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...ok86.112.234.98 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)

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)