#sure Chelsea would have also wanted revenge which is an extra bit on top of the motivation of wanting to be ruler of everything

[kahluah]

Bro, the original storyboard are still up. Chelsea being Nerissa was a last minute change , which is why the twist doesn't make much sense. If you watch directors interviews you'll find that they intended Chelsea to be a Regina George mean-girl. Also they describe the twist as fun lmao.

Look, I understand there are storyboards. I also understand that stories can change while they are in production. I'm not doubting the storyboards exist and that an initial draft of the movie at some point had them as two characters.

There are interviews where they discuss how the story was still open for input, so, you know, suggestions, changes, alterations, all that good work currently in production stuff, when the studio opened back up with the hybrid set up about half way through the development. Just because some of the storyboards in the beginning had something does not mean it will always be there in the final product. Things change. "You'll find they intended Chelsea to be a Regina George mean-girl" fine, but it obviously didn't stay that way. And, as I've said before, there is enough information in the movie for the reveal to be guessable. I'll say once again, I figured it out when "plan get the Trident" was suggested by Chelsea. I'm sorry if you feel it makes no sense, but like I've talked to multiple people that were able to predict the twist so idk what to tell you there.

But, I am also just dubious of how you guys keep pushing this whole "last minute" change thing. In the storyboards I saw, even as separate people, Chelsea is still evil and turning into a giant fucking mermaid to enact revenge. Other than the name of the character, and a portion of her motivation being that she was avenging her mom (with the whole other bit still being the whole "becoming ruler of the ocean and taking over everything" thing), the overall reason for the end fight is the same. Chelsea would have still been manipulating Ruby for that goal of getting the Trident, killing the krakens, and becoming Queen herself. The only thing that would really truly change with these storyboards is her age, so to me it sounds like this "it's a last minute storyboard change that makes no sense!" is some form of excuse/denial so that people feel alright to ship them again and write good end fix it fics.

Also to be a bit more snarky here...

If you watch the directors interviews, you'll find that they say that Ruby is a character "stuck between really strong women; amazingly strong women... and a lot of people have a lot of ideas about how she should be living her life, and this journey she goes on is figuring out how she wants to... because her heart's in the right place in every frame of the film; she has no ulterior motive, and she's so empathetic to her friends and everyone around her. I think that was really the sweet spot that we, working with the animators and with Lana - You know we love that you're doing that because that was really the goal in an idea about this coming of age story." Gee that kind of sounds like what I've been saying this movie is about; her relationship with these women. Multiple other interviews also put emphasis on the relationship between Ruby and her mom, Her mom and Grand Mama, Ruby and Grand Mama, Ruby and Chelsea. You know, the people I've mentioned in my other posts. It's clear that by the time production was wrapping up that this was the direction and intention of the movie.

To be fair I've also seen where they describe Chelsea as a Regina George type mean girl, and it really fits the high schooler vibe she has going on, but it's clear that not all of that stayed through till the end of production.

I can also imagine a version or original idea for this movie being one where the kraken family and the mermaid family were supposed to be foils of each other, but to be fully fleshed out we would have needed more world building and the plot would have had more focus on the war itself since that would have been the ideal point to sure how these two families diverged from each other. They would both have the starting point of the end of the war, and a broken relationship between mother and daughter (one because the mother was killed and the other because Agatha left). But from the multiple interviews I've seen where they wanted the focus of the movie to be on Ruby herself and how she interacts with the other women in her life during this coming of age story, that plot wouldn't do it justice. There is too much background information that you would have to supply to showcase both sides of the story and Ruby's personal journey would suffer for it.

When talking about production of the film, multiple interviews also talk about how they developed the feel for land/the town vs under the water, the humans vs the sea creature, and some of the actual character design elements like Nerissa's water hair. I haven't seen one where they talk about the lore of the war and how they fleshed out how the under the sea politics work and how those were a super important part of developing the story and production direction of the movie... At this point who knows how much of that they had ideas for, we would have to wait for more storyboards or an art book, but my point is that it isn't what they wanted the focus of the end product to be about.

Those storyboards were ultimately changed and by combining Chelsea with Nerissa and having her be an adult, it tightened up the core of the movie being Ruby and her relationships with women in her life (since one was no longer a peer). The story of Ruby growing into her own was able to have the sole spotlight rather than having to split it between two different family stories.

A lot of people who work on and promote things in interviews will describe it as fun. It is a very easy way to get across "I enjoy and approve of this thing we did". What do you want them to do? Break the flow of the interview and take up all the remaining time by explaining in exacting detail when and why the change happened during the development, and their exact thought process in doing it, and who exactly suggested it, and who supported it, and how much of the story that they had at that point in time of production was changed by it? Like I'll admit I'm curious to when it changed, but when I'm watching a 10-20 minute interview on YouTube I would rather they cover more than just one little thing.