I just never got how people prefer live action reboot over animation. You can get better expressions, voices, songs, movement, and less creepy cgi designs.
I'm on team Animation. It's a lot more, fluent and has a lot more diversity than a model in a real setting. Can you make the CGI animals stack up on eachother all wacky in a Lion King reboot in a real setting in Africa? No. It also is a lot more charming and somehow blends better with real envoirments! (See Who Framed Rodger Rabbit for proof) So, don't do some CG. Draw it yourself.
Unfortunately, a lot of it comes down to animation being seen as made for kids. Because so many animated properties have been aimed towards kids, it's now associated with children and therefore adults see themselves as too cool and grown up for animation.
Yes! In the old movie, the moment when the beast is holding Gaston over the precipice to drop him, he looked so monstrous, but when gaston begs for his life... you see this change in his face. You see Humanity, finally. I looked for it in Live action, and did not find it.
Plus HE ACTUALLY ACTS LIKE AN ANIMAL! Despite the messy eating scene the live action beast acted more like a guy in a fursuit than a beast. Heck even furries act more animal-like than him
Yes! In the old movie, the moment when the beast is holding Gaston over the precipice to drop him, he looked so monstrous, but when gaston begs for his life... you see this change in his face. You see Humanity, finally. I looked for it in Live action, and did not find it.
One of my biggest problems with the CGI is that in trying to be so realistic, it loses the emotional expression of the '91 version. The facial features on the servants are so small and lost in all the decorative embellishments, they might as well be soulless puppets. This is especially true of the Beast. The original had these huge expressive eyebrows that would instantly show frustration, confusion, annoyance, happiness, sorrow, etc., but the CGI Beast - even with so much more technology behind him - just looks like a stiff mask. That is when you can see him because there's so much shadow in this movie.
+Jonathan Sulinski-Yeah, even on a pure animation level (you know, the ONE thing Disney is supposedly always good at), this movie fails but what you said brings a stark reminder of a very subtle and touching moment in the original. After the Beast sends Maurice back home and he didn't allow Belle to say goodbye to her own father to where she may very well never see Maurice again, the Beast sees Belle crying in the tower. When she says, "You never let me say goodbye, now I may never see him again," the Beast looks genuinely upset for a moment. He realizes that he hurt Belle through his own monstrous, selfish decision to rip Belle's father away from her before they could have a final goodbye. It shows that the Beast may be selfish but he's not completely heartless and likely often didn't know, genuinely didn't know, that his selfish actions had consequences for everyone else. That one moment already humanizes the Beast to a great degree and that moment was done without a single word. Subtlety and nuance at its finest-subtlety and nuance are surely lacking in this remake. Another seemingly small moment they utterly ruin is the awesome Beast reveal from the original. Up until the point Belle made the Beast come out into the light, the Beast's full form was never fully shown and usually kept in very careful silhouette/shadow and when Belle first saw him lurking in the shadows, the most that could be made out outside of silhouette was the eyes and teeth. The filmmakers obviously and very deliberately intended to do this to build up the Beast as this terrifying, otherworldly monster and when he finally steps out, it is actually offputting and frightening.
I thought Belle felt like a complete BRAT when she first ran away from the castle. In the original film, she ran away because she thought the beast was going to hurt or kill her. In the remake... The beast yelled at her and she stormed out of the castle, like she was pouting!
The original had more of a build up for the forbidden wing too like it Belle was being given a tour and she got curious then snuck off. But the remake she just seemed to decide to look around there to spite beast just because it was forbidden.
@npaujbais even worse: the point of the original was to see thru looks and love for actions. Watson belle basically fell in love because he was the good looking jock who treated her like a jerk, the beast was basically gaston from the original
Personally, I thought that Anne Hathaway would be a better Belle than Emma Watson. She can sing well and play it with full confidence. Emma Watson though, . . . Not lookin' too good, Hermoine.
I thought it near David Cronenberg. It was horrifying, Chip and the wardrobe in particular were GHASTLY! Don't zoom in on them for gods sake! There is no good way to adapt the animated characters into live action but boy did they strike the center of the Uncanny Valley.
I'll be fine with the Mulan remake if they make it PG 13. Just watching how intense the war scenes are in the cartoon, they would have to dumb it down like crazy to keep it PG
Alpna V I'm pretty sure that was debunked, but I'm not sure. I don't know why they would get rid of Li Shang, considering he was a main character and one of the integral parts of the plot in Mulan 2. Also, the lack of music was a misinterpreted quote from the producer. She said they had no music in the movie yet, but it doesn't mean it won't have music in it. The cast is also confirmed to be made of Asian actors.
ᴏғғɪᴄɪᴀʟ ᴀᴜᴛᴜᴍɴ ᴛʜᴇ ʟᴇᴀғᴇᴏɴ Yeah, I hope they don't change too much, because if they do, it will feel like the new Pete's Dragon did for me. That one kind of felt like Disney taking the occasional dump on my nostalgia. Reboots exist for the sole reason of being a callback to old movies, so as long as liberties are taken without compromising the main foundation of the story, I'm good.
I disagree about them "bonding" over literature. It felt more like him just showing off and being arrogant whereas in the original Belle teaching the beast to read felt more genuine and sweet and like a believable way for them to bond. In the live action he just sort of gives her the library and leaves her alone to read.
Oh! Not to mention in the original he gives her the library as a gesture of how much he cares for her that he thinks of the thing she loves to do and wants to surprise her with a gift. In the live action he's just sort of like "eh I've already read all these so here ya go"
BS critism, He shared books as a commen intrest with her nothing arrogant about that, in fact I actually think it's a more apporite and realistic way for people to fall in love then one acting like a role mdel to the other. I mean how many of our parents bonded over their Mom teaching their Dad to read, your'e just refusing to take off nostalgia goggles here. if your'e going to dislike the remake make sure it's for actual smart reasons.
Exactly how I felt... I honestly find sharing something you love and someone else gaining interest because of you more romantic than someone just having the same interest and giving you stuff they already have.
The problem with the scene was that it felt like the Beast was just kind of... negging her. "Oh, you like 'Romeo and Juliet'? Ugh, your taste in literature sucks, mine is so much better, here's a bunch of books to prove it... you can have them, I guess.'" It felt less like he was doing it out of the goodness of his heart and more like he was flexing on her. He even makes a comment about his "expensive education" to her, knowing full well she's a poor village girl who could never afford it.
Emma Watson was a HORRIBLE casting decision. She can't sing worth a damn and seemed bored the entire time. They only picked her for her name, but you can't convince me they NEEDED her to sell this film. They could have actually cast who knew what they were doing for this role like Samantha Barks.
Thank you! I've been saying Samantha Banks for quite sometime. Absolutely perfect, fantastic singer and also the same age as Emma. Also less stuck up but that's well beside the point. Just put more Broadway singers in musicals goddamn it!
@Ariah’s California Dude. When Cell showed the difference between her singing voice, and the original Belles', I could hear the autotune... That's not good. When it comes to casting a movie where their are a lot of songs, it's best to find someone who can actually sing. No offence to Emma, but she can't sing.
Dragon Queen You are so right! I wish I could give you a thousand likes!👍 Emma may be a really good actress but that doesn't mean she'll be very good at singing. I loved her role as Hermione in Harry Potter and she didn't sing. So if she didn't sing in the film I would still say that she done a good job!
Trepach III Two of those words you used are not words. Also it’s a fucking kids movie. They should be less focused on sex appeal and more on sticking to the narrative.
I go watch the live actions souly for the visuals and costumes. And I was disappointed on Belle's yellow ball glown. It's not even close to the fashion that the story is set in.
Yeah, it looked like a prom dress I would have seen. It so plain and unappealing. I have stood in line with cosplayers in conventions that had better looked Belle dress's, and I mean that. Well blame it on the actress, she bragged about designing it HER way and I guess that's the result, a lame duck of an outfit.
Über Kirbeeh yeah, I didn't really like the Cinderalla remake but it looked nice and I loved seeing the costumes (especially the stepmother and Cinderella's). Sad to hear that Belle's dress wasn't as striking as Cinderella's.
Apparently Emma made a big fuss about the dress because she didn't want to wear a corset. Claiming it wasn't feminist. It's just a rumor but I wouldn't be suprised if it's true.
Disney was literally like "hey the original Belle's singing voice was done by a trained opera singer. Let's get Emma Watson who can't sign very well to play Belle! And she sings all the songs!"
I grew up on Disney's traditionally animated films, the ones from the 90's having the biggest impact. Part of what made it magic to me was how drawings were turned into these beautiful works of art and brought the characters and scenery to life. Remaking everything in live action with CGI to be "realistic" takes that magic away for me.
Some of the other reboots were forgivable because they added enough to the story to be considered their own movies. For instance, The Jungle Book remake is different enough from the Disney one to be considered a different movie. They gave Mowgli more character, and the tone was significantly darker than the animated version (I grew up with the animated Jungle Book, btw), but this is disgusting. Even if it does add changes, the changes are not significant enough to separate itself from its animated predecessor. It just feels like a soulless cash grab.
Thomasmemoryscentral I never said their changes were good or bad. All I said was that the changes made for some of these reboots made significant enough changes to be considered their own movies. This reboot, however, did not make changes significant enough to make for a different movie.
When is Disney gonna realize that the perfect remake is sitting right in from of them. Atlantis. yeah it flopped at the box office, but it has since become a major cult classic, so the audience for a live action remake is there, it'll pay for itself.
I’ve been saying the same thing!! They could make a TON of live-action remakes of the ‘less popular’ Disney movies like Atlantis or Treasure Planet! Also I firmly believe Brother Bear would make a GREAT remake.
I think people get confused of the timeline in the original. The prince was clearly NOT 11 years old in the original, in the stained glass and the painting he looks exactly the same age as he does in the end. I think the narrator meant his 21st year as the Beast. The 10 years bit in Be Our Guest I believe was about it being that they have been doing nothing for that long and that was the first time they had something to celebrate. Also I'm pretty sure they didn't age in that time, as Chip was about 6 or 7 years old. Also, there are plenty of defenders of the original that say marrying the prince did not stop Belle from having adventures. If anything it opened up the possibility, the prince would not want stay in the castle after being trapped there for 21 years he'd want to go out as well.
He was 11, and the enchanted objects stopped to age. It's even the building of the Enchanted Christmas plot.. All the foreign dubs states it. But you're right for Belle, her life is just begin, just Disney writers wasn't interested to wrote it.
Honestly I think it's just the writers fucked up slightly with the timeline. Remember the people who write the script and those who write the songs are not the same people - the fact that the '10 years' line doesn't match up with the 'until his 21st year' line was probably just left unnoticed when the film went into production.
As a person that actually kinda liked the live action remake (though nowhere close to as much as the original) I can unbiasedly say without any doubt, Emma Watson was probably the WORST casting choice. When the freakin CG character called "Beast" has more human emotion than you do, you've kinda screwed somethin up.
Mathmachine Weird, because I have the exact opposite opinion. I thought she was the BEST thing in that movie besides her singing. And I'm not super picky about singing so even then I didn't think she was bad. I'm an actress and I really loved her in this movie. But I hated the rest of it. But, then again, I really don't like Beauty and the Beast to begin with so...
Yeah, can I say worst casting choice? Like, I know its not going to happen but if she got a Razzie I wouldn't object. Paige O'Hara ran miles around her and all she did was loop the voice to some pencil sketches that were digitally colored. Think about that for a moment.
This is the thing, I thought she would be perfect for the role. Key word is THOUGHT! When I saw the movie, she disappointed me on every level! It's exactly like you said, ALL the other actors had more emotion than her! The scene that officially made me hate her performance was the scene where she almost leaves the Beast behind with the wolves. In the animated movie, you can see in Belle's eyes what she was thinking. No words needed. Emma couldn't pull that off. She had a vague blank stare. If I hadn't seen the original, I'm sure I would have asked, "Why the fuck is she just standing there?" And don't get me started on the singing. I don't know what made her go for the performance she did but she's the biggest reason I couldn't enjoy this movie as much as the original.
When the townspeople were singing about how "strange" Belle was, it felt a bit forced. In the animated version, Belle *was* different from the others because of how she was animated, she was the only one wearing blue (besides the Beast) which made her stand out more. Also, when Gaston (who for the most part doesn't even seem that interested in her) first approaches her, he is actually quite polite and even compliments her for reading, it made Belle look quite rude for rejecting him. And why did Belle need to invent the washing machine? I heard that this was actually Emma Watson's idea so that Belle could continue her reading, and while this may seem harlmess it actually does have a slightly sexist connotation, which is even worse considering that Watson is supposed to be a feminist. Again it felt like they were trying too hard to make her a modern woman which wasn't really needed.
One thing not brought up here that was brought up in another review (Lindsey Ellis's I think) is the weird connotation in the live action movie that women were discouraged from reading that just wasn't true historically for 18th century France. In actual point of fact, they were encouraged to read and there was even several magazines specifically written for women to encourage such... which, by the way, one of these magazines was where the original Beauty and the Beast story was published.
I don’t know why you are surprised because she is a “feminist”, because feminists today are toxic and sexist. Maybe not all feminists today, but Everytime I here about modern feminists, they are horrible! So you being confused that Emma having a sexist idea despite being a “feminist” surprises you because again, most feminists today are SEXIST AND TOXIC!!
2015 Cinderella just made Cinderella a lot more passive than people think she was in the original It's actually not a bad thing. Thinking about it, both versions show a different level of abuse towards the protagonist. The 2015 version probably thinks that scape is no longer an option and has accepted her fate, while the original actually knows when the lord gets in her house that that IS her opotunity to scape
I think 2015 pasiveness is worse. Cinderella was an adult when she was slaved by the step-mother, she had friends outside her house, people knew she was the trueborn child of her father and heir to the house. I can´t believe her father had no lawyer friend who cared to help his only child. Also, Cinderella was too good a servant. She learned to do all the chores perfectly when she had never done that before? At least the animated one started working as a child. It could be easier for the step-mother to say she was dead and thar servant girl was no related to the family at all (if anyone asked for the lord´s daughter) Also, when the step-mother left her in the attic, I understood that she was going to starve there to death, so I couldn´t understand why the hell wasn´t she screaming the moment the horses came near the house.
This movie made itself have HIGH expectations with how they did the teasers and everything....but it fell SO HARD on its face. I remember sitting in the theater and by 65% of the film being done, I started cringing visibly every single time Emma opened her mouth to sing. Honestly the best parts of this film were Gaston, Lafou, and Belle's Dad. There are so many other triple threat actresses they could have chosen from to give the role of Belle too. It really is a shame because this movie had SO MUCH potential.
You know what? The REAL reason all these live-action remakes are going on is because A) Disney put themselves in debt from buying out Marvel, Lucasfilm, etc. AND B) they try to keep all their properties out of the public domain by extending copyright laws, so they're running out of their own properties. Congratulations! These live-action remakes are becoming Disney's new line-up of Diseny sequels! (and keep in mind, Walt Disney himself was against the concept of live-action remakes) But what REALLY pisses me off about all this is that I think there IS potential in remaking some of their properties, albeit some of their less popular ones. Heck, I talk about this a lot, but Disney's Hunchback got a stage adaptation that leers closer to the novel (and it recently released a cast recording), and I could very much see a live-action version of THAT being made into something amazing! But as we've established, good ideas are not what Hollywood's interested in right now. But sometime later on down the road, when this whole nostalgia trend crashes and burns, they might HAVE to take some major re-evaluation and try to resort to something that's just a cheap, underhanded cash-in ploy.
Jacob Below how about Atlantis the lost Empire. That would be perfect to remake. If the movie failed with critics and the box office, then do it again and try yo improve it. But we can all dream.
I have major nostalgia but that's why I absolutely don't want to watch these movies. For me at least nostalgia turns me off from anything that's trying to recapture it because I want to protect my precious memories about it.
Er,the stuff they are remaking is in the Public Domain. I can make a Live Action Beuty And The Beast film FOR PROFIT given he money and Disney couldn't stop me.
Finally, someone mentions how illogical it is for Le Fool to be considered the "first openly gay character" in Disney. On the other hand, I'm glad that Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon are being tasteful with having gay representation in a way that normalizes it.
I'm a bit shocked that Disney's first gay character they chose was another version of a character from an animated 90's film they made. Like he couldn't come from an original work like Zootopia, he had to be from something they already made?
Thomasmemoryscentral I flipped when I heard this: Apparently, in Zootopia, the two annoying neighbors of Judy that DIDNT HAVE NAMES, were supposed to be gay
I didn't realize they were supposed to be gay. That's a really odd decision that they've made and it's unfortunate that Disney is slow to adapting to their LGBTQ+ viewpoints.
I usually like live action adaptations of Disney movies but this one is by far my least favorite. Something that really bothers me is Belle's blue dress. I hate it. It is so horribly ugly. Like in the original it was a simple, plain blue dress with an apron. But ohhhh no you can't do that! Like why does she have all that extra pattered fabric?? It's just so ugly! I'm also not a fan of her ball gown. Another thing that I do not like is how the enchantress broke the spell instead of simply Belle's love. Ahh also I don't like Emma as Belle. Her version of Belle just seems cold and rude
Emma had a BIG had to say about her costumes. That´s why they are so weird and different from the others in the film. She wanted to be the free independent woman without corset, but period costumes require corsets to be worn properly, and that´s why they feel so loose and weird on her.
Honestly, Emma's Belle also seemed kinda arrogant and nowhere near as sweet as OG Belle. I feel like we see more Emma than we see Belle in the live-action.
Everyone around me keeps praising this movie like its some sort of new masterpiece and I just ugh. I really dislike this movie, everything from Emma Watsons terrible singing to the non existent chemistry between Belle and the Beast. It's fair to say I'm going to stick with the animated version.
I am beyond flabbergasted when I see praise for this movie. Granted its not like Jungle Book where its near universal I do know quite a few who hate it, but yeah I don't get it. And to the few who think its better then the original, I'm sorry I can't be nice but FUCK YOU!
Anna Kendrick was right there, she’s a big star, Oscar, Grammy and Tony nominated and she already slay “Belle” before ruclips.net/video/7ZxFdjiQRws/видео.html
I think Emma Watson is a fairly good singer. Not the best but good enough. But I'm not so sure about her acting. she doesn't use enough body language and the movie just doesn't seam realistic enough altogether. I still don't mind the movie but I don't love it.
This is an unpopular opinion, but I just don't think Emma Watson was a good casting choice. Like, at all. I just don't think she's pretty enough to buy that everyone in this town falls over themselves to state how breathtakingly beautiful she is, her accent is distracting, and she can't sing for shit.
Amelia Bee Actually, only Gaston in BOTH versions is the only one tripping over himself to earn her hand. Sure, everyone else SAYS she's pretty but no other man is actively attempting to gain her attention. Plus, I'd say she was quite pretty. Belle is pretty in an adverage way. She could be anyone walking down the street. While not inwardly simple, she was common and never tried to be anyone but who she was. THAT'S what makes her truly beautiful.
Lizzie Vamp She's a farm girl. Yes her father taught her how to dance in the live action version but she's still a farm girl. The reason she has more grace in the animated version is because the animators modeled her movements off a ballerina. Now, how many farm girls move like a ballerina in real life? Not many, I can assure you.
@@midgetwthahacksaw I disagree. In the original film not only does everyone sing that she is beautiful repeatedly but when Gaston says he wants to marry her, he says she's the prettiest girl in the town and Lefou says he knows, as if this is just a fact the whole town is aware of lol. Also in the opening song, the lady with the wig says it's no wonder that her name means beauty and that her looks have no parallel. I felt this implied that everyone feels the same way but no one really understands her as they find her strange so no one else is actively attempting to gain her attention whereas Gaston only cares about how she looks so doesn't care that she is considered odd. At least that's how I interpreted it and feel they were implying but I also find the animated Belle very beautiful myself as well. I understand what you mean about the farm girl thing in the live action though as they seemed to try and make in more "realistic" is some ways so to have a plain looking Belle makes more sense if she's a farm girl, however doesn't really make sense in terms of the story. Her name is literally beauty to represent that she is both beautiful on the inside and outside.
Dana Baldus I think Kristen Stewart was a lot worse. The problem with Watson is that she can't sing. I wish this movie wasn't a musical, because a lot of the music was handled poorly, and not just by Watson.
I'll fight beside you, hell Stewart has been surprisingly me lately with her acting, oh and the award for worst singing voice this year and new member of the top ten worst singing voices goes to.....
Unpopular opinion: I don’t think Emma Watson was the right cast for this movie. Yeah I get it she played Hermione who’s a book worm and courageous etc and she looks similar to belle and such so on paper she’s the perfect fit right? But thing is her acting of belle just didn’t resonate well with me? Trust me I’m trying to pin point what it is exactly. Possible she just typecasted forever in my mind as Hermione? Although I’ve seen other movies with her in it (there’s this one about Noah and his ark, not the best film granted can get a lil boring so not on my recommended I won’t lie to you) and again there’s just something stiff about her. Like she’s trying way too hard to act. I’ll give you a specific example; the reprise of “bonjour” after Gaston asks belle to marry him, she does this little “ugh!” Which just made me cringe a little bit because it was such a stiff - theatrical I want to say? - way to say it. I really hope I’m conveying this well oops Plus would be cool to get an actress who can sing just saying xox
@afootineachworld Mary sue, that's the word! Haven't heard it in a while but now I know why this Belle irks me in the wrong way. Just like how those type of characters in fictions I read in wattpad as a kid lol.
I knew that, in my heart, the 2017 remake would never top the 1991 cartoon. But, my god, the remake feels glitzy. Belle is really unlikeable. Emma Watson makes her seem uppity and holier-than-thou, and she acts more like she’s ordering a coffee at Starbucks than making a deal with a Beast to save her father's life or nearly being mauled to death by wolves. The homosexuality was painfully shoehorned into the film and it’s only a "blink and you'll miss it" moment. Timon and Pumbaa and the Winnie the Pooh characters are gayer than Lefou. But at least Gaston and Lefou are genuinely good. Even more so than Apathetic Belle and Shoddy CG Beast. If Beauty and the Beast was Watson's attempt to move on from Harry Potter...better luck next time.
Of all the Disney live-action reboots, the choice to do this one kind of baffled me, especially since it was clear from the trailers that it was a straight remake. I can understand redoing "Cinderella" or "Sleeping Beauty" because the original films were fairly simplistic and had room to expand on the story, but "Beauty and the Beast" already had a pretty strong, cohesive narrative. In order to make it really stand out, they'd have to rebuild it from the ground up. Which they didn't do.
The choice to do *all* of these live-action reboots completely baffles me! What reason (other than the obvious one, which is money) in any way justifies taking animated classics that are *perfectly fine as they are* (complaints about "political incorrectness" and "cliches" be damned) and turning them into generic CGI filled live-action flicks!?
Same reason I’m not looking forward to the Lion King remake. Plus they changed 99 % of the voice cast (yes I’m aware Sarabi’s va died) because the original cast wasn’t “black” enough. Seriously?!? They.are.lions!!!
Asia is a continent, France is a country. It would be like if they casted a non-white person in this film, it wouldn't make sense. So it wouldn't make sense to cast a non-asian person as Mulan
The best Disney live action movie remake in my opinion is Pete's Dragon Because the original is the sappiest thing I have ever seen it makes Paw Patrol look like Lord of The Flies Also is 2016 the year of pairing little kids with giant creatures? We got that movie, The BFG and A Monster Calls (a fairly unknown movie that made me cry. Shut up). Durp senses a patern
what's so special about emma watson anyway?, even in the harry potter movies her acting would range from average to ok, she was horribly miscast as belle emilie de ravin in "once upon a time" is a better belle than her
The Ice Ninja as far as I understand people don't like Emma Watson as an actor they like her as a person, personally I just grew up watching Harry Potter so I love her despite her lack of an ability to show emotion.
Other than Harry Potter apparently she's been doing some stupid political stuff lately, or at least at the time. And since she's a female actress talking about politics I guess people like that? (Even though she has no idea what she's talking about) :/
She goes to the UN in verge of tears yapping in platitudes; clearly not understanding how testosterone works... Makes vapid, hollow gestures as to appear as an activist... clapping seals follow, and what people think she's hot is beyond me...
Beauty and the beast is my favorite Disney of all time and I was impressed with live action but it will never touch the original 1991 Emma Watson was good belle but sorry Emma Watson the 1991 belle will always be the better one the 1991 belle ballgown is still best and gorgeous Emma should of wear the 1991 belle dress and the 1991 transformation is still the best
Even the COLOUR PALLETTE of this film looked noticably dull, even when judging the film on it's own. I felt like when compared to other Disney Remakes, it just doesn't look as beautiful. As yes, I know it's superficial and probably nitpicky, but the colour palette just looked ugly and dull when compared to other Disney Remakes. I remember when I watched the Alice In Wonderland back in 2010 when I was about 7, and I REALLY didn't like the colour palette. I didn't know at the time that it was actually meant to be dark and gritty, so the whole time, I was thinking "Why isn't this bright and colourful?" This is why I liked the Cinderella, and Alice Through the Looking Glass remake; They had VERY colourful and beautiful visuals, which is PERFECT for a Disney movie!
Thank you..... I'm glad I'm not the one who didn't like this live action remake. Beauty and the Beast has been one of my favorite films since I was a kid and it's great just the way it is. This film, while it wasn't terrible, fails to hold a candle to the animated version. The stuff they added in was either pointless or never talked about again. (Like Belle's mother, the Beast's daddy issues, the stupid magic teleporting book, and making the enchantress be an actual character besides a plot device.) The new songs range from alright to mediocre and the old songs(except Gaston, which was the only classic song that was done decently) just aren't that good compared to the originals. The acting from the side characters and the villains were good while the acting for the two main leads were terrible. Emma Watson is an absolute joke as Belle. I enjoyed her as Hermoine in the Harry Potter series and she got better as the series went on. But this. This was just garbage. Dan Stevens isn't good either. You pretty much summed up what I thought of him in this video, Cell. So I don't repeat that. In conclusion, this felt more like a paint-by-number remake than an actual adaptation.
Upon rewatching this, also, What the HELL happened to Chip!? He went from being a tiny adorable endearing clueless kid, not completely aware of the severity of the situation, cute uplifting voice actor, joyful, optimistic, and they turned him into.....like....an old-timey Oliver Twist-sounding boy drawn on a cup? o_ O
Omg I really disliked this movie and you hit just about every issue I had with it. I thought I was the only one who hated this film~ One thing you missed though would be the swirls. This film has soooo many swirls. Just look at any scene in the castle, relentless swirls. Aside from the story being heavily focus group oriented, the film is shot horribly. The dance scene, as they spun, the background blurs and idk why but it made it hard to focus. This happened a lot in the film. The backgrounds would blur, they'd break the rule of thirds, they just made it very difficult to focus. Plus Emma Watson did not portray Belle, she portrayed Emma Watson.
Yep, hence why I refer to her character as Emma Watson. I will never refer to that performance as Belle as Belle is reserved for the original voice actress ONLY!
look like and don't like what you want but for the love of god don't act like you're the first person to say you prefer the animated 1, that couldn't be further from the truth.
I would have preferred it if they based this remake more on the Broadway version like they planned over a decade ago, but I like that they lifted a couple of elements from it.
My biggest beef with the movie was that the singing sucked and sounded like fucking autotune madness. Except for Gaston. Gaston did a wonderful job because...wow! He was the only real singer in the cast! I really wish that Emma Watson had either just focused on the singing and practiced really hard at it (which she probably did) and them NOT autotune it to shit, or they could do something that so many old musicals did perfectly fine by dubbing over her. Or they could have just cast someone who was better at singing.
Can I say all these remakes (except Pete's Dragon) sucks, I don't want anymore remakes and will never see any of them, Disney should bring back traditionally hand drawn animated films, invest more in their animation departments than their live-action sitcoms, and quit it with their bigotry? Or I am pushing it a little?
Not at all, Royal Anonymous, I feel the exact same way. Heck, even if we unfortunately only get CGI, as long as Disney creates great stories instead of live-action remakes, I'm satisfied.
"If it needs to be confirmed behind the scenes to be evident, it's just another way of keeping LGBT characters in closets" Me: _looking at Newt from Pacific Rim_ I want to believe...
disney doesn’t want gays in their film. they just had la fou be gay so they could get brownie points and make a propaganda. at least disney is smart enough not to put in a huge gay romance in their films. no one would watch it. no
@@saklee1777 They want to get patted on the back for representation while not doing anything that risks offending anyone that doesn't want to see it. And when you try to please two groups of people with mutually exclusive desires, all you end up doing is pissing them both off.
By the way, great job. Just a few things =] 1) The plot hole you had concerns over never bothered me because her singing about wanting "more than this provincial life" was more about establishing her character and much less about setting up a narrative point to be paid off later. (Although, I would argue she does end up having that desire fulfilled ... just maybe not exactly in the way she imagined it.) 2) My biggest issue of all with the 2017 take is Belle actually learns about the spell and the end result if it is not broken. From what I'm told, she was never told *how* to break the spell. (By the way, I refuse to see this for an assortment of reasons ... mostly boiling down to "If I wanted to see the classic, I'll see the classic".) But even if she didn't know how to break the spell, it does question the sincerity of their budding relationship since she now has an ulterior motive that has nothing to do with him. The 1991 animated film shows that Belle and the Beast develop a relationship naturally through a kind of mutual give and take that has nothing to do with knowing this spell was there. In other words, I had the impression Belle began to be open to the Beast not because the Beast stopped being angry at her all the time (for no reason) but because "I want to help these servants become human". This completely undercuts the whole love story progression, including and especially the tearful "I love you". 3) I suspected this also but the changes to the storylines were also to try to bring it closer to the Beaumount telling. And honestly, the story changes made for what became the 1991 film (as the Howard Ashman/Alan Menken foundation was an eleventh-hour switcheroo compared to what they had started to do) were made for the better. For instance (and the best example), the problem I would have with the story as it is told is its emphasis on conditions, especially regarding Belle reconnecting with her family. In the Beaumont telling, she is given a timeframe to visit her father and siblings, otherwise he will die due to her absence. In the 1991 version, after she knows her father is deathly ill, the Beast makes it very clear she is free to go to him and there is *no obligation for her to return at all*. *That* alone makes the story powerful and makes the rest of it all the more satisfying. But here, by adding those story elements from the Beaumont telling makes it way more disjointed than it needed to be. And honestly, I think people should stop telling the story in this way as there have been numerous examples of bad tellings of it, including the 2016 French film, which may or may not have been considered a remake of Cocteau's. And yes, the only one who could pull off telling Beaumont's story cinematically was Cocteau. So yes, it was very pointless. I was glad that I never went to the theatre to see it and was very happy watching the Blu-ray at home =D
The only one I saw was Maleficent, and I was massively disappointed with it, thankfully my sister-in-law paid for the ticket, but still they made King Steph, a man willing to destroy his nation's economy to save his daughter's life, to avert a curse placed on her because someone didn't get invited to a presenting, the villain. They made the three fairies utterly incompetent, Frozen did a much better job with the whole 'act of true love' subversion and did it without a kiss, ... I could go on but I think I made my point.
I want to add on a little to something you said close to the end there. It's EXACTLY why I hate a lot of live action remakes of older animated series and movies. It's because sometimes I feel like it's supposed to be an 'adults' version. Yes, I know more than likely they're trying to appeal to those who liked the original, but to me it also feels like it's pandering to those people who aren't kids anymore and basically saying, "Here, now there's something for you to enjoy so that you don't have to worry about watching something that was intended for kids." It infuriates me that these adults feel that anything in the animation category is basically "kids stuff" so they refuse to give it a chance or put down people who enjoy the medium. Animation can actually convey some really deep and emotional stories. It can depict so much emotion and create relateable characters and wonderful worlds to explore. But somehow there's just always this stigma that "you're too old" to watch these things at a certain age and thus it feels like it just kind of spits on the original when there's this "adult" version to satisfy older audiences. (When really I'd say a majority of stuff aimed at older audiences is just as immature given all they want is to freely be able to talk and joke about sex and curse to their hearts content and use offensive humor.) You know what I want to see? I want an attempt at someone making a classic live action movie into an animated remake. And not one of those cheap direct to dvd movies made by a low budget animation studio. I mean a theater released movie with a good sizable budget. I mean, maybe it'd bomb. I don't know. But it's just something I'd like to experience once just to see if it could be better than its original source. The sad part is, with 3D animation being cheaper than traditional and so few animation studios doing hand drawn animation, I can't see it being anything else than in CGI animation, which really sucks because I would take traditional first before CGI, but oh well.
You know funny thing is technically The Secret World of Arrietty by Studio Ghibli is an animated remake to a LA film called The Borrowers that wasn't favored by critics or the public. Just thought I'd bring that up.
I personally hated the Live Action Beauty and the Beast. Emma Watson was a bad choice. Her acting was stale, had no character and was really boring to watch. Also her singing was just horrible.
I hate that one of the first “confirmed gay Disney characters” is one that has a name translated to English is THE FOOL. This was literally just to appease the LGBTQ+ community. And we are not appeased in the slightest.
I'm so glad more people are admitting that Emma Watson-looks around-might've not been the best choice for Belle. So many insipid fans defended Watson from anyone who had the audacity to say Watson wasn't the best choice EVAR or that her singing was sub-par at best.
I admit that she isn't the best singer, but I liked her acting in the movie. and i'm not going to attack u at all for giving me your reasons for this... so, what was wrong with her acting?
To me the worst besides all you said (and I 100% agree) is that the movie is set on France and Emma Watson has this poignant British accent! The moment the first song comes up, everyone is like “bonjour, bonjour” and the first few words she says already gives it away. I didn’t buy her as Belle one minute, the whole time I watched it being complete aware it was Emma Watson.
I don't get why the fact that the Beast was cursed when he was eleven years old is a bad thing, I like how it makes things a bit morally ambiguous on how good the enchantress really was. It is one of those things that makes the movie more interesting in my opinion.
A better Live action Beauty And The Beast is the French La Belle et la Bete (2014). It has nothing to do with Disney, it is based entirely on the original and other iterations of the French Fairytale. Which means it is entirely refreshing, new but still the Tale as Old as time we all know and love. That movie is beautiful and prefer it over this one.
It offered a nice extended universe to daydreamers who can mix the best of fictional works without moaning about inaccuracies on social medias, indeed.
I'm reminded of a story my theater professor told during one of his lectures. He was directing a show, he loved the script and was very excited to work on the production. He called up a close friend, and the best lighting director he knew, to light the show for him. His friend of agrees, and is similarly excited to work on the project, but when asked about the script he has this to say, "I couldn't care less about the story, but in act two the lead is alone in an attic holding a candle, and I really want to light that scene." When it comes to the live action remakes of disney films, I rather enjoy them, mostly Maleficent, and this one, just because parts of them truly do look fantastic, and the aesthetic is inspiring. You also get neat things like the crow in Maleficent, the Beast's love of books, and bell's father being an artist who makes automatons, rather than "wacky inventions", in the new Beauty and the Beast. I'd love to say that art exists solely for the purpose of creating solid meaningful works, but sometimes they are just entertainment.
15:25 - 15:52 THANK YOU,SO MUCH!!! We joke around with these great or hell even amazing movies that have plot holes and sometimes the movie doesn't tell us too much about certain little things,but that doesn't mean we wanted them to remake them to answers those little question b/c there's a word that we fans call 'theories' its for fun we're NOT DEMANDING ANSWERS. -_-
Belle's reprise is not a plot hole.She gets wants. She literally lives her favorite story. Her thoughts at the beginning of the song are like that of a person knowing they want something but not sure what so they gather together a bunch of random thoughts to make sense of the feeling. "I want adventure" which she gets,she is literally a hero in the story "in the great,wide, somewhere" the castle is great,wide and certainly somewhere other then where she started. Great in this sense can even be seen as episodic rather than actually identifying a place. The most important lyrics though come at the very end "and for once it might be grand,to have someone understand" more then anything she wants someone to understand her,maybe a romance maybe a friend but she wants company and she finds that in the Beast. Then she ends it with "I want so much more than they've got planned" she doesn't want to be with Gaston,but that doesn't mean she doesn't want love, we are told quite early in the movie she enjoys romances so it's not like she was closed to the idea.
In the french adaptation "Something there" is clearly "Belle reprise #2", showing that the story that Belle is going to live is more strong and crazy than all the books she reads, and she likes it, and to appreciate it, with no spoilers like Emma does at the beginning of the 2017 movie.
You're using Celtic Women music, this could've been a review for Brave. Also, I'm not against remakes, but I just wish Disney would try to make their remakes different than just telling the same old story, if they can't do something new, then just leave it alone.
"Big name _British_ celebrities". That actually throw me off how everyone has British accent (except Lumiere, kinda) in a story set in *_France_* (Cogsworth, or Mrs. Pott are supposed to be British, but still). Well, the original animated movie didn't have many French accent but Emma Watson!Belle talk with very noticeably her native accent. Hm....
That bothered me. I know everyone always says "But Belle had an American accent in the original." Yes, she no accent, nobody had an accent outside of Lumiere and his girlfriend having a French accent and Miss's Potts be British. Those characters weren't necessarily French so its okay. In this having the main character who is still a French girl have VERY OBVIOUS British accent is distracting.
Hmm, it's almost like Hollywood needed shorthand for lowest common denominator to understand the story is set before 18/19th century with everyone having British accent. Never mind where the story might be set; France? Denmark? Germany? British accent, goddammit! Even though modern typical British accent wouldn't even exist yet, depending on the time the story is set. Or, they're just lazy not bothering of the accent hoping nobody would notice. Probably this reason. ¯\__(ツ)__/¯
Nanna Leifa It's to make Lumière stand out. Lumière is such a French stereotype that having anyone else have a French accent would distract from his character being the suave French womanizer he's meant to be. It's suspension of disbelief. Also, all the characters in the original (aside from Lumière and the duster) had either a British or American accent, so I really don't see how it's any different.
I always came to terms with the fact that Belle never really got "adventure in the great wide somewhere" with the fact that she got what I think the movie was trying to hint that she really wanted. "And for once it might be grand to have someone understand."
SAY IT AGAIN FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK! No but seriously, all my friends except for ONE drooled all over this film and Emma Watson and how "it fixes the original, guys!" Honestly the "plot holes" in the original are usually just things smug assholes point out in an effort to ruin someone else's fun. Most normal viewers are suspending their disbelief. I pretty much agree with this entire video. Stop the remakes aside from the Lion King one because it has a really solid cast and actual singers as the leads.
oh boy did the lion king turn out to be shit like i thought it would when i saw the ads for it. the moment i saw that i knew I KNEW that they would not be able to make facial expressions with those models. you know facial expressions one of the BIGGEST CRUCIAL THING to the lion king. those models can't bounce around. make it more realistic they say. oh yes because talking singing animals doing musical numbers IS SOOOOO realistic. and you know what I. WAS. RIGHT. and thankfully i didn't go watch this movie i didn't give them money so i can be free of concience knowing i didn't contribute to that monstrocity. dear god i saw the clip of Scars "long live the king" moment and it was disgusting. there was no emotion nor expression to one of the biggest moments in the movies. animation scar's voice was DRIPPING with malice and smugness. he was SAVORING that moment. the facial expressions and the bright colors are what brought the animated lion king to life. ironic then that the live action remake sucked all the life out of it by removing both those elements.
This format with the snarky section titles kinda reminds me of Lindsay Ellis's video essays. Maybe it's just because she did a video on Beauty and the Beast recently, so I associate the two together.
I feel like I'm the only one who truly didn't like the remake of beauty and the beast like it has some good things but is drowned out by all the bad things
Honestly the thing that made me the most angry was that I lost my favorite scene. My favorite scene in the animation is when they're fighting over the fact that the beast got hurt. Theres this beautiful VISUAL back and forth that happens and every time one makes a point, the other pulls back and vice versa. Then when Belle finally makes an attempt at bridging the gap, the beast also comes halfway and in the end they both equally take up the screen. Thats the first moment they start to see each in different lights and start the bigger gestures for each other. That doesnt happen in the live action... So the buildup to when they get together isnt there and theres no emotional payoff. I forget where I got this from but I did get this from another youtuber.
"Heck yeah I need to remember that line!" I thought to myself as you pinpointed the exact issue I have with KorrAsami that I haven't been able to put into words... and then I instantly forgot the exact wording of it...
There are 2 things I like about the live action version over the animated version. 1. I like how they touch the subject of Belle's mother. Sure the mirror thing is a big contradiction, but I love the idea where Belle and Beast learn what happened to her. 2. The live action Portrayal of Lefou. I love how Lefou doesn't agree with Gaston's ideas where as animated Lefou followed Gaston blindly. The added lyrics where Lefou questions which who truly is the beast was a surprised, but welcome, change.
Surprised that the yellow dress wasn't brought up. That was just so plain and ugly. It wasn't a good color for her complexion, and it was so out of place in the whole scheme of things. But, no, because Emma didn't want a dress that even looked like it was right for the time or fantasy setting (aka had a corset), then we might as well make it look cheaper than most of the dresses at a high school prom.
Ok, if you want the slightly more dark story, and you want to explore the “enchantress is belle’s mother” idea, you should read Tale as Old As Time. It’s part of the twisted tale series, and it was really interesting, and partly traumatizing for 12 year old me, who thought it would be lighthearted, despite it being called literally A TWISTED TALE. I definitely recommend the book though
1:33 Really? I saw it when I was 4-5 and I LOVED it! I would tie a blanket around my neck like a cape and run around the living room like I was fighting the wolves as beast. I actually thought The Little Mermaid was kind of scary. That face Triton makes when he destroys the grotto...
I'm gonna be honest here; I definitely thought that this movie wasn't needed right when I saw the ads, but I actually do like a lot of the new songs. Everything else was just kind of... eh.
There’s a good live action French version of Beauty and the Beast, made in 2014. Very good. The whole of that movie would’ve been a moot point if she just would’ve told the prince the truth about her in the first place, but it was still pretty good. My favorite telling of this story is a book called Beauty. I hope they never make a love action movie out of it, not after someone messed up in making the novel Beastly a movie. That book was far, far better than the movie.
Just randomly found this seven years later and thought I’d leave my thoughts; Even though there’s plenty of criticism that can be said about this remake, I’ll say one thing that can be mostly agreeable; it’s definitely the best remake Disney has made, and did some things that I personally believe were done better then the original/added new stuff, like giving the beast his own song which he lacked. Definitely a great addition.
Honestly the one things I liked from this movie was "Evermore" and The Mob Song number because I had been dying to see that in live action form hoping it would be as epic as the animated version
Disney literally interpreted everything about the original film WRONGLY. Le Fou is not supposed to be gay, he is supposed to be a goblin bootlicker. All the precious moments like Belle taking her dad's place as prisoner was horribly rushed, and so was literally everything else. Belle's dad is not suppose to steal _anything_ (not even the rose) yet he does in this movie, and that's why he gets imprisoned, whereas in the original he gets imprisoned for trespassing alone. The Beast trying to coax Belle out of her room to join him for dinner was HORRIBLY done in the remake, he literally didn't even care, it was like "oh i guess we have to do this scene" whereas in the original he gets super infuriated by her refusal - the same is the case for the scene where Belle gets caught in the West Wing, which was also a rushed scene. the narration in the beginning of the remake absolutely pissed me off. its like the female narrator was so uninterested in her job she was doing it with a gun to her head, whereas in the original the narrator pours his heart and soul into his narration of the story and immediately catches the interest of the audience. he is also using a way more serious tone of voice, whereas the remake narrator treats it like a bloody joke. this movie was a fucking slog to get through, i watched it once and i am never watching it again. the original however is a film i watch every now and then, still to this day.
Even if you hate this reboot, you got to admit that they actually fixed the ending! They actually put in "How do you feel about growing a beard?" I almost screamed when I heard it in the theater
okay 1.) Thank you for literally saying everything I felt about the live action Disney reboots verbatim. Given I also have the addon opinion of Beauty and the Beast not needing a reboot the same way OLDER disney films because (Just using the first 3 Disnet princess movies for examples) Snowwhite is a side character to the dwarves, Cinderella is a side character to the mice, and Aurora is a side character to the Fairies and Philip. Because of this those old movies could stand to be redone and tinkered with but BEAUTY and the BEAST did not. 2.) Funny thing about that enchantress and the potential disappointment of thinking that she could have been Belles mother: In an early early version of Madame de Villeneux's book there was a missing chapter to the end about fairies and Belle actually being a princess switched at birth for realsies and the EVIL enchantress cursing both Princess baby Belle and the Beast (Belle being cursed to marry a beast of a man [like Gaston] and the beast getting turned into... well... a beast... and how the two curses counteracted each other.) it's only a little wave of Disney magic to have Belle go from 'Switched princess at birth' to Fairy Enchantress Queens Daughter with Maurice the human inventor whom she had to abandon to go back to fairyland but met a young boy heading down the road to personal ruin so Cursed him to counteract the Curse on her Daughter Belle (Daughter cursed to marry a Beast of a man + Boy who needs to learn a lesson that potentially Daughter can fix + Destined to eventually meet = EVERYBODY HAPPY!) Atleast that's my headcannon for the original film.
I don't know if I'd call Snow White "a side-character to the dwarfs". The dwarfs don't appear on screen until thirty-or-so minutes into the film; Snow White is the focus of the movie up until that point, and she's still crucial to the story when the dwarfs finally show up. I'd say Philip is ALSO a side-character to the fairies.
I just never got how people prefer live action reboot over animation. You can get better expressions, voices, songs, movement, and less creepy cgi designs.
I'm the only one who defend animation in my house because, "It feels real and is less creepy".
I don't know where the hell they found out that logic
I'm on team Animation. It's a lot more, fluent and has a lot more diversity than a model in a real setting. Can you make the CGI animals stack up on eachother all wacky in a Lion King reboot in a real setting in Africa? No. It also is a lot more charming and somehow blends better with real envoirments! (See Who Framed Rodger Rabbit for proof)
So, don't do some CG. Draw it yourself.
But, I will be a long time of CG movies. It's easier to produce.
Or that's what some people are saying about this animation decade.
Unfortunately, a lot of it comes down to animation being seen as made for kids. Because so many animated properties have been aimed towards kids, it's now associated with children and therefore adults see themselves as too cool and grown up for animation.
Yes! In the old movie, the moment when the beast is holding Gaston over the precipice to drop him, he looked so monstrous, but when gaston begs for his life... you see this change in his face. You see Humanity, finally. I looked for it in Live action, and did not find it.
The beast in the animated movie was more intimidating and expressive than this live action one.
I'm still wondering if Dan Stevens was wearing a motion capture suit underneath the blue suit for the Beast design
Plus HE ACTUALLY ACTS LIKE AN ANIMAL! Despite the messy eating scene the live action beast acted more like a guy in a fursuit than a beast. Heck even furries act more animal-like than him
Yes! In the old movie, the moment when the beast is holding Gaston over the precipice to drop him, he looked so monstrous, but when gaston begs for his life... you see this change in his face. You see Humanity, finally. I looked for it in Live action, and did not find it.
The beast in the new one isn’t scary while the animated one was scary like I WAS ACTUALLY SCARED OF THE BEAST when we she him and Belle
I heavily agree
One of my biggest problems with the CGI is that in trying to be so realistic, it loses the emotional expression of the '91 version. The facial features on the servants are so small and lost in all the decorative embellishments, they might as well be soulless puppets. This is especially true of the Beast. The original had these huge expressive eyebrows that would instantly show frustration, confusion, annoyance, happiness, sorrow, etc., but the CGI Beast - even with so much more technology behind him - just looks like a stiff mask. That is when you can see him because there's so much shadow in this movie.
They should remake the movie BUT with Hand-Drawn and revitalize the cartoon spirit.
+Jonathan Sulinski-Yeah, even on a pure animation level (you know, the ONE thing Disney is supposedly always good at), this movie fails but what you said brings a stark reminder of a very subtle and touching moment in the original. After the Beast sends Maurice back home and he didn't allow Belle to say goodbye to her own father to where she may very well never see Maurice again, the Beast sees Belle crying in the tower. When she says, "You never let me say goodbye, now I may never see him again," the Beast looks genuinely upset for a moment. He realizes that he hurt Belle through his own monstrous, selfish decision to rip Belle's father away from her before they could have a final goodbye. It shows that the Beast may be selfish but he's not completely heartless and likely often didn't know, genuinely didn't know, that his selfish actions had consequences for everyone else. That one moment already humanizes the Beast to a great degree and that moment was done without a single word. Subtlety and nuance at its finest-subtlety and nuance are surely lacking in this remake.
Another seemingly small moment they utterly ruin is the awesome Beast reveal from the original. Up until the point Belle made the Beast come out into the light, the Beast's full form was never fully shown and usually kept in very careful silhouette/shadow and when Belle first saw him lurking in the shadows, the most that could be made out outside of silhouette was the eyes and teeth. The filmmakers obviously and very deliberately intended to do this to build up the Beast as this terrifying, otherworldly monster and when he finally steps out, it is actually offputting and frightening.
@@realuity3075 Er, no they shouldn't, because if you want that... you can just watch the original movie again.
I thought Belle felt like a complete BRAT when she first ran away from the castle. In the original film, she ran away because she thought the beast was going to hurt or kill her. In the remake... The beast yelled at her and she stormed out of the castle, like she was pouting!
The original had more of a build up for the forbidden wing too like it Belle was being given a tour and she got curious then snuck off. But the remake she just seemed to decide to look around there to spite beast just because it was forbidden.
@Pastel Monster Nice poem. :)
@@nerdcontrol22 beast and Belle had no chemistry in the remake! God! How did they fall in love?
@npaujbais even worse: the point of the original was to see thru looks and love for actions. Watson belle basically fell in love because he was the good looking jock who treated her like a jerk, the beast was basically gaston from the original
Personally, I thought that Anne Hathaway would be a better Belle than Emma Watson. She can sing well and play it with full confidence.
Emma Watson though, . . .
Not lookin' too good, Hermoine.
i always thought that anna kendrick would be a good belle
I always thought samantha barks would be an amazing belle
I thought Maia Mitchell would have been great.
Lady Korralynn Lorelaie I thought it was PERFECT casting (DON'T KILL ME)
I just imagined that and I have an eye boner, thanks
Am I the only who thinks that the faces on the teapots are weird or is that just me?
I thought it near David Cronenberg. It was horrifying, Chip and the wardrobe in particular were GHASTLY! Don't zoom in on them for gods sake! There is no good way to adapt the animated characters into live action but boy did they strike the center of the Uncanny Valley.
Lady Ciel Nope, I agree
Lady Ciel Mrs. Potts’ new design will forever haunt me.
They look like Lenny faces...
I'll be honest here if I were to see a face like Mrs Potts in real life I'd throw a pebble and see it break
I'll be fine with the Mulan remake if they make it PG 13. Just watching how intense the war scenes are in the cartoon, they would have to dumb it down like crazy to keep it PG
I just hope Mulan is not made into a Mary Sue. And is cast by an Asian actress.
apparently the mulan wont be a muscial and they had removed li shang ...
Alpna V I'm pretty sure that was debunked, but I'm not sure. I don't know why they would get rid of Li Shang, considering he was a main character and one of the integral parts of the plot in Mulan 2. Also, the lack of music was a misinterpreted quote from the producer. She said they had no music in the movie yet, but it doesn't mean it won't have music in it. The cast is also confirmed to be made of Asian actors.
I just checked online and, yeah, looks like Li Shang is out. Dang.
ᴏғғɪᴄɪᴀʟ ᴀᴜᴛᴜᴍɴ ᴛʜᴇ ʟᴇᴀғᴇᴏɴ Yeah, I hope they don't change too much, because if they do, it will feel like the new Pete's Dragon did for me. That one kind of felt like Disney taking the occasional dump on my nostalgia. Reboots exist for the sole reason of being a callback to old movies, so as long as liberties are taken without compromising the main foundation of the story, I'm good.
I disagree about them "bonding" over literature. It felt more like him just showing off and being arrogant whereas in the original Belle teaching the beast to read felt more genuine and sweet and like a believable way for them to bond. In the live action he just sort of gives her the library and leaves her alone to read.
Oh! Not to mention in the original he gives her the library as a gesture of how much he cares for her that he thinks of the thing she loves to do and wants to surprise her with a gift. In the live action he's just sort of like "eh I've already read all these so here ya go"
BS critism, He shared books as a commen intrest with her nothing arrogant about that, in fact I actually think it's a more apporite and realistic way for people to fall in love then one acting like a role mdel to the other. I mean how many of our parents bonded over their Mom teaching their Dad to read, your'e just refusing to take off nostalgia goggles here. if your'e going to dislike the remake make sure it's for actual smart reasons.
Exactly how I felt... I honestly find sharing something you love and someone else gaining interest because of you more romantic than someone just having the same interest and giving you stuff they already have.
Touko White Right that is another sign I should cut this movie out of my life.
The problem with the scene was that it felt like the Beast was just kind of... negging her. "Oh, you like 'Romeo and Juliet'? Ugh, your taste in literature sucks, mine is so much better, here's a bunch of books to prove it... you can have them, I guess.'" It felt less like he was doing it out of the goodness of his heart and more like he was flexing on her. He even makes a comment about his "expensive education" to her, knowing full well she's a poor village girl who could never afford it.
Emma Watson was a HORRIBLE casting decision. She can't sing worth a damn and seemed bored the entire time. They only picked her for her name, but you can't convince me they NEEDED her to sell this film. They could have actually cast who knew what they were doing for this role like Samantha Barks.
Thank you! I've been saying Samantha Banks for quite sometime. Absolutely perfect, fantastic singer and also the same age as Emma. Also less stuck up but that's well beside the point. Just put more Broadway singers in musicals goddamn it!
Could you imagine if they decided to go with America Ferrera? She's pretty enough but an amazingly energetic actress.
@Ariah’s California You may think Emma was a good actress in the movie, this person doesn't. It's subjective.
@Ariah’s California Dude. When Cell showed the difference between her singing voice, and the original Belles', I could hear the autotune... That's not good. When it comes to casting a movie where their are a lot of songs, it's best to find someone who can actually sing. No offence to Emma, but she can't sing.
Dragon Queen
You are so right!
I wish I could give you a thousand likes!👍
Emma may be a really good actress but that doesn't mean she'll be very good at singing. I loved her role as Hermione in Harry Potter and she didn't sing. So if she didn't sing in the film I would still say that she done a good job!
My biggest problem is....why British accents...ITS IN FRANCE D:
Jillian W British people sound attractiver than franch people
I mean this is true LOL but I wish they would not have done accents at all if they weren't going to be true to the setting regardless
Trepach III Two of those words you used are not words. Also it’s a fucking kids movie. They should be less focused on sex appeal and more on sticking to the narrative.
Yea but sex sells as they say
@@ashcoates3168 Ce sont des mots qui commence la guerre! Them's fighting words!
I go watch the live actions souly for the visuals and costumes. And I was disappointed on Belle's yellow ball glown. It's not even close to the fashion that the story is set in.
Yeah, it looked like a prom dress I would have seen. It so plain and unappealing. I have stood in line with cosplayers in conventions that had better looked Belle dress's, and I mean that. Well blame it on the actress, she bragged about designing it HER way and I guess that's the result, a lame duck of an outfit.
Über Kirbeeh yeah, I didn't really like the Cinderalla remake but it looked nice and I loved seeing the costumes (especially the stepmother and Cinderella's). Sad to hear that Belle's dress wasn't as striking as Cinderella's.
Apparently Emma made a big fuss about the dress because she didn't want to wear a corset. Claiming it wasn't feminist. It's just a rumor but I wouldn't be suprised if it's true.
Disney: Lefou is gay!
China: Pardon?
Disney: Lefou is straight. We can tell everyone he’s gay post production, right? Wouldn’t want to lose China
Disney: Hey this cop is a lesbian, she said it herself!
China:
Disney: Of course we can change that in translation... heh heh
Mme. Veronica oh? What movie is that?
@@lukasnovella9001 onward I believe
@@mohammedyousef4005 ah, makes sense. I haven’t seen Onward at that time
@@lukasnovella9001 meen ethier
I appreciated what you have to say about... pretty much everything. Mostly the comment that Disneyland Gaston is BEST Gaston.
But it's true!
Miranda Young I want to see this guy😆
Disney was literally like "hey the original Belle's singing voice was done by a trained opera singer. Let's get Emma Watson who can't sign very well to play Belle! And she sings all the songs!"
The.book would have worked better if the beast said something like "the book doesnt bring us there, it provides the illusion of us being there"
You're right, that'd be so much better. And such a simple way to fix that plothole, too
WaffleAuflauf “Paris, wow” “merely an illusion, no matter how detailed of one it is”
I grew up on Disney's traditionally animated films, the ones from the 90's having the biggest impact. Part of what made it magic to me was how drawings were turned into these beautiful works of art and brought the characters and scenery to life. Remaking everything in live action with CGI to be "realistic" takes that magic away for me.
Same here, AmethystLuna07.
Some of the other reboots were forgivable because they added enough to the story to be considered their own movies. For instance, The Jungle Book remake is different enough from the Disney one to be considered a different movie. They gave Mowgli more character, and the tone was significantly darker than the animated version (I grew up with the animated Jungle Book, btw), but this is disgusting. Even if it does add changes, the changes are not significant enough to separate itself from its animated predecessor. It just feels like a soulless cash grab.
From my point of view Stephen, they sacrificed certain better elements for their new changes and most of them didn't pay off
Thomasmemoryscentral I never said their changes were good or bad. All I said was that the changes made for some of these reboots made significant enough changes to be considered their own movies. This reboot, however, did not make changes significant enough to make for a different movie.
Stephen Brown I know along with the fact that Emma Watson isn't brilliant at singing and not much autotunes
The live-action Jungle Book is way better than the animated one, just saying.
Cristobal De la Puente Agreed.
When is Disney gonna realize that the perfect remake is sitting right in from of them. Atlantis. yeah it flopped at the box office, but it has since become a major cult classic, so the audience for a live action remake is there, it'll pay for itself.
I’ve been saying the same thing!! They could make a TON of live-action remakes of the ‘less popular’ Disney movies like Atlantis or Treasure Planet! Also I firmly believe Brother Bear would make a GREAT remake.
@@gwengrasso1887 I think if they remade Brother Bear now, it would have the same problem as The Lion King with the character designs
Atlantis is kinda my favourite animated Disney film, it’s super unappreciated.
Honestly Atlantis is one of the few Disney animated movies I honestly think could actually be IMPROVED by a live action remake.
@@LuisGustavoSO yeah but It still seems like an interesting idea
In the town, especially during her song, Belle walked like she was in jeans.
V
She was slouching too, which is something the original Belle would never do.
I think people get confused of the timeline in the original. The prince was clearly NOT 11 years old in the original, in the stained glass and the painting he looks exactly the same age as he does in the end. I think the narrator meant his 21st year as the Beast. The 10 years bit in Be Our Guest I believe was about it being that they have been doing nothing for that long and that was the first time they had something to celebrate. Also I'm pretty sure they didn't age in that time, as Chip was about 6 or 7 years old.
Also, there are plenty of defenders of the original that say marrying the prince did not stop Belle from having adventures. If anything it opened up the possibility, the prince would not want stay in the castle after being trapped there for 21 years he'd want to go out as well.
He was 11, and the enchanted objects stopped to age. It's even the building of the Enchanted Christmas plot.. All the foreign dubs states it. But you're right for Belle, her life is just begin, just Disney writers wasn't interested to wrote it.
Honestly I think it's just the writers fucked up slightly with the timeline. Remember the people who write the script and those who write the songs are not the same people - the fact that the '10 years' line doesn't match up with the 'until his 21st year' line was probably just left unnoticed when the film went into production.
In the Broadway show, the line was at least changed to "which would bloom for many years". Probably because The Beast has been played by older actors.
dionysos46 You are accepting The Enchanted Christmas into canon?!
You sound like a more dedicated fan of Beauty and the Beast than the writers of this remake...
As a person that actually kinda liked the live action remake (though nowhere close to as much as the original) I can unbiasedly say without any doubt, Emma Watson was probably the WORST casting choice. When the freakin CG character called "Beast" has more human emotion than you do, you've kinda screwed somethin up.
They just wanted a big name
Mathmachine Weird, because I have the exact opposite opinion. I thought she was the BEST thing in that movie besides her singing. And I'm not super picky about singing so even then I didn't think she was bad. I'm an actress and I really loved her in this movie. But I hated the rest of it. But, then again, I really don't like Beauty and the Beast to begin with so...
Yeah, can I say worst casting choice? Like, I know its not going to happen but if she got a Razzie I wouldn't object. Paige O'Hara ran miles around her and all she did was loop the voice to some pencil sketches that were digitally colored. Think about that for a moment.
This is the thing, I thought she would be perfect for the role. Key word is THOUGHT! When I saw the movie, she disappointed me on every level! It's exactly like you said, ALL the other actors had more emotion than her! The scene that officially made me hate her performance was the scene where she almost leaves the Beast behind with the wolves. In the animated movie, you can see in Belle's eyes what she was thinking. No words needed. Emma couldn't pull that off. She had a vague blank stare. If I hadn't seen the original, I'm sure I would have asked, "Why the fuck is she just standing there?" And don't get me started on the singing. I don't know what made her go for the performance she did but she's the biggest reason I couldn't enjoy this movie as much as the original.
I'm an animator who studied acting. That was a terrible performance! Easily the worst part of the film for me.
When the townspeople were singing about how "strange" Belle was, it felt a bit forced. In the animated version, Belle *was* different from the others because of how she was animated, she was the only one wearing blue (besides the Beast) which made her stand out more.
Also, when Gaston (who for the most part doesn't even seem that interested in her) first approaches her, he is actually quite polite and even compliments her for reading, it made Belle look quite rude for rejecting him.
And why did Belle need to invent the washing machine? I heard that this was actually Emma Watson's idea so that Belle could continue her reading, and while this may seem harlmess it actually does have a slightly sexist connotation, which is even worse considering that Watson is supposed to be a feminist. Again it felt like they were trying too hard to make her a modern woman which wasn't really needed.
One thing not brought up here that was brought up in another review (Lindsey Ellis's I think) is the weird connotation in the live action movie that women were discouraged from reading that just wasn't true historically for 18th century France. In actual point of fact, they were encouraged to read and there was even several magazines specifically written for women to encourage such... which, by the way, one of these magazines was where the original Beauty and the Beast story was published.
I don’t know why you are surprised because she is a “feminist”, because feminists today are toxic and sexist. Maybe not all feminists today, but Everytime I here about modern feminists, they are horrible! So you being confused that Emma having a sexist idea despite being a “feminist” surprises you because again, most feminists today are SEXIST AND TOXIC!!
2015 Cinderella just made Cinderella a lot more passive than people think she was in the original
It's actually not a bad thing. Thinking about it, both versions show a different level of abuse towards the protagonist. The 2015 version probably thinks that scape is no longer an option and has accepted her fate, while the original actually knows when the lord gets in her house that that IS her opotunity to scape
I think 2015 pasiveness is worse. Cinderella was an adult when she was slaved by the step-mother, she had friends outside her house, people knew she was the trueborn child of her father and heir to the house. I can´t believe her father had no lawyer friend who cared to help his only child. Also, Cinderella was too good a servant. She learned to do all the chores perfectly when she had never done that before? At least the animated one started working as a child. It could be easier for the step-mother to say she was dead and thar servant girl was no related to the family at all (if anyone asked for the lord´s daughter)
Also, when the step-mother left her in the attic, I understood that she was going to starve there to death, so I couldn´t understand why the hell wasn´t she screaming the moment the horses came near the house.
This movie made itself have HIGH expectations with how they did the teasers and everything....but it fell SO HARD on its face. I remember sitting in the theater and by 65% of the film being done, I started cringing visibly every single time Emma opened her mouth to sing. Honestly the best parts of this film were Gaston, Lafou, and Belle's Dad.
There are so many other triple threat actresses they could have chosen from to give the role of Belle too. It really is a shame because this movie had SO MUCH potential.
I'd respond you with a 5 parragraphs speech, but I can't. You said it all.
IT HAD POTENCIAL.
Emma in Harry Potter was good. Emma every waking moment since: insufferable.
You know what? The REAL reason all these live-action remakes are going on is because A) Disney put themselves in debt from buying out Marvel, Lucasfilm, etc. AND B) they try to keep all their properties out of the public domain by extending copyright laws, so they're running out of their own properties. Congratulations! These live-action remakes are becoming Disney's new line-up of Diseny sequels! (and keep in mind, Walt Disney himself was against the concept of live-action remakes)
But what REALLY pisses me off about all this is that I think there IS potential in remaking some of their properties, albeit some of their less popular ones. Heck, I talk about this a lot, but Disney's Hunchback got a stage adaptation that leers closer to the novel (and it recently released a cast recording), and I could very much see a live-action version of THAT being made into something amazing!
But as we've established, good ideas are not what Hollywood's interested in right now. But sometime later on down the road, when this whole nostalgia trend crashes and burns, they might HAVE to take some major re-evaluation and try to resort to something that's just a cheap, underhanded cash-in ploy.
Jacob Below how about Atlantis the lost Empire. That would be perfect to remake. If the movie failed with critics and the box office, then do it again and try yo improve it. But we can all dream.
There you go!
I have major nostalgia but that's why I absolutely don't want to watch these movies. For me at least nostalgia turns me off from anything that's trying to recapture it because I want to protect my precious memories about it.
Er,the stuff they are remaking is in the Public Domain. I can make a Live Action Beuty And The Beast film FOR PROFIT given he money and Disney couldn't stop me.
Jacob Below I can’t tell if your first paragraph is you making a joke or being serious. Either way, I don’t think that’s entirely accurate.
Finally, someone mentions how illogical it is for Le Fool to be considered the "first openly gay character" in Disney. On the other hand, I'm glad that Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon are being tasteful with having gay representation in a way that normalizes it.
I'm a bit shocked that Disney's first gay character they chose was another version of a character from an animated 90's film they made. Like he couldn't come from an original work like Zootopia, he had to be from something they already made?
Thomasmemoryscentral I flipped when I heard this: Apparently, in Zootopia, the two annoying neighbors of Judy that DIDNT HAVE NAMES, were supposed to be gay
I didn't realize they were supposed to be gay. That's a really odd decision that they've made and it's unfortunate that Disney is slow to adapting to their LGBTQ+ viewpoints.
talkandramble There ass is being kicked by a dying kids channel XD
Connor Worley HAHA IKR? It's so sad, but they wouldn't care too much since they're making so much money anyway.
"Beauty and the beast is the most similar to the original animated movie"
Lion King 2019: allow me to introduce my self
Favreau knew he shouldn't bother trying to reinvent wheel, so decided to focus on the tech he wanted to use later.
Hell no. The lion king remake was damn awful. Even worse then this one in my opinion.
I usually like live action adaptations of Disney movies but this one is by far my least favorite. Something that really bothers me is Belle's blue dress. I hate it. It is so horribly ugly. Like in the original it was a simple, plain blue dress with an apron. But ohhhh no you can't do that! Like why does she have all that extra pattered fabric?? It's just so ugly! I'm also not a fan of her ball gown. Another thing that I do not like is how the enchantress broke the spell instead of simply Belle's love.
Ahh also I don't like Emma as Belle. Her version of Belle just seems cold and rude
Emma had a BIG had to say about her costumes. That´s why they are so weird and different from the others in the film. She wanted to be the free independent woman without corset, but period costumes require corsets to be worn properly, and that´s why they feel so loose and weird on her.
Honestly, Emma's Belle also seemed kinda arrogant and nowhere near as sweet as OG Belle. I feel like we see more Emma than we see Belle in the live-action.
Oh really? This one is actually my favorite thank you very much
Yes.
Because realism.
The only live action remake I enjoy is Cinderella! It was amazing and one of my favorite Disney movies ever.
Everyone around me keeps praising this movie like its some sort of new masterpiece and I just ugh. I really dislike this movie, everything from Emma Watsons terrible singing to the non existent chemistry between Belle and the Beast. It's fair to say I'm going to stick with the animated version.
I am beyond flabbergasted when I see praise for this movie. Granted its not like Jungle Book where its near universal I do know quite a few who hate it, but yeah I don't get it. And to the few who think its better then the original, I'm sorry I can't be nice but FUCK YOU!
MissMlp I think they have more chemistry in this than the original imo
Anna Kendrick was right there, she’s a big star, Oscar, Grammy and Tony nominated and she already slay “Belle” before
ruclips.net/video/7ZxFdjiQRws/видео.html
I think Emma Watson is a fairly good singer. Not the best but good enough. But I'm not so sure about her acting. she doesn't use enough body language and the movie just doesn't seam realistic enough altogether. I still don't mind the movie but I don't love it.
This is an unpopular opinion, but I just don't think Emma Watson was a good casting choice. Like, at all. I just don't think she's pretty enough to buy that everyone in this town falls over themselves to state how breathtakingly beautiful she is, her accent is distracting, and she can't sing for shit.
Amelia Bee Actually, only Gaston in BOTH versions is the only one tripping over himself to earn her hand.
Sure, everyone else SAYS she's pretty but no other man is actively attempting to gain her attention.
Plus, I'd say she was quite pretty. Belle is pretty in an adverage way. She could be anyone walking down the street. While not inwardly simple, she was common and never tried to be anyone but who she was.
THAT'S what makes her truly beautiful.
Lizzie Vamp She's a farm girl. Yes her father taught her how to dance in the live action version but she's still a farm girl.
The reason she has more grace in the animated version is because the animators modeled her movements off a ballerina.
Now, how many farm girls move like a ballerina in real life? Not many, I can assure you.
@@midgetwthahacksaw I disagree. In the original film not only does everyone sing that she is beautiful repeatedly but when Gaston says he wants to marry her, he says she's the prettiest girl in the town and Lefou says he knows, as if this is just a fact the whole town is aware of lol.
Also in the opening song, the lady with the wig says it's no wonder that her name means beauty and that her looks have no parallel.
I felt this implied that everyone feels the same way but no one really understands her as they find her strange so no one else is actively attempting to gain her attention whereas Gaston only cares about how she looks so doesn't care that she is considered odd. At least that's how I interpreted it and feel they were implying but I also find the animated Belle very beautiful myself as well.
I understand what you mean about the farm girl thing in the live action though as they seemed to try and make in more "realistic" is some ways so to have a plain looking Belle makes more sense if she's a farm girl, however doesn't really make sense in terms of the story. Her name is literally beauty to represent that she is both beautiful on the inside and outside.
thats a very popular opinion actually
Emma Watson gave a terrible, dull performance in this movie where she gave the emotional output of Kristen Stewart. Fight me.
You wanna go.
Dana Baldus No, I'll go there. Russell Crowe as Javert sang better than Emma Watson as Belle. At least he didn't hide behind autotuning...
Dana Baldus I think Kristen Stewart was a lot worse. The problem with Watson is that she can't sing. I wish this movie wasn't a musical, because a lot of the music was handled poorly, and not just by Watson.
DGilVids you misspelled ADR.
I'll fight beside you, hell Stewart has been surprisingly me lately with her acting, oh and the award for worst singing voice this year and new member of the top ten worst singing voices goes to.....
Unpopular opinion: I don’t think Emma Watson was the right cast for this movie.
Yeah I get it she played Hermione who’s a book worm and courageous etc and she looks similar to belle and such so on paper she’s the perfect fit right? But thing is her acting of belle just didn’t resonate well with me? Trust me I’m trying to pin point what it is exactly. Possible she just typecasted forever in my mind as Hermione? Although I’ve seen other movies with her in it (there’s this one about Noah and his ark, not the best film granted can get a lil boring so not on my recommended I won’t lie to you) and again there’s just something stiff about her. Like she’s trying way too hard to act.
I’ll give you a specific example; the reprise of “bonjour” after Gaston asks belle to marry him, she does this little “ugh!” Which just made me cringe a little bit because it was such a stiff - theatrical I want to say? - way to say it. I really hope I’m conveying this well oops
Plus would be cool to get an actress who can sing just saying xox
I'm pretty sure that is a popular opinion
You are not alone. She is really condescending as Belle. Far far from the original Belle.
She seemed kinda stiff like she wasn’t having fun
Ballroom psrt she looked so serious
@afootineachworld Mary sue, that's the word! Haven't heard it in a while but now I know why this Belle irks me in the wrong way. Just like how those type of characters in fictions I read in wattpad as a kid lol.
@afootineachworld i thought she actually did a decent job with Hermione, but then again I have never read the books
I knew that, in my heart, the 2017 remake would never top the 1991 cartoon. But, my god, the remake feels glitzy. Belle is really unlikeable. Emma Watson makes her seem uppity and holier-than-thou, and she acts more like she’s ordering a coffee at Starbucks than making a deal with a Beast to save her father's life or nearly being mauled to death by wolves. The homosexuality was painfully shoehorned into the film and it’s only a "blink and you'll miss it" moment. Timon and Pumbaa and the Winnie the Pooh characters are gayer than Lefou. But at least Gaston and Lefou are genuinely good. Even more so than Apathetic Belle and Shoddy CG Beast. If Beauty and the Beast was Watson's attempt to move on from Harry Potter...better luck next time.
Of all the Disney live-action reboots, the choice to do this one kind of baffled me, especially since it was clear from the trailers that it was a straight remake. I can understand redoing "Cinderella" or "Sleeping Beauty" because the original films were fairly simplistic and had room to expand on the story, but "Beauty and the Beast" already had a pretty strong, cohesive narrative. In order to make it really stand out, they'd have to rebuild it from the ground up. Which they didn't do.
The choice to do *all* of these live-action reboots completely baffles me! What reason (other than the obvious one, which is money) in any way justifies taking animated classics that are *perfectly fine as they are* (complaints about "political incorrectness" and "cliches" be damned) and turning them into generic CGI filled live-action flicks!?
Same reason I’m not looking forward to the Lion King remake. Plus they changed 99 % of the voice cast (yes I’m aware Sarabi’s va died) because the original cast wasn’t “black” enough. Seriously?!? They.are.lions!!!
From what I heard Mulan is less of a remake and more of a historical representation
If that's the case Ill be very happy.
Andrew Ward I'm just excited to compare the two remakes. I think it's Disney and Warner Bros. that are each making one? Correct me if I'm wrong
Expect Mulan is work of fiction.
So Mulan was a real person? She's more portrayed in folklore or legend.
Pelcogo Yup, Mulan was a real person.
*cough* *cough* Belle's auto tune *cough* *cough*
It would been better if it not have been that ok 😊😊💕💗💗💖💗💖💕 at least the creators tried their bests
"Will they hire Asians" Why? They didn't hire French people for this one .
Good point, and I'm sure they won't be hiring Danish actors for the remake of the little mermaid.
Asia is a continent, France is a country. It would be like if they casted a non-white person in this film, it wouldn't make sense. So it wouldn't make sense to cast a non-asian person as Mulan
it’s not the same?
@@biconbee In what way is it not? Acting is entirely about pretending to be someone else anyway.
The best Disney live action movie remake in my opinion is Pete's Dragon
Because the original is the sappiest thing I have ever seen it makes Paw Patrol look like Lord of The Flies
Also is 2016 the year of pairing little kids with giant creatures? We got that movie, The BFG and A Monster Calls (a fairly unknown movie that made me cry. Shut up). Durp senses a patern
That Paw Patrol comment made me laugh.
I love the original Pete’s Dragon because it’s so cheesy and sappy and I adore the remake because it’s just good.
A monster calls is my favorite movie no joke
I swear you are stalking me. Why are you everywhere?
The movie was already live action.
I'd be okay with a Mulan reboot...
BECAUSE THEN I'D BE ABLE TO GET THE DELICIOUS SZEUAN SAUCE MORTY!!!
TheApoke YES!!!
THEY'RE BRINGING BACK THE SAUSE MORTY!
I DONT CARE IF IT TAKES 12 MORE SEASONS!!! OR 97 YEARS!!
yes
I left the same comment sorry didn't see this oneeee
But they take out all the songs
what's so special about emma watson anyway?, even in the harry potter movies her acting would range from average to ok, she was horribly miscast as belle
emilie de ravin in "once upon a time" is a better belle than her
The Ice Ninja as far as I understand people don't like Emma Watson as an actor they like her as a person, personally I just grew up watching Harry Potter so I love her despite her lack of an ability to show emotion.
Other than Harry Potter apparently she's been doing some stupid political stuff lately, or at least at the time. And since she's a female actress talking about politics I guess people like that? (Even though she has no idea what she's talking about) :/
Emma can just dream of being as good in the role of Belle as Emilie is
She goes to the UN in verge of tears yapping in platitudes; clearly not understanding how testosterone works... Makes vapid, hollow gestures as to appear as an activist... clapping seals follow, and what people think she's hot is beyond me...
The Ice Ninja agree. She was only cast because she's a popular actress
I love the 1991 better
Ron P. You made the right decision
You and everyone else
So do I. I mean in this movie they at least tried with it, but in the end it was still kinda disappointing and the 1991 will always be the better one.
I used to, but I prefer the live action remake better than the animated original. Get it?!
Beauty and the beast is my favorite Disney of all time and I was impressed with live action but it will never touch the original 1991 Emma Watson was good belle but sorry Emma Watson the 1991 belle will always be the better one the 1991 belle ballgown is still best and gorgeous Emma should of wear the 1991 belle dress and the 1991 transformation is still the best
Even the COLOUR PALLETTE of this film looked noticably dull, even when judging the film on it's own. I felt like when compared to other Disney Remakes, it just doesn't look as beautiful. As yes, I know it's superficial and probably nitpicky, but the colour palette just looked ugly and dull when compared to other Disney Remakes.
I remember when I watched the Alice In Wonderland back in 2010 when I was about 7, and I REALLY didn't like the colour palette. I didn't know at the time that it was actually meant to be dark and gritty, so the whole time, I was thinking "Why isn't this bright and colourful?" This is why I liked the Cinderella, and Alice Through the Looking Glass remake; They had VERY colourful and beautiful visuals, which is PERFECT for a Disney movie!
Right!.I hated the colour palette .The original doesn't have a stunning color palette or visuals but it's still good
Yeah that’s kinda why I liked Aladdin
Thank you..... I'm glad I'm not the one who didn't like this live action remake. Beauty and the Beast has been one of my favorite films since I was a kid and it's great just the way it is. This film, while it wasn't terrible, fails to hold a candle to the animated version. The stuff they added in was either pointless or never talked about again. (Like Belle's mother, the Beast's daddy issues, the stupid magic teleporting book, and making the enchantress be an actual character besides a plot device.) The new songs range from alright to mediocre and the old songs(except Gaston, which was the only classic song that was done decently) just aren't that good compared to the originals. The acting from the side characters and the villains were good while the acting for the two main leads were terrible. Emma Watson is an absolute joke as Belle. I enjoyed her as Hermoine in the Harry Potter series and she got better as the series went on. But this. This was just garbage. Dan Stevens isn't good either. You pretty much summed up what I thought of him in this video, Cell. So I don't repeat that.
In conclusion, this felt more like a paint-by-number remake than an actual adaptation.
But i LOVED it why does everyone hate this movie!?!?
@@justgacha2107 She...she literally just said why.
When I saw the Good Idea, Bad Idea, I immediately thought of Animaniacs. Brilliant use of it, by the way.
Yay, you're alive!
Guess I should take all those missing posters down...
+Snow Halation
AYYYYYYY
Zeke R Lol.
I should really be sleeping...
Ah, fuck it.
Christian Fox It is like 3 am where I am at and I don't even give a shit
Christian Fox same
shouldn't we all be?
Christian Fox me too
Upon rewatching this, also,
What the HELL happened to Chip!?
He went from being a tiny adorable endearing clueless kid, not completely aware of the severity of the situation, cute uplifting voice actor, joyful, optimistic, and they turned him into.....like....an old-timey Oliver Twist-sounding boy drawn on a cup? o_ O
I honestly really enjoyed the live action Jungle Book
Omg
I really disliked this movie and you hit just about every issue I had with it. I thought I was the only one who hated this film~
One thing you missed though would be the swirls.
This film has soooo many swirls. Just look at any scene in the castle, relentless swirls.
Aside from the story being heavily focus group oriented, the film is shot horribly.
The dance scene, as they spun, the background blurs and idk why but it made it hard to focus.
This happened a lot in the film. The backgrounds would blur, they'd break the rule of thirds, they just made it very difficult to focus.
Plus Emma Watson did not portray Belle, she portrayed Emma Watson.
Yep, hence why I refer to her character as Emma Watson. I will never refer to that performance as Belle as Belle is reserved for the original voice actress ONLY!
I hate this movie so much.
I was wondering if you and cell were the same person
Yes you hate it because it's new no other reason.
It's not the best sadly
But it's ok for a movie
TennelleFlowers .
I thought I was the only one who preferred animation to live action.
look like and don't like what you want but for the love of god don't act like you're the first person to say you prefer the animated 1, that couldn't be further from the truth.
Me: Mom, can we get Beauty and the Beast?
Mom: No, we have Beauty and the Beast at home
Beauty and the Beast at home:
I would have preferred it if they based this remake more on the Broadway version like they planned over a decade ago, but I like that they lifted a couple of elements from it.
Thank you for mentioning her holding on to the saucer when drinking tea. Seeing that always baffled me....... yet no one else seemed to notice.
My biggest beef with the movie was that the singing sucked and sounded like fucking autotune madness. Except for Gaston. Gaston did a wonderful job because...wow! He was the only real singer in the cast! I really wish that Emma Watson had either just focused on the singing and practiced really hard at it (which she probably did) and them NOT autotune it to shit, or they could do something that so many old musicals did perfectly fine by dubbing over her. Or they could have just cast someone who was better at singing.
Can I say all these remakes (except Pete's Dragon) sucks, I don't want anymore remakes and will never see any of them, Disney should bring back traditionally hand drawn animated films, invest more in their animation departments than their live-action sitcoms, and quit it with their bigotry?
Or I am pushing it a little?
Down with CGI!
#TeamHand-Drawn
Not at all, Royal Anonymous, I feel the exact same way. Heck, even if we unfortunately only get CGI, as long as Disney creates great stories instead of live-action remakes, I'm satisfied.
Jungle Book was bad?
No The Jungle Book was pretty good.
@@jalenmoore5682 but they were mowglis cool chill fun happy go lucky character
"If it needs to be confirmed behind the scenes to be evident, it's just another way of keeping LGBT characters in closets"
Me: _looking at Newt from Pacific Rim_ I want to believe...
disney doesn’t want gays in their film. they just had la fou be gay so they could get brownie points and make a propaganda. at least disney is smart enough not to put in a huge gay romance in their films. no one would watch it. no
@@saklee1777 They want to get patted on the back for representation while not doing anything that risks offending anyone that doesn't want to see it. And when you try to please two groups of people with mutually exclusive desires, all you end up doing is pissing them both off.
By the way, great job. Just a few things =]
1) The plot hole you had concerns over never bothered me because her singing about wanting "more than this provincial life" was more about establishing her character and much less about setting up a narrative point to be paid off later. (Although, I would argue she does end up having that desire fulfilled ... just maybe not exactly in the way she imagined it.)
2) My biggest issue of all with the 2017 take is Belle actually learns about the spell and the end result if it is not broken. From what I'm told, she was never told *how* to break the spell. (By the way, I refuse to see this for an assortment of reasons ... mostly boiling down to "If I wanted to see the classic, I'll see the classic".) But even if she didn't know how to break the spell, it does question the sincerity of their budding relationship since she now has an ulterior motive that has nothing to do with him. The 1991 animated film shows that Belle and the Beast develop a relationship naturally through a kind of mutual give and take that has nothing to do with knowing this spell was there. In other words, I had the impression Belle began to be open to the Beast not because the Beast stopped being angry at her all the time (for no reason) but because "I want to help these servants become human". This completely undercuts the whole love story progression, including and especially the tearful "I love you".
3) I suspected this also but the changes to the storylines were also to try to bring it closer to the Beaumount telling. And honestly, the story changes made for what became the 1991 film (as the Howard Ashman/Alan Menken foundation was an eleventh-hour switcheroo compared to what they had started to do) were made for the better. For instance (and the best example), the problem I would have with the story as it is told is its emphasis on conditions, especially regarding Belle reconnecting with her family. In the Beaumont telling, she is given a timeframe to visit her father and siblings, otherwise he will die due to her absence. In the 1991 version, after she knows her father is deathly ill, the Beast makes it very clear she is free to go to him and there is *no obligation for her to return at all*. *That* alone makes the story powerful and makes the rest of it all the more satisfying.
But here, by adding those story elements from the Beaumont telling makes it way more disjointed than it needed to be. And honestly, I think people should stop telling the story in this way as there have been numerous examples of bad tellings of it, including the 2016 French film, which may or may not have been considered a remake of Cocteau's. And yes, the only one who could pull off telling Beaumont's story cinematically was Cocteau.
So yes, it was very pointless. I was glad that I never went to the theatre to see it and was very happy watching the Blu-ray at home =D
I thought I was the only one who hated disney live action remakes
Beyond Hurricane Mountain and Other Junk you really thought that?
Then you must not spend much time online.
Not even close
I just know a lot of people who love the live acton versions better
The only one I saw was Maleficent, and I was massively disappointed with it, thankfully my sister-in-law paid for the ticket, but still they made King Steph, a man willing to destroy his nation's economy to save his daughter's life, to avert a curse placed on her because someone didn't get invited to a presenting, the villain. They made the three fairies utterly incompetent, Frozen did a much better job with the whole 'act of true love' subversion and did it without a kiss, ... I could go on but I think I made my point.
Belle's singing voice in this live-action remake is fucking auto tuned!!
I want to add on a little to something you said close to the end there. It's EXACTLY why I hate a lot of live action remakes of older animated series and movies. It's because sometimes I feel like it's supposed to be an 'adults' version. Yes, I know more than likely they're trying to appeal to those who liked the original, but to me it also feels like it's pandering to those people who aren't kids anymore and basically saying, "Here, now there's something for you to enjoy so that you don't have to worry about watching something that was intended for kids."
It infuriates me that these adults feel that anything in the animation category is basically "kids stuff" so they refuse to give it a chance or put down people who enjoy the medium. Animation can actually convey some really deep and emotional stories. It can depict so much emotion and create relateable characters and wonderful worlds to explore. But somehow there's just always this stigma that "you're too old" to watch these things at a certain age and thus it feels like it just kind of spits on the original when there's this "adult" version to satisfy older audiences. (When really I'd say a majority of stuff aimed at older audiences is just as immature given all they want is to freely be able to talk and joke about sex and curse to their hearts content and use offensive humor.)
You know what I want to see? I want an attempt at someone making a classic live action movie into an animated remake. And not one of those cheap direct to dvd movies made by a low budget animation studio. I mean a theater released movie with a good sizable budget. I mean, maybe it'd bomb. I don't know. But it's just something I'd like to experience once just to see if it could be better than its original source.
The sad part is, with 3D animation being cheaper than traditional and so few animation studios doing hand drawn animation, I can't see it being anything else than in CGI animation, which really sucks because I would take traditional first before CGI, but oh well.
You know funny thing is technically The Secret World of Arrietty by Studio Ghibli is an animated remake to a LA film called The Borrowers that wasn't favored by critics or the public. Just thought I'd bring that up.
Oh my fucking god you are a theatrical genius
Not Animated to CGI
CGI to Animated.
GET WORKING ON IT
SOMEONE
PLEASE
Sylvaranti
I personally hated the Live Action Beauty and the Beast. Emma Watson was a bad choice. Her acting was stale, had no character and was really boring to watch. Also her singing was just horrible.
I hate that one of the first “confirmed gay Disney characters” is one that has a name translated to English is THE FOOL. This was literally just to appease the LGBTQ+ community. And we are not appeased in the slightest.
welcome to companies pretending to be progressive when in reality they don't actually care, they just want money.
I'm so glad more people are admitting that Emma Watson-looks around-might've not been the best choice for Belle. So many insipid fans defended Watson from anyone who had the audacity to say Watson wasn't the best choice EVAR or that her singing was sub-par at best.
I admit that she isn't the best singer, but I liked her acting in the movie. and i'm not going to attack u at all for giving me your reasons for this... so, what was wrong with her acting?
@@philadelphiawhovian5641 she seemed bored
To me the worst besides all you said (and I 100% agree) is that the movie is set on France and Emma Watson has this poignant British accent! The moment the first song comes up, everyone is like “bonjour, bonjour” and the first few words she says already gives it away. I didn’t buy her as Belle one minute, the whole time I watched it being complete aware it was Emma Watson.
"Best Gaston is Disneyland Gaston"
I totally agree xD
I don't get why the fact that the Beast was cursed when he was eleven years old is a bad thing, I like how it makes things a bit morally ambiguous on how good the enchantress really was. It is one of those things that makes the movie more interesting in my opinion.
A better Live action Beauty And The Beast is the French La Belle et la Bete (2014). It has nothing to do with Disney, it is based entirely on the original and other iterations of the French Fairytale. Which means it is entirely refreshing, new but still the Tale as Old as time we all know and love. That movie is beautiful and prefer it over this one.
It offered a nice extended universe to daydreamers who can mix the best of fictional works without moaning about inaccuracies on social medias, indeed.
Loved that!
I'm reminded of a story my theater professor told during one of his lectures. He was directing a show, he loved the script and was very excited to work on the production. He called up a close friend, and the best lighting director he knew, to light the show for him. His friend of agrees, and is similarly excited to work on the project, but when asked about the script he has this to say, "I couldn't care less about the story, but in act two the lead is alone in an attic holding a candle, and I really want to light that scene."
When it comes to the live action remakes of disney films, I rather enjoy them, mostly Maleficent, and this one, just because parts of them truly do look fantastic, and the aesthetic is inspiring. You also get neat things like the crow in Maleficent, the Beast's love of books, and bell's father being an artist who makes automatons, rather than "wacky inventions", in the new Beauty and the Beast. I'd love to say that art exists solely for the purpose of creating solid meaningful works, but sometimes they are just entertainment.
Hold up, was that Celtic Woman music?
You're my favorite reviewer now.
15:25 - 15:52 THANK YOU,SO MUCH!!!
We joke around with these great or hell even amazing movies that have plot holes and sometimes the movie doesn't tell us too much about certain little things,but that doesn't mean we wanted them to remake them to answers those little question b/c there's a word that we fans call 'theories' its for fun we're NOT DEMANDING ANSWERS. -_-
Belle's reprise is not a plot hole.She gets wants. She literally lives her favorite story. Her thoughts at the beginning of the song are like that of a person knowing they want something but not sure what so they gather together a bunch of random thoughts to make sense of the feeling. "I want adventure" which she gets,she is literally a hero in the story "in the great,wide, somewhere" the castle is great,wide and certainly somewhere other then where she started. Great in this sense can even be seen as episodic rather than actually identifying a place. The most important lyrics though come at the very end "and for once it might be grand,to have someone understand" more then anything she wants someone to understand her,maybe a romance maybe a friend but she wants company and she finds that in the Beast. Then she ends it with "I want so much more than they've got planned" she doesn't want to be with Gaston,but that doesn't mean she doesn't want love, we are told quite early in the movie she enjoys romances so it's not like she was closed to the idea.
In the french adaptation "Something there" is clearly "Belle reprise #2", showing that the story that Belle is going to live is more strong and crazy than all the books she reads, and she likes it, and to appreciate it, with no spoilers like Emma does at the beginning of the 2017 movie.
Well said. :)
Plot twist: *Belle has truly never seen a cup before*
You're using Celtic Women music, this could've been a review for Brave. Also, I'm not against remakes, but I just wish Disney would try to make their remakes different than just telling the same old story, if they can't do something new, then just leave it alone.
"Big name _British_ celebrities". That actually throw me off how everyone has British accent (except Lumiere, kinda) in a story set in *_France_* (Cogsworth, or Mrs. Pott are supposed to be British, but still). Well, the original animated movie didn't have many French accent but Emma Watson!Belle talk with very noticeably her native accent. Hm....
That bothered me. I know everyone always says "But Belle had an American accent in the original." Yes, she no accent, nobody had an accent outside of Lumiere and his girlfriend having a French accent and Miss's Potts be British. Those characters weren't necessarily French so its okay. In this having the main character who is still a French girl have VERY OBVIOUS British accent is distracting.
Hmm, it's almost like Hollywood needed shorthand for lowest common denominator to understand the story is set before 18/19th century with everyone having British accent. Never mind where the story might be set; France? Denmark? Germany? British accent, goddammit!
Even though modern typical British accent wouldn't even exist yet, depending on the time the story is set.
Or, they're just lazy not bothering of the accent hoping nobody would notice. Probably this reason. ¯\__(ツ)__/¯
Nanna Leifa It's to make Lumière stand out. Lumière is such a French stereotype that having anyone else have a French accent would distract from his character being the suave French womanizer he's meant to be. It's suspension of disbelief. Also, all the characters in the original (aside from Lumière and the duster) had either a British or American accent, so I really don't see how it's any different.
Last time I was this early, Norm of the North was considered a good movie.
So...you're never early?
Exactly!
NORM OF THE NORTH IS THE BEST MOVIE EVER
Harry heading George Bush is the best president ever
The Manga was better
I always came to terms with the fact that Belle never really got "adventure in the great wide somewhere" with the fact that she got what I think the movie was trying to hint that she really wanted. "And for once it might be grand to have someone understand."
SAY IT AGAIN FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK!
No but seriously, all my friends except for ONE drooled all over this film and Emma Watson and how "it fixes the original, guys!"
Honestly the "plot holes" in the original are usually just things smug assholes point out in an effort to ruin someone else's fun. Most normal viewers are suspending their disbelief.
I pretty much agree with this entire video. Stop the remakes aside from the Lion King one because it has a really solid cast and actual singers as the leads.
I prefer the 2014 French film, if I'm going to do a live action version of the fairy tale, this is the one.
oh boy did the lion king turn out to be shit like i thought it would when i saw the ads for it. the moment i saw that i knew I KNEW that they would not be able to make facial expressions with those models. you know facial expressions one of the BIGGEST CRUCIAL THING to the lion king. those models can't bounce around. make it more realistic they say. oh yes because talking singing animals doing musical numbers IS SOOOOO realistic. and you know what I. WAS. RIGHT. and thankfully i didn't go watch this movie i didn't give them money so i can be free of concience knowing i didn't contribute to that monstrocity. dear god i saw the clip of Scars "long live the king" moment and it was disgusting. there was no emotion nor expression to one of the biggest moments in the movies. animation scar's voice was DRIPPING with malice and smugness. he was SAVORING that moment.
the facial expressions and the bright colors are what brought the animated lion king to life. ironic then that the live action remake sucked all the life out of it by removing both those elements.
This format with the snarky section titles kinda reminds me of Lindsay Ellis's video essays. Maybe it's just because she did a video on Beauty and the Beast recently, so I associate the two together.
I feel like I'm the only one who truly didn't like the remake of beauty and the beast like it has some good things but is drowned out by all the bad things
nerdypony009 Yeah, I felt like Disney was just trying to make some quick cash.
nerdypony009 fuck that nobody liked it.
Honestly the thing that made me the most angry was that I lost my favorite scene. My favorite scene in the animation is when they're fighting over the fact that the beast got hurt. Theres this beautiful VISUAL back and forth that happens and every time one makes a point, the other pulls back and vice versa. Then when Belle finally makes an attempt at bridging the gap, the beast also comes halfway and in the end they both equally take up the screen. Thats the first moment they start to see each in different lights and start the bigger gestures for each other. That doesnt happen in the live action... So the buildup to when they get together isnt there and theres no emotional payoff.
I forget where I got this from but I did get this from another youtuber.
"Heck yeah I need to remember that line!" I thought to myself as you pinpointed the exact issue I have with KorrAsami that I haven't been able to put into words... and then I instantly forgot the exact wording of it...
There are 2 things I like about the live action version over the animated version.
1. I like how they touch the subject of Belle's mother. Sure the mirror thing is a big contradiction, but I love the idea where Belle and Beast learn what happened to her.
2. The live action Portrayal of Lefou. I love how Lefou doesn't agree with Gaston's ideas where as animated Lefou followed Gaston blindly. The added lyrics where Lefou questions which who truly is the beast was a surprised, but welcome, change.
Surprised that the yellow dress wasn't brought up. That was just so plain and ugly. It wasn't a good color for her complexion, and it was so out of place in the whole scheme of things. But, no, because Emma didn't want a dress that even looked like it was right for the time or fantasy setting (aka had a corset), then we might as well make it look cheaper than most of the dresses at a high school prom.
Hm. Have you seen the video on how that dress was made? Not cheap, I promise.
Belle’s thoughts on how her mother died: ShE wAs ShAnKeD iN PrISon aT thE eXAct SaME tImE aS tHE PlAguE
Ok, if you want the slightly more dark story, and you want to explore the “enchantress is belle’s mother” idea, you should read Tale as Old As Time. It’s part of the twisted tale series, and it was really interesting, and partly traumatizing for 12 year old me, who thought it would be lighthearted, despite it being called literally A TWISTED TALE. I definitely recommend the book though
1:33 Really? I saw it when I was 4-5 and I LOVED it! I would tie a blanket around my neck like a cape and run around the living room like I was fighting the wolves as beast. I actually thought The Little Mermaid was kind of scary. That face Triton makes when he destroys the grotto...
I'm gonna be honest here; I definitely thought that this movie wasn't needed right when I saw the ads, but I actually do like a lot of the new songs. Everything else was just kind of... eh.
I still don't get the point of a live-action Lion King. If they're all CG animals, wouldn't it just be ANOTHER animated Lion King movie?
There’s a good live action French version of Beauty and the Beast, made in 2014. Very good. The whole of that movie would’ve been a moot point if she just would’ve told the prince the truth about her in the first place, but it was still pretty good. My favorite telling of this story is a book called Beauty. I hope they never make a love action movie out of it, not after someone messed up in making the novel Beastly a movie. That book was far, far better than the movie.
cant you guys not wait for them to do whinnie the pooh (extream sarcasm please leave my childhood alone)
Disney kind of sorta already did that in the 80's and 90's in a live action tv show...
Too smart for strangers.
I suddenly know that was a thing.
Triston Rodriguez More like the danisnotonfire movie.
Shackled YT huh?
I remember hearing a comment made with regard to Emma Watson playing Belle. "It feels like we're not seeing Belle, we're seeing Emma Watso".
Just randomly found this seven years later and thought I’d leave my thoughts;
Even though there’s plenty of criticism that can be said about this remake, I’ll say one thing that can be mostly agreeable; it’s definitely the best remake Disney has made, and did some things that I personally believe were done better then the original/added new stuff, like giving the beast his own song which he lacked. Definitely a great addition.
Why does Emma Watson play her self as Emma ALWAYS she's not Belle at all and the British accent when it is France.
Honestly the one things I liked from this movie was "Evermore" and The Mob Song number because I had been dying to see that in live action form hoping it would be as epic as the animated version
The Gaston song was funny too. At least you can see the actors having a good time.
Emma Watson’s singing was, if we are being gracious was MEH Audotune
Disney literally interpreted everything about the original film WRONGLY.
Le Fou is not supposed to be gay, he is supposed to be a goblin bootlicker.
All the precious moments like Belle taking her dad's place as prisoner was horribly rushed, and so was literally everything else.
Belle's dad is not suppose to steal _anything_ (not even the rose) yet he does in this movie, and that's why he gets imprisoned, whereas in the original he gets imprisoned for trespassing alone.
The Beast trying to coax Belle out of her room to join him for dinner was HORRIBLY done in the remake, he literally didn't even care, it was like "oh i guess we have to do this scene" whereas in the original he gets super infuriated by her refusal - the same is the case for the scene where Belle gets caught in the West Wing, which was also a rushed scene.
the narration in the beginning of the remake absolutely pissed me off. its like the female narrator was so uninterested in her job she was doing it with a gun to her head, whereas in the original the narrator pours his heart and soul into his narration of the story and immediately catches the interest of the audience. he is also using a way more serious tone of voice, whereas the remake narrator treats it like a bloody joke.
this movie was a fucking slog to get through, i watched it once and i am never watching it again. the original however is a film i watch every now and then, still to this day.
Even if you hate this reboot, you got to admit that they actually fixed the ending! They actually put in "How do you feel about growing a beard?" I almost screamed when I heard it in the theater
okay
1.) Thank you for literally saying everything I felt about the live action Disney reboots verbatim. Given I also have the addon opinion of Beauty and the Beast not needing a reboot the same way OLDER disney films because (Just using the first 3 Disnet princess movies for examples) Snowwhite is a side character to the dwarves, Cinderella is a side character to the mice, and Aurora is a side character to the Fairies and Philip. Because of this those old movies could stand to be redone and tinkered with but BEAUTY and the BEAST did not.
2.) Funny thing about that enchantress and the potential disappointment of thinking that she could have been Belles mother: In an early early version of Madame de Villeneux's book there was a missing chapter to the end about fairies and Belle actually being a princess switched at birth for realsies and the EVIL enchantress cursing both Princess baby Belle and the Beast (Belle being cursed to marry a beast of a man [like Gaston] and the beast getting turned into... well... a beast... and how the two curses counteracted each other.) it's only a little wave of Disney magic to have Belle go from 'Switched princess at birth' to Fairy Enchantress Queens Daughter with Maurice the human inventor whom she had to abandon to go back to fairyland but met a young boy heading down the road to personal ruin so Cursed him to counteract the Curse on her Daughter Belle (Daughter cursed to marry a Beast of a man + Boy who needs to learn a lesson that potentially Daughter can fix + Destined to eventually meet = EVERYBODY HAPPY!) Atleast that's my headcannon for the original film.
I don't know if I'd call Snow White "a side-character to the dwarfs". The dwarfs don't appear on screen until thirty-or-so minutes into the film; Snow White is the focus of the movie up until that point, and she's still crucial to the story when the dwarfs finally show up.
I'd say Philip is ALSO a side-character to the fairies.