taylor]

Posted: 6/23/08 at 11:31am

I don't get how a comment about Disney not being stupid enough to replace TLM with a revival of B&TB and talking about the financial healthiness of the show and the fact that audiences (and yes, I get that it is mostly tourists, and there is really no problem with that) love it has turned into people giving me a talking to about what standing ovations really mean. Yeah, it might make a ton of money but that applause it gets really isn't actual applause from people who count...uh huh

Actually, it's kind of funny.
Updated On: 6/23/08 at 11:31 AM

[H.Higgins]

Posted: 6/23/08 at 12:33pm

"and was just as big of a critical disappointment."


Just wanted to say that while many critics took their shots at Beauty and the Beast when it opened, it was in no way the same critical disaster that is The Little Mermaid. They had a field day over the mess that is The Little Mermaid.

The Little Mermaid can run for years on it's name alone, but that's really a travesty. Disney should be ashamed of what they are currently runing at the Lunt-Fontanne. It could have been a magical experience, but instead it's a trainwreck.

They truly put glitter on a turd with this one...

[it'sjustshowbiz]

Posted: 6/23/08 at 12:43pm

*possible spoiler*

toanythingtaboo2, there are two doubles for Ariel in the transformation scene. The one that pops up at the very end of Act 1 is not Sierra.

[gypsy4]

Posted: 6/23/08 at 12:44pm

The whole transformation at the end of act 1 was a little old fashion but creative it needed pyrotechnics

[defyingravity07]

Posted: 6/23/08 at 1:17pm

Ariel's final transformation is the stupidest effect I saw. I mean really, is that all they could come up with?

[TheatreFreak05]

Posted: 6/23/08 at 1:28pm

I agree! She just kinda... sheds her tail... LAIM!

[defyingravity07]

Posted: 6/23/08 at 1:32pm

I mean they don't even TRY to do it slylly. You can see them take off the costume.

[SirNotAppearing]

Posted: 6/23/08 at 1:58pm

Did anyone else notice that Dollypop said "standing OVULATION"?

Hehe.

[italianpride888]

Posted: 6/23/08 at 2:09pm

So what we can conclude is that The Little Mermaid is a theatrical bummer.

I mean for God's sakes, in the very beginning of Beauty and the Beast, the enchantress throws a fireball and turns the prince into a beast. That's so awesome. And it only got better from there.

[jacobsnchz14]

Posted: 6/23/08 at 2:18pm

That transformation kind of makes this one good.

PART ONE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-SJ2cgxH84
PART TWO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B60hSxPaRfQ

Part two as the actual trasformation.

BTW, I always imagined Tatiana doing costumes for Flotsam and Jetsam like these.
Updated On: 6/23/08 at 02:18 PM

[toanythingtaboo 2]

Posted: 6/23/08 at 2:29pm

it'sjustshowbiz,

thanks! that does make far more sense.


i agree with people above in saying that the look of the show is pretty poor, i seem to remember the Disneyworld show of TLM being more interesting.

i'm sure i heard that a critic described the Broadway show looking like it had been designed by a tacky transvestite, which kind of hits the nail on the head to be honest.

i always thought that it would have been better if the parts of Flounder/Sebastian/basically all the fish were puppets? not the Avenue Q style, the Lion King kind of effect.

that would have worked far better. a kid wearing a baggy yellow shirt and blue hair doesn't scream out 'FISH' to me.

[H.Higgins]

Posted: 6/23/08 at 2:53pm

toanythingtaboo2-

-- "i always thought that it would have been better if the parts of Flounder/Sebastian/basically all the fish were puppets? not the Avenue Q style, the Lion King kind of effect."

I agree. Once the show was announced, I really hoped that the animals in the cast would be inventive puppets a la The Lion King. If only Julie Taymor could have done The Little Mermaid. But that, sadly, was never going to happen.


-- "a kid wearing a baggy yellow shirt and blue hair doesn't scream out 'FISH' to me."

AMEN.

[toanythingtaboo 2]

Posted: 6/23/08 at 3:16pm

i don't get what they were doing with the set either.

its as if they were attempting an abstract looking Lion King inspired set. but its safe to say that the plains of africa don't typically resemble the depths of the ocean.

would it not have been better for the underwater scenes to look, well, underwater?

when i heard about the show i immediately pictured big coral sets with Ariel singing amongst them. fish swimming around etc.
instead we got something that looks like a blown up accessory for a doll. the pinkish plasticy lumps + metalic spinny things.


does anyone have any alternatives to how they could have done the swimming mermaids and their costumes? thats the only bit i can't really slate, because i have no realistic solutions.

other than just hang them all up on wires. it worked in the drowning/transformation sequences...so i guess it would have been ok.

[James885]

Posted: 6/23/08 at 3:36pm

I too, thought the set was really ugly. Those two giant bongs were hideous eyesores. I also thought that the underwater environments looked...flat. I mean, isn't there life at all levels of the ocean? I think it would have been cool to maybe have projections of fish swimming in the background or something.

Also agree about the (lack of) special effects in the show. I love enjoy seeing most of Disney's shows, but they really dropped the ball with The Little Mermaid.