|
|
Post by fridamoonbeam on Sept 2, 2010 0:50:34 GMT -5
The origanal cut for Fathoms Below confirms it. ^^
|
|
|
|
Post by Zavi on Sept 3, 2010 8:59:20 GMT -5
Yep! On the DVD there's a deleted version of Fathoms Below that reveals that Ursula is Triton's sister. And the Broadway version plays this straight. I tried to find the deleted scene on YouTube for ya but I don't think they have it. If somebody finds it, posting the link would be appreciated.  If anyone follows my antics on Fant., I had a mini-theory that Vanessa was Ursula's form before she went bad: it explains the whole "WTF AN OCTOPUS LADY AND A MERMAN ARE SIBLINGS?!" issue. And I like the family resemblance to Ariel, albeit with an attitude and some superchic arched eyebrows. I can't say much more because I have class in 20 minutes, but I think it's plausible that the octopus form was either a) a form Ursula was cursed to be or b) a form Ursula gave herself (via a potion/magic) to create a more intimidating, powerful image. She certainly likes to flaunt her tentacle-bod, so I think she likes herself like that at least. LOL |
|
|
|
Post by 1luckyunicorn on Sept 3, 2010 11:01:22 GMT -5
I knew the play used the sister angle for Ursula, but I didn't know that the movie included it as well (or was going to anyways). Huh, you learn something new everyday.  Disney sure loves evil relatives, lol. Yeah, I was one of those people who was like "How can Ursula and Triton be siblings when they seem to be different species?", but I like that theory you've cooked up about Ursula, Mare. ... No, I don't have anything of substance to add to this thread. XD |
|
|
|
Post by fridamoonbeam on Sept 3, 2010 12:12:58 GMT -5
Disney sure loves evil relatives, lol. *gigglesnort* That's so true. xD I was thinking along the same lines as Mare too. Mermaid had the 'deal with the devil' theme. Now I'm going to get a little phylosophical on you guys xD. I kind of thought they also may have used the Lucifer story as a reference and his fall for the great witchy. i mean, why were there no other octopus people around? She liked being scary I think, and got more of a high then being Nessa beautiful, like Mare said. I get annoyed when people ask "why didn't Ursula want to look like Nessa all the time" Well did you not notice Ursula totally thought of herself as a hot babe. And hey there is something really sexy about the witchy in both forms. Another thing I get annoyed about is that people also complain that "they made the bad person ugly!" Well in case you didn't notice she COULD make herself 'ideal' looking, but she was still bad underneath. |
|
|
|
Post by WickedElphie on Sept 7, 2010 17:41:14 GMT -5
In people's defense I think the latter complaint is more of an across-the-board things. That the villains are generally unattractive or at least "different"-looking while the heroes are all impossibly beautiful and handsome. I.e. before Disney the Stepsisters were generally not called ugly, and were maybe even almost as beautiful as as Cinderella, just overly made up and still not nice people. And that really speaks to a larger problem about lack of physical diversity in movies and tv, particularily for women, that I don't feel like going into. But yeah, Different/Ugly=Bad, Conforming/Pretty=Good and vice versa is not a healthy moral.
That said, it's interesting that StageUrsula is much more attaractive than the film version.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coral on Sept 7, 2010 18:14:00 GMT -5
The ugly=bad thing has existed for well over a thousand years. And honestly, a bad person is ugly on the inside and eventually that does translate to the outside. It is a rather misleading thing to do, but it's also very ingrained into our collective consciousness. Even though we're more aware of it now, that's not an easy thing to let go of en masse. It's something that will take time and be a very slow, drawn-out process.
Mare, I like that theory!
|
|
|
|
Post by Zavi on Sept 7, 2010 20:40:01 GMT -5
And even though Ursula is "ugly" in the conventional sense, I'd argue that her personality makes her overshine the physical appearance. She's incredibly confident and suave and has a personality to fit those tentacles of hers--I'd say that's quite a vamp! StageUrsula plays vamp straight, of course. They translated filmUrsula's personality into her looks and it made for a villainess made of awesome. Except for the fact that there was no Vanessa, but you can't win 'em all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coral on Sept 7, 2010 22:07:28 GMT -5
I think they translated Ursula to the stage quite well and I can almost forgive the lack of Vanessa, based solely on the way Ursula was written. I love me a good vamp!
|
|
|
|
Post by WickedElphie on Sept 8, 2010 0:11:54 GMT -5
My main issue with the lack of Vanessa is that without her the plot sort of stalls from "If Only" to Ursula's reappearance. I actually have a hard time believing that Eric and Ariel spent no time together from the morning of the third day until the party/contest. Given his escalating feelings for her it strains suspension of disbelief a little. Also it leaves the contest scene without any tension since the audience already knows that none of these random girlies rescued Eric and we *know* from his behavior that he won't mistake any of them for her. And the conflict after that is sloppy and rushed and doesn't really work.
They reworked the ending slightly at least twice after it premiered on Broadway and it'll probably be slightly changed again for the tour. And IMO part of the reason it *still* doesn't work, is because they don't have Nessa as a plotwist to build the tension so it sort of falls flat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coral on Sept 8, 2010 13:00:06 GMT -5
My thoughts exactly. I'm still disappointed with the ending they chose to do and probably always will be. Thankfully it's not so bad that it spoils my enjoyment of the rest of the musical.
|
|
|
|
Post by fridamoonbeam on Sept 8, 2010 14:03:13 GMT -5
Yeah, agreed. I like the musical fine (love parts of it) but for the most part it just wasn't THAT great. I feel like the director was pretty pompus and didn't understand the story that well. When she said "I don't want Ariel to seem passive like in the movie so I had her be the one to defeat Ursula" I was like 0_o
Don't get me wrong I have nothing against Ariel being the one to take Ursual down, but its bull to call her passive since she did a ton of things before the finale battle in the movie. Aside from Ursula's lame death Eric really had nothing to do but be turned into a non-funny sailory Naveen (love the froggy prince of course!). Which annoyed me since Naveen was supposed to be a non-thinker. Eric isn't like that in the movie or musical, so he just comes across as selfish in the musical to me since he more aware of his actions.
Anyway going back to the origanal point; I DID really like Ursula in the musical. She's not blood thristy, at least till the end. She's so goal driven and smart, you have to at least respect her for those reasons. Revenge also is a VERY human thing to want.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zavi on Sept 8, 2010 16:41:35 GMT -5
Yeah, I appreciate what the director tried to do (re making Ariel a stronger female character) but you can't force feminism on a character that already had good traits in the first place. It makes everything seem overly-PC and just silly. I'd agree with all of y'all that while the musical had some squee-worthy stuff, the chunks of sloppiness bring the whole thing down a few notches. Not good. I LOVED Ursula in the musical as well. Even without the PG-Disney filter Ursula isn't really the violent type straight out: you have to reeeeeeeally make her angry (or be Eric, or foil her plans, or be Eric) to have her lose her cool. And when she does she's a crazy 50ft monster, and a little careless too. That's always when she loses control and the good guys can take over. But the coolness is brought to eleven in the musical. Awesomesauce to the max. |
|
|
|
Post by faya27 on Sept 8, 2010 17:25:09 GMT -5
Yeah, agreed. I like the musical fine (love parts of it) but for the most part it just wasn't THAT great. I feel like the director was pretty pompus and didn't understand the story that well. When she said "I don't want Ariel to seem passive like in the movie so I had her be the one to defeat Ursula" I was like 0_o Don't get me wrong I have nothing against Ariel being the one to take Ursual down, but its bull to call her passive since she did a ton of things before the finale battle in the movie. Aside from Ursula's lame death Eric really had nothing to do but be turned into a non-funny sailory Naveen (love the froggy prince of course!). Which annoyed me since Naveen was supposed to be a non-thinker. Eric isn't like that in the movie or musical, so he just comes across as selfish in the musical to me since he more aware of his actions. Anyway going back to the origanal point; I DID really like Ursula in the musical. She's not blood thristy, at least till the end. She's so goal driven and smart, you have to at least respect her for those reasons. Revenge also is a VERY human thing to want. Yes, that is what I thought about the TLM Musical. I can see why the critics and some people didn't enjoy it as much as they enjoyed the Broadway Beauty and the Beast. |
|
|
|
Post by WickedElphie on Sept 9, 2010 16:23:32 GMT -5
Going back to Witchy though what I like is that she's scary and threatening but she also has a real sense of fun and humor to her. She enjoys her beautiful wickedness, which makes it enjoyable to watch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zavi on Sept 10, 2010 20:01:02 GMT -5
Oh yes. The fact that she's so suave and confident in what she does makes her a wonderful character. She's got her act together and knows exactly how to play her cards (cept when she gets mad and goes ballistic, of course). While she is vengeful and has a bad tendency to be crazy-violent, overall she's collected and manipulative.
|
|
|
|
Post by faya27 on Oct 14, 2010 1:50:04 GMT -5
Oh yes. The fact that she's so suave and confident in what she does makes her a wonderful character. She's got her act together and knows exactly how to play her cards (cept when she gets mad and goes ballistic, of course). While she is vengeful and has a bad tendency to be crazy-violent, overall she's collected and manipulative. And she likes to use her appearance to scare merpeople and people. (another reason why she didn't use Vanessa form as her ultimate form). |
|
|
|
Post by fridamoonbeam on Feb 3, 2011 15:55:24 GMT -5
Yeah, like Mare said she probably chose that form to comand respect out of merfolk and fish fear Okies, now what do you tihnk Ursula's occupation would be if she lived today? I see her as a high powered businesswoman/politician which I know we've touched on in our modern rps. Not to mention Mare's amazing writing of her ^^ |
|
|
|
Post by faya27 on Feb 4, 2011 2:12:17 GMT -5
Yes, I can see her as a high powered business woman/politician. A greedy type!
I also see her as someone who'll plan to ursurp Triton in a business deal (think Plankton vs. Krabs from Spongebob).
|
|
|
|
Post by Zavi on Feb 21, 2011 12:19:10 GMT -5
I've seen a few theories on this and the modern career equivalents always seem to run the business route, albeit taking the practice without standard commercial ethics. She knows exactly what she wants and knows how to play her cards to get it: that's a standard CEO/businesswoman/used car salesman type. The magic side of things is more of a means to an end, and serves to emphasize how crafty Witchy is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zavi on May 6, 2011 14:15:29 GMT -5
Speaking of crafty, we haven't discussed Flotsam and Jetsam, have we? Where do you think Ursula ran into them and how did they come to be buddy-buddy?
|
|
Disney sure loves evil relatives, lol.
