I could go on for hours about what a trainwreck this movie was oh my god
I haven’t seen it yet but I was assuming it would actually be good. Why is it so bad?
There’s bits where the new live-action remake are almost carbon-copies of the old animated movie. Those bits are pretty decent. They faithfully recreate a lot of the scenes. The musical bits are lots of fun. It’s cool to see it all in live-action, with everything looking mostly-realistic. I really enjoyed those parts.
There’s also parts where they try to do things a little differently… And no, I’m not talking about LeFou. He’s almost exactly like his character in the animated version. I’m talking about scenes like the one pictured in this comic – where Belle tells Mrs. Potts that she and the rest of the staff ought to leave The Beast. I’m sure they felt something was necessary since Mrs. Potts is talking about how horrible the guy is, and they didn’t want it to sound too much like an abusive relationship… But, as the strip points out, she’s a teapot. She’s not going anywhere.
There’s other bits like this… Little scenes here and there to add “depth” or backstory or whatever. And they all feel a little forced. A little un-necessary. A little clumsy. And they really mess with the pacing of the rest of the film. It seemed to drag on between musical bits.
The weirdest part of the new live-action remake are the animated characters like Lumiere or Mrs. Potts or Chip or whoever… All the living furniture and dishes and stuff… In the cartoon, it just kind of worked. In this live-action thing it looks weird. Sometimes they’ve got faces just kind of drawn-on, like Mrs. Potts and Chip. Sometimes there’s features on the furniture that kind of look like a face, like Madame de Garderobe. Sometimes they’ve got no face/features at all, like Plumette. And then they go to a lot of trouble to give Lumiere a full, expressive face… Even though nobody would actually make a candelabra like that. It’s just weird. It didn’t fit with the mostly-realistic appearance of the rest of the movie.
This bums me out a bit. I had high hopes for the movie after what they did with Junglebook.
having not seen either yet, i think Jungle book would be harder to get wrong if anything, because there’s nothing that hasn’t pretty much been done before in terms of CG/lip syncing with animals?(they’ve pretty much been doing that since TV came out) but it’s harder to go “okay we want realistic objects, with faces stuck on them wherever we can fit them” and have it look plausible to the audience.
Yeesh. I was hoping the still images of the servants looking like they live comfortably in the Uncanny Valley was just because they were still images. Sometimes motion helps make things work better, apparently here it doesn’t.
I’m gonna just go ahead and disagree. I liked the movie a lot – it wasn’t perfect, but they fixed a lot of the plot holes from the first movie and I thought the new songs added a lot to the story. I think it was very well done.
I kinda figured this would be some kind of shitshow, both for the fact that it’s a remake of a beloved classic, and all the hot-button issues it attempted to press. Neither of those things ever go over without a lot of people losing their shit. I had hoped the movie would at least be good, but I guess that fell flat too?
Aye, I get enough politics from the actual politicians. I’d rather not deal with it in my escapism.
All I know is that they ruined the DRESS… Which just hints of the rest of the thing being not really cared that much about.
For me there are so many factors that keeps me from liking it though I want to.
One: I’m too cynical & the Cinderella live action jaded me.
Two: like Cinderella they tried to make her more strong smart & independent and caring which Belle already was they open up other plot holes.
Three: the CGI house staff creeped me out.
Four: the singing, not fair to put them against the original but but there was something off about it that kept me from enjoying it, too many sour notes to me and the inability to hold them if they could hit them.
Five: to me Emma Watson always act the same. Instead of Belle I just saw Emma Watson doing her Emma Watson. I don’t hate her but I sorta feel like they could have cast someone else who could sing better.
Won’t tell anyone not to see it but I’m going to go back and admire the animation.
Besides the dress which they made so people can copy it easily for costumes, same contradicting ending.
I haven’t seen it, and i don’t plan to but the thing that turned me off from wanting to was Emma Watson. I don’t hate her or anything but the “playing Emma Watson” thing is especially jarring for me.
SOMEONE SAID IT
emma watson is just the same person in almost every movie she stars in. we all had such high hopes for her because she was such a convincing Hermione, but it turns out she is justt that type of person. and now she’s typecasted herself.
i thought she did pretty well in the Bling Ring. i wish she would diversify a little.
If you want to see a Potterverse actor diversifying their roles, try and watch “Swiss Army Man”…
Haven’t seen the movie yet, but considering that Belle and Hermione are very similar characters, I would have thought that wouldn’t be an issue.
Similar in what manner other than being bookworms?
Belle is good at keeping her cool; can act distant, but never rude; reads for the pleasure of reading (and seems most interested in story books); has high self-esteem and, as a rolemodel-type heroin in a 90 minute movie, is a well-rounded character at best.
Hermione is prone to moodiness; can be uptight and rude; reads for pleasure AND research (and seems interested in academic books quite exclusively); has some self-esteem issues and is, as one of the main heroes of a long-running franchise, overall deeply developed character.
Bell has access to like 8 books which she has all probably read multiple times at the start of the story.
Still more than twice as much as Rapunzel ;)
Much of the dress-ruining is, I fear, due to the actress. Ms. Watson wished to “empower” Belle, and so refused to wear a corset. The corset is more than a shaping garment: it also supports the body and other layers. With more grand and elaborate dresses comes the need for more elaborate undergarments. One can assume that if Ms. Watson refused the corset she would likewise refuse petticoats and other supports.
SPOILERS FOR BatB
Honestly, I felt like they did a good job of addressing the whole stolkholme syndrome thing. He tries to be romantic and is an asshole, she takes the first opportunity to ditch the asshole, and only sticks around because he almost dies saving her life from a problem he didn’t cause. She feels she owes him enough to get him to saftey, and only after he has taken a bullet for her does she even start to consider he might not be a monster. She is in a position of power at that point and could leave at any point in the daylight, so it’s more on an equal footing.
But eh- that’s just my interpretation and you are welcome to disagree.
In the animated version, didn’t Beast save her from wolves and she only started warming up to him once he stopped acting like a rude jackass?
Granted I’m one of those guys who rolls his eyes so hard when people talk about Stockholme Syndrome in relation to the animated Beauty and the Beast.
That’s correct. She tries to flee after he blows up at her for entering the blocked off wing, she gets attacked by wolves, and Beast saves her ass. That’s the point of the original film in which she begins to warm up to him.
In the animated version, she also treats him for his wounds, which winds up at least saving him from infection if not death. They didn’t exactly have an assortment of skillful furniture-shaped medics in the castle, and the wolves did a number on him.
So this is not entirely a new perspective.
Not remotely a new perspective, but the addition of a little more relationship building scenes really helped. That’s one of the few very good changes they made here; the original had the wound treatment and then jumped straight to Something There, which I think was meant as a montage to show that over time they’d started to get to know each other and care for each other. Here we actually get to see it happening.
Montages and Disney musicals are basically synonymous, even nowadays.
Well let’s see. A handful, in no particular order:
“Be a Man” – Mulan
“Hakuna Matata” – Lion King
“On My Way” – Brother Bear
“Zero to Hero” – Hercules
“Two Worlds” – Tarzan
“Son of Man” – Tarzan
“Strangers like Me” – Tarzan (Geez, this movie is like 30% montage)
“Hawaiian Roller Coaster Ride” – Lilo & Stitch
“Where You Are” – Moana
In fairness to Tarzan, that montage is also almost 100% Phil Collins.
Which makes it roughly 10,000% better.
I Actually like it a lot. They wrapped up all of the little plot holes (Although, they did add one), the songs were fantastic, and as the above says, it was even less Stockholmy than before.
I enjoyed it and so did my girlfriend, who is absolutely obsessed with the original movie.
My only critique was that things seemed to move rather fast to me, despite the long run time. It just seemed that way. We’re there any specific critiques you had?
This made me laugh actualy out loud. You made my day Coelasquid
Also the whole movie was rather meh except for the cast, and that of course excepting Belle and the beast.
Spoilers in comment:
I enjoyed the movie, but yes, there were some hiccups, and the pacing was messed up from trying to ram practically everything from the original while still adding to it. Some of it wasn’t necessary to add and didn’t strengthen their relationship. Some differences like the Beast’s education level was a different choice, but I see why they did it. In the original the Beast is not good at reading, and Belle reading to him, taking him away from his sorry state and immersing him in the world of books offers him an escape from his situation if only temporarily, allowing him freedom within his mind. It was an excellent way for them to bond, allowing her to share something she loves.
I don’t think it’s bad that they changed this. It does make sense that a prince would be a learned individual, and since they’re confirming in this version he was in fact, an adult, there’s no reason for that to be there anymore. He has a believably cynical view of romantic stories while still having a weakness for Arthurian legend at least. What makes me like this change is that it makes Beast more on a level playing field with Belle, he’s not just being inspired by her sharing this part of herself. He is, instead of being like everyone else in the village who thinks reading is beneath them, smart enough to be able to discuss her books and have enough interest and knowledge to be an informed and engaging participant. For Belle I can see that as a huge drawing factor. Her Mother’s backstory and having them both share in that particular pain (Though I believe worse for beast since he actually knew his mother enough to remember her and miss her) I didn’t feel like it was a strong or good connecting point for them. The books were better, and the romance is rushed as it was in the original. No more than a couple weeks have gone by at best. Maybe not much more than one given some clues given in the story and some of the dialogue. There’s a few interesting changes though they’re not very well hidden as they were easy to pick up upon concerning the Enchantress.
I liked some of the concepts, but I felt they had so much pressure to be true to the original that things that could have been scrapped to give the movie more room to be itself Disney just flat out didn’t dare. Beauty and the Beast is one of their most beloved classics and the pressure to do it justice was immense. Let’s face it, nothing they could have done would have gotten past our rose colored glasses enough to think this film would be better than the original, addressing plot holes or not. We don’t love the original less for them. Basically whether you’re going to like it or not is determined heavily by your expectations of it. There’s some good, there’s some bad, there’s so much of the original reproduced that the new parts just feel like they had to be padded in wherever they thought they could get away with it without stepping on too many toes. I feel in time after subsequent viewings the movie itself will grow on me more, not that I thought it was bad, but it did feel a little cluttered.
I do have to say that one additional song in particular…I absolutely loved. I am hooked on listening to Evermore. I love that song.
Why does Belle have Jotaro’s face?
Because the Belle doll they made looks like Justin Bieber?
I swear they based that doll off of her Vanity Fair cover photo. 9 times out of ten she takes amazing photos, that was just the one where she looked like Bieber and I wondered if they were related.
I can’t unsee that, but that’s okay. Makes it better.
I’ll say, unashamedly, that I think this movie blew the original away. The characters felt more well-rounded to me, Maurice was competent, Gaston was a better villain, Le Fou had a turning point, and in general the background characters were real with real relationships. (Like the wardrobe being the maestro’s wife, etc.). I liked Agatha as a new character, and a few tweaks they made to fit the fairy tale, such as Maurice stealing a rose. Gaston felt more like a real villain, with his obsession turning him unhinged and eventually him deciding to kill Maurice and only throwing him in the asylum when he fails. He felt like an actual conniving person. In general, the original was good, this to me is a masterpiece. I guess it’s polarizing — either love it or hate it?
As for plot holes, the fairy tale itself has plot holes. It’s kind of inherent in fairy tales that you just say “well okay it works that way” and the original had the same sort of plot holes. Actually, they covered a few up — like explaining why nobody knows about this castle or why Belle gives any fucks about Beast (they’re both nerds omg XD ) or what actually happens when the last petal falls. I don’t think it was made clear that the objects become less animate as time goes on.
Anywho. I loved it. Sorry you hated it. :(
” I don’t think it was made clear that the objects become less animate as time goes on.”
Wow. I mean I’d heard that they had been considering putting that in as a plot line in the original movie, but scrapped it. They included it in this one? That’s dark.
And yet more proof that the enchantress was the real villain, I mean holy shit lady. She shows up on a dark and stormy night and asks a prince to by a rose, he’s a bit brusque, in return she fucks him and everyone he knows up in a way that she thought was likely to be both cruel and unusual and permanent. She was either a personification of fate or Malificent’s kid sister.
Yeah, in this movie they put in that every time a petal falls, they feel less human and more like their objects. The castle also degrades in general. There is a short scene when the first petal falls in the movie where you see the objects talking to each other about how bad it is that they’re feeling these effects slowly and what’s happening to them.
There is one theory on the harshness of the whole tale I’ve heard that the reason it’s such a huge deal is because in part it’s a morality tale on being kind to strangers etc — that back in the time the original fairy tale was created, it was considered heinous to turn anyone away from your door who wasn’t an active threat. By withholding his great wealth from someone who needed help and sought out his doorstep, the Prince was committing a pretty grievous sin.
Also, fairy tales were very much scare-’em-straight tales back in the day. Disney cute-ified many of them, but they were often gruesome and very dark. Cinderella is a great example of that, with the stepsisters cutting off parts of their feet to fit the shoe and so on.
Lots of Disney movies leave out disturbing things from the original Tales. Like with Pocahontas. I won’t go onto too much detail but lets just say we she like 12 or 13 and John Smith was more than twice her age.
And the sequel where she went to England failed to mention that she died from (i think it was) smallpox not long after.
The Fair Folk are not.
Actually aren’t most fairy’s depicted as being perfectly ‘fair’? It’s people going back on their end of a deal, or violating some ancient rule, which tends to end viciously.
I thought fae were notoriously capricious and would ruin people’s lives for the lulz or if they accidentally slighted them?
The only thing fair about them is the way they can make themselves more comely
The becoming-more-inanimate aspect is in the Broadway version of BatB. The costumes even change to reflect it.
Honestly, I quite enjoyed it. Yes, there are some plot holes and areas where things come off as stilted, but it isn’t really much worse than the original. The CGI household items were the most off-putting part to me, but I really enjoyed a lot of the little add-ons they included. The massive bookshop in a town that thinks reading is odd being swapped with a small book collection in the local church, Maurice being a watchmaker/artist rather than crackpot inventor who could actually make a living doing what he does, LaFoe handing off coins to get people to join into the Gaston song. And, of course, Evermore being an awesome addition to the music.
Why does anyone even go and watch this endless stream of rehashes? Aren’t you ashamed of supporting this with your money? They will not stop with this because of bad ratings or jokes, you know.
–Garage sale at the Beast’s Mansion–
You won’t believe how fucking cheap we’re selling this furniture folks. The teapot is practically begging to be taken away.
Disclaimer: We are not responsible for psychological damages that sentient speaking furniture may cause to their future owners after they are purchased.
Disney fell into the “all Europeans are British” trap. The stuff upper lip acting of the British is just way out of place in a French fairly tale. Watson was just a bad pick for the role because she doesn’t bring the pomp and energy it required.
Strange, I haven’t seen it myself but I’ve heard lots of really positive things about it from IRL acquaintances (although to be fair, I’m constantly surrounded by musical theater majors…)
Funny story, my friends and I were going to see Beauty and the Beast. One of my friends who is involved in local theater basically has to see it since the experience will eventually come up in his other social circles.
We got to the theatre and all showings for the movie for the next hour (three or four showings total) were packed, leaving only scattered or uncomfortably close seating to the screen.
We called it a wash and watched Get Out instead.
And it was awesome.
Literally all I care about is the Gaston song. Did they not-trainwreck that one, at least?
I’m gathering a Team of Super Heroes. https://www.gofundme.com/my-car-is-toast
She looks manly AF and I love it so much.
Yeah, why is that?
Like, is this an entertaining “can’t look away” type trainwreck or the face-palming painful kind? Is this more like Maleficent or the Cinderella remake?
Because I’ve been on the fence about seeing this and am now wondering if I should just see Logan again. Or even the Lego Batman movie again.
Never mind, found the twitter log. I think I got my answer.
Gave up hope when I heard the new “Like Gaston” song… Got more joy from the Beauty and Lord Voldemort spoof months ago..
I haven’t seen the movie but – judging from the comments – it would seem like a good example of horizon of expectations; the expectation of the audience vs. the changes made.
I have one question.
Can you see this version of Beast traversing the darkness between worlds through sheer force of will and fury?
KH!Beast is the one to who all Beasts should be compared to. Even in the plague-ridden wasteland that is KH, there is a beacon of fury and masculinity, refusing to submit to Nomura’s disfiguring virus
I’m both dreading and looking forward to this movie…but that last panel (and Belle’s FACE, omg) seriously cracked me up. Now I’ll probably end up laughing hysterically in the movie theater when this scene crops up, and I’ll be mobbed by rabid fans. Oh Coela, you have doomed me, and I can’t even be mad about it. XD
I love this kind of joke.
A sentient talking object might help senile people look… less senile when they talk to their objects.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
*EMAIL — Get a Gravatar
©2010-2017 Manly Guys Doing Manly Things | Powered by WordPress with Easel
| Subscribe: RSS
| Back to Top ↑