Beauty and the Beast (2017 film)

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.

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.

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.

That's true. And there are plenty of big names who pull in the crowds but are pretty mediocre actors.

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-one

People 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.

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.

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. 

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. 

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".

I finally got around to seeing this yesterday - I wasn't even keen on seeing this as the animated movie had been my least favorite of the bunch that came out in the early 90s and I didn't like the stage version at all. It was more about spending an evening with a friend and this being the only movie right now to be of interest at all. I consciously picked the 2D version since 3D gives me a headache.

This said, expectations were super low, so I was pleasantly surprised. I thought it was lovely overall. For the first time the enchanted objects didn't annoy me and it was so much fun to watch them transform into all these well-known actors in the end. Dan Stevens was a pleasant surprise singing-wise and overall. I admit I never liked Emma Watson and to me it wasn't even her flat singing that bugged me. She just doesn't seem to exude any kind of warmth and kindness, in reality as much as here as Belle. Even if Belle is meant to be a somewhat intellectual type, I found her distanced and unlikeable. But this aside I thought the movie had great production values and I can see why it's become such a huge success. So many of the kids in the cinema yesterday weren't even born when the animated movie came out and admittedly today's CGI/animation possibility are just on an entirely different level.

As for Moana which was discussed earlier: I had been very much looking forward to it as I went on a "once in a lifetime" holiday to the South Pacific a few years ago and love the area and the culture. But after the initial 10 minutes or so on the island (which had me wallow in holiday memories) the film soon became flat as a pancake and very predictable. Maui and Moana were sort of fun, but still you knew exactly how the adventure would unfold. While I still don't get the incredible hype around Frozen, at least that movie did keep me guessing. I also saw a lesser-known animated movie called Kubo on a flight recently, which was absolutely wonderful and left me to blubber in the end. Moana just suffered from a very lame book and a lack of supporting characters.

never seen Moana, but i think Frozen is a bit overrated, don't know why it is soooooo hyped, i thought it was one of the more boring ones out
of the Disney films, i very much prefer Rapunzel, Tarzan or Mulan to it