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!

.
 


Comments

No Daisy's picture
Member since:
12 January 2010
Last activity:
49 weeks 1 day

It concerns me too Luke, but for different reasons. As a huge fan of the Ron Pearlman/Linda Hamilton version, I wanted to like this. I too get the financial concerns but Ron Peralman's Vincent was more than just prostetics. I fell in love with him and his romance with Catherine because of the nuances he gave to the roll. RP is a really good actor with a fantastic voice. It is apparent that the new show plans to give us questionable talent behind a pretty face. I can flip through dozens of that crap on an hourly basis. How about a show that makes me feel the romance?

Member since:
14 December 2008
Last activity:
19 weeks 5 days

I agree with you, for sure. The only reason I might give Beauty and the Beast is some of the writers attached. I really don't need an Edward Cullen-like beast. I don't need the lead chacter to be *hideous* but there has to be something there to catch my attention.
I really hope th big "twist" isn't that his face was damaged in the Iraq War. I just loved the original series, I may have to invest in some DVD's,

angrierblackerman's picture
Member since:
8 September 2009
Last activity:
9 hours 12 min

I have issues with this for the same reasons. As a bonafide Sci-Fi head, I think that it completely defeats the point to have a supermodel with a scar as the 'Beast'. The whole premise of the classic RP/LH version was that he was an animal on the outside. Layered character...This new crap is more of the CW's cavalcade of young hair models. Also, I don't care for Kristin Kreuk at all. I think she is a weak actor. I still have a bad taste in my mouth from that horrible Streetfighter movie she did.

I would have gone for an Angel and Buffy non-Supernatural show before something like this.