Wasn't there also a production somewhere in California a year or two ago that was supposed to be more "gritty and real"? The Ashman estate objected to it.
Oh, I hadn't heard about that. I had actually forgotten all about the Chicago production (or that it was actually running right now) until it popped in my head when I was reading this thread.
I guess the entire stage version now is some kind of homage to B-movies? Again, I'm just getting this from the (admittedly mostly positive) reviews I've found.
The company is called Street Tempo Theatre if anyone wants more info about it.
One of the major problems with the revival (besides the fact that it was God Awful) is that you had a (seemingly) 15 year old Audrey. Audrey HAS to be older and really sad in order for you to care about her. If you have Zooey Deschanel (who I love) in the role, you just wonder why she doesn't just dump the Doctor and move on to the next guy. The point of the character is she thinks after all the years of abuse that he's the best she'll ever get.
A "gritty and real" Little Shop wouldn't be Little Shop.
The musical is in and of itself a re-imagining of the original film. So what, a re-re-imagining?
At that point just take whatever you want to say creatively and write a new show. The entire point of the musical is to be camp and sweetly send up the absurd Corman movie through 50s mores and nostalgia.
I mean how do you play Ashman's very funny lyrics "gritty"? It changes the very essence of what the show is about.
And it seems very strange that Menken would let them alter the tone. He is very protective of Ashman's legacy. I can't see him writing new songs.
Maybe they are going to redo the original film and Playbill.com got it wrong.
Although I felt the revival, great ending aside, sorta was Skid Row via Disney. But yes, the show is not supposed to be "realistic" and insanely gritty by any means.
I was disappointed how dull the original movie was when I finally saw it--it has some funny moments to be sure, but for such a short film, it's a bore to sit through.
I could picture it now, this supposedly forthcoming remake's director:
"The remake will appeal to audiences of this day and age!! It will be re-invented, will be far more deep, and we'll cut all the theatrical aesthetic that infused that 80's movie musi-cal! This film will be a deep plunge into character study and we will know Audrey's motivations because I will do it so that you will see a side to her character you never saw before!!!!!!"
I actually really like the Frank Oz film. It's an excellent adaptation of the material, has across-the-board great performances, and the Audrey II puppetry is truly incredible. Sure, the ending completely sucks and is rushed (because it was), and 'The Meek Shall Inherit' was pared down, but it still got a lot right.
I agree with the majority, I don't see the purpose of remaking this movie and definitely don't see the purpose of modernizing it. I think there are other shows that deserve to brought to film.
As far as the original stage show ending, it was filmed at great expense, and the song "Don't Feed the Plants" was on the released soundtrack.
The movie was tested with several advance audience screenings, and everyone HATED the ending. It was virtually unanimous feedback. They thought it ruined the movie, which is why the studio and Geffen went back (at great expense) and shot a new ending. One of the urchin girls wasn't available for the retakes, so they had to use a double (the camera pans down before you can see her face in the final shot).
For the forthcoming Blu-ray release, it's rumored that David Geffen is finally allowing the first ending to be seen. It was originally included on the DVD against his wishes, and when he found out (which was immediately after it went on sale), he had all of the discs pulled from the shelves, which he had legal right to do. For years, anyone who was lucky enough to get a copy paid top dollar for it. The DVD was quickly redone, minus the "bonus feature" of the alternate ending, and that's the version you can still buy today.
What I remember most about the film was that it was the first major movie musical in over a decade that didn't completely suck. It was actually very good ... and "brilliant" by comparison at the time. The Wiz, Annie, and A Chorus Line all were colossal disappointments both critically and at the box office. Many (rightfully) proclaimed the movie musical dead at last.
Then this movie came out, and while it wasn't a monster hit (pun intended), it was a breath of fresh air. It did very reputable business and scored generally positive reviews ... again, something that hadn't been done in over ten years for a movie musical.
It's a little more than a rumour since Frank Oz said it during his big tribute last year (that the ending would be released) isn't it? Apparently it will be a better, colour print too...
But that's a good point, the test audiences about the ending did absolutely hate it. I think sometimes when people complain about the released ending they don't really realize that it wasn't a quick decision by the studios--they essentially wasted a ton of money.
And while I still prefer that original ending I think it is fair too to consider that it plays differently on film--where essentially the piece suddenly becomes a huge, elaborate monster movie and you lose track of the characters, than on stage where the overall effect plays really quite differently. *ducks* I actually don't hate the released ending, I think it works, more or less, although as I said I would prefer the original one. I mean on stage you have Seymour killed, the girls come out, then you have the stars as buds on the plans singing, and then quickly the plant takes over the theatre and you have curtain call. On film you have 6 minutes with the characters all gone of well staged clips of the many plants taking over everything and then eating the screen but it plays differently (I did like the original plan to then have the ending credits over the girls singing Crystal Ronette and Chiffon which is a pretty great 60s pastiche as well).
And whiule Little Shop's decent success didn't bring back movie musicals--I think because many felt audiences accepted it because it was self aware about the singing and campy...
And I agree with everything Kad said...
(Actually for a while the film terrified me--I saw it at a birthday party when I was 6 and it was new and I think I had to leave at some point--though I remember being more scared by the dentists torture devices than the plant actually).
I haven't seen a studio announcement making it official yet, but maybe it is official now (about including it on the new release).
The major objection test audiences had aside from it turning into an overblown monster movie and losing the characters was that Audrey died. They hated that, and it killed (pun intended) the whole movie for them.
The film LITTLE SHOP is the only film where I left the theatre, went to the box office, bought another ticket and went back for a second viewing.
As a film it actually gives you MORE of what was great on stage. A rare feat.
I honestly feel it is up there with the greatest film musicals; forever visually surprising with all the disparate tones masterfully working together to create something unique.
Almira, I had a similar reaction at the time. I was in my "poor starving artist" days when the movie came out, and I saw it in the theatre three times. I think I actually skipped lunch once to afford it (yes, times were tough).
It really was a breath of fresh air for any lover of musical movies.
As for the revised ending, I thought it was great. The film is a comedy first, dark second, and I think that's what plays best. The new ending worked fine, got a few big laughs, and applause in the theatre the first two times I saw it.
EDIT: I also remember how well Ellen Greene was received. There was a big push to cast Cyndi Lauper (hugely popular at the time) or another big name, and Geffen held out. He said they couldn't make the movie without her. They could cast all the stars they wanted around her, but without Greene, there would be no movie.
And as for people saying, "Well Frank Oz is why it wasn't better."
At the time, Frank Oz was heralded as making a successful movie musical, and it's why he got to direct Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (the film).
His work in Little Shop came as quite a surprise to Hollywood and film critics that this Muppet director and puppeteer could do what John Huston, Sidney Lumet, and Sir Richard Attenborough could not.
Maybe the fact he had so much erxperience ith Muppets helped (not due to the plant, but the way they handled musicals in their show and especially early films). I agree with you--and I'm glad someone else thinks that *in the movie anyway* the sweet but ironic ending works.
I also really enjoyed the film and I liked the changed ending, only in the context of the movie. The happier ending wouldn't have worked in the stage show, but for the film it works. I've seen the clips of the original ending, and I thought it changed the tone to the point where it doesn't feel like the same movie.
As for a remake, I don't see why it's necessary but I will give it a chance if it does get made.
Drama Desk Award Winners - MATILDA, VANYA AND SONIA, PIPPIN, VIRGINIA WOOLF & More!
STAGE TUBE: MATILDA Cast Performs on The View!
CHUCK Star Zachary Levi and Krysta Rodriguez Set to Lead FIRST DATE
Paris SUNDAY IN THE PARK Now Available For Download
TV: See the Cast of Paper Mill's THE LITTLE MERMAID Fly!
Jennifer Hudson Joins AMERICAN IDOL's Judges' Panel!
VIDEO: Rooney Mara & Casey Affleck in First Trailer for AIN'T THEM BODIES SAINTS
Rihanna for River Island Summer Collection Lands May 25th
Exclusive InDepth InterView Audra McDonald Talks GO BACK HOME Album & PBS Special, MARLENE DIETRICH'S ABC, Upcoming Projects & More
Donkey Kong Country Returns is Back and Optimized for Portable Play
BWW Blog: Leah Edwards - Practice. Perform. Repeat
BWW Reviews: Millepied, Wheeldon and Martins - A Mixed Bag for City Ballet
Jay Leno Hosts Magical Evening to Celebrate Partnership for Cancer Care
joined:11/5/05
Posted: 5/3/12 at 08:33pm