Why the THEATRICAL Ending of Little Shop of Horrors is SUPERIOR

[@jasoncook7378]

Here is what i think the studio should have done. When Seymour is told, "Every household in America..." They should have Seymour imagine the original ending. Maybe cut it down for time but that way we would have the best of both worlds.

[@timcarr6084]

Dude I was thinking the same thing! Maybe when he gets knocked out when the roof falls on him during his fight with Audrey 2. But then wakes up to finally stop the plant with electricity. It was just such a waste to not use that footage.

[@jasoncook7378]

@@timcarr6084 That would have been a great time to do it too.

[@madelynforrester1799]

I was thinking maybe Seymour and Audrey could escape from America before the ending could happen in which all the salesmen could take the leftover snippings where the ending happens

[@FlipX100]

Oooo that's a brilliant idea. That way all those scenes wouldn't go to waste. You know those scenes cost a large chunk of their budget.

[@lucindamobley5492]

In a way it is the best of both worlds because anybody who has the bluray can see either both endings or just the one they like. The very first time I saw this movie it ended with the original with Seymour and Audrey dying, the some time later I saw it again with the theatrical ending and it made it even better for me.

[@SagooBoy]

I will admit I am a sucker for a happy ending, especially when the lead character already had a hard enough life. But what I do like is when the audience is at least given the option to watch both versions so they can make their own assement, and the directors' hard work and effort do not go completely to waste and unseen.

[@ultimazillarex1076]

If only that was the case with Star Wars. But no, Lucas wants everyone to only have access to the Special Editions, and wipe all trace of the originals.

[@elijahhernandez906]

​@ultimazillarex1076 Ya, why did he do that? In the original Solo shot Greeto. Greeto didn't shoot at all. (Ep4) In Ep6: The original ewok musical ending well, I'm not sure about that one.

[@JosephSciola]

I think the biggest thing holding the original ending back is losing the section from The Meek Shall Inherit. That sets up Seymour’s willingness to keep on killing, which makes his fate more deserved.

[@madanotap6492]

I feel like I have to disagree with this point for two reasons. Firstly, Seymour's willingness to kill for the plant is established earlier than that in both because in both it's established in suppertime. Mushnik may be slightly sleazier in the movie because he tries to use the situation to get the plant, but he is still more or less an innocent who Seymour willingly feeds to the plant in both (in the movie you explicitly see him slowly walking mushnik backwards towards the plant, knowing what will happen if mushnik gets too close) Secondly, part of the theatrical version that is also lost is Seymour's motive for continuing. The original song makes it clear that if it was just fame and fortune, Seymour wouldn't have had it in him, but his love for Audrey pushes him to commit. This explicit motive of love rather than money is inherently more sympathetic than the story has without it

[@nicholastosoni707]

​@madanotap6492 Though he _actively tricks_ a perfectly reasonable Mushnik into going into the plant in the musical, and this betrayal is more keenly felt with the "Mushnik and Son" subplot.

[@kiillabytez]

Who did Seymour even kill in the first place?

[@kiillabytez]

In the original film the first victim was died on accident when Seymour threw a rock and hit a hobo in the head.

[@jasonblalock4429]

Also, the dentist's death. On stage, there's an full number as the dentist begs Seymour to help him, and Seymour gets a verse saying straight up that he won't help because it keeps his hands clean. The film version speeds up the death while Seymour just gawks, which makes it feel like he froze up rather than making a cynical choice. The movie *consistently* softens Seymour's character and makes him more of a victim, which is a baffling choice given how downright cruel the director's cut ending is - even more cruel than the stage show!

[@lucyt6971]

Ellen is a wonder, nothing can explain her interpretation of Audrey, her vocalisation and unprecedented style in this role. From the look, to the lisp, the key changes and returns...it's a tour de force. No one can take on this role and win. She made Audrey. She will always be Audrey.

[@z2yn]

A lot of comments have said it, but I want to emphasize how different Seymour is on stage and in the movie. Musical Seymour feels like he's close to being a NiceGuy™, complimenting Audrey with her black eye as if it's pretty - like it's hardly noticeable. While in the movie, Moranis makes it look like he doesn't know that it's a black eye, he's that naïve that he thinks it might be make up. When the plant talks Seymour into killing Orin (before he sees Audrey being slapped), Moranis again delivers the motorcycle part like he's a little kid - something he can't imagine and would feel great and amazing. He's full of a wonder and thinks the plant might be "good". In the musical, Seymour seems to thoroughly enjoy it and relish in the thought of making people jealous with him on a bike and looking fancy. It comes off as more adulterous. In general, the relationship between the plant and Seymour in the musical feels like they're both on the same page or on a similar power level until the plant surpasses him and he underestimates it. In the movie, Seymour is constantly controlled by the plant. There's also the difference of Seymours constant fear and misery at his situation in the movie - as opposed to how Seymour poses with the leather jacket, thinking that it will make Audrey like him more. Immediately imitating Orin. I personally view this as musical Seymour being like the plant - consuming the people he's killed. He at first becomes Audrey's boyfriend, showing a lot more confidence, but still being mostly himself. Then he turns more and more into Mushnick, becoming the owner of the shop. He starts, although he doesn't realize it, to scare Audrey, which felt to me like a parallel to her relationship with Orin. Movie Seymour never lets his feelings out on her (there's this scene where he's doing finances and the plant provokes him - he goes ballistic and scares Audrey, making it sound like she provoked him.) Movie Seymour comes off as more likeable - someone stuck in a bad place who tried to escape it and got used at every turn until he breaks out of it. Musical Seymour is that at first and then gets corrupted and consumed by it, using others just as much as they use him.

[@jiminator904]

I watched the movie the other day after not seeing it for many years. I actually think the plant has some kind of telepathy or mind control powers. It could just be because of the campy style of the film, but people act weird around the plant. The first customer comes in and decides to buy & $100 worth of flowers because the shop couldn’t break a $100 bill. Customers immediately start flooding the shop as soon as the plant is in the window. And there are a lot of other instances like this. Audrey goes to water the plant when it calls her and doesn’t try to leave even when the plant starts to scare her. Seymour does say at one point toward the end of the film that he can’t control himself around the plant, or something to that effect. Mushnik was ready to take Seymour to the cops until they go upstairs near the plant, but he could have been planning to offer Seymour a ticket out of town so he keeps the plant all along, idk. Anyway, it seems like weak minded people are easily controlled by the plant and only once Audrey and Seymour are together do they stop being manipulated. Its just my take and I’m sure I’m not the first to think there might be some kind of plant mind control happening in the film. It makes the happy ending much more enjoyable because Seymour genuinly seems like a good guy in the film but he was depressed and his mind was easily controlled by the plant. Could be why the plant chose him in the first place. It also makes the baby plant in Seymour and Audrey’s front yard in the final scene kinda creepy because a normal sane person would not dare feed the plant and go through all of that again but if the plant can control minds, it maybe they would.

[@cubedmelons876]

Yeah, I watched the musical, and after most of the play I was really wondering if I even wanted Seymour to have a happy ending after how he acted throughout the musical. He just didn't strike me as a very good guy in general, and I didn't feel really bad when he got eaten. It felt more like a corrupt person who finally got what was coming to him.

[@kakadoobs]

My favorite character is Audrey but not the plant just the human Audrey 7:25 you know what i mean 7:32

[@nicholastosoni707]

​@@jiminator904This is in the musical as well--all of a sudden, _the Rose Bowl_ wants this rinky-dink flower shop in Skid Row to decorate a float. This is the point where you realize: the plant is effectively love-bombing Seymour, and this is Phase I.

[@jiminator904]

@@nicholastosoni707 very cool! I did not know that

[@JustWill6969]

I wholeheartedly agree with your point about the lack of Seymour's agency in the directors cut but there's a few more reasons I think the ending fails: 1. They replaced Ya Never Know with Some Fun Now. This is probably the least important change but it's still worth noting. In Ya Never Know Seymour is clearly shown to be enjoying the success the plant is giving him whereas in Some Fun Now we see him bleeding his fingers dry and looking miserable. Him enjoying his success gives him more motivation to continue feeding the plant. 2. They cut the song Now. This is a big one. In Now, Orin begs Seymour to help him get the gas mask off and he willfully sits by and lets him die, showing his agency in Orin's death. 3. They cut the adoption subplot and Mushnik's death is different. Another big one. In the play Mushnik fully adopts Seymour and begins calling him son. In the film he's just some greedy asshole that he works for. In the film Mushnik sees Seymour cutting up Orin's body while in the play he only finds a dentist's uniform in the garbage. In the film Mushnik has concrete evidence of Seymour's guilt and uses it to blackmail him, whereas in the play he only suspects Seymour and asks him to come with him to the police station to explain things so his "conscience can rest easy." In the film Mushnik holds Seymour at gunpoint and accidentally walks backwards into the plants mouth. In the play Seymour actively tricks Mr. Mushnik (his adopted dad) into getting directly in the plants mouth even when he had no concrete evidence of Seymour's guilt. 4. In the film they cut Seymour's soliloquy from Meek Shall Inherent in which he debates letting the plant die but ultimately decided to keep feeding it so Audrey will continue to love him, thereby setting up his faustian bargain that ultimately ends in her death. The lack of all these things makes Seymour a more likeable and unassuming character, and when combined with his helpless death in the directors cut it leaves things feeling totally unjustified. (Sorry for any typos. I'm very passionate about this topic.)

[@captaincharlie_]

Even so, the original ending is far more realistic. Seymour's actions deserved consequences whether he enjoyed the success or not and he did not deserve to have a happy ending, but he got one anyways with all responsibility wiped clean. Plus no way would Audrey II come to this planet if she knew that man-made tools (like; electricity, fire, weapons, etc) could destroy her. Her killing the man that fed he and taking over is just far more realistic than Seymour actually beating her.

[@lucindamobley5492]

I do agree with you there. The very first time I saw this movie was online with the original ending and for me it was so heartbreaking that I thought it was the worst ending of a movie I had seen at the time. Only months later did I attempt to watch it again, but this time with the theatrical ending and it was like a weight had been lifted off of my heart! It was so much better seeing Seymour standing up for himself and Audrey, and the two of them getting their happy ending. In a way I'm glad that I saw the original version first because it made the theatrical ending that much better.

[@KatMusic2009]

@@lucindamobley5492 In that ending though, there is an Audrey II plant in the garden of their dream home, smiling!! kzbin.info/www/bejne/i6WtpYyXrrxnjLMsi=-nbmYy_HYe3s8-7i&t=178

[@martinsorenson1055]

This is interesting. I guarantee they made those changes intentionally to make Seymour more likeable. I don't know who made that decision (Ashman or Oz or the Producers), but someone did. And well, you can't do that and have them die and expect the audience to be okay with it. They should have realized what they were doing, but actually, come to think of it, I am kind of glad they didn't since we now have two versions!

[@rogersstinson4019]

Well to be fair, the only reason that the original ending is so long is because the restoration crew used the black and white print as their guide. And according to one of the people who worked on the film, they were planning on shortening ending.

[@sonnyajvoll5865]

I learned about the director's cut approximately 20 minutes ago in a failed attempt to relive my childhood. It was going so well for a good 70 minutes...

[@ShaneMonahan]

This was me last night watching it at a local community theater! The performance was SO good! And then Audrey and Seymour died (along with my childhood). Changed everything I knew for the last 37 years about this musical!

[@alexanderchippel]

I think an aspect of the movie that's also overlooked is that Seymour doesn't really do anything wrong. Okay he does a lot wrong, but everything he does is done so passively, and in a way where it's very obvious he is woefully unprepared in dealing with the current situation. When Orin dies, it's it takes like a minute. And Seymour looks like he doesn't even know what's really going on until he dies. When Mushnick dies, it's because he leans into what's clearly a giant mouth with teeth and Seymour let's out of little "Sir..." before Audrey II eats him. He basically tired to warn him, but he was too nervous and terrified to do anything about it. And I think that's the major difference between the movie and the play. They say it's just the ending but it's really the entirety of Seymour's arc. The play is s story about the dangers of hurting others for your own benefit. He willingly kills two people, and then he ultimately gets what he deserves when he loses it all and dies. He's borderline Machiavellian in the way he contemplates helping Orin, and how he tricks Mushnick into getting into the plants mouth. The movie is about the dangers of stumbling into something really, really good, and then just accepting that as the way it is while just standing around being complicit in bad things that happen around you, and not having the courage to stop. It's a lot easier to get attached to a character that is passive and let's bad things happen, then it is to get attached to a character that actively and willingly makes things worse.

[@marmelade8331]

exactly my thought as well!

[@jmn327]

Yep, this is key; like, goodness sake, movie!Seymour is having a *gun* pointed at him during Mushnik's death scene, and like you say has far less time to react to what's happening to Orin, so it's much easier to simply relate to him and thus feel more sympathy when you watch an ending where he also *dies* in such a passive, drawn out manner. In a weird way, the theatrical happy ending almost works better due to it feeling more like that version of Seymour's arc is to finally, actively stand up for himself, so him overcoming Audrey II suits that, while stage!Seymour's arc is about him both having to be more assertive, but mostly him accepting that he's brought most of this on himself and the world.

[@marmelade8331]

@@jmn327 also in the movie he tells off patrick marting which is way more courageous and "standing up for himself" than what he did in the musical, which is just sit there sulking (granted, audrey DID just die and that didnt happen in the movie) and wait for him to go away on his own. so kinda also more like "accepting that this is his fault" stuff. nice comparison of your arguments with just one scene.

[@Optimegatrongodzilla]

I think that what they should have done is have it so that Audrey survives and goes outside of the shop(like in the theatrical cut), then, Seymour gets knocked unconscious by the rubble of the shop and dreams about the giant plant invasion, and then, wakes up and blows up Audrey 2.

[@dimitriwarchief301]

That be kool

[@MineKurtMininer]

that would actually be the best way to make it work

[@Optimegatrongodzilla]

@@MineKurtMininer Yeah, it would.

[@evarchavex4800]

That sounds like a shitty ending. Not only including dream nonsense, but a cheap, piss baby ending.

[@AmateurCow]

Even in the theatrical ending we do get to see an Audrey 2 therefore fulfilling the possibility of a grim future while still containing the happy ending within the films narrative. All why the theatrical ending is the best.

[@Actionfan19]

Exactly, Seymour may not have caused botanical Armageddon but some other shmuck dose. Plus it's a classic horror trope.

[@KatMusic2009]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/i6WtpYyXrrxnjLMsi=-nbmYy_HYe3s8-7i&t=178

[@hellomellofficial]

This was an incredible video. But something I think that's often looked over, is not only is Seymour's ending unsatisfying in the movie, movie Seymour and play Seymour are two completely different characters. Rick Moranis did an excellent job at movie Seymour, don't get me wrong. But in the play, there was an entire song dedicated to Seymour weighing the pros and cons of killing Orin. You could say the same thing about Mr. Mushnik too. In the movie he's much more cruel towards Seymour, whilst in the play he's still a bad person but didn't go as far as to threaten Seymour with a gun. You can kinda justify Mr. Mushnik's death in the movie. Same with Orin. Movie Seymour's just too loveable and dorky to not root for. But like I said before, play Seymour knows what he's doing, and keeps doing it anyway. He lets his adoptive dad (which btw was so strange to me that they cut from the movie?? I'm thinking the reason was to make Mr. Mushnik appear more cruel but that doesn't make sense to me.) die voluntarily by telling him to get in the plant. He isn't threatened like in the movie. And this leads to Audrey, the person he wanted to protect the most, dying. Basically, what I'm trying to say is, play Seymour started off with good intentions but slowly let greed overtake him and that's why the play ending is suitable. Movie Seymour is more timid and the things just kinda fall in place for him, which makes his death so unsatisfying. Hope this made sense- I'm autistic and little shop of horrors has been one of my special interests for years now so this is my take on it LOL

[@sleepinglionarchives]

Tonally, the theatrical ending is the better ending for this version of the story. Thankfully, fans can choose which version they want to watch or own

[@PaulDozierZZoMBiE13]

I completely agree with this take. I love the original ending. Some of that could be nostalgia, I'll own up to that. I saw this film in its original theatrical run. We went to see it on Christmas day the year it came out. But honestly, Rick Moranis' Seymour is not as morally grey nor as compromised as is the Seymour from the play. He does grisly things, yes. But it's always the plant who is in control and even Mushnik has very little to do with Seymour's agency. He simply didn't deserve the darker ending. He was one step removed from the villainous acts that we see take place. I mean, cutting up Orin Scrivello (D.D.S.!) is certainly horrific. That's obviously his lowest point and his darkest act. But the Rick Moranis Seymour always felt redeemable and seeing him fail is very unsatisfying. Great video! I enjoyed it very much.

[@OptimusPhillip]

Just in general, I don't think Mean Green Mother belongs in the director's cut. In addition to everything you say about Seymour's agency and character arc, having a big showstopping number immediately before the finale number seriously bloats the movie. They really should've just done a straightforward adaptation of the "Bigger than Hula-Hoops" scene from the musical. Come to think of it, there's a weird sort of circular serendipity to the inclusion of the Mean Green Mother sequence. Everything that makes it a detriment to the original ending makes it a great template for the revised ending. The way it unceremoniously beats down on Seymour sets up a great underdog moment when Seymour finally finds the plant's weakness. And the showstopping song that was completely unnecessary in the original ending now fills the void that the omission of Don't Feed the Plants left. It's almost uncanny how well it all worked out.

[@NewWaveWill]

It wasn’t the first time a movie musical had brought back a stage actor to the role they originated. Rocky Horror Picture Show brought back most of its original main cast for the film. Tim Curry, Richard O’Brien, Patricia Quinn and Nell Campbell all played their roles in the film adaptation that they originated.

[@PersonalityOrder]

Yeah this is exactly what I said

[@xtremeyoylecake]

While I liked the theatrical ending, I liked the directors cut/ original ending more because it's deeper, and also because I prefer chaos and action to romance. Also because Twoey was my fav character (ok I love Seymour as well)

[@AshtonRogers-se1zj]

I respectfully disagree. The underlying point of the entire narrative completely falls apart and doesn't land without the original ending. Altering it completely destroys the audience's ability to understand what the work on the whole serves as a metaphor for. Something that reads very clearly with the original ending intact.

[@yourlocalchaos]

4:15 This isn't the first time a movie musical has done so. 1975's The Rocky Horror Picture Show brought back a good amount of its original stage actors to the roles they originated in. Those being: Tim Curry - Frank-N-Furter Richard O'Brien - Riff Raff Patricia Quinn - Magenta Nell Campbell - Columbia Although Meat Loaf wasn't originally Eddie, he played him in the original 1974 US production and the short-lived original Broadway run of the show, and of course, the movie itself.

[@gljm]

Yul Brynner -1956 "The King and I", Ethel Merman -1932 "Anything Goes" and 1953 "Call Me Madam" I could go on.

[@khalidbonner8483]

Ted Ross and Mabel King 1978 "The Wiz"

[@kachoman6225]

Rex Harrison "My Fair Lady" (1964). He even won an Oscar for the film version, having also won a Tony for the stage version before.

[@martinsorenson1055]

Joel Grey - Cabaret, also won an Oscar, as well as a Tony.

[@poppunpresents]

After watching the video, thinking about the cut scenes I liked most, and reading several comments that had some really interesting ideas I think my ideal cut would definitely add "The Meek Shall Inherit", using a (reasonable length) "Don't Feed The Plants" as him imagining the end result, then finishing with the happy ending used in the final cut of the film, partially because I do like the happier ending (the look on Seymour's face as he watches the plant eat Audrey and tries to hold her hand just a moment longer is absolutely heartbreaking, I'm glad there's a version without that), partially because it allows as much as possible to be used, and partially because I think it could support his character arc in the movie As others have mentioned, his arc is different between the play and movie, in the play there's more of a sense of him being corrupted as the story progresses, even at the start, the line delivery makes it feel that plant convinces him more easily compared to the movie, and he takes a more active role in feeding the plant in the play; then when Audrey dies he's brought back to where he started and losing what he wanted most, and upon realising the plant's end goal, makes the decision to do what he should have done in the first place, even if it's ultimately too late to make a difference, redeeming himself in the process In the movie Seymour is much more naïve, and retains that innocence throughout the story, even during the deaths it feels more like he's simultaneously frightened by what's happening, but too frightened by what might happen if he refuses to do anything until the problem has become overwhelmingly big. The deleted "The Meek Shall Inherit" sequence from the movie focuses on his thought process and mirrors "Feed Me": first showing him being swept up in the positives of his situation before realising "Wait, it also means having to feed more people to the plant, am I really alright with this?", his guilt over Mr Mushnick's death shown through the portrait, the shot of him as a plant illustrating the realisation that if he goes along with this he'll be no better than the plant thriving off the destruction of others. The double meaning of the line "The meek are gonna get what's coming to them" for everyone who's familiar with the original ending, and what's usually meant to have rewarding connotations turns into a warning about what will happen if he keeps going and that he'll only have his own inaction to blame And then there's Audrey (Lovely Audrey), the possibility of losing her without the plant is what wilts his budding resolve, so already having that bookend with nearly losing Audrey TO the plant being the thing that pushes him to stand up and defeat it the plant. Using "Don't Feed The Plants" as another moment showing his thoughts builds on the previous one, this time with Seymour realising the scope of what's at stake, even if he's not quite where he needs to be, not being a puppet swept along by those with a stronger will than his anymore, but still running away and hoping for the best. Then the end fully wraps up his arc, coming into his own when it matter most (Also we get to see the impressive finale shine without the more depressing moments hanging over it)

[@memorian8472]

I went into watching Little Shop of Horrors (for the first time) not knowing there was a Directors/Theatrical Cut. I watched the Directors version and watching Audrey die just made my heart drop. There's just something about watching a very sweet woman that finally got out of an abusive relationship and just wanted to live a happy dreamy life die like that. So it was hard for me to get back into those last minutes of the film. I then went on to watch the Theatrical ending... and loved it! But I will say I actually do like seeing Audrey II taking over the world. So I wish there was a version where Seymour attempts to kill the plant but the outcome is ambiguous. Cut to Audrey and Seymour having their happy ending and the camera pulls out revealing that they live in a chaotic world where Audrey II has gone on to take over the world.

[@GriffinBankz-o1p]

that would actually be so cool!

[@curiouskelpie2822]

On one hand, Don’t Feed the Plants is an absolute bop and the giant Audrey Twos are epic. Plus the reprise of Somewhere That’s Green makes me tear up. It’s tragic, and it’s the first ending I saw when I saw the musical for the first time, which was a stage production done by a local university when I was a kid. That being said, I love the happy ending. Seymour and Audrey deserved to be happy, and I love the idea of them living happily ever after in the suburbs. The ending I saw, Seymour sacrificed himself and killed the plant from the inside with weed killer, but it was too late because the guy had already gotten clipping to make more Audrey Twos.

[@jasonblalock4429]

Just stumbled onto this in my recs, and I 100% agree. I've made the same arguments. And to toss another one on the pile: The movie substantially changes Seymour's character vs the stage, lightening him and greatly reducing his culpability. "The Meek Shall Inherit" was neutered, and they made big changes to the deaths of both the dentist and Mushnik - in both cases, changing Seymour from active participant and into a cowardly schmuck bumbling through the deaths. This makes movie Seymour feel much less villainous than previous versions, making it easier to accept a happy ending for him. I think this also adds even more punch to the sheer cruelty of the director's cut ending, like you talked about. Movie Seymour simply does not deserve to be tortured to death. Even previous Seymours got more dignified deaths than that, and they were genuine killers.

[@laborincana4490]

I’m a fan of this musical, but I like the movie ending best. And what I like mostly is Mr. Stubbs song. I love the GREEN BAD MOTHER FROM OUTER SPACE. I love that song. So , I’ll stick with the movie.

[@moshomaniac1]

To me, the biggest problem with the original ending is that Seymour was indirectly responsible for the deaths of the people. In the 1960 Little Shop of Horrors, Seymour directly killed people, albeit accidentally. He killed a person working at a railroad track when he accidentally hit him with a rock, and he got run over, he killed a prostitute when he threw a rock in the air and it hit her in the head, he killed Dr. Farb(that movie’s version of Orin) somewhat out of self-defense when he attacks him with dental tools, and Mr. Mushnick tricks a robber who holds him up in the shop by having him crawl inside the plant, in which he gets eaten. In the 1986 musical, Seymour does allow Orin to suffocate, but he it was more out of fear. He goes there to kill Orin, but can’t do it, but sense Orin already has the gas mask on, he asphyxiates. He is already dead when Seymour feeds him to the plant. Yes, that was wrong, but Orin was abusing Audrey. Seymour also feels great remorse for his actions. Mr. Mushnick finds out about it, but decides to allow Seymour to go into hiding while he exploits his wealth, and then he gets eaten when he gets too close. Seymour does kind of back him into the plant, but then tries to warn him at the last minute. As for Audrey, Audrey 2 tries to eat her of its own volition by calling her on the phone, Seymour had nothing to do with it. That is why I don’t think he quite deserved such a agonizing death in the film, and when goes to rectify the situation by killing the plant at the end, knowing good and well he may not come out alive, he earns the happy ending.

[@lordpuller2226]

Well Mr. Mushnick was an outright villain in the movie. He held Seymour at gunpoint. If Seymour told Mushnick what the plant eats he'd shoot Seymour. So what could Seymour do? Seymour in the movie was a nice guy who didn't believe he could kill people and all of the people who did die basically were self-inflicted accidents. Seymour didn't deserve to die at the end of the movie, this is the anger that audiences felt when they saw it happen in the original cut.

[@NYCTOSEE]

I think it’s also the differences between the character of Seymour in the original, stage play & theatrical cut. The theatrical cut Seymour is definitely the most redeemable and deserves the happy ending the most out of all of them. He’s been verbally and financially abused and he has extremely low self esteem because of it. Same with Audrey. He didn’t actively KILL anybody and him & Audrey deserved that happy ending.

[@SzymonAdamus]

Yes, the original ending is painful, unpleasant and even depressing. But that is precisely why it is interesting. As for Seymour, again - the film version of this ending is bitter and brutal. It doesn't leave a shadow of the irony or heroism we see on the stage. That's why it's interesting. If Audrey II is the embodiment of Seymour's bad decisions, then their total domination of him in the finale is an interesting metaphor. Perhaps Seymor could have fought and defended himself more in this scene, but sometimes our bad decisions lead to such strong consequences that we are completely vulnerable to them. Whatever we do. In my opinion, it is interesting, although of course I understand why it performed so badly in the test screenings. The original ending of the film completely takes away this conventionality of brutality and the hilarity of the whole situation. It is very, very bitter. I like it. It is something different, more difficult, more emotionally challenging. But I can understand why one might not like it.

[@jmn327]

I think the issue, though, is that it doesn't feel enough like it's Seymour paying a price for his "decisions"; in the movie, he's just too passive a character, so even the deaths he's around for don't feel so much like he played an active role in bringing them about, they just sort of happen. Note, that doesn't mean you can't base an unhappy ending off that! Calling your protagonist out for being too passive, not standing up for himself or the right thing to do, is a viable choice, especially when the original movie death scene has him dying so passively, too! But it also makes your protagonist much more sympathetic, and really flattens any kind of character arc you could have had him on; in that regard, I don't think it was just test audiences feeling too challenged by the ending, but also unsatisfied, given the content of the rest of the film.

[@Gravitynaut]

I think passivity is sin enough when the deaths of others are involved, and the "just going along with it" mentality fits perfectly, horribly, tragically within the context of its skewering of capitalism. the original ending is also too much fun to remove. i cannot accept the other version, you can claim it rings false, but the happy ending to me is egregious and groanworthy, it is insincere which is the greater sin.

[@jmn327]

@@Gravitynaut Eh, I think the film went *too* far in minimizing Seymour's complicity, though; Orin's death isn't nearly as drawn out as in the show, and they have Mushnik literally pull a *gun* on him, and even *then* Seymour still belatedly tries to warn him not to get too close to the plant. Sure, he doesn't actively kill them in the show, either, but much much more clearly opts to do something wrong rather than feel like a decent guy who's just in over his head, which is more what the film feels like for most of its runtime, in my opinion. That doesn't mean you can't do an ending where Seymour pays the price for not actively doing the right thing when faced with this challenge, but if we're figuring out why test audiences hated the original ending so much I think that's what it boils down to - it's not just "dark ending is bad!", which I'm sure some people felt, but more that for how dark the ending is, it didn't entirely felt earned in the movie's version of the narrative. You don't even really get the idea in the movie that Seymour is particularly enticed by the riches Audrey II provides, or even that his love for Audrey I would get him to cross a moral event horizon, not in the way you do in the stage version, at least. Obviously, opinions differ on that, and that's fine, and no matter what losing the scale and grandeur of the original ending is a travesty, but the TL;DR here is I get why test audiences felt the way they did, given how the movie chose to depict the story, what it kept in, what it left out, etc.

[@davidagiel8130]

I had the theatrical version growing up on VHS. I never knew about the alternate ending until like thirty years later. But, the happy ending did seen out of place looking back.

[@steveandjeanniefrith236]

I like both versions but changing Seymour to more of a cowardly shy guy instead of an angry incel meant he deserved a chance to redeem himself by killing Audrey 2.

[@StanleyV64]

Despite the original film ending having an unsatisfying conclusion, it perfectly summarises Frank Oz's message, as no matter Seymour's final actions, the plant he fed overthrows the entire world. This, more than anything else, is why I prefer this rendition as a piece of art compared to the others because of how impactful the dangers of greed are shown to be. If I just want to have some greet Little Shop fun, I'd want the 'happy' ending though, no questions!

[@MrGabeanator]

I was first introduced to this musical through the 2004 Alan Menken retrospective on the Aladdin dvd and I bought it on dvd soon after and ever since I’ve called it the Warner brothers musical that changed Disney and I think you know why

[@arandomkitsune55555]

Every time he called it "Little Shop" all I could think about was the really bad 90s cartoon based off of little shop of horrors

[@riocin]

I totally agree with your points here! The director's cut is just sad (not that all sad endings are bad, but it's also really unsatisfying). I think a neat compromise would have been to have Seymour jump into the plant's mouth just like in the stage version, have a death fakeout but ultimately have him come out victorious. That way it feels like more of a full-circle moment if that makes sense, since the electricity weakness kind of came out of nowhere. Maybe have him fight back more in Mean Green Mother too instead of just flailing around like a gerbil like you said, lol. Make him take responsibility for his actions but still get a happy ending!

[@-Unidentified_Comment-]

The length of the original ending takes away from actual sacrifice of Audrey and Seymour. The entirety of the original ending really imposes the idea that they wanted to create this spectacle and show how cool and awesome and scary Audrey II could be and the longer you spend in that scene the more the audience forgets/detaches from the actual main characters of the story. I feel like the prominent discourse surrounding this scene exists because so many people simply watch the clip separate from the actual movie/story- as a person who has seen the film in the context of both endings I can say that it *does matter* . I find that the thing that makes Little Shop one of my favorite musicals is how it portrays ethics and Seymour as a character. When watching the original 1960s film I never found Seymour’s death a noble sacrifice it was a decision made right after dodging the police; I always saw it as a kind of selfish act from a character stand point and a mandated punishment from a writing stand point, where since Seymour had killed people so he must die. It never felt heroic it felt like retribution. I feel that the movie’s original ending is a symptom of this kind of mandated standard that limited rhetoric 60s version and I couldn’t agree more that there is a key difference between what was misunderstood in this ending and the actual stage production’s ending

[@Ribelin2000]

I totally agree with this video. Although there are aspects of the directors ending I enjoy-like the giant pods going on a rampage through New York-as a whole, it was just way too depressing and sad. A film is a totally different animal than a play. Film audiences are less cynical, and want to exit the movie theater happy, plus, at the end of the play, the actors all come out and bow to applause. A movie can't afford that luxury. Plus, Warner Brothers and the Geffen Company spent a *ton* of money on this movie. They couldn't afford to leave audiences sad and depressed, that's not good for business. And yes, I'm aware that the version with the happy ending wasn't a monster hit when it was first released, but it would've made even less money with the original ending, that's my point. And what made matters worse was its release date, which happened to be the weekend before Christmas in 1986. That's the last time of year you'd want to see a movie with such a downbeat ending. Now those who prefer the original ending say that the theatrical one nulls the whole point of the movie, which is that greed can destroy the earth. But I say, this is a musical about a talking, man-eating plant, it's not Death of a Salesman. Anyway, that's my take on it.

[@fluorescentmilkshake]

I truly thought you were going to use more intellectual arguments against the original ending = such as to say "Why would more than a few people keep feeding the plants blood when Seymour did it because he had the only Audrey II at the time, what can all these baby plants offer people in a world where the Audrey II is already a popular household thing?" The only thing Audrey II could offer Seymour was the fame he would gain after the very first Audrey II got bigger and became interesting to passersby and television and print adverts... The only thing the baby plants could offer their owners is eating people they don't like. But that would just make the owners scared of the plants and they wouldn't offer the plants a 2nd sacrifice.

[@mariedit9935]

Honestly the good ending fits the movie perfectly. The main characters are actually very nice people and I rooted for them.

[@gljm]

Having seen the original Off Broadway production back in 1982, and the Encore's production where Ellen Greene reprised her role and having seen the recent Off Broadway production with Jonathan Groff and the movie, I still think that the Stage version has the superior ending. The enormous Audrey II looming over the audience and the cast now as the faces of Audrey II's flowers singing "Don't Feed The Plants" is powerful, terrifying, fun and appropriate. At the end of the song in the original production vines came down from the ceiling of the Orpheum Theatre giving you a sense that Audrey II had taken over and engulfed the entire audience. Two of the times I saw the musical it was in a fairly small theatre, and the intimacy of the small space gave you a sense that you were part of the play. The movie ending that was used was too saccharine and the fact that Seymour who is essentially a "Serial Killer" gets to live "The good life" is unsatisfactory.

[@jmn327]

Agreed the stage ending is superior to all others, but it really does come down to the stage version doing a better job of establishing that Seymour is bringing this on himself, while the movie keeps him more passive and sympathetic, so each ending works better for its particular Seymour's character arc.

[@robertlauncher]

My problem with the theatrical cut is that, on the opposite side of the coin, it’s too happy. Seymour gets everything he wanted, and nothing is lost permanently. Mushnik may have been a jerk, but he did take Seymour in and even tried to offer him a way out of his situation. There are differences in the play that make his demise feel less harsh there, but that’s neither here or there. We never see Seymour suffer guilt from it, and most of all, Seymour’s actions never come back to bite him in a meaninful way. The faustian plot is incomplete. An ending that's too mean doesn't have that issue. It has others, but it comes through with the main message intact. Horrifyingly, beautifully intact

[@Basile.BowBow]

16:47 when you watch a movie in front row

[@y2krashman576]

It's entertaining but you can't beat the legendary villain last line that Audrey 2 makes before it dies.

[@Bambilinooo]

Those 6 min and 20 sec are for me the best thing about the movie. I love the big plants (roaming?) around. Looks so majestic!

[@scottandrewhutchins]

I think if Seymour had gone down fighting and Audrey II burped up the machete as in the stage version, test audiences would have seen the humor and went with it. Seymour being totally overpowered before he is eaten is the problem, whereas in the play, he jumps in of his own free will . The original ending as it stands is mostly just a parody of monster movies of the period and is more a special effects showcase than particularly funny.

[@scottandrewhutchins]

I wrote this before I watched the video. I commented about this on the workprint ending that was posted on KZbin prior to its official release on DVD.

[@iLikeTheUDK]

You know what? Now I agree with you. It would have been way more satisfying at least in the bad ending for Seymour to at least go down with a fight, at least maybe grab a knife or the power plug or something, send it at Audrey II as he's grabbed by it, only for Audrey II to crush it almost effortlessly at the last minute. He tried. He _did_ almost get there. He put up a fight. But it was all in vain in the end, the plant was too strong. It'll feel more satisfyingly tragic this way, not like we should somehow mock this pathetic little man for thinking he has a chance. Anyway they should have kept the solilquy in The Meek Shall Inherit (which barely exists in either version of the film)

[@nehehehgraylois]

The director's ending would have been more earned if they simply left in the longer version of The Meek Shall Inherit, where it's shown Seymour had a his chance to kill the plant but chickened out at the prospect of losing his fortune (e;g Audrey's love). Without it he's more of a sad pawn in the plant's game who doesn't really have any choice in the actions he takes rather than someone who's doing wrong, knows he's doing wrong and proceeds to do wrong despite that instead of taking his chance to do right by it. Not to mention the climax of the song they cut was total bars

[@amanda-nu6fm]

absolutely agree with you peta. finally someone who actually acknowledges the importance of the directors cut to the INTIAL AND OVERALL story, ESPECIALLY + FURTHERMORE The Meek should have ABSOLUTELY never been cut. it gave a lot of insight to Seymour's spiral and the deal he made with the devil/plant.

[@jeprice08]

I have to agree with you there. I saw the 1960 film in which all of this was based on and Seymour, at the end, called Audrey Jr. a name and told the plant that it messed up his whole life. The plant cried, "Feed me!" And Seymour replied, "Yeah, I'll feed ya!" He grabbed the knife and said, "I'll feed you like you've never been fed before!" He went inside the plant and he killed it but the plant died taking Seymour with him saying, "I didn't mean it!" I don't know about you but after the plant told Seymour to feed him, I saw a look a look on Seymour's face that said, "I hate to do this but since I'm practically past the point of no return anyway, if my life's going to be over, I'm going to make damn sure that it's life ends as well!" Looks like he got his wish. Also in this version, Seymour had a mother and neither her, Audrey (who was a brunette Jackie Joseph), or Mushnick died. One final thing, this Audrey Jr. was NOT, I repeat, NOT from outer space. It was a cross between two plants as I recall.

[@there4you19]

Well the Original ending did Show an Important Message that Anyone's Actions do Have Consequences and eventually be punished for it. While the Theatrical ending mainly just about Redemption.

[@nenirouvelliv]

To be fair, the ending mayhem going on and on is sort of the point and one of the things that makes it so fun. I do agree that to tie it up narratively Seymour should have stood up to the Plant at the end, even though the battle would've been in vain, especially since in the movie Seymour's arc is about standing up to the people (and flora) oppressing him.

[@supersinger9000]

I remember finding out about the two endings before 2013, so while I had heard about the original ending, I couldn’t actually see it anywhere. No matter which ending you prefer I’m glad that the original is out there now so you can see it and make the decision for yourself. Especially with how hard the crew worked on it.

[@HobGungan]

I'd love to do a combination. Audrey thinks she's dying but has a "I'm getting better" comedic beat, the salesman comes in, Seymour confronts the Mean Green Mother but II starts to get the best of him, AUDREY saves HIM, destroying the weed, but they miss the one seedling that the salesman finds, so Seymour and Audrey must go on the radio to warn people Don't Feed The Plants.

[@venividi8523]

In my opinion the exclusion of the full version of The Meek Shall Inherit from either the theatrical or the director's cut makes the original ending not work. In The Meek Shall Inherit, Seymour comes to terms with his bad deeds but resigns to continue to commit them out of promise of personal gain in his soliloquy, it's because of the last few lines "Where do I sign . . . Right on the line," he is actually selling off the rights of Audrey II to be reproduced, but that doesn't happen in either of the versions of the movie because the full sequence is completely cut to only the opening and ending chorus which don't feature that at all. In the versions we have, Seymour is never seen selling anything off and wants to back out of the fame almost immediately, and in the theatrical this is even built upon with the inclusion of Jim Belushi's Patrick Martin who wants to have it done, but Seymour refuses outright. So in the original this whole subplot of Seymour profiteering directly from Audrey II is on the cutting room floor and comes out of nowhere, it's such a sudden shift it'd be bad writing if a certain amount of goodwill wasn't given to the director's cut due to being a Frankenstein of old material. I'm not saying the idea of a bad ending for the musical is wrong, it fits, but for the movie and its two adaptations, it needs a happy one because the material just isn't there to warrant a bad one. Neither do we have additional elements like Seymour not being the one to directly kill Orin or Mushnik (Orin kills himself accidentally and Seymour doesn't directly lead Mushnik into Audrey II's mouth, rather Mushnik backs into it himself and sticks his head into its mouth) that the play had so to warm the audience up to the idea Seymour is a bad guy. In my opinion, if instead at the end Seymour and Audrey went somewhere else than the suburban house seen in Somewhere That's Green, which was poorer and more modest, the theatrical would've made a stronger statement against fame and greed. But the original just doesn't work, it comes off way to mean spirited and the message gets lost in translation.

[@TheBeird]

I think you’re absolutely right in your assessment. I was torn because the original ending fits the themes of the film better, but the theatrical ending fits the tone better. But yeah, Seymour having no agency is what I’ve realised bugs me about the original ending. And it’s five minutes without your main characters involved too.

[@charlespackowski6620]

6:32 imo this is the coolest version of the ending. I love how he holds the machete in the air like a classic hero before diving right into the belly of the beast

[@bladeoflight12hardcorepro50]

Were is it? Sorry for asking you but do you have any idea?

[@charlespackowski6620]

@@bladeoflight12hardcorepro50 it’s at timestamp 6:32

[@bladeoflight12hardcorepro50]

I know the timestamp I talking about where the play was and the date.

[@charlespackowski6620]

@@bladeoflight12hardcorepro50 ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh…yeah I have no idea

[@CaptianFishyPants]

Tim Curry originated Frank-N-Furter on stage and that movie came out 11 years before

[@drewsaga101]

I loved this movie as a kid. I unwittingly watched the original version on one of my streaming services last year with no knowledge of it even existing. When it got to the end, my mind was blown... I thought it was possibly like some Mandela effect gobbledygook. I was disturbed but I loved the original ending too once I got past the initial shock.

[@anonymouscontributor1520]

Another thing I didn’t like about the original ending is after the “Don’t Feed The Plants” song followed by Audrey II eating us at the end, it immediately cuts to the end credits with the end credits theme. Like we get this intense song with Audrey II taking over the world and then immediately follow it up with the happy song; hey everyone, you’re gonna get eaten alive by giant alien plants but here’s a happy song for you. For me, it left a very bad taste in my mouth

[@videogamepersonplays]

Absolutely loved this video! With all of the changes that were made to Seymour though out the movie it only made sense that they would change the ending. Hope you make some more videos someday!

[@supersebac320]

FINALLY! Somebody recognices the problem with Mean Green Mother! And this comes from somebody who loves the whole sequence, but in Mean Green Mother he is also completely humiliated. Doesn't help that Movie Seymour is more sympathetic because of some cuts, like Meek Shall Inherit, Seymour actively playing a part on Mushnik's death. I do wonder if maybe Seymour actually played a part on the movie version when fighting the plant, like maybe grabbing a sort of explosive and turning it up as the plant eats him, like giving him a last Hurrah! And also a last detail, the original movie version kinda shows that whatever Seymour does, humanity is doomed! The salesman already comes with a little Audrey 2, so even if he kills the plant, what can he do?

[@poppunpresents]

Interesting, I thought of it as more open ended, we see the little Audrey 2 at the end, but it's still at the small, relatively harmless stage the main Audrey 2 was when first shown and anything could happen: the cycle of events in the movie could repeat, it could be found by somebody who ultimately makes the wrong choices and dooms humanity, or it might just wilt without anyone finding it Or since it's on their lawn, Seymour & Audrey might run it over with the lawn mower

[@Patichu]

As much as I love the theatrical ending of little shop the sequence of events showcasing Audrey 2's destruction alongside don't feed the plants showed the amount of destruction these plants would deal and makes don't feed the planets even more of a cry for help than the on stage musical made it. I would have loved to see what people consider the definitive ending in the remake that got canned but alas we will never know

[@cupasaza495]

My one problem with the theatrical ending is that this weird electricity weakness is just pulled out of nowhere. If Seymore were to win, he could take his gun back and shoot the stem until the head falls off or something.

[@vindurza]

The happy ending is better but the original has the better song lol there cover of don't feed the plants is a bop.

[@eileenbutterfly7856]

I might be biased. I got interested in Little Shop of Horrors after I read a book about an autistic high school girl and near the end she got miscast as Audrey II only because the original actor got booted for being late to rehearsal, the director had a superstition against understudies, and her best male friend (who she confesses her love to at the end of the dress rehearsal in front of the school in the final chapter) saw this as her opportunity to shine on stage when normally there's a rule against 9th graders performing at their school. When I finished it, I got curious about Audrey II, so I went into the movie intending to focus on her (I use she/her pronouns for the plant because they go with the name). My mom is also a longtime fan of the movie (like since it's release long) and she admitted her favorite character was Audrey II. I guess those factors just swayed me towards loving the thrilling apocalypse ending. I kind of want to write a story with a similar plant where the protagonist willingly ushers them to their world domination, and the ending song is called, "She Fed The Plants,"

[@misterdarwin]

I always found the cut to Seymour's hand thrusting through the rubble with the power line to be jarring and the happy ending out of place. I will agree the kaiju ending, which I was so happy to finally see, can be cut down, and Seymour could be given more agency in his final demise, but if I have to pick one ending it would be the original.

[@KatMusic2009]

It's a "but is it a happy ending" really, as the final shot is a small Audrey II in the garden of their 'dream home', smiling!! kzbin.info/www/bejne/i6WtpYyXrrxnjLMsi=-nbmYy_HYe3s8-7i&t=178

[@misterdarwin]

@@KatMusic2009 Eh. It's a typical horror movie sting to end on an ominous note and leave the door open for a sequel (not that Little Shop was doing that; it was just an homage to the trope). Sort of like old horror movies that would finish with The End... then put up a "?" to make it ambiguous. The theatrical end was as much as an audience pleasing ending as they were going to get.

[@mint2574]

Fair enough points but I still far prefer the original ending, especially if the meek shall enter it was still a part of it. When he agrees to sign the contracts for deals and keep the killing going, the futile battle at the end shows he created something far too powerful and if he had stopped while ahead he probably would’ve been able to defeat audry II.

[@johnaustink5636]

I think I'm going to edit together a hybrid. Was thinking it would be fun if the film wrapped up with the theatrical ending and then cuts to the rampage. Concludes our story on a satisfying note but shows how it went much differently elsewhere resulting in the same overall fate for the world while our heroes still get to be together.

[@LakeofCrystalclan]

Did you ever do it?

[@johnaustink5636]

@@LakeofCrystalclan I did actually! Worked out great.

[@LakeofCrystalclan]

@@johnaustink5636 I’d love to see it one day!

[@gethinranderson]

seymours death in the film made me cry. the actor played him too well as it honestly was an amazing performance

[@darnellleake405]

Grew up loving this movie. Had no idea about the alternate movie until a few years ago when i showed my kids the movie from a 3rd party streaming app. I was shocked.

[@alexb859]

Awesome video!!! Also I subbed :) also in my opinion if we had the Original Ending but the following happened (not only he stands up to the plant and fights it head on, Mothra and Ghidorah come to defeat the giant carnivorous plants and mini versions of them finish off the other carnivorous plants), I think that ending would be better then the other two ending combined :)

[@bookemdano7567]

I like both endings and I’m glad they give you both full movies to choose from and not just the original ending as an extra. I do prefer the original ending more because some of my most favorite musicals are sad, dark and depressing! My only wish is that if this movie comes out on 4K… they will include both in 4K, but, also restore the full version of The Meek Shall Inherit and Mushnik’s death scene, then to me the movie would be an A+

[@christopherwaldrop5293]

In addition to the excellent reasons you've provided for why the theatrical ending is better that final shot of the plant breaking through the screen only works in theaters. It's a great sight gag but by 1986 VCRs were already popular and people were buying copies of movies they loved. I checked and the 1986 Little Shop was released on VHS and Beta in 1987. The intimacy of home viewing could make Audrey and Seymour's deaths even harder and the final sight gag, funny as it is in theaters, just doesn't work on a small screen.

[@stephentodd7194]

I happen to like the overkill and how long the ending sequence is in the original ending. The over the top length makes it good to me.

[@Lobotomyaftermath]

Finally someone says it, that’s what my problem with the original ending was as well, it would have probably been a bit more well receive if Seymour went fighting rather then just being helplessly grabbed and eaten.

[@ehrenthompson7891]

He did fight back but not very well.

[@someguy1894]

personally i think both are pretty good if they got combined like another comment said

[@rikp]

4:15 "First time a movie musical brought back a stage actor to the role they originated" -- it had been fairly common even before then. Joel Grey/Cabaret, Barbra Streisand/Funny Girl, Robert Preston/The Music Man, Yul Brynner/The King & I, Ethel Merman/Call Me Madam, Eddie Cantor/Whoopee!, The Marx Brothers/The Cocoanuts, just off the top of my head.

[@jasonsywak5]

Little Shop is one of my favorite movies, and easily my favorite musical. I'm so torn here! On one hand, I grew up with the theatrical ending so it "feels right." But I love the message (I take away) from the plant winning - everyone's greed and selfishness eventually leads to the end of humanity. But I also totally agree the original ending in the film is way too long. Cutting it in half would have been easy and effective. Either way, I love the film - both versions. Thanks for making this video!

[@samantaluna3870]

I prefer the theatrical ending because its a happier ending, but its not a happy ending, it still ends with a threat.

[@theotakux5959]

Little Shop of Horrors is my all-time favorite movie. I don't remember when I first watched it, because I was so young, I just know my parents had a copy on VHS, which quickly became my copy. I was already obsessed with it when I lived in a house my family moved out of when I was 7. As a kid, I ended up wearing out the VHS because I watched it so much, and the DVD (the theatrical version without the deleted ending special feature) was one of the first DVDs I ever bought. I still watch the movie at least once a year, often when I have guests who haven't seen it. And despite how important the movie is to me, and how the version I'm most familiar with is the theatrical version, I still prefer the Director's Cut ending, and since the DC Blu-ray came out, that's the version I watch most frequently, though I still watch the Theatrical version occasionally. I think if I had ANY complaint about the Director's Cut, it's that it goes directly form one song to another without anything in between.

[@steveandjeanniefrith236]

The OG ending is depressing but its a morality tale. And did Seymour ever confess about Mushnik and Orin to Audrey in the original?

[@BreckanBerg]

The stage distance is a real issue in most shows. It works great for big extravagant shows like your normal Disney show or say phantom of the opera. But after being a stage performer for the better part of the last decade small stages work much better for certain shows. I did sweeney todd, spring awakening and sideshow on small stages and wow does it work great. Scenes like epiphany and left behind hit ridiculously hard. I'm playing alfred in alice by heart in a few months and it's going to be in the round in a 100 person theater. I'm extremely excited to perform such an emotionally difficult role in such a small place. Also voiced Audrey 2 in 2019, very fun role

[@minanfranco]

the theatrical ending is still the canon ending, right? cause i love it

[@Dracomut]

As someone who has always felt the theatrical endings is better, you really hit the nail on the head why the original ending fails in my view. Well done good sir.

[@MrRezRising]

(B4 I comment, a shout out to your editor for that little half step jump for the Little Shop theme. Neat trick 😉) Just saw the original ending a couple days ago. I agree, the theatrical release ending was better. Too long, to jarring in tone, it needed to go. Side note, the movie soundtrack was fantastic to play as a beginning drummer.

[@jonnaking3054]

Seymour's death in the stage play was much more similar to his death in the 1960's version

[@ChrisManley1994]

Admittedly I’m not a musical connoisseur but I do absolutely love this film, I can still remember the first time I saw it during a drama class in high school, I was hooked right from the start!

[@lavalamp625]

The director's cut needs cuts tho. That's the thing. There's a world where the original ending will land for this movie like it does on stage but as it is it is overlong.

[@beatzbyreefah]

In my opinion, I did not like the original ending. I prefer the theatrical ending. And that is only because although Seymour did do a lot,he technically didn't murder anybody. It's not like the people who did get eaten by the plant didn't deserve it. With the original ending I agree that you know artists are and if I made that I'd be mad that that part wasn't in the theatrical version. However, at the end of the day the goal was to make a movie you're not going to make a movie unless it's profitable and profitable movies have Happy endings mostly. Plus it's kind of dark. Seymour goes to all of this s*** and the plant wins in the end I mean come on. Even Tony Stark got the girl and the kid.

[@melenatorr]

There were, though, previous movies which brought back stage production originators: Robert Preston for "The Music Man"; Rex Harrison for "My Fair Lady". "1776" brought over a number of the stage show originators, including William Daniels for John Adams, Howard da Silva for Franklin, Ken Howard for Jefferson; and Virginia Vestoff for Abigail Adams.

[@TheNotverysocial]

I think it is disappointing Seymour Krelborn is made far less of an active player in this film, and the major events happen much more despite and in spite of him. He is far more passive than he is in the 1960 film and especially the stage version. Yet you mention this title, and people will always associate it with this movie over the two prior ones it is based on. Yet it loses much of its poignancy in translation. Theming is much lighter, and the moral is nonexistent. I give it points for the casting and performances. Rick Moranis, Steve Martin and others carry this film. If the deleted scenes were all in this film, and omitted dialogue restored, this could be a more faithful adaptation. As is, the lighter ending is sudden and tacked on, even for the more lighthearted story as they retold it.

[@JustBearly]

More people need to watch this video, its quite well put together. You have some nice editing skills, keep up the good work!

[@amanda-nu6fm]

if you think this was well put together and "nice editing skills" there's no room to question why you love the theatrical ending lol... you have shit taste

[@thisisntme]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who prefers the theatrical ending.

[@bladeoflight12hardcorepro50]

Oh, you're here.

[@markpugh6808]

I prefer the happy ending

[@larkefedifero]

I was fortunate enough to be able to obtain an original DVD from the first release of this back in '98. It has a black-and-white / pre-color-corrected version of the original (20-minute?) ending on it, and even *that* looks slightly different than the colorized / color-corrected original ending that was later released on DVD and blu-ray, using some alternate shots / angles, etc. Rumor has it that David Geffen, the producer (and *original* backer of the original off-Broadway stage production back in '82 or so), was SOOOOOO pissed that the non-colorized version was released on DVD as a "bonus feature" that he *immediately* recalled all of the retail copies that had been distributed and locked them away somewhere and / or destroyed them! Apparently only about 10,000 copies or so nationwide had been sold and got out at that point, so he was pretty successful in doing so. Fast-forward some 10-12 (or more) years later from '98, and we have the color-corrected release of the original ending, a clean and very professional cut - also about 20-minutes or so long. So while it's great to see such a well-composed, neat release, it *does* make you wonder exactly how much extra footage was left on the cutting room floor! 😲

[@dodgethunderstorm8524]

This is a great video essay but I have to call bs on what you said here 4:14 Rocky Horror was made a decade before and Tim Curry originated his role and reprised it in the movie

[@ChlooJamx3]

I was just about to comment this

[@ChlooJamx3]

@caitlyncarvalho7637 wtf are you on about?

[@ansiaaa]

I've just watched this movie for the thousand time and it was the version with the new ending. I wasn't expecting it and to my knowledge there was only a rough version of it. I thought I was living a Mandela effect moment! I was sure it had an happy ending, and I couldn't understand why I didn't remember this "negative" version!... I had to check and find this video to understand that I didn't go crazy all of a sudden, and they restored this ending :D tbh this was a cool experience :D

[@philspence3073]

Here's my opinion, LSoH's grim ending is an important piece of media to acknowledge when talking about movies that have alternate endings. in essence, the grim ending solidified what LSoH set out to achieve, which was to tell a campy horror story. the theatrical ending not only turns the movie into a half-assed rom-com with a minor horror subplot, but it also absolves Seymour of his crimes of murder. the stage show and the original ending showed people what happened when you made deals you couldn't or wouldn't honor. the theatrical ending ruins that moral by saying "If you safe a woman from an abusive situation you too will get the girl."

[@astrolog1cal]

my school is doing little shop of horrors, and how i’d love to be doing the version where audrey and seymour survive and live happily ever after, i love the ending where audrey and seymour are eaten by the plants. (it also has an amazing finale number, so that’s a plus)

[@alextotsky1458]

the stage ending also provides a level of ambiguity compared to the original film ending, where the stage ending tells about audrey II taking over but relies on the audience imagining it, but the movie shows a setting many people may be familiar with genuinely being destroyed

[@HAZAHMASTER]

I think why the Original ending didn't work for the film is more like Syemore's character In the stage show: Syemore is more willing to kill Like example: There is a song in the stage play called "Now/it's just the gas" Where Syemore decided to just let orin die from the gas and sticks with it, And also syemore lures mushnick into the plant saying there's money in it. In the movie. Orin dies by the gas in seconds and syemore didn't have time to react (he didn't save him either) And he did try to warn mushnick the last second. What I'm saying is. In the movie Syemore is more likeable where in the stage play he becomes Unlikeable

[@eloiseockert9233]

I liked the ending where Seymour destroyed Audrey 2 & Seymour & Audrey did marry...

[@DevilMaster]

Hot take: I want a remake of this movie that abandons the musical and comedy aspects and gives us pure horror. Use CGI for Audrey 2 to avoid the limitations of physical props. And for the ending... most people would expect to get either the theatrical or original ending, so I'd love a final twist that combines them. Seymour is grabbed by Audrey 2's vines, he gets cuts on his legs, but he manages to electrocute the plant and blow it up. He marries Audrey, they move into a suburban house, but the wounds on his legs are infected, they get gradually worse, and start sprouting vines. Seymour mutates into a new Audrey 2. He eats Audrey, and the original ending is set in motion, with lots of destruction that can only be shown via CGI. Audrey 2s are everywhere, they overrun the White House and the Pentagon, the Air Force decides to use nukes, and afterwards... the plants are still alive, but now they are also radioactive.

[@alexanderchippel]

Really great video, hope you make some more content like this.