Disney's live-action Beauty and the Beast

Features, Shorts, Live-Action and Direct-To-Video
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 6124
Joined: October 23rd, 2004
Location: SaskaTOON, Canada

Re: Disney's live-action Beauty and the Beast

Post by Randall » January 31st, 2020, 8:44 am

Meh. The previous Steelbok with the flower under glass was much nicer.

AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 6124
Joined: October 23rd, 2004
Location: SaskaTOON, Canada

Re: Disney's live-action Beauty and the Beast

Post by Randall » January 31st, 2020, 8:44 am

Meh. The previous Steelbok with the flower under glass was much nicer.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 7080
Joined: September 1st, 2006

Re: Disney's live-action Beauty and the Beast

Post by Daniel » January 31st, 2020, 12:00 pm

So meh he posted it twice! ;)

AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 6124
Joined: October 23rd, 2004
Location: SaskaTOON, Canada

Re: Disney's live-action Beauty and the Beast

Post by Randall » January 31st, 2020, 7:57 pm

Meh meh.

;)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 7080
Joined: September 1st, 2006

Re: Disney's live-action Beauty and the Beast

Post by Daniel » February 6th, 2020, 4:25 pm

SNL spoof: (mild innuendo)



If only Belle's dress in the film was that nice!

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 7080
Joined: September 1st, 2006

Re: Disney's live-action Beauty and the Beast

Post by Daniel » March 7th, 2020, 6:35 pm

Luke Evans and Josh Gad will be reprising their roles as Gaston and LeFou for a limited prequel series headed for Disney+. Eh. :?

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 896
Joined: July 9th, 2008
Location: Australia

Re: Disney's live-action Beauty and the Beast

Post by Bill1978 » March 7th, 2020, 7:55 pm

Still not enough to get me to sign up to the service. I am quite happy to think Gaston is a narcissistic, misogynistic, egotistical buffoon. I don't need his background sob story to justify his behaviour. I hated the PTSD backstory in the live action movie. I also don't need a backstory for LeFou who I am happy to think is Gaston's sidekick because he has no one in the village gave him the light of day and he latched himself onto the 'cool' guy in town to fit in, and Gaston accepted him because he could use LeFou. Why does Hollywood want to spell everything out, the joy of cinema is that people can apply their own backstory to events and allow them to be happy. Once you put it into a medium you just risk upsetting people who have their ideas on what happen. Just ask Star Wars about how that goes.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 4078
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Re: Disney's live-action Beauty and the Beast

Post by EricJ » March 7th, 2020, 10:54 pm

It's sort of the same reason we're getting Disney+ series for all those minor Marvel Avengers like Hawkeye and Falcon that weren't killed off--
Since streaming is seen as "Doesn't count", every actor with an agent who didn't think he had enough screen time thinks his character was "appealing" or "complex" enough to deserve his own spinoff, but you couldn't say that to a network or studio with a straight face. (That's certainly why we're getting a Marvel Loki series.)
Next, Kevin Kline will claim Maurice was cruelly underused in the '17 movie...

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 248
Joined: April 8th, 2020

Re: Disney's live-action Beauty and the Beast

Post by Farerb » May 16th, 2020, 1:18 am

As a huge fan of the original, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought the remake was abysmal. At first when hearing about this remake being developed, it made me wonder why it was a thing. Maleficent and Cinderella I could understand as they weren't really remaking them as just doing something different with Maleficent and doing another adaptation with Cinderella (and just to make it clear, I didn't like them, I just understood why they were a thing). But with Beauty and the Beast, it was a remake to one of the most successful and influential films of all time, you don't go on and remaking a film that already has its definitive version.

What bothered me the most is how they changed characters and situations that changes like these should have an effect on the plot, but they still kept plot points from the original so the context is completely changed. For instance - Beast doesn't tell Belle to not go to the West Wing, it comes up by Cogsworth and Lumiere and only as an afterthought because Belle had asked something. Thus the West Wing scene gets a different context cause the Beast is upset, but why? He didn't tell her not to go there. He just comes across as a huge jerk (and he is quite a douchebag in this film as well).

The library scene is probably one of the most offensive things about this film. In the original the Beast showed her the castle because he genuinely wanted to do something nice to her, to give her books since she likes reading, but in the remake he does it in order to prove to her that she has poor literary taste and he would know cause he had read a lot of books apparently.

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 21036
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Re: Disney's live-action Beauty and the Beast

Post by Ben » May 16th, 2020, 5:01 am

Hello and welcome!

I think the *singing* is the most offensive thing in the B&TB remake! The auto tuning actually makes my ears bleed!

These films are better when they do their own thing. Cinderella, for me, was also just a lesser version of the original, while Maleficent wasn’t Sleeping Beauty all over again and created its own legend, only leaning on Beauty elements almost as a sideline. And the sequel Mistress Of Evil, despite the campy title, really did a good job of feeling needed and continuing/closing the story nicely.

The best one for me, as Rand and I have mentioned several times, is Dumbo, which basically potted in the remake element for its first 40 minutes and then created its whole new story and went its own way quite exceptionally. B&TB failed abysmally because it stuck too close to the untouchable original but then, where it did insert its own things, totally fumbled those aspects. The Lion King equally was pointless, with again the worst dinging in a Disney film, and Aladdin falls somewhere in the middle, though often more successfully than not thanks to an unexpectedly very funny script, but Dumbo, for me, is where it’s at n terms of these films.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 4078
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Re: Disney's live-action Beauty and the Beast

Post by EricJ » May 16th, 2020, 1:56 pm

Farerb wrote:
May 16th, 2020, 1:18 am
The library scene is probably one of the most offensive things about this film. In the original the Beast showed her the castle because he genuinely wanted to do something nice to her, to give her books since she likes reading, but in the remake he does it in order to prove to her that she has poor literary taste and he would know cause he had read a lot of books apparently.
I wonder if that was in response to a lot of complaints from fairytale purists about Linda Woolverton's feminist-warrior spin in the '91 version making Belle's fairytale-bingeing almost the only single literacy-empowered resident in town, while the Beast was not only a hotheaded, self-centered, domineering Male Jerk whose repressed emotions needed Belle's female wisdom to "fix" them for him, but functionally illiterate as well.
Mme. D'Aulnoy had considerably different ideas about the Beast two hundred years ago, as well as which character needed to learn the lesson about Seeing Past Appearances.

Here, it looked like they wanted to soften the spin, and say, well, the Beast actually can read, he just doesn't read fairytales like Belle does all afternoon.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 248
Joined: April 8th, 2020

Re: Disney's live-action Beauty and the Beast

Post by Farerb » May 16th, 2020, 2:19 pm

Yes they did change the character who needed to change, understandably because I don't feel it would come across as alright that Belle needed to learn the lesson when the Beast is the one who threatens her father. The original Beast had issues but at least he didn't treat Belle as if she was lesser than him, i.e "A daughter of a thief" and insulting her literally taste (and this one's happening after their conflict is resolved). Also while Belle is the catalyst to his change, she doesn't actively pursue it. He changes because he decides to change, it comes from him. Learning the errors of his ways is what help him "fix" himself or whatever.

I don't think there's anything wrong with Belle being bookish or her literally taste, I find this criticism weird cause at the end of the day we all like Disney films so why is it so wrong that Belle likes fairytales or Shakespeare or what not... and we don't really know if she has or hasn't read books of other genres.

The Beast not knowing/remembering how to read is not in the original 1991 version of the film. I don't really care about the Special Edition and it seems that even Disney no longer does, but even so, just for the sake of the discussion and since I know it was originally planned to be a part of the film, the Beast not remembering how to read is part of him losing his humanity, and showing us that he's willing to read again was a part of him regaining his humanity back.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 248
Joined: April 8th, 2020

Re: Disney's live-action Beauty and the Beast

Post by Farerb » August 8th, 2020, 12:06 am

Trousdale and Wise, the directors of the original film, talk about the remake:
“I have mixed feelings about the live-action remakes. On one hand, it’s great to have been involved in movies that have had so much longevity and have created so much affection for them in the audience that they’d be excited to see a new adaptation of the movie,” Wise said, diplomatically, before continuing. “But also, it’s like … go watch the old one.” Trousdale was more direct. “My completely objective and non-varnished opinion is that the animated ones are better anyway,” Trousdale said. “And that’s just me.” Wise then chimed in: “It’s not just you.” [...]

“I didn’t get a red cent from the new Beauty and the Beast,” Wise said. “No, there was no financial to it. And the fact that we got credit was a surprise to me,” Trousdale confirmed. Wise exclaimed: “Me too! Thanks!” Trousdale then explained how he even found out that they would be receiving credit. “I got invited to the premiere at the El Capitan, which was a surprise. I know Don Hahn [who produced the original Beauty and the Beast] pulled strings to make that happen,” Trousdale said. “And I’m sitting there with my girlfriend and the credits went by was like ‘Holy crap there I am!’” Again, he thanks Hahn: “Don worked his magic with that as well.”
Source: https://collider.com/disney-live-action ... -creators/

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 7080
Joined: September 1st, 2006

Re: Disney's live-action Beauty and the Beast

Post by Daniel » August 8th, 2020, 4:46 pm

Two more people from the original team that weren't impressed with the remake.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 7080
Joined: September 1st, 2006

Re: Disney's live-action Beauty and the Beast

Post by Daniel » August 21st, 2020, 4:26 pm

Title for the prequel series:
Collider wrote:This new musical series, which hasn’t formally begun production, comes from Gad and co-creators Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz, is described by Menken as “a new Beauty and the Beast prequel.” And it’s got an appropriately Beauty and the Beast-y title: Little Town. (Menken calls it The Little Town, but we’ve confirmed that it’s simply Little Town.)
Not what I was expecting. Doesn't really give off a Gaston vibe.

Post Reply