October 2003 posts
Buffy characters for Halloween? I was Spike complete with cheekbones.
-- Rochefort, 23:02:03 10/31/03 Fri
[> Hey! I was Drusilla until.... -- angel's nibblet,
03:14:08 11/01/03 Sat
...my 99c teeth broke :-( so i got my friends plastic sword, bangels
and tied pieces of fabric round my head and black skirt and became
Jack Sparrow's pirate wench ;-)
[> OT: Roche... -- Rob, 07:28:49 11/01/03 Sat
Did you get your Little Shop CD yet? I've been listening
to mine non-stop for the past 6 days!
[> [> O/T: Kerry, Audrey II, and Bat Boy.... -- Rochefort,
13:10:12 11/02/03 Sun
We struck the set today for Bat Boy, and I'm not ashamed to say
I left the theater in tears....
When I got home there was a letter from an old friend, and Little
Shop sitting there waiting to ease my pain. :) I haven't listened
to the whole thing yet, but so far I CAN say that the girl that
plays Audrey?..... I think I'm in love with her. Thanks for the
recomendation on ordering the c.d. ... especially since it's to
a great extent your fault I'm so sad today! (but in a good way)
[> [> [> OT: Rob: Little Shop of Horrors -- spoilers
-- Rochefort, 13:56:40 11/02/03 Sun
Rob, do you know the answers to any of these questions?
What the heck is the order of events here? Was the movie made
FIRST? And THEN it was made an off-broadway play and now it's
a broadway play?
I do NOT remember the movie ending this way; I thought it had
a happy ending; but really, the sad ending as depressing as it
is makes more sense... but while you hear of plays being sweetened
for Hollywood all the time, I've never heard of a movie being
so drastically UNsweetened to make it a play. Is that what happened?
It's a frickin depressing story. I wish Kerry sang in the demos!!!!!
[> [> [> [> As I understand it... -- KdS, 13:59:56
It was originally a non-musical, but still camp, horror film by
Roger Corman in the 1960s - don't know how that one ended as I've
never managed to see it.
The Corman film became something of a camp classic and was made
into the stage musical (with unhappy ending). The stage musical
was then made into the second film version (with happy ending).
[> [> [> [> [> Yup. ("Little Shop":
the play spoilers) -- Rob, 14:40:39 11/02/03 Sun
The original film was camp horror and very dark comedy. Had a
sad ending. The musical had a similarly sad ending, although it
was different ending than the movie. In fact, after about halfway
through the story, the movie and the play completely diverge.
Then, the new film was made, based on the musical, and the film
originally maintained the dark ending of the play, but early test
audiences reacted negatively, so they reshot a new, upbeat ending,
which really didn't fit in well thematically with the story.
As it stands, the play is vastly superior to both film incarnations,
although the second film was vastly superior to the first. The
thing is, out of context, the story might sound completely tragic,
but the same can be said for Bat Boy. As it plays on stage,
though, it is not a downer at all. The audience, including myself,
was laughing uproariously throughout the whole thing, because
the tone is very tongue-in-cheek, and even the most tragic parts,
near the end, are done with a wink to the audience. It's hard
to feel too grim during a play that ends with a giant plant destroying
the entire world (and culminates with the giant, Jim Henson-created
puppet extending off the stage and over the heads of the first
5 rows of the audience, menacing and chomping at us). The play
actually maintains a quite brilliant balance of garnering sympathy
for the characters (their plights are taken very seriously) and
even adding depth to this story, which on stage takes on operatic,
"Faust"ian proportions, and acknowleding that it is,
at its heart, a B-movie sci-fi parody.
But anyway, this was yet another case of Hollywood changing the
ending of a film to a happy one. This revival just preserves the
ending the way it was meant to be.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, and... -- Rob,
14:43:21 11/02/03 Sun
...this is the first Broadway production of the show. The first
production was off-Broadway, but no changes were made to the script
for the new production. On Broadway just means it's in the main
NY theatre district, and the theatre is bigger.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> That definitely clears
things up, thanks. But..... -- Rochefort, 17:13:20 11/02/03
Yes, as soon as I heard the ending of the play, I realized how
poor thematically the ending of the second movie is. I'd be quite
interested to see the original movie. Still....
I'm having a hard time hearing Kerry Butler's final song before
she gets fed to the plant as funny. I keep getting weepy (addmitedly,
I'm in a weepy mood today). Plus, you know, I love Kerry Butler,
so I don't like her getting fed to a plant. But the story is REALLY
quite bitter and tragic despite it's camp. I mean Seymour comes
from nothing and ends up with LESS. And Audrey... who has serious
problems... doesn't grow out of these problems, but somehow REPEATS
them with Seymour and ends up sacraficing herself to him out of
the same mentality she sacraficed to the dentist. It's horrid.
I mean it's realistic, in that, the chick isn't going to get straightened
out just cause she's with a different guy... but still... hard
to listen to. And classical tragic plots involve a GREAT man or
a king who falls... this is the story of a shlub who falls...
I mean that's not very satisfying, is it? You'll have to tell
me what they do on stage. But the guy starts with nothing, kills
the woman he loves, and then gets eaten by a plant. :(
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh! But! Kerry
Butler is SO bloody talented! She's wayyyyy better than the original
soundtrack. -- Rochefort, 17:15:47 11/02/03 Sun
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wait
a second...(spoilers for Little Shop play) -- Rochefort, 17:24:04
Audrey dies of MALNUTRITION!? I need to read the script.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL...No,
here it is... (Little Shop and Bat Boy spoilers) -- Rob, 20:26:10
Seymour kills the dentist to protect Audrey. Mushnick he kills
because he found out about the dentist.
He then plans on taking the money his TV appearances from the
plant will get him, and run away with Audrey, after destroying
the plant. But the night before his plan is ready, Audrey can't
sleep. She goes to the shop to see what is going on with Seymour,
because she's been suspicious that something strange is going
on. The plant starts talking to her. She's shocked. He convinces
her that he needs to be watered, and when she goes to get the
can, he attacks her. Seymour runs in horrifed, and rescues Audrey,
but it's too late...The venom from the plant has poisoned her.
She dies in Seymour's arms, and he mournfully feeds her to the
plant, because she asked him to do so, so that they could be together
forever. [Lines such as "When I die...which should be very
shortly..." are intended as comedy, and do play as such on
stage. A lot is lost in translation when you don't see the characters'
facial expressions.] Seymour, distraught, tries to kill the plant.
He shoots him, but that doesn't do anything. He stuffs rat poison
down his mouth, which also doesn't kill him, so Seymour attempts
to dive inside the plant and cut him up from the inside with a
big machete. The plant clamps down, swallows Seymour...and then
spits out the machete to the floor. The next moment, the people
who had signed the contract to take cuttings of the plant to be
sold in houses across America arrive. They don't see anyone there,
but the contract is already signed, so they make their cuttings
and take them off. The plants eventually end up in every home
in America, destroying the entire country and soon after the world.
You really have to see the play in person to get the humor of
the situation. Think of it like this...on paper, "Bat Boy"s
plot is incredibly dark and sad. Just like Seymour and Audrey
can never escape from Skid Row, Edgar can't escape his fate either
and will never be accepted by society. But even with all this,
these two shows are probably the two most fun shows I've ever
seen, "Little Shop" even a little bit more so than "Bat
One thing you got wrong is Audrey does grow a great deal in the
show. She realizes all that Seymour has done for her, including
getting her abusive boyfriend out of her life, and in the end
makes a completely selfless sacrifice of her body after her death
(she doesn't commit suicide; she is already dead when she is fed
to the plant). She realizes that she can finally fulfill her dream,
in some form. Seymour, in turn, after her death, gives up his
life in an attempt to save the world from the plant. And while
the story is tragic, as it plays out on stage, it is not bitter.
It is incredibly sweet, touching, sad, and beautiful...which is
more than I ever could have imagined I would say about a musical
about a plant that eats people. And on the flip side, it is also
outrageously fun and hilarious. A really delicate balance, since
it encompasses comedy, tragedy, parody, horror, and camp, by way
of doo-wop music that at times aspires to operatic heights. It's
really a quite remarkable show.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I'm really really REALLY enjoying the soundtrack..... --
Rochefort, 20:35:18 11/02/03 Sun
The music and lyrics are fabulous (so refreshing after getting
my Kerry Butler fix from Hairspray the last two weeks, bleck)....
and I love most of the story. But despite your description, I
still keep feeling sick when Audrey asks to be fed to the plant...
I'm going to see if I can track down the script and read it. It's
interesting you make the point that they start in Skid Row and
are stuck there because that makes quite a strong social commentary
for a big broadway play... but I don't know... it's still making
me feel icky. I'll let you know how it feels tomorrow and when
I see the script.
As to it being better than Bat Boy! Ack! I can't believe it! Course
right now Bat Boy feels like the lover I left at the airport so
I may not be seeing ENTIRELY clearly, but still... I fell in love
with Bat Boy on first listen and just fell deeper every moment.
One thing can be said, Miss Butler has good taste in musicals.
[> [> Re: OT: Rob... -- LittleBite, 08:37:40 11/01/03
Must make an unusual accompaniment to watching your "24"
DVDs non-stop. ;-)
[> [> [> Now, that must be why I got that headache
last night! ;o) -- Rob, 08:45:39 11/01/03 Sat
PTBs and their prophecies,
post-season 4 -- RichardX1,
09:49:52 10/28/03 Tue
It seems that people still believe that Angel was selected as
a Champion by the Powers that Be, and that stuff like the Sanshu
prophecy are still in effect.
But didn't they establish last season that everything the "Powers
that Be" have been doing, not to mention probably every prophecy
Angel's circle of allies has ever encountered, was planted by
Jasmine to manipulate events toward her Earthly manifestation?
Granted, the tweak that the Senior Partners did to erase Connor
from everyone's minds (including his own) except for Angel might
have caused everyone to forget all about Jasmine. However, it
certainly explains why Angel would consider the Sanshu prophecy
to be bullshit nowadays.
[> No Memories -- Claudia, 10:41:32 10/28/03 Tue
"Granted, the tweak that the Senior Partners did to erase
Connor from everyone's minds (including his own) except for Angel
might have caused everyone to forget all about Jasmine."
Is Jasmine the only person that the others have forgotten? What
about Lilah Morgan? Has Wes forgetten her? And what have Gunn,
Fred and Lorne forgotten?
[> Re: PTBs and their prophecies, post-season 4 -- Corwin
of Amber, 11:34:49 10/28/03 Tue
>Granted, the tweak that the Senior Partners did to erase Connor
from everyone's minds (including his own) except for Angel might
have caused everyone to forget all about Jasmine.
I was under the impression that the only thing erased from peoples
minds was Connor. Otherwise, everyone in the world would wake
up one day with anything from six months to a year of "missing
time". Think of the conspiracy theories THAT would create.
I suppose we can assume that some fake memories were joshed together
to fill in the gaps the Connor leaves, but that begs the question,
what do Gunn, Wes, Fred and Lorne actually think happened last
season? Connor "missing" leaves a huge gap in why certain
things happened for the last two years, actually.
[> [> The nature of memory -- Ames, 08:18:04 10/29/03
Would people like Gunn, Wesley and Fred actually notice something
missing with Connor removed? How often do people try to reconstruct
what happened on a past day, minute-by-minute? (and how successful
are you when you try to do it for a reason like "now where
did I leave those keys?"). Most of the time the past is just
"there" in memory - you only think of a particular part
of it in detail when it is called up by association.
It seems to me that if a whole area like "Connor" were
removed, and all the associations severed or redirected, the people
affected never would notice anything missing on their own. They
might occasionally notice that they can't seem remember everything
that happened on a certain day, but they would probably just assume
that it's a temporary memory failure, not important. I would think
that a power that removes memory could easily fill in new false
memories (we've seen it before, e.g. Jonathan in Superstar), but
it wouldn't really be necessary.
How would they explain events which were caused by Connor or significantly
affected by him? They probably wouldn't ever think about the causes
of those events. They would be aware that the events happened,
but unless someone started questioning them closely and specifically
about it, they probably wouldn't even realize that they couldn't
specifically call up from memory a good reason for the events.
[> [> [> Re: The nature of memory -- Corwin of
Amber, 12:28:03 10/29/03 Wed
I think you're underestimating the extent of the problem...I'll
give a few examples. If Connor never existed, what was the gang
doing in Angel's caddy with Darla the night he was born? What
do Fred and Gunn remember about the summer they spent searching
for Angel, with Connor beside them every day? If Connor never
existed, why did Wes abandon the group temporarily, and get his
throat cut? (Or did the rewind remove the scarring he must have?)
What do they think happened to Cordy?
I should state here that I'm NOT complaining, because I think
this is going to come up in a big way. I'm just emphasizing the
extent of the crime Angel committed. Either there are large gaps
in the gangs memories, or large portions were overwritten with
a generic version of events.
[> [> [> [> Re: The nature of memory -- Ames,
14:52:53 10/29/03 Wed
My point is that those things only seem to be a problem if you
happen to think about them specifically and then attach some significance
to apparent fault in your memory. If the person and the events
they took part in are entirely removed from your memory and all
the associations are severed, why would you ever think about them?
You wouldn't realize that you were lacking a good reason for something
in the past unless you started thinking "why the heck was
I there in that place on that particular day?". You wouldn't
realize that things didn't add up unless you specifically started
trying to add them up, and why would you do that for something
in the past that held no present significance for you? Why would
it bother you if things didn't add up? You'd dismiss it as faulty
memory of no particular importance.
Think about it this way: If someone removed your memory of a co-worker
that you worked closely with over the last year, how would you
know it? You might start thinking "my current project is
pretty tough - just like that one I had last month - but I had
help on that one - who was it that helped me? - I don't seem to
remember". But for this to have any significance for you,
a) have to actually ask yourself "who was it that helped
me?" and realize that you don't remember
b) be bothered that you don't remember
But if you don't remember how closely you worked together, or
what exactly they did, why would it matter?
[> I think you're all missing my point -- RichardX1,
18:09:59 10/28/03 Tue
My point wasn't "Do they remember Jasmine?" That was
just a tangental possibility that would explain why everyone who
isn't Angel would still place credence in the PTBs and the prophecies.
My point was: didn't Skip reveal that everything the "Powers
that Be" set up was just Jasmine manipulating events so that
she could manifest?
Angel's ensoulment (both times).
Whistler giving Angel a reason to keep going and semi-introducing
him to Buffy.
Angel coming back from Hell (or at least the Acathla Hell).
Angel moving to L.A.
Doyle meeting Angel.
The Sanshu prophecies.
The whole "Champion" thing.
It's all suspect now.
[> [> My theory's always been... -- Dead Soul, 18:15:32
...that the PTB, Jasmine, the FE, hell, even Glory are all the
same kind of thing. Bored immortals playing us like puppets.
So everything's suspect.
Not terribly original, I grant, but it works for me.
[> [> Except Jasmine does seem to recognize the existence
of other Powers -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:31:24 10/28/03 Tue
She refers to "the other Powers" and "all those
years you (Angel) spent working for the Powers That Be".
Also, there was obviously some force working against her in "Inside
Out" (though we don't know if it was the First Evil, the
PTB, or something else). These seem to imply that Jasmine wasn't
the only quasi-good power manipulating events. How much was Jasmine
and how much was not remains in question.
[> [> [> Re: Except Jasmine does seem to recognize
the existence of other Powers -- Dlgood, 12:36:53 10/29/03
And, in "To Shanshu in LA" Vocah and W&H are very heavily
concerned with the prophecies of Aberjian and in cutting Angel
off from his ties to the powers. So from the W&H perspective,
their patrons (Senior Partners) saw the PtB as opposition.
Jasmine muddled the waters, but I don't think it negates the PtB
vs. Senior Partners dynamic. The question becoming, exactly how
relevant either are.
[> [> Skip... -- angel's nibblet, 21:02:11 10/28/03
...tricksy man, i never trusted him
| November 2003