Little Shop of Horrors

Tools    





http://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3...s-casting-not/

"We reported back in December that Warner Bros. Pictures is moving forward with a new incarnation of Little Shop of Horrors, with Greg Berlanti set to direct and Matthew Robinson writing the script.

This one will also be a musical, a fresh version of the 30-year old Frank Oz-directed film that starred Rick Moranis as a clumsy young man who raises a plant, discovering it is carnivorous and kills to keep it fed. That remake, also starring Ellen Greene, Vincent Gardenia, and Steven Martin, was based on the Roger Corman-directed 1960 low budget sci-fi campy tale.

The studio is circling Josh Gad and Rebel Wilson to lead the film in the roles of Seymour and Audrey, roles played in the 1986 film by Rick Moranis and Ellen Greene, respectively, says ThatHashtagShow. The site adds that the duo are ďinterestedĒ although there are no commitments.
"



Save the Texas Prairie Chicken
I probably won't ever see it. Josh Gad is tolerable, but I can't stand Rebel Wilson. I wonder who other possible choices would be. I am also wondering now if this is going to be a remake of the 1986 film, OR is this going to be a new adaptation of the stage production (the story - and a couple of songs - were altered when they turned it into that movie).

Either way, I know I won't watch it. I have no interest in it because I don't see how a newer version could be better than that one.
__________________
I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity - Edgar Allan Poe



https://movieweb.com/little-shop-of-...ett-johansson/

"According to the rumor mill, Taron Egerton and Scarlett Johansson are in talks to star in the upcoming movie.

In an exclusive report from Full Circle Cinema, Taron Egerton is reported to be in talks to star in the upcoming Little Shop of Horrors remake. As this would be for a starring role, it's likely Egerton would be playing the role of Seymour Krelborn, the role played by Rick Moranis in the 1986 version. Oddly enough, this wouldn't be the first time Egerton would have played the part, as the actor previously portrayed Seymour in a 2007 stage production of the show at the Aberystwyth Arts Centre Youth Theatre.

Collider entertainment reporter Jeff Sneider has lent further credence to this report by tweeting the article on his personal Twitter account. Sneider also adds his own scoop to the story by divulging that Scarlett Johansson has been offered the part of Audrey Fulquard, who works in the story's florist ship alongside Seymour. Additionally, Sneider also says Emmy-winning Pose star Billy Porter is being eyed to voice Audrey II, the man-eating plant that the classic story is best known for. As of now, however, no one has yet reportedly signed on to the project in an official capacity."



Stop eating my sesame cake!
Meh, I can already see they've got too much CGI in it.


The 86 movie is a masterpiece of practical filmmaking.
__________________
Originally Posted by doubledenim
Garbage bag people fighting hippy love babies.




This could be pretty cool, although it would be a big risk for any studio. I love the mid-80's version (well both of them actually - the theatrical version and the Directors Cut, with the vastly different endings), with Rick Moranis, Ellen Greene, Steve Martin, et al. One of my all time favourite musical movies.

It could just be idle speculation due to the current off-Broadway success that it is enjoying just now, but that is a big leap to justifying giving this a second big screen adaptation and as good as the 1986 film is, it wasn't exactly a massive hit at the Box Office ($39m on a $25m production budget), so time will tell but not holding my breathe.



https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/he...orrors-1280781

"Chris Evans is in negotiations to play a key character in Little Shop of Horrors, the big-screen take of the cult movie-turned-Broadway musical being directed by Greg Berlanti.

Evans will play the role of dentist Orin Scrivello, Audreyís abusive and sadistic boyfriend who finds great pleasure in his chosen profession. The role is flashy (the character loves to use laughing gas) and comes with the scene-stealing signature song, ďDentist!Ē

Marc Platt, Sarah Schechter and Berlanti are producing the new adaptation which will shoot this summer."



Ami-Scythe's Avatar
A bucket of anxiety
This is going to be an absolute **** show. This is my favorite movie of all time I am absolutely furious. When is this bull**** gonna end??????????????? STOP GIVING THESE ******** MONEY
__________________
|>
|
Ami-Scythe



I always loved the singing three-girl narrators and the way the music was written to incorporate various 50's music tropes that the movie pays hommage to.

Like "He's a dentist and he'll never ever be any good."
As taken from "He's a rebel and he'll never ever be any good."



Thereís a certain irony to people complaining about this remake while simultaneously praising the 1986 version which itself was a remake from a 1960 film of the same title.



Ami-Scythe's Avatar
A bucket of anxiety
Thereís a certain irony to people complaining about this remake while simultaneously praising the 1986 version which itself was a remake from a 1960 film of the same title.
The 86 version isn't an abomination from Hell like the majority of remakes today. No one remakes anything these days with the intention of retelling a classic tale in means to introduce it to a new audience or giving it their own flavor without soiling the source material, or like the creators of Horrors 86, creating something based on what they personally enjoyed. They're made so that they can make money off of other's people work. Because why try when you can just copy and paste someone's article onto your project and rephrase the wording so it's technically not plagiarism and still get a good grade? That's the problem. If remakes were more respectful and didn't just try to copy the original verbatim despite said material already being the best version of itself, there wouldn't be so much of a fuss. Neither of these directors have made anything tangible and their first consideration for the leads are stars from Pitch Perfect. Because when I think 1986 Little Shop of Horrors, I think of poorly covered 2000s pop songs. No one is even mentioning the voice talent for the ****ing plant. The literal PLOT of the story. And on the logic of, "Well, Little Shop of Horrors of 86 is a remake," WHY DO IT AGAIN? The exact. Same. Thing. With nothing to add except for worse actors, worse music, worse direction and ABYSMAL effects??? There is no point to remaking a ****ing remake. That's like remaking Judge Dredd...again but with the intention of doing what Dredd 2012 did. You know, when DREDD EXISTS. I like both versions of Little Shop of Horrors. I was introduced to the 80s version first when I was a kid and didn't see the 60s version until a couple of years ago. In the long run, they're not really that comparable to one another. They're each their own unique concept. But they also already exist.



Stop eating my sesame cake!
Thereís a certain irony to people complaining about this remake while simultaneously praising the 1986 version which itself was a remake from a 1960 film of the same title.



The 86 version isn't an abomination from Hell like the majority of remakes today.



Agree.
Remakes today have an extremely bad reputation.
There's a lack of originality today that hasn't just seeped its way into modern movie-making, it's completely drowned it.


The point of remaking for me is to better the original movie... and the 1986 Little Shop is perfection already. The remake will simply be a case of doing it with a computer, because CGI.



Thereís a certain irony to people complaining about this remake while simultaneously praising the 1986 version which itself was a remake from a 1960 film of the same title.
The 86 version isn't an abomination from Hell like the majority of remakes today. No one remakes anything these days with the intention of retelling a classic tale in means to introduce it to a new audience or giving it their own flavor without soiling the source material, or like the creators of Horrors 86, creating something based on what they personally enjoyed. They're made so that they can make money off of other's people work. Because why try when you can just copy and paste someone's article onto your project and rephrase the wording so it's technically not plagiarism and still get a good grade? That's the problem. If remakes were more respectful and didn't just try to copy the original verbatim despite said material already being the best version of itself, there wouldn't be so much of a fuss. Neither of these directors have made anything tangible and their first consideration for the leads are stars from Pitch Perfect. Because when I think 1986 Little Shop of Horrors, I think of poorly covered 2000s pop songs. No one is even mentioning the voice talent for the ****ing plant. The literal PLOT of the story. And on the logic of, "Well, Little Shop of Horrors of 86 is a remake," WHY DO IT AGAIN? The exact. Same. Thing. With nothing to add except for worse actors, worse music, worse direction and ABYSMAL effects??? There is no point to remaking a ****ing remake. That's like remaking Judge Dredd...again but with the intention of doing what Dredd 2012 did. You know, when DREDD EXISTS. I like both versions of Little Shop of Horrors. I was introduced to the 80s version first when I was a kid and didn't see the 60s version until a couple of years ago. In the long run, they're not really that comparable to one another. They're each their own unique concept. But they also already exist.
Reasonable points, except youíre judging a film before itís been seen. Just maybe, it could be good? If the first remake surprised some, itís possible the next remake could. I doubt it, but letís not pretend otherwise until itís actually been released.
People get so worked up when their favorite classics are remade, they act like itís a personal slap in the face. Itís not. It wonít be the last time a favorite gets remade.



Reasonable points, except youíre judging a film before itís been seen. Just maybe, it could be good? If the first remake surprised some, itís possible the next remake could. I doubt it, but letís not pretend otherwise until itís actually been released.
People get so worked up when their favorite classics are remade, they act like itís a personal slap in the face. Itís not. It wonít be the last time a favorite gets remade.
We have to realize the first movie version was a bad "B" movie (perhaps intentionally so as it may itself have been a spoof of bad 1950's sci-fi movies).

So the Broadway show was a way to take something obviously bad and add music to it to make it something good while still retaining all its kitche, campy, cliched qualities of the genre it may have been spoofing. And the 1986 movie was taking the musical from the stage to the big screen.

So, remakes? In a way, yes. But remade BECAUSE the original was so sub-par that it could only be improved upon (that's why I think it was chosen).

I'm not sure how the music could be improved upon now from the stage show / 86 movie unless they want to do a RAP version or something (which, for me, would not be an improvement on anything).



We have to realize the first movie version was a bad "B" movie (perhaps intentionally so as it may itself have been a spoof of bad 1950's sci-fi movies).
I liked the original Little Shop of Horrors (1960) directed by Roger Corman, but I didn't like the musical remake Little Shop of Horrors (1986).

What a minute there's another film for Films You Hate, But Everyone Else Loves



I liked the original Little Shop of Horrors (1960) directed by Roger Corman, but I didn't like the musical remake Little Shop of Horrors (1986).

What a minute there's another film for Films You Hate, But Everyone Else Loves
It's been so long since I've seen the original - so was it kind of a spoof of 1950's "B" sci-fi movies? Or was it a "B" sci-fi movie itself? I assume it was the former as it's still considered a comedy. And what am I asking... if a Roger Corman movie made in the 1960's was a "B" movie? Weren't all of his "B" movies?



It's been so long since I've seen the original - so was it kind of a spoof of 1950's "B" sci-fi movies? Or was it a "B" sci-fi movie itself? I assume it was the former as it's still considered a comedy. And what am I asking... if a Roger Corman movie made in the 1960's was a "B" movie? Weren't all of his "B" movies?
It's been a real long time since I last watched the original Little Shop of Horrors. But I don't seem to recall that it was intended as a spoof of 50s B sci-fis. Roger Corman often included some ecliptic type humor in his films so I think that's what he was doing with LSoH. And all of his films (to the best of my knowledge were) B movies.



mattiasflgrtll6's Avatar
The truth is in here
I liked the original Little Shop of Horrors (1960) directed by Roger Corman, but I didn't like the musical remake Little Shop of Horrors (1986).
I haven't seen the remake, but Corman's The Little Shop Of Horrors is pretty underrated. Its quirky charm is irresistable, with fun performances such as Jonathan Haze as Seymour, Myrtle Wail as his mom, Dick Miller as the "plant lover" Fouch and best of all, Jack Nicholson as the masochistic dentist visitor Wilbur Force. It's no wonder he's one of America's most acclaimed actors.

A Bucket Of Blood has a similar vibe, which is even better.
__________________



I haven't seen the remake, but Corman's The Little Shop Of Horrors is pretty underrated. Its quirky charm is irresistable, with fun performances such as Jonathan Haze as Seymour, Myrtle Wail as his mom, Dick Miller as the "plant lover" Fouch and best of all, Jack Nicholson as the masochistic dentist visitor Wilbur Force. It's no wonder he's one of America's most acclaimed actors.

A Bucket Of Blood has a similiar vibe, which is even better.
Yeah! good call! I was going to mention A Bucket of Blood as being similar in feel. It's another great Roger Corman film with Dick Miller. Dick Miller is the bestest!