I get why they use bright, colorful costumes, but there's a lot of pink and purple. They also use a lot of glitter. It's just my opinion
But why are those things even seen as girly? Purple used to be a color for royalty and even a lot of football players used to use it. What is it about those colors and glitter that makes boys not like it? Boys like sparks and explosions and stars, which is just like sparkles...what it is it, what is it?
I'm a boy and my favorite colors are purple, pink, and aquamarine and I love glitter, that's why I love Disney dust so much and it's in my avatar!
I really wonder what happened to the proposed 2010 tour of this show, and I wish it had happened. Maybe it will happen later, but...
I don't know if any of you knew this, but Disney released the rights to The Little Mermaid exclusively to three theatres, and it seems to be because they want to "try it out" and make it good before they release the rights all over the place? Or maybe they aren't letting the rights go just yet, and are only letting the rights to theatres that they think would put on a good show, because they did past Disney shows well or something. I think it's to make The Little Mermaid show look good by word of mouth before they release the rights. It seems they picked towns far, far away from the really big, well-known, artsy and sophisticated cities so theatre big wigs wouldn't know about and possibly pounce on the show.
Anyway, the first theatre to put on the show with these rights was the Tuacahn Ampitheatre in Ivins, Utah. It opened June 2nd and is playing till October 21st. The girl who plays Ariel was an understudy for Ariel on Broadway! But when I first saw the costumes...well, see for yourself:
However, don't panic! There was this trailer for the show, which makes it look a little more promising, doesn't it?
And then, here are the images of the actual show:
Tuacahn Little Mermaid Gallery
So, I will say that I like quite a few things, and think some is actually, actually, a lot better than the Braodway production, aside from the horrible low quality of how everything was crafted because they don't have a Broadway budget! First is I like the level of realism and literalism used in this production, it looks better than the Broadway one in this aspect. The ship is absolutely spectacular and looks much better in three dimensional glory. As I had complained before, the ship, and a lot of pieces in the Broadway version, had looked way too flat, and needed more dimension. Scuttle, Sebastian, Flounder and Ursula finally look like the actual sea creatures they are supposed to be, with Ursula's colors finally being right as well as less gross. But Ursula needs to have a nautilus shell like in the movie, not a conch shell.
The best thing of all has to be that the mermaids finally look like they are actual mermaids, as in they just have tails, not tails and legs, thanks to their legs being all black. The effect is one I had thought of before, and I'm glad to see it actually works
! It's just that the stage needs to be more black and the mermaids need to be choreographed to avoid being in front of anything not black at all costs. The simplest and best solution would be to make everything low on the floor black (or almost black, very dark), and anything at the level of their tail can be whatever color or brightness they want it to be. Why Flounder and some other sea creatures didn't have this same "black hiding their legs" effect, I will never know, but they should have.
I also love how Ursula becomes huge in the end by simply staying the actress' size but her body and tentacles growing beneath her and raising her upward. It's another thing I thought of before, and it looks better and more dramatic than what the Broadway production did. The only thing is we need to see what looks like actual huge tentacles coming from her, not just black fabric!
Apparently this version had a "water screen", which I'm still not sure what or how that is, that they projected undersea images onto...for part of the background? I dunno, just search for "tuacahn little mermaid" and key words like that, or visit the Facebook page
, to find out more about the production. Remember, it's still playing till Oct 21st!
But wait, another production happened, too! The one at The Muny Theatre in St. Louis, Missouri. This one is over, it started July 6th and ended July 14th. This one had Ken Page, the original Old Deuteronomy in Broadway's Cats and the original Lion in Broadway's The Wiz, as King Triton, and, you'll never believe it, that heavy guy from MadTV, Paul Vogt, as Ursula! I wish I could find a video of his performance! But here's a gallery of the show and...oh boy...well, look for yourself:
Muny Little Mermaid Gallery
So, I think that while the Tuacahn production took a lot forward for the show, this Muny production took a big step backward. The more literalness is nice, but the mermaids are just wearing plain dresses that kinda sorta are cut to look like tails, with their feet able to be seen sticking out sometimes, and they are clearly walking everywhere, when the star of the show's desire is to have feet and walk
And generally the production just looks atrocious, with the only thing I like being Prince Eric's wedding costume and Triton's throne room and costume are kinda neat. Emphasis on kinda. But Triton doesn't even look like he has any
attempt at a tail, ugh! Ursula's lair has kind of a cool, venemous, dark scariness to it...but it's horribly done and what's with the octopus being all still and painted in there?!
For more info on...sigh...this production, you can search for "muny little mermaid" and things like that or visit the Facebook page
The last of these productions is the one at the Music Theatre of Witchita in Witchita Kansas, and it's coming up soon, and that one better be better! It's August 5-7, and 10-14. For more information, search for it and here's the official web site
. The video on the front page at least makes it look very promising!