6,276 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jon on Nov 3, 2016 4:09:03 GMT
Why even hire an actor to do his scenes if it's all going to be (badly done) CGI? I literally stopped watching supernatural films because of the excessive (and exclusive) use of CGI. What is even more frustrating about CGI is that after all these years, almost two decades of using it, is that it's still not that good. It's a computer and you can always tell. I hate CGI in live action films. I love it in pure animation. The ability of computers to allow arbitrarily small changes to be made to a scene has given the animators so much more freedom than was possible in the days of painted cels and it's done wonders for the delicacy with which emotions can be portrayed and the realism that can be brought to motion. CGI rendering in particular has made animation much more theatrical: instead of having the animator draw everything the process of production is separated out with the animators taking the role of the actors while the set design and dressing, the costumes and the lighting are provided by others. It brings an order of magnitude more creativity to the process. But live action should be live action, with practical effects wherever possible. Doing partial live action and then bailing out and animating the rest because doing it in front of the camera would be hard is a real cop-out. I can accept that some things can't be done for real, but often it seems as though once the decision has been made to add CGI enhancements to a live action scene they really go for it and CGI the hell out of everything just because they can. It's like giving glue and glitter to a five year old. The results are not going to be pretty. CGI like any SFX if done badly is very noticeable but done well it can be seamless. Iron Man for example the suit is completely CG but most people would think it's practical, Davy Jones in Pirates of the Caribbean couldn't have been done with makeup, characters like Gollum in Lord of the Rings, Caesar in the new Planet of the Apes, the Transformers etc couldn't be done practically. This video is a great watch to why CGI isn't all bad:
|
|
1,445 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on Nov 3, 2016 12:31:33 GMT
Live Action v CGI: Which is better? There's only one way to find out... FIGHT!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2016 12:41:23 GMT
Noooooooooooo-ooooooooooooooone fights like Gaston . . .
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2016 12:49:33 GMT
Look forward to it.
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Dec 12, 2016 15:01:14 GMT
Tim Rice just announced the names of three new songs for the film on Countdown. Sounds like they've replaced Human Again with a song called Our Days In The Sun or something. Sorry if this has already been mentioned.
|
|
3,728 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by anthony40 on Dec 31, 2016 9:14:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Dec 31, 2016 23:22:15 GMT
Just listened to the clear audio and it sounds like she has been auto tuned a lot. I've seen some criticism of her using an English accent but for half of that clip it definitely sounds like she's attempting American with the pronunciation of the rs.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2017 11:07:26 GMT
|
|
364 posts
|
Post by Paul on Jan 1, 2017 16:10:52 GMT
In my opinion she does not have a Disney Princess voice. Still looking forward to seeing this though.
|
|
190 posts
|
Post by tsxmitw on Jan 1, 2017 16:27:52 GMT
Ouch...
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Jan 1, 2017 16:40:53 GMT
That sounds so lifeless, weak, digitally pulled to a straight note and spoken in a lame way, that it is disrespectful to the audiences. Very disrespectful.
That last "see" should be full of life, excitement, disbelief of what she sees happening, and that note should feel all those things, going from one to the other with a beginning, middle and end, that is what this artform is about. That is what makes it feel real. What they made her do is the opposite. I don't believe any word she sings. It feels inadequate, a girl struggling with the material. How are we supposed to believe this? What kind of nitwit is the director?
|
|
71 posts
|
Post by Dannyboi on Jan 1, 2017 17:42:50 GMT
She's hardly going to sound Broadway quality or to the quality of the original is she? She wasn't hired because She's a singer she was hired because she's Emma Watson. Disney needed a name for their Belle and you can't blame them that. Looking at some of the disastrous vocals given by hollywood stars recently when turning musicals into movies, I am delighted with how she sounds,could have turned out so much worse and Emma sounds perfectly fine.
Will I buy the soundtrack? Definitely. Will I go back to listening to the original animated versions of the songs or the broadway soundtrack within a few months? Most probably.But theres nothing wrong with that.
|
|
3,728 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by anthony40 on Jan 1, 2017 18:20:23 GMT
Welcome to the board cursedboi
|
|
4,369 posts
|
Post by Michael on Jan 1, 2017 18:24:27 GMT
Disney needed a name for their Belle Shouldn't the name Beauty and the Beast be enough to promote the movie?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2017 18:31:15 GMT
no, that alone wouldnt be enough. plus by hiring her they are tapping into the Harry Potter audience. its a good crossover move
|
|
2,804 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by couldileaveyou on Jan 1, 2017 18:34:32 GMT
Disney needed a name for their Belle Shouldn't the name Beauty and the Beast be enough to promote the movie? Sometimes you need some encouragement to eat a preheated soup.
|
|
4,369 posts
|
Post by Michael on Jan 1, 2017 18:36:07 GMT
Sometimes you need some encouragement to eat a preheated soup. I beg your pardon? Personally, I think Beauty and the Beast is a much bigger name and draw than Emma Watson, but apparently I'm the only one.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Jan 1, 2017 20:14:42 GMT
She's hardly going to sound Broadway quality or to the quality of the original is she? That's not the point. The point is that I don't believe a word she sings because it's too inadequate. That just won't do. Edit: There are solutions for this in film, voice over, sung thoughts, dubbing, casting, etc etc. As long a it's believable. This is not.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2017 21:24:09 GMT
Beauty and the Beast doesn't need a name. The Jungle Book didn't have one for its main character. Lily James is hardly a huge name and they had her for Cinderella too.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2017 21:31:30 GMT
jungle book had loads of big names and cinderella had cate blanchett, Helena bonham carter plus Richard madden who at the time was coming off one of the biggest tv shows in the world together with known actors in the roles of the sisters, King and duke.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2017 21:38:05 GMT
The only names The Jungle Book had were voice actors. And I'm not saying it's not a good idea for Disney to have SOME names in their cast but they didn't need a name for Belle, especially not one as bad for the part as Emma.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2017 21:39:19 GMT
lol I know it was their voices but they were in it and the film was sold heavily on their names. its wrong to say jungle book didn't have a name cast
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2017 21:42:25 GMT
I didn't say it didn't have a name cast, I said it didn't have a name for its main character. Belle is the main character in BATB, therefore she didn't need to be a name to sell the film either.
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Jan 1, 2017 22:05:07 GMT
Sometimes you need some encouragement to eat a preheated soup. I beg your pardon? Personally, I think Beauty and the Beast is a much bigger name and draw than Emma Watson, but apparently I'm the only one. I agree. However, as someone else said the Harry Potter market is huge and a lot of the fans will convince themselves she's the best actress ever whether she is or not. I hope she proves us all wrong and that clip is just a blip. I've just never really been convinced by her acting.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2017 22:08:39 GMT
To me, her acting ranges from awful to passable. Her singing can't be good if it needed all the autotune. I don't think I've ever heard it so blatantly in a movie musical as in that clip. Even her looks - don't get me wrong, she's pretty - but the lyrics describe Belle as having looks that 'have got no parallel'. Emma Watson is the antithesis of that to me. She's girl-next-door pretty, not turning heads on the street pretty. Just awful casting.
|
|
343 posts
|
Post by johartuk on Jan 1, 2017 22:09:36 GMT
She's hardly going to sound Broadway quality or to the quality of the original is she? That's not the point. The point is that I don't believe a word she sings because it's too inadequate. That just won't do. Edit: There are solutions for this in film, voice over, sung thoughts, dubbing, casting, etc etc. As long a it's believable. This is not. I agree. This is supposed to be a moment where Belle is realising that her relationship with the Beast is changing. It's supposed to be a happy (if slightly tentative) moment. Emma just isn't conveying that in her voice, which also seems too thin. She can carry a tune, but I'd expect more from a Disney film. They're synonymous with great vocals - even getting singers in (many of them Broadway people) to do the singing for the characters, while Hollywood 'names' supply the speaking voices. The one exception I can think of being Tom Hulce, who was both the speaking and singing voices of Quasimodo in Hunchback, and managed to convey the emotion in his vocals wonderfully. Emma sounds thin and reedy. It's sad that they didn't either get someone else to be Belle's singing voice (there are plenty of musical theatre performers who'd be up to the task) or just get a different actress with a better singing voice (again, there are plenty of musical theatre performers, including Sam Barks, who has previous film musical experience). I don't think they needed Emma Watson to get bums on seats - Cinderella was a hit without a big name in the title role. There are enough other roles in Beauty & The Beast that could be (and have been) filled by 'names'.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2017 22:35:41 GMT
the first thing an average cinema goer will ask is who are the leads, or if they are familiar with the original who are beast at belle. neither dan Stevens or luke Evans are big names. Dont forget that a whole younger generation may not have seen the original. Many kids arnt interested sadly in 2d animation.
Emma will help bridge the gap. I'm not a massive fan of hers but I think she is probablythe best hollywood type of name they could have gone for. The actress from twilight was mooted at one stage
Obviously the lead of the Jungle Book couldn't be a name, he is a 10 year old Indian boy. Hollywood isnt exactly overflowing with famous actors that fit that description. but they made damn sure the rest of the cast were big names
|
|
6,276 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jon on Jan 1, 2017 22:42:52 GMT
I get the feeling this will be bigger than The Jungle Book and Alice in Wonderland.
|
|
3,728 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by anthony40 on Jan 1, 2017 22:53:11 GMT
I get the feeling this will be bigger than The Jungle Book and Alice in Wonderland. I tend to agree with you. Even in terms of film promotion.
|
|
6,276 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jon on Jan 1, 2017 23:32:30 GMT
I get the feeling this will be bigger than The Jungle Book and Alice in Wonderland. I tend to agree with you. Even in terms of film promotion. Some think it'll be the third biggest film of the year behind Star Wars and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 which I'm inclined to agree. If Zootropolis to get to $1bn and Jungle Book got close to it then BATB will get there.
|
|