October 2003 posts

Previous Oct 2003  

November 2003

Anyone else 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 11/02/03 Sun

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 Sun

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 11/02/03 Sun

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 11/02/03 Sun

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 Boy."

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 Sat

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 Wed

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, you would:
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 10/28/03 Tue

...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 Wed

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 Tue

...tricksy man, i never trusted him

Current board | November 2003