MovieChat Forums > Little Shop of Horrors (1986) Discussion > Differences between the Director's Cut D...

Differences between the Director's Cut DVD and the Blu-Ray?

posted 12 years ago by PsychedelicDreams
9 replies | jump to latest

Someone seemed to indicate that the "happy" ending was not on the Director's Cut DVD. Are there any other differences in the two in terms of special features?

Hate is the poison, is the remedy.

[–] swanfire_forever 12 years ago

This is what I could find on amazon's website

Director's Cut DVD Special Feature:
NOTE: This disc does not contain the alternate ending found on the previously-issued DVD
Making-Of Featurette
Deleted Footage With Director's Commentary
Isolated Music Track
Outtakes

Blu-Ray:
- Theatrical version of the film with optional commentary

- The Director’s Cut featuring the newly restored 20-minute alternate ending

- "Frank Oz and Little Shop of Horrors: The Director's Cut," an introduction by Frank Oz with Richard Conway

- "A Story of Little Shop of Horrors" (behind-the-scenes documentary)

- Outtakes and deleted scenes with optional commentary)

- Two theatrical trailers

[–] PsychedelicDreams 12 years ago

Actually, that is for the 2000 DVD release, Amazon just didn't change it. Thanks, though.

Hate is the poison, is the remedy.

[–] swanfire_forever 12 years ago

Ah okay. I bought the DVD but now I'm kinda wishing I had bought the blu-ray because while I'm finally glad to be able to see the original ending I'm not sure i like it as much as the other one.

[–] Sic Coyote 12 years ago

well you could just pick up a dirt cheap old dvd, the picture quality isn't much different

----

Even if you hate Uwe Boll, give Postal a try, be offended or entertained.

[–] laurence01 11 years ago

I know what you mean. Although I like the original ending on stage, I think they went completely over the top when they transferred it to film and can well understand why test audiences didn't like it.

Let Zygons Be Zygons.

[–] jedi-jones 11 years ago

For those of us who didn't see the play, can you explain how the movie made the ending more over-the-top?

I can see how the attack on the city must have been bigger-scale than what the play did. But I doubt that's what turned audiences off. The feeding of Audrey to Audrey II, her musical request to have it done, Seymour's near-suicide and his very slow death by plant seem to be the moments that the rest of the movie really doesn't prepare the audience for and would've made them depressed and uncomfortable. Did those happen that way in the play or were they somehow made more humorous?

Colonel Miles Quaritch is like some sort of...non...giving-up...army guy!

[–] laurence01 11 years ago

I simply mean that imo the version I saw seemed to go on to long.

Let Zygons Be Zygons.

[–] supercat-1 11 years ago

I can see how the attack on the city must have been bigger-scale than what the play did.

In the stage musical, within the song "The meek shall inherit" there is an extended bridge by Seymour in which he realizes "the vegetable must be destroyed", but then decides not to do so immediately for fear that Audrey wouldn't like him without his fame and fortune. The fact that Seymour had a chance to do the right thing and deliberately decided not to do so when he had the chance meant that he earned his own fate (and that of Audrey), and when he got chomped he was not a hero but rather than a fugitive from a fate which caught up with him.

According to a post on the LSOH message board, Frank Oz said the song was trimmed because it "wasn't working". It's entirely possible that cutting the song was better than trying to show a bad version of it, but the decision to cut the song meant that Seymour would have still been a hero at the time he got chomped. I wouldn't fault an audience for rejecting that.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]