DVDizzy.com

Home | Reviews | Schedule | Cover Art | Search The Site
DVDizzy.com Top Stories:

It is currently Thu Dec 12, 2019 11:41 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1994 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 ... 100  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:45 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure

Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 12:07 pm
Posts: 3031
Location: Spain
‘Beauty And The Beast’ Team On Giving An Old Tale A New Look – The Contenders London Video
http://deadline.com/2017/11/beauty-and- ... 202198579/


estefan wrote:
Evermore could win, but I feel one of The Greatest Showman's songs could be a strong competitor. The La La Land lyricists worked on that and it is a big lavish musical. And if Coco ends up being well received, I could also see the Lopezes winning again.

Two songs from The Greatest Showman ("The Greatest Show" and "This Is Me") are already available on Youtube. I think they are too commercial for the Academy's tastes, but probably one of the rest of the film's songs could be a competitor. The following article features those two songs as well as other early contenders for the category: http://www.awardsdaily.com/2017/11/01/g ... ontenders/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:00 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:02 am
Posts: 10338
Location: America
Disney's Divinity wrote:
I'm not surprised their critic ratings aren't very different. Cinderella hides behind the fact that it doesn't do anything to differentiate istelf among all the "Cinderella" film adaptations, but naturally it gets criticized for being empty and uninteresting (which it is). B&tB gets lambasted for changes from the original film more than anything. Neither are perfect films by any means, and I'd rather watch the animated adaptations in both cases.

I would believe this if you had proof. Even if you found one review that said Cinderella was empty or uninteresting (which it isn't and I doubt you could find in any review) that would be one sole review and not it getting cricticized for that in general as you suggest. Cinderella's certainly more different from the others in being the first straight(in both nonmusical and non-ironic or twisted senses), big-budget, live-action, color and sound retelling along with having no subplots added. The point of it was to be Cinderella without an angle, not even animation or music. Another point was it to be the definitive live-action version, which I am constantly going back and forth on it being, between that and the 1965 one. But if I had to pick, I do pick the 1965 one. Beauty and the Beast had far less to differentiate itself from it's original which it is an almost vacuous carbon copy of.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:23 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 12:26 pm
Posts: 11338
Well, just looking some of the headlines of its worst critic reviews on Metacritic:

"Cinderella is so scrubbed of personality, it's not even worth calling a mess."

"Most of Cinderella's costuming and production design takes a 'glitter first, taste second' approach that embodies the film's cotton-candy style of filmmaking: a heady sugar-rush in the moment, but empty and a little nauseating over the long haul."

"This Cinderella is all dressed up with nowhere very interesting to go."

"Clothed in a colorful mishmash of historical fashions and scored to sweeping strings, the movie is like an antique cut-crystal vase: gorgeous, fragile, empty."

I'd probably find more if I was willing to slog through the full reviews. I do remember one of the reviewers I always read had a hilarious write-up for it (I'll just quote a few lines from the first paragraph):

"Blanderella

With its new live-action Cinderella, the studio has managed to do the impossible, and portray a version of the classic fairy tale heroine who's even more of an insipid doormat than the one in its 1950 animated classic. ... This Cinderella doesn't even cry inconsolably when she's locked in an attic; she simply dances in happy little circles and resigns herself to the belief that, anyway, at least she gets to be alone with her pleasant memories now. I mean, what the actual ****."

_________________
Image
Listening to most often lately:
Kacey Musgraves ~ "Ribbons and Bows"
Kacey Musgraves & Troye Sivan ~ "Glittery"
Kacey Musgraves ~ "Christmas Makes Me Cry"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:29 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 7:29 pm
Posts: 3755
Disney's Divinity wrote:
I'm not surprised their critic ratings aren't very different. Cinderella hides behind the fact that it doesn't do anything to differentiate istelf among all the "Cinderella" film adaptations, but naturally it gets criticized for being empty and uninteresting (which it is). B&tB gets lambasted for changes from the original film more than anything. Neither are perfect films by any means, and I'd rather watch the animated adaptations in both cases.

This is definitely my issue with BATB. As long as it is compared to the other live-action films, it still wasn't close enough between the changes made to Belle and Beast's characters, and all the unnecessary sideplots and explanations added like the eternal winter, Mr. Potts, Cogsworth's wife, Agathe the Enchantress, Belle's mother, Belle's inventor skills, girls not being able to read, Gaston actually being more likable compared to the original, Beast not having as much of a temper and being able to read, the Beast's abusive father, most of the new songs, the magic book, and of course Belle's dress.

Disney Duster wrote:
Disney's Divinity wrote:
I'm not surprised their critic ratings aren't very different. Cinderella hides behind the fact that it doesn't do anything to differentiate istelf among all the "Cinderella" film adaptations, but naturally it gets criticized for being empty and uninteresting (which it is). B&tB gets lambasted for changes from the original film more than anything. Neither are perfect films by any means, and I'd rather watch the animated adaptations in both cases.

I would believe this if you had proof. Even if you found one review that said Cinderella was empty or uninteresting (which it isn't and I doubt you could find in any review) that would be one sole review and not it getting cricticized for that in general as you suggest. Cinderella's certainly more different from the others in being the first straight(in both nonmusical and non-ironic or twisted senses), big-budget, live-action, color and sound retelling along with having no subplots added. The point of it was to be Cinderella without an angle, not even animation or music. Another point was it to be the definitive live-action version, which I am constantly going back and forth on it being, between that and the 1965 one. But if I had to pick, I do pick the 1965 one. Beauty and the Beast had far less to differentiate itself from it's original which it is an almost vacuous carbon copy of.

Vacuous, yes. But I wouldn't call it a complete carbon copy. If it had done that, there wouldn't have been so many flaws, despite Disney's attempt to "fix" the material and "upgrade" it to match the new era. Not to mention, we'd have an actual ballgown then.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:30 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 7:29 pm
Posts: 3755
Disney's Divinity wrote:
"Blanderella

With its new live-action Cinderella, the studio has managed to do the impossible, and portray a version of the classic fairy tale heroine who's even more of an insipid doormat than the one in its 1950 animated classic. ... This Cinderella doesn't even cry inconsolably when she's locked in an attic; she simply dances in happy little circles and resigns herself to the belief that, anyway, at least she gets to be alone with her pleasant memories now. I mean, what the actual ****."


This is actually pretty funny. And I'll admit, that I initially agreed with the part about her having less agency compared to her animated counterpart, until I saw the deleted scenes which explained Ella's state of mind in this scene, at least to me.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:09 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:02 am
Posts: 10338
Location: America
Oh, Disney's Divinity, you provided the proof! Good job! So some people did think it was empty and, well not uninteresting, but not very interesting. I found Beauty and the Beast to be empty but Cinderella is not empty and uninteresting. If you say it is, we disagree.

The scene with Cinderella singing to herself in the attic is beautiful and I wouldn't change it. It's only a problem if she actually could have gotten out of there herself. It's clear the film says she has no way to do that. The review site I most care about hailed that scene. And no, I won't be saying which review site here. It's a site I don't want just anyone knowing about.

JeanGreyForever, I was generalizing when I said it was a carbon copy. What I mean is it went through all the story beats, motions, even most of the lines that the original had. It was like a less good copy of the movie. I know, that's so weird, it was so much like the original, but not enough. It was like a shell of the original movie. I would have chosen different actors, different look for the Beast (not CGI), different dress, and removed the dang walking around in the woods with Gaston and the pointless magic book that magically transports you to nowhere in story or character development.

JeanGreyForever wrote:
This is actually pretty funny. And I'll admit, that I initially agreed with the part about her having less agency compared to her animated counterpart, until I saw the deleted scenes which explained Ella's state of mind in this scene, at least to me.

I don't see why the deleted scenes were needed for that scene to make sense. I'm curious now.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:52 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 12:26 pm
Posts: 11338
Disney Duster wrote:
Oh, Disney's Divinity, you provided the proof! Good job!
I was going to find a Lassie .gif, but too much effort.

Quote:
I found Beauty and the Beast to be empty but Cinderella is not empty and uninteresting. If you say it is, we disagree.
Then best not to write the underlined as a statement of fact.

Quote:
The scene with Cinderella singing to herself in the attic is beautiful and I wouldn't change it. It's only a problem if she actually could have gotten out of there herself. It's clear the film says she has no way to do that. The review site I most care about hailed that scene. And no, I won't be saying which review site here. It's a site I don't want just anyone knowing about.

I'm so disappointed now!

_________________
Image
Listening to most often lately:
Kacey Musgraves ~ "Ribbons and Bows"
Kacey Musgraves & Troye Sivan ~ "Glittery"
Kacey Musgraves ~ "Christmas Makes Me Cry"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:34 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 7:29 pm
Posts: 3755
Disney Duster wrote:

JeanGreyForever, I was generalizing when I said it was a carbon copy. What I mean is it went through all the story beats, motions, even most of the lines that the original had. It was like a less good copy of the movie. I know, that's so weird, it was so much like the original, but not enough. It was like a shell of the original movie. I would have chosen different actors, different look for the Beast (not CGI), different dress, and removed the dang walking around in the woods with Gaston and the pointless magic book that magically transports you to nowhere in story or character development.

JeanGreyForever wrote:
This is actually pretty funny. And I'll admit, that I initially agreed with the part about her having less agency compared to her animated counterpart, until I saw the deleted scenes which explained Ella's state of mind in this scene, at least to me.

I don't see why the deleted scenes were needed for that scene to make sense. I'm curious now.


Oh ok. I just wish it literally been a carbon copy like I said earlier because the film wouldn't be so flawed then. I completely forgot about the woods scene with Gaston. It was clear they put that scene in, because they realized that Gaston was too likable up to now and they needed the audience to hate him. Hence why he lives Maurice to die. Also to tie in Agathe again, which felt unnecessary.

The deleted scene I specifically meant was the "Dear Kit" one where she writes a letter to the prince. In the animated movie, after she is locked up, she cries in despair until she realizes her mice friends can help her. Then she does her best to assist them to help her out rather than sit passively unaware of her surroundings. She even contributes the idea of bringing Bruno in which is what ultimately stops Lucifer and gets her out. So when I saw the live-action movie, I was shocked that Ella is just singing to herself without a care in the world. Her friends are even trying to help her get the attention of the soldiers/guards outside, but she's utterly in her own world. I thought her behavior was very odd and I didn't understand why she seemed to have given up until I saw the "Dear Kit" scene. There we realize that she did try to reach out to the prince. She confessed her feelings for him and exposed herself for who she really is. When she never received a reply, she must have thought that the prince didn't love her anymore for not being a princess or noble maiden, but a servant girl. She must have lost her last hope for any salvation, both, because now she's never going to get out of her stepfamily's clutches, but also her heart is broken and she will never likely find that happiness again. So that scene now paints her as an almost broken woman who is tenderly clutching to the few moments of happiness she had as a child, because she thinks there is no hope. Not even the stepfamily destroying her dress could lead her to that point (in the 1950 movie, she claims there is nothing left to believe in but the fairy godmother obviously says that isn't true). But the prince's rejection leads her to that point, so it makes sense that she can't be bothered at that point if there is someone outside her window or not. She's content with her lot in life now because she thinks there is nothing else out there for her. So suddenly her utter defeat makes sense to me.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:43 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:02 am
Posts: 10338
Location: America
Disney's Divinity wrote:
Quote:
I found Beauty and the Beast to be empty but Cinderella is not empty and uninteresting. If you say it is, we disagree.
Then best not to write the underlined as a statement of fact.

Then don't write it being the opposite as a fact either like you did here:
Disney's Divinity wrote:
...but naturally it gets criticized for being empty and uninteresting (which it is).


A quick search had me find other people calling the live-action Beauty and the Beast empty as well. I found "'Beauty and the Beast' (2017) Is Beautiful and Beastly, But Empty" as a headline for one review and "Very little is new, apart from some superfluous backstories and the occasional household object. But everything old feels empty and dull" from yet another review. Doesn't take much to find such.

JeanGreyForever, I never realized that scene might have been used to make Gaston unlikable. I thought he was unlikable enough before, personally. But yes, it was also to tie Agathe in which was uneeded. As for the live-action Cinderella locked in the attic, you wrote a really lovely-written reason for why she acted that way, but I was confused because there is a scene before this which unfortunately means none of that is true. The scene between "Dear Kit" and getting locked in the attic is the prince declaring he will marry the girl who reveals she was the one in glass slippers, and we see Ella as becoming very happy from this until it is shattered by Lady Tremaine quite literally (glass slipper gets broken). Even though your explanation makes sense and was lovely, I prefer the one we have. Ella knows the prince loves her, and she thinks she is preventing Lady Tremaine from getting to him, and she doesn't have a way out (well, that's supposed to be the case) and so all she has is the ability to make herself happy with her dream world as she dies.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:24 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 12:26 pm
Posts: 11338
I wasn't the one who wanted to give a lecture. I wasn't the one who asked for "proof" either.

_________________
Image
Listening to most often lately:
Kacey Musgraves ~ "Ribbons and Bows"
Kacey Musgraves & Troye Sivan ~ "Glittery"
Kacey Musgraves ~ "Christmas Makes Me Cry"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:47 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:02 am
Posts: 10338
Location: America
I presented the Metacritic scores, asked which film was rated higher, talked about how they were criticized, and gave my opinion. Then you...

You know what, whatever. Beauty and the Beast isn't a bad movie. It isn't empty. I wish I could have seen (been able to tell?) the supposedly so amazing acting it made a little girl, who was watching them make the movie, cry when Dan Stevens was doing the ballroom dancing faces/emoting, but who knows what she even was feeling and why. Cinderella isn't bad either, and it's not empty. There.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:43 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 7:29 pm
Posts: 3755
Disney Duster wrote:
JeanGreyForever, I never realized that scene might have been used to make Gaston unlikable. I thought he was unlikable enough before, personally. But yes, it was also to tie Agathe in which was uneeded. As for the live-action Cinderella locked in the attic, you wrote a really lovely-written reason for why she acted that way, but I was confused because there is a scene before this which unfortunately means none of that is true. The scene between "Dear Kit" and getting locked in the attic is the prince declaring he will marry the girl who reveals she was the one in glass slippers, and we see Ella as becoming very happy from this until it is shattered by Lady Tremaine quite literally (glass slipper gets broken). Even though your explanation makes sense and was lovely, I prefer the one we have. Ella knows the prince loves her, and she thinks she is preventing Lady Tremaine from getting to him, and she doesn't have a way out (well, that's supposed to be the case) and so all she has is the ability to make herself happy with her dream world as she dies.


I actually found Gaston super likable in the live-action film at first. He's a little vain but not nearly as much as in the original film, and he's much kinder to Belle. Maybe it's an act, but he doesn't dismiss her reading, and actually shows an interest in her book. He even helps her from the schoolmaster. Even his threat that she'll end up like Agathe if she doesn't marry, was true for the time in most cases. I actually think Belle comes off as unnecessarily rude and callous, although that may just be Emma Watson's acting. I never get that feeling from Paige O'Hara's Belle though. So the forest scene was necessary for me anyway to see his darker side, and I know a lot of people felt that as well, because it isn't evident otherwise.

Maybe I need to watch the film again, but I don't remember Ella learning that the prince is seeking out the girl with the glass slipper. I just remember Lady Tremaine finding the glass slipper and telling Ella that she needs to go to the prince and confirm her identity so she'll be come queen and Lady Tremaine will get power. Without the deleted scene, it seems as though Ella's isolation is also to protect the prince, but it seems unnecessary for her to completely sacrifice herself by living out the rest of her life in the attic. I'll need to watch those scenes again to remember the exact sequence of them, but that ending was one of my main two issues with the film, because I didn't expect Ella to be so passive as to simply accept her fate by the end. The other issue I had with the film was the dress tearing scene just because the animated scene is so wonderfully dramatic unlike the live-action one.

Disney Duster wrote:
You know what, whatever. Beauty and the Beast isn't a bad movie. It isn't empty. I wish I could have seen (been able to tell?) the supposedly so amazing acting it made a little girl, who was watching them make the movie, cry when Dan Stevens was doing the ballroom dancing faces/emoting, but who knows what she even was feeling and why. Cinderella isn't bad either, and it's not empty. There.

I wouldn't go much by the reactions of a small child. You could probably show them a direct-to-video Disney sequel and they'd elicit the same reaction. I know when I was little, I never noticed any drop of quality between the sequels of Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, Pocahontas, Beauty and the Beast, Tarzan, Cinderella, and The Swan Princess compared to the originals. Also, for the most part, the live-action BATB is a visual spectacle so it's hard not to be taken in by the film, especially as a child. Every time I watch it, despite the flaws, the gorgeous set designs and costumes win me over (well except for Belle's costume). I think just changing the casting of Emma Watson would have greatly improved much of the film's flaws. The acting, dress, and singing at least.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:34 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:02 am
Posts: 10338
Location: America
Gaston I found to be more likable in the original, actually. He didn't punch someone and leave them for dead. Even if the live-action Gaston didn't do that, I think I'd still like the original more. I can't explain why though. I guess he just seems like an oaf who doesn't put on a facade (other than his looks). I don't remember him helping Belle with the schoolmaster...?

Yes, there is a scene where King Kit (lol) makes a proclamation for the girl with the glass slippers to present herself and he will ask her hand in marriage before Ella gets locked up. I get why you don't like the way Ella was passive in the end and how the dress-ripping scene wasn't as dramatic and traumatizing. I don't have problems with them, though.

Yea, I guess a little kid would cry at many things lol. I agree Emma Watson probably wasn't the best choice for Belle. I like the live-action Beauty and the Beast for the design and music. I actually like Emma Watson's singing. But yes, that one dress, what a missed opportunity.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:52 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 7:29 pm
Posts: 3755
Disney Duster wrote:
Gaston I found to be more likable in the original, actually. He didn't punch someone and leave them for dead. Even if the live-action Gaston didn't do that, I think I'd still like the original more. I can't explain why though. I guess he just seems like an oaf who doesn't put on a facade (other than his looks). I don't remember him helping Belle with the schoolmaster...?


That's why I said that I found Gaston likable until the forest scene because that's when he attacks Maurice and leaves him to the wolves. I know a lot of people complained that Gaston actually comes off as charming and it isn't until halfway through the movie (the forest scene) that the filmmakers bother to make him look like a bad guy.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:43 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 12:26 pm
Posts: 11338
This may be off-topic, but since 80% of this thread has revolved around Cinderella anyway…

I just saw the 2016 B&tB earlier today. I have to say I enjoyed it very much. I would put it after both of Disney’s B&tB films, but I definitely want to buy this one on Blu-ray at some point, too. Where I do think the 2016 film definitely succeeds over the 2017 Disney film is the Beast’s CGI design—the face certainly. I almost wish the two could be combined somehow: 2017’s hulking figure with the 2016 film’s face. I was surprised that even in the 2016 film the heroine has some bite to her; I always thought that was mostly unique to Disney’s Belle. Both films have strong casts, imo. 2017 would win that fight with me, mostly because the Disney film has a larger cast anyway. The Beast’s human actor in the French film reminded me of Hugh Jackman to a degree. I remember that being someone who I thought would be a good Beast back during the casting phase for the Disney film, if he had been younger, so it’s nice to see a similar-looking actor in another adaptation of the role.

_________________
Image
Listening to most often lately:
Kacey Musgraves ~ "Ribbons and Bows"
Kacey Musgraves & Troye Sivan ~ "Glittery"
Kacey Musgraves ~ "Christmas Makes Me Cry"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:22 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 7:29 pm
Posts: 3755
Disney's Divinity wrote:
This may be off-topic, but since 80% of this thread has revolved around Cinderella anyway…
I just saw the 2016 B&tB earlier today. I have to say I enjoyed it very much. I would put it after both of Disney’s B&tB films, but I definitely want to buy this one on Blu-ray at some point, too. Where I do think the 2016 film definitely succeeds over the 2017 Disney film is the Beast’s CGI design—the face certainly. I almost wish the two could be combined somehow: 2017’s hulking figure with the 2016 film’s face. I was surprised that even in the 2016 film the heroine has some bite to her; I always thought that was mostly unique to Disney’s Belle. Both films have strong casts, imo. 2017 would win that fight with me, mostly because the Disney film has a larger cast anyway. The Beast’s human actor in the French film reminded me of Hugh Jackman to a degree. I remember that being someone who I thought would be a good Beast back during the casting phase for the Disney film, if he had been younger, so it’s nice to see a similar-looking actor in another adaptation of the role.


The thread title says live-action Beauty and the Beast and this film also is a live-action Beauty and the Beast, even if it isn't the Disney one, so I'm sure we're fine. Especially since we're comparing the two films.

I think you are referring to the 2014 French film, but correct me if I'm wrong. I liked it a lot too and while it has some flaws as well, I actually think its strengths are stronger than anything in the 2017 BATB. Mainly because most of 2017 BATB's strengths really come from the 1991 film. The costumes were absolutely breathtaking in the 2014 BATB, for both Belle and the Beast. The castle with foliage growing all over it is stunning and I really love how they incorporated nature into the interior as well, such as the pool in Belle's room that ends up being pivotal to the climax of the film. As you pointed out, Belle isn't depicted as passively as I was afraid she might be, which was refreshing. The film captures my full attention as long as Belle is in the castle. The beginning and end, so basically any scene involving Belle's family especially her brothers and their debts, are very boring and bring the film down. I don't mind the giant statues in the film's ending, but I didn't care at all for Perducas. I did like his fortune teller girlfriend though. Vincent Cassel (the actor who played the Beast) is a great actor and one of the most famous ones in France. I've seen lots of films with him and he's always great. Same with Lea Seydoux (who played Belle).

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 2:41 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 12:26 pm
Posts: 11338
JeanGreyForever wrote:
Mainly because most of 2017 BATB's strengths really come from the 1991 film.
True, but what was strong there is naturally still strong in a different movie. I also loved their Gaston, the scene with the servants "dying," the castle's design, and the music (including the new songs) of course.

Quote:
The costumes were absolutely breathtaking in the 2014 BATB, for both Belle and the Beast. The castle with foliage growing all over it is stunning and I really love how they incorporated nature into the interior as well, such as the pool in Belle's room that ends up being pivotal to the climax of the film.
I agree, I loved her red dress and both the suit the Beast was wearing when they were dancing. I didn't care for the pink dress at the end though. Since I brought it up, I also have to say that both the dancing scenes and then the two of them out on the ice when she was running away were both so romantic. I felt like the film didn't have much buildup, that it jumps from 1 to 60 pretty fast, but I did enjoy those scenes--and that had a great deal to do with how effective the CGI Beast's face was designed. I remember a regular topic with Disney's animated film over the years has been that the human Beast didn't live up to his beast design, I have to say the man they chose to play the Beast didn't fail to bring out the same reaction from me when the character was human as when he was a beast.

Quote:
As you pointed out, Belle isn't depicted as passively as I was afraid she might be, which was refreshing. The film captures my full attention as long as Belle is in the castle. The beginning and end, so basically any scene involving Belle's family especially her brothers and their debts, are very boring and bring the film down. I don't mind the giant statues in the film's ending, but I didn't care at all for Perducas. I did like his fortune teller girlfriend though. Vincent Cassel (the actor who played the Beast) is a great actor and one of the most famous ones in France. I've seen lots of films with him and he's always great. Same with Lea Seydoux (who played Belle).

I agree with all this. The siblings were alright, but they weren't interesting enough to center so much around them in the climax. The castle was gorgeous. Loved the fortune teller--particularly when she's dying and she says her lover's fate will be worse than her own. Besides Belle being less passive, is the mob breaking into the castle an idea also stolen from the Disney version or was there a breakin in the book plot, too?

I don't think the plot with the beast and his first wife is like it is in the book either, right? I thought he angered some fairy who was in love with him and that he and the heroine were cousins or something?

_________________
Image
Listening to most often lately:
Kacey Musgraves ~ "Ribbons and Bows"
Kacey Musgraves & Troye Sivan ~ "Glittery"
Kacey Musgraves ~ "Christmas Makes Me Cry"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:23 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 7:29 pm
Posts: 3755
Disney's Divinity wrote:
JeanGreyForever wrote:
Mainly because most of 2017 BATB's strengths really come from the 1991 film.
True, but what was strong there is naturally still strong in a different movie. I also loved their Gaston, the scene with the servants "dying," the castle's design, and the music (including the new songs) of course.

I loved the 2017 BATB's takes on Gaston and LeFou. Different, but still true to the original character, while being even more fleshed out especially in LeFou's case. The scene with the servants dying was heartbreaking and I think a really good addition/change since most people were probably not expecting that. I'm so-so on the castle's design. I liked the shape and how so much of the corriders and walkways were outside (the scene where Belle is being led to her room), because it adds an element of danger. But at the same time, I don't think it managed to top, or at least match the original castle for me. I'm not sure why I feel that way, but maybe with another rewatch, I'll feel differently. Especially since I'm sure many details escaped me.

Disney's Divinity wrote:
JeanGreyForever wrote:
The costumes were absolutely breathtaking in the 2014 BATB, for both Belle and the Beast. The castle with foliage growing all over it is stunning and I really love how they incorporated nature into the interior as well, such as the pool in Belle's room that ends up being pivotal to the climax of the film.
I agree, I loved her red dress and both the suit the Beast was wearing when they were dancing. I didn't care for the pink dress at the end though. Since I brought it up, I also have to say that both the dancing scenes and then the two of them out on the ice when she was running away were both so romantic. I felt like the film didn't have much buildup, that it jumps from 1 to 60 pretty fast, but I did enjoy those scenes--and that had a great deal to do with how effective the CGI Beast's face was designed. I remember a regular topic with Disney's animated film over the years has been that the human Beast didn't live up to his beast design, I have to say the man they chose to play the Beast didn't fail to bring out the same reaction from me when the character was human as when he was a beast.

My favorite dress was her white/ivory dress that she wore when she first meets the Beast, but white is my favorite color so I'm partial. I'm not usually a fan of green, but I adored the emerald green shade of her second dress plus the sleeves. Her teal gown was gorgeous as well. And the red dress at the end had a brilliant color to it, although the design was slightly odd for me. All of Belle's costumes in her home didn't appeal much to me, but they're all Victorian era clothing so I'm not surprised about that. I did like how they shifted the setting from the usual Baroque time period to the Victorian era.

I loved the dancing scenes as well. The scene where Belle agrees to dance with the Beast in exchange for the chance to go home was beautifully choreographed and I love the choice of music. I think it did justice to the film and story, unlike the 2017 BATB's ballroom scene which was very forgetable especially when compared to the ballroom scene from the 1991 BATB as well as 2015 live-action Cinderella.

The scenes in the Beast's castle go by fast for me, but maybe because those are the parts I enjoyed most. I actually feel the buildup to Belle getting to the castle takes very long, but that's probably just because I'm very bored in those opening scenes. The part with Belle's father and brother in town takes up too much time, and it's not interesting enough for the length.

It's funny, because the CGI for the Beast was actually criticized in this film, just like in the 2017 BATB film. CGI is something that never bothers me as much as others, so I never felt anything off in either film for the most part. Except that I found the Beast's design in the 2017 film to be somewhat drab. It just doesn't equal the animated version.

Disney's Divinity wrote:
JeanGreyForever wrote:
As you pointed out, Belle isn't depicted as passively as I was afraid she might be, which was refreshing. The film captures my full attention as long as Belle is in the castle. The beginning and end, so basically any scene involving Belle's family especially her brothers and their debts, are very boring and bring the film down. I don't mind the giant statues in the film's ending, but I didn't care at all for Perducas. I did like his fortune teller girlfriend though. Vincent Cassel (the actor who played the Beast) is a great actor and one of the most famous ones in France. I've seen lots of films with him and he's always great. Same with Lea Seydoux (who played Belle).


I agree with all this. The siblings were alright, but they weren't interesting enough to center so much around them in the climax. The castle was gorgeous. Loved the fortune teller--particularly when she's dying and she says her lover's fate will be worse than her own. Besides Belle being less passive, is the mob breaking into the castle an idea also stolen from the Disney version or was there a breakin in the book plot, too?

I don't think the plot with the beast and his first wife is like it is in the book either, right? I thought he angered some fairy who was in love with him and that he and the heroine were cousins or something?

The mob scene I think was based off of Disney's film. There is no such scene in the original fairy tale and there's no action in there as well. This was around the type that other films like Jack the Giant Killer came out, so I think they were trying to capitalize on the big Hollywood ending battle scenes with lots of CGI and sword fights and stuff. What I especially liked about Belle in the film is that although she's also less passive like the Disney Belle, she's not an exact copy of her. This Belle is wittier and even flirtatious with the Beast and she likes to tease him and poke fun at him with her jokes. He actually seems more annoyed with her most of the time, considering how often he tells her to shut up.

The fairy tale just had a very old fairy who was the prince's godmother or aunt of sorts, because she was friends with the prince's mother. She raised the prince for a while and then wanted to marry him, and when she's refused by the prince's mother, she takes revenge by cursing him into beast form. Belle at the end of the story turns out to be his cousin because her birth father is actually a human king who is the brother of the prince's mother. I remember that I posted a long summary of this fairy tale somewhere in this thread after I first read it. At least, I think it was in this thread. It was something Beauty and the Beast related in the past year, so it must have been in this thread if you want to read a full recap of the fairy tale. It's certainly interesting and very odd.

The first wife, or princess, was invented for this film, but the theory is that she was Belle's past life. I didn't notice that at first until I read a theory on IMDB and later fanpop, about it. I can't remember off the top of my head, but one hint is that the princess' blood is the only thing that creates roses around the castle. Later, Belle's blood also does the same thing. Belle gets assistance from the Forest God, and I can't see why he would help some random girl marry the man who was once married to his daughter, unless perhaps this girl was a reincarnation of his daughter. There's also the fact that in the first ballroom scene, Belle's swapping in for the princess in some shots, as if the two are interchangable. There were a lot of complaints about how the couple's love story is very unrealistic in this film because of how quick the scenes go and how badly the Beast treats her, so this reincarnation theory also explains then why the two somehow still are in love, because they remember having been in love before subconsciously. It's a romantic notion, and I like stories with reincarnation in it, especially when it's two lovers who are fated to meet over and over (sort of like Aida in the musical), so I accept the theory.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:29 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:02 am
Posts: 10338
Location: America
Ok so Divinity you did mean the 2014 one. Yea, like JeanGreyForever, I like the 2014 more, but I agree with you the 2017 one is technically better (owing it all, as JeanGreyForever said, to the 1991 film's story and characters). But the beast CGI/design is better in the 2014 one for sure.

Haven't you seen Black Swan? That has the 2014 prince in it.

This may be a perfect time for me to say I don't like the 2017 film having the servants all become inanimate objects. For one it's a worse fate than the Beast has and he was worse than them, and second of all it detracts from the sadness we should be feeling for Belle and the Beast at the end, which...Emma and the director didn't make as sad as it should have been, when people usually cry at the ending of the 1991 one. Not me, but it takes a lot to make me emotional.

That red dress in the 2014 film was nice but if only it didn't have those dang choral reef things. What was romantic on the ice? My one friend who was watching that scene with me was like "When they become a couple, will they look back fondly on that scene and go 'remember when I chased you and practically raped you?'"

I don't see why either of you thought Belle would be passive. In the original tale she reads, takes care of the house when her sisters won't because she wants to, goes to the beast in her father's place because she wants to, and I believe asks to see her family and still breaks the spell herself, and realizes "it's kindess that makes a woman happy!" There is no mob in the original story or the prince and his first wife. Actually if someone ripped off a "mob" breaking into the beast's castle it's Disney's 1991 one ripping off Jean Cocteau's. But I don't consider it ripping off. I think I gave out wrong information on why the beast gets cursed in the original story. It wasn't because a fairy was in love with him and he refused her. It is because the prince doesn't let a fairy in from a storm, much like the 1991 one's opening.

That is at least according to the story these versions of Beauty and the Beast are based on. I may be wrong about some of it, or some of what they used may be from the earlier version of Beauty and the Beast that all these are based on, as in Beauty and the Beast by Jeanne-Marie LePrince de Beaumont being based on a story of the same name by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve. JeanGreyForever talks about the Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve story, not the one these films are closer to. And I don't accept the reincarnation theory, but that is my opinion. I consider the blood forming a rose to be the love and the curse combining as the God of the Forest said a woman can save him, and that this is the same reason the God allows Belle to get to back to the beast.

_________________
Image


Last edited by Disney Duster on Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:57 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 7:29 pm
Posts: 3755
Disney Duster wrote:
Ok so Divinity you did mean the 2014 one. Yea, like JeanGreyForever, I like the 2014 more, but I agree with you the 2017 one is technically better (owing it all, as JeanGreyForever said, to the 1991 film's story and characters). But the beast CGI/design is better in the 2014 one for sure.

Haven't you seen Black Swan? That has the 2014 prince in it.

This may be a perfect time for me to say I don't like the 2017 film having the servants all become inanimate objects. For one it's a worse fate than the Beast has and he was worse than them, and second of all it detracts from the sadness we should be feeling for Belle and the Beast at the end, which...Emma and the director didn't make as sad as it should have been, when people usually cry at the ending of the 1991 one. Not me, but it takes a lot to make me emotional.

That red dress in the 2014 film was nice but if only it didn't have those dang choral reef things. What was romantic on the ice? My one friend who was watching that scene with me was like "When they become a couple, will they look back fondly on that scene and go 'remember when I chased you and practically raped you?'"

I don't see why either of you thought Belle would be passive. In the original tale she reads, takes care of the house when her sisters won't because she wants to, goes to the beast in her father's place because she wants to, and I believe asks to see her family and still breaks the spell herself, and realizes "it's kindess that makes a woman happy!" There is no mob in the original story or the prince and his first wife. Actually if someone ripped off a "mob" breaking into the beast's castle it's Disney's 1991 one ripping off Jean Cocteau's. But I don't consider it ripping off. I think I gave out wrong information on why the beast gets cursed in the original story. It wasn't because a fairy was in love with him and he refused her. It is because the prince doesn't let a fairy in from a storm, much like the 1991 one's opening.

That is at least according to the story these versions of Beauty and the Beast are based on. I may be wrong about some of it, or some of what they used may be from the earlier version of Beauty and the Beast that all these are based on, as in Beauty and the Beast by Jeanne-Marie LePrince de Beaumont being based on a story of the same name by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve. JeanGreyForever talks about the Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve story, not the one these films are closer to. And I don't accept the reincarnation theory, but that is my opinion. I consider the blood forming a rose to be the love and the curse combining as the God of the Forest said a woman can save him, and that this is the same reason the God allows Belle to get to back the beast.


I liked the scene because it was unexpected. Everyone coming into the film is going to expect a happy ending and that Belle's declaration of love will revive and transform the Beast into a prince, so at that point, there's little surprise left. Having the objects transform was heartbreaking and give viewers a new twist on an ending that would otherwise have been predictable (not that predictable is a bad thing in this case). The objects suffer as much as the Beast, so I don't mind having my attention diverted to them. Especially since Emma Watson was standing there blankly anyway, so there's no reason to put the camera back on her face. I would blame the ending being robbed of any pathos on Emma's acting personally. That and many people complained that the transformation was rushed and should have been drawn out more.

Belle wasn't passive in the original fairy tale for her time, but she would still be considered outdated today. The scene where the prince's mother refuses to have him marry Belle, because she's not royalty, would especially not look good today, if it ever did. I quite liked Belle's playful nature in this film. I suppose Gaston storming the castle could be based off of Avenant in the 1946 BATB, but that film has no mob since it's just Avenant. So I guess what they really took from it was a suitor storming the castle, and since he would easily be taken out by all the enchanted objects, Disney give him the full support of the villagers. So the 2014 film could be based off of either the 1991 or 1946 film then with that ending.

The original Beauty and the Beast story was created by Madame de Villeneuve as you noted. Hence why the village in the 2017 film is called Villeneuve. Her version is more like a novella than the typical very short fairy tale and has many chapters. The first few are what people normally expect from the story, while the remaining chapters are centered on the various characters' backstories. In this version, the prince is cursed by his guardian fairy because she wants to marry him and his mother refuses this. He's actually the victim in it. Beaumont's version of Beauty and the Beast is the more well known one because she shortened the story and took out the extraneous characters and backstories. I know the prince mentions being cursed by a fairy in this version, but I don't remember the exact details. I think she was just a wicked fairy but no other reasoning is given. I've never heard of any version where the prince is cursed for not letting in a fairy from the storm except in Disney's. That was the first version where the Beast was cursed because of his bad behavior, whereas every other version had him as innocent as Sleeping Beauty when she's cursed.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1994 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 ... 100  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: disneyboy20022 and 29 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group