Little Shop of Horrors musical movie remake- Page 5

[peachesr82]

Posted: 6/14/12 at 7:50am

As a whole I don't have any problems with films beng 're-made', I mean there are regular revivals of productions on stage and honestly how many Hamlets can there be in one year? If they do a new one and I still like the Rick Mornais one better then so be it.

[random person 112]

Posted: 6/14/12 at 8:01am

Yes Jordan, she was in the awful Marci X, and performed this gem on the comeback. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLBUwHT8ce0

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/14/12 at 8:07am

There's a big difference in reviving stage shows vs. remaking films.

I can watch the 1985 film version of "Little Shop" any time I want to, thanks to home video releases. It will be as fresh and clear as it was the first time I saw it---perhaps even more so now, thanks to state-of-the-art film restoration and preservation.

But I can't go back and sit in the theatre again and watch the original stage production. Even a bootleg wouldn't do that experience justice.

Stage revivals make more sense and have been going on since theatre began.

I see nothing wrong with remaking films if there is a reason to do it. With film, a side-by-side comparison to the original is not only possible, it's inevitable. It's an equal playing field in that medium.

For me, there has to be a compelling creative reason (not just a financial one) for a remake of any movie. Otherwise, I don't see the point.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 6/14/12 at 8:18am

And now with the new director's cut being released on blu-ray this October with a newly re-mastered (from the original color negative)original ending intact there is even less of a reason to remake this.

Again I say I wish they would concentrate on material that hasn't been done yet.

IN THE HEIGHTS
SPRING AWAKENING
NEXT TO NORMAL
WICKED

I don't need to see another movie version of MY FAIR LADY, LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS or (shudder) GYPSY!

[JP2]

Posted: 6/14/12 at 9:16am

I really never understand that argument whenever there is an announcement about a movie musical being made. "Why do this, when they should do this!"

There isn't some big movie musical making production company that picks and choose which movie to make, and which not to make.

[peachesr82]

Posted: 6/14/12 at 9:45am

For the record, I really like both the origional Roger Corman film and the musical film but out of interest, how many people who think that a re-make is unnecessary, will still go to the cinema to see it if the project goes ahead?
If you don't need to see it, don't go and see it then. I just don't see why it's a travesty to re-make something, no matter how good, when material is re-cycled in other mediums all the time.
Who knows, a new version might actually be good!

[BroadwayBenny]

Posted: 6/14/12 at 10:35am

I'm sure a younger hipster cast and a CGI Audrey II will indeed be embraced...by teens. It just wouldn't sit well with my fuddy duddy purist self.

The first movie brilliantly tiptoed the line of low budget camp and state of the art special effects, never forgetting what it was supposed to come across as. I fear that a new film with a CG plant would fail the same way the Broadway production did in placing it's tongue too firmly in it's cheek and going way overboard with the effects.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 6/14/12 at 10:45am

"I'm sure a younger hipster cast and a CGI Audrey II will indeed be embraced...by teens. It just wouldn't sit well with my fuddy duddy purist self."

It has nothing to do with being a "fuddy duddy", the characters simply DO NOT WORK if they are young, especially Audrey. She's a woman who's been around the block more times than she can count and had been treated so badly for so long that she believes she's worthless. If you put Selena Gomez in there, that character now makes no sense. You just find yourself wondering why she doesn't just go to a bar and hookup with a rich guy and get over it and stop acting like a whiney little brat. Audrey is a really depressing and depressed woman who needs an actress that can convey all of that and it won't happen with a younger or younger looking (I.e. Kerry Butler) actress.

[greensgreens]

Posted: 6/14/12 at 10:56am

Did anyone see Ripley in the pre-B'way tryout? She nailed it, I thought... Talk about a heartbreaking Audrey who's been around the block!

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 6/14/12 at 11:01am

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 6/14/12 at 11:01am

She was stunning.

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/14/12 at 1:31pm

It isn't a travesty, it's just pointless. No hand wringing here.

I can't think of one movie remake I enjoyed more than the original. The best I can say is that I liked it just as much, and those instances are few and far between. More often than not, they suck.

Btw, why was Ripley replaced? Not to open a can of worms, but I don't remember.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 6/14/12 at 5:13pm

To address JP2 I was simply coming from the point of view of studios tackling material or shows that have not been done and not rehashing the same old same old....whats so difficult to understand about that?

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 6/14/12 at 5:13pm

To address JP2 I was simply coming from the point of view of studios tackling material or shows that have not been done and not rehashing the same old same old....whats so difficult to understand about that?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 6/14/12 at 5:26pm

CGI Audrey II would be enough to keep me away from a remake.

[landlocked_mermaid]

Posted: 6/14/12 at 6:16pm

That was my first thought upon readings about the remake. I'm not sure I see the point of redoing this one when there are lots of other musicals that haven't been done yet. I vote for Spring Awakening.

[JP2]

Posted: 6/14/12 at 6:23pm

Why redo The Great Gatsby a fourth time when 50 Shades of Grey hasn't been done yet!?

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 6/14/12 at 6:34pm

I think Ripley was simply victim to the complete overhaul the production went under before moving to Broadway. It sounds like, in many ways, the original approach was more appropriate to the material than the Disaneyland take the revival ended up with.

JP I get your argument, but nobody has really been pleased with any Gatsby adaptation (this will be the fifth time, BTW :P if you count the silent, Alan Ladd version, Jack Clayton version, and the almost too faithful 90s TV movie with Mira Sorvino and Paul Rudd). Little Shop is seen as most as a successful adaptation. I mean even with Gypsy, I know some actually like the Roz Russell mess, but for the most part people felt it was a disappointment.

It feelslike Hollywood goes in waves. Early on, remakes were common--partly because technology was improving (ie redoing a hit property just ten years later because now you could do it with sound) and because it was much more rare that people would have access to the original version, anyway. Then when older movies were easier to see (due to tv, then cable in the 70s, then home media, etc), people seemed to largely lose interest in remakes, unless it was a property they felt they could finally do justice to, due to better effects, or whatever. But now the mentality really seems to be remake anything with any sort of name recognition, whether successful artistically/commercially or not (ie the recent horror remakes of everything from prom Night to the modern classic Nightmare on Elm Street).

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/14/12 at 6:40pm

I suppose one of the distinctions here is "remake" vs. "adaptation."

In some cases, source material is adapted multiple times, by different writers, directors, studios, etc. I find very little in common between the old MGM "Pride and Prejudice" and the more recent Kira Knightley version. I wouldn't call hers a "remake" of the first movie though. It's a new adaptation of the source material, which is the Austen novel.

From what I can tell, Baz Luhrmann's Gatsby will bear little if any resemblance to the Robert Redford film.

Just to throw another log on the fire for people here to "discuss."

If this new version of Little Shop were being created by different writers (meaning different songs, scenes, characterizations) all taken from the original Roger Corman movie, I would call it an "adaptation," rather than a "remake." But they are using the same musical material (book and score) as their source. That's why it's a remake.

... at least to me. And I'm not fond of remakes.

Updated On: 6/14/12 at 06:40 PM

[JP2]

Posted: 6/14/12 at 6:41pm

Actually, my point was that The Great Gatsby and 50 Shades of Grey, while both books, are absolutely nothing a like. And a movie studio doesn't have some sort of ultimatum to direct one or the other.

The "why make THIS when they can make THAT!" argument just doesn't make any sense to me.

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/14/12 at 6:42pm

Eric---thanks for clarifying my question about Ripley. That makes sense even if it was unfortunate.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 6/14/12 at 6:42pm

Ah, sorry. I thought you were speaking about why make another remake instead of adapting something that hasn't been made.

(Besides, they are making a 50 Shades of Grey movie... :P )

[JP2]

Posted: 6/14/12 at 6:45pm

Haha, yes. It was the only popular book I could think of. :p

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 6/14/12 at 6:47pm

Thank you besty. I couldn't have said it any better myself.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 6/14/12 at 7:12pm

Best, someone else on here I'm sure knows more specifics about Ripley and the changes made to Little Shop's revival before it opened on Broadway--I followed the various our of town gossip and reviews at the time, but don't really remember more details.

I think that's a really fascinating point you make--when does something become a remake and not just another adaptation? I suspect some of it has to do with how well regarded the initial film is--no matter what anyone says, if someone does a new film based on the novel of Gone With the Wind, or yet another televised or film adaptation of the play of Streetcar Named Desire, it will be called by most a remake of the original film--I suspect anyway.

True that Huxley's version of Pride and Prejudice was fairly well received and it hasn't got in the way of future versions (and not just becuase he made changes and updated the era)--although I do know that many people regarded the last film version as something of an inferior remake of the Andrew Davies miniseries, and speaking for myself I had a hard time not directly comparing the two, just because I did find that miniseries to be so close to perfect.