tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4505812700967330296.post3404985417988086297..comments2023-10-30T11:46:43.284+00:00Comments on Musings of the Cosmic Calamari: A Perfect BeastSpaceSquidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09760939592584995876noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4505812700967330296.post-54105175725442610842010-08-17T15:29:49.655+01:002010-08-17T15:29:49.655+01:00*unsnip (I wrote too much apparently)*
he analogy...*unsnip (I wrote too much apparently)*<br /><br />he analogy with covers is interesting. Certainly if a band did a cover of someone else's song, I'd expect changes. It'd be a case of moving a song from a different style to your style. That's fine. On the other hand, if I were listening to a tribute act, I'd probably rather they were trying to make it sound like the original. I think something entitled "Disney's Beauty and the Beast" is a bit more like a tribute act in this analogy. So i wouldn't have a problem with going to see a show of, say, rock versions of Beauty and the Beast songs, but that wasn't advertised. I think what was advertised was what was provided.<br /><br />Something of a tangent, but the following was interesting to write at least. When it comes to a live performance, it seems reasonable to say that if you watch a band on TV playing a live version of their song so that it sounds just like the studio version, that's pretty boring generally (although when a band like Iron Maiden is playing an instrumental part exactly as they play on the studio version this is quite awesome to watch because you can see their technical wizardry), but surely this is more because watching a live version on TV is almost never anything like the live version actually sounds like if you're there. At High Voltage, Wishbone Ash and Uriah Heep each played one of their classic albums without deviating very much at all from the old arrangement, but it was a completely different experience because the sound and atmosphere are very different even though all the notes are the same. I doubt many in the audience would have wanted them to do anything different. It's hard to even claim that this is a different case on the grounds that it's the same band doing the show as recorded the album, since precisely two out of the ten musicians on display performed on the original albums.BigHeadnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4505812700967330296.post-48949702922548300752010-08-17T15:28:55.408+01:002010-08-17T15:28:55.408+01:00Right, here we go.
I can see several plausible co...Right, here we go.<br /><br />I can see several plausible counter-arguments to the criticism about "love uggo, get hottie". First, the Prince isn't a hottie. He's a bit of a wimp. The "Bring back my Beast!" brigade is, if not in the majority, pretty close from my experience. There are certainly very few Disney Princes who are less appealing. Next, I don't see her happiness at getting a human. Belle actually looks quite nervous and unsure until she looks into the Prince's eyes and sees it really is the one she loves. At which point, she's obviously going to be happy, because a few seconds ago he was dead. Then he rose into the air, fired light from everywhere, changed form, and was alive again. A certain amount of "omg!" is very justified at this point.<br /><br />Finally, the criticism is coming from an entirely Belle-centred point of view. But the story isn't just about Belle. It' about redemption for the Prince. If he hadn't been a muppet, he'd never have been turned into a beast. As soon as he learns not to be a muppet, he gets rewarded with his original form. This seems like a worthy moral.<br /><br />The wolf scene criticism seems more reasonable, but in order to progress the story does require some way for Belle to realize that the Beast is capable of being something other than a terrible monster towards her. Given the Beast's state of mind, he doesn't seem capable of doing anything else that would achieve that.<br /><br />Now we reach the meatier topic of "how close should the musical stick to the film". The first observation is that Squid and I immediately differ on the word to use to describe what this show was supposed to be. Squid calls it an "interpretation". I would call it an "adaptation". I suspect that ultimately one's answer to the original question is strongly influenced by which of these you want or expect. You cannot have both. As someone who much prefers the concept of adaptation to the concept of interpretation, it's clear which side of the divide I am likely to fall upon. This is made yet more noticeable by the fact that we are talking about one of my favourite films. Squid essentially calls close adaptation safe, presumably intending to mean that loose interpretation has chances to be worse and chances to be better. In the case of something I really like, I tend to view close adaptation more like avoiding sure loss: your interpretation won't be as good as the original, so don't try. At the very least, the expected value of adaptation is going to be higher.<br /><br />I guess an important point here is that moving from animated movie to stage musical with all the attendent changes that requires, the new dialogue required, the new songs required, is quite a big enough change already. It's very different. Since so much has to change, there's no need to also change anything that doesn't need to be changed. If you didn't like whatever it is being adapted from, then fair enough, this might not quite be to your liking, but it's always my belief that if you're going to make a version of something in a different medium, then it should be the fans of the original you are catering for, not other people. To do otherwise strikes me as disrespectful. In particularly bad cases it can be the equivalent of dumbing down for the console kiddies.<br /><br />*snip*BigHeadnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4505812700967330296.post-68452959946258595912010-08-09T16:32:35.292+01:002010-08-09T16:32:35.292+01:00The "Beast > Prince" position is perh...The "Beast > Prince" position is perhaps sufficiently common to be considered mainstream.<br /><br />Lengthy reply forthcoming.BigHeadnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4505812700967330296.post-16538153970248831602010-08-08T19:57:31.842+01:002010-08-08T19:57:31.842+01:00I entirely agree, what with his long flowing locks...I entirely agree, what with his long flowing locks and ample male bosom......Nemainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05223073851166188635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4505812700967330296.post-72902691971123539682010-08-08T15:56:02.407+01:002010-08-08T15:56:02.407+01:00Speaking as an entirely heterosexual male squid, I...Speaking as an entirely heterosexual male squid, I agree with you entirely. He looked more girly than Belle did.SpaceSquidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09760939592584995876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4505812700967330296.post-11384346241464066082010-08-08T15:51:17.149+01:002010-08-08T15:51:17.149+01:00Personally I always thought that Beast (in the Dis...Personally I always thought that Beast (in the Disney version at least) was always better looking as a beast than as a man.<br /><br />Although I'm not sure I want to know what that says about me.Taliahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06794675178701803045noreply@blogger.com