4,211 posts
|
Post by anthony40 on Nov 2, 2016 18:53:25 GMT
|
|
2,778 posts
|
Post by daniel on Nov 2, 2016 19:06:48 GMT
Hearing rumours that the stage show may be making a return to the UK in 2017...nothing confirmed, as always, but watch this space.
|
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on Nov 2, 2016 19:07:05 GMT
Disagree. Nothing is "real" in any of these shots, especially the Beast. If we're not seeing real flesh and humans then we might as well just watch the animated movie.
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2016 19:56:15 GMT
Hearing rumours that the stage show may be making a return to the UK in 2017...nothing confirmed, as always, but watch this space. Would make good commercial sense with the film being released |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2016 19:58:51 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. |
|
7,182 posts
|
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: |
|
1,483 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.
|
|
4,211 posts
|
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
|
|
366 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?
|
|
72 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.
|
|
4,211 posts
|
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
|
|
2,859 posts
|
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.
|
|
