MovieChat Forums > The Little Shop of Horrors (1960) Discussion > Comparison to musical remake

Comparison to musical remake

posted 17 years ago by DabacTSP
19 replies | jump to latest

There is something funny about Frank Oz: he didn’t direct many movies – and few of them were Muppet movies – but some of his films are the remakes and the very successful ones. ‘Dirty Rotten Scoundrels’ is considered to be the greatest exception to the rule the remakes are inferior to the original, and the ‘Little Shop Of Horrors’ is not so far away.

When Roger Corman was filming one of his B-production horrors filmed in couple of days, he probably didn’t realize that his work will become world famous through the Broadway musical hit and the 1986 version. The original was filmed with some unknown actors plus one of the first Jack Nicholson’s small appearances, and the remake was crowded with popular Saturday Night Live crew including Rick, Steve, James Belushi, Bill Murray, John Candy…
Some critics prefer the remake to the original, but the original is not bad at all.

Movie remakes compared to original
http://www.movie-remakes.com

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] AlienHunterRT 17 years ago

I'm not usually a fan of remakes, but I saw the 86 version before I knew about the musical (I'm a teenager from a small "hick" town, if that answer any questions to that), and I only knew about the 60's version from special features on the 86 movie's DVD.

This somewhat puts me at a disadvantage. I was a big Texas Chainsaw Massacre fan, so I could easily despise the remake, but when you're such a fan of the remake before knowing it's a remake, it's kind of hard.

After trying to overcome my long lasting love with the 86 version to compair to the 60's version, I can't decide which one I like best. The 60's characters were a little better in parts (highly arguable when it comes to the dentist and patient) but I'm a really big fan of most of the songs from the 86 version, and the plant (not that I don't love the plant from the 60's version, which is great in it's simplicity).

All in all, both of them are great films in their own ways, and I can't figure out which one I like most.

[–] Meven_Stoffat 16 years ago

"The 60's characters a little better in parts"??? Gotta disagree with ya man- I thought the characters were FAR better in the musical. I mean the chemistry between Seymour and Audrey is more apparent. In fact I prefer the musical in so many ways, partly because it's funnier and the story is easier to follow. I love the 60s version, but the 86 version outdoes it.

"Bury your morals and bury your dead, bury your head in the sand"- Iron Maiden

[–] Deborah-20 16 years ago

I've nothing against the musical version, but since I saw the original back in the late 60's, nothing can take its place. It's a classic. I spent a couple of decades searching for this on videotape! I'm not sure when it finally became public domain and became available on DVD, but I was ecstatic to finally get to see it again. And it really holds up.

[–] laurence01 16 years ago

I don't really classify the 1986 film as a remake, any more than I classify "my fair lady" as a remake of "pygmalion". Dirty rotten scoundrels" however is, and is a very good one.

[–] rockfenris2005 16 years ago

The 1986 version would have been the better one IF they kept the original ending!

[–] laurence01 16 years ago

I'm not so sure. They showed the original ending to test audiences, and they hated it.

[–] rockfenris2005 16 years ago

I saw the original ending and it was like the whole film was elevated. There was a beauty about it. It was like the story had a point, that it wasn't just another happy Hollywood picture. One of the top 10 most moving moments I have seen from a film, post 1960s and 70s, is Seymour feeding Audrey to the plant. The music and the drama and the tension is monumental.

[–] Nameless-3 16 years ago

Yeah, the original ending is great, but after viewing it, I see why the audience hated it so much. Also from a purely cinematic point-of-view, it's problematic. What I mean is, your main female lead dies, there's a big confrontation musical number, and then the hero is eaten...and then you have ten more minutes left in the movie. The film's focus suddenly switches from three characters to about eighty characters, and it feels kind of jarring.

The Nameless

I am not what I am

[–] jschillig 15 years ago

Having seen the original ending on YouTube, at first I agreed that it dragged. But one very knowledgable person pointed out that the ending that we see on YouTube (that was originally released on DVD) was never edited properly...it was made up of a ton of footage that would have been edited down into something a little more concise. That's why the music keeps looping over and over, why the last verse seems to come in a little jerkily, and why we don't hear any sound effects.

Having just come back from seeing a phenomenal production of the stage version...I'm torn. On the one hand, I can see where the happy ending came from...in a film, we don't see the dead characters sing the the last song and we don't see them come out for a bow. The early audiences were disturbed because these characters we'd come to care about were kaput and stayed so.

But although I do rather like the happy ending (with just a hint of Audrey Two's return), the darker ending shows more consequences. As some of the YouTube commentators pointed out, in the happy ending, Seymour got off scot-free! (Maybe a darker ending for the movie would have been better accepted if, as in the Corman version, Seymour had died but Audrey had lived. Maybe Seymour got his karmic desserts...but poor Audrey didn't deserve to die!)

And, in the darker ending...the horde of plants was unleashed on the world because all the people who'd bought Audrey Two's offspring had *also* killed for their own gain! So you can see where it's a bit of a cautionary thing. "Don't feed the plants", indeed!

[–] fieldofhats 15 years ago

the 1986 version doesn't have rick moranis continuously saying 'aww, gee. i didn't mean it' throughout the film, so i gotta go for the OG version

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] laurence01 15 years ago

The people saying that Seymour gets of scott free need to realise the difference between the two versions. In the original Seymour does kill people, and feed them to the plant. But in the 1986 version he does not directly kill anybody (although he did not help Orin). He just feeds the bodys to the plant after they are dead.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] IntotheThanasphere 14 years ago

His boss stuck his head into the plant on his own and was eaten. Also, thought I'd mention that the remake is not crowded with popular SNL crew. The only ones who were cast members on SNL were Bill Murray and Jim Belushi who had tiny parts in the film. Rick Moranis and John Candy were on SCTV, and Steve Martin just hosted SNL several times and wasn't a cast member. They were all popular comedians and actors, like any comedy film you'd want people to watch.

[–] ahaas-4 14 years ago

I haven't seen the 60's one, but I saw the 86' one. And the plant was an alien, so it makes sense for Seymour to get off scott free, he successfully saved the world.

[–] vababy 12 years ago

I normally like the original version better but for this movie i like the 86 version way better.The plant in the 60s version hardly said a few words and it looked like something I could have made.The plant in the 80s version not only talked more but it song made jokes and everything,and it also looked more real.

[–] ZombiHorndog 7 years ago

The 1986 version is bleak, the 1960 version is upbeat. 1986 has weaker characterization but better special effects.

Isn't it really absurd that so many people complained about the Chris Rock-produced Death at a Funeral? BECAUSE FRANK OZ NEEEEEEEVERRR DIRECTED ANYTHING BASED ON SOMETHING ELSE. Even Dirty Rotten Scoundrels was a remake.