Beauty and the Beast (Live-Action)

[Atlantica]

UmbrellaFish, I wasnt trying to be stating the obvious with that list, just trying to establish exactly why Disney feels the need to push this film out over and above other DAC.

BelleGirl, when viewing both the live action / animated version of 101 Dalmations ..... I think I view them as two entirely separate things ? Like they arnt the same film, just in two different mediums.

[Elladorine]

I'm all for it if it's done right, and if it's not? Well, I'll watch anything once.

Hmm, I take that back. I still haven't seen the live-action version of 101 Dalmatians.

[Atlantica]

I guess what I'm thinking about is the characters; there have been so many different people playing all the different parts, I'm finding it hard to keep up ! Within the animated world, a few voices have changed, such as Belle (3 times), Lumiere, Chip, Mrs Potts .... then on Broadway and West End, there are again two whole new sets of voices bringing their own thing to the characters again. And if this movie goes ahead, yet another set of people to replace others that I have gotten used to !!! Maybe I'm just an old fuddy duddy, and like familiarality !!!

[Escapay]

I wonder how Disney will make the enchanted household object look convinsing and not stupid. But as Avatar and Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland have recently demonstrated again, wonderful things can be achieved with the aid of CGI.

I just hope if they do go the CGI route with the EO's, that they look like real objects that move around on their own, and happen to have faces. I don't want to be distracted by constantly thinking "Oh, that's CGI...that's CGI...that's CGI too!" throughout the whole movie the way I was in Alice in Wonderland.

Either way, If it turns out to be just a carbon-copy of the animated feature, I'm not interested.

Ditto.

How did you like the live-action version of 101 Dalmatians?

Without considering the 1961 film, the 1996 live-action movie was safe and predictable. When considering the 1961 film, the 1996 live-action movie is a faithful adaptation with a few changes, and ultimately a waste of time.

I prefer 102 Dalmatians, because even though it's near-universally hated, it presented a better story, gave Cruella different dimensions than her "I live for furs, I worship furs!" blah-blah presentation in the first movie, and co-stars Ioan Gruffudd (Horatio Hornblower in a Disney movie, woohoo!).

Did it add anything to the orginal 1961 animated version?

Honestly, it added to my apprecation of the 1961 version, because the 1996 one was trying to hard to be just like it, that it didn't have enough opportunities to be its own movie, and that made it an inferior one.

How do you feel about a live-action version of "The Lion king"?

Eh.

Or a Disney animated version of "Great Expectations"?

I wouldn't mind seeing that. Disney Channel had a 6-hour miniseries from the late 80s that apparently was very good, though I've never seen it.

albert

[BelleGirl]

How do you feel about a live-action version of "The Lion king"?

Eh.

Just a joke of course!

Or a Disney animated version of "Great Expectations"?

I wouldn't mind seeing that. Disney Channel had a 6-hour miniseries from the late 80s that apparently was very good, though I've never seen it.

albert

I actually mean an animated version in the manner of the Disney classic animated features. I suppose the subject is to mature and to difficult for the target audience of Disney animation, so I reckon it will never happen. Still I think a wonderfully animated film can be made of the story: the marches, Satis house, the wicked and weird Miss Havisham..I just have to think of David Lean's adaptation. Maybe something for the Ghibli studios? (and Japanese (animators) do have an interest in European literature).

Sorry, going off-topic now...

[ajmrowland]

How do you feel about a live-action version of "The Lion king"?

*Puts on Executive Thinking Cap* Well, let's see...........It's cheezy, it's cheap, it's got animals, it's based off existing source material, there's no other reason whatsoever for people to wanna see it..........................I LOVE IT! Greenlight it!!!! Book the theater for an 11/4/2013 premiere and an 11/11 release date! WE"RE MAKING THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!

[Atlantica]

ajmrowland ...............................

The best impression I've seen of a Disney Executive

[ajmrowland]

aaawwwww, thanks!

[REINIER]

It might grow on me..

Let's think casting, shall we?

Beast:

Unhygenic, bad breath, few real acting sequences......
monster experience..

Mike Meyers

Gaston:

Overly confident....In love with himself...

I say....Brad Pitt


Belle...

Let's see,...

bookwurm...strange fascination with hairy people...

no one comes to mind really, altough...

She might not be acting, (to my knowledge) but
she definitely learned to love a beast...

Woody Allen's wife

Now for the enchanted characters...

Lumiere:

Someone with bad french accent....
Someone that lights up the room.....uhhhm

Adam Sandler


Cogsworth:

Chubby loveable guy...always wound up about something....never on time...

Hugo from Lost


Mrs Potts:

Sweet voice, demanding presence....

Queen Latifah


Chip:

No he's a tough one...no acting skills, lousy dialogue...

Zac Efron

Lousy ideas I know, but I coulden't help myself

My honest opinion, Disney hands off, come up with some fresh material!

[megustajake]

I'd love a live-action version of the film. Something to immortalize the Broadway musical.

Just as long as Tim Burton doesn't get anywhere near the project, that is...

[slave2moonlight]

I actually really liked the live-action 101 Dalmatians. Sometimes it's just fun to see things in live-action. As for a live-action Lion King, that would seem less interesting for some reason, and probably would just be CGI anyway...

For me, I like the idea of movie versions of Broadway Shows. I actually tend to prefer them that way, as I prefer the film-style of acting while I love the songs from the Broadway shows. Besides that, a lot of people aren't able to go see Broadway shows, and those that do often wish they could revisit them. That's why I like the idea of a film version of the Broadway show. Yeah, a completely original version would be okay, but I really don't like for Disney to have multiple versions of one story (at least the Broadway version is based on the animated one). I have that fear that I'll go to Disney World and see the live-action Mad Hatter walking around instead of the animated feature style one someday, ha...

[toonaspie]

I answered 'no' to the poll, but maybe a live-action version of B&B could work with a fresh new script. I wonder how Disney will make the enchanted household object look convinsing and not stupid. But as Avatar and Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland have recently demonstrated again, wonderful things can be achieved with the aid of CGI.
Either way, If it turns out to be just a carbon-copy of the animated feature, I'm not interested.

Some questions for my fellow UDers:

How did you like the live-action version of 101 Dalmatians? Did it add anything to the orginal 1961 animated version?

How do you feel about a live-action version of "The Lion king"?

Or a Disney animated version of "Great Expectations"?

If this is an adaptation of the Broadway musical or a live action musical redo (given with Alan Menken on board)...if done right...I can imagine this being a hit with musical lovers and family crowds. I can see the over-advertising during commerical breaks of American Idol and Glee as I am typing this.

To answer your questions: No to the last two. I still prefer the animated version of 101 Dalmations over the live action...the live action one got too Home Alone for my taste but I liked some of the earlier scenes (the London scenery, Cruella's workplace) . I prefer Roger the musician vs Roger the game designer. I didn't like how there were too many animals characters (no that is NOT a dumb comment I'm fully aware of the number of Dalmations! ) I meant the non Dalmation characters and there was no cat characters (although you do see one in one scene he doesn't do anything). I love Sergeant Tibbs from the original animated film so you could see how dissappointed I was in that.

Ironic that 102 Dalmations ended up having VERY little to do with Dalmations eh?

[Escapay]

Eh.

Just a joke of course!

I know. I'm still "eh"-ish towards anything The Lion King anyway.

Ironic that 102 Dalmations ended up having VERY little to do with Dalmations eh?

Pshaw. Who cares about the other 101 dalmatians anyway? It's all about the Oddball!

albert

[Disney Duster]

I would love to see a recording of the Broadway show, but I would like to see this more cinematic version more!

I knew about this...and I wanted it to happen...

But it seems all my hopes of doing the live-action versions of the animated films I like most are going away...

I want it to be like the original, like the Broadway show, and like something new. And that's actually what it sounds like is going to happen.

The enchanted objects are such a huge part of the original that really it wouldn't be the Disney version without them. But if the movie is long enough, they can have enough development while Belle and the Beast get a lot more.

In the Broadway production, the servants transformed into objects little by little, only becoming full objects when the last petal fell. Now, if you think this only works partly because on Brodway you can have larger than life-sized objects, understandable, but there are some ideas...

In th original fairy tale, Belle's sisters actually turned into statues as punishment for their wickedness. This makes one legitimae reason for having the enchanted objects in Disney's version and the invisible servants in Cocteau's. The servants could become statues as well (which would stand still as the last petal fell), or simply be statues that can walk around, but the Lumiere statue can hold candles, Cogswoth be holdig a clock, Mrs. Potts hold a jar of tea...you know how fancy decorations often have people or animals or gargoyles or angels holding stuff like that...

Some songs form the Broadway show added a lot and some songs detracted. They could keep all the original's and some of Broadway's but cut some of Broadway's and add new ones, which sounds like what they are doing, and was exactly what I was planning on doing...

Some problems like, when Belle sings "A Change in Me", people said stopped the show inthe middle of the action. It actually doesn't, when I saw it I thought it was a perfect place to have a good moment for Belle and her father, mostly for Belle. It doesn't slow down the action unless you think of what's going to happen right after it. But in this new film, I could see Belle singing the song as Gaston and everyone comes toward the cottage. It would be Belle's passionate, happy/sad song, against the danger approaching, and the action would still be happening along with the slow song, it wouldn't stop at all. It would be kind of ironic cause Belle's singing about how she sees the world differently and the world is about to become very dark.

That's just one idea...

Hey Escapay...I want to ask. If Disney ever saw an of our ideas, they would be allowed to use them because they're just randomly on a public forum, right? They're kind of in public domain? We can't sue?

[Escapay]

Hey Escapay...I want to ask. If Disney ever saw an of our ideas, they would be allowed to use them because they're just randomly on a public forum, right? They're kind of in public domain? We can't sue?

They'd never openly admit to taking ideas from a public forum, but yes, they could potentially use and adapt ideas posted here and not necessarily credit the ones who posted them. At the same time, they could simply read ideas here, and adjust their development of a movie so it wouldn't seem similar to some of the ideas mentioned. I'd like to think, though, that the filmmakers are capable enough at creating a movie without lurking on an online forum for ideas.

albert

[ChrisLyne]

8. First Disney Animated Classic to be converted to 3D, for 20th Anniversary- Good timing! And before Aladdin proved it unprofitable all Platinums were to be reissued to IMAX theatres.

Wasn't it Lion King that proved it unprofitable? Aladdin never received an IMAX release.

As for a live action version of Beauty and the Beast - YES PLEASE!! As others have said it would be nice to have a version of the Broadway show on DVD/BR as Disney will probably never release the original.

If they are removing some of the Broadway songs and adding new ones, I really hope they leave If I Can't Love Her as it's perfect just as it is.

But if they do make changes, I really hope they give Gaston the more sinister edge he had in the animated classic. In most productions I've seen he's great in the 2nd half but in the 1st half they play him almost completely as a comic character and it just doesn't work for me.

Same for the Beast when he's "asking" Belle to dinner, they need to keep it simple like in the film, the tantrum he has in the stage version, for me, just undermines his character.

Plus - any excuse for new Menken songs

[ajmrowland]

It might grow on me..

Let's think casting, shall we?

Beast:

Unhygenic, bad breath, few real acting sequences......
monster experience..

Mike Meyers

Gaston:

Overly confident....In love with himself...

I say....Brad Pitt


Belle...

Let's see,...

bookwurm...strange fascination with hairy people...

no one comes to mind really, altough...

She might not be acting, (to my knowledge) but
she definitely learned to love a beast...

Woody Allen's wife

Now for the enchanted characters...

Lumiere:

Someone with bad french accent....
Someone that lights up the room.....uhhhm

Adam Sandler


Cogsworth:

Chubby loveable guy...always wound up about something....never on time...

Hugo from Lost


Mrs Potts:

Sweet voice, demanding presence....

Queen Latifah


Chip:

No he's a tough one...no acting skills, lousy dialogue...

Zac Efron

Lousy ideas I know, but I coulden't help myself

My honest opinion, Disney hands off, come up with some fresh material!

Okay, you got me going at Hugo.

[Sotiris]

The live-action adaptation has been shelved.

Q: We're in danger of losing an art. In Tangled, we have a proper score, a different score, one with its own identity. Yet, for you as a composer, watching what's happened with movies, you're doing stage musicals and theatre now. Presumably, there must be a reason for that?

Alan Menken: I came from theatre, of course. But yes, right now, I have nothing in the pipeline for Disney.

Q: Nothing at all?

Alan Menken: No. Snow Queen is not happening. That could turn around like that.

Q: The film version of the Beauty And The Beast Broadway musical?

Alan Menken: That was canned.

Source: http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/725326/ ... _more.html

Q: Any truth to the rumor of a live action “Beauty and the Beast” film?

Alan Menken: There was but it is now shelved. We were actually working on it though. Doug Wright had written a new Umberto and I wrote a new song for Tim Rice. Who knows it may find the light of day. But at the moment, no.

Source: http://www.mediamikes.com/2011/01/inter ... an-menken/

[avonleastories95]

Well yes and no. Yes because I think a live action version, if done right, could probably do well. But, as Cogsworth put it "If it's not Broque, don't fix it."

[Disney Duster]

I'm really, really bummed that it's canned...

And yet, I'm also kind of happy, because maybe someday I could make a live-action version of it.

And who knows, they could open that can and let it back out themselves someday!