LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS Broadway Revival Finale- Page 3

[sondheimfan2]

Posted: 3/26/09 at 5:40pm

Eric - I agree completely with your comments. I saw the original and the revival. The original looked like a "B" movie---which is the point of the satire. The revival was overblown, therefore, losing the charm of the original intention of the show.

The show is so much better when it's done on a small scale. I felt like the revival (especially the ending) was trying to compete with shows like Hairspray that feel the need to "wow" the audience before the leave the theater.

Updated On: 3/26/09 at 05:40 PM

[Byron Abens]

Posted: 3/27/09 at 3:28am

Seeing the picture of Audrey II towering out over the audience makes me wish all the more that Frank Oz had insisted on leaving the original ending in the movie.

A black and white version (which I think is all that remains of the footage) of that ending is posted on bluegobo.com for those who haven't seen it yet, by the way.

Posted: 3/27/09 at 6:24am

Funny to think this is a new post, start reading, and realize I wrote in it several years back...

jejr said:

"Kerry Butler not sexy. What have some people been smoking? I saw her in Toronto in Beauty and the Beast - yes a Disney show - and she was very sexy in that. I guess it is all in the eye of the beholder. "

All I said was her take on Audrey was *not* sexy for me. I think the woman can be very sexy when she wants to be (though in my experience usually in a cutesy way), I think she's beautiful woman and a big talent--I never disagreed with any of that. Just that her Audrey did NOT work for the show (but seeing as how Zaks made EVERYTHING more cartoony, it could very well be exactly what he wanted from her).

Sondheimfan I agree--it gets a bit out of control. Does anyone have good pictures of the original production BTW--like better than the poor ones in the CD booklet?

Like I said several years back I really think you do have to have that grimy, depressing, desperate feel to it there *somewhere*. In Zaks revival there really didn't seem to be any reason to even want to get out of Skid Row. It was a bit messy looking but looked like a swell place to hang out. I mean the play deals with a sadistic dentist who beats Audrey, murder, etc, and while it's a comedy it doesn't play light with ANY of these elements. It's not a family show (I saw the movie when I was 6 or 7 at some kids birthday party and was TRAUMATIZED--and oddly the thing that scared me the most was some of the bums in Downtown lol!)

Byron I'm gonna disagree with you. For YEARS I thought Frank Oz made a mistake doing the cutesy ending, but I've started to change my mind... Now don't get me wrong--I think the footage of the planned ending is fascinating to see (and I wish it would get put back on the DVD release as planned--I do know the sotry how some were released with it). And I DON'T think any stage show should ever use the present movie ending.

But... I think it works fine for the movie, it's cute, fits the tone of the movie and has that little bite at the end with the smiling baby Audrey. The planned ending is SOOO grandiose that it sorta turns the movie into something it hasn't been the rest of the time--It's late and I'm not explaining it very well but I think it takes the movie in too different a tone too late in the runtime and actually doesn't work as well *for the movie*. It takes it from this B movie hommage to this super fancy world in danger special effects extravaganza. But I KNOW saying that one prefers the current movie ending is NOT a popular sentiment.


Updated On: 3/27/09 at 06:24 AM

[jagfkb]

Posted: 3/27/09 at 6:32am

What I always thought would be an interesting ending would be to keep the revised movie ending, but as Audrey and Seymour walk away from Skid Row, the buinessman who wants to market Audrey IIs across the nation would go into theshop, and pick up a single leaf. Then, we go to where Seymour and Audrey live "somewhere that's green", and find the little Audrey II in the garden. We then go to the original ending of "Don't Feed the Plants" and have Audrey IIs destroy the world. It could work, just to see that footage in the movie again.

[PiraguaGuy2]

Posted: 3/27/09 at 7:00am

It would feel a little too abrupt.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 3/27/09 at 8:06am

I have to say that i watched the revival on Broadway and then go a naughty DVD of it and actually quite like it. It has its flaws but its solid entertainment, though it is too big, the show should be far smaller.

A few months ago i got another naughty dvd of the show in Florida, it has the 1st 5 mins missing and starts during Skid Row. The changes they made were largely for the best. Act 1 really drags in the florida one and the pacing isnt great, and Ripley was so miscast

Updated On: 3/27/09 at 08:06 AM

Posted: 3/27/09 at 8:31am

However, if you found a naughty DVD of the original, I have little doubt (effects aside) that you'd like it best of all

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 3/27/09 at 8:35am

oh ive had a copy of the original Off Broadway production for years, and your right its brilliant and i do prefer it

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 3/27/09 at 11:49am

Yeah, I can imagine how a show with floors would be weird.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 3/27/09 at 11:53am

lol that's what you get for trying to do 2 things at once...Flaws, its rectified, and you can imagine my lack of surprise that it was you that was commenting on that..

...i mean Phyllis Rogers Stone again...never

[misto625]

Posted: 3/27/09 at 11:54am

One point of clarification- The Audrey II manipulators were never replaced!! Martin Robinson, Anthony Asbury, Bill Remington, and Matt Vogel performed in both the Florida tryout and the Broadway revival, and Martin and Anthony were the original manipulators for the Off-Bway, London, and possibly LA productions.

I saw both the Florida tryout and the Broadway revival, and thought the show improved immensely between the two. Billy Porter just didn't do anything for me as Audrey II, especially after I saw Michael-Leon Wooley, and I prefer Rob Bartlett to Lee Wilkof as well. Alice Ripley just didn't seem to fit the role of Audrey, although I love watching her perform. The costume and set changes were better in my opinion, and I loved the finale on Broadway since I was sitting in Row D of the orchestra. The show may have some faults, but I did enjoy than man-eating plant to be sure!

[Jennifer Lynn]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 8:06pm

Having just watched the entire original movie ending...I can see where the happier one worked better for the movie. There's the reason Frank Oz gave...that we didn't see the characters do that last song, and we didn't see them take a bow, so we lacked the reassurance.

But I can think of another reason. The ending of the stage show may be dark, but it's a "black comedy" kind of dark, with the dead characters in the flowers. Audrey II may have won, but we still laugh a little at the ending.

In the movie's version of the darker ending...we didn't really get the black comedy. All we saw were innocent people being menaced and killed.

(Also...the pacing was awfully slow. It seemed to take Audrey II forever to just EAT SEYMOUR ALREADY. And the repeated closeups of Seymour's face as AII slowly lifted Seymour were disturbing.)

I can't help but wonder...as some of you guys said, would a "compromise" ending have worked? Let's say, Seymour and Audrey live, but Audrey IIs still make it onto store shelves. Seymour angrily confronts Martin over this, who sneers (as in the deleted ending), "A plant's public domain, pal!" In a further homage to 50s sci-fi, Seymour tries to warn people a la Invasion Of The Body Snatchers ("YOU'RE NEXT!!!") but they just laugh him off.

Then, the girls sing their little coda, we see the Audrey IIs on the rampage, and Seymour and Audrey sing "Don't Feed The Plants" to continue their warning.

[roseaddams]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 9:02pm

I read somewhere (I cannot remember for the life of me where; it might have even been a fansite) that one of the screenplay drafts ended much like that. Audrey died, but Seymour saw the salesmen taking the Audrey II cuttings and so ran off to warn as many people as he could not to buy the plants. The ending massacre was supposed to have shots of Seymour running around warning people just before the plants burst through walls and such.

I don't remember where I read that. I'm pretty sure it was online somewhere. I don't know if it's true or not but it is an interesting idea.

Updated On: 5/6/09 at 09:02 PM