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.