Let’s be real: sequels are usually a gamble, but when you swap out almost the entire main cast, you're basically playing poker with a deck of Uno cards. If you grew up in the late 90s or early 2000s, you probably remember the absolute charm of the original 1997 George of the Jungle. Brendan Fraser was at his peak, and Leslie Mann played the perfect wide-eyed socialite-turned-jungle-queen.
Then 2003 rolled around.
Disney released George of the Jungle 2, and fans were immediately hit with a "wait, who is that?" moment. While Christopher Showerman took over the loincloth, it was the shift in the female lead that caught many off guard. George of the Jungle 2 Ursula was played by Julie Benz, a pivot that changed the entire energy of the character.
The Julie Benz Era: A Different Kind of Ursula Stanhope
Julie Benz is a fantastic actress. Honestly, if you’ve seen her as Darla in Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Rita in Dexter, you know she has incredible range. But stepping into a role established by Leslie Mann is a tough gig. In the first film, Mann’s Ursula was this frantic, hilariously overwhelmed city girl who fell for a guy who talked to toucans.
Benz played it a bit differently.
🔗 Read more: Anjelica Huston in The Addams Family: What You Didn't Know About Morticia
By the time the sequel picks up, Ursula is no longer the fish out of water. She’s a mother to George Jr. (played by Angus T. Jones) and the "Queen of the Jungle." The sequel leans way harder into the slapstick, and Benz had to navigate a script that was much more self-aware about its own existence as a direct-to-video sequel.
There's a specific vibe to the 2003 film that feels more like a Saturday morning cartoon than the theatrical original. Benz’s Ursula is supportive, slightly more grounded, and spends a good chunk of the movie resisting her mother’s attempts to drag her back to "civilization." It’s less about the romance and more about the family unit.
Why did Leslie Mann leave?
The big question everyone asks is why the original cast didn't come back. It wasn't just Ursula; Brendan Fraser famously passed too. The movie actually pokes fun at this right at the start. There's a meta-joke where the narrator says the studio was "too cheap" to hire the original actors.
While that’s a funny line for a kid's movie, the reality is usually more about scheduling and career trajectory.
💡 You might also like: Isaiah Washington Movies and Shows: Why the Star Still Matters
By 2003, Leslie Mann’s career was heading in a more R-rated, Judd Apatow-influenced direction. She was busy. Similarly, Brendan Fraser was coming off The Mummy and The Quiet American. A direct-to-DVD sequel just wasn't on the priority list for actors who were suddenly A-list stars.
Comparing the Two Versions of Ursula
If you watch them back-to-back, the differences are pretty stark.
- Leslie Mann (1997): High energy, quirky, and filled with "Oh my god" city-girl terror. Her chemistry with Fraser was the heartbeat of the movie.
- Julie Benz (2003): More maternal, calm, and essentially the "straight man" to George’s buffoonery. She had to play the role while the movie literally broke the fourth wall to tell the audience she was a replacement.
Benz actually does a great job with what she was given. It's not easy to play a character when the script is constantly winking at the camera about how different you look. She brought a certain sweetness to the role of a mother trying to protect her son from her scheming ex-fiancé, Lyle Van de Groot (who, interestingly, was still played by Thomas Haden Church).
What George of the Jungle 2 Ursula Taught Us About Sequels
Looking back at the George of the Jungle 2 Ursula situation, it’s a classic case study in "Replacement Syndrome." Sometimes, a sequel is made because the brand is strong, even if the original magic can't be recaptured.
📖 Related: Temuera Morrison as Boba Fett: Why Fans Are Still Divided Over the Daimyo of Tatooine
Fans of the sequel often point to the fact that it didn't take itself seriously. It knew it was a budget-friendly follow-up. By leaning into the absurdity of the recast, the film avoided being a total disaster and instead became a cult curiosity.
Julie Benz has spoken in interviews about how much fun she had on set, despite the challenges of following such a distinct performance. She wasn't trying to be Leslie Mann; she was playing the version of Ursula that fit a 2003 direct-to-video Disney comedy.
Key Takeaways for Fans
If you're revisiting the franchise, keep these points in mind to appreciate the shift:
- Context is everything. This wasn't a theatrical release. It was designed for home video, which explains the lower budget and the cast changes.
- Julie Benz is a pro. She stepped into a "no-win" situation (replacing a beloved lead) and managed to make the character her own without alienating the younger audience.
- The Meta-Humor works. If the movie hadn't acknowledged the recast, it would have been weirder. By making it a joke, they gave the audience permission to just go with it.
If you’re a fan of Julie Benz, it’s worth a watch just to see her range. If you’re a die-hard fan of the 1997 original, you might find the change jarring, but it's a fascinating time capsule of how Disney handled its live-action properties in the early 2000s.
To dive deeper into the franchise, you can track down the original 1967 cartoon episodes to see how different the animated Ursula Scott is compared to both live-action versions. Alternatively, comparing the 1997 and 2003 scripts reveals how the focus shifted from a romantic comedy to a slapstick family adventure.