They are always making movies about beauty and the beast would it work if they reversed it?
Depends on exactly what angle the writer took, how skilled the writer was, and where and when it was set.
A salient point is that the beast initially captured “Beauty’s” father, and she volunteered to take his place. She keeping a man prisoner isn’t out of the question, and the person who eventually falls for the beast is there semi-voluntarily.
There sort of have been versions of it. Shallow Hal was one, albeit, it focused on the transformation of Hal’s character, rather than his getting past what are pretty normal reactions to a hideous beast who devours raw meat like any lion or tiger, to see a human personality.
Shallow Hal was a slightly better than average script that was made into a pretty good movie by an excellent performance by Jack Black, and a decent performance by Gwyneth Paltrow. Find a writer who can do even better for your reverse version of “Dude and Beastette,” and it would probably be pretty good.
I think they tried to hint at it in ‘Love Potion No. 9’, but it was a Total Epic Fail because they chose… Sandra Bullock… :smack: :smack: :smack:
Isn’t this the central theme of films like She’s All That? Handsome guy, cute girl made to look unattractive until she takes her glasses off?
That’s really a parody of such stories, and even the “Wife of Bath’s Tale” doesn’t quite fit, due to the handsome guy being under punishment for being a rapist. But yes, the theme has been around for a while, both ways.
No, that’s another knockoff of Pygmalion.
The guy wouldn’t care as long as she put out.
Rachael Leigh Cook as “the beast” in She’s All That.
I’m thinking the guys who made this movie missed the point.
Stephen Sondheim’s Passion, and the works it was based on.
It doesn’t work conceptually as handsome man and beast/ugly woman doesn’t really have the same dramatic tension as the reverse. The closest thing you see in TV or movies is Lena Dunham’s lumpy character in “Girls” who is getting action regularly by guys who would probably not (in real life) give her a second look.
Plus good luck getting a current movie greenlight on anything that shames or denigrates a woman’s body or looks in any way.
Tell me about it. She’s one of my celebrity crushes, but most people I know don’t recognize her name.
It would work if the female were a literal beast, like the beast in “Beauty and the Beast.” It wouldn’t be about denigrating a woman’s body.
So why is it okay to denigrate the body of a man - as in the classic tale - but not that of a woman?
The thing about the Beast isn’t that he’s ugly, it’s that he’s scary and dangerous. The parallel here shouldn’t be handsome guy with outwardly plain girl, it should be handsome yet delicate guy with super-tough woman - a fierce, rugged warrior-woman type. A woman who could totally kick his ass, and looks like it. Can’t think of any examples, though.
Isn’t that the Disney version?
If anything, Disney toned down the element of sexual threat.
Zoe and Wash from Firefly/Serenity? For certain values of handsome yet delicate. Certainly within the show it’s assumed she could totally kick his ass.
Maybe, but they gave the Beast nobility and a leonine handsomeness. He was by no means ugly.
I thought of that, but while I have huge amount of respect for Alan Tudyk, I’m not sure I’d call him a “beauty”.
The ideal casting for this kind of thing would be something like, say, Ronda Rousey and Nicholas Hoult. Or Daniel Radcliffe and Gwendoline Christie.