Beauty and the Beast (2017)


Movies

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

Here is the teaser trailer

Aside from not showing us anything except the top of Emma Watson's face and some pretty parts of the castle. Dunno. I mean Emma's got the chops, that's for sure.


I can't wait though I wish they gave us a little more.


Does anyone know for sure if Beast is a CGI component or if it is an actor in make-up/costume?

Liberty's Edge

The is a candelabra in one shot. It has to be Lumière.

Sovereign Court

Terquem wrote:
Does anyone know for sure if Beast is a CGI component or if it is an actor in make-up/costume?

I hope practical effect enhanced by CGI.


I don't know how to feel about this... Beauty & The Beast is by far my favorite Disney film... And the recent live-action remakes of Disney classics failed to impress me. They seem to range from "okay" to "kinda bad".


So Lemmy, you didn't care much for the Jungle Book?


Dragon78 wrote:
So Lemmy, you didn't care much for the Jungle Book?

Haven't had the chance to see that one yet.

Scarab Sages

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see Emma Watson as Belle. Don't get me wrong, she's certainly a little hottie. And she can act well enough. I guess I have a hard time seeing it.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

After seeing "Into the Woods," I think Anna Kendrick would have been a better Belle.

Scarab Sages

I didn't see Into the Woods, but I've seen some clips from that movie Kendrick did with the college singing group. She does seem to have some serious vocal skills.

Liberty's Edge

Oh, I think Emma Watson will be perfect is Belle!

Scarab Sages

But can she sing?

Liberty's Edge

Doesn't really matter.

That's why dubbing was invented in the first place.


Will they sing? Disney's live-action remakes have, for better or worse, mostly tried to move away from the musical component so far. Except maybe Jungle Book, I guess? Be nice if they stopped trying to make them totally different and "serious". You know, like in Maleficent.

This trailer is minimalist, but still shows us more than the original Cinderella trailer. Maybe they're trying to hide bad effects, though. Practical or CGI, it doesn't matter to me as long as the effects are good.

But my feelings on that matter are summed up neatly here, honestly. Warning: There's some gore in that video from clips.


Maleficent kinda sucks, though... And ruins a great character, IMO.

Liberty's Edge

Looks like they going full musicial with it.

I hope the cast can sing. The only person I know in that cast that can sign is Josh Gad.


Been to see it today and liked it a lot. New songs in addition to the old ones. Suffers a little from the 3D lack of depth of field in some scenes, even in 2D as I saw it, but all 3D films have that limitation. The singing is well done. Well worth seeing.

I want the floor plans for that chateau (and the roof plans too ;-) ).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Saw it yesterday. It was pretty good. It did a good job of addressing some of the first movie's criticisms (for the short versions, just watch CinemaSins or Honest Trailers). The musicals appear to be treated in-universe as the characters' private musings, so it isn't actually weird for them to suddenly and inexplicably break out into choreographed song. Especially liked the treatment of "Belle - Bonjour". Sadly, did not like the remake of "Be Our Guest" as much. I think it was due to Bonjour not being the first movie's crownpiece, and so they could tweak things here and there to make the song work for the new version. Be Our Guest, on the other hand, was already perfect and so couldn't take any changes without them being a diminshment. Still good, but the first Be Our Guest was not topped.

My stepmother had a criticism about there being more Gaston in the film, making it more his movie. I agree he played a much larger role, but I felt it necessary. The additional material helped to reconcile the Gaston the Jerk at the movie's beginning with the Gaston the Monster at the end. It almost seemed like he had mentally snapped, but for me, it worked to explain how someone could capable of his evil deeds at the end and yet have behaved himself more at the beginning. He seemed more real, less "villain because that's what the script told him to be".

Liberty's Edge

Saw it today and really loved it. Highly recommended!

Emma Watson absolutely knocked it out of the park


I saw it yesterday and I really enjoyed it. I hope they do as good a job with the Little Mermaid.


Dragon78 wrote:
I saw it yesterday and I really enjoyed it. I hope they do as good a job with the Little Mermaid.

Oh Great Bird of the Galaxy YES!!!!

But which one? I've got multiple rumors, one saying "this year but not Disney", another one saying "Christmas 2018".

Liberty's Edge

There are 2 Little Mermaid movies coming apparently. The Disney one and then a completely different one from a different studio that's very different from the Disney version.

The non-Disney movie is supossedly closer to the original folk tale from what I've heard ...


EH I kind of hope not original folk tail (like most folk tails) was super disturbing.

Liberty's Edge

Beauty and the Beast has a record-breaking $170M opening weekend, beating previous record-holder for G- or PG-rated releases, Finding Dory, which debuted with a then-PG-best $135 million.

NY Times

Fox News


Hoo boy. This movie sounds like a train wreck, from what I've heard. The changes lead me to believe the creators really don't understand storytelling, and most of it sounds like a strict downgrade. I hate to bandy around the term "fanfic" too freely or derisively, but...

The film evidently contains: The Beast getting to, as one Tweeter put it, "beastsplain" Shakespeare to Belle, the Beast already being able to read, Emma Watson's terrible dress, the choice of Lefou as Disney's first "openly gay" character (ok), some apparently dreadful editing, a "compulsive need to 'fix' the 'plot holes' of the original", an attempt (mostly ditched, luckily) to give Gaston a "tragic backstory", and an "intense, passionate loathing of subtext".

Has Disney made a single remake yet that wasn't complete balls? And as a followup question, has a single one of these remakes had a point yet? Now they're making non-musical Mulan, Robin Williamsless Aladdin (I have complicated feelings on that), and a so-called "live-action" Lion King. Merciful Zeus. Go watch the Best Picture-nominated animated version and forget that this little mess exists.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Loved the movie, only complaint I had was the pacing feeling off.

If you want a shot-for-shot remake of the animated film, you won't like it.


And on that note, if the best parts of a remake are the parts it doesn't change, what does it say about the remake deserving to exist? ;P

I'm not wrongbadfunning this—what we like doesn't have to in any way line up with what is "objectively good" or whatever. But man, am I tired of Disney making films like this. It's clear that Disney's effort to maintain what it sees as a "steady standard of quality" is starting to turn into desperate clinging to homogenuity. Mediocre remakes and sequels, bad remakes and sequels, and, much as I loved Moana, Zootopia and Frozen, a nonstop stream of identically-animated films because innovation is too much effort these days to be worth the risk.

I'm starting to almost prefer Dreamworks's absolute abandonment of a consistent standard. If I have to sit through twenty Bee Movies to reach a Kung Fu Panda 2, I'm still happier than if I have to sit through twenty Big Hero Sixes to reach a single Cinderella remake. To quote All Dogs Go to Heaven, let me be surprised.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

No movie deserves to exist.


harsh


Lemmy wrote:
Maleficent kinda sucks, though... And ruins a great character, IMO.

Yeah, that was my point. It's easily the worst of the Disney "remakes", in my opinion. And that's including 102 Dalmations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:


Has Disney made a single remake yet that wasn't complete balls? And as a followup question, has a single one of these remakes had a point yet? Now they're making non-musical Mulan, Robin Williamsless Aladdin (I have complicated feelings on that), and a so-called "live-action" Lion King. Merciful Zeus. Go watch the Best Picture-nominated animated version and forget that this little mess exists.

Maybe you should consider seeing it yourself rather than relying on heavily on a particular critic's opinion. A larger proportion of critics and viewers disagree with your critic.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I still don't know what moment people were protesting. It was that unnoticable to me.


I'm actually drawing from multiple critics, though I do only quote one here, and you'll notice most of my statements are of fact, not of opinion (the editing comment is the main exception).

I'm not interested in hopping onto the Bandwagon Fallacy here. I don't care if a "larger proportion" like it. These are critics I trust, and I have yet to hear of a change in the movie that doesn't sound like total garbage to me.

I'll just leave you guys with a tweet and a gif about Disney's very good totally not terrible idea to feature some positive representation, Gay Lefou, everyone's favorite Quasimodo-Dressed-As-A-Goblin-Shark-For-Halloween.

^Haha! That's what I've heard. Disney took one of their most unlikable characters and reworked him into their "first gay character", and as I pretty much always predicted, they didn't even make it that noticeable. Subtext! It stands in for actual diversity now!


Objective? Puh-leeze. There's hardly any objectivity in any form of literary criticism, including film criticism, and that includes discussions of editing quality, dress quality, and subtextualism. If you happen to privilege the approaches your trusted critics take, that's certainly your right, but they don't hold any more objective truth than the people who have viewed the movie and enjoyed it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
^Haha! That's what I've heard. Disney took one of their most unlikable characters and reworked him into their "first gay character", and as I pretty much always predicted, they didn't even make it that noticeable. Subtext! It stands in for actual diversity now!

Mostly because it could have been his interaction with the girls in the Bonjour sequence, or his discussion of Belle with Gaston, or his part in Gaston's song, or the bit at the very end with the dancing.

But he was very clearly gay the whole movie through.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally I have always though Lefou was gay, even in the first movie. I don't know why people are surprised about it or even care.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I liked Maleficent.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Same.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I'm actually drawing from multiple critics, though I do only quote one here, and you'll notice most of my statements are of fact, not of opinion (the editing comment is the main exception).

I'm not interested in hopping onto the Bandwagon Fallacy here. I don't care if a "larger proportion" like it. These are critics I trust, and I have yet to hear of a change in the movie that doesn't sound like total garbage to me.

I'll just leave you guys with a tweet and a gif about Disney's very good totally not terrible idea to feature some positive representation, Gay Lefou, everyone's favorite Quasimodo-Dressed-As-A-Goblin-Shark-For-Halloween.

^Haha! That's what I've heard. Disney took one of their most unlikable characters and reworked him into their "first gay character", and as I pretty much always predicted, they didn't even make it that noticeable. Subtext! It stands in for actual diversity now!

Well, I was nervous going into this film because I really love the original. How can a real man possibly live up to an eight-foot cartoon Gaston? Can Emma Watson really pull off Belle? The review I saw cast doubt on that. However, I really enjoyed it. There are changes but mostly they work pretty well, in my opinion (and it's only my opinion). I don't know what you want from a film of Beauty and the Beast or even whether you enjoyed (or saw) the Disney original so I don't know whether or not to suggest that you go to see it despite your favourite critics. I would probably rate the original slightly higher but this one is (again only my opinion) very good too. I'm very glad that I went.


My spouse loved it. Ergo, I love it. ;)


Yeah I trust critics as far as i can throw them and they tend to be big guys so... However I'm not interested in this one I like B&B as kid but I don't have enough nostalgia going on to watch a live action remake.

Just not for me but I still would never base whether I saw a movie on what critics say.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:

Personally I have always though Lefou was gay, even in the first movie. I don't know why people are surprised about it or even care.

It's not so much him being out so much as Disney deciding to make their first openly gay character a joke villain, who is in love with and supports the misogynistic main villain, and his name means "The Madman".


Do you mean Lefou or Gaston means "the madman"?


I'm pretty sure Gaston's name has something to do with digestion.

Silver Crusade

Dragon78 wrote:
Do you mean Lefou or Gaston means "the madman"?

Lefou


Not madman... more like jester. IIRMF.


I was never a fan of the original (meaning pre-Disney) story. I love Alan Menken, but I did not enjoy the 1991 Disney movie at all.

I hear the new one has additional songs by Menken and Tim Rice, a lyricist I really like. Is that enough of a reason for me to see this movie? Probably not. I still can't really stand the plot, unless they've changed it dramatically to the point where it would barely be recognizable. Maybe I'll try listening to the new music at some point, but I probably won't see the movie.

I recall recently seeing someone on social media posting a "revised" Beauty and the Beast plot as a joke. And I can honestly say that if that person's "revised" story was the one Disney had filmed, I'd be a lot more inclined to see the movie.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Hoo boy. This movie sounds like a train wreck, from what I've heard. The changes lead me to believe the creators really don't understand storytelling, and most of it sounds like a strict downgrade. I hate to bandy around the term "fanfic" too freely or derisively, but...

The film evidently contains: The Beast getting to, as one Tweeter put it, "beastsplain" Shakespeare to Belle, the Beast already being able to read,

Why do you dislike the idea of the Beast being able to read? Why wouldn't he?


A) Belle is the real bookworm in the story. If either of them explains Shakespeare, it's her.

B) The beast is bestial, reduced from what he had been. The central idea is that he grows from his growing love for Belle. Isn't there a scene in the animated movie where she teaches him how to read again?

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Movies / Beauty and the Beast (2017) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.