Update. I am working on my version of Beauty and the Beast, and research on it has taught me a lot about folk tales and their place in the world.
My version intertwines with a story of the Thai government closing down Tiger Temple (story here) in 2016. About that time Disney was working on updating its 1991 animated classic with a live version that would come out in 2017 and gross $1.2 billion.
The live version was clearly a hit and stays in people's minds as representing the story. But I have several questions about it, just based on what I've read. I come from a generation that was more influenced by the animated ones, and Beauty and the Beast was clearly a classic; also, the music in the 1991 version was classic in itself and I think the 2017 movie was probably wise to not mess with it too much, or to change it only conservatively (I'm not sure if that description is adequate). Anyway my memory, my knowledge, my feeling all come from the animated version. How many people are like that?
So, is this younger generation clearly more influenced by the 2017? How does "live" actors tend to change your engagement with the fantasy of it? In this classic (as in many others) suspension of belief is a little incremental. It's easy to believe that animals talk, and have a heart, and a soul, and you can fall in love with them. How about animals changing? How about two species at once?
Lots of questions. Stay tuned; I'll put my book here. Heavily.
