748 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Mar 28, 2017 19:53:53 GMT
Was I the last one to learn that Luke Evans is such a smashing singer? I'm so much in love right now! Appreciate that they gave Gaston a bit of an arch too - not that pure evil two-dimensional charater like he was before. The film lacks magic in certain important places (they RIUNED the library scene) - true, but it suceeds in humour and that heart-breaking scene when objects "die".. Jeez, who cares about The Beast in that moment anyway? The Beast could lose CGI (to be partly replaced by hardcode makeup) and agree on Emma Watson singing. That was distracting and yes, lifeless. But she is likable as Belle but not the Belle we all know - more fiestly, independent, boyish if you let me put it this way. Be Our Guest surprisingly underwhelming. The song is about hospitality of French and their amazing cousine - why not let the poor girl taste the actual food while they are dancing away? McGregor's accent is laughable (has Mexican flavour.. why?) but he carries the song alright. My hands down fave was LeFou. This is what happens when you give a character context to work with (same as Gaston). I too wish 'props" looked less like props and have more of facial expressions - wouldn't children love it? Lenght is a bit of a stretch for younger generation and extra songs add little. I enjoyed Evermore though - Dan Stevens pulled that one off quite impressively! Mixed feelings.. I thought it's better to be seen without thinking back on the original (which I personally adore). In many ways it's a new and slightly different version of the story.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2017 21:53:12 GMT
Someone who could sing and had depth to their voice. If you listen to Belle's singing voice in the animated film, it's strong, has depth and you feel the emotion coming through when she's singing. Emma's voice is thin and emotionless by comparison. Well, the key here is that is some people's opinion. NOT a fact. I thought her voice was emotional, not with a sledgehammer and totally OTT but rather subtle and that's why her casting worked for me. Of course but that's the case for every single piece of commentary or criticism ever given on any piece of art in history. It's all just opinion. But when a negative opinion is one that is shared between many people then there may be a problem.
|
|
193 posts
|
Post by groupbooker on Mar 28, 2017 22:22:02 GMT
What difference does it make what we think of the film - Disney are doing what Disney likes to do - MAKE MONEY!! Next thing will be ALL Disney's cartoons will be remade as live action films - more money!!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2017 23:25:45 GMT
What difference does it make what we think of the film - Disney are doing what Disney likes to do - MAKE MONEY!! Next thing will be ALL Disney's cartoons will be remade as live action films - more money!! Whilst Disney undoubtedly made this movie as a way to make money, they clearly put effort into it being creatively successful too ie. through casting Luke Evans as Gaston due to him being great for the part even though he is not necessarily very famous. I'm sure Disney are happy with the performance of this movie but I think they'd be even happier if Emma's performance had been received more positively. If audiences voicing their opinions means that they take more care in their casting next time, then that can only be a good thing.
|
|
6,319 posts
|
Post by Jon on Mar 29, 2017 1:32:13 GMT
Whilst Disney undoubtedly made this movie as a way to make money, they clearly put effort into it being creatively successful too ie. through casting Luke Evans as Gaston due to him being great for the part even though he is not necessarily very famous. I'm sure Disney are happy with the performance of this movie but I think they'd be even happier if Emma's performance had been received more positively. If audiences voicing their opinions means that they take more care in their casting next time, then that can only be a good thing. To be fair to Disney, Beauty and the Beast as a live action film was in development before the success of Alice in Wonderland, Maleficent, Cinderella, Jungle Book etc and actually the quality of the live action adaptations has really picked up from Cinderella onwards. Even Pete's Dragon which wasn't that successful was critically acclaimed. I don't see every animated film being made into live action as some weren't successful first time around or wouldn't translate well as live action. The Jungle Book did talking animals well but I couldn't see it working as well with The Fox and the Hound or The Great Mouse Detective.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Mar 29, 2017 4:51:06 GMT
What difference does it make what we think of the film - Disney are doing what Disney likes to do - MAKE MONEY!! Gosh! A company doing something in order to make money. What fiends! How could they?
|
|
1,871 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Mar 29, 2017 14:13:52 GMT
What difference does it make what we think of the film - Disney are doing what Disney likes to do - MAKE MONEY!! Gosh! A company doing something in order to make money. What fiends! How could they?
makes me sick x
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Mar 30, 2017 13:50:54 GMT
I just saw the film and thought it was lovely overall. Mainly because the director embraced the artform and understood the importance of this language. A non-literal language, sung thoughts, so he went all the way at times with wonderful cinematography, editing and pre-recorded tracks, which is essential for a musical film.
"Spoiler alert"
There were several scenes that had me in awe of sheer beauty and emotion. I loved the opening sequence with the wonderful singing of Audra and the ensemble scene. That really set the tone and mood. The impressive appearance of the enchantress (reminded me of Esmeralda coming out of the mirror during Hellfire in THOND), I loved the camera work and sets. Indoors and outdoors, just beautiful and theatrical. Original and playful camera work and editing in "Belle". I loved the new songs. Days in the sun was wonderfully melancholy and emotional. I loved the Beast's Evermore. I loved everything the wardrobe sang. These moments were spot on. Loved Lumiere, loved Mrs Potts, I loved Gaston and le Fou. It's really delightful and emotional when characters sing so well on screen. It takes the film/scenes to a higher level. Especially with pre-recorded tracks, which creates a "better than life reality" with heightened emotions. It is not about being literal, speaking the words in musical on film. The power lies in the opposite. Also, the singing of all the characters mentioned felt natural. Except for Emma Watson, the singing of the others was much more legit than anyone in the Les miserables film, yet it felt much more natural. That's why I think this film is 100 times better than the les Miserables film. Which failed at all of these things and had nothing in it that felt natural. Which should be an eye opener for producers and directors. What works better in musical on film, a non-literal approach, going all the way, or a literal approach, creating a style clash and constant switching. Definitely the first.
Now, there were also a few things that i did not like, of which I think should have been better. Emma Watson's singing really felt out of place. Especially compared to the rest of the cast. When she sang the bridge in "Something there" I really thought: what a shame. Especially because it's not even necessary to see her mouthing the lyrics there. It's a sung thought. The whole film embraces this language, so why not just have a good singer as a voice over there? Or dubbing her singing in general. This was really too lifeless and lame, which did not fit the film at all.
I also felt that the parts they sung "live" on set were especially bad and autotuned. The songs recorded in a studio sounded much more alive and better. "Belle" sounds weird and "Evermore" only sounds good after the first verse, which is weird.
When Belle visits the West Wing and sees the rose there was this really generic music, the moment fell completely flat, I can't believe they did not include the lush score from the animated film there. Why was that?
I did not like the librarian giving Belle the book in "Belle". That is supposed to be an older man, the only villager who understand her love for books, now it was some young, sassy gay guy who looked like he was taking the piss, but then why did he give her a book? I did not understand tis scene at all. It was not genuine. I did not understand her reaction when she said "thank you' either. It was weird and forced.
What I did love was the "grandmother remark" Mrs Potts made near the end, which she took as an insult (referring to the complaints that mrs Potts has always looked more like Chip's grandma) and I loved the fact that in "Something there" when Belle threw a snowball at the beast, he actually threw one back in her face. This always bothered me in the original, because even in films today like `La La land, the male character is portrayed as a beast/A-hole in the beginning, but then later the male character always has to be goofy and charming and submissive. While in real life, of course he would throw a snowball back! And it only gives the female character more charm if she can laugh about it.
So, overall I loved it, they got many things right, but it could have been better.
Ps. A special-shout to the fishing lady singing in the intro of The Mob song. She really went for it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2017 14:20:38 GMT
I quite liked the change from the bookseller giving Belle a book from his shop to the village priest lending Belle a book from his personal collection. It always seemed a bit weird in the animated film how this man has a bookshop if literally everyone in the village thinks Belle is peculiar for reading!
I'm not touching "young, sassy gay guy"...
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Mar 30, 2017 18:10:57 GMT
I quite liked the change from the bookseller giving Belle a book from his shop to the village priest lending Belle a book from his personal collection. It always seemed a bit weird in the animated film how this man has a bookshop if literally everyone in the village thinks Belle is peculiar for reading! I'm not touching "young, sassy gay guy"... Oh was it the Village priest? I really did not get that scene. It was always a beautiful heartwarming moment of 2 people understanding eachother, probably because people think he is silly too and he was older and probably wiser. I have no idea what they were trying to convey there. Was he genuine? Because he gives her a book. But he does it with a very weird attitude. Or is it just very poor acting? I was confused. It was definitely not a heartwarming moment anymore.
|
|
571 posts
|
Post by westendwendy on Apr 2, 2017 1:45:55 GMT
Well I finally saw the film Beauty and the Beast tonight - note to Hollywood; GET ACTORS THAT CAN SING OR BRING BACK DUBBING! A good film and I enjoyed it, but thingy Watson was really miscast. I also don't understand why they needed all the new songs when the stage show is amazing as it is. A fun live version, but too much CGI, pacing issues, the story is a bit flawed (why would she within days not have a care in the world and be friends with someone who has captured her?) and I missed some of the original songs. Nice ending though. Samantha Barks should have been Belle. A sweet 7/10
|
|
1,871 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Apr 2, 2017 12:35:14 GMT
Well I finally saw the film Beauty and the Beast tonight - note to Hollywood; GET ACTORS THAT CAN SING OR BRING BACK DUBBING! A good film and I enjoyed it, but thingy Watson was really miscast. I also don't understand why they needed all the new songs when the stage show is amazing as it is. A fun live version, but too much CGI, pacing issues, the story is a bit flawed (why would she within days not have a care in the world and be friends with someone who has captured her?) and I missed some of the original songs. Nice ending though. Samantha Barks should have been Belle. A sweet 7/10 Agree on all counts!
|
|
1,871 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Apr 2, 2017 12:37:22 GMT
I quite liked the change from the bookseller giving Belle a book from his shop to the village priest lending Belle a book from his personal collection. It always seemed a bit weird in the animated film how this man has a bookshop if literally everyone in the village thinks Belle is peculiar for reading! I'm not touching "young, sassy gay guy"... Oh was it the Village priest? I really did not get that scene. It was always a beautiful heartwarming moment of 2 people understanding eachother, probably because people think he is silly too and he was older and probably wiser. I have no idea what they were trying to convey there. Was he genuine? Because he gives her a book. But he does it with a very weird attitude. Or is it just very poor acting? I was confused. It was definitely not a heartwarming moment anymore. Good point. I thought the acting was awful to be honest. The whole character just clanged terribly (for other reasons too, but I have to remind myself it's a Disney fairy tale and not trying to be historically accurate) - but it all added to the total failure of the scene.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Apr 2, 2017 19:06:44 GMT
I finally got around to seeing this today. A visual feast, certainly, and they did a great job with the animation, but a certain passion was lacking from Emma Watson's performance. I didn't find myself especially troubled by the thinness of her voice, but that may be because my expectations were already neutral.
What did bother me was the 3D. Whoever did that needs to have a word with Walt Disney Animation Studios, who have been exploring the artistic potential of stereography without resorting to throwing things at the audience right from the start. In this film there were far too many things flying out of the screen or swirling around just in front of my nose. Also, shallow depth of field doesn't work with 3D, and any defocused foreground objects just turn into a blurry mess. (WDAS render their CGI films twice: once with shallow depth of field for 2D and again with the camera stopped down for 3D. They obviously can't film twice with live action, but they do need to bear the 3D in mind and not keep filming through something that's just in front of the lens.)
|
|
396 posts
|
Post by djp on Apr 3, 2017 0:15:53 GMT
I finally got around to seeing this today. A visual feast, certainly, and they did a great job with the animation, but a certain passion was lacking from Emma Watson's performance. I didn't find myself especially troubled by the thinness of her voice, but that may be because my expectations were already neutral. What did bother me was the 3D. Whoever did that needs to have a word with Walt Disney Animation Studios, who have been exploring the artistic potential of stereography without resorting to throwing things at the audience right from the start. In this film there were far too many things flying out of the screen or swirling around just in front of my nose. Also, shallow depth of field doesn't work with 3D, and any defocused foreground objects just turn into a blurry mess. (WDAS render their CGI films twice: once with shallow depth of field for 2D and again with the camera stopped down for 3D. They obviously can't film twice with live action, but they do need to bear the 3D in mind and not keep filming through something that's just in front of the lens.) Belle doesn't do passion - the character now does reluctant, slow, cerebral, realisation. It seems to work - the audience are getting out hankies, and its made $880 million so far. The 3D is interesting, it felt a bit flat and unnecessary in the local vue, but in the big Empire Leicester Square imax, it really works. I also liked Miss Watson's singing there too - she's got a far more interesting tone than a lot of people in the WE do, on a really good sound system.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 13:00:38 GMT
Having made $876,259,842 thus far, the film is now the 48th Higest Grossing Film of all time and it is only gonna get higher!
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Apr 3, 2017 13:26:49 GMT
Highest grossing doesn't say much. 50 years ago the world population in numbers was half of what it is now. It's growing in rapid pace, so in 100 years it's very well possible that bad films make this amount too, just because the amount of people has doubled. It's all perspective. Also, 60 years ago people paid 1 dollar for a cinema ticket. Now they pay 15. So we should divide it by 15 to make a correct comparison with a film of, for example, that time.
Is it a financial success? Sure, but it has to do with the brand that BATB already is/was. People would see it out of curiosity, even with a bad leading lady.
Also, while this film is reasonably good, it has an inadequate leading lady which I think is not a success. That's how I like to give worth to films. If her scenes and songs were better, like, really good, I would definitely visit the cinema again. Now I don't and rather wait for the dvd with the French dub.
So basically, that amount of money you mention would be at least $15,- higher if it was better. Just because of me alone.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Apr 3, 2017 15:37:48 GMT
The film will probably make a billion dollars at the box office - only a couple of films a year manage yet, and they are usually comic book adaptations. It's a huge hit - and that doesn't happen when the general public walk out of a film thinking that the lead was inadequate. Very well-known properties can and do sink like a stone at the box office if the early audiences don't enjoy it. BatB has held strong, and continues to do excellent business.
Like I said before, we are not the target market for this film. The target market finds it utterly delightful and enjoys Emma Watson as Belle. she's going to get a serious career boost from the success of this film.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 15:44:27 GMT
The target market finds it utterly delightful and enjoys Emma Watson as Belle. she's going to get a serious career boost from the success of this film. That's true. And there are plenty of big names who pull in the crowds but are pretty mediocre actors.
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Apr 3, 2017 16:20:19 GMT
Hopefully someone will dub it when it comes out on DVD.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 16:35:40 GMT
The film will probably make a billion dollars at the box office - only a couple of films a year manage yet, and they are usually comic book adaptations. It's a huge hit - and that doesn't happen when the general public walk out of a film thinking that the lead was inadequate. Very well-known properties can and do sink like a stone at the box office if the early audiences don't enjoy it. BatB has held strong, and continues to do excellent business. Like I said before, we are not the target market for this film. The target market finds it utterly delightful and enjoys Emma Watson as Belle. she's going to get a serious career boost from the success of this film. What? Disney films are almost always incredibly financially successful, this isn't a rarity for them: www.theguardian.com/film/2016/dec/20/walt-disney-sets-7bn-box-office-record-2016-star-wars-rogue-onePeople wont know their opinion of the lead in a movie until they go and see it and therefore have already contributed to the box office. Early audiences (those invited to press screenings and special previews) were very mixed on the movie but it was never going to have an effect because it's Beauty and the Beast. It's a known name. It was the first animated movie to get nominated for Best Picture. It's Disney. It has famous songs, famous characters. It's a kids film, which always tend to do well. Not to mention, people can enjoy a movie whilst thinking the lead performance was bad. There's the other performances, the direction, the technical aspects, the script, the songs etc. etc. etc. I thought Emma gave one of the worst performances I've seen in years but I'd still give the movie 3* and wouldn't be overly averse to watching it again. I'd love to know who is the target market if not someone like me, who grew up watching Beauty and the Beast, was just under Emma Watson's age when the Harry Potter films came out and who loves musicals. I'd say people born in the 90s are easily the target market for this, after children of course, whose opinions on acting I don't think will be valued anytime soon. I don't see her getting a major career boost from a movie that she got mixed reviews for (some outright pans) that would have been financially successful with or without her. Just wait until The Circle comes out in a couple of months and let's see how well that does for her.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Apr 3, 2017 20:17:59 GMT
The film will probably make a billion dollars at the box office - only a couple of films a year manage yet, and they are usually comic book adaptations. It's a huge hit - and that doesn't happen when the general public walk out of a film thinking that the lead was inadequate. Very well-known properties can and do sink like a stone at the box office if the early audiences don't enjoy it. BatB has held strong, and continues to do excellent business. Like I said before, we are not the target market for this film. The target market finds it utterly delightful and enjoys Emma Watson as Belle. she's going to get a serious career boost from the success of this film. What? Disney films are almost always incredibly financially successful, this isn't a rarity for them: www.theguardian.com/film/2016/dec/20/walt-disney-sets-7bn-box-office-record-2016-star-wars-rogue-oneDisney own Star Wars and Marvel Studios. The vast majority of their really big Box Office successes are from those IPs, and Pixar - which they also bought. So the 2 or 3 films a year that make it into the billion dollar club have ultimately been Disney-owned. That doesn't make BatB not a remarkable success. The target audience is not dedicated musical theatre fans who are comparing the film to the stage version and the original soundtrack. That is far too niche a market. It's the general public who vaguely recall watching the original as kids and now have kids of their own, who want to share their enjoyment of it. Yes, that's going to be a less critical and MT-educated audience than anyone here. There's a reason why this thread is so much more heavily critical of the film than the general reaction to it. People actually applauded at the end of the film when I saw it in my local cinema.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 20:19:40 GMT
Disney own Star Wars and Marvel Studios. The vast majority of their really big Box Office successes are from those IPs, and Pixar - which they also bought. So the 2 or 3 films a year that make it into the billion dollar club have ultimately been Disney-owned. That doesn't make BatB not a remarkable success. But like it says in that article Finding Dory and Zootopia both made over a billion last year, both family friendly movies. And The Jungle Book was just under. None of these movies got that money because of who was starring in it and neither did Beauty and the Beast. These movies would always have been super successful.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Apr 3, 2017 20:34:54 GMT
Disney own Star Wars and Marvel Studios. The vast majority of their really big Box Office successes are from those IPs, and Pixar - which they also bought. So the 2 or 3 films a year that make it into the billion dollar club have ultimately been Disney-owned. That doesn't make BatB not a remarkable success. But like it says in that article Finding Dory and Zootopia both made over a billion last year, both family friendly movies. And The Jungle Book was just under. None of these movies got that money because of who was starring in it and neither did Beauty and the Beast. These movies would always have been super successful. If stars are not important, why'd they bother getting the starry voice casts? Just look at the Jungle Book cast! And how come Moana didn't make a billion? Far superior singing from the lead actress in that.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 21:00:26 GMT
But like it says in that article Finding Dory and Zootopia both made over a billion last year, both family friendly movies. And The Jungle Book was just under. None of these movies got that money because of who was starring in it and neither did Beauty and the Beast. These movies would always have been super successful. If stars are not important, why'd they bother getting the starry voice casts? Just look at the Jungle Book cast! And how come Moana didn't make a billion? Far superior singing from the lead actress in that. I can't answer that for you. They didn't used to get starry voice casts and the movies still made a ton of money. Most people have no idea who is voicing the characters until they see the credits. Maybe something to do with those actors being able go on the promo tour and be the face of the movie. Moana had very poor marketing internationally and also was released in December despite being a very Summery movie. It had nothing to do with the level of fame involved. After all, they had The Rock playing Maui, Nicole Scherzinger playing Moana's mum and Lin-Manuel Miranda as a composer. Idina Menzel was a nobody to non-theatre people before Frozen and that didn't stop Frozen from becoming a major success.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Apr 3, 2017 21:17:42 GMT
Moana had very poor marketing internationally and also was released in December despite being a very Summery movie. It had nothing to do with the level of fame involved. After all, they had The Rock playing Maui and Lin-Manuel Miranda as the composer. Idina Menzel was a nobody to non-theatre people before Frozen and that didn't stop Frozen from becoming a major success. I'd have thought people would want to see a summery movie in winter. Putting it cynically, I think part of Moana's problem was a premature trust in audiences not being morons. Less cynically, with Tangled and Frozen Disney made a deliberate decision to downplay the princess-on-a-musical-adventure aspect of the films, choosing titles that distanced the film from its female protagonist for most of the world because they correctly believed that audiences would tend to dismiss a film out of hand if there was too much of a feel of Yet Another Animated Disney Princess about it. To a certain extent the success of earlier films has changed perceptions and with Moana they've been able to name the film after nothing but its female protagonist and get away with it, but I think there is still a certain preconception that a Disney film about a girl isn't going to be worth watching and the film may have suffered for that.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 21:35:00 GMT
Moana had very poor marketing internationally and also was released in December despite being a very Summery movie. It had nothing to do with the level of fame involved. After all, they had The Rock playing Maui and Lin-Manuel Miranda as the composer. Idina Menzel was a nobody to non-theatre people before Frozen and that didn't stop Frozen from becoming a major success. I'd have thought people would want to see a summery movie in winter. Putting it cynically, I think part of Moana's problem was a premature trust in audiences not being morons. Less cynically, with Tangled and Frozen Disney made a deliberate decision to downplay the princess-on-a-musical-adventure aspect of the films, choosing titles that distanced the film from its female protagonist for most of the world because they correctly believed that audiences would tend to dismiss a film out of hand if there was too much of a feel of Yet Another Animated Disney Princess about it. To a certain extent the success of earlier films has changed perceptions and with Moana they've been able to name the film after nothing but its female protagonist and get away with it, but I think there is still a certain preconception that a Disney film about a girl isn't going to be worth watching and the film may have suffered for that. I understand the logic of wanting to see a Summery movie in Winter, but in reality, most people like to do Christmassy things. They like the red cups in Starbucks, they like playing Christmas music and they like taking their kids to see a movie like Frozen. I do agree with your point about the name. Unfortunately we still live in a world where girls and women are expected to enjoy movies about men and women equally, but boys and men are expected to avoid movies with a female protagonist.
|
|
6,319 posts
|
Post by Jon on Apr 3, 2017 21:56:59 GMT
Moana made over $600m WW, it was still a huge success, most studios would kill to have a film gross that amount. Moana's other issue was that unlike Frozen, it had family competition in the form of Sing which came out in December in the US.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Apr 4, 2017 5:08:29 GMT
One thing resulting from the casting that did amuse me was that when Josh Gad appeared a woman in the row behind me whispered to her daughter "That's Olaf".
|
|
4,564 posts
|
Post by Mark on Apr 5, 2017 18:18:06 GMT
I finally got round to seeing it.
Not really going to critique it, but at face value I adored it. Its exactly what I expected from a live action Beauty and the Beast so I'm very happy. Particularly loved Evermore.
|
|