from film, to stage, back to film, and back to stage

I'm going to go ahead and assume that some, most, or hopefully all of you have seen the movie Little Shop of Horrors. This is a great film directed by Frank Oz, who has a pretty outstanding resume. Some of you may know him as a puppeteer and voice actor for The Muppets, or the voice of Yoda in Star Wars. He does not have much of a directing background, but this hit movie has been deemed a 'cult classic,' which is good, I think. But, where did this all start?

Way back in 1960, a man named Roger Corman directed and produced a movie in only two days. For those of you keeping score at home, thats a 70 minute feature-length movie that was shot in 48 hours. This was the last two days before the set that was used was to be taken down, as in the previous 5 days, Corman had just filmed another feature-length movie called Bucket of Blood. Wait, what?! That's right, Corman shot TWO movies in ONE week. Mind you, these were very low-budget films, and not highly enjoyable by today's standards, however I still find this a great feat. So I guess to get his money's worth out of the set, he decided to film a second movie rather than let the set go to waste with its final two days. Somehow, they wrote a script and shot the entire film in these two days, and the result was a far-fetched, quirky, interesting, and entertaining film. It even features a very young Jack Nicholson in his third Hollywood role he had ever played.

Next, this odd little movie became far more popular than they ever anticipated it to be, and years later (1982), a man named Howard Ashman adapted and wrote it into an off-broadway musical. Again, this production became far more popular than anyone had ever imagined, and was quickly re-adapted to film in 1986. This is where Frank Oz picked it up and made it into the film everyone thinks of today when they hear of Little Shop. Oz's rendition kept the stage style of the musical by using a limited number of sets, and lengthy wide shots, which Oz refers to as "master shots". One of these shots includes a ginormous crane up while a character runs up a flight of stairs mid-song. Unhappy with the first 31 takes, the 32nd was finally used. Anyways, this film had quite a historic journey before it came to be what we know today. Also, with the success of Oz's movie, the stage musical was then picked up by Broadway.

I can't decide what part of that history that I find most fascinating, but it does put into perspective how one seemingly small production can become such a big phenomenon.

Bringing life to the past again

In the spirit of October and Halloween and zombies, I thought I'd make a post about movies that are being re-animated (no pun intended) and why.  Finding Nemo hits theaters again, but this time in 3D; The Lion King and Titanic, both huge successes originally at the box office, came back for round two with an added dimension.  The list continues on, and the future has even more in store (Little Shop of Horrors, The Birds, Dirty Dancing...see the rest here), both in our regular 2D movie experience and in pay-an-extra-four-bucks-for-glasses 3D.  Why not just make something new, though?

The fact of the matter is, even these "classics" are just imitations of other stories that came before, and I'm not entirely sure that such a thing as an "original idea" even exists these days.  It's sad to think of the world of creativity in that way, but really, what are we left with?  Directors, producers, and screenwriters therefore must come up with ways to manipulate the same old song and dance into something that another generation can enjoy, with updated pop culture references, soundtracks, and images.  Plus, with the relatively new frontier of 3D available for exploration, ticket prices rise (in a fair ratio to the increase in cost of making a 3D film, on average about 18% according to the MPAA) to add to the climbing cost of living in today's world.  There has to be something flashy and new to add to the old storyline to attract an audience back to the theater, whether it's in the technology or the talent (you know that you see some movies just for the actors, admit it); otherwise, viewers just won't be pulled back in to see a plot they've watched unfold seven times before in various formats.

I'm not saying that this isn't a decent way to make up for a lack of new ideas; after all, it is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.  Still, I wouldn't mind seeing filmmakers give a little more effort in the way of creating something at least slightly new, rather than spending more money to jazz up the same shots from the "original."  If you want an upcoming generation to think outside of the box and to try new things, you've got to inspire them through what they see on the big screen, because who doesn't want to be just like a movie star?