Little Shop of Horrors: Stage to Screen

analysis
#1

When I was growing up, Little Shop of Horrors, the musical, was one of my favorite films. I’ve always been a fan of practical effects in movie, and I had seen nothing like Audrey II before. Plus, it had great songs, good performances, and was very funny. I later learned that it was based on a stage musical, which was in turned based on another movie, The Little Shop of Horrors, and that these two versions had a decidedly different ending. Instead of Seymour triumphing over the plant, he was eaten by it, and in the stage version, the plants wreaked havoc worldwide.

It turns out that Frank Oz had originally filmed this ending, at a cost of three million dollars, but test audiences responded so negatively to it that a new, happy ending was shot. I’ve seen the original ending on the latest Blu-Ray of the film and can confirm that it doesn’t work. I reason it’s because Seymour seems less culpable in the killings in the film version, is much less happy to be feeding the plant even in the early stages (the song “Ya Never Know” being replaced by the sarcastic “Some Fun Now”), and the song “The Meek Shall Inherit”, in which Seymour makes the explicit decision to continue to feed the plant, is largely removed. These differences all imply that the film version has a much different MC Throughline than the stage version.

So, the challenge is this: can Dramatica tell us exactly why the stage play works with a Failure/Bad ending and the film version only works with Success/Good?

#2

What a great topic!! I haven’t seen the film in years, might have to add it to my list.

#3

Actually, the film was shot with the same ending as the play (and original movie), even going so far as to add scenes of the plant taking over the world in scene reminiscent of some old fantasy/horror classics, such as King Kong and Godzilla. Word has it that the audience response was SO negative that they redid the ending to the new, happier version where Audrey II is electrocuted into non-existence. I don’t know if they made any other adjustments earlier in the story to set that up – but the original ending WAS pretty nihilistic and consistent with the original film version where everyone is “et up.” In the original film, it ends with Audrey II blooming and the faces of all her victims are in the center of the flowers.

#4

The Wikipedia has a lot of information about the different versions. There were many, many character changes. My gut says the removal of the hypochondriac mother from the 1960’s film version changed the dynamics. I would compare the characters through the dramatica theory in the three versions, 1960 film, stage musical, and 1986 film.

#5

My point was exactly that the stage musical’s ending does work in the film musical. They spent millions filming it (showing on screen what the stage musical could only imply), but response was so negative they had to shoot a new ending on the cheap, making the ending a happy one.

I’m not really concerned about the Roger Corman original, as that version is very different from the ones that came after, with Seymour’s mother and the flower eater. But, if others want to bring that film into this as well, I’m game. My main interest, though, is to compare the stage musical and film musical and see if Dramatica can explain the need for the ending change.

I’m going to try to track down a video of the stage version for those who haven’t seen it. Unfortunately, neither film version seems to be on Netflix at the moment.

#6

“…if Dramatica can explain the need for the ending to change.”

Audience Reception…LOL

That is an actual theoretical point in Dramatica.

#7

The original ending to the film really does feel false, though. It feels like Seymour has become a hero at this point and to have him eaten by the plant is just wrong.

I think there may be a switch from Do-er to Be-er between the stage musical and film musical. I’ve found several stage versions (of varying quality) on YouTube and will watch one tonight. I have the film version on DVD and Blu-Ray and have watched it many times, but it’s been quite a while since I’ve seen the stage play.

Here is what looks like a pretty good synopsis of the stage version.

#8

The audience reception portion of the book doesn’t really explain why certain stories or endings are well received. It seems to only attempt to explain how or what you can do to try and increase the probability they will receive the story the way you intend it. By way of symbols (specific or universal) and propaganda (misdirection, conditioning, awareness) we can force audiences to think the way our “story mind” thinks.

But why the success/good ending of Little Shop of Horrors did well I would presumably attribute to American audiences liking happy endings.

#9

The success of the current movie ending definitely relates to the whole ‘happy ending’ feel-good factor. Ask any audience what they like and a good amount will say “I want to feel happy when I leave”.

I think, like @JSensebe said, that the whole original death of Seymour seems kind of unsatisfying when we’ve seen him be a hero and a genuinely good guy for so long.

One potential non-storyform reason for the audience dislike of the original ending (which is my theory and is not fact) could be the audience perception in the 1980s. Theater audiences are used to tragic endings - Romeo and Juliet, for example, is praised by audiences. On the flipside, movie audiences in the 1980s had seen a LOT of happy endings. Not many tragic or sad ones.

#10

Even though the events are broadly the same in the stage and films versions, they aren’t shown the same way, which I think will be borne out in the storyforms. On stage Seymour is much more culpable in the deaths of Orin and Muschnik than in the film. His moment of decision to continue feeding the plant goes from being a musical solo on stage, leading to Seymour giving in, to a couple of lines on screen after the contracts are signed, where we never get Seymour’s commitment one way or the other. We see two different Seymours, and thus we require two different outcomes.

#11

Maybe, audience reception is tied into the bell curve in some cases. It might be the audience rejects wrong crossword puzzle pieces. Just look at how some TV series are ended, perhaps on the whim of someone rather than the story being built.

#12

After watching a recording of the stage play on YouTube, I can see the point of divergence is “Ya Never Know”/“Some Fun Now”. Before that, the stage and film versions are basically the same, but where “Ya Never Know” features Seymour dancing around with the plant, the film has this. Clearly, Seymour is not enjoying his situation in the film version nearly as much as he is in the stage musical.

I suggest starting with the OS throughline, which should be the same between the stage musical and film musical.

#13

I watched another recording of the stage musical last night, and to my surprise, it used a version of the film’s happy ending. It rang just as false as the film musical’s original ending. Stage Seymour does not deserve to live happily ever after.

Another thing I realized is that not only is “The Meek Shall Inherit” missing Seymour’s solo in the film, but “It’s Just the Gas” is absent entirely. These songs give us insight into Seymour’s thoughts, making him seem much more guilty in the stage version. Also, on stage, more emphasis is placed on Seymour’s rising fame.

I’m thinking the OS throughline is Situation, as exemplified by the song “Skid Row”. All of the characters (Audrey II included) are stuck on skid row and want to escape.