Little Shop of Horrors reboot

Red Wench

Active Member
Advertisement
Never saw the original one. My question has people with creative minds for this sort of stuff lost the ability to come up with new concepts? Everything seems like sequels or reboots nowadays.
 

PiratesMansion

Well-Known Member
Boo.

There's really nothing wrong with the musical film that already exists. Possible exception, I suppose, if you're still mad 30+ years later about the changes to the ending, but really?

If they are so creatively bankrupt as to not come up with original concepts, and there must be so many remakes/reboots, can they at least do it with movies that have obvious areas to fix?
 

Mousertainment

Well-Known Member
It doesn't need a remake but that cast looks fun except... whoever plays Audrey needs to be able to SANG. Can Scarlett belt out "Suddenly Seymour" much less the iconic "Somewhere That's Green"?
 

The Real Buzz Lightyear

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
In the Parks
No
Never saw the original one. My question has people with creative minds for this sort of stuff lost the ability to come up with new concepts? Everything seems like sequels or reboots nowadays.
You should definitely check out the original! It's a fantastic movie. I agree a reboot is not necessary at all. I'm getting tired of all of these reboots and remakes.
 

PiratesMansion

Well-Known Member
The director's cut needs some editing, IMO. It's a little too much mindless destruction by the end, impressive though it is.

In addition, while I'm aware that it matches the ending of the original musical, I also don't believe it's the best ending for the film that was actually made. There were a lot of subtle tweaks to the musical when it was adapted into film (primarily relating to Seymour's characterization) that ensured the original ending didn't work as effectively as it did on stage, necessitating the new ending.
 

Tony Perkis

Well-Known Member
The director's cut needs some editing, IMO. It's a little too much mindless destruction by the end, impressive though it is.
That’s a big appeal of the ending for me. The sheer escalation of the ridiculous in the final song was hilarious.

In addition, while I'm aware that it matches the ending of the original musical, I also don't believe it's the best ending for the film that was actually made. There were a lot of subtle tweaks to the musical when it was adapted into film (primarily relating to Seymour's characterization) that ensured the original ending didn't work as effectively as it did on stage, necessitating the new ending.
What is your preferred ending? The original one to me is an abomination compared to the directors cut and stage production. I’ve seen a traveling tour of the show and thought Moranis’s portrayal and the characters was mostly consistent.
 

Tony Perkis

Well-Known Member
Nothing wrong with Taron but why is my spider-sense saying the only reason they chose who they did is "because they were in an Avengers movie"?
In fairness, like the Harry Potter series, who the hell hasn’t been in an Avengers film?
 

PiratesMansion

Well-Known Member
That’s a big appeal of the ending for me. The sheer escalation of the ridiculous in the final song was hilarious.



What is your preferred ending? The original one to me is an abomination compared to the directors cut and stage production. I’ve seen a traveling tour of the show and thought Moranis’s portrayal and the characters was mostly consistent.
The short answer is that it depends on which version I'm watching.

I think the ending of the stage musical, the "everybody dies" ending, is appropriate for the stage musical. But I think the "happily ever after" ending ultimately attached to the film is appropriate for the film that was made.

I believe the filmmakers made some small but important decisions that I believe undercut the "everyone dies" ending and that's ultimately what left a bad taste in the original film audience's mouths and what forced its replacement. Ashman and Menkin were open about the original show playing off of the Faust legend, in which a character (in this case, Seymour) makes a deal with the devil and suffers the consequences. Yet this is less clear in the film adaptation, which makes the original filmed ending less effective and appear needlessly cruel, especially for those who weren't familiar with the source material. Two of the most important of these choices are:

1. In the theatrical production, Seymour actively makes a choice to do nothing and let the dentist die; there's even a song making this clear, "Now/It's just the Gas." In the film, the song is cut, and it comes off more that he is afraid and paralyzed by inaction, not that he is actively making the choice to let the dentist die.
2. The most important part of "The Meek Shall Inherit" is cut, in which Seymour again makes the choice to continue killing and feeding the plant because otherwise he believes will lose Audrey. Reportedly this was filmed and cut for unknown reasons. Since his decision was not explicitly made clear to the audience, it can be interpreted that Seymour is not actively responsible for what happens in the rest of the film, but instead is a pathetic, tragic, sympathetic figure the audience is rooting for and the ending is undercut again.

These are two small but important moments in which he seals his fate and the stage ending is the only karmic result; cut them, and it seems like Seymour is an innocent who just was in the wrong place at the wrong time with no agency whatsoever, which changes the effect of the ending, and not for the better.
 

The Real Buzz Lightyear

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
In the Parks
No
The short answer is that it depends on which version I'm watching.

I think the ending of the stage musical, the "everybody dies" ending, is appropriate for the stage musical. But I think the "happily ever after" ending ultimately attached to the film is appropriate for the film that was made.

I believe the filmmakers made some small but important decisions that I believe undercut the "everyone dies" ending and that's ultimately what left a bad taste in the original film audience's mouths and what forced its replacement. Ashman and Menkin were open about the original show playing off of the Faust legend, in which a character (in this case, Seymour) makes a deal with the devil and suffers the consequences. Yet this is less clear in the film adaptation, which makes the original filmed ending less effective and appear needlessly cruel, especially for those who weren't familiar with the source material. Two of the most important of these choices are:

1. In the theatrical production, Seymour actively makes a choice to do nothing and let the dentist die; there's even a song making this clear, "Now/It's just the Gas." In the film, the song is cut, and it comes off more that he is afraid and paralyzed by inaction, not that he is actively making the choice to let the dentist die.
2. The most important part of "The Meek Shall Inherit" is cut, in which Seymour again makes the choice to continue killing and feeding the plant because otherwise he believes will lose Audrey. Reportedly this was filmed and cut for unknown reasons. Since his decision was not explicitly made clear to the audience, it can be interpreted that Seymour is not actively responsible for what happens in the rest of the film, but instead is a pathetic, tragic, sympathetic figure the audience is rooting for and the ending is undercut again.

These are two small but important moments in which he seals his fate and the stage ending is the only karmic result; cut them, and it seems like Seymour is an innocent who just was in the wrong place at the wrong time with no agency whatsoever, which changes the effect of the ending, and not for the better.
I can definitely see your point. The directors cut is heartbreaking to see Audrey and Seymour die but it shows never make a deal with the devil. I do like the theatrical cut but the directors cut is more realistic to Frank's vision.
 

Gingersnap

New Member
The original is brilliant and the Director's Cut is phenomenal. Rick Moranis, Ellen Greene, and Steve Martin are perfectly cast. Don't really see the need for a remake/reboot of this, but it is the sign of the times and that is where pretty much everything seems to be going in the industry.
 

Tony Perkis

Well-Known Member
The original is brilliant and the Director's Cut is phenomenal. Rick Moranis, Ellen Greene, and Steve Martin are perfectly cast. Don't really see the need for a remake/reboot of this, but it is the sign of the times and that is where pretty much everything seems to be going in the industry.
You know when it’s worth remaking something? When the original is bad but someone can have a unique new take on the material.

You know, like the original Little Shop of Horrors.
 
Top Bottom