|
Post by Yoyti on Jun 12, 2016 23:07:46 GMT -5
I know it could be good or bad, but frankly, I don't care. Just because this is being made doesn't mean the original is going to stop existing. What harm can a remake do? There were things I didn't like about the Into The Woods movie, but there were also things I did like about it, and if the things I didn't like outrank the things I did, I can still always watch the recording of the OBC. Same deal here. There are sure to be some good things that will make this worth it, even if it won't reach the standard of the original. At the very least, we're getting some new songs by Alan Menken, and that's always good.
And yes, Alan Menken has confirmed that there will be new songs, written just for this movie. As I said above, Alan Menken is the composer behind ninety percent of the Disney Renaissance as well as Enchanted and Tangled. So I'm at the very least optimistic about his involvement.
|
|
|
Post by Twillie on Jun 19, 2016 14:38:03 GMT -5
I have yet to see any of these live action remakes, and I don't think this movie will be the one to make a difference. I do think, at the very least, that there's a little harm in the remakes because, even if they can't hurt the original movie, it does leave one asking why. Why use all these resources, talents, and time on an unnecessary remake when you could use them for a much greater purpose? There may be some good things in the remake, but why just have some when I could actually have an overall good film?
My biggest curiosity with this film is how they're going to portray the servants. I've seen the casting for characters like Lumiere and Cogsworth, but I haven't actually seen how they'll look. My guess is that they'll use CGI, but I don't know if they'll make them look like realistic objects, or if they'll be more cartoony in design. Either way I'm sure they'll still do slapsticky things, so it'll either be that the humor is ruined by real people doing animated actions (which never works) or the tone of the film will be off because there will be obviously animated characters walking around with real people (in an environment that they want you to believe is completely real).
This is honestly just me guessing, though, based on what I know about the previous remakes. The film may actually differ in execution and tone. We'll see, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Shinko on Mar 17, 2017 19:22:41 GMT -5
Just saw this. I enjoyed it a great deal. => I went to a 3:25 matinee, so it was almost entirely adults in the theater, which made it doubly entertaining when you could hear people all over the rooms singing along to the familiar songs. I think my mom remembered all the words better than I did, ha.
It was pretty true to the original, you can tell they were doing their best not to change too much. What they did change, I think it added to the story without taking anything away, which I like. The somewhat controversial Lefou character was handled pretty well, I think. Yes, he had an obvious big gay crush on Gaston, but at the same time he also got like... a character arc. He's not just the comic relief lackey the whole time like in the cartoon, he has depth and internal conflict, and my mom and I both liked him a lot.
Emma Watson was a lil distracting, as one might expect (my mom kept making jokes about Hermione having a thing for buffalos) but she does well. Sings well too, which I was a bit worried about. The other characters were all very good, and most got a lot more character than they had in the original. A few of the designs I wasn't fond of (Cogsworth in particular looked too stiff, and Lumiere contrastingly looked too human) but others I really liked. (Beast looked fantastic, and the feather duster- actually given a name, Plumette- was really nicely done.)
The only element that kind of made me go "=\" was the addition of an implied abusive childhood element for the beast. This isn't a major story element (only gets referenced twice) so I am of the mixed feels that "if you're gonna do it, at least explore it properly" and "at least it isn't so pervasive that it's distracting." It's mostly there because it establishes that Beast lost his mother young, which is something that he can relate to Belle with. Her mother's absence and fate is actually addressed in the movie, and it's pretty sad and gives some character development to Belle's father.
Overall, I really enjoyed it. Some people might not care for it given how little it changes from the original, but I think that was for the best. It changes just enough to expand upon the cartoon movie without changing so much that it made my nostalgia go "Rrrrrrrg NO! That's NOT RIGHT!"
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Mar 20, 2017 10:25:16 GMT -5
Oh, I had a completely opposite opinion. XD I didn't really like it at all. I mean, cards on the table, as a 2D animator, I'm vehemently against this whole notion that 2D films need "updating" to ugly cg remakes. But I tried to give it a fair shake and... yeah no. The story was almost identical, minus a few lazy fixes to some story holes in the original. Ie, don't give firm year-lengths and then you don't have to worry about how old Beast was when he shunned that old lady. The entirely-new story beats were also unneeded and did nothing to further the main plot. But then everything else was worse. :/ The visuals, while they obviously put a lot of work into them, were just not aesthetically pleasing. 90% of this movie was nighttime or blue-gray or both. SO. MUCH. BLUE. Guess why? Because CG flaws are less obvious when everything's blue. All of Beast's servants were gross to look at. Lumiere's face in particular was so tiny and so covered with extra details, you could never pick out his facial features. It's like he belonged in a Transformers movie. Mrs Potts looks like the Annoying Orange on fine china. And some of those shot choices were bad. The famous ballroom scene, in a half-hearted attempt to both try something new and recreate the feeling of the original, did weird pans up to the ceiling, to show you NOTHING, only to clunk back down to static shots of Belle and Beast dancing.
Or when Lumiere brings Belle to her room, the pan around the room stupidly looks up towards a blurry ceiling and some gold-leaf branches, (branches that we NEVER see what they're connected to), only to look back at Belle. How about, you know, we actually LOOK AROUND THE ROOM???
I just... BLEH. I guess the songs were alright? Boy oh boy I can't wait until the completely-blue-color-corrected version of live action Aladdin. /s EDIT: Oh, and before I forget. That whole thing with Le Fou being the historic first canon lgbt character in a Disney movie? It was just so much subtext that it might not have even been a thing if Disney didn't toot its own horn about how HISTORIC it is. I had friends who were going very -specifically- to support these scenes, and they were VERY disappointed in how they felt almost tricked into seeing this movie for near-nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Thorn on Mar 20, 2017 15:50:00 GMT -5
EDIT: Oh, and before I forget. That whole thing with Le Fou being the historic first canon lgbt character in a Disney movie? It was just so much subtext that it might not have even been a thing if Disney didn't toot its own horn about how HISTORIC it is. I had friends who were going very -specifically- to support these scenes, and they were VERY disappointed in how they felt almost tricked into seeing this movie for near-nothing. Aww, that's half the reason I've been looking forward to the movie. That, and Gugu Mbatha-Raw is in it (even if it's just her voice.) I'll watch it to decide for myself....Once I find somebody to go with. xD (my closest friends aren't interested- one might be, but she's out of town- and the other friend who DOES want to go also wants to complain about Emma Watson being in the film, and I like Emma so that wouldn't work for me either.)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2017 22:40:03 GMT -5
I had an epiphany the other day connected to this; Alan Menken is arguably one of the most important and influential musical theater writers ever, up there with Hammerstein and Sondheim. But not due to innovation, but rather reach. He's the composer behind basically every Disney Renaissance musical except Lion King and Mulan. Alan Menken did The Little Mermaid, Beauty And The Beast, Aladdin, Hercules, Pocahontas, and Hunchback -- not to mention Newsies. While The Lion King may be more individually popular than any of those, Alan Menken basically designed the sound and feel of the genre now known as "Disney musical." He was ninety percent of the soundtrack of an entire generation of Disney and the kids that grew up with those films, and therefore many kids' first exposure to musical drama (I can't say musical theater, because movies aren't theater, but "musical drama" is close enough). And while Disney is branching out and getting more (and more modern) composers with the new wave of Disney musicals, Alan Menken is still going strong with Enchanted and Tangled (both of which prove his ability to adapt to the more modern scene while still maintaining a sense of traditionalism), and he's even writing new songs for this remake of Beauty And The Beast! And all this from the guy whose first major musical was Little Shop Of Horrors. TL;DR: Alan Menken is pretty awesome. I've been a fan of his for a while now, ever since I fell in love with "Kingdom Dance" from Tangled. His work is amazing. The thing that's sad is that he's not the best at lyrics. He always has someone write them. But still, he's just amazing, and his piano skills....my heartttttt... I loved the movie personally, it felt like the perfect balance between the original cartoon and the broadway musical (which I've seen). I love how they added a lot of dialogue that really gave the characters even more depth and paid an homage to the original story with Maurices' desire to get Belle a rose from the Beast's garden. I just loved every bit of it....save for the autotune. Lol.
|
|
|
Post by Thorn on Apr 7, 2017 7:10:37 GMT -5
Finally saw this today. Much goodness! Some averageness. Very little badness, at least in my eyes. The goodness! I thought the way the protagonists' relationship played out was very sweet. Then again, I find it easy to relate to bookish characters with their head in the clouds, that probably helped. =P
BALLROOM DANCES WITH BEAUTIFUL MUSIC AND ANIMATED ANTIQUES I haven't seen the original Disney film in a long, long time but I loved that scene. Possibly my favourite. I am a massive sap.
Belle was not only beautiful, but also smart and compassionate, and fully willing to stand up for herself and others. A great protagonist! I don't know how different she was in the animated film, but I adored her in this. Emma Watson is awesome, but I guess we already knew she was good at playing strong-willed ladies. =P
Gugu Mbatha-Raw is in it. <3 (my excitement at seeing her has absolutely nothing to do with my love of Jupiter Ascending shshsh that crazy talk.)
The averageness! The Le Fou thing was pretty hyped up for something which turned out to be so little and which, though not super subtle, is still too much so for kids to actually "get". =( I did enjoy the actor's performance though.
|
|