Intrigued. Don’t know if Johansson has the vocal range for Audrey but it’s definitely better than the Josh God/Rebel Wilson rumor a couple of years ago
I absolutely adored Egerton in Rocketman, but much like Groff, he feels to handsome for the part. Seymour doesn’t need to be ugly, but I don’t like seeing him played by such blatant hunks (Gyllenhaal managed to really time down his looks for the part, so I give him a pass). I’m guessing he’ll do a good job, and I think he could sing it really well though. I’m not so sure about Scarlett. I think they’re gonna have to lower the keys for her like the did with Tammy Blanchard. I’d prefer someone who can sing it as written, and I think her voice is too low to do so.
Hot Pants said: "I absolutely adored Egerton in Rocketman, but much like Groff, he feels to handsome for the part. Seymour doesn’t need to be ugly, but I don’t like seeing him played by such blatant hunks (Gyllenhaal managed to really time down his looks for the part, so I give him a pass). I’m guessing he’ll do a good job, and I think he could sing it really well though. I’m not so sure about Scarlett. I think they’re gonna have to lower the keys for her like the did with Tammy Blanchard. I’d prefer someone who can sing it as written, and I think her voice is too low to do so."
Well, in Rocketman, he certainly was able to downplay his natural good looks to play Elton John, so I don't see why he couldn't do the same for this. Also, I still don't get the whole "too good-looking for a part" when you're an actor in my opinion-makeup and costumes go a long way in changing a person's appearance, that and good acting.
While I personally never found Groff that especially good looking, he played his looks down, Gyllenhaal (who I think is gorgeous) was equally successful in playing down his good looks. I'm much more curious with Johansson and her ability to sing the role of Audrey
Im really sick of people saying Seymour shouldn't be handsome. Why not? Jonathan pulled it off. Jake pulled it off. And Taron can certainly do it. He's got an amazing voice and this casting sounds amazing. Attractive men tend to put more butts in the seats, what can I tell ya?
Haha. When Jake played him the response at City Center was insane. When they announced Jonathan last year, it sold out pretty quickly. So, it's clearly not just me who doesn't mind.
I don't understand the purpose of this remake. The original movie is just about perfect and Greg Berlanti is bad at everything. I can't imagine anyone wanting this movie.
I need to agree with "hork" here.... I am not opposed to new versions of things. I am not against a remake of something that didn't quite work or has not stood the test of time. The Frank Oz film of "Little Shop" is basically as perfect a film version of a stage musical that we've ever seen. It does more than put the show into a film, it is so wonderfully and creatively adapted that I just don't see the point in trying to add another version. Not to mention, if you read the original Howard Ashman descriptions of these characters, NO ONE has really cast it properly in a first-class production since the ones Howard directed himself.
I will forever stand by the notion that the loss of Ashman has proven to be one of our greatest losses of the AIDS crisis, as far as art and theater go... The never-ending attempts to basically ignore his very clear and simple character descriptions and author's notes in the original script will forever baffle me, not only as being just misguided, but also just blatantly disrespectful to the work of a writer no longer here, but who literally left directions for his absence. (Not to mention - I am thoroughly at total 100% saturation threshold with Johansson, along with several others we just can't seem to shake off).
First off, the tickets sales of Groff and Gyllenhaal’s runs may show that casting a handsome guy like Taron is good for business, but that doesn’t say anything about the quality. There was no way those shows weren’t gonna well out with the names attached, but just because a big name sells well destiny automatically mean that it’s good. As I said before, I thought that Gyllenhaal’s casting worked out fine since he was able to successfully ugly himself up, looking very unkempt and scruffy with that big, bushy beard. And while the recent production did what they could to make Groff seem less attractive, there was no hiding that the man’s an adinos. Groff gave a good performance, but it’s distracting when a character who’s supposed to be so self insecure is played by someone who’s so good looking that he could make it as a model. It also didn’t help that Groff felt like he was trying to make his singing in a few numbers sound super dreamy. When the awkward loser is both beautiful and has the voice of an angel, you can’t help but wonder, why the heck is this guy an awkward loser? Anyway, sure, Egerton was uglies up in Rocketman, but it wasn’t all that convincing there. He looked worse than he usually does, but he was still clearly far more attractive than Elton John ever was. However, Elton was shown in that film as a larger than life figure with ego problems, so the idea of him being played by a good looking guy didn’t really take away from his character or distract. If Egerton played Seymour, I get the feeling they’d just make him look like how Groff looks in the part. Seymour was originally played by Lee Wilkof, who was in no way conventionally handsome, looking old for his age and already being bald before he reached forty. The role was clearly meant for people more Lee Wilkof than Jonathon Groff. Imagine if someone like Wilkof played Anatole in Great Comet, a character repeatedly shown to be highly desirable in universe. It would be pretty distracting. That’s how I feel about handsome Seymours. The actors may do a good job playing the part, but I just can’t get the feeling out of my head that they’re not right for role. I don’t think Seymour has to be played by someone ugly. He could be played by someone who’s somewhat cute, such as Ben Platt, Brandon Uranowitz, or Will Roland type. All three are examples of guys who aren’t bad looking, but are unlikely to turn too many heads. Anyway, while the original movie has stage material that they could incorporate into this version, I can’t help but feel like doing another movie is just unnecessary. The first one’s fantastic. It’s got wonderful performances, and Frank Oz’s direction was fantastic. It sort of makes me think of my problem with making the musical of Mean Girls into a film. There’s already an iconic movie, so either they’re gonna copy how the original film did it (which will be even more noticeable here, as Little Shop of Horrors’ direction is much better and more memorable than Mean Girls’), or they’ll have to resign themselves to trying to be more original by not copying, even though that means it’ll clearly be worse.
I haven't seen a production of Little Shop, and that trend will continue if this happens. Absolutely NOT. PSA: You do not need to cast ScarJo in EVERY.SINGLE.MOVIE. I know she's obviously not in everything, but lately I feel like I've been reading so much about how many different projects she's in....just no. Why do they need this remake anyway???
I agree with others that a remake is not needed given how amazing the original was.
As for Taron as Seymour, the first movie I saw Taron in was EDDIE THE EAGLE several years ago and perhaps it's because he was cast next to Hugh Jackman but I didn't think Taron looked physically attractive in that movie. He was, however, cute in an awkward/innocent type way though which I can see an Audrey falling in love with.
Back in 2005 or so Andrew Lloyd Webber was courting Scarlett Johansson to play Maria in his planned revival of THE SOUND OF MUSIC. It didn't pan out but Johansson did perform a couple of songs from the musical at a benefit for Webber and her vocals were extremely impressive. I think she may be a better singer than many here are realizing.
That said, of course a remake is completely unnecessary - unless there is some interesting new take on the material - which perhaps there is - we don't know anything yet.
QueenAlice said: "Back in 2005 or so Andrew Lloyd Webber was courting Scarlett Johansson to play Maria in his planned revival of THE SOUND OF MUSIC. It didn't pan out but Johansson did perform a couple of songs from the musical at a benefit for Webber and her vocals were extremely impressive. I think she may be a better singer than many here are realizing.
That said, of course a remake is completely unnecessary - unless there is some interesting new take on the material - which perhaps there is - we don't know anything yet."
Were the keys lowered for her? Cause I’d be very surprised if if she could sing Maria given her speaking voice is very low. I have heard her sing before, but I seem to recall it was in the alto range. Maybe I’m wrong though.
perfectliar said: "barcelona20 said: "Is it asking too much for a little diversity?"
Scarlett Johansson is a tree though."
I definitely feel like I saw some Scarlett as Audrey II jokes floating around on twitter when she made that infamous statement.
As someone who has listened to at least one of her albums (and doesn't hate it) I don't think she can sing this score well enough to deserve this part.
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
