Beauty and the Beast (2017)

[WoodStoner1]

Mar 18, 2017 10:25:57 GMT -5 Jiren said:

Mar 18, 2017 8:41:26 GMT -5 WoodStoner1 said:

On the other hand, as I said, if it keeps them away from doing another Maleficent (and hopefully they are thinking of cancelling the Cruella movie, because an animal killer is SUCH a prime candidate for the antihero/misunderstood makeover!), then I'm all for it.

At the end of the day, I'd be interested to compare how the LA Disney adaptions did at the box office.

As awful as Maleficent was I at least respect it for doing something different rather than just being a carbon copy of the original.

I just despise remakes that are carbon copies, If they're awful I'll still have a modicum of respect for trying something new.

Ah yes, Psycho Syndrome. Still I will never defend Maleficent. Once Upon A Time did sympathetic villains a LOT better (or they used to...)

[Hit Girl]

Disney should have just written an original story about an evil character who did something terrible to an innocent, then came to regret it. It would have been much more interesting that trying to retcon Maleficient as a misunderstood sympathetic character, which didn't work.

[andrew8798]

It did 63 million yesterday

[Citizen Snips]

Made $170 million, breaking the March opening record Dawn of Justice set last year. This will no doubt lead the DCEU conspiracy theorists to shake their fists angrily in the direction of Burbank yet again.

[Kevin Hamilton]

Beauty and the Beast was very good. Performances were great, cinematography was great, and of course the songs were great. They added and changed some things; some were real additions and worked, some made the movie a little flabby and overlong in parts that didn't really need to be.

Ultimately, it's not as good as the original, but it was never going to be; Disney captured lightning in a bottle with that one. And all this one needed to aspire to was to be a good companion piece to that. And I'll say it's achieved that. I'll cop to having 25 years of nostalgia built up, but even without it I think I'd feel the animated was ultimately the better film. That's not to shortchange this version though. Like I said, it's very good. If ya liked the original, or are just a Disney or musical or fairy tale fan, you'll dig this one.

I look at this one as something like a good cover song. It's like Aerosmith's version of Come Together, or something like that.

[WoodStoner1]

Mar 18, 2017 14:07:51 GMT -5 Hit Girl said:

Disney should have just written an original story about an evil character who did something terrible to an innocent, then came to regret it. It would have been much more interesting that trying to retcon Maleficient as a misunderstood sympathetic character, which didn't work.

Or...as I suggested, have the story as it is, then the twist at the end is that we were watching a propaganda film, as Maleficent rules the kingdom. Cut back to a land in ruins.

[Deleted]

I enjoyed it. As far as re-makes go, it does a good job. It's visually stunning and the songs are great. The original is definitely better, but this did it justice.

[Oak: Certified Jade Hater]

I didn't have high expectations due to preferring the original and not understanding why a live action was meeded, but I was pleasantly surprised. I thought it was wonderful and helped tie up loose ends (mainly, what happened to the mom) while still remaining true to the original.

Plus, "Evermore" is a wonderful song. Very glad it was included.

[y4j1981]

[Shai]

Mar 21, 2017 9:10:02 GMT -5 y4j1981 said:

People are dumb.

[Kevin Hamilton]

It's literally 5 seconds of two dudes dancing. If director hadn't done an interview making it out to be a much bigger deal, it woulda slid by unnoticed to a large degree

[y4j1981]

never mind, apparently Malaysia will show it:

www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2017/03/21/beauty-and-the-beast-to-be-released-locally-no-cuts/

Happy ending to Beauty and the Beast controversy

PETALING JAYA: Just like the fairy tale itself, the controversy over Disney's live-action film Beauty and the Beast will have a happy ending in Malaysia.

According to an industry insider, the movie has been approved for release in Malaysia with a rating of PG13 from March 30 onwards. The movie will be shown in its entirety without any cuts.

Golden Screen Cinemas (GSC) also tweeted that the movie was going to be shown from March 30 without any cuts.

Beauty and the Beast courted controversy when director Bill Condon said that the character of LeFou, played by Josh Gad, would have a “nice exclusively gay moment” in the film.

In an AFP report, chairman of the Malaysian Censorship Board (LPF) Datuk Abdul Halim Abdul Hamid said the “gay moment” had concerned a song featuring LeFou, during which he “lifted up his shirt and showed a love bite on his tummy”.

The movie was originally scheduled for release on March 16.

Disney Co (Malaysia) is set to release an official statement on Tuesday night.

[Shai]

To the surprise of no one it just passed 500 million dollars at the box office.

[Back to being Cenanuff]

Saw it this weekend. Didn't hate it. My biggest complaint has to do with the changes to the Belle/Maurice relationship. They made Maurice an artist, and Belle the inventor, like they were going out of their way to make Belle the brains of the operation. Then in the scene in Beast's tower, Belle went from offering to take her father's place out of love, to making it a question of who can escape. These two subtle changes show the attempt to make it a feminist fairy tale, but actually do a disservice to Belle's character. Inventor Belle looks down her nose at the other villagers, thinking herself better than them. Escape artist Belle was motivated by hubris, not love for her father. 1991 Belle was neither of these. She lamented the opportunities and lack of adventure that living in her town offered her, but never thought of the townspeople as small minded. When the time came to save her father, she did so willingly, because self-sacrifice is a virtue, and an act of love. This Belle may be Steinem approved, but she's not as good a person as her 1991 counterpart.

Also, Emma Watson looked bored in this movie. I thought her performance was unremarkable, and they could have put any young brunette actress in there and got the same effect.

What I did like was the extra time for character exploration. They did mess up pretty bad on the timeline, though. Belle's mother died of Plague. That went through Europe in the mid 1300s. Belle is heard quoting Shakespeare, and Gaston is using a flintlock pistol. That puts the current events of the movie in the late 1600s to early 1700s. How old does that make Belle and Maurice? Does this count as a Highlander movie?

[Ryback on a Pole!]

Just saw it today. Enjoyed it.

The scenery, costumes and imagery in the film is fantastic. The music was great and songs were great.

My only negative was some needless padding with the trip to Paris and Belle's back story. That just felt like them wanting to pad the length a bit. Emma Watson was OK, but not spectacular. I think she could have been cast better.

Gaston was delightfully dickish.

[Lupin the Third]

So I went to see it this morning as basically my book end for my Green Day concert adventure 4-day weekend.

It was as enchanting as I thought it would be. I thought Emma Watson did a really good job as Belle. The Beast turned out great. Gaston was a glorious prick (no pun intended), and there were a lot of holes that were answered from the animated classic. I'll put them in spoilers so as not to ruin it for people who want to see this movie.

SPOILER: Click to show

{Spoiler}Agathe being the Enchantress in disguise was actually a nice touch. In the animated classic, they don't really talk about her that much after the intro. Also, the enchantress casting a spell so that people's memories of the castle are erased actually made sense as well.

There were many subtle references to LeFou being gay. I actually thought they were rather charming, and made me enjoy the character even more than in the animated classic, as I didn't really care for him in that one. Also, face-turn during the final fight: Did not see that coming.

I liked that they had Belle wear a different dress than the iconic gold ballgown at the ball at the end like the animated classic. It was a nice touch.

"You should really grow a beard." *GROWL* Whoa.....that was hot.

The servants becoming completely inanimate at the end before the curse was broken was pretty dark. Although it did make more sense for the Enchantress to break the spell.

The scene where Agathe rescued Maurice and took him back to her "home," there was only one thought I had in that scene: F*** THAT OWL!!!! Dammit, TNA.

The additional songs added a nice touch to the movie as well.

Sorry, the Stockholm Syndrome theory many people have come up with is kinda bullshit as well.

It was just a fun movie all around. If you enjoyed the animated classic, I think you'll like this one as well.

[FinalGwen]

Mar 27, 2017 8:37:12 GMT -5 Back to being Cenanuff said:

What I did like was the extra time for character exploration. They did mess up pretty bad on the timeline, though. Belle's mother died of Plague. That went through Europe in the mid 1300s. Belle is heard quoting Shakespeare, and Gaston is using a flintlock pistol. That puts the current events of the movie in the late 1600s to early 1700s. How old does that make Belle and Maurice? Does this count as a Highlander movie?

The plague went on for a long time after the 1300s. The Great Plague Of London was officially estimated to have caused 68,596 deaths in 1665, and that's the lower bounds of the actual figure.

[beamanhogan]

I took my kids to see it at an iMax theater. It is a Disney move for sure. The biggest complement that I can give it is that it is possible the most visually stunning movie I have ever seen. It is absolutely gorgeous.

[Lupin the Third]

Apr 3, 2017 23:17:19 GMT -5 FinalGwen said:

Mar 27, 2017 8:37:12 GMT -5 Back to being Cenanuff said:

What I did like was the extra time for character exploration. They did mess up pretty bad on the timeline, though. Belle's mother died of Plague. That went through Europe in the mid 1300s. Belle is heard quoting Shakespeare, and Gaston is using a flintlock pistol. That puts the current events of the movie in the late 1600s to early 1700s. How old does that make Belle and Maurice? Does this count as a Highlander movie?

The plague went on for a long time after the 1300s. The Great Plague Of London was officially estimated to have caused 68,596 deaths in 1665, and that's the lower bounds of the actual figure.

I believe wiki links this to the Great Plague of Marseille, which happened around 1720, killing over 100,000 in Marseille and surrounding provinces. Granted, Marseille is on the other side of France from Paris, but historical liberty and what not.

[y4j1981]