LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS Director's Cut

[best12bars]

I should add that I used to love doing retro artwork for DVDs. I actually did all the early Ray Harryhausen titles (not just produced but designed them), like Earth Vs. the Flying Saucers, Mysterious Island, and It Came From Beneath the Sea. If you own any of those earlier DVD releases from Sony, those are my designs. I loved doing them to! And in those cases, they were not looking for the standard mainstream approach. These were niche titles aimed at those who loved the old "claymation" approach to special effects that Harryhausen was famous for.

So I got to do whatever I wanted ... except for the title treatments (logos). I had to use whatever Marketing had already approved. But other than that, I had free rein. Which was a rare instance!

[Jordan Catalano]

I don't see why they need to change the cover art AT ALL. I haaaaate how every title now has new art, like the original isn't good or (in a lot of cases) iconic enough to keep around. For a film nerd like me it drives me crazy!

[best12bars]

It drives a film nerd like me crazy, too.

But they're trying to appeal to non-film-nerds who look at original artwork and say, "That's old. I want to see something new."

I used to think it was silly for Marketing departments to think that by changing the artwork, they could make people think the movie was new or that the content was somehow more modern than it was.

Then I realized they didn't care if it was in conflict with the content. Their job was done after they got consumers to either rent or buy the product.


EDIT: The worst was when certain studios made us colorize the B&W production photos used for menus or cover art. At some companies, it was a flat rule across the board. I found it just short of false advertising. The movie was in B&W, but the menus and covers had to be colorized ... just to make sure people didn't automatically reject a B&W film (which a huge number of people do).

[JP2]

I actually don't like the font on my 1999 DVD. The idea is there, but I just find it poorly executed. Looks like the logo was composed in MS Paint.

[best12bars]

The logo on the 1999 DVD case is the same title treatment used in the actual film.





The opening of the movie

[JP2]

Yes, never been a fan of it. Not saying the bluray font is better. I agree that it's pretty lazy.

But, I've always been a font nazi.

[RainbowJude]

I am glad that both cuts will be on the release. That original alternate ending is interminable and I think betrays the tone of the film somewhat. Despite its differences from the stage show, I don't mind the new ending, although it is a little awkwardly pasted onto the film. The new little Audrey 2 growing in Seymour's garden adds enough of a kick to the ending, although it's a pity that "Don't Feed the Plants" was lost completly, even as a credits song. I understand the argument that the film ends up not being a morality tale in the way that the stage show is, however with other changes like the cutting down of "The Meek Will Inherit", which is a masterful song scene in its complete form, that slant on the material was already on the wane in the film as a whole. I find the film satisfying as it is and the adaptations to the source material don't bother me. That said, it will be nice to have a cut with the novelty of the alternate ending.

I don't particulary like the cover for this new release. I prefer the font from the film title / 1999 DVD. The font on the upcoming release is dull and has no character. And if we're going to have boxes in faces for the image, I would have preferred something in the vein of the white HAIRSPRAY cover -



- perhaps with Audrey II in the middle block and 8 other characters around the plant, with no out of place block falling into the border as there is with Tracy on the HAIRSPRAY cover.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Completely unrelated to what you guys were discussing, but...

Does anybody know why this movie was filmed in England?

[seaweedjstubbs]

It was filmed on the 007 soundstage in England. I'm not completely sure, but it might have been the only soundstage that would accommodate the film. They didn't want to shoot on location because they thought it would take away from the fantastical nature of the film. It's hard to look up stuff on my phone and post at the same time, so I'm sure someone else could answer this question more thoroughly!

[JP2]

Funny that that was asked, since today I watched the film with Frank Oz' commentary and found out that it was filmed in England, myself.

[EricMontreal22]

I agree with Rainbow--I don't think the filmed ending is really a reflection of the stage version (I'm not sure if either ending is more of one--the released ending maintains the tone better, but the cut ending does keep the morality play aspect more), but I'm glad we'll have both.

[TheatreDiva90016]

"That original alternate ending is interminable and I think betrays the tone of the film somewhat."

It's a Greek tragedy. How is that betraying the tone of the film?

[EricMontreal22]

I think it's a valid point of debate--but the movie does turn into a big, homage to Godzella style monster movies at that point. On stage, you still have the characters telling their moral, as the buds of the plant--you lose that in the stage version. So it misses the point of Greek tragedy if the characters never actually admit their failures.

[Kad]

The original ending is, I'd say, almost too big and clever for its own good. It's EXTREMELY impressive, and probably the only way you could film that ending, but it's not perfect.

However, the first portion of the ending leading up to that is pretty great. The death of Audrey is excellent.

[EricMontreal22]

"But they're trying to appeal to non-film-nerds who look at original artwork and say, "That's old. I want to see something new."

I used to think it was silly for Marketing departments to think that by changing the artwork, they could make people think the movie was new or that the content was somehow more modern than it was. "

I think you're completely right, but it makes me wonder who they think they're appealing to now. People don't browse the video store shelves the way they used to when choosing a movie, and it seems a redundant enterprise to worry about now when designing a cover.

Kad--that's pretty much how I feel about the ending. I think it does work, but it takes the film into a whole other genre.

[hermajesty]

This was the most naff/stupid/silly play I have ever seen in all my life. Rubbish writing.

[Jordan Catalano]

As always, thank you for your contribution to this board.

[hermajesty]

You're welcome Jordan, I am as entitled as anyone else to post on here, although I'm sure you think you rule, ok

[Jordan Catalano]

I never said that or thought it, Your Vajesty.

[hermajesty]

oh thank you kind sir. Sorry if my opinion of the play doesn't match yours. Oh, and thank you for your contribution to the board

[Jordan Catalano]

Has nothing to do with that. I don't care what you like or don't like. You're just a really awful person, as evidenced the other day with your disgusting homophobic remarks.

[hermajesty]

gay myself, I was being 'sarcastic'/humour. As I have said....hermajesty = the Queen

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

I heard this is coming back to Broadway with Tracie Bennett as Audrey II.

[Bwayman2]

I'm looking forward to it! I love that movie, and would love to see it.

[hermajesty]

## I heard this is coming back to Broadway with Tracie Bennett as Audrey II ###

Nah, she did it 30 years ago.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Wow, she's old.