Talk:Little Shop of Horrors (musical)

message: 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)
thread_title: plot section added

message: 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)
replies: text: My mistake. -- Annie D 01:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Musical based on film?

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Audrey II puppet Plant rental links 

message: 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)
thread_title: "Masochistic" dentist

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Synopsis

message: 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)
thread_title: Article assessment

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Differences From Film section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 sango15Hello! 17:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures of the puppets

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: To the OP:  On the contrary, the musical is scored for piano, synthesizer, electric guitar, bass guitar and drums.  --Thomprod (talk) 10:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a rock musical, by any stretch. It's nothing if not a potpourri (couldn't resist that!) of styles. Somewhere That's Green and Suddenly, Seymour are rock? That people who love rock n' roll insist on calling it a rock musical doesn't make it one. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's played by a rock band.  But, much more importantly, experts call it a rock musical in published WP:RSs, so what you say is WP:OR.  Please read this policy.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "bud" or "buds" in 1986 film adaptation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: To the OP:  On the contrary, the musical is scored for piano, synthesizer, electric guitar, bass guitar and drums.  --Thomprod (talk) 10:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a rock musical, by any stretch. It's nothing if not a potpourri (couldn't resist that!) of styles. Somewhere That's Green and Suddenly, Seymour are rock? That people who love rock n' roll insist on calling it a rock musical doesn't make it one. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's played by a rock band.  But, much more importantly, experts call it a rock musical in published WP:RSs, so what you say is WP:OR.  Please read this policy.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Rock Musical?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Howard Ashman, the playwright and lyricist was quoted above. 24.152.189.91 (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a [[tragicomedy]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Edits by 86.157.118.57

message: 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)
thread_title:  UK original cast album... features Sue Pollard 

message: Okay then. I have a quote from Howard Ashman.  Interview with Howard Ashman in CINEFANTASTIQUE Magazine, Volume 17, Number 1 (January 1987): Little Shop of Horrors is "a cautionary tale, a fable which says that if you do these things, this will happen."
If you still don't believe me, I'll scan the page in and post it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taco Wiz (talk • contribs) 15:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've returned. 

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

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

message: Aside from the playbill source, I have found several more: IGN, LA Times, Hollywood Reporter, Huffington Post and Yahoo!, all of which satisfy the burden of notability stated in WP:CRYSTAL. Unless there is still objection (given the new evidence), I will reinstate the passage. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop edit-warring.  After this film begins principal photography, if it ever does so, feel free to describe it then.  It seems to me that it might be appropriate to mention the project in the writer's Wikipedia article (especially once he begins writing, if he ever does so), since what these news items are about is that this writer might write something. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't touched this article in several days, so hold your horses. Please respond to the notability issue, as well as the passage in WP:NFF which explicitly permits inclusion of "premature" material in relevant subject matter articles. Why the writer but not the musical? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted over and over above, all that has happened is that a person has been approached to write a script for a potential film remake.  Will the script be written?  We don't know.  If so, will money be raised to make the film?  We don't know.  Will a distributor be secured?  We don't know.  No contract of any kind has been signed.  So, why does WP:NFF say that you "might" mention an early project?  That is to permit the mention of projects that will almost certainly be completed: Avatar 2 will certainly be made, as will The Avengers 2.  In the case of this project, even if there were a script, we would still be doubtful about the project's completion, and I think it would be wise to wait until filming begins to discuss the film.   -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: According to pretty much all these sources: "Joseph Gordon-Levitt(..)is developing the project. Marc Platt(...)is producing the reboot. Playwright Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa(...)is penning the script." How much more definitive should it be before we decide that Wikipedia can join this list? As noted over and over above, we're squabbling over two measly sentences... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple sources indicate subject notability 

message: I added a one-sentence mention of the possible remake at the end of the "1986 Film Adaptation" section, only saying that Warner Bros. was developing it and that JGL is in talks to star. I do think that an entire section or paragraph on it isn't needed, but I believe that it should be mentioned, if only briefly. With all due respect, BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The source given concludes: "If the project comes together in an ideal fashion, Gordon-Levitt would play Seymour."   This seems to be exactly what WP:CRYSTAL was designed to prevent.  It says: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place."  This film is not almost certain to take place; there is not even a script yet, and no cast or crew has yet been engaged.  As of now, it's just an idea that an actor is floating. The Los Angeles Times has a clearer description that Warner and Gordon-Levitt are merely "in talks", so I substituted that source.  If Warner really signs on to this project, it will make a statement that we can cite then. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-added remake mention

message: I think an Analysis section could work, especially if it uses quotes by Howard Ashman or articles written while Ashman was alive.  I own the January 1987 and September 1987 issues of Cinefantastique, which offers mountains of information that isn't available on the 'net (yet).    Both the writers and the people being quoted are attempt to describe the show, with some interesting results.  Ellen Greene says "Just when you think you are going to laugh, you cry, and vice versa".  (January 1987, page 20)  Howard Ashman says the show is "a cautionary tale, a fable which says that if you do these things this will happen."  (January 1987, page 22)  Gilmore (I can't find a first name) says the film adaption of Little Shop of Horrors (the section on the play was rather short) was "unclassifiable, really.  There's music, comedy, outrageousness, a crazy plant-in fact the whole film is a send up of other movies."
I'm hoping I'll get the time to scan in everything, but I'm not sure if or when I will.  Once we have access to the pages, though, the articles on both the play and film can be expanded. --Taco Wiz (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: While analysis of the music, lyrics and book of a musical is excellent, the least valuable people to quote in that section are the creators.  The creators are useful to quote in the background/genesis sections to describe the process for writing and rehearsing the show, but their opinions about their own work are less encyclopedic than outside analyses.  If you want to write an analysis section, you need to find books and articles by independent commentators.  For a good example see Hair (musical).  Also, note that anything in Cinefantastique would seem to be more applicable to the film's article rather than the musical's.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analysis? 

message: I've been reading the discussion on this play and the bizarre assumption that it isn't a tragicomedy because it has...comedic elements.
Please consider this document on the structure of a tragedy and tell me how it doesn't fit the requirements: http://www2.cnr.edu/home/bmcmanus/poetics.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.0.22 (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This IS a Tragicomedy 

message: An IP added this to the article:
Although the musical emphasises itself as a commentary on class relations, the conflict of the production is “subtly framed in terms of race relations” (citing) Jensen, Marc. "Feed Me!: Power Struggles and the Portrayal of Race in Little Shop of Horrors", Cinema Journal, 48, No. 1, Fall 2008, pp. 51–67  The main cast is usually made up entirely of white actors, and the only character consistently performed by a person of colour is Audrey II, who is always played by an African-American man. Since Audrey II is a manifestation of Seymour’s personal demons, the racial tension of a black man being a “corrupting influence” becomes distinctly problematic, especially since this villain is accompanied by the only R&B music in the production, a genre which in deeply rooted in the African-American tradition. (citing) Reel, James. 2004. "Wilted Plant: The UA, in fun fashion, brings the mediocre prose of Little Shop of Horrors to life", Tucson Weekly, April 22, 2004, accessed May 20, 2017.
:First of all, I note that Jensen's article is about the film version, but let's set that aside for a moment.  This is an interesting argument, but it cannot be presented as fact. Indeed, it may be a WP:FRINGE theory.  The musical was originally cast with black actors playing Chiffon, Crystal, Ronnette (good guys) and the plant (bad guy), who all sing music associated with black America: Motown and soul/R&B. This is part of the musical's urban aesthetic, where the white and black characters meet on Skid Row. But is it generally agreed among critics and those who have analyzed the musical that what Jensen and Reel said in the two articles cited, from 2004 and 2008, is a fair and balanced treatment of the theme?  What are the musical's intentions and effect with respect to its mixed black and white cast?  Not all racial markers are racist.  The opposite argument is made here.  Much more research is needed to present a meaningful encyclopedic summary here, and since the Jensen source is not online, it would be helpful if someone would quote the relevant parts here so that we can review them. Remember, also, that this musical covers other important themes, including abuse of women by men and the moral slippery slope of killing an evil person (in Seymour's case, it leads to killing people who are not evil). We do not yet discuss these in the musical because no one has done the research to present them in a fair and balanced way. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Racial undertones?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Little Shop of Horrors (musical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100402061014/http://world-theatres.com/longruns.html to http://www.world-theatres.com/longruns.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Little Shop of Horrors (musical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100610023521/http://www.ulm.edu/lyricopera/images/hist-shop.doc to http://www.ulm.edu/lyricopera/images/hist-shop.doc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: [According to Marc Jensen] Although the race is not pointedly remarked upon in the musical's book, subtle features of the casting and portrayal of characters within the show comment on the racial conflict and tension of the 1960's.Ward, Brian. Just My Soul Responding: Rhythm and Blues, Black Consciousness, and Race Relations, Berkeley: University of California Press (1998), ISBN: 978-0520212978 The musical begins by suggesting a class struggle rather than a racial commentary. The song "skid-row" features a multi-cultural cast united by their impoverishment. However, as the show progresses, a distinction between the white characters (Mushnik, Seymour and Audrey) and the African American racial markers is seen in the musical style, physical caricature (Audrey II's exaggerated lips) [Is this true of the musical, or just the film?] and speech patterns (stereotypical African American tone and use of colloquialisms) of the main antagonist/villain, Audrey II, and the corrupting influence of the Doo-Wop girls, implies that the surface concept of class struggle hides an underlying metaphor for American race relations and white anxiety about racial integration in the 1960's.
Per WP:BRD, please discuss this here before re-inserting in the text. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Dear User:Tdown1unimelb, thank you for added the below material to the article.  I have moved it here, temporarily, so that we can discuss it.  Unfortunately, Two of your refs are not fully accessible.  Would you please quote the parts of the sources you are using, so that we can evaluate this?  I read the interview with Oz, but it has nothing to do with any racial theme in the musical. It has to do with his changes from the musical to the movie, which is not relevant to this article about the musical (Here is the ref: Kenneth Plume, Kenneth. "Interview with Director Frank Oz (Part 3 of 4)", IGN Entertainment, February 10, 2000, accessed May 17, 2018).  I searched in the amazon page of the third source (Ward) for "Little Shop", and it didn't come up.  What, exactly, does he say about Little shop?  Finally, I made a couple of minor copy edits to the proposed text to convert the argumentative tone to a more neutral encyclopedic tone and per WP:MOS:
:[According to Marc Jensen] Although the race is not pointedly remarked upon in the musical's book, subtle features of the casting and portrayal of characters within the show comment on the racial conflict and tension of the 1960's.Ward, Brian. Just My Soul Responding: Rhythm and Blues, Black Consciousness, and Race Relations, Berkeley: University of California Press (1998), ISBN: 978-0520212978 The musical begins by suggesting a class struggle rather than a racial commentary. The song "skid-row" features a multi-cultural cast united by their impoverishment. However, as the show progresses, a distinction between the white characters (Mushnik, Seymour and Audrey) and the African American racial markers is seen in the musical style, physical caricature (Audrey II's exaggerated lips) [Is this true of the musical, or just the film?] and speech patterns (stereotypical African American tone and use of colloquialisms) of the main antagonist/villain, Audrey II, and the corrupting influence of the Doo-Wop girls, implies that the surface concept of class struggle hides an underlying metaphor for American race relations and white anxiety about racial integration in the 1960's.
Per WP:BRD, please discuss this here before re-inserting in the text. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Themes: Racial Commentary 

message: I am going to note that in terms of how we document announced film projects, reporting on notable people attached to projects as reported by the major reporting sources (Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Deadline) is standard practice. Its understood they may drop out, and depending on how far they got involved, it becomes a matter of either just either outright removing the name, or actually explaining why they dropped out. But those names are included until we know otherwise as long as the sourcing is there. --Masem (t) 04:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: However unencyclopedic that may be, I will not object to your doing it in the film's own article, but do not do it in the article on the musical. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the future film 

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

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

message: Why does the current version of this article not even touch on the African American cultural references in this musical? That's not very encyclopedic. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you do the research and find articles discussing it that we can cite? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: African American cultural references