|
Post by fingersmash on Mar 17, 2017 2:06:57 GMT
Just got out of an early showing of Disney's new live action Beauty and the Beast. Not as good as the original but there's no beating perfection. Emma Watson was a great choice for Belle there's also a nice couple scenes for a certain Eighth Doctor companion actress as a walking spoiler too.
|
|
|
Post by relativetime on Mar 18, 2017 5:02:06 GMT
I can't say I was all that attached to the original animated version - if I had to pick a favorite Disney princess animated film, I'd say I was more a fan of Sleeping Beauty - but i'm curious to see what they do with this one. I've heard a whole range of opinions of the film so far - some say it's brilliant, others say it's bad, and still more say it's decent. I mean, I was completely surprised by how great The Jungle Book live action film turned out, so I'm prepared to be surprised by this film as well.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Wearer of Hats on Mar 18, 2017 7:55:01 GMT
Just got out of an early showing of Disney's new live action Beauty and the Beast. Not as good as the original but there's no beating perfection. Emma Watson was a great choice for Belle there's also a nice couple scenes for a certain Eighth Doctor companion actress as a walking spoiler too. Sheridan Smith?
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Mar 18, 2017 11:11:02 GMT
Just got out of an early showing of Disney's new live action Beauty and the Beast. Not as good as the original but there's no beating perfection. Emma Watson was a great choice for Belle there's also a nice couple scenes for a certain Eighth Doctor companion actress as a walking spoiler too. Sheridan Smith? No Hattie Morahan (Helen from Doom Coalition)
Regards
mark687
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2017 18:32:58 GMT
It's done MASSIVELY well for opening weekend - $350,000,000 worldwide in 4 days. That's $60million higher than Rogue One, to put it in the context of a recent blockbuster. Since this, Jungle Book and Cinderella hae all been hits, we can expect a deluge of live action remakes of the Disney classics now. We're getting Jon Favreau's Lion King next, and Guy Richie's Aladdin has already been announced too. I'd imagine when they're back in the office tomorrow the House Of Mouse execs will be frantically seeing what other ones they can line up.
|
|
|
Post by doctorkernow on Mar 19, 2017 21:44:29 GMT
Hello again.
For me, the most interesting and different live action interpretation of a Disney animation is Pete's Dragon. Very different in tone and visuals and with a great soundtrack.
My daughter is a big fan of Toothless in Cressida Cowell's How to Train your Dragon books. She absolutely loved this film. Totally drew you into the story from the first few minutes.
Guy Ritchie to direct Aladdin? Has he directed a musical before? That will be interesting... What next live-action Toy Story?
|
|
|
Post by whiskeybrewer on Mar 20, 2017 11:43:17 GMT
Hello again. For me, the most interesting and different live action interpretation of a Disney animation is Pete's Dragon. Very different in tone and visuals and with a great soundtrack. My daughter is a big fan of Toothless in Cressida Cowell's How to Train your Dragon books. She absolutely loved this film. Totally drew you into the story from the first few minutes. Guy Ritchie to direct Aladdin? Has he directed a musical before? That will be interesting... What next live-action Toy Story? Nah it'll be The Black Cauldron probably lmao
|
|
|
Post by muckypup on Mar 20, 2017 12:07:39 GMT
It's done MASSIVELY well for opening weekend - $350,000,000 worldwide in 4 days. That's $60million higher than Rogue One, to put it in the context of a recent blockbuster. Since this, Jungle Book and Cinderella hae all been hits, we can expect a deluge of live action remakes of the Disney classics now. We're getting Jon Favreau's Lion King next, and Guy Richie's Aladdin has already been announced too. I'd imagine when they're back in the office tomorrow the House Of Mouse execs will be frantically seeing what other ones they can line up. I think we are also getting, Mulan, maleficent 2, jungle book 2 and little mermaid.
|
|
|
Post by kimalysong on Mar 20, 2017 14:07:40 GMT
It might have done good in the box office but the reviews have been less than kind.
|
|
|
Post by fingersmash on Mar 20, 2017 14:30:02 GMT
It might have done good in the box office but the reviews have been less than kind. Reviews have been... unreasonably negative. It's a remake of a movie that's the nearest you can get to a perfect film. Go into it with the idea of it being all new and it's perfectly enjoyable and quite excellent (Emma Watson's singing aside, but better than Emma Stone in La La Land).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2017 15:40:00 GMT
It might have done good in the box office but the reviews have been less than kind. 70% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes suggests they've been better than you'd think when agrregated, and it's even higher than that when filtering only the Top Critics at 78%. The Sun-Times, Ebert.com, Time, the AP, Variety, EW, the NY Times have all given it as least solid, if admittedly unspectacular, reviews. I've read some lesser ones and my favourite critic, Mark Kermode, was quite down on it.
|
|
|
Post by elkawho on Mar 26, 2017 15:28:14 GMT
I don't know about reviews, but I though it was wonderful. It expands on the coldness of the prince at the beginning, the relationship between Belle and her father and gives the relationship between Belle and The Beast a little more time to develop. The performances were all terrific. Yes, Emma Watson's voice is not nearly as good as the original, but she does a good job with it. They got rid of one or two things that never made sense to me (the last rose petal falling on the prince's 18th birthday? Then how old was he when he was enchanted?) and play up the enchanted castle (and people) aspect much more, which I liked. The characterization of Le Fue (spelling?) is much better than the original, as well as Belle's father (I'm a sucker for Kevin Kline, so that just might be my bias showing.) Luke Evans is amazing, and Gaston's beastly nature is even more on display. The parts that needed to be showy and grand were just that, yet the quieter moments worked very well.
Does this surpass the original? Of course not, nothing could. And I don't think it was trying to. But I loved every second of it, and couldn't stop smiling the whole way through.
|
|
|
Post by icecreamdf on Mar 26, 2017 17:31:11 GMT
This was my favorite Disney live action remake so far.
|
|
|
Post by theotherjosh on Mar 28, 2017 12:43:26 GMT
The Live action Beauty and the Beast reminds me of nothing so much as the director’s cut of Aliens.
The theatrical release of Aliens was a taut action thriller with some inexplicable decisions by its protagonist. The director’s cut explains those choices (Ripley went back after Newt because her own daughter died when she was in suspended animation), but at the expense of the pacing. It’s rather uneven and herky-jerky compared to the claustrophobic horror of the original.
Which one is better?
If you had asked me twenty years ago, I would have said the theatrical cut.
If you had asked me ten years ago, I would have said the director’s cut.
If you ask me today, I’ll say I don’t know. They scratch different itches.
The original Beauty and the Beast was a classic, but one with some huge plot holes and some seriously problematic elements. It would seem that in adapting the film, the creators sat down with a list of every criticism ever levelled against Beauty and the Beast and resolved to address every single one of them.
I find that somewhat off-putting. Of course, all movies are manufactured. They don't spring forth fully formed from the mind of an auteur. But the process here was so calculated and deliberate that I found it distracting. My wife and daughter loved it, though, so maybe I’m just too critical.
Some of the changes are good (Belle no longer steps over people who are doing their chores while singing about how she has nothing to do) and some of them are pretty bad (the didn't need to stop the action so Belle could kneel down and tell the Beast that she needs him to stand up so she can get him back to the castle).
Ultimately, my opinion of remakes like this is, "If you shoot the King, you must kill him." It better be flawless. It's not. It took a classic and maybe even improved it marginally, but overall I prefer the original.
|
|
|
Post by fingersmash on Apr 6, 2017 22:21:12 GMT
I just saw this a third time. It's just as good. It doesn't get old. I don't think this is going to be the flash in the pan Frozen was and it stands up to the 1991 original as a good companion. They're almost two different movies with the plot changes, extra songs, and different characterizations given to us. Also earning a fafillion dollars at the box office in a decently competitive March (Boss Baby, Power Rangers, Ghost in the Shell) helps a lot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2017 5:52:00 GMT
Hello again. For me, the most interesting and different live action interpretation of a Disney animation is Pete's Dragon. Very different in tone and visuals and with a great soundtrack. My daughter is a big fan of Toothless in Cressida Cowell's How to Train your Dragon books. She absolutely loved this film. Totally drew you into the story from the first few minutes. Guy Ritchie to direct Aladdin? Has he directed a musical before? That will be interesting... What next live-action Toy Story? Nah it'll be The Black Cauldron probably lmao If there were any film that needed a reboot... Whose bright idea was it to start on book two of a closely connected five book series?
|
|
|
Post by whiskeybrewer on Apr 7, 2017 10:49:25 GMT
Nah it'll be The Black Cauldron probably lmao If there were any film that needed a reboot... Whose bright idea was it to start on book two of a closely connected five book series? Wait. It was based on a book series? and they went with Book Two?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2017 6:32:44 GMT
If there were any film that needed a reboot... Whose bright idea was it to start on book two of a closely connected five book series? Wait. It was based on a book series? and they went with Book Two? Yuppers, it was part of a series from the sixties called The Chronicles of Prydain. I think the idea was that they could pull something like James Bond and start in the middle without any ramifications (even then, there's a bit of weirdness with Dr. No taking place before From Russia with Love because Bond's Beretta jammed in Venice... during FRWL). Either that or they weren't even considering a sequel story. They'd make a very nice series of films nowadays actually, the characters grow and mature. In essence, it's a series about growing up.
|
|
|
Post by whiskeybrewer on Apr 8, 2017 11:59:13 GMT
Wait. It was based on a book series? and they went with Book Two? Yuppers, it was part of a series from the sixties called The Chronicles of Prydain. I think the idea was that they could pull something like James Bond and start in the middle without any ramifications (even then, there's a bit of weirdness with Dr. No taking place before From Russia with Love because Bond's Beretta jammed in Venice... during FRWL). Either that or they weren't even considering a sequel story. They'd make a very nice series of films nowadays actually, the characters grow and mature. In essence, it's a series about growing up. That makes sense as the ending was so random for The Black Cauldron. They probably weren't thinking sequel as that wasn't Disney's thing at the time. Wasn't till the mid-90's when they started all the direct to Video sequels.
Didn't notice that with Bond. I knew they had swapped the order with OHMSS and YOLT, but not before that
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2017 12:22:41 GMT
Yuppers, it was part of a series from the sixties called The Chronicles of Prydain. I think the idea was that they could pull something like James Bond and start in the middle without any ramifications (even then, there's a bit of weirdness with Dr. No taking place before From Russia with Love because Bond's Beretta jammed in Venice... during FRWL). Either that or they weren't even considering a sequel story. They'd make a very nice series of films nowadays actually, the characters grow and mature. In essence, it's a series about growing up. That makes sense as the ending was so random for The Black Cauldron. They probably weren't thinking sequel as that wasn't Disney's thing at the time. Wasn't till the mid-90's when they started all the direct to Video sequels.
Didn't notice that with Bond. I knew they had swapped the order with OHMSS and YOLT, but not before that
"CURSES, DEFEATED BY A RATHER STRONG GUST OF WIND!" It's a pity really. The villain's plan to revive his fallen warriors to fight on after death is a wonderful little scheme, it was just deserving of a much better movie. A nice benefit of having standalone stories with just the obligatory lead in/lead out of continuity like old Hartnell era tales. You could chop and change them around without really damaging the narrative and Dr. No is much lower key story than From Russia with Love was. Well, aside from Bond's escape from his cell being a sadistic gauntlet organised by No that leads to Bond fighting a giant squid.
|
|