Oh Belle and the beast did get personalities in the remake. The Beast now has the personality of the original Gaston and Belle has the personality of Emma Watson.
I never saw the chemistry between the two main characters in the remake. They don't do anything to show they audience that they are in love. In the original, you can clearly see it!
Even when the Beast dies, Belle in the remake is like making an effort to cry. I hated that so much. The curse being broken in the remake makes no sense at all
Original Belle: cries into the Beast's chest because he died for her and she loves him. Remake Belle: kisses a dead body- wait didn't the princes in Snow White and Sleeping Beauty get backlash for doing basically the same thing?
What really bothers me, even though it's like really minuscule, is that in the live action, the beast can read. They deleted one of my favourite scenes where Belle teaches the beast how to read near the fireplace and they bond. It also makes the Beast giving her the library more sweet, because even though he doesn't have the same interests as her, and doesn't exactly understand her passion, he still gives her something that he knew she would like really enthusiastically. The movie beast was already interested in books and was just showing off his collection, without really planning to give it to her.
Eh, Him being able to read actually makes more sense. He IS and price and would have realistically been given the best education available. It makes sense he can read.
I disagree. The sharing of the love of reading didn’t do much at all. Not every Prince was interested in reading, and even if he did learn before, it has been a very long time since he last read.
They do the reverse with Gaston. In the original, he insulted her interests and told her to quit. In the remake, he tried to act interested, even though it wasn't his thing he attempted to act polite about it.
I absolutely HATED this version. It took everything wonderful about the animated one and smashed it into a boring, colourless, flavourless, pancake with terrible lighting, terrible singing (except Audra McDonald who's talent is wasted in this), and acting that's mediocre at best. Not to mention a plot that is riddled with holes and unnecessary extra scenes that make no sense and make the movie drag on way longer than it needs to be.
Mari of the Shire Audra McDonald really is wasted in this 🙁 Her part in the song “Days in the sun” is so short! They barely use her in favour of auto tuned Emma Watson.
Thank you! The woman has six Tonys, and they didn't even give her a proper solo... She should have gotten the title song. The only reason Mrs Pots sang it in the original, is because she was voiced by Angela Lansbury, and the filmmakers back then were intelligent enough to put the talent they had available to good use.
Ik she didn’t even look happy at all she looked she didn’t even want to be there her, Belle is someone to teach the beast how to love and be kind to the people around him did she show that Hell No
The Beast is just less...... ‘beastly’ in this remake. Which works to the films detriment. The original showed how the Beast had almost surrendered to his more angry and beastly side, because he had lost all hope in ever becoming human again. Then after he meets Belle, befriends her and then falls in love with her, you see him start acting more human again. How he starts wearing more clothes, walking in a more human way, cares more about his table manners and hygiene and controls his anger completely. In the remake he already wears a lot of clothes, he already walks a lot like a human, he hardly growls or grunts or acts like a beast at all. He still acts like the snobby douche from the beginning, just a lot more hairier. There is no gradual change in him. I guess he acts a little less snobby and douchey..... But yeah, overall this remake is a bland imitation trying to capture the same magic and failing miserably. People say “Stop comparing it to the original all the time!” but how can you not?! This film tries to copy the original in every aspect that it cannot really become it’s own thing. Just watch the animated film, there really is no point watching this at all.
But he's weirdly also less human... In the sense that he doesn't feel "realistic" at all. He doesn't seem to have human emotions, he's just naggy and dismissive of everything. It's just so stiff and stilted. I just cannot buy their relationship.
@@liv97497 good point, while the animated beast was more animal in design, he was still very expressive whether he was angry or shy, this guy keeps the same tone whether hes happy or angry.
the original was terrifying, animated equivalent of Tarzan vs a regular human. Remake beast does not look like he could survive 2 rounds in a MMA match. Saddening, really..
Plus, she is running into snowed woods with a ball gown. A clever girl like Belle would neved have done it (twice, if you count when she is in her UNDERWEAR going back to the castle). In fact, in the animated version she grabs her cloak too
But as you said, nobody asked. At least in the black and white version her sisters asked her, because they were jealous of her rich garments. But in the 2017 version, all that scene is around Maurice going into prission, so there is no room for anybody to ask about the dress, and of course, Belle is all about "leave my father alone" not "look what I´m wearing"
AniMat: *criticizes Twilight and Beauty and the Beast (2017) and other live-action Disney remakes while praising the Walt Disney Animation Studios counterparts, especially Beauty and the Beast **m.ruclips.net/video/zmk4IdN1so8/видео.html* Twihards (toxic portion): *HE’S A WAY WORSE PERSON THAN THAT FAILURE OF A CARTOON GASTON EVER WILL BE!!!!*
I didn’t like her attitude towards the movie. Very arrogant nd she didn’t do a good enough job for that sort of attitude. (I don’t even want to mention the singing)
My problems with the movie are a lot. But I'd like to discuss only a few. First of, by trying to make Belle a super-feminist, they lost the original's organic feminism. Animated Belle is a strong character, she stands for what she believes in against Gaston, the Beast, and the village. She loves to read to expand her horizons, and experience an adventure her routine life doesn't allow her. She is kind and caring even in the face of adversity. She is not afraid to stand up to Beast, or even the freaking wolves! She rejects Gaston because he is a jerk that doesn't even pretend to respect her and her interests. Movie Belle is a snob that dislikes village life. No real historic woman would go out in what is essentially her underwear, but to show Belle is a feminist she has to wear "trousers" instead of a skirt. Like you said, her engineering skill is never heard of again, so it was there just for shock value. She rejects Gaston because he's not good enough for her. But Beast "of course he can read, he's a PRINCE". So instead of being Gaston's dark heart versus Beast's kind heart, it appears to be more like a peasant versus a prince. By trying to make her so blatantly "feminist", she just became a caricature out of time. (and I say this being a feminist myself) On the matter of Gaston, I somewhat disagree with you. I hate what they did with Gaston because now I really like movieGaston! He's a compelling character. He actually tries to win over Belle, to woo her. It is very obvious that he has PTSD instead of just being the village quarterback. In the animated B&B, it is slowly revealed to us that he is actually more than a jerk, he is a bad guy. In the movie, he snaps because of his PTSD. It's kind of hard to blame a person of evilness when they have such a disease. This just makes me dislike Belle's snobbish reaction to him, instead of giving her credit for fighting off a bullying jerk. Because here, Gaston isn't a bullying jerk. He's deeply damaged by war. As for movieBeast, he's just an all around asshole, that doesn't get much of a redemption ark like the animated version. Plus the addition of the magic-travelling-book negates the whole point of the curse keeping him enclosed within his castle and within himself. He hasn't descended into being almost an actual beast, he's just as snob as ever. I though he was almost similar to animatedGaston, which made Belle's love for Beast feel unnatural to me. But these are just my thoughts on some matters. I apologize for the rant. (edit is for grammar correction)
After seeing this movie all I could think was: 1) it feels like Les Miserables for kids 2) why would I ever watch this again over the far superior version?
Crinsom RUclipsr, did you know that there was also a deleted screenplay where Belle had a little sister named Clarice and a snobbish upper class aunt that tried getting Belle to marry Gaston? Gaston in that version wasn't the masculine town hero that everyone but Belle and Maurice loved. No, he was an aristocrat with a powdered wig. I think the remake could have benefited from using the deleted screenplay where Belle was pressured to marry Gaston by her paternal aunt, Marguerite in order to save her little sister, her cat, her horse, and her father from a life of poverty and then strikes it lucky when she agrees with her father to switch places with her father to be Beast's prisoner. While being Beast's captive, Belle grows closer to the Beast.
Hellbound Iscariot That deleted screenplay sounds a million times better than just coping the original and throwing in half assed changes! What a shame!!!
Jordan Willner, probably. I have my doubts of it being a success. First, a lot of people would want the film to be like the animated 1991 version, anything different would turn away audience members that came from the animated turned live action movie. Second, Clarice and Maguarite were removed and Maurice and Gaston's roles were changed. Gaston was a nobleman while Maurice was a merchant that had lost his merchandise at sea. Clarice was thrown out because the movie was meant to focus more on Belle's loneliness. Maguerite was unneeded since Maurice and Belle in the animated movie were doing better off than they were in the deleted screenplay. Finally, it may cost the company more money to work in the deleted screenplay instead of just rehashing the animated movie. They would be taking a gamble if they did anything new since a lot of people grew up with the animated 90's classic and depending on the reaction, it would turn the movie into a flop. I do wish they would have gone with the deleted screeplay.
Look at the scene where she cares for his wounds, side by side with the original, and youll see how badly they ruined that scene as well. There is zero chemistry between Emma and this Beast... Emma had a very poor understanding of who Belle is
What I said is stop hating on the live-action Beauty and the Beast because that is my favorite movie and I know some people like no not only the 7th Guest song even though he's it's a song yeah I got it we're trying to put more songs in the movie and I actually like it sounds of songs Back I don't really like the view Beast live action on but just please stop hating on it okay
@@kathleenholt8990 You can't stop people's opinions. They have reasons for hating bad movies and it doesn't matter if it's your favorite. Don't even bother watching actual critiques of the trashy remake since you clearly can't handle it.
"when the master lost his mother and his cruel father took that sweet innocent lad and twisted him up to be just like him, we did nothing" Yeah, because defying or contradicting the father would have turned out great for the FRIGGING SERVANTS in that time period.
Ugh, thanks for the Evermore rant. It's a gorgeous song and I love it, but if you are going to keep the beasts depression in, you can't have him sing a song about how Belle's love will always inspire him.
Emma Watson acted so stiff as Belle. Animated Belle was so much more lively, lovely, romantic, and, well-- animated. And it wasn't that Emma COULDN'T'VE acted like the original Belle. Amy Adams as live-action Giselle from Enchanted was just as lively, princess-y, and animated as her animated counterpart. Dare I say, she was MORE animated in the live-action. Right down to her hand movements. The way she moved was very reminiscent of theater. If only Emma trained in the ways of theater-- or watch the original movie twenty times-- so that she could've copied Belle's movements to a T. Emma couldn't even hold the same POSTURE as animated Belle. Compare the original vs the remake. It's true.
The actress playing Cinderella in the live remake did a great job aswell, while not as physically animated (understandably, Cinderella isnt supposed to be as lively as Giselle) she captured the wonder and spirit of a disney princess so well (a long with the rest of the cast honestly). They were realistically cartoony if that makes sense. This version feels like they pretending its Game of Thrones and completely fail to acknowledge the wonder and magic of the story/world they're in.
Emma Watson throwing a hissy fit and refusing to wear a corset, making the yellow dress (that wasn't that great to begin with) look like a prom dress from aliexpress.
The biggest difference of all was that there was no love in the remake. I just didn’t feel that they genuinely cared about each other by the end of the movie. In the original, it’s plain as day that they adore one another. All the other flaws in the remake didn’t bother me as much as this did.
Thank you for explaining when a "plot hole" matters and when it really _doesn't_ and an explanation would actually be _counterproductive_ instead of helpful or even necessary. What matters is if it affects the *story being told* and the *characters in that story.* Honestly, this wouldn't even need to be explained but because of the CinemaSin snobs out there, well, you know. Nitpicking is now considered an art form.
This video should’ve been a top 11 worst things about the Live Action remake... Because Belle’s entire wardrobe should’ve been No. 1 on this list! Every outfit she wears, especially her yellow gown was bland, underwhelming, and overall disappointing... 🤦🏻♂️😓💔
You hit on a lot of my grievances with this film like Emma Watson's acting being so incredibly bland and the attempts to fix plot holes that create more plot holes and it being too similar to the original without actually recreating the FEELING of the original. One of the things that definitely bothered me as well was that they decided to make the Beast a sexist as well as "grumpy" as you call him. The whole thing with the books in the 2017 version is that Beast thinks romances are boring and girly and while he's caught reading a romance, he quickly tries to point that no, it's an action adventure book instead of accepting that he likes it. What could have been an interesting point of character development (though an unnecessary one) just went nowhere and made him less likable as a character, particularly to a character like Belle. In the original, they also bond over reading but via Belle reading aloud to the Beast and him loving it so much that he eventually asks her to teach him to read. With the Enchantress, I was actually excited to hear she would get a bigger role, but my problem with what happened was that it wasn't big ENOUGH to warrant having her there as much as they did. She has all of two lines total and serves more as a deus ex machina than an actual character. The servants describe why THEY think they deserved to be cursed, but it's not necessarily why the ENCHANTRESS decided to curse them. If they were going to place her in Belle's village why not show her having some kind of relationship with Belle maybe? What if she likes telling Belle all these fantastical stories and that's how Belle knows about them? Maybe she's the one who taught Belle to read and she has her own personal book collection (thus fixing the "bookshop" plot hole) she lets Belle borrow from. If they weren't going to really DO anything with Agatha to give her a personality and a reason to be there, it should have been left a mystery. I actually DIDN'T like LeFou being explicitly gay. Villains are coded as gay often enough that it's not actually that progressive to make the stupid, goofy villain sidekick explicitly gay. What would have been progressive would have been to make Cogsworth and Lumiere gay. Or have the Beast be a woman instead of a man. Or perhaps Belle is a trans woman which would also explain her being ostracized by the village. Making LeFou gay felt more like Hollywood trying to toss the LGBT community breadcrumbs while calling it a banquet and patting themselves on the back for being so brave. I hated that they also tried to pat themselves on the back for making Belle so "feminist" by having her be the "engineer" of the family instead of Maurice when that wasn't what we were shown at all. Outside of the two instances where she hands a tool to her father so he can do the actual engineering, she makes one laundry machine thing that gets destroyed almost immediately and it's never brought up again. She never talks about loving to create things when she's with the Beast or even just fiddle/tinker with stuff while she's there to try to help out around the castle as it's falling apart since the servants can't really do it very well anymore. Again, like with LeFou, this just felt like being tossed breadcrumbs while being told it was a gourmet meal. And if they were going to go the route of giving the Beast's parents a backstory, why the hell did they think fridging a woman for manpain was the way to go? "The Beast is cruel because his mom died which made his dad cruel so it's really not his fault." They can do better. And for all that they spent a lot of time on Belle's mother's death and gave a whole scene to Beast's parents and his mother's death, not once do I recall either the Beast or Belle actually having a conversation ABOUT their mothers when it's definitely something that could connect them. I know Belle didn't remember her mother much, but that easily could have been changed a little so she had, like, ONE memory of her mother or something so that they could exchange happy stories that bring them closer together. Instead of being important to the characters' overall arcs, the mothers were just brought back to fill a plot hole that didn't really need filling and then immediately killed so that the husbands could be upset about it. And I could go on for DAYS about how in the final battle sequence, Belle showing up BEFORE the Beast has defeated Gaston removes a lot of the Beast's growth and redemption arc. In the original, the Beast lets Gaston go because he realizes he doesn't want to be that monster Gaston believes he is. He's regained his humanity enough to know that he doesn't need to kill Gaston now that he's been defeated and his life isn't in immediate danger. It's not about Belle. She shows up right afterwards, whereas in the 2017 version she shows up in the middle of his fight against Gaston and he's staring right at Belle as he holds Gaston up by his neck and chooses to let him live. This makes the implication that the only reason he lets Gaston go is because he knows it would upset Belle. To me, this ruins his entire arc as a character. He changes FOR Belle, not BECAUSE of Belle. It's a subtle difference, perhaps, but an important one.
That's quite possibly the nicest thing anyone's ever said to me. While I have zero interest in directing, writing is something of a dream and hopefully someday it'll come true. In the meantime, I have an entire Google Docs folder filled up with ways I would have changed the film to make it more interesting with an entire fancast attached that I have confirmed can all sing well. Like I didn't even go into how I made an entire AU around a theory I saw before the film came out that the Enchantress might end up being Belle's mother. I thought that would have been AMAZING as a way to unfridge the mother and give both Belle's mom and the Enchantress an interesting backstory. It could also help explain the existence of magic in this fantasy France if they chose to. And it sorta fixes the deus ex machina of the Enchantress just breaking the spell even though technically Belle and the Beast were a bit late to do it themselves. And I had a whole slew of small scenes of the Beast interacting with the servants and learning to care for them and become a better monarch because of it. In this version, perhaps, the idea was that he would learn to love his people and they him, thus breaking the curse without romantic love needing to save the day or be portrayed as the ultimate kind of love. I had an original character who owned a bookstore and was a lesbian which is why she and Belle get along and become friends since they're both ostracized. She ended up getting together with Plumette in the end, I think. I could literally talk about this film for HOURS, just not because I liked any of it.
That honestly sounds amazing.. It keeps the traditional fairytale style that everyone knows and loves while also being progressive in a way that doesn't feel forced or overdone... I really do hope you become a writer one day because your ideas are so creative and your writing style (from a freaking RUclips comment at that) is thoughtful, sophisticated, and well done.. 👏👏👏
Yeah I mean I've read SO MANY amazing Disney/fairy tale adaptations on the internet that put my efforts so much to shame, written by people far more familiar with the fairy tale style than I am. But I know I can't do much worse than the screenwriter for this film who ended up just creating far more plot holes the more he tried to fix the original ones. And yeah, if a "progressive" storyline feels forced or overdone, that probably means it's not actually progressive in the first place (like them being so proud of having two interracial couples in the film when one of the only Black characters is a literal MAID and has about 5 lines total and Disney's had several interracial couples before, some even that didn't include white people at all, none of what was in this film was progressive by comparison). Jungle Book felt like a better example of a film taking what made it problematic and fixing the plot to make it more progressive without overdoing it; it just fit the story better. Beauty and the Beast was just the powers that be wanting brownie points without putting in the work and thereby sacrificing story for "Progressive Points." It's disappointing. I liked what Jungle Book did and hearing that Belle was going to be an engineer seemed like a cool twist. It wasn't until I heard about LeFou that I started to get worried and by the time I saw the movie I just couldn't stand all the dumb changes that got made for no good reason. This is why I'm less excited for the rest of the Disney "live action" remakes. It feels like they're all heading down the same path except, maybe, Lion King (which is going to be directed by the same guy who did Jungle Book so). Beauty and the Beast deserved better. Howard Ashman's memory deserved better.
Ginger Marlo ur version sounds a lot like the one I’ve been dreaming up in my head-I wish people like us were given the chance to color these fantastical worlds because god damn cishet men have no imagination. the composer was gay, the writer was a woman, and both had to fight to put their message in the original movie, however subtle, subtextual, or simple, an idea may be (like letting Belle read rather than bake a pie while waiting for her father to come home) but now that it’s a time where it can be even more blatantly feminist, and it’s possible to have openly queer people, who is in control of the story? Not Ashman, he died of AIDs because an uncaring world thought that a disease was killing all the right people. His music held out hope that his curse could be lifted with love-that was the fairytale. They ‘honor’ his memory with a double whammy of queerbait and queer-coding a villain. The writer is alive and well, but they’d rather pat themselves on the back and call it a day, because wow she’s an engineer, how forward of us. Her input wasn’t even a thought in their head. People need to be behind the scenes as much as in front of it. And writing g like u do us a start (lol now all we need to go is get hired) But in all seriousness, I think I got a little off tract I my rant, but I couldn’t agree w u more If ur comfortable with it, I’d love to read yours-it sounds so lovely 💕
For me the worst change they made was the fact that the servents explain to Belle of the curse. In the live action moovie Belle' love is not inconditional. And there is no chemistry between those two. I like Emma Watson but she is not good to play Belle.
@@rachet87 in the original version Belle understood alone that the castle was enchantedl after the servents stopped singing Be our Guest. She wasn't stupid.
Okay, just, thank GOD for you. X'D Ever since I first watched this movie in theaters, I've been trying desperately to explain to people why I believed that it WASN'T a good remake. Everyone keeps thinking that I'm just letting nostalgia get the best of me, but no matter how many times I TRY to watch and enjoy this new movie, I just CAN'T. I tried to watch it just the other night, with my mother, thinking that perhaps it's been long enough, and I can watch it without my critical feelings getting in the way. But NOPE. If it's at all possible, I think I hated it even MORE. To the point where I just asked my family to change it, before I lost my mind. Everything about this movie just felt like it was spitting on the original. Which, yeah, sounds unfair, and I'm probably SUPER biased, because the original WAS my favorite Disney movie (and still is), but no one can tell me otherwise. Of all of it, Belle was actually my least favorite thing about this entire movie. The original Belle had so many interesting and relatable character traits. Curiosity, intelligence, a strong need for something bigger than herself to happen to her, loving and caring for those in need, and above all, she had the patience and kindness of a saint. She tolerated Gaston, and was always civil with him, never once insulting him, even to herself or her father. (With the only exception being after rejecting his marriage proposal, but at that point, she had every right to feel fed up with him.) In the new version, she complains about him to her father, while in the original, the most she says is, "He's not the one for me." And her patience with Beast is the key factor in their relationship. His temper was no match for her stubborn patience and naturally forgiving nature. All of these traits were poorly done in the new version. And I believe the reason for that, is because they were trying SO hard to make her a "strong, independent woman, who doesn't need a man to save her". There are THREE scenes from the original, that I believe portray Belle at her finest. When she takes her father's place, when she sneaks into the West Wing, and when she forgives Beast while cleaning his wound. When she takes her father's place, she's making a promise. And the reason this scene hurts so much for the audience, is because she is THAT willing to fully commit to her promise. When she says that she is willing to remain the Beast's prisoner forever, she MEANS it. She's NOT the type of person to break a promise, no matter who it is made to. This goes to show that her word means everything to her. And it makes her runaway scene show just how truly terrified she is of this cursed place. "Promise or no promise, I can't stay here another minute." The reason that line holds so much weight is because we know that, if the Beast weren't so terrifying, she'd willingly stay. Because she PROMISED. That's a role model for you. And, in my opinion, it's a much better trait to have than, you know... Lying, breaking your promises and trying to escape first chance you get, even though you gave your word... That, to me, was just plain stupid. I mean, come on! WE may understand that Beast can't leave the castle, but Belle had no way of knowing that. If she escaped, what's to stop Beast from coming after her, and making her and her father pay? In the original, Belle traded her life for her father's freedom. It was worth it to her. That was POWERFUL. It showed true character and gave her depth. Showed that she cared deeply about the people who loved her, and would willingly sacrifice herself to protect them. In the new version, she tells her father not to worry. She's lying about taking his place, and will do everything she can to escape while Beast's back is turned. When Belle sneaks into the West Wing, her curiosity is at the forefront. This was always my favorite trait for her. Because it IS her. She's the curious princess. She wants to LEARN about EVERYTHING, and is willing to risk herself in order to do so. It shows confidence and bravery, as well as insatiable curiosity. This scene also shows that she can be cunning and sneaky if she wants to be. (And not easily distracted.) Lumiere and Cogsworth accidentally tell her where the West Wing is, and she allows them to believe that she's distracted by her interest in seeing the castle's library, so that she can sneak off while, instead, THEY are distracted. Her curiosity wins over, despite us knowing just how much she loves books, and despite knowing that, if she's caught, there will likely be consequences. And because of this, we can later analyze that her curiosity is a giant factor in why she stays with the Beast and does so well with him. At the end of the day, she's curious about where this path will take her, and she's curious about the Beast, and wants to learn what makes him tick. The new version of Belle has no curiosity. Most of her decisions seem more based on defiance, than anything. A, "He can't tell me what to do" sort of logic... It's a horrid change... It takes her adventurous nature right out of the picture, and doesn't give her a whole lot of motivation to stay... And then, there's the scene where she cleans his wound. My absolute FAVORITE scene in the original, because of how intimate and integral it is to the rest of the film, and it is my honest belief that they totally BUTCHERED it. Seriously, it's pissing me off just thinking about it. In order to keep myself from ranting, I'll keep this part as short as possible. This scene is where their dynamic completely changed in the original film. At this point, Beast is upset with her for leaving, and she's upset that he scared her away to begin with. They have a short bout of banter where Beast basically tries to blame her for everything that just happened, and true to form, she stubbornly holds her ground, in spite of his raging temper, and throws his excuses back at him until he has nothing left. He pouts like a child, and, being the more mature and intelligent one, she puts their banter behind them almost immediately and THANKS him. Belle thanks the Beast for saving her life. And this genuinely surprises Beast - kind of stuns him into silence even, for just a second - and he answers with a simple, "You're welcome". Camera pans out, as Belle continues tending to his arm, and the servants come out of hiding, because they realize that the tension in the air is fading away, the music is calm and sweet, and then everything fades to black. Just TWO words changed their ENTIRE relationship. A simple thank you changed them from total strangers to cautious acquaintances. Something that likely would have been nigh impossible with literally anyone else. But Belle managed it. Because she is intelligent and a purely honest, good-natured soul. Nearly anyone else would have pouted over the Beast not being grateful that they didn't leave him to die, and that they came back. But she was willing to put the past behind them, because she understood that the Beast was more than he seemed to be. This one scene changed everything about them and their relationship. And when this scene came and went in the movie, I found myself so UTTERLY disappointed. No thank you. I was holding my breath after they bantered, just waiting - begging - for her to say it. But she leans away, almost like she's giving up trying to help him, and tells him to get some rest. And then she leaves. And then the movie expects me to believe that their relationship has changed. That they are able to forgive and forget. It's seriously insulting. She ended up being the very person that I said this situation would be impossible for. Someone who is TOO stubborn, and doesn't know how to forgive and forget. And yet, every time I read a comment, praising this scene for how well Emma Watson acted it, or for how awesome and strong-willed "Belle" is, all I can think is, "What are these people thinking? Do they not understand how this messes with the flow of the CHARACTER'S development? Do they not see the total blasphemy of replacing two little words?" It seems like such a little thing, but to me, it meant everything for this movie. It was literally the beginning moment of their positive relationship. And the remake left it out. All in favor of making Belle seem more independent and able to take care of herself. Of making Belle stubborn and strong, instead of mature and intelligent. I mean, I'm all for stubbornness and being strong. But this stubbornness was the WRONG kind. It was the grudge-holding stubbornness, rather than the hold-your-ground kind. (And the great thing about the original Belle was that she knew WHEN to be stubborn. She knew when to hold her ground, and when to let bygones be bygones, and show a bit of compassion.) Meanwhile, this Belle was the kind of woman who doesn't want to apologize for mistakes and doesn't want to admit to someone that they saved her. God forbid she thank someone for saving her life! And just like that, I'm ranting... Great... (There's so much more I could say on this subject, but that gets more into why I didn't like the new Belle personally, rather than compared to the original. I think I'll leave that alone...) I just wanted to get all that out. I'm SO grateful that I'm not the only one who found major faults with this movie, compared to the original. It's been driving me nuts to think that I'm the only one who sees the underlying (and blatant) problems. So thank you. Thank you SO much for posting this. More people need to realize that this movie was far from perfect. (But I guess that's just my nostalgic opinion... = _=") Sorry I made this so long. XD
La_Trolette Am currently not dead.. Am currently getting a paycheck every other week.. Am currently (happily) single. I think I'm all around good, bud! 👍
You are the only other person I've seen to make the point of how her trying to escape immediately really damaged her character. I've never seen the movie, only the trailers..... and I still noticed that little detail. I might have mentioned it in a comment, but didn't press it too hard simply because there are times the trailers give false info. (that and idiot fans kept saying I was just nostalgic {HYPOCRISY- I say- the only reason they were looking forward to it was because of their nostalgia for the original}........ sorry mild rant there) Anyway....... Thank you for noticing that, and for venting out these other problems. (as a fellow 'can't think of this version without ranting', I thoroughly enjoyed reading it)
I entirely agree on the stupid book! They used it for a pointless scene; learning what happens to Belle mother brings nothing to the story, don't developp her relation with the Beast either since he didn't comfort her at that moment or did something nice for her U-U For her mother's death, it's important but not to save her father's life? That's dumb! Also, if the Beast could use it before Belle arrived in the castle; his sadness made less sense. With this magic item, he can visit new places and have fun; it will appease his pain; apparently the Prince forgot to use it. In short, this element was really unecessary and bring plot holes instead of interresting stuff. God i hate the Enchantress in this movie! She was so cruel and for no good reasons. I mean, she enters in the castle without asking permission or introducing herself; which is rude! When the Prince chased her, she punished everyone; erased innocents peoples memories and cruse them. What a jerk! This lady could helped Maurice when he talked about Gaston at the tavern, didn't! That was nasty! The poor man was almost killed and she didn't help him, i felt so sad for Maurice. Like you said; she punised one person even if he did nothing wrong but not the hundreds of peoples who beated Maurice and wanted to kill him; what was she thinking? The Prince isn't a monster, she is!
The animated library scene blew my socks off when I saw it- it felt so epic - the live action version felt underwhelming; yes, the library was big- but it didn’t _feel_ *epic* ...
I recently re-watched the original animated movie on blu-ray right before Valentine's Day and it still holds up, especially that ball dance scene. Even if I watched it before that day I still felt romantic.
The Beast's song makes me even more annoyed because in the Broadway musical, there's a song in the same place that's literally like, "Well, I'm screwed." (Okay, a reprise, but it works emotionally.)
I HATED how the Beast looked. The fact that he looked like he just had Hypertrichosis with horns, was just too infuriating. In the animated one, the artist combined a boar, a lion, a wolf, a bear, and a wildebeest to make the Beast. He looked like a creature NO ONE could relate to even if it could talk and hold a conversation. Thus making Belle's interactions with him that more impactful. I also hate that we see the Beast's human face BEFORE he is transformed. Like the idea that we know exactly what he looks like before the prologue is even finished pissed me off so much! Like his transformation at the end of the film holds up in the end because we literally don't see his face. It was so worth it to see his face in the end. ugh! Screw the remake!
@@regnbuetorsk right! I can rant for another hour about how I hated how they handled the beast. I won't but I truly do hate it. The cats thing... ew... you're right... that's creepy...
Beauty and the Beast is one of the most famous romantic fairy tales ever. But this live-action adaptation has no romance at all. Belle learns everything she knows about Beast through Lumiere and Cogsworth rather than from Beast himself, so their bond feels empty. In the animated version, their kiss at the end was so powerful it transformed the castle and the servants back to normal. In this version, it just feels kinda "meh".
The 3 leads also LOOK wrong. Emma's beauty not transcendent; looks smart but often petulant. Beast - in vile dark costume - needed eyes that grab attention. Both males: just plain not stunning enough.
Visually amazing movie without a heart. This was just intended to be a money-maker. It is way way too similar to the animated version. It almost feels like one of those shot for shot remakes. Also, all of belle's dresses were horrible. Cinderella and Maleficent did much better in actually re-telling the stories they are based on. Those two films actually feel like their own thing, unlike this one.
I don't know. I thought the dress she wore at the end of the movie when Adam became human was pretty. I wish they changed the yellow one and make it more like the way they have it in the 18th century though.... I didn't like THAT one.
I actually disliked Maleficent because it made out 3 Faeries incompetent idiots while in the original they were the true heroes. They were watching over little Rose, giving her care, affection and protection. In the movie they were highly unlikeable.
@@tiaferrandino4881 It is a beautiful dress, but everybody else is wearing historical garments (robe a la francaise) and Belle is wearing a modern dress, she dresses like a time traveler throughout the whole movie and it sticks out like a sor thumb, because she is the only character that does. But I think no one likes the yellow one. Compare it to Cinderellas life action gown, which looked magical, the yellow one looked to cheap.
I disagree with the point that making lefou gay was an improvement as I think it contributed to the problems with this movie. I feel that it was done for the sake of it and when you look back it actually ruins his character as it makes his motivations more confusing, especially when he's loyal to that version of gaston. If anything if I was a gay man and this was done to appease me it would actually come off as pretty insulting instead of something worthy of praise.
THANK YOU for pointing all this stuff out!!! In particular, no one else in my family was as bothered as I was with Emma Watson's face/reactions during Be Our Guest. She looked confused/freaked out instead of embracing the joyful moment - which is a facet of animated Belle's character I adore! I think Emma Watson just didn't know what to do in the green screen room when they were filming... I also agree they ruined the library reveal which is one of my favorite scenes! It shows how far they have come in their relationship (that she trusts him enough to close her eyes (with a healthy does of skepticism - haha!) and it showed how far he had come in thinking of others by doing something well thought out for Belle as a loving gesture. It helped us root for the Beast to win her over, and I never really felt that way about this new Beast. Although, I did like some of his lines (zingers!) from the new film. Yes, overall, they depended on the original film to fill in the gaping holes they created in the new version. If the new producers had just added little details here and there instead of creating new plot holes, I think I would have forgiven its shortcomings and appreciated the grand scope and heavy lathering of French-ness they added to the film. It was so lush and a joy to view! When it's time to introduce my kids to "Beauty and the Beast," it's going to be the original animated version, for sure! Yes, I agree that the new French version is totally worth watching! I loved that film.
In the animated version the beast acts like an excited child the day before Christmas, when he is whatching her reaction, Is so sweet that you smile with him. In the other one he acts like a moron, boasting and showing of, although his clever lines were fine
I went into this movie being super excited, as Beauty and the Beast is my favorite Disney movie, if not my favorite movie of all time. However, after seeing it and feeling an unexplained sense of unfulfillment, and once the initial sparkle wore off, I quickly returned to feeling the original is simply superior. All of your points make perfect sense. It may also have to do with the fact that while other people are huge fans of Emma Watson and think she can do no wrong, I am not a fan of hers, and I agree that she's a decent or good actress at best.
Honestly same! My friend took me to see it because she knew it was my favorite movie, and she couldn't understand why I didn't like it. At the time I couldn't really explain it aside from the Beast's song which felt off, and her ball gown. Now I know, but I paid her back because I felt like that movie was just a huge waste of money since we also had watched it in 3D.
About number 3, how great would it have been if you combined the gift of affection with the common love for literature!? Not only would you get the best of both, but you also get the idea that the beast is giving something to Belle that he cares a lot about. He loves his library with his valuable books and after Belle shows she cares about the beast's wellbeing, he wants to show that he wants to trust her in turn, showing, sharing and even giving an important part of himself to her.
I never saw the movie so I have no right to talk about the story and whatnot. I will say why I have no interest in seeing it: 1. The CGI omg it looks bad. It doesn't look charming in the slightest, especially with the Beast. They should have used practical make-up effects on him. I've seen better in another live action version. 2. I love the original too much and since I don't think this version could live up to the Original Disney. FYI, the Disney version isn't actually my fav version of this story. 3. Emma Watson- I am not a fan of the actress. She did good in Harry Potter, but since then I've lost interest.
i didn't understand the need to give Belle's mother some explanations on where or what happened to her. It's *Disney*, the mom is *dead*. No need to expand on that.
Thank you! Heck they didn't even mention it in the first part. Or Belle finding his painting that he scratched like in the original. Instead she saw the painting of him and his parents. I hated that too.
Heck, even the 1991 Beauty and the Beast gets unfairly disliked by remake/sequel purists that don’t know what a good Beauty and the Beast project (ex: Beauty and the Beast 2014) is!
Can I add how redundant it is to add the reason the Beast locking Maurice in the live action, it borrowed an element from the original books, and the disney version, in the classic ones it's debatable but it's still symbolizes Beast's lifetime, in some variations they explained that when Maurice picked a rose from his garden it accidentally took one month out of his life, in Disney animated version they were clever to change it as his ticking clock or sand hourglass for his curse, so it explains why he would be angry about it rightfully so, and They changed it this time that instead of Maurice trying to pick it or in this case touch, it was Belle in this case. In the live action.....what's the point? What's his reason to lock Maurice in the dungeon? To show that he's a ruthless and heartless asshole? Congratulations, you made one of your main title characters unlikable and most of all unredeemable, no explanations or backstories will make him anymore sympathetic, especially since we see him as a grown man been spoiled and unkind, for a child, at least they can grow out of it and learn from their crucial experience, and that's what we all like to assume in Beast from the animated version, and even if that's not the case.. well they still portrayed Beast to be likable and intelligent, and sympathetic.
I love Emma Watson, I really do, but she is usually played as a strong female character. Belle is a kind of character who really just doesn't care about what people think about her, and she's very adventurous too. Emma Watson doesn't bring that off.this movie wasn't even a movie to me, it was more of a Broadway play that was magical but wasn't the same Broadway musicals usually don't have all the same features and they aren't going to. But live action movies so far, they haven't let me down other than just this one movie. Honestly, it was kind of sad knowing that beauty, and the beast was my favorite movie, but this live action movie didn't have as much time and effort as some of the others so truly this isn't my favorite.
I thought Gaston was kind of milquetoast (and way too slim) but he was one of the best singers in the cast. I don't blame Luke Evans for this. I blame the writing. They tried to make him more human and relatable and it made him far less menacing and effective as a villain.
I agree with everything said in this video. I HATED this remake! I really wish they didn't make it. I couldn't even finish this movie. I stopped watching during the Gaston song.
My main issue with Emma Watson as Belle is that despite a decent singing voice, she had no breath to sing. She was audibly gasping every line she sang and that started to get annoying. I get its her first musical, but had NOBODY in all these months of filming and rehearsing helped her increase her lung capacity? Her songs made ME feel short of breath!
Am I the only one who thought the live action Gaston just wasn't "big enough"? I'm not taking stature, but personality and that big booming male vibratto. The animated film gave him this big burly tough guy quarter back type, but also he had a narsacisstic flamboyance to him as well. I feel like live action Gaston definitely fell flat on that side.
The West Wing is one of my favorite parts of Beauty and the Beast, the music is AMAZING I listen to it all the time! So the remake version was so disappointing to me. They should've had more of the "background" music from the animation. And the only thing Emma has in common with Belle is her looks. Did they all think that it's enough? "Yeah you look the part so you don't have to act the part." WHY
Emma hit her peak in early Harry Potter, where she lit up the screen. She shows no shred of true acting in this sorry mess. And imagine the conceit, thinking she could follow original Belle's Starburst singing!
One of the worst parts of the library reveal WAS the shared interest in reading. In the original, Belle had a unique wanderlust bookworm quirk to go with her beauty and kindness... In this remake, her reading is only validated when a man also aknkowledes her reading and accepts it... For some reason reading is a masculine trait in this movie. Its a fight for equality in the library scene
9:25 Sometimes being rejected by someone we love motivates us to change ourselves for the better--so there is actually realism in his galvanized singing ...
Every point you made is why I hate this movie because it’s a shallow imitation of a great story and movie. Even if the original didn’t exist this movie would still be crappy. Good job recommending the French movie
Even though I liked the movie there were some changes that really bothered me One of them was erasing everyone's memory of the castle, sure it removes a plot hole from the original, but it just feels like an extreme cop out. In the original I just always assumed that the prince was such a bastard that no one cared what happened to him. Not a major problem but it still really bugs me. Another problem I had was belle being the inventor, I get that Disney was trying to make a strong female role model but the problem was belle was already a strong female role model in the original why do we need this added trait? Another gripe I had was when Maurice enters the castle and is not introduced to the enchanted objects, I get that they were trying to make the beasts castle seem more creepy but it gets rid of the proper introduction to the characters we had in the animated movie. One of my two major complaints is that they cut out Gaston's "wedding" it was a funny scene in the original and it really got to show what kind of a character Gaston is. What we got in the movie to replace it was fine the only problem is it disrupts the pacing of the movie, instead of having something to cut back to after Maurice is captured we cut right to the horse coming back to belle, it just goes by way too fast. My second major complaint was that they added the enchantress into the story why? She had no place in the original and she has no place in this movie, also if she was an enchantress why didn't she turn gaston into a beast when he insulted her? The whole thing with the book was kind Of dumb as well, why not have belle just reveal her back story in a couple lines of dialogue rather than having this five minute scene that goes no where. The final battle between gaston and the beast was also very disappointing, in the original it was much more intense, with them fighting in the rain and fighting with each other using clubs and brute force, in this version gaston just fires off a couple shots from his pistol and it's over, it just seems very anticlimactic.
That thing about nobody caring about what happened to the prince makes sense although it still doesn't explain how nobody had any idea who lived in the Castle and why the hell did erasing their memories of the castle bother you so much?
While I do think Luke Evans does his very best as Gaston I just find that him leaving Maurice to get eaten up in the woods made no sense although I do enjoy the different take they had on his character as well as Lefou and I still enjoy both of their characters from the original.
I was so excited for this movie, I'm a Disney fanatic and Beauty and the Beast is my 3rd favorite Disney movie (well it's a tie with Aladdin anyway). But when trying to watch it, I ended up turning it off before Beast even went on screen. Lol THAT'S how much I disliked it.
I was really disappointed with Gaston in the live action remake. When belle breaks his arrows at the castle I fully expected him to backhand her across the face. But no nothing. The original I could see doing that proving just how vile he actually was. And it would have actually given the beast a reason to fight him like the original line "belle is mine!" in the animated movie.
I mean the reason he runs around during the new song is he's trying to catch the last glimpses of her as she leaves. It's not really energetic as much as desperation to see more of her. I do agree about the scene where she returns though; in the original he didnt fight or run because he'd given up. He only fought back after he saw belle
you forgot to talk about the dress i love emma but just wear the damn corset its was back in the day anyways but the thing that angered me the most is that they changed belles character completely in the live action beauty and the beast belle is now an engineer like no.Emma just made the character into herself.There was no connection between belle and the beast.they just fell in love because the beast gave her the books.sTAN GASTON
I guess you could say that the servants was cursed as well so the prince would learn that his actions has consequences and the world does not revolve around him?
The castle arrival scene in the original scared me so much while I was more "meh" towards the remake. Granted, I was older and not easily shaken when I went into the theater to see the remake, but I kinda wished that it would've had an hide-under-my-blanket feel to it.
Mr Fon, you are my hero! I hated, absolutely hated this new version, and felt worse because everybody seemed to worship it and say: "Oh, that's great! They fixed up the plotholes!" But the movie has lost all of its original fun! I always thought that originally the enchantress had transformed the staff so they would have to help Beast into his redemption... but to make the castle crack down and they die, it's an absurd! And the villagers' behaviour is really rotten... About the Prince's parents, people should remember that kings and queens produced TONS of princes and princesses! So there was nothing signaling this prince as a heir of the throne - he could be probably pushed away to this castle and forgotten, because he'd never inherit the throne. And this new Gaston really doesn't convince... his obsession for Belle sounds forced.
A criticism that Lindsay Ellis noted is that the Beast is a major neg towards Belle, treating her as beneath him and like she's stupid, even though she's written to be very intelligent. While Belle is an interesting study for Feminist critique as well, the remake dialed it up to 11 and made the town horrendously sexist when it originally wasn't, and this concept of Belle is "a woman before her time" is shoe-horned in, rather than Belle just being made fun of for being a nerdy reader who was wasting her beauty. And of course, LeFou being gay was almost completely done through coding and subtext save for the end when for 5 seconds he accidentally dances with another man. Even a bold change they tried to implement somehow they underplayed as well.
I think it was pointless and didn't need to be made. I do not agree with all these live action remakes as it is. But TBATB just seems like a direct copy of the old one with some minor changes. I haven't watched the remake of the jungle book but that looked like it was changed drastically and actually looks interesting.
From what I remember, the plothole about the kingdom of beast being so unknown by the village is explained by the beginning. The beast and the servants stayed alive for thousands of years so by that, people now forgotten about it and see the castle as abandoned. Well this is just from my memory. Edit: Oh just refreshed my mind. It's just ten years. Sorry. Poor mind XD.
I loved the 2014 version in a lot of ways. Especially how cursing the dogs made sense because they were hunting dogs that helped in killing the golden deer. And the COSTUMES! But the romance is the weak element of that movie. Belle and Beast dance but it ends with them fighting. Belle shouts that he'll always disgust her and then runs away after the next scene. Beast rescues her from falling through a frozen lake during her escape and says she can go home for a day to see her family. When Belle returns in the climax and says she loves him, it felt very sudden. She went from disgust to love just because the beast didn't let her drown and gave her one day back home. The two characters are wonderfully played, but there needed to be more positive interactions before the climax of the movie.
Hi, Fonzzz002. If about Belle from the original animated movie I disagree that she allegedly did not save her father, but just wanted to break out of the boring village life - about Belle-Emma Watson, I completely agree with this very theory. She does not even look upset by the separation from her father, she cares only that the objects can walk and talk, and she appreciated the beauty of the golden wall decorations almost immediately (as if she had really dreamed of going to the palace). And here's some from the comparison video between the two Beasts: ''While the animated Beast wants to make THE MAXIMAL IMPRESSION to Maurice, the live-action Beast is barely seen and doesn't say a word. The animated Beast considers Belle to be brave and selfless, while the live-action Beast considers her as simply a liar. He says ''She's the daughter of a common thief'', as if he'd been waiting for the white-carriage princess (and it's quite strange, why did he leave her in his castle, if he didn't want to get any deal elationship with her). In the library scene, the live-action Beast behaves as if Belle's company is unpleasant to him, and even she has much more fun without him, yes it's. The animated Beast eats in the ''doggy'' manner by habit, and Belle is being confused by that. The live-action Beast eats from the bowl voluntarily, for paying a little bit of attention to Belle, because she can't take her eyes off the book. The snowball game in the live-action movie doesn't really look like a game, because the Beast knocks Belle down as if he wanted to get rid of her, because a falling with your head back on a stone floor is quite dangerous.''
Finally I found someone who thinks exactly like me one more disappointment for me is the beast or prince was using that mirror before curse only I feel why didn't they use another mirror or little more bigger size mirror as magic mirror 😭
I actually love the other live action version that was mentioned. Plus I really like all the differences, including the fact it not only takes place in France but is in french. Spoilers! Plus the reason she sacrifices herself for her father is more than love and devotion for him, but guilt. In this version she has several siblings, and all her life they have reminded her that their mother died giving birth to her. Since she requested a rose as a gift from his travels (he's a merchant) and that is the reason he was imprisoned she personally feels responsible for it, and doesn't want to be responsible for the deaths of both of their parents. There are many other changes that I really enjoyed. The movies not perfect but I liked it.
I can only assume Belle has no personality because Emma Watson has no personality. TBH her casting was why I didn't go and see this as a plank of wood with a frowny face drawn on it has a greater emotional acting range than anything she has ever shown on film
Nocturne Accipitridae I completely agree. Yes, she has the look of belle, but is terrible for the part considering her acting style. I also feel like she lacks to understand the character and belles relationship with the beast, making her performance mediocre at best.
I do enjoy the Be Our Guest sequence in the remake given the spectacle, but in the original so much more charm was added to the already gorgeous animation when Belle brought out more of her whimsical side and like you said tasted all the different kinds of food they have.
![[TF2] The Russian Bear Trap](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YFNSwz2_rOA/mqdefault.jpg)
Oh Belle and the beast did get personalities in the remake. The Beast now has the personality of the original Gaston and Belle has the personality of Emma Watson.
🤦♂️ no the beast in the remake wishes he was as smart as The original Gaston
@@davidcarty7584 or played darts like Gaston….in a gas contest nobody farts like Gaston
I didn’t know Emma Watson had no personality
@@dabatman5187 she doesn't, she threw Rowling under the bus at the first chance she got. The very woman who built her.
@@RKNancy That's because Rowling is a terrible person
I never saw the chemistry between the two main characters in the remake. They don't do anything to show they audience that they are in love. In the original, you can clearly see it!
especially in the beast from the original.
The movie was called Beauty and the Beast, but at the end it was like Beauty and the Beast's parents
Original Beast: She's been so nice to me, allow me to do something nice for her.
Remake Beast: I'll give her something to shut her up.
Even when the Beast dies, Belle in the remake is like making an effort to cry. I hated that so much. The curse being broken in the remake makes no sense at all
@@wilyoldserpent you make no sense at all. 😂
Original Belle: cries into the Beast's chest because he died for her and she loves him.
Remake Belle: kisses a dead body- wait didn't the princes in Snow White and Sleeping Beauty get backlash for doing basically the same thing?
Pretty big double standar with the kids if you ask me.
Emma Watson’s idea of “feminism“ is heterosexual white women doing whatever the fuck they want and never getting called out on it.
Don't forget the ballgown! A single costume may not seem important at first but damn, I was sooo underwhelmed by her signature dress!
What really bothers me, even though it's like really minuscule, is that in the live action, the beast can read. They deleted one of my favourite scenes where Belle teaches the beast how to read near the fireplace and they bond. It also makes the Beast giving her the library more sweet, because even though he doesn't have the same interests as her, and doesn't exactly understand her passion, he still gives her something that he knew she would like really enthusiastically. The movie beast was already interested in books and was just showing off his collection, without really planning to give it to her.
Eh, Him being able to read actually makes more sense. He IS and price and would have realistically been given the best education available. It makes sense he can read.
@@minichik29 That does not change the fact that the library scene was such a letdown...
@@sweetmama4491 I will agree to that!
I disagree. The sharing of the love of reading didn’t do much at all. Not every Prince was interested in reading, and even if he did learn before, it has been a very long time since he last read.
They do the reverse with Gaston. In the original, he insulted her interests and told her to quit. In the remake, he tried to act interested, even though it wasn't his thing he attempted to act polite about it.
I absolutely HATED this version. It took everything wonderful about the animated one and smashed it into a boring, colourless, flavourless, pancake with terrible lighting, terrible singing (except Audra McDonald who's talent is wasted in this), and acting that's mediocre at best. Not to mention a plot that is riddled with holes and unnecessary extra scenes that make no sense and make the movie drag on way longer than it needs to be.
Mari of the Shire
Audra McDonald really is wasted in this 🙁
Her part in the song “Days in the sun” is so short! They barely use her in favour of auto tuned Emma Watson.
I totally agree. The movie also had notably bad editing in quite a few scenes.
MsAbixxx, don't forget Audra McDonald's aria in the prologue :)
Diana Raisa
Hardly long enough either. Her singing time in this film accumulates to about 2 mins.
Thank you! The woman has six Tonys, and they didn't even give her a proper solo... She should have gotten the title song. The only reason Mrs Pots sang it in the original, is because she was voiced by Angela Lansbury, and the filmmakers back then were intelligent enough to put the talent they had available to good use.
Emma Watson looks constantly pissed off, triggered, depressed. and when she smiles, it's an upsetting smile, like she is mocking someone
Ik she didn’t even look happy at all she looked she didn’t even want to be there her, Belle is someone to teach the beast how to love and be kind to the people around him did she show that Hell No
I know exactly what you're talking about. It's that insufferable patronizing smirk.
Yes! Emma Watson was horrible as Belle and she ruined the movie for me. Drab Belle.
The Beast is just less...... ‘beastly’ in this remake.
Which works to the films detriment.
The original showed how the Beast had almost surrendered to his more angry and beastly side, because he had lost all hope in ever becoming human again. Then after he meets Belle, befriends her and then falls in love with her, you see him start acting more human again. How he starts wearing more clothes, walking in a more human way, cares more about his table manners and hygiene and controls his anger completely.
In the remake he already wears a lot of clothes, he already walks a lot like a human, he hardly growls or grunts or acts like a beast at all. He still acts like the snobby douche from the beginning, just a lot more hairier. There is no gradual change in him. I guess he acts a little less snobby and douchey.....
But yeah, overall this remake is a bland imitation trying to capture the same magic and failing miserably.
People say “Stop comparing it to the original all the time!” but how can you not?! This film tries to copy the original in every aspect that it cannot really become it’s own thing.
Just watch the animated film, there really is no point watching this at all.
Very well said
But he's weirdly also less human... In the sense that he doesn't feel "realistic" at all. He doesn't seem to have human emotions, he's just naggy and dismissive of everything. It's just so stiff and stilted. I just cannot buy their relationship.
@@liv97497 good point, while the animated beast was more animal in design, he was still very expressive whether he was angry or shy, this guy keeps the same tone whether hes happy or angry.
the original was terrifying, animated equivalent of Tarzan vs a regular human. Remake beast does not look like he could survive 2 rounds in a MMA match. Saddening, really..
In the remake Belle is still in her ballgown when she leaves the castle. The people should habe asked her where she had gotten it from.
Plus, she is running into snowed woods with a ball gown. A clever girl like Belle would neved have done it (twice, if you count when she is in her UNDERWEAR going back to the castle). In fact, in the animated version she grabs her cloak too
Nesseire Belle should have told them about her dress.
But as you said, nobody asked. At least in the black and white version her sisters asked her, because they were jealous of her rich garments. But in the 2017 version, all that scene is around Maurice going into prission, so there is no room for anybody to ask about the dress, and of course, Belle is all about "leave my father alone" not "look what I´m wearing"
Nesseire Oh I see.
Honestly, what product was Disney expecting when they hired a director who worked on two "Twilight" films?
And an actress who has no experience with professional singing to play the lead, allowing her to also help design her outfits..
AniMat: *criticizes Twilight and Beauty and the Beast (2017) and other live-action Disney remakes while praising the Walt Disney Animation Studios counterparts, especially Beauty and the Beast **m.ruclips.net/video/zmk4IdN1so8/видео.html*
Twihards (toxic portion): *HE’S A WAY WORSE PERSON THAN THAT FAILURE OF A CARTOON GASTON EVER WILL BE!!!!*
Emma Watson, is simply NOT Belle.
Lilu P She shows very little emotion in this movie.
@@RR-ir6ss basically none
Emma Watson is HORRIBLE as Belle she was given creative control over the character in the remake
I didn’t like her attitude towards the movie. Very arrogant nd she didn’t do a good enough job for that sort of attitude. (I don’t even want to mention the singing)
@@wisdomabdulaziz3694 That heavily autotuned, yet flat "singing" was enough to make ears bleed.
2/10/21, 8:23p
You forgot to mention that they spent like 10 minutes showing Belle inventing the washing machine and the whole scene is absolutely pointless....
Feels like any Belle-girl in Disneyland knows how to be charming and kind better than Emma Watson.
I just want to say I like your logo I have a letter K2 because because well my name starts with a k
My problems with the movie are a lot. But I'd like to discuss only a few. First of, by trying to make Belle a super-feminist, they lost the original's organic feminism. Animated Belle is a strong character, she stands for what she believes in against Gaston, the Beast, and the village. She loves to read to expand her horizons, and experience an adventure her routine life doesn't allow her. She is kind and caring even in the face of adversity. She is not afraid to stand up to Beast, or even the freaking wolves! She rejects Gaston because he is a jerk that doesn't even pretend to respect her and her interests.
Movie Belle is a snob that dislikes village life. No real historic woman would go out in what is essentially her underwear, but to show Belle is a feminist she has to wear "trousers" instead of a skirt. Like you said, her engineering skill is never heard of again, so it was there just for shock value. She rejects Gaston because he's not good enough for her. But Beast "of course he can read, he's a PRINCE". So instead of being Gaston's dark heart versus Beast's kind heart, it appears to be more like a peasant versus a prince. By trying to make her so blatantly "feminist", she just became a caricature out of time. (and I say this being a feminist myself)
On the matter of Gaston, I somewhat disagree with you. I hate what they did with Gaston because now I really like movieGaston! He's a compelling character. He actually tries to win over Belle, to woo her. It is very obvious that he has PTSD instead of just being the village quarterback. In the animated B&B, it is slowly revealed to us that he is actually more than a jerk, he is a bad guy. In the movie, he snaps because of his PTSD. It's kind of hard to blame a person of evilness when they have such a disease. This just makes me dislike Belle's snobbish reaction to him, instead of giving her credit for fighting off a bullying jerk. Because here, Gaston isn't a bullying jerk. He's deeply damaged by war.
As for movieBeast, he's just an all around asshole, that doesn't get much of a redemption ark like the animated version. Plus the addition of the magic-travelling-book negates the whole point of the curse keeping him enclosed within his castle and within himself. He hasn't descended into being almost an actual beast, he's just as snob as ever. I though he was almost similar to animatedGaston, which made Belle's love for Beast feel unnatural to me.
But these are just my thoughts on some matters. I apologize for the rant. (edit is for grammar correction)
Nice rant you got there, remake put me to sleep in 15 mins
Completely agree
After seeing this movie all I could think was:
1) it feels like Les Miserables for kids
2) why would I ever watch this again over the far superior version?
There's a Cookie Monster version of Les Mis on RUclips that's a hundred times better than this and for free but I get where you're coming from xD
The remake is just a copy just in live action
Crinsom RUclipsr, did you know that there was also a deleted screenplay where Belle had a little sister named Clarice and a snobbish upper class aunt that tried getting Belle to marry Gaston? Gaston in that version wasn't the masculine town hero that everyone but Belle and Maurice loved. No, he was an aristocrat with a powdered wig.
I think the remake could have benefited from using the deleted screenplay where Belle was pressured to marry Gaston by her paternal aunt, Marguerite in order to save her little sister, her cat, her horse, and her father from a life of poverty and then strikes it lucky when she agrees with her father to switch places with her father to be Beast's prisoner. While being Beast's captive, Belle grows closer to the Beast.
Hellbound Iscariot That deleted screenplay sounds a million times better than just coping the original and throwing in half assed changes! What a shame!!!
Jordan Willner, probably. I have my doubts of it being a success. First, a lot of people would want the film to be like the animated 1991 version, anything different would turn away audience members that came from the animated turned live action movie. Second, Clarice and Maguarite were removed and Maurice and Gaston's roles were changed. Gaston was a nobleman while Maurice was a merchant that had lost his merchandise at sea. Clarice was thrown out because the movie was meant to focus more on Belle's loneliness. Maguerite was unneeded since Maurice and Belle in the animated movie were doing better off than they were in the deleted screenplay. Finally, it may cost the company more money to work in the deleted screenplay instead of just rehashing the animated movie. They would be taking a gamble if they did anything new since a lot of people grew up with the animated 90's classic and depending on the reaction, it would turn the movie into a flop.
I do wish they would have gone with the deleted screeplay.
Look at the scene where she cares for his wounds, side by side with the original, and youll see how badly they ruined that scene as well. There is zero chemistry between Emma and this Beast... Emma had a very poor understanding of who Belle is
Let’s not forget the awful auto tune & choppiness In belle’s songs.
Why do you hate the live-action one I hate it too but why is this so much for it once again
@@kathleenholt8990 what do you mean again? Lol
What I said is stop hating on the live-action Beauty and the Beast because that is my favorite movie and I know some people like no not only the 7th Guest song even though he's it's a song yeah I got it we're trying to put more songs in the movie and I actually like it sounds of songs Back I don't really like the view Beast live action on but just please stop hating on it okay
@@kathleenholt8990 You can't stop people's opinions. They have reasons for hating bad movies and it doesn't matter if it's your favorite. Don't even bother watching actual critiques of the trashy remake since you clearly can't handle it.
"when the master lost his mother and his cruel father took that sweet innocent lad and twisted him up to be just like him, we did nothing" Yeah, because defying or contradicting the father would have turned out great for the FRIGGING SERVANTS in that time period.
The biggest mistake they made for this movie was casting Emma Watson.
Lol yea
Yes! Emma Watson was horrible as Belle and she ruined the movie for me. Drab Belle.
Ugh, thanks for the Evermore rant. It's a gorgeous song and I love it, but if you are going to keep the beasts depression in, you can't have him sing a song about how Belle's love will always inspire him.
"Hes being sarcastic" from Bobsheauxs review of Beauty And The Beast (2017)
this is specially sad when there was a superior version in the broadway musical
Sadly, the song came from the broadway version, where it fit more.
@@heathercontois4501 ah ok
Emma Watson acted so stiff as Belle. Animated Belle was so much more lively, lovely, romantic, and, well-- animated. And it wasn't that Emma COULDN'T'VE acted like the original Belle.
Amy Adams as live-action Giselle from Enchanted was just as lively, princess-y, and animated as her animated counterpart. Dare I say, she was MORE animated in the live-action. Right down to her hand movements. The way she moved was very reminiscent of theater.
If only Emma trained in the ways of theater-- or watch the original movie twenty times-- so that she could've copied Belle's movements to a T. Emma couldn't even hold the same POSTURE as animated Belle. Compare the original vs the remake. It's true.
The actress playing Cinderella in the live remake did a great job aswell, while not as physically animated (understandably, Cinderella isnt supposed to be as lively as Giselle) she captured the wonder and spirit of a disney princess so well (a long with the rest of the cast honestly). They were realistically cartoony if that makes sense. This version feels like they pretending its Game of Thrones and completely fail to acknowledge the wonder and magic of the story/world they're in.
Emma Watson throwing a hissy fit and refusing to wear a corset, making the yellow dress (that wasn't that great to begin with) look like a prom dress from aliexpress.
The biggest difference of all was that there was no love in the remake. I just didn’t feel that they genuinely cared about each other by the end of the movie.
In the original, it’s plain as day that they adore one another.
All the other flaws in the remake didn’t bother me as much as this did.
Thank you for explaining when a "plot hole" matters and when it really _doesn't_ and an explanation would actually be _counterproductive_ instead of helpful or even necessary. What matters is if it affects the *story being told* and the *characters in that story.*
Honestly, this wouldn't even need to be explained but because of the CinemaSin snobs out there, well, you know. Nitpicking is now considered an art form.
This video should’ve been a top 11 worst things about the Live Action remake... Because Belle’s entire wardrobe should’ve been No. 1 on this list! Every outfit she wears, especially her yellow gown was bland, underwhelming, and overall disappointing... 🤦🏻♂️😓💔
best reaction from me mom: "she looks like pikatchu."
@@phoneguy4637 epic🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
1) Emma Watson
You hit on a lot of my grievances with this film like Emma Watson's acting being so incredibly bland and the attempts to fix plot holes that create more plot holes and it being too similar to the original without actually recreating the FEELING of the original.
One of the things that definitely bothered me as well was that they decided to make the Beast a sexist as well as "grumpy" as you call him. The whole thing with the books in the 2017 version is that Beast thinks romances are boring and girly and while he's caught reading a romance, he quickly tries to point that no, it's an action adventure book instead of accepting that he likes it. What could have been an interesting point of character development (though an unnecessary one) just went nowhere and made him less likable as a character, particularly to a character like Belle. In the original, they also bond over reading but via Belle reading aloud to the Beast and him loving it so much that he eventually asks her to teach him to read.
With the Enchantress, I was actually excited to hear she would get a bigger role, but my problem with what happened was that it wasn't big ENOUGH to warrant having her there as much as they did. She has all of two lines total and serves more as a deus ex machina than an actual character. The servants describe why THEY think they deserved to be cursed, but it's not necessarily why the ENCHANTRESS decided to curse them. If they were going to place her in Belle's village why not show her having some kind of relationship with Belle maybe? What if she likes telling Belle all these fantastical stories and that's how Belle knows about them? Maybe she's the one who taught Belle to read and she has her own personal book collection (thus fixing the "bookshop" plot hole) she lets Belle borrow from. If they weren't going to really DO anything with Agatha to give her a personality and a reason to be there, it should have been left a mystery.
I actually DIDN'T like LeFou being explicitly gay. Villains are coded as gay often enough that it's not actually that progressive to make the stupid, goofy villain sidekick explicitly gay. What would have been progressive would have been to make Cogsworth and Lumiere gay. Or have the Beast be a woman instead of a man. Or perhaps Belle is a trans woman which would also explain her being ostracized by the village. Making LeFou gay felt more like Hollywood trying to toss the LGBT community breadcrumbs while calling it a banquet and patting themselves on the back for being so brave.
I hated that they also tried to pat themselves on the back for making Belle so "feminist" by having her be the "engineer" of the family instead of Maurice when that wasn't what we were shown at all. Outside of the two instances where she hands a tool to her father so he can do the actual engineering, she makes one laundry machine thing that gets destroyed almost immediately and it's never brought up again. She never talks about loving to create things when she's with the Beast or even just fiddle/tinker with stuff while she's there to try to help out around the castle as it's falling apart since the servants can't really do it very well anymore. Again, like with LeFou, this just felt like being tossed breadcrumbs while being told it was a gourmet meal.
And if they were going to go the route of giving the Beast's parents a backstory, why the hell did they think fridging a woman for manpain was the way to go? "The Beast is cruel because his mom died which made his dad cruel so it's really not his fault." They can do better. And for all that they spent a lot of time on Belle's mother's death and gave a whole scene to Beast's parents and his mother's death, not once do I recall either the Beast or Belle actually having a conversation ABOUT their mothers when it's definitely something that could connect them. I know Belle didn't remember her mother much, but that easily could have been changed a little so she had, like, ONE memory of her mother or something so that they could exchange happy stories that bring them closer together. Instead of being important to the characters' overall arcs, the mothers were just brought back to fill a plot hole that didn't really need filling and then immediately killed so that the husbands could be upset about it.
And I could go on for DAYS about how in the final battle sequence, Belle showing up BEFORE the Beast has defeated Gaston removes a lot of the Beast's growth and redemption arc. In the original, the Beast lets Gaston go because he realizes he doesn't want to be that monster Gaston believes he is. He's regained his humanity enough to know that he doesn't need to kill Gaston now that he's been defeated and his life isn't in immediate danger. It's not about Belle. She shows up right afterwards, whereas in the 2017 version she shows up in the middle of his fight against Gaston and he's staring right at Belle as he holds Gaston up by his neck and chooses to let him live. This makes the implication that the only reason he lets Gaston go is because he knows it would upset Belle. To me, this ruins his entire arc as a character. He changes FOR Belle, not BECAUSE of Belle. It's a subtle difference, perhaps, but an important one.
You should have written and directed this movie. It would have been a million times better.
That's quite possibly the nicest thing anyone's ever said to me. While I have zero interest in directing, writing is something of a dream and hopefully someday it'll come true. In the meantime, I have an entire Google Docs folder filled up with ways I would have changed the film to make it more interesting with an entire fancast attached that I have confirmed can all sing well.
Like I didn't even go into how I made an entire AU around a theory I saw before the film came out that the Enchantress might end up being Belle's mother. I thought that would have been AMAZING as a way to unfridge the mother and give both Belle's mom and the Enchantress an interesting backstory. It could also help explain the existence of magic in this fantasy France if they chose to. And it sorta fixes the deus ex machina of the Enchantress just breaking the spell even though technically Belle and the Beast were a bit late to do it themselves.
And I had a whole slew of small scenes of the Beast interacting with the servants and learning to care for them and become a better monarch because of it. In this version, perhaps, the idea was that he would learn to love his people and they him, thus breaking the curse without romantic love needing to save the day or be portrayed as the ultimate kind of love.
I had an original character who owned a bookstore and was a lesbian which is why she and Belle get along and become friends since they're both ostracized. She ended up getting together with Plumette in the end, I think.
I could literally talk about this film for HOURS, just not because I liked any of it.
That honestly sounds amazing.. It keeps the traditional fairytale style that everyone knows and loves while also being progressive in a way that doesn't feel forced or overdone... I really do hope you become a writer one day because your ideas are so creative and your writing style (from a freaking RUclips comment at that) is thoughtful, sophisticated, and well done.. 👏👏👏
Yeah I mean I've read SO MANY amazing Disney/fairy tale adaptations on the internet that put my efforts so much to shame, written by people far more familiar with the fairy tale style than I am. But I know I can't do much worse than the screenwriter for this film who ended up just creating far more plot holes the more he tried to fix the original ones. And yeah, if a "progressive" storyline feels forced or overdone, that probably means it's not actually progressive in the first place (like them being so proud of having two interracial couples in the film when one of the only Black characters is a literal MAID and has about 5 lines total and Disney's had several interracial couples before, some even that didn't include white people at all, none of what was in this film was progressive by comparison). Jungle Book felt like a better example of a film taking what made it problematic and fixing the plot to make it more progressive without overdoing it; it just fit the story better. Beauty and the Beast was just the powers that be wanting brownie points without putting in the work and thereby sacrificing story for "Progressive Points."
It's disappointing. I liked what Jungle Book did and hearing that Belle was going to be an engineer seemed like a cool twist. It wasn't until I heard about LeFou that I started to get worried and by the time I saw the movie I just couldn't stand all the dumb changes that got made for no good reason. This is why I'm less excited for the rest of the Disney "live action" remakes. It feels like they're all heading down the same path except, maybe, Lion King (which is going to be directed by the same guy who did Jungle Book so).
Beauty and the Beast deserved better. Howard Ashman's memory deserved better.
Ginger Marlo ur version sounds a lot like the one I’ve been dreaming up in my head-I wish people like us were given the chance to color these fantastical worlds because god damn cishet men have no imagination. the composer was gay, the writer was a woman, and both had to fight to put their message in the original movie, however subtle, subtextual, or simple, an idea may be (like letting Belle read rather than bake a pie while waiting for her father to come home) but now that it’s a time where it can be even more blatantly feminist, and it’s possible to have openly queer people, who is in control of the story? Not Ashman, he died of AIDs because an uncaring world thought that a disease was killing all the right people. His music held out hope that his curse could be lifted with love-that was the fairytale. They ‘honor’ his memory with a double whammy of queerbait and queer-coding a villain. The writer is alive and well, but they’d rather pat themselves on the back and call it a day, because wow she’s an engineer, how forward of us. Her input wasn’t even a thought in their head. People need to be behind the scenes as much as in front of it. And writing g like u do us a start (lol now all we need to go is get hired)
But in all seriousness, I think I got a little off tract I my rant, but I couldn’t agree w u more
If ur comfortable with it, I’d love to read yours-it sounds so lovely 💕
I genuinely don't understand why the movie got positive reviews. It was soulless.
It actually got mixed reviews
Emma Watson and the Beast is what this movie should have been called
For me the worst change they made was the fact that the servents explain to Belle of the curse. In the live action moovie Belle' love is not inconditional. And there is no chemistry between those two. I like Emma Watson but she is not good to play Belle.
@@rachet87 in the original version Belle understood alone that the castle was enchantedl after the servents stopped singing Be our Guest. She wasn't stupid.
Okay, just, thank GOD for you. X'D
Ever since I first watched this movie in theaters, I've been trying desperately to explain to people why I believed that it WASN'T a good remake. Everyone keeps thinking that I'm just letting nostalgia get the best of me, but no matter how many times I TRY to watch and enjoy this new movie, I just CAN'T. I tried to watch it just the other night, with my mother, thinking that perhaps it's been long enough, and I can watch it without my critical feelings getting in the way. But NOPE. If it's at all possible, I think I hated it even MORE. To the point where I just asked my family to change it, before I lost my mind. Everything about this movie just felt like it was spitting on the original. Which, yeah, sounds unfair, and I'm probably SUPER biased, because the original WAS my favorite Disney movie (and still is), but no one can tell me otherwise.
Of all of it, Belle was actually my least favorite thing about this entire movie. The original Belle had so many interesting and relatable character traits. Curiosity, intelligence, a strong need for something bigger than herself to happen to her, loving and caring for those in need, and above all, she had the patience and kindness of a saint. She tolerated Gaston, and was always civil with him, never once insulting him, even to herself or her father. (With the only exception being after rejecting his marriage proposal, but at that point, she had every right to feel fed up with him.) In the new version, she complains about him to her father, while in the original, the most she says is, "He's not the one for me." And her patience with Beast is the key factor in their relationship. His temper was no match for her stubborn patience and naturally forgiving nature.
All of these traits were poorly done in the new version. And I believe the reason for that, is because they were trying SO hard to make her a "strong, independent woman, who doesn't need a man to save her". There are THREE scenes from the original, that I believe portray Belle at her finest. When she takes her father's place, when she sneaks into the West Wing, and when she forgives Beast while cleaning his wound.
When she takes her father's place, she's making a promise. And the reason this scene hurts so much for the audience, is because she is THAT willing to fully commit to her promise. When she says that she is willing to remain the Beast's prisoner forever, she MEANS it. She's NOT the type of person to break a promise, no matter who it is made to. This goes to show that her word means everything to her. And it makes her runaway scene show just how truly terrified she is of this cursed place. "Promise or no promise, I can't stay here another minute." The reason that line holds so much weight is because we know that, if the Beast weren't so terrifying, she'd willingly stay. Because she PROMISED. That's a role model for you. And, in my opinion, it's a much better trait to have than, you know... Lying, breaking your promises and trying to escape first chance you get, even though you gave your word... That, to me, was just plain stupid. I mean, come on! WE may understand that Beast can't leave the castle, but Belle had no way of knowing that. If she escaped, what's to stop Beast from coming after her, and making her and her father pay? In the original, Belle traded her life for her father's freedom. It was worth it to her. That was POWERFUL. It showed true character and gave her depth. Showed that she cared deeply about the people who loved her, and would willingly sacrifice herself to protect them. In the new version, she tells her father not to worry. She's lying about taking his place, and will do everything she can to escape while Beast's back is turned.
When Belle sneaks into the West Wing, her curiosity is at the forefront. This was always my favorite trait for her. Because it IS her. She's the curious princess. She wants to LEARN about EVERYTHING, and is willing to risk herself in order to do so. It shows confidence and bravery, as well as insatiable curiosity. This scene also shows that she can be cunning and sneaky if she wants to be. (And not easily distracted.) Lumiere and Cogsworth accidentally tell her where the West Wing is, and she allows them to believe that she's distracted by her interest in seeing the castle's library, so that she can sneak off while, instead, THEY are distracted. Her curiosity wins over, despite us knowing just how much she loves books, and despite knowing that, if she's caught, there will likely be consequences. And because of this, we can later analyze that her curiosity is a giant factor in why she stays with the Beast and does so well with him. At the end of the day, she's curious about where this path will take her, and she's curious about the Beast, and wants to learn what makes him tick. The new version of Belle has no curiosity. Most of her decisions seem more based on defiance, than anything. A, "He can't tell me what to do" sort of logic... It's a horrid change... It takes her adventurous nature right out of the picture, and doesn't give her a whole lot of motivation to stay...
And then, there's the scene where she cleans his wound. My absolute FAVORITE scene in the original, because of how intimate and integral it is to the rest of the film, and it is my honest belief that they totally BUTCHERED it. Seriously, it's pissing me off just thinking about it. In order to keep myself from ranting, I'll keep this part as short as possible. This scene is where their dynamic completely changed in the original film. At this point, Beast is upset with her for leaving, and she's upset that he scared her away to begin with. They have a short bout of banter where Beast basically tries to blame her for everything that just happened, and true to form, she stubbornly holds her ground, in spite of his raging temper, and throws his excuses back at him until he has nothing left. He pouts like a child, and, being the more mature and intelligent one, she puts their banter behind them almost immediately and THANKS him. Belle thanks the Beast for saving her life. And this genuinely surprises Beast - kind of stuns him into silence even, for just a second - and he answers with a simple, "You're welcome". Camera pans out, as Belle continues tending to his arm, and the servants come out of hiding, because they realize that the tension in the air is fading away, the music is calm and sweet, and then everything fades to black. Just TWO words changed their ENTIRE relationship. A simple thank you changed them from total strangers to cautious acquaintances. Something that likely would have been nigh impossible with literally anyone else. But Belle managed it. Because she is intelligent and a purely honest, good-natured soul. Nearly anyone else would have pouted over the Beast not being grateful that they didn't leave him to die, and that they came back. But she was willing to put the past behind them, because she understood that the Beast was more than he seemed to be. This one scene changed everything about them and their relationship.
And when this scene came and went in the movie, I found myself so UTTERLY disappointed. No thank you. I was holding my breath after they bantered, just waiting - begging - for her to say it. But she leans away, almost like she's giving up trying to help him, and tells him to get some rest. And then she leaves. And then the movie expects me to believe that their relationship has changed. That they are able to forgive and forget. It's seriously insulting. She ended up being the very person that I said this situation would be impossible for. Someone who is TOO stubborn, and doesn't know how to forgive and forget.
And yet, every time I read a comment, praising this scene for how well Emma Watson acted it, or for how awesome and strong-willed "Belle" is, all I can think is, "What are these people thinking? Do they not understand how this messes with the flow of the CHARACTER'S development? Do they not see the total blasphemy of replacing two little words?" It seems like such a little thing, but to me, it meant everything for this movie. It was literally the beginning moment of their positive relationship. And the remake left it out. All in favor of making Belle seem more independent and able to take care of herself. Of making Belle stubborn and strong, instead of mature and intelligent. I mean, I'm all for stubbornness and being strong. But this stubbornness was the WRONG kind. It was the grudge-holding stubbornness, rather than the hold-your-ground kind. (And the great thing about the original Belle was that she knew WHEN to be stubborn. She knew when to hold her ground, and when to let bygones be bygones, and show a bit of compassion.) Meanwhile, this Belle was the kind of woman who doesn't want to apologize for mistakes and doesn't want to admit to someone that they saved her. God forbid she thank someone for saving her life!
And just like that, I'm ranting... Great... (There's so much more I could say on this subject, but that gets more into why I didn't like the new Belle personally, rather than compared to the original. I think I'll leave that alone...)
I just wanted to get all that out. I'm SO grateful that I'm not the only one who found major faults with this movie, compared to the original. It's been driving me nuts to think that I'm the only one who sees the underlying (and blatant) problems. So thank you. Thank you SO much for posting this. More people need to realize that this movie was far from perfect. (But I guess that's just my nostalgic opinion... = _=")
Sorry I made this so long. XD
Get a life.. Get a job... Get a hubby.
La_Trolette Am currently not dead.. Am currently getting a paycheck every other week.. Am currently (happily) single. I think I'm all around good, bud! 👍
SILVER ? I DON'T LIKE PIZZA ! NO NO NO NO
You are the only other person I've seen to make the point of how her trying to escape immediately really damaged her character.
I've never seen the movie, only the trailers..... and I still noticed that little detail. I might have mentioned it in a comment, but didn't press it too hard simply because there are times the trailers give false info. (that and idiot fans kept saying I was just nostalgic {HYPOCRISY- I say- the only reason they were looking forward to it was because of their nostalgia for the original}........ sorry mild rant there)
Anyway.......
Thank you for noticing that, and for venting out these other problems. (as a fellow 'can't think of this version without ranting', I thoroughly enjoyed reading it)
Silver ? Get a social life.. It's sad.
I entirely agree on the stupid book! They used it for a pointless scene; learning what happens to Belle mother brings nothing to the story, don't developp her relation with the Beast either since he didn't comfort her at that moment or did something nice for her U-U For her mother's death, it's important but not to save her father's life? That's dumb! Also, if the Beast could use it before Belle arrived in the castle; his sadness made less sense. With this magic item, he can visit new places and have fun; it will appease his pain; apparently the Prince forgot to use it. In short, this element was really unecessary and bring plot holes instead of interresting stuff.
God i hate the Enchantress in this movie! She was so cruel and for no good reasons. I mean, she enters in the castle without asking permission or introducing herself; which is rude! When the Prince chased her, she punished everyone; erased innocents peoples memories and cruse them. What a jerk! This lady could helped Maurice when he talked about Gaston at the tavern, didn't! That was nasty! The poor man was almost killed and she didn't help him, i felt so sad for Maurice.
Like you said; she punised one person even if he did nothing wrong but not the hundreds of peoples who beated Maurice and wanted to kill him; what was she thinking? The Prince isn't a monster, she is!
She helped Maurice it has shown in the movie rest of your points r absolutely right
Honestly, I'd rather watch 2 1/2 hours of Gaston and LeFou than any of the stuff -Belle- Emma and the Beast did.
The animated library scene blew my socks off when I saw it- it felt so epic - the live action version felt underwhelming; yes, the library was big- but it didn’t _feel_ *epic* ...
I recently re-watched the original animated movie on blu-ray right before Valentine's Day and it still holds up, especially that ball dance scene. Even if I watched it before that day I still felt romantic.
The Beast's song makes me even more annoyed because in the Broadway musical, there's a song in the same place that's literally like, "Well, I'm screwed." (Okay, a reprise, but it works emotionally.)
I HATED how the Beast looked. The fact that he looked like he just had Hypertrichosis with horns, was just too infuriating. In the animated one, the artist combined a boar, a lion, a wolf, a bear, and a wildebeest to make the Beast. He looked like a creature NO ONE could relate to even if it could talk and hold a conversation. Thus making Belle's interactions with him that more impactful.
I also hate that we see the Beast's human face BEFORE he is transformed. Like the idea that we know exactly what he looks like before the prologue is even finished pissed me off so much! Like his transformation at the end of the film holds up in the end because we literally don't see his face. It was so worth it to see his face in the end. ugh! Screw the remake!
his puckering lips are disturbing, and the whole figure is too much humanoid. the same tragedy happened to Cats
@@regnbuetorsk right! I can rant for another hour about how I hated how they handled the beast. I won't but I truly do hate it.
The cats thing... ew... you're right... that's creepy...
Can't unsee that 😂
Beauty and the Beast is one of the most famous romantic fairy tales ever. But this live-action adaptation has no romance at all. Belle learns everything she knows about Beast through Lumiere and Cogsworth rather than from Beast himself, so their bond feels empty.
In the animated version, their kiss at the end was so powerful it transformed the castle and the servants back to normal. In this version, it just feels kinda "meh".
The 3 leads also LOOK wrong. Emma's beauty not transcendent; looks smart but often petulant. Beast - in vile dark costume - needed eyes that grab attention. Both males: just plain not stunning enough.
Visually amazing movie without a heart. This was just intended to be a money-maker. It is way way too similar to the animated version. It almost feels like one of those shot for shot remakes. Also, all of belle's dresses were horrible. Cinderella and Maleficent did much better in actually re-telling the stories they are based on. Those two films actually feel like their own thing, unlike this one.
Get a new tux, Carlhoe !
I don't know. I thought the dress she wore at the end of the movie when Adam became human was pretty. I wish they changed the yellow one and make it more like the way they have it in the 18th century though.... I didn't like THAT one.
I actually disliked Maleficent because it made out 3 Faeries incompetent idiots while in the original they were the true heroes. They were watching over little Rose, giving her care, affection and protection. In the movie they were highly unlikeable.
@@tiaferrandino4881 It is a beautiful dress, but everybody else is wearing historical garments (robe a la francaise) and Belle is wearing a modern dress, she dresses like a time traveler throughout the whole movie and it sticks out like a sor thumb, because she is the only character that does.
But I think no one likes the yellow one. Compare it to Cinderellas life action gown, which looked magical, the yellow one looked to cheap.
I hate this movie with such a passion. It totally butchers the animated classic. Great video.
I disagree with the point that making lefou gay was an improvement as I think it contributed to the problems with this movie. I feel that it was done for the sake of it and when you look back it actually ruins his character as it makes his motivations more confusing, especially when he's loyal to that version of gaston. If anything if I was a gay man and this was done to appease me it would actually come off as pretty insulting instead of something worthy of praise.
THANK YOU for pointing all this stuff out!!! In particular, no one else in my family was as bothered as I was with Emma Watson's face/reactions during Be Our Guest. She looked confused/freaked out instead of embracing the joyful moment - which is a facet of animated Belle's character I adore! I think Emma Watson just didn't know what to do in the green screen room when they were filming...
I also agree they ruined the library reveal which is one of my favorite scenes! It shows how far they have come in their relationship (that she trusts him enough to close her eyes (with a healthy does of skepticism - haha!) and it showed how far he had come in thinking of others by doing something well thought out for Belle as a loving gesture. It helped us root for the Beast to win her over, and I never really felt that way about this new Beast. Although, I did like some of his lines (zingers!) from the new film.
Yes, overall, they depended on the original film to fill in the gaping holes they created in the new version. If the new producers had just added little details here and there instead of creating new plot holes, I think I would have forgiven its shortcomings and appreciated the grand scope and heavy lathering of French-ness they added to the film. It was so lush and a joy to view!
When it's time to introduce my kids to "Beauty and the Beast," it's going to be the original animated version, for sure!
Yes, I agree that the new French version is totally worth watching! I loved that film.
In the animated version the beast acts like an excited child the day before Christmas, when he is whatching her reaction, Is so sweet that you smile with him. In the other one he acts like a moron, boasting and showing of, although his clever lines were fine
Howard Ashman would be so dissapointed.
The library reveal was my biggest disappointment with this film.
I went into this movie being super excited, as Beauty and the Beast is my favorite Disney movie, if not my favorite movie of all time. However, after seeing it and feeling an unexplained sense of unfulfillment, and once the initial sparkle wore off, I quickly returned to feeling the original is simply superior. All of your points make perfect sense.
It may also have to do with the fact that while other people are huge fans of Emma Watson and think she can do no wrong, I am not a fan of hers, and I agree that she's a decent or good actress at best.
PERIODT ON ALL POINTS
Honestly same! My friend took me to see it because she knew it was my favorite movie, and she couldn't understand why I didn't like it. At the time I couldn't really explain it aside from the Beast's song which felt off, and her ball gown. Now I know, but I paid her back because I felt like that movie was just a huge waste of money since we also had watched it in 3D.
About number 3, how great would it have been if you combined the gift of affection with the common love for literature!? Not only would you get the best of both, but you also get the idea that the beast is giving something to Belle that he cares a lot about. He loves his library with his valuable books and after Belle shows she cares about the beast's wellbeing, he wants to show that he wants to trust her in turn, showing, sharing and even giving an important part of himself to her.
The remake makes it look like Stockholm syndrome
I never saw the movie so I have no right to talk about the story and whatnot. I will say why I have no interest in seeing it:
1. The CGI omg it looks bad. It doesn't look charming in the slightest, especially with the Beast. They should have used practical make-up effects on him. I've seen better in another live action version.
2. I love the original too much and since I don't think this version could live up to the Original Disney. FYI, the Disney version isn't actually my fav version of this story.
3. Emma Watson- I am not a fan of the actress. She did good in Harry Potter, but since then I've lost interest.
i didn't understand the need to give Belle's mother some explanations on where or what happened to her. It's *Disney*, the mom is *dead*. No need to expand on that.
You are right about all of it. I would add Bell's ball dress. They dropped the ball on that to. What could have been
If they decided to have a magic book, then why bother to have a magic mirror?
Thank you! Heck they didn't even mention it in the first part. Or Belle finding his painting that he scratched like in the original. Instead she saw the painting of him and his parents. I hated that too.
Yes! Shout out for the 2014 French version! So beautiful and underrated.
Heck, even the 1991 Beauty and the Beast gets unfairly disliked by remake/sequel purists that don’t know what a good Beauty and the Beast project (ex: Beauty and the Beast 2014) is!
Can I add how redundant it is to add the reason the Beast locking Maurice in the live action, it borrowed an element from the original books, and the disney version, in the classic ones it's debatable but it's still symbolizes Beast's lifetime, in some variations they explained that when Maurice picked a rose from his garden it accidentally took one month out of his life, in Disney animated version they were clever to change it as his ticking clock or sand hourglass for his curse, so it explains why he would be angry about it rightfully so, and They changed it this time that instead of Maurice trying to pick it or in this case touch, it was Belle in this case.
In the live action.....what's the point? What's his reason to lock Maurice in the dungeon?
To show that he's a ruthless and heartless asshole?
Congratulations, you made one of your main title characters unlikable and most of all unredeemable, no explanations or backstories will make him anymore sympathetic, especially since we see him as a grown man been spoiled and unkind, for a child, at least they can grow out of it and learn from their crucial experience, and that's what we all like to assume in Beast from the animated version, and even if that's not the case.. well they still portrayed Beast to be likable and intelligent, and sympathetic.
I love Emma Watson, I really do, but she is usually played as a strong female character. Belle is a kind of character who really just doesn't care about what people think about her, and she's very adventurous too. Emma Watson doesn't bring that off.this movie wasn't even a movie to me, it was more of a Broadway play that was magical but wasn't the same Broadway musicals usually don't have all the same features and they aren't going to. But live action movies so far, they haven't let me down other than just this one movie. Honestly, it was kind of sad knowing that beauty, and the beast was my favorite movie, but this live action movie didn't have as much time and effort as some of the others so truly this isn't my favorite.
I thought Gaston was kind of milquetoast (and way too slim) but he was one of the best singers in the cast. I don't blame Luke Evans for this. I blame the writing. They tried to make him more human and relatable and it made him far less menacing and effective as a villain.
Katy TerBerg
Henry Cavill should have played Gaston
Gol D. Luffy Henry Cavill is too much, so pretty that everybody would rooting for him to win Belle’s heart hahaha
I agree with everything said in this video. I HATED this remake! I really wish they didn't make it. I couldn't even finish this movie. I stopped watching during the Gaston song.
My main issue with Emma Watson as Belle is that despite a decent singing voice, she had no breath to sing. She was audibly gasping every line she sang and that started to get annoying. I get its her first musical, but had NOBODY in all these months of filming and rehearsing helped her increase her lung capacity? Her songs made ME feel short of breath!
Am I the only one who thought the live action Gaston just wasn't "big enough"? I'm not taking stature, but personality and that big booming male vibratto. The animated film gave him this big burly tough guy quarter back type, but also he had a narsacisstic flamboyance to him as well. I feel like live action Gaston definitely fell flat on that side.
This movie is way too politically correct and Emma Watson pushes her feminist attitude way too much
I CANNOT stand Belle's yellow dress in this movie.
The West Wing is one of my favorite parts of Beauty and the Beast, the music is AMAZING I listen to it all the time! So the remake version was so disappointing to me. They should've had more of the "background" music from the animation. And the only thing Emma has in common with Belle is her looks. Did they all think that it's enough? "Yeah you look the part so you don't have to act the part." WHY
Emma hit her peak in early Harry Potter, where she lit up the screen. She shows no shred of true acting in this sorry mess. And imagine the conceit, thinking she could follow original Belle's Starburst singing!
There's no love in the remake
I like the animated version of the Library scene better than the remake version.
One of the worst parts of the library reveal WAS the shared interest in reading. In the original, Belle had a unique wanderlust bookworm quirk to go with her beauty and kindness... In this remake, her reading is only validated when a man also aknkowledes her reading and accepts it... For some reason reading is a masculine trait in this movie. Its a fight for equality in the library scene
9:25 Sometimes being rejected by someone we love motivates us to change ourselves for the better--so there is actually realism in his galvanized singing ...
the way emma acted triggered me so much, belle was perfect character before why she thought she was the savior who needed to change it man
Every point you made is why I hate this movie because it’s a shallow imitation of a great story and movie. Even if the original didn’t exist this movie would still be crappy.
Good job recommending the French movie
Even though I liked the movie there were some changes that really bothered me
One of them was erasing everyone's memory of the castle, sure it removes a plot hole from the original, but it just feels like an extreme cop out. In the original I just always assumed that the prince was such a bastard that no one cared what happened to him. Not a major problem but it still really bugs me.
Another problem I had was belle being the inventor, I get that Disney was trying to make a strong female role model but the problem was belle was already a strong female role model in the original why do we need this added trait?
Another gripe I had was when Maurice enters the castle and is not introduced to the enchanted objects, I get that they were trying to make the beasts castle seem more creepy but it gets rid of the proper introduction to the characters we had in the animated movie.
One of my two major complaints is that they cut out Gaston's "wedding" it was a funny scene in the original and it really got to show what kind of a character Gaston is. What we got in the movie to replace it was fine the only problem is it disrupts the pacing of the movie, instead of having something to cut back to after Maurice is captured we cut right to the horse coming back to belle, it just goes by way too fast.
My second major complaint was that they added the enchantress into the story why? She had no place in the original and she has no place in this movie, also if she was an enchantress why didn't she turn gaston into a beast when he insulted her?
The whole thing with the book was kind
Of dumb as well, why not have belle just reveal her back story in a couple lines of dialogue rather than having this five minute scene that goes no where.
The final battle between gaston and the beast was also very disappointing, in the original it was much more intense, with them fighting in the rain and fighting with each other using clubs and brute force, in this version gaston just fires off a couple shots from his pistol and it's over, it just seems very anticlimactic.
That thing about nobody caring about what happened to the prince makes sense although it still doesn't explain how nobody had any idea who lived in the Castle and why the hell did erasing their memories of the castle bother you so much?
While I do think Luke Evans does his very best as Gaston I just find that him leaving Maurice to get eaten up in the woods made no sense although I do enjoy the different take they had on his character as well as Lefou and I still enjoy both of their characters from the original.
I was so excited for this movie, I'm a Disney fanatic and Beauty and the Beast is my 3rd favorite Disney movie (well it's a tie with Aladdin anyway).
But when trying to watch it, I ended up turning it off before Beast even went on screen. Lol THAT'S how much I disliked it.
I felt that the 2017 version was more like made for TV movie
Alisan Tetik more like direct to bin.
@@thecinematicmind well you are little right but to me it felt like a made for TV movie
Feels like it should be poorly dubbed as well 😂
So does this mean the person who played Bella in twilight had more emotions than Emma Watson in this movie? Asking for a friend.
Ha 😂
I was really disappointed with Gaston in the live action remake. When belle breaks his arrows at the castle I fully expected him to backhand her across the face. But no nothing. The original I could see doing that proving just how vile he actually was. And it would have actually given the beast a reason to fight him like the original line "belle is mine!" in the animated movie.
I mean the reason he runs around during the new song is he's trying to catch the last glimpses of her as she leaves. It's not really energetic as much as desperation to see more of her. I do agree about the scene where she returns though; in the original he didnt fight or run because he'd given up. He only fought back after he saw belle
I’ll never forgive them for what they did to that library scene. I hated the movie from that moment on.
The 2014 movie has GORGEOUS costumes. So if you're as disappointed with Belles dress in the Disney movie as I am.... Go watch that one 😂
Oh my God, you have no idea how happy I am to see this video again. It just disappeared one day but I'm glad it's back
you forgot to talk about the dress i love emma but just wear the damn corset its was back in the day anyways but the thing that angered me the most is that they changed belles character completely in the live action beauty and the beast belle is now an engineer like no.Emma just made the character into herself.There was no connection between belle and the beast.they just fell in love because the beast gave her the books.sTAN GASTON
I guess you could say that the servants was cursed as well so the prince would learn that his actions has consequences and the world does not revolve around him?
Still cruel and unfair, but makes sense
It's annoying that this movie actually had examples at how to grow character, just literal examples and they still messed up
The castle arrival scene in the original scared me so much while I was more "meh" towards the remake. Granted, I was older and not easily shaken when I went into the theater to see the remake, but I kinda wished that it would've had an hide-under-my-blanket feel to it.
This was really insightful, and you articulate a lot of problems I couldn't quite put my finger on. Nice!
To me, the worst changes was cutting down important scenes
I refuse to even watch this version
The live action version was quickly paced and it tried to fix scenes that where “problematic”
Mr Fon, you are my hero! I hated, absolutely hated this new version, and felt worse because everybody seemed to worship it and say: "Oh, that's great! They fixed up the plotholes!" But the movie has lost all of its original fun! I always thought that originally the enchantress had transformed the staff so they would have to help Beast into his redemption... but to make the castle crack down and they die, it's an absurd! And the villagers' behaviour is really rotten...
About the Prince's parents, people should remember that kings and queens produced TONS of princes and princesses! So there was nothing signaling this prince as a heir of the throne - he could be probably pushed away to this castle and forgotten, because he'd never inherit the throne.
And this new Gaston really doesn't convince... his obsession for Belle sounds forced.
A criticism that Lindsay Ellis noted is that the Beast is a major neg towards Belle, treating her as beneath him and like she's stupid, even though she's written to be very intelligent. While Belle is an interesting study for Feminist critique as well, the remake dialed it up to 11 and made the town horrendously sexist when it originally wasn't, and this concept of Belle is "a woman before her time" is shoe-horned in, rather than Belle just being made fun of for being a nerdy reader who was wasting her beauty. And of course, LeFou being gay was almost completely done through coding and subtext save for the end when for 5 seconds he accidentally dances with another man. Even a bold change they tried to implement somehow they underplayed as well.
I think it was pointless and didn't need to be made. I do not agree with all these live action remakes as it is. But TBATB just seems like a direct copy of the old one with some minor changes. I haven't watched the remake of the jungle book but that looked like it was changed drastically and actually looks interesting.
From what I remember, the plothole about the kingdom of beast being so unknown by the village is explained by the beginning. The beast and the servants stayed alive for thousands of years so by that, people now forgotten about it and see the castle as abandoned. Well this is just from my memory.
Edit: Oh just refreshed my mind. It's just ten years. Sorry. Poor mind XD.
I loved the 2014 version in a lot of ways. Especially how cursing the dogs made sense because they were hunting dogs that helped in killing the golden deer. And the COSTUMES! But the romance is the weak element of that movie. Belle and Beast dance but it ends with them fighting. Belle shouts that he'll always disgust her and then runs away after the next scene. Beast rescues her from falling through a frozen lake during her escape and says she can go home for a day to see her family. When Belle returns in the climax and says she loves him, it felt very sudden. She went from disgust to love just because the beast didn't let her drown and gave her one day back home. The two characters are wonderfully played, but there needed to be more positive interactions before the climax of the movie.
Hi, Fonzzz002. If about Belle from the original animated movie I disagree that she allegedly did not save her father, but just wanted to break out of the boring village life - about Belle-Emma Watson, I completely agree with this very theory. She does not even look upset by the separation from her father, she cares only that the objects can walk and talk, and she appreciated the beauty of the golden wall decorations almost immediately (as if she had really dreamed of going to the palace).
And here's some from the comparison video between the two Beasts:
''While the animated Beast wants to make THE MAXIMAL IMPRESSION to Maurice, the live-action Beast is barely seen and doesn't say a word.
The animated Beast considers Belle to be brave and selfless, while the live-action Beast considers her as simply a liar. He says ''She's the daughter of a common thief'', as if he'd been waiting for the white-carriage princess (and it's quite strange, why did he leave her in his castle, if he didn't want to get any deal
elationship with her).
In the library scene, the live-action Beast behaves as if Belle's company is unpleasant to him, and even she has much more fun without him, yes it's. The animated Beast eats in the ''doggy'' manner by habit, and Belle is being confused by that. The live-action Beast eats from the bowl voluntarily, for paying a little bit of attention to Belle, because she can't take her eyes off the book.
The snowball game in the live-action movie doesn't really look like a game, because the Beast knocks Belle down as if he wanted to get rid of her, because a falling with your head back on a stone floor is quite dangerous.''
With the Beast reveal in the tiny mirror, she might as well have been showing him off an iPhone
Finally I found someone who thinks exactly like me one more disappointment for me is the beast or prince was using that mirror before curse only I feel why didn't they use another mirror or little more bigger size mirror as magic mirror 😭
I'm not a fan of Beauty and the Beast but I think a remake was unnecessary.
I actually love the other live action version that was mentioned. Plus I really like all the differences, including the fact it not only takes place in France but is in french.
Spoilers! Plus the reason she sacrifices herself for her father is more than love and devotion for him, but guilt. In this version she has several siblings, and all her life they have reminded her that their mother died giving birth to her. Since she requested a rose as a gift from his travels (he's a merchant) and that is the reason he was imprisoned she personally feels responsible for it, and doesn't want to be responsible for the deaths of both of their parents.
There are many other changes that I really enjoyed.
The movies not perfect but I liked it.
Yeah even if you saw this version and not the orginal you would still say how did they ever fall in love cuz they have no chemistry at all
I can only assume Belle has no personality because Emma Watson has no personality. TBH her casting was why I didn't go and see this as a plank of wood with a frowny face drawn on it has a greater emotional acting range than anything she has ever shown on film
Nocturne Accipitridae I completely agree. Yes, she has the look of belle, but is terrible for the part considering her acting style. I also feel like she lacks to understand the character and belles relationship with the beast, making her performance mediocre at best.
Dude for real I need to see the original.
I do enjoy the Be Our Guest sequence in the remake given the spectacle, but in the original so much more charm was added to the already gorgeous animation when Belle brought out more of her whimsical side and like you said tasted all the different kinds of food they have.
I also enjoyed it!