Beauty and the Beast...

[fajrdrako]

I just read George R.R. Martin's blog where he talks about Beauty and the Beast, and what a joy it was to work for the show, and how they're making a new version.

This makes me want to see the original show. Should I watch it? I think I saw an episode or two back when it was originally on... maybe... It was on in a period when I was watching almost no television. I have a mental image of the characters, much overshadowed by Linda Hamilton as Sarah O'Connor.

I imagine it's available on DVD now?

Comments

[isagel]

I had no clue GRRM worked on Beauty and the Beast, but then I wouldn't have known who he was back then, or paid that much attention to the credits. But, interesting!

I love Beauty and the Beast with a mad passion when it was new and I was twelve, thirteen years old. I wish I'd known such a thing as fandom existed back then, because I would have loved to have people to fangirl that show with. It is epic romance with soul-bonding, where people read a lot of classic poetry to one another. If that sounds at all appealing, you should definitely check it out. Some of the plots of the week probably won't have stood the test of time, and may not have been that great to begin with, but it's a truly beautifully made show, with a unique voice, and the underground world where Vincent lives is so fascinating and breathtaking. And Ron Perlman and Linda Hamilton were both marvellous. I have immense affection still for all the main and minor characters (I love that GRRM mentions so many of my particular favourites), and the show will always be one of the closest to my heart. I have such a strong connection with it that I'm almost afraid to recommend that people watch it now, because I'm afraid they'll hate it. You can't always trust the judgment of your twelve-year-old self. *g*

I hope the new show will dare to keep the poetry, and to keep Catherine as strong and smart and awesome a woman as she was in the original.

[fajrdrako]

Beauty and the Beast was the first time I heard of George R.R. Martin - well, I knew him vaguely as a science fiction writer, and had liked a few of his stories, but then heard quite a bit of him in connection with Beauty and the Beast, which some of my friends loved. I liked what I saw of it - not much - and I liked the romanticism of it, the fact that it used poetry. I'd still like that.

I hope the new show is good, too. I'm not sure whether I should watch the old show first, or wait till after I've seen the new.

[giandujakiss]

I loved it when it first aired. Then I bought the first season DVDs and tried to watch.... it did not age well, for me.

[isagel]

*nods* I'm going to guess that this will be the case for many viewers. I haven't rewatched in years now, and I'm guessing that at this point I would come down as still loving some things and finding other things have aged horribly.

Of course, I still nominated if for Festivids. *g*

[fajrdrako]

From what I've heard, I expect I will like it. But it's always difficult to be sure beforehand.

[fajrdrako]

It's hard to know how I'll react to old shows. I didn't expect to still like the Man From U.N.C.L.E., but I do. Perhaps the fact that I didn't watch it at the time will work in my favour - I'll be able to put it in context.

[ceruleancat]

I remember liking Beast and not linking Beauty. She wasn't tough enough for my tastes.
I say watch the old show regardless of the remake. See what you think of it.
Don't even think of them as connected. Remakes tend to have totally different vibes, even if they retain the basics, and they frequently don't do that either. Then again, I tend to be suspicious of remakes and usually dislike them, so my position is predictable.

[fajrdrako]

I'm suspicious of remakes, too, but some of them turn out to be good. (Like Battlestar Galactica, which was good - for the most part. As GRRM optimistically points out.)

[ceruleancat]

Granted some turn out good. But that is the exception.
Don't know Galactica in any of its variations, so can't comment on that.
Trying to come up with names makes me think on how do we define a remake.
I like the 9th doctor, but didn't like any of the others, before or after. Guess it's Eccleson's specific portrayal.

If we count full reboots, Buffy, and to some extent, Highlander, I liked as series, whereas the movies were crap.
If we count book adaptations, the BBC's recent Sherlock is surprisingly good, although I still love Jeremy Brett best.
Do we count sequels? I liked TNG. Certainly more than the original. The rest of the franchise leaves me cold though, so we're back to the impact of specific characters and cast.
But all of these fall into the category of 'suspicious new version' for me. And they usually fail.

[fajrdrako]

how do we define a remakeFirefly and didn't like Serenity, which I felt was untrue and unfair to the characters.

Book adaptations are different in that each movie is a new version of the original - so while it may be the same story, it isn't the same medium, and each movie is based - usually - on the book, not on the previous movie. So that while the BBC Sherlock and the American Holmes and the Jeremy Brett series and the Basil Rathbone movies are all different in style, tone, and intent, they are all recognizably Sherlock Holmes. (For better or worse.)

I liked ST:TNG too, for different reasons than I liked the original. And I didn't like some of the later series.

To my mind, Eccleston was so far the best Doctor that all the others pale - even David Tennant, whom I loved on his own merits, but Eccleston was of a different order entirely. How does he do that? That reminds me that I haven't seen his show about John Lennon yet. So... yes, it was Eccleston's specific portrayal, and the thought behind it. Not just his skill, but the writing, directing, and so on.