Official "Beauty & the Beast" Film Adaptation Thread — Page 53

Tag said: "^Does it really matter if he can sing, if he has the most unrelatable, completely missed the mark, CGI face? Not to mention your Belle can't sing the score, why should the Beast?



"I think you are being very rude! Emma Watson is no Paige O'Hara or Susan Egan but she does have very pretty voice. And I think she is perfect for the role and I cannot wait to see her. As for The Beast, the look is a combination of make-up and CGI motion capture to get the perfect look and I think that it is a great look. Beastly enough to not look human but softened enough to see the humanity trapped inside of him.

GreatBroadwayFan said: "Tag said: "^Does it really matter if he can sing, if he has the most unrelatable, completely missed the mark, CGI face? Not to mention your Belle can't sing the score, why should the Beast?



"I think you are being very rude! Emma Watson is no Paige O'Hara or Susan Egan but she does have very pretty voice. And I think she is perfect for the role and I cannot wait to see her. As for The Beast, the look is a combination of make-up and CGI motion capture to get the perfect look and I think that it is a great look. Beastly enough to not look human but softened enough to see the humanity trapped inside of him.





"

I don't know where you're getting your facts but you're wrong. It is entirely motion capture CGI. And autotuned.

Updated On: 2/21/17 at 06:53 AM

Just watched the little snippet of "Belle" that's posted in the BroadwayWorld TV section. It's very disappointing.

Emma's voice/vocal skills are not strong enough to carry the role. She's not a horrible singer (i.e., like Florence Foster Jenkins), but her singing is lifeless and lacks color.

Her voice is not painful to listen to, but neither is it interesting or expressive in any way. It's like listening to an orator who speaks in monotone - all the words (or notes in Emma's case) are there, they just go nowhere.

One odd thing that stuck out for me in the clip (beside the fact that Emma stops singing almost immediately) is an important prop that's gone missing in the translation from animated film to live-action. Monsieur Jean asks Belle, "Where are you off to?" She responds, "To return this book to Pere Robert." ....What book? Her hands are empty. She even emphasizes the absence of a book by swinging her arms (and empty hands) from side to side.

jacobsnchz14 said: "https://youtu.be/BjJUE_R8-DQ This should answer that."

Not really. Whether it be a basket or a pocket, the line reads better (more clearly) if Belle produces the book, like in the original (skip ahead to the 0:33 mark):

Updated On: 2/21/17 at 10:54 AM

We all know that Emma is not really a singer, but i think she does the role justice from what we have seen/watched so far and I think Dan Stevens was the perfect casting for Beast. he has proved to be a brilliant actor that can do both serious and comedic roles instead of just being known as "the guy from Downton". an example of this, would be his role in THE GUEST and NIGHT OF THE MUSEUM: THE SECRET OF THE TOMB. this article certainly proves that they did VERY well with their casting choices with an excerpt taken from it (spoken by Don Hahn who mentions Dan)...

"The Beast is played by the coolest guy, Dan Stevens from Downton Abbey who I love. It’s perfect because he’s got this amazing heart for the role and he can do drama and the darker side of it too."

LINK = http://thatsitla.com/don-hahn-beauty-and-the-beast/

The CGI of the beast, looks amazing (including the enchanted objects and the special effects). i just hope that they do the end transformation scene justice by sticking to the original score (that was featured in the 1991 animation for that one scene) and make us ladies all drool when Dan turns back into the prince with his luscious golden locks.

I had my doubts about Ewan, but have got used to it. The "BELLE" scene looks awesome and cannot wait to go and see it in 3D and in further detail. what i am disappointed with, is the way Emma Thompson sings the main title. she puts the cockney accent on way too much and spoils the song.

Judging by that new clip, all my fears about her have been confirmed.



1. She cannot act to save her life

2. She cannot sing.

3. She potentially may ruin the whole film.



i don't know why it's suddenly become ok to have people in movie musicals who cannot sing, but it's just not good enough. Now I get why she drove everyone mad on the film demanding re-shoots. She's rubbish.

brian1973 said: "i don't know why it's suddenly become ok to have people in movie musicals who cannot sing, but it's just not good enough. Now I get why she drove everyone mad on the film demanding re-shoots. She's rubbish."

Uhhhh, source?

I am torn by the Conden's mention of LeFou's homosexuality.

On one hand I'm all for openly gay characters in popular entertainment and unrequited gay affection is indeed "tale as old as time."

On the other hand the animated LeFou was a loathesome character and his subtextual attraction for Gaston has long been treated as a dirty joke. If Josh makes something "subtle and delicious out of it" fine. But Josh Gad has played a lot of creeps (Book of Mormon, Spelling Bee). The "pay-off at the end" could come across as a harmful stereotype. Time will tell.

JennH said: "MrsSallyAdams said: "I am torn by the Conden's mention of LeFou's homosexuality.

On one hand I'm all for openly gay characters in popular entertainment and unrequited gay affection is indeed "tale as old as time."

On the other hand the animated LeFou was a loathesome character and his subtextual attraction for Gaston has long been treated as a dirty joke. If Josh makes something "subtle and delicious out of it" fine. But Josh Gad has played a lot of creeps (Book of Mormon, Spelling Bee). The "pay-off at the end" could come across as a harmful stereotype. Time will tell.



"

I was more or less thinking the same. My other issue is, is that it possibly is creating something that didn't exist in the first place. LeFou was created to be the usual villains' silly sidekick. Thats it. It's almost like this is being pulled out of thin air for no reason EXCEPT for LGBTQ rep. Like everyone here, rep is perfectly fine, but to add it to an already established character is...questionable at best. It's like the "Make Elsa lesbian" in the that frozen sequel. It literally mkes no sense to add this trait to an already well established character, especially when the sole reason for wanting it is that "She didn't end up with a man so she must be lesbian"...she didn't end up with ANYONE so who's to say either way? And think about WHY she didn't end up with her own L.I. It's because romance wasn't made to be part of her arc, is all. Her arc was about conquering herself and her own fears. And to suddenly say she's lesbian would be merely pulling the rug from under us for no good reason, akin to that awful "Hans is the actual villain" twist. It's a terrible way to go about a story. Again LGBTQ rep is fine, but if Disney is going to to this and do it properly, they've got to start from scratch, new story, new character, etc.



"

On one hand, I agree with this; however, if something new isn't being done with the material, and new directions are not being taken, what is the point of a remake? In a way, this is its own new entity, and we should be expecting to see new things and a fresh take here.

A lot of us are having trouble separating this from its animated counterpart. Having that mindset does a disservice to both the original Disney incarnation as well as this new vision. I don't just want to see a shot for shot remake of a previous movie. We had that with Van Sant's Psycho, and it was pointless and uninspired. I want to see something new, whether it be in character development, or in the plot itself.

Lots of new "Behind The Scenes" B-Roll Footage released today:

https://www.youtube.com/user/ComicBookCom/search?query=beauty+beast

My husband is with the reviewing press so we got to see a screening this afternoon. We absolutely adored it. Emma sounded terrific, IMHO.

Regarding the gay subtext - it's honestly barely there I mean, that character has always seemed to be in love with Gaston, so it's basically the same ... just a few extra lingering glances/touches and a blink-and-you'll-miss-it bit at the very end. It's definitely there -- just not as overt as the howling fundamentalists are assuming.

I still miss the Broadway additions, but the new songs are excellent... and "Home" pops up instrumentally a couple times, so that was nice. :)

Fan123 said: "Interesting. I wonder if Gaston will realise he's gay or bi in the end as well, and they aren't mentioning "gay characters" (plural) just to avoid giving too much away. If so, I imagine it will probably be a relatively subtle payoff, eg showing the two of them sitting together at BATB's wedding, with Gaston looking very much at peace with not getting the girl. But we'll see.
(If they do go that route, I wonder if they'll make Gaston less villainous in this version, to prevent it from being too "the villains are gay"? As covered in the second half of this tongue-in-cheek video, it wouldn't take that much to downgrade his villainy to a more mild condescending douchery.)
Anyway, mucho speculation based on this latest small tidbit :)



"

Hmmm...I seriously doubt this for the biggest that we all know what happens to him in the original :/ And if this one does make him survive instead, he's been focused on Belle for way too long to suddenly give her up that easily, along with some sudden realization that he's gay himself. And I see one commenter has already seen it...and it sounds like Gaston is still Gaston-ing as normal, but of course I have no wish to hear spoilers even if it is the same ending as the original.

And why is last night being touted as the world premiere when the world premiere was last month in the UK on the 23rd at the Spencer House?? Don't why I'm asking, it's not like it's of great world importance, but it's just annoying.