MovieChat Forums > Little Shop of Horrors (1986) Discussion > Anybody else see this in theatres over t...

Anybody else see this in theatres over the weekend and leave pissed off?

posted 11 years ago by Gprime1318
10 replies | jump to latest

Let me start by saying this is my single favourite movie of all time. When I was dragged to see the thoroughly mediocre "World War Z" last weekend, I was shocked and delighted to find out Little Shop was coming back to theatres for a two day run as part of Cineplex Odeon's "Summer of Musicals" promotion. I bought tickets on the spot and told my kids (6 & 10) we were going to the movies. I absolutely love everything about the movie and everytime I watch it I can't help but get a warm feeling in my stomach and a stupid smile on my face. I was very anxious to share it with my children.

So we're all watching the show and having a great time. The kids are just loving it and I'm lost in the movie for about the thousandth time-- until Audrey 2 said something to Audrey 1 I hadn't heard before. I should have clued in right then, as I could probobly recite the film script verbatim in my head, but it wasn't until the alleyway scene that I realised - THIS IS THE DIRECTOR'S CUT!!

I'm not a fan of Hollywood endings, and generally I prefer a downbeat ending to a positive one. I'm a big fan of the original stage play and I've seen it twice. But the movie version of "Little Shop" is just different. I CARE about the characters in this movie. Hell, I grew up with them. I had absolutely no interest in the "original" ending and up to this point had intentionally avoided it.

Well, now I found myself in a miserable position. I'd always loved the movie and so much wanted to share the happiness it brought me with my boys. Now that was out of the question- I knew this was going to upset ME, let alone the kids. Not sure what to do, I broke my cardinal rule when it comes to movies and told the kids how it was going to end and asked if they wanted to leave. I sure did. The kids had loved the movie up to that point, however, and they demanded we stay for the whole thing. When we left the theatre we'd all entered so happily, all three of us were sullen and quiet. I've never actually seen a depressed six year old until I watched the "Little Shop" directors cut with mine. Thankfully I own the DVD, so when we got home I managed to salvage some of the trip by showing the kids the "real" ending.

I guess my point in all of this is that whether you prefer the upbeat ending as I do (as most seem to, the "downer" ending was disastrous with test audiences back in '86 and it didn't seem to go over very well today, either) or the downbeat one, I think re-releasing the movie without any kind of warning that it's no longer the light-hearted feel good movie it used to be is both irreponsible and bad business. How hard would it be to slap an "Extended Version" label on the promo poster? I just found it pretty unbelievable I went to see my favourite movie with my favourite people and a universaly *beep* time was had by all.

[–] DarkPrincess1989 11 years ago

That's pretty interesting that you didn't respond well to the original ending. I've always been more of a fan of it (obviously from the stage play) and found the new 'Hollywood Ending' made the entire film lose its merit as Seymour didn't face consequences for his actions. But after reading your post I see your point of view, perhaps it doesn't translate as well in film as it does on the stage. For example in the play each deceased character is part of the plant and all come out to sing 'Don't Feed the Plants' and even have a couple of lines in the song so it does add some relief whereas in the film, once Seymour is eaten, that is it, its all about Audrey II eating innocents and taking over the world.

The original ending does look fantastic though, its a visual spectacle and I think the filmmakers put in a lot of effort with it. Its interesting how something can work well in one medium but not as well in another. It sucks that your kids felt down at the end of the film, I never thought it could have that effect until now, when you really think about it you see these characters and grow attached to them over the course of the film only for them all to meet their maker. Nevertheless, its a wonderful film so maybe the test audiences had it right all along even though for years I've been like "they should have stuck to the original" as it gives it more consequence and teaches a valuable lesson.

http://mshayleyr1989.wordpress.com/ -Hayley's Horror Reviews-

[–] mccarthystuart 11 years ago

I've just watched the alternate ending now. I must say the look
of the street scenes remind me a lot of Anton Furst's designs
for Gotham city in the 1989 Batman movie (which came out
three years later)

I reckon this would have helped to break
up the rather claustrophobic "set-bound"
look of the film.

So this is how liberty dies-with thunderous applause?

[–] DarkPrincess1989 11 years ago

You make a valid point. The transition regarding the sets really emphasizes to the audience how Audrey II had planned world domination and it was always bigger than just Skid Row.

http://mshayleyr1989.wordpress.com/ -Hayley's Horror Reviews-

[–] stevenackerman69 10 years ago

Yeah, because on stage you have a curtain call. You don't have that in film, although they do show the characters in the ending credits. Guess it isn't the same.

[–] jorgito2001 11 years ago

Great post OP and I'm 100000% with you on this one!

LSOH is one of my favorite musicals (2nd only to The Producers which dethroned it only a few years ago) and, like you, the play and the movie should be treated as separate entities and the "dark" ending just DOESN'T work for the MOVIE!

yesterday I popped in my 1998 DVD, my kids are 13 (boy) and 9 (girl) and they LOVED the movie and the songs (they play instruments and LOVE music) and of course, the happy sappy ending...then I told them there's a DIFFERENT ending without giving much away...but my son had a "feeling" it was a sadder ending.

**SPOILERS for DIRECTORS CUT**

My DVD has the "dark" ending in black & white & unfinished FX...but as soon as Audrey passes and Seymour gets devoured my daughter was like "what the heck is this?!?!?!"....hahaha...exact words! Followed by "I HATE this ending!" My son liked the "Godzilla" style city attacks but also hated the ending...and I can see in their faces they were a little haunted by that ending....seeing her sad/thoughful face, I had to assure my daughter that was NOT the "real" ending (even though it kinda IS...lol). I can only imagine seeing the Director's Cut FIRST would totally ruin the movie for any child...let alone a sentimental adult who's never seen it before.

--
I'm your average ordinary everyday, jorgeegeetooo!

[–] stevenackerman69 10 years ago

The reason the original ending was changed was due to test audiences in 1986 not liking it. They were enjoying the film but when it got to the end, it turned stony silent. Oh, you know that already, I didn't see you saying that before.

Maybe you should've been told about it beforehand. I guess they figured or overlooked the fact that people still may not want to see the original ending.

[–] decmcg 10 years ago

The whole reason the film was re-released in cinemas was because they had recovered and restored the original ending and to let people see same on the big screen. Very surprised the cinemas' marketing and film's promotional material surrounding it didn't shout this from the rooftops and make it dead clear and certain that this was indeed the "Director's Cut" that people would be viewing.

[–] a_l_i_e_n 9 years ago

Bought the dvd from the bargain bin a couple months ago and didn't notice it said "director's cut". So it was quite a surprise to see Audrey die in Seymour's arms and then be re-fed to the plant that just killed her. Even Corman's original didn't do that! Never knew this alternate footage existed, and while I can appreciate downbeat endings, in this case (and having seen the theatrical cut) I think the test audiences in 1986 had a point. What might've worked on the stage perhaps just does not work as well in a film. The effects work with the giant plants on a rampage was outstanding, and Audrey II breaking through the screen at "the end?!?" was a neat homage to 50's monsters movies. But I do think people who'd seen the original production on stage would probably have been in a better position to appreciate Oz's intended ending.

[–] rndgurl-971-654277 8 years ago

I agree with the OP.. There should have a least been a warning so you could have decided if you wanted to take the kids to see it or not, I saw part of the directors cut ending on youtube and didn't like it much, Audrey and Seymour didn't deserve a bad ending and the Godzilla quality of the ending seemed overdone and silly to me.. It is an ending I wouldn't want my children to see either, if I had them.. It is 'bad business" not to warn people about the Directors cut ending.

[–] Andyimbd 8 years ago

If I knew it was that version I wouldn't have gone to see it either. Test audiences hated that ending originally and I can see why.It ruins the whole movie. I love the version where they get married and get their little House. The other version feels like they gave up on the movie and just showed off their special effects