Official "Beauty & the Beast" Film Adaptation Thread — Page 26

^Of course the decision to not use the Broadway songs was made a long time ago. Films are written, storyboarded, sets are designed and built WAY in advance. Not to mention contracts are made re: song rights. You don't just make a last minute decision to add or subtract major songs and scenes, especially in a film remake of an established story.

Maybe they discovered the songs were to hard for her and wrote new ones that fit better.

We don't even know if Belle gets a new song. Two out of the three new songs are NOT Belle songs. The third we don't know yet.

BWW is still referring to the movie as an adaptation of the Broadway musical.

"I REALLY hope they use "Home", "If I Can't Love Her", and "A Change in Me" from the Broadway show."

They're not.

The film is based strictly on the original animated film, with the addition of some brand-new material from Menken and Rice written and composed specifically for it and a brand-new Enchanted Object character played by Stanley Tucci.

Director Bill Condon had previously said it was his intent to use the Broadway songs, but something clearly changed... which, BTW, is fine.

The movie isn't going to be somehow 'lesser' for not having the Broadway version's songs, and I have faith that the new material will end up working just fine with the rest of the familiar score.

Updated On: 7/4/15 at 05:59 PM

Director Bill Condon had previously said it was his intent to use the Broadway songs, but something clearly changed...

I don't remember reading that. I wonder what changed...

I really can't (and don't want to) believe that Emma Watson is the reason we won't be hearing the beautiful Broadway songs. It's not like "Home" is of "Rainbow High" caliber. If she can't sing Home, No Matter what and A change in me, the we might as well just replace all her songs with Twinkly twinkle little star and other nursery rhymes.

But like I said, I'm in denial Watson's singing ability is the reason for this...

Thanks for the link. If hundreds of high school girls can sing "Home", I don't see why a professional like Emma cannot. I assume she has a voice instructor for this part to whip her voice into shape...

Really late to this party due to my unintentional BWW hiatus...but Angela Lansbury will always be Mrs. Potts to me...as great as Emma Thompson is, I don't feel like she's got enough "warmth" for character. But who knows.

"I could do without most of the additions to the Broadway score anyway. I didn't really care for most of them, and they seemed to slow things down. "

This.

I agree, the songs in the film are great and actually add something. The Broadway additions felt just like "filling up material". "Home", "If I can't love her" are nothing more than repeating what has been said before and turned into a (long) song. I also don't understand the 15-minute dance break in "Be our guest". It takes the spark out of the story and the material.

They tend to do this with a lot of Disney musicals, for example Aladdin, where in the theatre version "friend like me" has a 20 minute dance break and all the unnecessary extra songs like "call me a princess (look at how blase I am, we already know that, next). Same goes for the Lion King "chow down", with the tapdancing hyena's, the lioness hunt, one by one, etc.

I feel they need to stay away from the theatre version as far as possible. Treat it like a real film with all the filmic editing and possibilities, anything is possible in film, especially with music, certain parts being heard as a character's thoughts, dream sequences, elaborate cinematography etc. Maybe instrumental music over certain sequences, or pre-recorded singing as a kind of soundtrack for a certain scene, without the character actual lip-synching because something else happens, etc. Not like theatre, not like the Les Mis film, which was basically a 1 take theatre performance but then with bad singers. Film needs much more than that. Better singing and better cinematography. So especially if you don't have a great singing leading lady, focus on the cinematopralhy to make the scenes work, especially when using singing and music. More unnecessary ballads for an inadequate singer is by no means the solution.

Updated On: 7/9/15 at 09:48 AM

Yes, but there are plenty of other options in film to show more of the beast's background and character, that does not have to be in a ballad.

Ballads are for great singers. Who use every note to act, who really understand and embrace the art of this chosen language, instead of making the audience feel that they would rather speak than sing (les mis).

Updated On: 7/9/15 at 10:15 AM

"Not being a Twilight fan, I just hope Bill Condon doesn't make this film dark and gothic like Twilight was. "

Twilight was neither "dark" nor "Gothic."

I wonder if the cut songs from the Broadway production will be added to the soundtrack as bonus songs?

Why would they do that? THIS ISN'T THE BROADWAY PRODUCTION!
Deal with it, Broadway songs are NOT happened.

Ha, nice try, RW3, Tag made a tiny typo, whoop-dee-doo. His point is still valid, they aren't doing the Broadway production, so why would they go through the extra effort to record the Broadway songs just for the soundtrack? Some of you can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that this movie is not based on the Broadway version...

willep, I was merely pointing out an error to Tag. Also, I clearly know and recognize that the movie isn't an adaptation of the musical. I was merely asking a question. It's you and Tag that are getting so bent out of shape for a movie that is coming out in two years. Let's be real, we have no clue what Disney is going to do for the soundtrack. We can assume that the songs that are going to be in the movie will be on the soundtrack, but we don't know what else will be on it or if anything else will be on it. In addition, try harder if you want to come for me.