Splitting hairs, but the film is very careful that Seymour doesn't himself commit any murders. Scrivello kills himself and Mushnik was avoidable but it's not like Seymour shoved him into the plant. It's dicey but I agree with Zarban, it's okay that the devil gets beat in the end. Although I will admit it would have been better if Seymour had actively outsmarted the plant rather than just lucking out in discovering electricity made it asplode.

But like I said, I think my bigger problem is the execution/tone than the idea. I saw a local production many years ago and the ending didn't bother me.

So, got the Blurry, checked out the "intended" ending. Acknowledging that maybe I just prefer the "Love Conquers All" version of LITTLE SHOP because it's what I grew up with, and that perhaps it will grow on me with further viewings, at this point I have to agree with the test audience from 1985 -- the original ending is just too sad, particularly Audrey's death. While her wish to be fed to the plant so she can finally be "somewhere that's green" is a powerful thematic tie, it's just played so straight and somber, and drawn out, that it sucks all the fun out of the movie and it can't really recover. I can see there being a way to do it tongue in cheek that lets it be sad but still kind of silly, but that's not how they play it.

I was apparently wrong to say the "Mean Green Mother" number was created to replace the original ending, because it's in the director's cut as well, with some subtle differences, and of course the not-so-subtle change that Seymour loses.

The real meat of the restored original ending, of course, is the full-on B-movie finale with a whole slew of giant plants taking over the world to "Don't Feed the Plants." While it was cool to see, and restored to match the film perfectly, it feels more like it was constructed by the marketing department than by filmmakers. Frank Oz wasn't, to my knowledge, involved in the restoration of the ending but rather just gave it his blessing, and the lack of creative supervision is evident. It feels like the first assembly cut (possibly due to matching the workprint), after which the director and editor would usually sit down and look for ways to trim the fat, drop redundant moments, tighten things up. That second pass seems never to have happened here, so despite the visual polish, the pacing of the ending just kind of drags and becomes more about the quantity of spectacle than the quality. They seem to have wanted to put every frame they shot for the ending into the film, which is great for wanting to give us our money's worth, but how many shots of people running terrified through the streets, intercut with laughing plants perched on buildings, do we need? It's a treat for existing fans, but not IMO a version that could stand on its own for people new to the film.

Children are innocent in ways adults probably are not (this is actually antithetical to conservative Christianity, since the concept there is original sin tainting you from birth). You certainly can't compare killing a defenseless child in cold blood to killing a grown man who is actively trying to kill you too. The assassination targets of the loopers are defenseless, too, but you can at least rationalize that they could have done something to warrant it. A child has not. I suppose there is a bit of religious holdover in the notion of the "age of accountability," but even from a secular perspective, an adult can make choices for themselves and be considered responsible for them, and a child below a certain age really can't.

PROMETHEUS is going to happen anyway, no need to take up an October slot for it.

I just got out of seeing this and I agree 100% with bullet3 and Rikkitikkitavi.