Post
by Ben » January 21st, 2021, 6:45 am
As a Little Shop "acolyte", I must point out that...
The original was made and released in 1960, so not really a 50s creature feature, though it shares some of the tropes.
But the 86 film isn’t a remake: it’s a film version of the 1982 off-Broadway stage musical, which is where all the "changes" came from (and, in fact, the original stage version doesn’t change the 60 film's story much at all). When dumb test audiences didn’t like the un-happy ending (from both the 60 film and 82 musical) they shot the new "happy ending" where Audrey and Seymour both survive (yes, even Seymour was eaten in 1960 and 82), which is what audiences have seen until the original 86 ending was restored for a "director's cut" just a few years back.
The original 1960 film — with an added The on the front of the title — is, to be honest, sometimes a slog. As a half-hour Hitchcock Presents it would have been kooky and weird, but to make it a "feature" (and barely that), Roger Corman puts in a lot of filler and "beatnik" scenes that really don’t fit: famously the film was made up and shot in two and a half days on sets left over from something else!
Little Shop, the musical (without the The!) was destined to be another Ashman/Menken half-failure, until audiences who had enjoyed Rocky Horror picked up on the title and made its off-Broadway debut something of a sleeper hit. Geffen had been an investor, so nabbed the film rights, and he had a deal with Warners at the time, so it got produced there. Because Audrey II was designed as a massive puppet on stage, they went to Jim Henson to make what had to be a more believable movie version, and Frank Oz ended up getting the directing gig (after The Muppets Take Manhattan, and a lot of Muppeteers worked on this too).
Contrary to popular belief, it wasn’t a flop, though it wasn’t a massive hit either. The folks that loved the stage play hated the altered ending, but over time it built up an audience, as with so many 80s films, on home video, to the point where Warners thought it was viable to restore the original ending.
And it's *full* of names of the time: Rick Moranis was coming off Ghostbusters, Spaceballs was around the same time, and Shrunk The Kids was around the corner, Steve Martin was the most prolific solo comic actor who also had ¡Three Amigos! the same year, and Ellen Greene reprised her role from the stage after a long search found no-one better suited than the one who had originated the role. Plus you have a whole bunch of cameos in there: Murray is the obvious one, who shot his scene as a favour in a day while on sabbatical in Paris (it was shot at Pinewood, just outside London), as well as John Candy, Christopher Guest...almost everyone is a name, however minor (even the dentist's nurse is Miriam Margolies). The only one I’m not a *terrific* fan of is Vincent Gardenia: he looks the part but the fact he couldn’t sing meant that his song, Mushnik & Son, got cut, along with another whole subplot that's really the movie's only other major difference.
It was so cool to visit Skid Row back in the day, when my Dad was on this: it was a *massive* set, built on the same Bond stage as the Fortress of Solitude for the first two Superman movies, and the way they shot Audrey II was phenomenally complex and yet so simple, resulting in a totally believable man eating plant from outer space.
In keeping with the theme of this reply, they do keep mooting a new version of the musical, which could be considered a remake, although it will likely stick closer to the stage show's original story and not lose the Mushnik plot or change the ending. As much as I would anticipate that — albeit with however much trepidation! — I can’t help but think that they captured it so well in 86 in terms of casting, tone and feel, that it really can’t be bettered!
) 
