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

[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.