DVDizzy.com

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

It is currently Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:32 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1984 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 2:00 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:02 am
Posts: 9834
Location: America
My parents block my internet form deviantart so I can't see the pictures, but I've seen shoomlah's and I'm guessing the second picture was this?:
Image

Anyway, peplum is...well, after seeing what modern peplum's look like, just really short skirts attached to tops, I just have a hard time believing that one to be the right word. But the word came from 1670 before Cendrillon was written...so...maybe. I wonder what a 1600's peplum looked like?

If you look at Cinderella's and her stepsister's ballgowns, all three have what I would call bustles, and it's just that Cinderella's is split in two. I made a picture showing the girls' gowns from their sides, and judge for yourself if you think they look similar or not:
Image

I also added this sketch to show Cinderella's dress in full:
Image

Shoomlah's pictures, which she even admits herself, are just what she thinks are historically accurate. For Cinderella, she just thought the hoopskirt look that Cinderella's dress has placed her in the mid-19th century. But the sleeves, hair, and whatever it is on Cinderella's hips looks way more like the late 19th century period, don't you think? I mean, in the picture I provided of the Victorian and Edwardian fashion, don'tyou think the woman in red looks more like Cinderella than the usual 1860's woman?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:36 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 7:29 pm
Posts: 2750
I forgot that you can't see Deviantart. But yeah, the picture you posted is the one I meant. I've heard people call the petal pointed thing at the top of Aurora's skirt peplum too, but it was just a random fan so I wouldn't put too much weight into it actually being that.

Are bustles split into two though? I'm not that familiar with Victorian fashion so I don't know for sure, but I've never seen one split into two. The only other Disney example of a bustle I can think of is Jane's yellow dress which also clearly looks like a bustle. Concept art has her in a more Edwardian dress like what Lady Tremaine wears.

I agree that the picture you provided of the woman in red has a resemblance to Cinderella's dress. Interestingly enough, I found a link that goes into the fashion of Cinderella (and some other princesses).
http://www.frockflicks.com/disney-princ ... 50-part-2/

Apparently the skirt is like a hoop skirt from the 1700s and 1850s, but without the actual hoop (since Cinderella's dress just has petticoats to make it fuller). Like you, the writer believes that the poofy things on Cinderella's dress are a bustle or at least something that is a prototype of it. So you might be onto something here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2018 4:20 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:02 am
Posts: 9834
Location: America
Peplum's didn't even exist in the time of Disney's Sleeping Beauty, lol, so like you said I think that was just one person's speculation (well, two people, because I own a Disney Dolls book that calls it a peplum, too).

Bustles were not ever split in two. But there is no picture with anything like Cinderella's hip swags split in two that I have ever seen ever, not even something from the 1860's like shoomlah claims Cinderella's dress is from. If I want to be totally honest, there are instances of swags split in three, like the retrousse 1700's dress and an 1870's dress which I will show here (well they are all 1870's dresses with...um...bustles?):
Image

But the swags split in two is a Disney unique deisgn. And I remember liking Jane's dress as a kid because of the bustle, lol.

I love Frock Flicks! I discovered them just a few years ago! But even they aren't completely right about everything. Cinderella's dress has fullness in the sides and back in the image of her at her side, like in the sketch in the post I made just before this one. And fullness in the back further indicates a bustle. Shoomlah thinks Cinderella has a hoopskirt that makes the dress full all the way around. I think that is possible, but that everything else she did was wrong. I think Cinderella wears an 1880's bustle dress and hairdo, just with a wider, fuller skirt. I also hate the stripes she gave Cinderella. But Frock Flicks is probably right about the petticoats, which gave dresses fullness all the way around.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:51 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 7:29 pm
Posts: 2750
That Disney dolls book sounds interesting. What book is that?

The sort of tri-bustle/swag reminds me of the Fairy Tale Designer Cinderella doll that come with the prince. That line was generally a more historically accurate version of the princesses so that could point towards an 1870s timeline for Cinderella.
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/jQgAAOSw ... s-l640.jpg

I also get similar vibes to the back of Belle's live-action dress. It doesn't have the three swags exactly but the ruffles and folds of the back of the dress somewhat resemble the part in the very back of that tri-swag dress.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/04/16/29 ... 4f4b87.jpg

Is her dress really full in the back though? I feel like it's a parallel to the front and in the concept sketch you posted, it's really the sides of the dress poofing out, not the back. It just appears that way from the angle to me. Maybe that's why I also don't really see Cinderella's dress as having a bustle because I don't view the back of her dress as being especially full or poofy. I'm more inclined to believe in the petticoats over the hoop skirt, much like you. I don't think any of the princeses wear a hoop skirt or anything like that actually because their skirts flow too much. Cinderella, Aurora, and Belle in particular because in their ballroom scenes, their skirts are quite flowy. Ariel's pink dress is the poofiest and we never see her skirts flowing around so maybe she wears a hoop skirt or something like that.

Frock Flicks is one of the more accurate historical DP sources I've found, in part, because she also compares the time period that the film came out. Shoomlah gets a lot of importance because she started the trend of the historical DPs, but there's a lot about her work that I don't find accurate, namely Aurora and Jasmine. I guess maybe Cinderella now as well, although I'm still inclined to believe that the prologue for the film takes place in the 1960s. Frock Flicks says that as well and the dresses that young Cinderella wears are more accurate to that time period. That actually means that young Cinderella was a child at the same time that Alice in Wonderland would have been taking place.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 1:03 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:02 am
Posts: 9834
Location: America
The Disney Doll book I have is this one: https://www.amazon.com/Disney-Dolls-Ide ... 0875885411

It's a cool book if you really are into Disney dolls. I sort of am but there's no way I'll collect anymore until I live on my own with a great income. But if we're on the subject, check this out: https://www.dailydot.com/parsec/japanes ... k-auction/ In the back, she has something similar to the Fairy Tale Designer doll and Belle's dress.

I think a swag has to be round, so I don't think the Fairy Tale Designer doll or Belle's dress have swags (in the back, Cinderella has them on the sides). But if you were to say Cinderella has something that looks like a bustle in the Fairy Tale Designer doll, I would agree with you fully. I think it's supposed to be a bustle. Belle's dress I feel just has something that looks similar to that doll.

Cinderella's dress is definitely full in the back:
Image

But I agree with you, Cinderella, Aurora, and Belle, must have petticoats instead of hoops because their dresses flow to much instead of keeping one stiff shape all the time. In the live-action reference for Cinderella, she has a gown that doesn't look nearly as big and full as the final animation, so that could explain why they don't keep a hoop skirt shape, as the animators may never have had hoopskirts to draw and so draw the dresses moving flowy, but still made them big...I dunno, I'd like to think it's just petticoats.

Did you mean Cinderella's prologue begins in the 1860's, not 1960's? Lol can you imagine Cinderella with a 60's look. But yeah, sure, 1860's.

I also doubt Jasmine is right. Why Aurora?

To keep this about Beauty and the Beast, does anyone think the music boxes Maurice makes in this film is a reference to the living music box in the ealry drafts for the original film?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 1:37 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 7:29 pm
Posts: 2750
Oh cool. I've actually seen that book before but I specifically have avoided buying it because I'm sure I'll feel tempted to start buying many of the dolls in there, particularly ones that I've seen or heard of before. So I totally sympathize with you not wanting to get any more dolls until you are living alone and heavy a steady income to support your hobby.

Wow, that doll is expensive. I totally see the big bow thing going on at the back of her dress and it reminds me of the same things you mentioned. It also reminds me of how Cinderella's old dress in the Disney Parks (before the redesign) had a big bow on the back of her dress. It's really apparent on the doll they made for her during that time.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8256/8669 ... d3_b_d.jpg

Her dress does look full in the back of the image you posted, although I wonder if it is consistent that way through the whole film. I feel like there are shorts where the back of her gown isn't really that full or poofy.

I didn't even think about the live-action reference and how that must have influenced the animation of the dresses and their movement during dancing scenes. You're spot on with that.

Lol, I totally meant 1860s. 1960s Cinderella would certainly be interesting though.

Jasmine is wrong because it uses a Pre-Islamic Persian version of her from an almost ancient setting. It's been confirmed several times by Musker and Clements that Aladdin is set in 850 AD, with Agrabah having originally been Baghdad before tensions in the entire caused them to change it to a fictional kingdom. The influence from The Thief of Baghdad is heavy anyway. As for Aurora, I'm not the biggest fan of the "theory" that Sleeping Beauty is really set in the 1400s (at least fashion-wise) and the filmmakers got that mixed up with the 14th century so they actually meant to say 15th century. I've seen a few other people presuppose this as well, believing that the fashion in Sleeping Beauty is more based off of the 1400s than the 1300s.

Actually, if you've seen the original opening for the earlier draft of BATB (you can find it in the Blu-Ray), you'll see that Belle gets an heirloom music box for her 17th birthday which belonged to her mother. When the family goes bankrupt, Belle convinces her father to sell the music box. It ends up getting trampled by a horse carriage.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 2:45 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:02 am
Posts: 9834
Location: America
Yeah, Disney dolls are awesome.

That $10,000 Volks doll back also reminded me of the bow from Cinderella's earlier dress in the parks! I didn't know they made a doll that looked just like that! And the doll actually keeps the in-between silver and blue color that her parks dress had! I'd be happy if all Cinderella dolls had those colors!

It may not be that way the whole film, but I think Cinderella's dress is full in enough shots for me to think it is supposed to be that way. You can disagree though, I get it.

The thing with shoomlah is she decides not to listen to what the filmakers say and instead use what she sees lots of people wearing in the film. Since the Disney filmakers can intend one time period but accidentally and even purposely give characters fashion from other time periods or even all new designs, it's hard to say who's right. I'm gonna agree with you, Jasmine and Aurora should be from what time period their film creators say they are. I suspected shoomlah saying Philip's line was wrong was what you had a problem with. I don't know enough about past times Middle Eastern fashion or European 14th-15th century clothes though.

I saw the original opening on the Blu-ray as like the one bonus feature I watched (I won't watch many Blu-ray bonus features unless they are just a few or from my top most favorite films, until I have my own house and good income and free time), I think called the Perdum reel, right? But strangely I can't remember a lick of what happened.

Does anyone know...did the live-action Beauty and the Beast make the most money out of any movie the year it came out?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 7:45 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 9:54 am
Posts: 12257
Disney Duster wrote:
Does anyone know...did the live-action Beauty and the Beast make the most money out of any movie the year it came out?

Box Office Mojo says Star Wars: The Last Jedi did, but B&tB was #2.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:32 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 7:29 pm
Posts: 2750
The old Disney Parks dolls were really great. Cinderella is one of the most movie accurate ones there is because the dress is actually silver. I especially loved the Aurora and Jasmine ones as well.

The next time I watch Cinderella, I'll keep an eye out for the shape of her dress.

You're right that I didn't agree with Shoomlah believing that Phillip's line was incorrect.

The Perdum reel is exactly the one. Clearly it wasn't memorable enough to leave an impression on you lol. I wouldn't have minded if we had gotten a live-action BATB more in the vein of that. Copying the animated feature is the safe choice, at least commercially.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:32 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:02 am
Posts: 9834
Location: America
Thanks Amy!

The old Jasmine parks doll looks really nice!

I think a remake with the music and plot close to the original Beauty and the Beast was the way to go, but they should have made some things closer and other things more different. And more original.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 6:35 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 7:29 pm
Posts: 2750
http://www.frockflicks.com/18th-century ... east-2017/
Frock Flicks also has an article on the costumes for this film and surprisingly enough, all of them are historically accurate, except for anything Emma Watson put her hands on lol. Although the costumes are dated to the 1760s whereas the film was confirmed to be set in the 1740s.

Love the various diatribes voiced against Watson meddling in the costume design process in the comments section.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:28 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:02 am
Posts: 9834
Location: America
Yeah, I saw that Frock Flicks article on the live-action Beauty and the Beast, too. It's great. But I feel Belle's last dress sleeves are supposed to evoke 18th century myself.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 5:32 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 7:29 pm
Posts: 2750
Disney Duster wrote:
Yeah, I saw that Frock Flicks article on the live-action Beauty and the Beast, too. It's great. But I feel Belle's last dress sleeves are supposed to evoke 18th century myself.

They're like 3/4 quarter sleeves so I definitely get that feeling too, but the rest of the dress isn't very 1700s for me. I can see why people commented that it's also anachronistic and feels like a ballet dress. The big difference though is that Belle's ending dress is actually quite beautiful unlike her flimsy yellow prom dress for the ballroom scene.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 2:56 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:02 am
Posts: 9834
Location: America
I completely agree with all you said! :D

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 2:56 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 9:54 am
Posts: 12257
So, we have a profile on my brother-in-law's Netflix account, and my husband put on Hercules a few hours ago (sometimes it's faster than digging out a dvd!), + I fell asleep on the couch. I woke up to the live action B&tB (while I sometimes read this thread, I hadn't seen it before). I woke up to around the part, I think, where she says Shakespeare's her favorite (looking it up online, "Days in the Sun" was what I woke up to, + I guess then came the Shakespeare part), and I saw "Something There," and "B&tB," and I saw the magic book part and Belle sings about her childhood in Paris, and (I may have fast forwarded...it's 1:57am, I'm groggy!), and Belle saw her dad in the mirror, and she left---- okay, Emma/Belle- please put a damn sweater on. It is winter in France. That completely took my mind out of the movie.

And "Evermore" I saw...I had heard the somg a while back, and while it's a very simple scene with not much going on, it was enjoyable. It's a very pretty song.

(The beast kept making a weird mouth shape...I don't know how else to call it. At first I was thinking, "Ugh, what is that? But as it kept happening, I thought that maybe this character just has this weird quirk or whatever, and it became slightly less annoying.)

(The shortened notes in Emma/Belle's + Dan/Beast's "Something There" bothered me...I much prefer the originals, but if we didn't have the superior original to compare this to, it'd be an okay movie with okay singing. Watching "ST," & the film as a whole in that part of the film, I had my overarching thought that I have about the idea of all these remakes- what's the point? For me, if I'm going to want to watch B&tB, I'm going to watch the amazing 1991 original that I love. But like I said, I did enjoy "Evermore." Looking at the track list, I must've skipped "HDAMLF" by Belle or I literally don't remember it. I did watch Emma T./Mrs. Potts' "B&tB"- I had turned the volume down so I couldn't quite make out the orchestration, but I had the same sort of thought that I had during "ST," that on its own, without the 1991 original to compare it to, maybe it'd stand on its own and be fine. Like I said, the volume was kind of low, so I can't comment on Emma T.'s singing, but watching B & B dance...I was thinking that in the original, the ballroom is a triumph of animated film, I think, anyway, and while 2017's ballroom was pretty, and I liked the shot of the ballroom all of a sudden lighting up, it wasn't as special, and I'd much rather watch the original. 2017's B&B dancing looked choreographed. It wasn't bad, no, but I had had the thought, "That looks choreographed." And, obviously it WAS choreographed, the actors learned the choreography, but I guess it just looked not quite natural, as if 2 people dancing would, not as smooth maybe, or maybe that was the point, 2 rusty dancers (the characters) and all. But with the 1991 film, I just enjoy the scene w/o worrying about how stiff dancing may seem.)

I heard a few notes of "The Mob Song"- I hadn't been sure if it was in the film, so I was just curious. I fast forwarded. I just saw Beast see that Belle's back and saw the enchanted objects die- that is sad. I'm going to watch Beast's transformation- I really enjoy the scene in the 1991 original, so I have very low expectations.

I saw that there is still 20:09 left- how?!

Okay, Belle just said I love you, and .05 seconds later, Beast is awake? What does Agathe doing there (I did not see the movie's beginning at all, and I had been fast forwarding, and saw her giving Maurice tea, and she was there in the pub, but what exact role does she play?), what effect did she have, where 0.05 seconds after Belle saying ily he's awake...? Okay, I only want to see the transformation in all its glory, stop showing Agathe...? Why are you showing the transformation through a ?!$@ faraway castle window? More closeup shots, please...stop all the jumpcuts! The final reveal, the last bit on the prince w/o jumpcuts...it was fine. Not too different from original. I didn't see his portrait in this one, but he looks like the 1991 portrait come to life.

I Squee'd at the footstool turning into a dog, that was my favorite part...<3 okay, and then he pees on the coatrack...ugh, but hey, we all pee, you had to go, dog- can't fault you, I suppose...

Uhhh, why is the whole village at the castle? The instant the staff is turning back to humans/dogs? What did I miss?

Couldn't be a better ending, Audra singing holding the dog . <3 And I had seen Belle's floral dress on a doll, I think, but it's beautiful and I want it.

Okay, LeFou danced with a girl then a guy- is that the "exclusively gay moment?" Um, I'm for inclusitivity and I'd rather this than nothing, but...I guess a moment can be any length of time...better than nothing, but very short...

Sorry so long...but hopefully if you read this it'll be interesting for you fans to get a first-timer's insight?

(A few months ago, my dad turned on the tv and 2015's Cinderella came on, just the last few minutes, and I just complained...nothing was "right" (same as the original), but I literally saw 3 minutes so I had no context as far as the 2015 film).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 3:45 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 12:26 pm
Posts: 10627
blackcauldron85 wrote:
okay, Emma/Belle- please put a damn sweater on. It is winter in France. That completely took my mind out of the movie.
This made me laugh.

I agree, nothing will compare to the original--especially since it's one of the greatest films out there, Disney or otherwise, animated or live-action. I still enjoyed it for the cash-in on a lucrative property that it is; no, I don't watch it near as much as the original. :P I loved the ending, too, and the scene with the servants 'dying' was so well-done. Agathe is the enchantress, who has an extended presence throughout; I still think what a shame Lansbury didn't cameo as the character at the beginning when she appears as an old woman. I kind of thought Dan Stevens looked a bit silly with the wig and the exact clothes replica of the animated film's transformation scene. Audra <3

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 9:56 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 9:54 am
Posts: 12257
Agathe just kind of shadows Beast, Belle, & Maurice at different times?

I just wanted to make clear to anyone that I was not meaning to say, "How dare anyone like/prefer this movie"- I just wanted to make sure tyat if someone feels I did that, not my intention, I'm sorry!

And I wanted to clarify that I do not think 1991's has stiff dancing?

I had to rewatch the end of Gaston & Beast's fight scene on Youtube this morning. Last night my husband came in the room right after that part and he asked what happened to Gaston. I had seen his sword fall and Gaston fall, but I didn't comprehend in my groggy state what exactly had happened (I thought maybe Belle had kicked her foot and he fell or something). But this morning I saw that Beast falls to where Belle is, and where Gaston is stqnding on collapses and he falls.

(A while ago, last year probably, I watched "Be Our Guest" online-- I was mostly curious just to see this scene since it's pretty much all animated-- and I was very underwhelmed.)

I rewatched the transformation scene again on Youtube this morning. If Agathe wasn't there to hand-blow the petals toward B & B, then they all would've died because the last petal had already fallen, I suppose.

Okay, so the villagers were still at the castle because they were the mob, just leaving.

Okay, I think my groggy 2am self didn't realize that Beast was dead with his eyes open- I guess he wasn't immediately awoken by Belle saying ily- Agathe's magic revived him (because Belle loved him, of course).

I still want more live-action fantasies like Enchanted, The BFG, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms, etc., and I'd much rather have not remakes than remakes. I think that expanding the original stories is fine- I think it's necessary, I don't want exact scene-by-scene remakes. Like Beast's magic book, them going to Paris- that's a good addition, and it's not altering the story (Agathe's presence wasn't changing characters or plot)... With the 2016 TJB, for example, I did like Mowgli's "tricks." But by changing so much, why not just rename it, change names, and call it something else. "Pete's Dragon" (remake) was only Pete's Dragon in name- I kind of wish they renamed Pete and Elliot(t)...I really enjoyed it, and it was completely different. With the upcoming Mulan, I get the people saying that it's going to be so different...you don't wanr a shot-for-shot remake, but you want the same characters, maybe just an expanded plot?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:21 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 12:26 pm
Posts: 10627
blackcauldron85 wrote:
(A while ago, last year probably, I watched "Be Our Guest" online-- I was mostly curious just to see this scene since it's pretty much all animated-- and I was very underwhelmed.)
Yes, it is. That's my least favorite scene.

For me, I don't mind the remakes so much; I guess because I resigned myself to their existence, and I don't consider them as bad quality or damaging as, say, the DTV sequels of the '90s-00's. I guess part of me likes when they're loyal to the original more than not because then you can imagine how X scene is going to turn out in the new film w/ the new actors which you can't do if everything's different. That said, I don't mind small changes. I enjoyed the additions with the Enchantress, the Wardrobe, LeFou, "Days in the Sun" and "Evermore." The scene with the book that takes them out of the castle doesn't bother me either.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 8:07 pm 
Offline
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:53 pm
Posts: 1363
Location: Virginia
Disney's Divinity wrote:
Yes, it is. That's my least favorite scene.

For me, I don't mind the remakes so much; I guess because I resigned myself to their existence, and I don't consider them as bad quality or damaging as, say, the DTV sequels of the '90s-00's. I guess part of me likes when they're loyal to the original more than not because then you can imagine how X scene is going to turn out in the new film w/ the new actors which you can't do if everything's different. That said, I don't mind small changes. I enjoyed the additions with the Enchantress, the Wardrobe, LeFou, "Days in the Sun" and "Evermore." The scene with the book that takes them out of the castle doesn't bother me either.


I agree, the live action remakes/sequels/re-imaginings don't bother me as much as the DTV sequels did and that's basically the evil genius behind Bob Iger's reign as CEO. He and his people have cracked the formula of spending more money and then making more money by creating these films which overall doesn't hurt the legacy of the company and some people have called it: "Brand Integrity".

With that in mind, some good movies have come out of this newfound era of live action movies since 2010 that I would rather have this than anything else really. As for this movie, I re-watched it on Netflix and I still quite like it. Does it have some problems? Certainly, but I consider this, The Jungle Book and Cinderella remakes to be very well made movies in different ways with their own unique pros and cons. Plus I also liked Pete's Dragon and Alice Through The Looking Glass quite a bit too.

_________________
Disney, Pixar, Rodgers and Hammerstein, and Film fan since 1999


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 1:39 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:02 am
Posts: 9834
Location: America
blackcauldron85 wrote:
A few months ago, my dad turned on the tv and 2015's Cinderella came on, just the last few minutes, and I just complained...nothing was "right" (same as the original), but I literally saw 3 minutes so I had no context as far as the 2015 film).

What did you mean by "same as the original"? That the original didn't feel right or that it didn't feel the same as the original and that it being the same would have felt right?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1984 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: nachonaco, Nandor and 26 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