Talk:Little Shop of Horrors (musical)

plot section added

This article weirdly didn't include info on the plot. I have added, and cleaned up the messy paragraph about the differences in the orig film and musical. Perhaps someone could add a section talking about the scenery, props, etc? The production design is important, and thus far is addressed very little in the article. Davey1107 (talk) 07:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Musical based on film?

I'm surprised that Little Shop of Horrors has been placed in this category since strictly speaking, the film is based on the musical, not the other way round. -- Annie D 02:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. -- Annie D 01:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a Musical film based on a Musical which was based on a film. JP Godfrey (Talk to me) 10:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

performance

on thursday 8th of febuary 2007 the school blatchington mill performed the musical, can someone put this in for me 86.112.218.207 16:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That won't be notable enough to be included in the article, sorry :( Amo 00:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

oh...ok 86.112.234.98 11:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Audrey II puppet Plant rental links

I was wondering if it would be appropriate to include information about the popularity of the show with ameture theatres, as well as including some links to places that had info about building, renting and buying the plant puppets? Yes, this would include a link to an organization I would be affiliated with, but I would make sure to also include other sources. I know that among the people that perform this show, the plant puppet is one of the biggest issues, and it would probably help a lot of people to include this information. I'd also be willing to start a separate article about the plant itself, both in the movies and in the stage productions, if that would be more acceptable.

Emainiac 00:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There is already information about the play's popularity with community theatres, read the fourth paragraph. Feel free to expand on that if you wish. I don't think the external links you mention are necessary because I just now very easily found rental resources with a simple Google search. Remember that Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Feel free to start a new article for Audrey II if you have enough attributable material for it. It might be preferable to start a section on character summaries on this page rather than on independent pages until that section gets long enough to be split off or apart. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 01:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

the phrase "commercial theatre district"

The reasoning behind my use of that phrase is that is makes it clear why the production would move to a different theatre so close (not necessarily obvious to the man on the street). For those not especially knowledgable about British theatre, "West End" is not a particularly informative term ('West End of what? What's so good about Westness etc?'), although of course, i am aware that they need only click on the wikilink to learn preceisely what it means. In my defence, both the wikipedia articles west end theatre and list of london venues describe the West End as hosting "commercial theatre". Amo 22:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

West End is a very reasonable term, you can qualify it as West End of London, if you like; however, I'd say West End theatre is as widely known and used as Broadway. The West End is perhaps not as commercial as Broadway, being better described as commercial receiving houses, as they often host London productions and transfers from the non-commercial sector (particularly the RSC, as they gave up their London home, and have now gone so far as to demolish their 'home' theatre!).

You seem to argue that the term Broadway is more informative, I lived and worked just off Broadway for years. OK the Beacon was near my house, but the Wall Street end doesn't have any theatres ... and many of the theatres are just off Bdwy, anyway ... so, maybe we should be changing the Broadway refs to Manhattan's Mid-Town theater district?

The production you talked about moved from one commercial 190 seat theatre to another that seats about 1000. They just tried it out in a smaller theatre. That's normal too, so how come the qualifier commercial is meaningful?

Anyway, you say tomato and I say tomato, so let's all just leave it at that. Kbthompson 23:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the Tomato factor :). Specifically i just don't think people realise what off-West End/ Broadway/ Wherever or fringe stuff means ie I don't agree that "West End theatre is as widely known and used as Broadway" is the deciding factor. But i don't want to change the article any more. If anything, i might mooch over to West End Theatre and try and sharpen it up a bit. But btw (I'm not taking the mick here i'm just didn't grow up with the theatre) is the Menier really considered a "commercial 190 seat theatre"? Amo 23:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not been open long, so the jury's still out, but it's not supported - therefore, it is commercial, just small - more like a pub-theatre, 'cept it's not in a pub. I agree, it's jargon, but jargon that's in common use, with a specific meaning that isn't captured by easy explanatory phrases. It reads better (in both cases), and the thespically deficient can easily look it up, so I don't think there's a real problem. Wiki's a powerful encyclopaedia, in that explanation of jargon is just a click away.

I didn't grow up in the theatre, they let me go home at nights. 8^) Take care, and I look forward to the opportunity for more gentlemanly disagreements in the future. Kbthompson 08:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Masochistic" dentist

Unless the version I saw was different, the dentist character Orin wasn't masochistic (deriving pleasure from experiencing pain) but rather was sadistic (deriving pleasure from causing pain to others). I am changing it. CreedogV 09:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis

I think this article would benefit from a synopsis of the story, which is something that most musical articles seem to have. I've listened to the soundtrack and seen the musical film, so I could work with it a bit, but I've never actually seen the stage production, so another editor that's more familiar with this show would probably be more qualified than me to write such a section. —Mears man (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The stage production has a darker ending, in which Audrey II eats everyone, and then plant streamers actually fell down from the ceiling, as if the whole audience was being eaten. Creepy/Funny! I'm sure the synopsis is described on various websites. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Article assessment

I promoted the article to B-class, even though it needs more referencing. Good job improving the article so far. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Differences From Film section

The differences from film section seems a bit muddled.

The problem is we're comparing the musical to two different movies, the one its based on, and the one thats based on it. Perhaps this should be two separate sections, or even just make this section about differences from the 1960 movie, then put a section in the 1986 movie about differences from the musical? —Cliffb (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I clarified the confusion. We only need diffierences from 1960 film. The 1986 film article needs to discuss the differences from the show. Can you add any references to the section? Someone must have written about the differences between the 1960 film and the musical. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hold on thar, cowboy!

Hey, Mizu, I have to say that I disagree with nearly all the changes you made. Please don't delete the important section comparing the musical's plot with the source material's plot. Also, the MOS does not say that you need new subheadings for lots of one-paragraph productions within the production section. I think you're being too aggressive. Please discuss your ideas at the WP:MUSICALS talk page before wading in with the axe. For instance, you added a redundant cast list to Hello, Dolly! At WP:MUSICALS, we discussed this before, and the consensus was NOT to require cast lists, when the main, notable actors are listed in the narrative text of the productions section. I encourage you to discuss your ideas for major changes to articles at WP:MUSICALS. If people agree with you, perhaps there can be a change to our article structure guidelines. But please don't delete whole sections without discussion. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Ssilvers. As for your first concern, the section comparing differences between the film and stage musical is purely Original research, and cannot stay in the article; NOR is a policy, and must be abided by. Even with references, guidelines advise against comparing differences without 'real-word context'. This has happened many, many times with articles such as this one, for one example see Jim Dunning's comment at Talk:Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007 film).

As for your second inquiry, you shouldn't use fourth-level headings underneath a second-level one. Does a five-equal-sign heading logically belong underneath a two-equal-sign one? It's in the Manual of Style, again.

Third, I have only added a cast list for Hello, Dolly! because that's the normal practice (that I've seen) for proper musical articles. Several articles, even of higher assessment that Dolly follow this. See Hairspray (musical) for an example.

Cheers, and I hope we can reach an agreement on this. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 03:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. First, I disagree that it's OR. It just needs references. Second, no equal signs (new heading) are needed. Show me where the MOS requires this. I think you are being too literal in your interpretation of the MOS. Third, I think you'll see in our article structure discussions that this was considered, and no consensus was reached. If anything, separate cast lists are discouraged. But some editors favor them and some don't. So it is clearly wrong to say "all musicals articles must have this." But, this is the *wrong place* for this discussion: You need to bring these matters up at WP:MUSICALS, where we can get other editors who are interested in musicals to join in the discussion. Perhaps they will agree with you rather than me. So, that's the best place to try to work towards a consensus, OK? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, for now I'll agree to disagree. But I strongly oppose the use of a "differences" section, and if needed, I'll bring this up at WP:MUSICALS if it's that important. Thanks, —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 04:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC).

Thanks! Yes, I certainly think it's important. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've started the discussion off at the WikiProject's talk page. Cheers! —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 05:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of the puppets

I know relatively little about the fair-use policies surrounding the use of copyrighted images on Wikipedia, but is there any way we could get some pictures of the various versions of the Audrey II puppet, such as this one (it's at the end of the article) from the West End production? I think the article would greatly benefit from this sort of thing, both to demonstrate the differences between Audrey II early and late in the musical, and to show the different incarnations of Audrey II among the various productions. Not to mention that it can be kind of hard to wrap your mind around exactly what this "puppet" looks like if you're not familiar with the show. I'm sure there would be few objections to including images such as these, but I suppose my main question is can they actually be included legally? —MearsMan ^talk 07:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think such photos can be included legally because they informatively contribute to the article. And since the puppet's design is copyrighted to the production team, a "free" alternative doesn't exist -- making it fair use to a promo photograph of it.Annie D (talk) 08:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and uploaded the image... hopefully all the fair use info I used is okay. I've added the picture to the article, but I think it might still need a bit of work. I'm not completely sure about the placement (it's in the most appropriate section, but it seems to mess with the References section heading a bit), and the image actually seems a little small to me, but I'm not sure if there's much to be done about that, and we obviously wouldn't want it to be too big. Perhaps I'm just used to seeing the larger version of the image I've been working with.... —MearsMan ^talk 15:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh hurray, a picture of Audrey II! :-) Looks like you're doing fine, just make sure it adheres to all the Non-free content criteria and has an appropriated fair use rationale. Cheers, —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 17:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC).

"bud" or "buds" in 1986 film adaptation

Recent edits indicate a difference of opinion in the number of "buds" seen at the end of the film. Without access to viewing it here, I propose this may be a question of in what aspect ratio the film is being viewed. The original widescreen frame may show multiple "buds" while the image cropped to 4:3 for broadcast TV may only show one "bud". --Thomprod (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw this in the theatre and remember several Audrey-type flowers with cropped-photo faces of Greene, Moranis, etc. inside, but the other editor says that his version does not show this. I think it is possible that the theatrical release had a slightly different ending from the video release, but I can't be sure. In any case, it's not that important to this article, although it is more important to the film article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Rock Musical?

Since the singing group is 'dee-wop' and there is no noticable use of electronic guitars or electronic music, how could it be described as a rock musical?78.146.203.131 (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

See The Theater Will Rock: A History of the Rock Musical, from Hair to Hedwig by Elizabeth Lara Wollman, p. 3 and chapter 4. Also, Broadwayworld.com says: "Little Shop of Horrors by composer Alan Menken and writer Howard Ashman, is a rock musical ... in the style of early 1960s rock and roll, doo-wop and early Motown ...." See http://cincinnati.broadwayworld.com/article/LITTLE_SHOP_OF_HORRORS_Runs_81422th_At_The_Aronoff_Center_20090811 A search for "Little Shop of Horrors" and "rock musical" brings up 8,000 hits. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

To the OP: On the contrary, the musical is scored for piano, synthesizer, electric guitar, bass guitar and drums. --Thomprod (talk) 10:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a rock musical, by any stretch. It's nothing if not a potpourri (couldn't resist that!) of styles. Somewhere That's Green and Suddenly, Seymour are rock? That people who love rock n' roll insist on calling it a rock musical doesn't make it one. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

It's played by a rock band. But, much more importantly, experts call it a rock musical in published WP:RSs, so what you say is WP:OR. Please read this policy. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Not a tragicomedy

An editor keeps trying to characterize this musical as a tragicomedy. A tragicomedy "blends aspects of the genres of tragedy and comedy." This is a mock-horror spoof of B-movies, the faust legend, musical theatre itself and science fiction. It is not a tragedy of any kind. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I supposed this could be considered a tragedy: one might say Seymour is the tragic hero here. Or even Audrey. Yves (talk) 06:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Of course there are tragic elements! The comedic elements are blinding you to them. Little Shop of Horrors perfectly fits the tragic structure of a tragic hero brought down by his flaw (Seymour, brought down by greed). I strongly disagree with your claim that it is merely a spoof of the Faust legend-though there are elements of parody in regards to the science fiction and B-movie aspects, the Faustian tragic element is played straight. 24.176.184.74 (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you and Yves misunderstand the show. It is a spoof, like The Rocky Horror Show or Young Frankenstein. The Faustian element is the biggest joke of all: Seymour sells his soul to a giant plant from outer space. They sing together about their first victim, "the guy sure looks like plant food to me". There are sentimental or serious moments in all comedies, just as there are comic moments in tragedies, but there is nothing tragic about Little Shop. Even as Seymour's girlfriend Audrey is dying, she says: "When I die, which should be very shortly, give me to the plant". It gets a big laugh. Then, after feeding Audrey to the plant, Seymour comically tries to kill the plant by, among other things, climbing into its giant maw. Another big laugh. No, I'm sorry, but it is not a tragedy of any kind - it is a spoof. The author of the book, Howard Ashman, wrote in an introduction to the licensed script: "Little Shop of Horrors satirizes many things: science fiction, 'B' movies, musical comedy itself, and even the Faust legend.... The script keeps its tongue firmly in cheek.... [W]hen Little Shop is at its most honest, it is also at its funniest". Like many comedies, Little Shop should be played earnestly, but it does not have tragic elements. Now, you could convince me that Oklahoma! or Carousel are tragicomedies. By the way, you should establish a wikipedia account of your own rather than editing through an IP address. Here is WP:WHY. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been following this, and Ssilvers has asked me to comment and I completely agree with him. It is a spoof musical. If anything I would class it as Rocky Horror as a Comedy horror.Mark E (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

How does proving that it is a comedy prove that it is not a tragedy? Your claim that it is not a tragicomedy seems to rest on the idea that tragicomedy does not exist. 24.176.184.74 (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Ssilver, I'm sorry that the production you've seen played all of the serious elements comically. That's still no excuse to deny the play its tragicomedy status. Watch this and tell me what you think, noob. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jns_ChujPko --74.46.217.199 (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've seen this clip, as well as the original Off-Broadway production of the musical, the 1960 movie (darker than the musical, but still billed itself as the "funniest picture this year". See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LittleShop.jpg), the 1986 movie, the Broadway production, and plenty of other productions, and I have played Mr. Mushnik in the musical. I think this clip shows what a silly death scene it is. Listen to the lyrics that she sings as she is dying. It is a spoof of B horror movies. I have seen lots of productions of this show, and the audience always howls with laughter whenever anyone dies, including Audrey. The sentimental music in juxtaposition with her being chomped on by the plant is an excellent example of, as Mark says, "comedy horror". Don't worry, I have corrected the article and will continue to do so. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ss that the show is a spoof of B horror movies and is not a tragicomedy. Please do not edit against the consensus agreed here. Thanks. Jack1956 (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ssilvers, Audrey's death is generally supposed to be funny and sad at the same time. At least agree that the scene where Seymour feeds Orin's body parts two Twoey is genuine horror. Actually seeing it on stage is creepier than seeing it on a screen can ever be.--74.46.212.117 (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that it can be sentimental as well as funny, and has elements of horror. But it is not tragedy or tragicomedy. It is, as someone said above Horror-comedy, as well as a spoof of horror. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done playing around here. You seem to think that if something is funny, it CAN'T be tragic. It is universally agreed that Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog is a tragicomedy, and like Little Shop, its dramatic death scene still has a joke or two...and yet all the fans know its a tragicomedy. I'm guessing you think Dr. Horrible is just a superhero spoof, right, Ssilvers? --24.126.101.21 (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm very surprised to see this exchange, to which Ssilvers has drawn my attention. The anonymous editor above is, of course, entitled to her or his opinion, but speaking as one who used to be associated with a social set that knew every line and went to performance after performance of the show in the West End, I can say with absolute confidence that they regarded it as a hoot throughout, even the parodic mock-serious elements. I should say that in a true tragicomedy there is a genuine element of real tragedy, whereas in the LSoH the tone throughout is one of parody with a strong dash of camp thrown in. Calling this of all shows a "tragicomedy" would, to my mind, be a wilful misrepresentation. Tim riley (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Of course it has comedic elements throughout-that's where the "comedy" part of "tragicomedy" comes in. It also has tragic elements throughout-remember, tragedy is a plot structure, not a tone, and Little Shop of Horrors fits that plot structure. Whether it has a serious tone or not is debatable (I believe it does but I can understand not thinking so), but it undeniably fits the tragic plot strucutre. 24.176.184.74 (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The majority view is plainly that the show is not a tragi-comedy, and the anonymous contributor should accept that. If, however, she or he can find a quotation from a reliable source that uses the word tragi-comedy for this show, there is no reason why a sentence could not be added quoting this description in contrast to those of the contrary opinion. Tim riley (talk) 10:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The argument here seems to be that a tragicomedy doesn't exist. Guess what? Such a thing does exist. Go see Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-Long Blog for christ's sake. The problem here is that the whether the comedic elements outweigh the dramatic elements or vice versa depends not on the script, but on the production. In my area, most productions try to have the dramatic elements outweigh the comedic. If you see a production where everything is played comedically, that's YOUR problem.--74.46.212.100 (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a friendly warning: You may be blocked from editing if you continue to edit against the consensus on this page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

We have been through this again and again, it is not a tragicomedy - anon IP, please stop editing against the consensus or you will be blocked. Jack1956 (talk) 10:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

To the random IP, I don't get at all what you are trying to say. The script shouldn't be played comically, an actor should never "play up" to the comedy in the script, that's what makes a bad actor. I wonder out of interest how many productions you have even seen in your area. It is funnier when they take the text as real which makes it funny for the audience at the silliness of it all. As has been said it is a mock-up horror/b-movie spoof and if anything the genre is a Comedy horrorMark E (talk) 10:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: Editors, I notice that our anonymous friend is also making the same change at The Rocky Horror Picture Show, which I have again reverted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

As another random IP, I find this entire dissonance bizzarre. How does being funny or silly prevent it from being a tragicomedy? The funny or silly part is the "comedy" in "tragicomedy". The "tragi" is the plot structure. I have yet to see any refutation of this point. 24.176.184.74 (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I vandalished the Rocky Horror article to prove a point. Ssilvers stalked me there and changed my edit. Which means she was waiting at the article, probably checking it every day. This was done to make Ssilvers look bad, and hopefully it did. This is all a game to her. --24.126.101.47 (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Look, if you want to be taken seriously, why don't you create an account. A lot of registered users have a watchlist of articles they edit (me included) so they can see when an edit has been made and check it. It's not a "game". Making another user "look bad" just undermines all your credibility.Mark E (talk) 10:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to note that though we have very similar IPs, we are not the same person. I disagree with vandalism to make a point. I think that Rocky Horror might qualify as a tragicomedy, but the other editor's editing of it was unacceptable. I have already provided evidence that Little Shop of Horrors is a tragicomedy, although until consensus changes I will not edit the main article to reflect this. 24.176.184.74 (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm now on an old account I forgot I had. (I'm the guy that started this fight.) I would like to state that EVEN IGNORING the tears I shed when Audrey died, or when I shook in my seat during the feeding scene, this play is still a tragicomedy because it fits the tragic PLOT STRUCTURE. Seymour is the tragic hero brought down by a tragic flaw. Case closed. Prove to me that it's not part of the tragic plot structure or else I will change it to tragicomedy again. --Taco Wiz (talk) 06:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

the consensous is that it isn't, so why would you just add it back in that it is? Mark E (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The opinion could be that gravity is caused by floating cheese and it still would be false. Little Shop of Horrors fits the tragic structure and AS PER DEFINITION is a tragicomedy. I don't understand why the fuck you people are breaking your own rules. Now prove to me it doesn't fit the tragic structure or I will continue to demand we add "tragicomedy" to the page. --Taco Wiz (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

We simply disagree with you. It is not a tragicomedy. You have not presented any WP:Reliable sources that say that it is a tragicomedy. To the contrary, the authors themselves, reviewers and theatre companies routinely describe it is a rock musical. I must conclude that you either have missed the point of the show or you don't know what a tragicomedy is. BTW, please read WP:CIVIL. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I have just Googled "Little Shop of Horrors AND tragicomedy". Result – not a single substantive website and two mentions in blogs/forums. This is out of 722,000 results for Little Shop of Horrors. It rather makes the point, does it not, that Taco Wiz's view is not supported by those who know about these matters? Tim riley (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources? Do you want me to link you to the specific list of requirements for what makes a tragedy? I don't quite understand what you mean. If that's what you want, I'll go look for a list. Also, at this point I'd be willing to compromise by calling it a dramaedy. The reason I'm hell-bent on this is because I want to turn people onto the greatest work of art in the history of man (IMHO), and thus I want it to be represented accurately on Wikipedia. --Taco Wiz (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Look at our policy on reliable sources; that explains it. If you find something like a history of musical theatre that describes this musical as a "tragicomedy" then you may begin to build a persuasive argument. Antandrus (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course tone matters. There's a huge world of difference between "Everything You Ever" (from Dr. Horrible) and "Don't Feed the Plants" (from this show). Dr. Horrible takes itself seriously. LSOH does not. Shows like "Into the Woods" and "Camelot" can be argued to be tragicomedies. LSOH and Rocky Horror, not so much. They are spoofs that keep the tongue firmly in the cheek. The authors cut a song from the show because they thought it'd be too depressing! Also, I would personally suggest that you please find a better musical to be an obsessive fan of. 24.152.189.91 (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

ddddddddddd

I do not approve of the behavior of Taco Wiz, although I do find the recent IP rather passive aggressive/personal attacky. I am of the personal belief that Little Shop Of Horrors is a tragicomedy, although I do not believe that it should be added without consensus. However, I would like to bring up the fact that the "comedy" in tragicomedy is present in the tone of Little Shop Of Horrors, while the "tragedy" in tragicomedy is present in the structure of the plot. Tragedy is a structure, not a tone, and comedy is a tone, not a structure. A comedic tone does not contradict a tragic plot structure. 24.176.184.74 (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That logic can peg any number of black comedies as "tragicomedy," when it is a highly unfitting classification. According to this site, a tragicomedy refers to a serious work with either a happy ending or a lot of jokes. "Little Shop of Horrors" does not fit into this category, because it is not a serious work, as evidenced by Howard Ashman's statements in the script. The term is also used to describe the dark absurdist plays of the 20th century such as "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead" and "Waiting for Godot." "Little Shop of Horrors" does not fit into this category either. 24.152.189.91 (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

If you look at our tragicomedy page, you will find that the only place where a statement is made as to what tragicomedy IS (as opposed to what other people have taken it to mean) is the opening sentence, stating that it "blends elements of tragedy and comedy". A comedic tone and a tragic structure in the same work would qualify as blending elements, correct? 24.176.184.74 (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Not if the so-called "tragic structure" (also, I recall that in classic tragic structure, the villain tends to die) is done almost entirely as spoof. 24.152.189.91 (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that. The poignant or sentimental elements in Little Shop, are parodies of similar scenes and elements in B-movies and horror fiction or science fiction. Audrey a parody of the perfect victim, who says "when I die, which should be very shortly, feed me to the plant". Seymour is a parody of a tragic hero, who says to the plant, "you're a monster, and so am I"; he later tries to kill the plant with a gun and rat poison before climbing inside of it frantically wielding a machete, which the plant burps up after it swallows him. Then all the dead people appear in an absurd finale in which, to a jaunty tune, they sing "hold your hat and hang on to your soul: something's comin' to eat the world whole ... don't feed the plants." -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I still disagree with you, but consensus seems to hold that the tragic elements are insufficient to label the play a tragicomedy. Would stating that it has tragic elements be accurate? Also, I note that it is nice occasionally to note that anything can be made to absurd simply by using a tone that implies that it is absurd. 24.176.184.74 (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that it has tragic elements, only mock-horror or possibly mock-tragic elements. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Who is to truly say that the tragic elements were intended as parodic? We have no way of knowing how they were intended. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World has a mildly split fandom based on how much is comedy and how much is drama. The closest thing I've found to sources saying for certain that LSOH has drama in it are from Frank Oz, who intended the film version to have drama in it (though most of the drama was left out). Don't decide YOURSELF what's funny and what's not because you didn't cry during Audrey's death like I did, or you didn't shake in your seat during the feeding scene like I did. --Taco Wiz (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Howard Ashman, the playwright and lyricist was quoted above. 24.152.189.91 (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Edits by 86.157.118.57

As well as these edits being "unreferenced", I would like to note that they were entirely untrue. Thank you, Ssilvers, for removing them. 24.176.184.74 (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

UK original cast album... features Sue Pollard

Spotify has four albums of the musical - original, Broadway revival, film, and 'original UK cast recording' - with the latter featuring Sue Pollard according to the cover icon. My memory is that the article is right, and Ellen Green was in the original UK version. So was there another substantial UK production? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovingboth (talk • contribs) 23:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I've returned.

Okay then. I have a quote from Howard Ashman. Interview with Howard Ashman in CINEFANTASTIQUE Magazine, Volume 17, Number 1 (January 1987): Little Shop of Horrors is "a cautionary tale, a fable which says that if you do these things, this will happen."

If you still don't believe me, I'll scan the page in and post it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taco Wiz (talk • contribs) 15:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

We believe you, but it does not belong in the Lead of this article. If you want to put it in context somehow in the analysis sections, with proper WP:CITE format, including page number, and you can balance it with other information from critics, etc., then that would be great. Please read WP:UNDUE. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Rock musical (again)

This is a rock musical. See The Theater Will Rock: A History of the Rock Musical, from Hair to Hedwig by Elizabeth Lara Wollman, p. 3 and chapter 4. Also, Broadwayworld.com says: "Little Shop of Horrors by composer Alan Menken and writer Howard Ashman, is a rock musical ... in the style of early 1960s rock and roll, doo-wop and early Motown ...." See http://cincinnati.broadwayworld.com/article/LITTLE_SHOP_OF_HORRORS_Runs_81422th_At_The_Aronoff_Center_20090811 A search for "Little Shop of Horrors" and "rock musical" brings up 8,000 hits. As noted by Thomprod above, the musical is scored for piano, synthesizer, electric guitar, bass guitar and drums. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Uh, the editor who made the reverted edits does not seem to have removed the claim that it was a rock musical. He simply appears to have attempted to added a qualifier. How does explaining why it is a rock musical explain how it isn't a morality play? 24.176.184.74 (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

New film announced

Ssilvers, WP:CRYSTAL is only opposed to unsourced rumors. It actually cites 2020 Summer Olympics as a legitimate article. Unless you can refute Playbill as a source (as well as their cited sources – Variety and Hollywood Reporter) please don't remove valid, sourced material. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Just because something is sourced does not mean it is important enough to be in an encyclopedia. A lot of movies are under negotiation at any given time. IMO it is not encyclopedia material to report films which may never get made. I removed the paragraph. Wanderer57 (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

In the case of a film, the specific guideline is WP:NFF. That guideline states that we should wait until the film begins "principal photography" before discussing it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yet another misuse of policy: WP:NFF clearly refers to creating separate articles. Moreover, quote: "Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available." I'm reinstating the paragraph per this guideline. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Heartfourm. There's no movie yet, just some talk. The key word you quote above is "might", which means that editors need to use judgment to determine, based on the sources, and how close to a certainty production is, whether to mention the forthcoming film. You are missing the spirit of these guidelines, and I see that you have this same type of discussion with editors over and over about how you literalistically apply guidelines. In this event, however, as several editors have now reversed your change, you should accept the consensus and stop edit warring. Also, for future reference, please note that there is an important difference between a "policy" and a "guideline" at Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is not defined by numbers, but by logic and compliance with policies and guidelines, therefore stop mass reverting. We've established that WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply, but you keep shoving it in your edit summaries. You hang onto the word "might" in WP:NFF to discredit me, when it actually supports my edit. Either find a sufficient policy/guideline or stop reverting me when your only actual argument against me is "you're outnumbered".

• Considering all that, I'm asking you to self-revert based on gross misuse of policies/guidelines. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • You haven't, so I've gone ahead and reinstated the version that is utterly compliant with policies and guidelines. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If anyone can prove me wrong with a specific quote from a policy or a guideline, please do so and I'll self revert. Promise. Otherwise, consensus is not determined by numbers. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Hearfourmewesique: I have not argued that "you're outnumbered" and I reject the suggestion that that is my argument.

As I wrote earlier: "Just because something is sourced does not mean it is important enough to be in an encyclopedia. A lot of movies are under negotiation at any given time. "

Are you on a campaign to report on movies that are under negotiation or have you singled out this article for special attention? Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No, but thank you for the personal attack. I noticed the reverted addition, which was initially copied and pasted by an anonymous IP, and decided to actually do something nice instead of compulsively deleting under the guise of assigning homework. If you oppose the inclusion based on "my personal opinion tells me it's not important enough, and look! all my friends agree too", please don't bring in guidelines that don't apply. I've already extensively explained why both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF are irrelevant here, but subsequent reverts kept citing those. The least you can do is... well, be honest. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I try to be honest here.

I read the above comments, by you and others, which put a lot of emphasis on the various guidelines. I did NOT bring ANY guidelines into the discussion because I think the key point is inclusion of unimportant information.

I think there has been much unconvincing wikilawyering here about guidelines.

Do you think that Wikipedia should normally try to mention films that are reported to be under negotiation?

Wanderer57 (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that if there is a news worthy scoop about a new film based on an old and famous work (in this case, we're talking about a cult following) being negotiated with a major production company (I believe Warner Bros. falls into that category), it merits a brief two-sentence mention in its respective article. It's not like I created an extensive section or a separate article about that... one must have a very compelling reason for excluding sourced information. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent addition

I have reverted a recent addition. That a writer is "in negotiations to write" a script is too preliminary a fact to comply with WP:CRYSTAL, which says: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". In this case, all that has been announced are negotiations with a writer about a possible script for a possible film that may or may not ever be made. This is too speculative and is premature at this point. Once the film is written and cast or begins shooting, by all means let us mention it then. Tim riley (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have also reverted similar edits for the same reasons outlined by Tim riley above. The addition of this material is premature at this moment in time. Jack1956 (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I hadn't noticed that this was an ongoing problem. There certainly seems to be a consensus against the premature addition of this, at present speculative, information, and I think the consensus is correct. Tim riley (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Replied in the thread above. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Multiple sources indicate subject notability

Aside from the playbill source, I have found several more: IGN, LA Times, Hollywood Reporter, Huffington Post and Yahoo!, all of which satisfy the burden of notability stated in WP:CRYSTAL. Unless there is still objection (given the new evidence), I will reinstate the passage. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Please stop edit-warring. After this film begins principal photography, if it ever does so, feel free to describe it then. It seems to me that it might be appropriate to mention the project in the writer's Wikipedia article (especially once he begins writing, if he ever does so), since what these news items are about is that this writer might write something. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't touched this article in several days, so hold your horses. Please respond to the notability issue, as well as the passage in WP:NFF which explicitly permits inclusion of "premature" material in relevant subject matter articles. Why the writer but not the musical? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

As noted over and over above, all that has happened is that a person has been approached to write a script for a potential film remake. Will the script be written? We don't know. If so, will money be raised to make the film? We don't know. Will a distributor be secured? We don't know. No contract of any kind has been signed. So, why does WP:NFF say that you "might" mention an early project? That is to permit the mention of projects that will almost certainly be completed: Avatar 2 will certainly be made, as will The Avengers 2. In the case of this project, even if there were a script, we would still be doubtful about the project's completion, and I think it would be wise to wait until filming begins to discuss the film. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

According to pretty much all these sources: "Joseph Gordon-Levitt(..)is developing the project. Marc Platt(...)is producing the reboot. Playwright Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa(...)is penning the script." How much more definitive should it be before we decide that Wikipedia can join this list? As noted over and over above, we're squabbling over two measly sentences... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Re-added remake mention

I added a one-sentence mention of the possible remake at the end of the "1986 Film Adaptation" section, only saying that Warner Bros. was developing it and that JGL is in talks to star. I do think that an entire section or paragraph on it isn't needed, but I believe that it should be mentioned, if only briefly. With all due respect, BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The source given concludes: "If the project comes together in an ideal fashion, Gordon-Levitt would play Seymour." This seems to be exactly what WP:CRYSTAL was designed to prevent. It says: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." This film is not almost certain to take place; there is not even a script yet, and no cast or crew has yet been engaged. As of now, it's just an idea that an actor is floating. The Los Angeles Times has a clearer description that Warner and Gordon-Levitt are merely "in talks", so I substituted that source. If Warner really signs on to this project, it will make a statement that we can cite then. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Analysis?

I think an Analysis section could work, especially if it uses quotes by Howard Ashman or articles written while Ashman was alive. I own the January 1987 and September 1987 issues of Cinefantastique, which offers mountains of information that isn't available on the 'net (yet). Both the writers and the people being quoted are attempt to describe the show, with some interesting results. Ellen Greene says "Just when you think you are going to laugh, you cry, and vice versa". (January 1987, page 20) Howard Ashman says the show is "a cautionary tale, a fable which says that if you do these things this will happen." (January 1987, page 22) Gilmore (I can't find a first name) says the film adaption of Little Shop of Horrors (the section on the play was rather short) was "unclassifiable, really. There's music, comedy, outrageousness, a crazy plant-in fact the whole film is a send up of other movies."

I'm hoping I'll get the time to scan in everything, but I'm not sure if or when I will. Once we have access to the pages, though, the articles on both the play and film can be expanded. --Taco Wiz (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

While analysis of the music, lyrics and book of a musical is excellent, the least valuable people to quote in that section are the creators. The creators are useful to quote in the background/genesis sections to describe the process for writing and rehearsing the show, but their opinions about their own work are less encyclopedic than outside analyses. If you want to write an analysis section, you need to find books and articles by independent commentators. For a good example see Hair (musical). Also, note that anything in Cinefantastique would seem to be more applicable to the film's article rather than the musical's. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This IS a Tragicomedy

I've been reading the discussion on this play and the bizarre assumption that it isn't a tragicomedy because it has...comedic elements.

Please consider this document on the structure of a tragedy and tell me how it doesn't fit the requirements: http://www2.cnr.edu/home/bmcmanus/poetics.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.0.22 (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Does bumping do anything on this site? --Taco Wiz (talk) 06:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Racial undertones?

An IP added this to the article:

Although the musical emphasises itself as a commentary on class relations, the conflict of the production is “subtly framed in terms of race relations” (citing) Jensen, Marc. "Feed Me!: Power Struggles and the Portrayal of Race in Little Shop of Horrors", Cinema Journal, 48, No. 1, Fall 2008, pp. 51–67 The main cast is usually made up entirely of white actors, and the only character consistently performed by a person of colour is Audrey II, who is always played by an African-American man. Since Audrey II is a manifestation of Seymour’s personal demons, the racial tension of a black man being a “corrupting influence” becomes distinctly problematic, especially since this villain is accompanied by the only R&B music in the production, a genre which in deeply rooted in the African-American tradition. (citing) Reel, James. 2004. "Wilted Plant: The UA, in fun fashion, brings the mediocre prose of Little Shop of Horrors to life", Tucson Weekly, April 22, 2004, accessed May 20, 2017.

First of all, I note that Jensen's article is about the film version, but let's set that aside for a moment. This is an interesting argument, but it cannot be presented as fact. Indeed, it may be a WP:FRINGE theory. The musical was originally cast with black actors playing Chiffon, Crystal, Ronnette (good guys) and the plant (bad guy), who all sing music associated with black America: Motown and soul/R&B. This is part of the musical's urban aesthetic, where the white and black characters meet on Skid Row. But is it generally agreed among critics and those who have analyzed the musical that what Jensen and Reel said in the two articles cited, from 2004 and 2008, is a fair and balanced treatment of the theme? What are the musical's intentions and effect with respect to its mixed black and white cast? Not all racial markers are racist. The opposite argument is made here. Much more research is needed to present a meaningful encyclopedic summary here, and since the Jensen source is not online, it would be helpful if someone would quote the relevant parts here so that we can review them. Remember, also, that this musical covers other important themes, including abuse of women by men and the moral slippery slope of killing an evil person (in Seymour's case, it leads to killing people who are not evil). We do not yet discuss these in the musical because no one has done the research to present them in a fair and balanced way. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Little Shop of Horrors (musical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100402061014/http://world-theatres.com/longruns.html to http://www.world-theatres.com/longruns.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Little Shop of Horrors (musical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100610023521/http://www.ulm.edu/lyricopera/images/hist-shop.doc to http://www.ulm.edu/lyricopera/images/hist-shop.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Themes: Racial Commentary

Dear User:Tdown1unimelb, thank you for added the below material to the article. I have moved it here, temporarily, so that we can discuss it. Unfortunately, Two of your refs are not fully accessible. Would you please quote the parts of the sources you are using, so that we can evaluate this? I read the interview with Oz, but it has nothing to do with any racial theme in the musical. It has to do with his changes from the musical to the movie, which is not relevant to this article about the musical (Here is the ref: Kenneth Plume, Kenneth. "Interview with Director Frank Oz (Part 3 of 4)", IGN Entertainment, February 10, 2000, accessed May 17, 2018). I searched in the amazon page of the third source (Ward) for "Little Shop", and it didn't come up. What, exactly, does he say about Little shop? Finally, I made a couple of minor copy edits to the proposed text to convert the argumentative tone to a more neutral encyclopedic tone and per WP:MOS:

[According to Marc Jensen] Although the race is not pointedly remarked upon in the musical's book, subtle features of the casting and portrayal of characters within the show comment on the racial conflict and tension of the 1960's.<ref name=Jensen>{{Cite journal|last=Marc|first=Jensen|date=2008| title='Feed me!': Power struggles and the portrayal of race in ''Little Shop of Horrors''| url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/20484430?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents| journal=[[Cinema Journal]]|volume=48 | Issue=1|pages=51–67}}</ref><ref name=Ward>Ward, Brian. ''Just My Soul Responding: Rhythm and Blues, Black Consciousness, and Race Relations'', Berkeley: University of California Press (1998), ISBN: 978-0520212978</ref> The musical begins by suggesting a class struggle rather than a racial commentary. The song "skid-row" features a multi-cultural cast united by their impoverishment.<ref name=Jensen/> However, as the show progresses, a distinction between the white characters (Mushnik, Seymour and Audrey) and the African American racial markers is seen in the musical style, physical caricature (Audrey II's exaggerated lips) [Is this true of the musical, or just the film?] and speech patterns (stereotypical African American tone and use of colloquialisms) of the main antagonist/villain, Audrey II, and the corrupting influence of the Doo-Wop girls, implies that the surface concept of class struggle hides an underlying metaphor for American race relations and white anxiety about racial integration in the 1960's.<ref name=Jensen/><ref name=Ward />

Per WP:BRD, please discuss this here before re-inserting in the text. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

On the future film

I am going to note that in terms of how we document announced film projects, reporting on notable people attached to projects as reported by the major reporting sources (Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Deadline) is standard practice. Its understood they may drop out, and depending on how far they got involved, it becomes a matter of either just either outright removing the name, or actually explaining why they dropped out. But those names are included until we know otherwise as long as the sourcing is there. --Masem (t) 04:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

However unencyclopedic that may be, I will not object to your doing it in the film's own article, but do not do it in the article on the musical. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Reprise

In lists of musical numbers, the word "reprise" is not part of the song title, it is merely a description. It should not go within the quotes, and it should be lower case: "Somewhere That's Green" reprise. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

2019 Off-Broadway Revival

Just wondering why the 2019 Off-Broadway cast is not being included in the section 4 casts table? Just wanting to clarify this and understand the criteria for a production to be added to this table. Thanks for all of the work on the page! --Unclemoo92 (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Because casting tables typically include only the original cast from the first notable production, as well as the major-market casts (that is, Broadway, West End and any long-running US/UK national tours. The starring cast of other productions, including off-Broadway, regional and foreign, should be mentioned in the Productions section, but not in the table. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

African American cultural references

Why does the current version of this article not even touch on the African American cultural references in this musical? That's not very encyclopedic. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Why don't you do the research and find articles discussing it that we can cite? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)