Official "Beauty & the Beast" Film Adaptation Thread- Page 59
Official "Beauty & the Beast" Film Adaptation Thread
phantom8019
Featured Actor Joined: 12/6/05
#1450 Ahhhhh the innocence of a child
Posted: 3/19/17 at 2:37pm
The film is an astronomical hit. These numbers are insane.
"Disney's live-action remake of Beauty and the Beast has delivered a film the size of a summer blockbuster in the month of March, debuting with not only a record-setting March opening weekend, but the seventh largest domestic opening of all-time as Disney now owns six of the top seven opening weekends of all-time."
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=4276&p=.htm
#1451 Ahhhhh the innocence of a child
Posted: 3/19/17 at 4:34pm
Theatre Fan 3 - whilst we may loose a little innocence as we grow older I also hope that we look for things with a little more depth and a little more critically than a 6 year old girl in a party dress. Disney at it's best works on many levels and appeals to all ages - indeed it was the mark of the Howard Ashman era (and Hunchback in part) movies that it achieved this and are credited with reviving the studios animations. Some people maybe focusing on their disappointments with this movie more than they would otherwise (there are obviously great moments) because they are disappointed with the handling of the source material and feel that with all the shotcomings mentioned it didn't achieve anything. Personally I was disappointed that a "live action movie" is 70% CGI. If you are willing to overlook that then fine. But if Disney are going to throw creativity out of the window and just remake their back catalogue it is fair to compare them and be critical when they fail to live up to what made the originals so great.
#1452What gay scene?
Posted: 3/19/17 at 5:16pm
It's LaLa Land all over again; you'll love it or tolerate it or hate it. I definitely had some problems, but don't like to foist m/o/o to others I don't really know.
I can say, that if B&B the animated film, was the 1st to get a Best Pic Nom, this one will not be repeating that action. I will say this,
1] I saw it in IMAX 3D Experience and it really didn't play off of that technology well.
I could say a lot more...
Agree to disagree...
I Can Has Cheezburger With This?
Theatre Fan3
Leading Actor Joined: 1/27/15
#1453
Posted: 3/19/17 at 6:42pm
ukpuppetboy said: "Theatre Fan 3 - whilst we may loose a little innocence as we grow older I also hope that we look for things with a little more depth and a little more critically than a 6 year old girl in a party dress. Disney at it's best works on many levels and appeals to all ages - indeed it was the mark of the Howard Ashman era (and Hunchback in part) movies that it achieved this and are credited with reviving the studios animations. Some people maybe focusing on their disappointments with this movie more than they would otherwise (there are obviously great moments) because they are disappointed with the handling of the source material and feel that with all the shotcomings mentioned it didn't achieve anything. Personally I was disappointed that a "live action movie" is 70% CGI. If you are willing to overlook that then fine. But if Disney are going to throw creativity out of the window and just remake their back catalogue it is fair to compare them and be critical when they fail to live up to what made the originals so great."
As I stated above ... I totally respect your right to your opinion. In my particular case, I guess I choose not to over-analyze and compare films whether they be re-boots, re-makes, or whatever ... I just enjoy movies in general and I guess I just prefer to decide whether or not I liked a film once I've seen it, as it stands on it's own, without putting it side-by-side to another film. The originals, that people compare them to, and tend to judge them by, will not change ... they'll still be the same film that they fell in love with before ... the new will never erase the old. The same holds true when people say "Oh, the book was much better than the film" .... or ... "I liked the film version better than the stage version" or vice-versa. They are all entirely different entities and it's really hard to judge them as equals when one is "apples" and the other is "oranges". But, I realize the whole purpose of these message boards is to give people a place to come together and share their thoughts and feelings on a common subject ... I just wish so many of them weren't so negative and disrespectful towards opposing opinions.
#1454
Posted: 3/19/17 at 6:49pm
Yeah, it's not really apples and oranges here, it's more like an apple that people loved and paid to eat, and then another apple designed to make you think fondly of how much you liked that old apple, and genetically engineered to be a bigger apple, and with some glitter dusted on it in the grocery display.
#1455
Posted: 3/19/17 at 6:52pm
I found the film to be incredibly boring and uninspired. These live actions films just seem like a ploy for Disney to cash in (which they're doing easily). All of the acting and singing was fine, I just don't see why the need for the film; the animated film is superior in every way.
God bless, Audra Mcdonald.
#1456
Posted: 3/19/17 at 7:06pm
I saw it today. Thought it was fine. It was the animated film for better or worse. But the scenery was beautiful, as well as the new orchestrations. I had some problems with the CGI, especially the Beast. He felt that he had no weight to him. I thought the majority of the performances were good. Yeah, this was definitely a re-hash of the animated film. And all the new plot elements did not contribute to anything towards the original story. I gotta say though, I really enjoyed the opening ball. It had this dark looming sense, like out of Neil Jordan's The Company of Wolves, but alas it fell into the disney film as soon as the enchantress came. For me this lies in the middle of the remakes and reimagines of disney animated fare. It's no nears as good Cinderella or Pete's Dragon, but it was waaaay better then Maleficent or Alice in Wonderland.
RW3
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/20/13
#1457
Posted: 3/19/17 at 8:59pm
Blue_Lotus said: "Has anyone read this article written by Jason McHenry. It's entitled: "If We're Going To Csst Movie Stars in Musicals It's Time To Bring Back Dubbing."
Beauty and the Beast might be the most egregious attempt to shove an actor into a singing role beyond their abilities...
I laughed my butt off reading that article.
MaryCarey
Swing Joined: 3/19/17
#1458
Posted: 3/19/17 at 10:38pm
It was so good! Almost as good as the original. I wondered why they cut A Part of Your World, but I liked the newer songs, and I guess they wanted to make it different.
"
#1459What gay thing did I miss?
Posted: 3/19/17 at 10:45pm
Hi MC,
You joined "today"... so just FYI, Part Of Your World is Little Mermaid....
I Can Has Cheezburger With This?
#1460What gay thing did I miss?
Posted: 3/20/17 at 6:55am
That article is so good!
"It’s nice to believe that anyone could open their mouths and sound like a princess. The truth, as with so many Hollywood fantasies, is much less appealing. If you really want to sell the myth, then the talent has to be superhuman—dub the voices, just as you fake stunts, apply makeup, and at this point, even transform the actors’ appearances. Commit to the fantasy. If we wanted reality, we wouldn’t be seeing a movie with a talking teapot."
This.
#1461
Posted: 3/20/17 at 1:25pm
To Defend Ms Watson's performance for a moment, I think we all forget that Belle is not a princess known for her song. In actuality she is one of 3 princesses who do not actually have an iconic "I Want" song. These include Jasmine, whose song is actually the Duet A Whole New World with Aladdin, as she is not the protagonist. Add to that when Alladin was adapted for the stage I think they went through 2 or 3 different "I want" songs for her before settling on These Palace Walls. The other is Merida who doesn't sing.
Yes Belle has the Belle Reprise, which is 1 minute and 3 seconds of mostly spoken or softly song lyrics except for the following two lines "I want much more than this provincial life/ I want adventure in the great wide somewhere". If you actually listen to the original animated version or even the original Broadway version, its not so much Belle's vocals getting more powerful, as it is the orchestra swelling.
The lead vocal performance of Beauty and the Beast, has never actually been Belle's. In the original movie it was Lumiere and Mrs Potts, and in the Original Broadway adaptation it was Beast. Belle didn't even have a vocal moment outside of Belle in the Broadway adaptation until Toni Braxton joined the production and A Change in Me was added to the score.
Do I think Emma Watson's vocal capabilities are the reason why A Change in Me, was dropped from the live action adaptation? Partially I do, but it also would not work in the live action film, as it would come right after the film stopping Forever More, causing the movie to come to a stop for 2 big ballads.
In all honesty Watson is a fine Belle, and people need to stop confusing Belle with the vocal Powerhouse Princesses of Ariel (Part of Your World, Mulan (Reflection), Pocahontas (Colors of the Wind), Tiana (Almost There), Rapunzel (When Will my Life Begin), Anna (For the First Time in Forever), Elsa (Let it Go), Moana (How Far I'll Go), as Belle does not have a song that those pipes are need for.
MaryCarey
Swing Joined: 3/19/17
#1462
Posted: 3/20/17 at 1:56pm
Isn't it really a more feminist message if Belle isn't a powerhouse singer? Disney has set young girls up to believe they have to look a certain way and be musically gifted and that's the only way they are worthy of love. That's why so many young women have self-esteem issues. Why does the Disney princess have to be beautiful and talented while the guy can just be a hairy jerk? What are we telling our daughters? Maybe it's time to celebrate mediocrity.
#1463
Posted: 3/20/17 at 2:14pm
I saw it yesterday and LOVED it! I thought the cast was great, and there isn't really much I'd consider changing. I'll definitely be heading back for another viewing.
"Was uns befreit, das muss stärker sein als wir es sind." -Tanz der Vampire
#1464
Posted: 3/20/17 at 9:48pm
MaryCarey said: "Isn't it really a more feminist message if Belle isn't a powerhouse singer? Disney has set young girls up to believe they have to look a certain way and be musically gifted and that's the only way they are worthy of love. That's why so many young women have self-esteem issues. Why does the Disney princess have to be beautiful and talented while the guy can just be a hairy jerk? What are we telling our daughters? Maybe it's time to celebrate mediocrity. "
Ok, this is out of line. Not everybody is a moviestar for a reason. People love to see beautiful people and singers in movies because of the beauty. Why not having every neighbour from the street on the radio and in movies every day? Because we don't want to hear and see mediocrity.
degrassifan
Broadway Legend Joined: 1/23/08
#1465
Posted: 3/20/17 at 9:58pm
MaryCarey said: "Isn't it really a more feminist message if Belle isn't a powerhouse singer? Disney has set young girls up to believe they have to look a certain way and be musically gifted and that's the only way they are worthy of love. That's why so many young women have self-esteem issues. Why does the Disney princess have to be beautiful and talented while the guy can just be a hairy jerk? What are we telling our daughters? Maybe it's time to celebrate mediocrity.
You are REACHING!
Mrtrobz
Leading Actor Joined: 9/16/13
#1467
Posted: 3/20/17 at 10:46pm
Audra enchanted me, I dunno if it was her characters look or her screen presence but she was so drawing and captivating. The musical numbers where all quite dull to be honest. Where was this amazing choreography we heard about for Be Our Guest, that was very small scale considering the hype. I liked Belle, Gaston and the Mob Song they were staged well and energetic.
Unfortunately every new song they added to the film were staged terribly and added absolutely nothing to the plot. The film works great as an homage though and some of it is magical. I like the furniture a lot better in this than the animated film and show.
#1469
Posted: 3/20/17 at 10:53pm
Steve C. said: "
1] I saw it in IMAX 3D Experience and it really didn't play off of that technology well.
"
I saw it in IMAX 2D and I thought it was quite pleasing.
In our millions, in our billions, we are most powerful when we stand together. TW4C unwaveringly joins the worldwide masses, for we know our liberation is inseparably bound.
Signed,
Theater Workers for a Ceasefire
https://theaterworkersforaceasefire.com/statement
#1470
Posted: 3/20/17 at 11:13pm
bdn223, in the Broadway score for B&TB Belle sang a song called "Home" shortly after being imprisoned.
"Contentment, it seems, simply happens. It appears accompanied by no bravos and no tears."
Fan123
Broadway Legend Joined: 8/30/08
#1471Official "Beauty & the Beast" Film Adaptation Thread
Posted: 3/26/17 at 3:57am
I saw it! I liked it! Thank goodness it was better than the endless, boring Cinderella remake. As feared, Emma Watson's singing wasn't the best, but I noticed it less and less as the film went on (possibly because Belle sings less in the later stages?) and got on board with her character anyway. Dan Stevens and the rest of the cast were great. I thought most of the plot additions 'justified themselves' by filling in a few minor plot holes from the animated version and
Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content
contributing to Maurice's new Triton-esque character arc about letting Belle grow up.
It wasn't perfect, but a good time was had by all.
The_Spielers_2017
Chorus Member Joined: 1/26/17
#1472Official
Posted: 3/29/17 at 3:31pm
Shameless bit of self promotion, I know, but I figured you guys might enjoy this:
https://youtu.be/F8oK8_-HYNw
(also, I've enjoyed reading every bit of this now 59 page thread over the last couple years; thanks for a fun ride)
SporkGoddess
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/27/05
#1473Official
Posted: 3/29/17 at 5:40pm
"Isn't it really a more feminist message if Belle isn't a powerhouse singer? Disney has set young girls up to believe they have to look a certain way and be musically gifted and that's the only way they are worthy of love. That's why so many young women have self-esteem issues. Why does the Disney princess have to be beautiful and talented while the guy can just be a hairy jerk? What are we telling our daughters? Maybe it's time to celebrate mediocrity.
I have the same expectation for the guy to be a good singer, too.
Jimmy, what are you doing here in the middle of the night? It's almost 9 PM!
JennH
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/14/13
#1474Official
Posted: 3/29/17 at 7:48pm
bdn223 said: "
The lead vocal performance of Beauty and the Beast, has never actually been Belle's. In the original movie it was Lumiere and Mrs Potts, and in the Original Broadway adaptation it was Beast. Belle didn't even have a vocal moment outside of Belle in the Broadway adaptation until Toni Braxton joined the production and A Change in Me was added to the score.
"
Uhhh...so...Home doesn't count as a vocal moment outside of Belle? That's a biiigggg solo song to be missing there...But I do agree about Jerry and Angela being the most memorable performances. Do I think Change in Me was dropped BECAUSE of Emma lack of vocal prowess? Not exactly. IF it was a factor, it certainly wasn't a big one because I'll just repeat, Menken has said on many an occasion he pretty much never planned on using the stage songs for the same reason you mentioned. They wouldn't work in the film. That's aside from anything to do with Emma.
Videos