Can Beauty and The Beast Work Without a Supernatural Slant?
Beauty and the Beast co-creators Jennifer Levin and Sherri Cooper talked about their highly-anticipated, soapy reboot for The CW with Zap2it. Check out what the duo had to say at Comic-Con about this version of B&B ditching the supernatural angle:
"We weren't interested in a supernatural creature. We were interested in a beast that we experienced in our lives," co-creator Levin tells Zap2it at Comic-Con in San Diego. She and Cooper made sure that their beast would be more human than animal -- he's not a lion or super-hairy. Cooper says that cutting down production costs were a consideration in that decision, but there were more practical reasons involved too.
"We thought, 'We're going to hire some obviously good-looking, talented actor, and with all of the heavy prosthetics, it's hard sometimes to see them act and be present in a scene,'" Levin says. "The beasts in our world don't come across obviously as beasts; beasts don't advertise. You fall for a guy and you think he's great. He looks great, and then you find out the baggage later."
With a name like Beauty and the Beast why wouldn’t you embrace the “beast” half of the name and everything it implies? I understand production cost concerns. I also get the desire to emphasize an actor’s looks and how a genetically mutated solider is a twist on the story. I’m completely okay with all that, and avoiding 80's style hairy beasts. However, when the creators of a TV series—based on a supernatural/fantasy/sci-fi concept—say they aren't interested in a supernatural creature, my first reaction is one of concern. Here's hoping TPTB have a plan to make the series compelling without the supernatural hook. It could be tough!