I think Emma Watson and the writers were trying so hard to make Belle seem all "anti-patriarchy modern woman" that they missed a main reason of why original Belle was a role model for girls: she taught him how to treat her and she didn't tolerate or justify his bad behavior, which made him a better person not just to her, but to the staff as well. That is more feminist than "omg, she made a washing machine and didn't wear gloves! What a modern woman!"
@@ingridsuperfreak Yet the faux feminist live-action remake of “Beauty and the Beast” was written by *two men:* Stephen Chbosky and Evan Spiliotopoulos. Coincidence? I think NOT!
Honestly, you don't even need to call the original feminist - just call it what it is: an actually well written film with a well written protagonist. Not everything has to be politicised, or as Reddit would say, pointlessly gendered.
@@ARCtheCartoonMaster Why not ? Linda Wolverton said she wanted to do her 'agenda" in her script and she did . Belle was more proactive than Ariel and all the rest of the previous princesses. Remember also that she was the first screenwriter in a Disney movie and the first being a woman with a cast of primarily men involved in the production, they wanted Belle to be cooking for her father and Linda wanted to show Belle marking a map with all the places she wanted to visit 😊. Linda was the feminist that wanted equality for men and women , now Emma Watson and all this crew are just hembrists
So true the broadway musicals are the only ! Good live action remakes The only live action remakes i like are cinderella and alice in wonderland the rest of disney live action remakes are garbage !
Even the part where the Beast gives her his library feels forced in this version. In the original, he did it just because he's starting to have feelings for her and wants to do something nice. Here it's like, "Yeah, I have a library and whatever. Oh, you like it? Well, I guess you could have it or something."
Can we also talk about how the beast never actually acted like one? Like seriously HE NEVER ACTUALLY ACTS LIKE HES TURNING MORE BEAST LIKE. They tell us but never show us. He acts way to proper.
Thank you, he acts no different than a human. Granted that's true to the original fairy tale, but there he was a gentleman if a bit dim and at not a narcissistic douche bag. (Even Gaston is more likable in this version.) There's also the fact that because they "fixed" the "plot hole" about him being 11 when cursed that we don't have a reference for how long the curse has been active. (Could've been years or months for all we know)
Gaby Droz Well the original he acted like a beast he would run on all fours and he’s temper was even that of a terrible beast he didn’t even have common table manners he would just dig into his food food like an animal.
@@StarDreamsStudios Also his temper was related to being territorial like a beast, he wasn't a bad guy he just couldn't remember how to act like a human. (According the directors the Beast doesn't even remember his name.) LA Beast on the other hand is just jerk with daddy issue, quite shallow compared to the original.
There was literally no point to making La Fou gay other than social brownie points Seriously he dances with a guy for two seconds, and the first canon gay Disney character is the villain’s bumbling sidekick (slowclaps)
As a gay guy Disney doesn't get any brownie points from me for that poor poor attempt at being progressive. Lets remember that LeFou means "The Fool" so in trying to be more progressive they made the movie less progressive. And if your are going to put any lgbt+ characters into your movies please think first. (Having them to check some nonexisting list is no way to make good characters and story) Changing some side character and making them gay but doing literally nothing with it (besides jokes which is the opposite of what we want) is not how you handle it. And think of the time period, just because it's a fairy tail doesn't mean you can do anything you want if you set it in an actual time and place. (1700s France) It just makes it look like you didn't do any research on the period you set the story in. ^Would work a lot better if you had it in a completely fiction setting cause then you could build the world however you feel like, but it's not set in a fictional place/time.
While Disney hasn't acknowledged it themselves, the writers of "Gargoyles" (show and comics) confirmed that Lexington was gay. Even if it wasn't really explored in-show either (it wasn't revealed until after the show was cancelled as he apparently hadn't "fully realized it himself"), he was a well-rounded character with a great personality and a wide array of talents, not just the doofy sidekick. Sad that a character who never actually "came out" on screen was a better LGBT+ character than the character who danced with a guy for 2 seconds.
Ally Gator Animator I consider that character being gay the equivalent of a certain writer commenting about how a character was gay all along (plus the fact that you, the reader, are infact also gay)
Lol you're not wrong, at least with Lexington you could argue that it was motivated by the characters VA coming out around the same time (not that it makes it automatically better handled, but you can see it as a sign of support for the VA and actually having positive intentions other than merely wanting to seem "woke"), Dumbledore was just out of nowhere.@@creed8712
Julia 713 Le Fou is what I like to call “fake gay”. It’s when a character that does nothing gay and nothing about that character being supposedly gay is never explained or expressed in the movie or media, but a writer or director says that the character is gay outside of the movie. A rule of thumb with gay characters is if the character’s sexuality plays no role in the plot, it should be removed. A gay character can only work if the character’s gayness is important to the plot or comes into play somewhere in the movie or media. An example of this is Sir Loras from Game of Thrones, because his gay relationships were important in inspiring multiple characters’s actions and was also used against his house as a political move later on in the series.
Personally, I always thought that Anne Hathaway would have made the perfect Belle. Not only is she a wonderful actress and a fantastic role model for women, but she can...you know...ACTUALLY SING!
I know shes a good actor but for fuck sake she cant sing and I heard they heavily edited her singing to make it sound listenable too. And of course she threw a fit over that and I was like girl u are an adult not a damn child please!
Eugenia Verónica Bonsembiante I don’t exactly feel like he was an a-hole but I don’t think he’s adorable either just because I don’t think he’s supposed to be anyway.
@@zoazede2098 he's an antisocial furry with anger issues in a world where furry lovers don't exist who meets a girl who stands up to him so well he has to shut up and calm down, letting him think and form a bond with Bell, who is rescued by him, given freedom to rome the castle, and a library thensize of, well a mansion. Some may ask how can he know she lioed books (been a while so not every detqil is frwsh in my head) but if I do remember his servants did gey hinted that she liked books. Then there's him learning to eat properly, and all the rest we know, where we actually see them bond. Hell in the one with added content we evem get the beast reading for the fitst time in a long time since he was cursed, so he can better bond with her. And when he figjts gaston, he shows mercy to the man who tried to kill him, only telling him to get the f#ck out of his swamp beforr getting backstabbed and unintentionally killing gaston. Was he an asshole ay the start? Yes. Lots of protagonists start out as idiots or assholes or whatever. But they grow. I don't see anything really change in either of them in the 2017 movie. SnobXsnob become....showoff/feminist (aka bigger snob by tossing off her gown dramatically because.....men? Idk man I'm trying).
Eugenia Verónica Bonsembiante sorry but I don’t see being how being stuck in a castle as a hideous beast would put someone in a good mood plus he was even a bit of a dick before he was cursed
Beauty and the Beast has always been my favorite Disney movie. The remake of it as honestly by far my least favorite of the remakes. I have never felt so betrayed on seeing how badly they made this. All in attempt to cover the "plot holes". The only thing I liked about this movie is McDonald's singing (even though she only sang just a little.) and the guy who played Belle's father. It's fine if Raven liked this movie but I am with Bob. I hated this movie.
@@unamed2516 I mean there are a couple of remakes I am okay with. I am one of the few to like Maleficent. But yeah the Beauty and the Beast remake is really the worst.
Major Chris When I saw Maleficent in theaters I kind of liked it but then thought it wasn’t good afterwards. I can’t believe that now their actually going to make a sequel to that, I personally don’t think it’s needed.
@@FilmmakeroftheFuture I have watched Nostalgia Critic, Lindsay Ellis's and now Bob's reviews on this movie because I wanted to see just how much they say how bad this movie is. They all pretty much say the movie is just a quick cash grab and the fact the lame attempt to cover the so called plot holes which only makes way more plot holes is ridiculous. Like I said, for those who enjoyed the movie, good for them. Me, I never will.
Yeah, this made me wanna watch the animated movie again, sorry Raven, it's just the original movie spoke louder to me, than this movie. I related to that beast more, because I felt like no one wanted me, because of how I looked.
As an animator these live action remakes just piss me off because their very nature implies that the animated ones weren't "deep" or "mature" enough. and the thing is like 90% of them rely on animation... it's just "more realistic" (like that somehow makes it better.) The lead actor in the new Aladdin movie even bragged about how it's so much better because you're seeing "real emotion" (even though it's still just an actor pretending... and if the trailers are anything to go off of, a bad actor to boot.) a I get that a lot of talented people work on these movies... that doesn't make them good, I'd argue it makes it worse because now all their talent is being wasted. Just look at The Lion King, so much obvious talent wasted on what's going to be a shot for shot remake but with less emotion (making the animals look so realistic hinders what you can do with them really.) Sorry about this rant, these things just really stir me up.
Greatsaiyakirby KING BBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBBBBBBBB!!!!!
14:00 In the animated version, when Beast was shown at the top of the stairs, that scared the holy SHIT out of 3 year old me. I was terrified, but I loved it! THAT is how you make a masterful, intimidating entrance. The 2017 version? I was just like, "meh"
Yeah dude, the way the Beast's voice boomed when he yelled was so intimidating and when he grabbed Maurice and took him out the door I remember being legitimately scared as a kid! I didn't like that feeling then but as an adult I'm so grateful for it cuz movies SHOULD make kids spooked, it SHOULD feel like there are actual stakes, it SHOULD feel like there's actual character development. The one thing I never was when watching the original film was bored.
One thing that bothers me about the Gaston song is they really over did it with the red. The central characters get lost because there is so much red in the background!
"you know Astral projection and we have been talking through skype..." this is LEGIT the best joke I heard about Astral Projection. Also, your comparisons to the original movie just made me realize how much I miss hand-drawn animation...
@@gothnerd887 oh, I LOVE anime *points to my own icon* and japanese animation does restores my faith in it, especialy Hayao Miyazaki and Mamoru Hosoda.
You should see Mary Poppins Returns, if you haven't already. It has the feel of the original movie, or of any older movie, it's well-done, fun, and funny, and it actually brings back hand-drawn animation. Even if it's only temporary, at least it's there.
REPO PIG Yeah I know it just hurts inside to see a movie you like be remade so badly. I mean the original isn’t awesomely perfect, their are little things I don’t like in it but it’s still much better than the 2017 remake.
Ash Kitt it seems like Disney seems to also favor English actors like they did in wonderland and Snow white I'm convinced that Disney classics seems to really favor the Europeans
Funny that you mentioned phelous because i again I feel that the animated one did it better with removing the stealing roses aspect and just be him trespassing in the first place set him off
I definitely went to see this and was determined to give it a chance, but I was so let down. (Heck, my account name is inspired from Belle since she's one of my favorite fictional characters ever.) Something I appreciate Bobsheaux and even Nostalgia Critic pointing out is the lack of emotion. For example when Beast let's Belle go back to Maurice, we see Beast gently touch the bell jar and looks sadly at the wilting rose. He looks so devastated to let her go and his voice is on the verge of tears. So much emotion in the hand drawn animation and yet the live action doesn't seem to have as much soul. Not going to bash anyone who likes this, but that's my perspective.
And don't forget when he gives Belle the mirror and touches her hair tenderly as he tells her to take it so she would look back remember him...that was so sweet and touching, this version is just Beast reading lines
@@ingridsuperfreak That's so true on both points! Touching Belle's hair shows how gentle he's become and a nonverbal way of saying he loves her. 2017 Beast sounds like he's reading lines instead of acting. Shame too since the actor has been great in other movies.
I honestly could really see a Mulan live-action remake work really well provided they handle it a certain way, which they probably won't, but you can't blame a guy for dreaming lol I would love to see it play out like a mix between a Kung Fu film and a period piece on top of the deeply personal story that it tells. I would actually like to see it done with subtitles if possible, as I think hearing the words spoken in Chinese (I'm guessing Mandarin specifically given the time period, but I really wouldn't know for sure.) with English subtitles would give it a better flow, although it would probably make a couple of songs a bit more difficult, but I think it could be made to work well regardless. When I stated that I would like to see some of its structure resemble a Kung Fu film, I don't mean the Wuxia elements. (The flying around and over-the-top aerial moves, etc.) I would really like to see the action performed with the careful and expertly-handled choreography that you would see in a high budget martial arts film. (Movies like Red Cliff and The Lost Bladesman are good examples of how to combine historical elements with impressive action that still remains relatively grounded in some form of reality.) If there is one thing I would suggest NOT doing, it's pulling a live action genie on us with the ancestral spirits, and for the love of GOD don't mess up Mushu!!! Granted, I'm not sure how to make his character work outside of animation, but I'm sure something could be done. Maybe they could alter it a bit so that his physical form can show expressions of his feelings physically, but have his dialogue be heard by way of telepathy of sorts so they wouldn't have to animate his mouth moving. It's probably a bad idea that wouldn't work, but it would be an understandable change of some kind. After all, Mushu is a dragon, not a lizard. He doesn't do that tongue thing :P As for cast suggestions: I would suggest Michelle Yeoh as Mulan's mother, Andy Lau as Captain Lee Shang, (I think that was his name, but I haven't seen the film since I was a little kid and I'm currently 26.) Although I forget his name, I think the actor who played Kublai Khan in the Netflix series Marco Polo would make for a perfect villain in the form of the Hun leader. Jackie Chan would make an awesome choice as Mulan's father, and Jet Li would be a cool Emperor because he has that calm but wise demeanor that would suit him for the role perfectly. As for the voice of Mushu, I would go with Chow Yun Fat, as he can be pretty good with comedic dialogue, and is capable of switching from jokes to sincerity on the dime. As far as side characters go, I don't have many concrete ideas, but a couple are: Captain Shang's father (The General) played by Sammo Hung, and sadly I can't think of any suggestions for the Minister, Yao, Chin Po, or the skinny one, (I can't remember his name off the top of my head.) I also don't know who I would pick for the ancestors, but that would be bound to be hilarious either way lol As for the role of Mulan specifically, I would probably go with someone who is either not well-known yet, or someone who is known but looks believably young enough to play the character. I would've suggested Maggie Q, but I only remember what she looked like from the movie, "Hero," (also starring Jet Li as the main protagonist) and that was made a while ago now. (Early 2000's I think.) Of course, I think it's certain that Disney would NEVER put in this kind of thought and effort into making a live-action Mulan film stand out when they could easily go for marketable and nostalgia-grabbing in order to make a quick buck based on their tactics of manipulation, the likes of which they have thrived on with at least a few of their film franchises for years. I still think it's a fun topic to think about and discuss though :)
I JUST REALIZED A PLOT HOLE If the enchantress erased everyones memory if the castle then how is beast suppose to fall in love with someone? NO ONE KNOWS HE EVEN EXISTS!!!
I had a lot of issues with this remake, but now watching this I realize another big one. In the original, I actually felt empathetic for the Beast from beginning. He's scary, he's mean, you can feel there's more than that. The way he's attracted to Belle but doesn't think he'll ever have a chance because of how he looks, just how distraught and helpless he is about this situation in general--it really makes him feel relatable and human. In the remake he just feels like a snooty jackass that I don't want to be around at all. "She's the daughter of a common thief! What do you think that makes her?" Um, okay, but you don't really have a lot of options here, pal. And time is running out, so maybe you should at least try. You're fate is not the only one at stake here--EVERYONE ELSE IS LITERALLY GOING TO TURN INTO SOULLESS FURNITURE. But she doesn't suit your tastes? Okay, by all means, let your one chance go by! I don't feel anything for remake Beast, except exasperation. If he's such a stuck up ass, then he can just STAY a beast for all I care.
The original Beast was also rather cute in his awkwardness when trying to be nice and him being a child when his transformation happen just adds on the tragedy, we really don't know how long it was in this film (could've been a few months to a year for all we know.) but it doesn't really have the same weight as the transformation didn't seem cause an psyche issues to him like in the original and is pretty much cosmetic.
The CGI would be one thing, but I hate this version of the Beast. Animated was cursed a kid and feeling the task was impossible just resigned to his fate. Is it a cruel curse to place on kid? Yes, the Enchantress is a fairy (Remember the one that thought being snubbed an invite was worth killing a kid) This one is stuck up and has daddy issues, aside from the shot of the bones, nothing implies him becoming animal. (Also minor nitpick that's in this film to "fix" something in the original. A son of King isn't called a "Prince" in France they are called "Dauphin". Prince would be the title of the ruler of a Principality, so the Beast's parents can be dead and he still be called a Prince and not a King. A young child being put in a position of power with no guidance but servants that cater to his every whim, yeah that doesn't do enough to explain his personality pre-curse at all.)
Um it never said the Enchantress was a fairy in the original. It just said "Enchantress." Implying that this Enchantress is related to Maleficent is strange as well because she isn't an enchantress. She was called, I think, just an evil fairy. The three good faries from Sleeping Beauty aren't related to her they just all happen to be the same species and all have magical powers, what matters is how they were used. Also, don't bother trying to link movies that were never related.
I remember walking out of the theater after seeing the remake in the theater and I just looked at my sister and said “What the HEKK was that?!” My biggest issue was how everything was rushed. And the wolf attack scene had much less impact than the original did. And the end transformation was such a letdown; they rushed through it. My biggest issue with Emma Watson was her portrayal of Belle. One word: condescending. I agree Emmy Rossum would have been perfect. Or Anne Hathaway
YEEES. Emmy Rossum is a little too old to play Belle now but if Disney would have done this remake 10 years ago Emmy would have done perfectly. She is the kind of actor and singer to pull off Belle.
I have to say this. Beauty and the Beast was my favorite disney movie growing up. As a kid, I identified with Belle. I loved the story, the romance, everything. So believe me when I say that I absolutely HATE this remake. It's insulting to the original and a real waste of time. I've never felt like someone slapped me in the face with a movie until this one.
Hey Bob, just a bit of constructive criticism, maybe you could try turning your intro volume down a bit to match the rest of the video? I find myself turning the volume way down during the intro but turning it back up a decent amount to listen to the rest of the video; I've tested it on a few different devices too to see if it was on just one device but it's on all of them. :)
So, the servants were punished along with the beast because an eleven year old wasn't letting an intruder inside of the castle like his parents always warned him not to do because they could have ulterior motives, their memories of their friends and family inside and outside of the castle were erased, they wouldn't be living objects for all eternity but rather turn into inanimate objects which means they would be dead and where does the soul of a candlestick go?, and nobody inside and outside of the castle would've had memories of the friends and families of the object servants who pretty much died. Some "all-knowing angel" the enchantress is. She's a f***ing psychopath! The enchantress is on the levels of maleficent. In fact, she puts maleficent to shame. WTAF.
I've heard people dissect the original movie and they even say Gaston had his reasons for wanting to kill the beast since he found out there was this mysterious castle holding a monster that held belle hostage and for all he knew belle was suffering from Stockholm syndrome when coming back to ramble how great he was after maurice said otherwise before. He's here to kinda be the village's protector and then he finds out theres a dangerous monster out there, of course he's not gonna think it's not dangerous and sweet, he doesn't know what it could do and he already took belle hostage. Combine that with the fact beast was 11 when she transformed him and it's reasonable for him to not trust her at that age and the only real villain of this story seems to be the enchantress.
One thing I can say that doesn't work with the movie is that in an attempt to look "woke" they actually end up being even more backwards. By putting in more explanations, it just opens up bigger plotholes. As said before, changes like the house being in the middle of the village really makes Belle less of an outlier thematically. Also cutting out the wedding scene lessens the impact of why Belle is so pissed off and again downplays how Gaston sees her as a prize to be won. Also the Beast is much more like the Jean Coteau version, where he's more an aristocratic mannered guy. In contrast with how Beast is more of an animal, which the 2017 version failed to convince.
To be fair, considering it's from disney, it feels much more pandering and unecessary than if it was from a different place. "Ya know Amy, anytime someone brings up the breaking of gender norms, it ultimately undermines the concept of gender equality by implying THIS is the acception, and NOT the status quo."
I saw this a few nights ago and it pales to Disney’s original animated classic by a good deal. The Jungle Book was good, Maleficent was flawed, and I’ve never seen Cinderella remake.
All of Raven's reasons for liking just seem so desperate and staw-man like. She takes aspects that were done far better in the original and praises the little details and ignores all critisim and even gets mad when Bob debunks it. And when she gives some completely BS reason, Bob stops arguing and acts like she won even though she's just being a bratt who can't actually give any valid reasoning.
@@jostockton. Yeah, but you shouldn't use straw men to make points. You should actually give valid points and show 2 sides of an arguement. I wouldn't mind Raven as much if she actually acknowledges Bob. He debunks all of her points and she gets mad instead of offering anything else.
17:19 "Just because it's a remake doesn't mean it has to be a carbon copy" would be a great argument for defending this movie... if it wasn't 95% carbon copy.
My goodness this movie is full of unfortunate implications! Funny how all this insistence on "representation" and being "progressive" ends up creating the very problems it claims to be trying to solve!
That's what happens when you call yourself getting all political in what's supposed to be a form of entertainment. Hence the current saying nowadays, "Get Woke, Go Broke!"
@@Bezaliel13 Do we really? Especially when most people claiming to be "woke" are just pandering trend-chasers looking for a metaphorical pat-on-the-back for pretending to be "progressive"; and that goes triple for the pretentious "Suits" who make-up mainstream.
@@cartooncritique6625 I personally have never heard anyone call themselves "woke," but I have seen plenty of videos complaining about others trying to be "woke," like most videos ranting on the She-Ra reboot, channels centered around complaining about comics, Captain Cummings, sometimes Bobsheaux, Alpha Jay's video about representation not being ground breaking, and channels that I would logically avoid when I would be against the "woke hunting" crap. p.s. I was vague about the comics, excluding Captain Cummings, one because I think Diversity changed to "ya boi Zack" or something.
Sidenote so my first comment doesn't run too long: Emma Watson's issue with the dress was the corset they wanted her to wear as part of it, calling it oppressive and unfeminist. She then designed the lame dress we see in the film herself. Hey Emma, maybe you should've thought about stuff like this before accepting the lead role in a period piece.
Man, I'm Hispanic and if I see a movie showing something as unrealistic as Hispanics in equal terms with the French aristocracy in pre-Revolutionary France I'll be more offended than flattered
Idk, man. I cannot stand things like Twilight and Fifty Shades of Grey (this one is really on principal) and if I had a partner insist on me just sitting there and "enjoying" them even though I am very vocal about why I despise them, I'd have to reconsider my relationship. I mean, yeah, little thing in the grand scheme of things and I might do it as a gesture but to be forced? To have one sit there and say I am mad at you because you will not watch this thing you do not like that's a little close to coercion and control and therefore close to abuse. I mean, yeah this is a framing device and a joke but it still is an uncomfortable trope in media where a guy is made to suck things up in this manner. Especially to someone like Bob who willing goes along with other things like dressing up as a Troll or wearing an outfit in a review or even reviewing things he doesn't necessarily want to because it makes Raven happy. Like it is sweet the effort he goes to to make Raven happy within the narrative of these reviews and it is heartbreaking to have Raven go "I am mad at you for this one thing". I mean, I am pretty sure Raven is very sweet to Bob in real life and this is not how she would normally react to something as an actual person, just idk it is a harmful narrative when you take other reviews in context. Like again from the show's perspective Bob does things just to make her happy and normally it is sweet because there is a feeling that "Bob doesn't have to do this". This just colors it differently like "Bob should be doing this because he is a male and insensitive to his ladies feelings and should suck it up because that is what a boyfriend does". And yeah this has been done before but this seems to cross a line. Like from a narrative perspective it wasn't a review he was doing for her, he didn't want to watch one movie and she decided to haunt him. To torment him. Again I know it is just a framing device I just, don't like it. Other than that the review is of the high quality that I always expect, including how Bob and Raven look at the movies from two different perspectives. That is always fun in their reviews. Just you know, made me think of some abusive relationships and I have been through and I wanted to point out why I feel this is not indicative of what should be normal or acceptable as this is something that is normally betrayed as normal and acceptable.
Also I am sorry I cannot sit here and just enjoy the review fully and I would love for this to be part of a larger narrative where it is a manifestation of his guilt or something. That would fix this complaint for the most part.
You're quite correct in how Raven is VERY sweet to me in real life. She'll do anything she can to treat me like nothing less than a king. She "laments" in this review about how movies used to be something that you just ENJOYED, not STUDIED, but she enjoys my commentary about whatever movie we're watching, even on Date Night. I've even poked fun at Moulin Rouge, which both of us really enjoyed. But I learned the hard way that there's a limit, I.E. I don't want to make my special lady feel STUPID for enjoying something of which I'm not particularly fond. The back-&-forth you see between us in this review happens pretty much with EVERY movie I'm taking notes on, just to make sure I've got as clear a picture of what's happening and why as possible. (I was pretty on-board with her theory of the magic book using ASTRAL PROJECTION instead of teleportation, until that damn rattle destroyed it. lol) It isn't "I'm trying to get you to like this, or shut up!!", but more like "You should know that THIS is what's actually happening before you form your opinion." We see it a lot more in this review than in others because... well, that's more or less how it went down during Date Night, when it wasn't supposed to. And bear in mind this isn't about me not WANTING to watch the movie; I've seen enough remakes that were decently made (thank you, Tim Burton lol) to make me want to give this one a chance. Me not wanting to REVISIT it is played up mostly for laughs, since it's generally true of ALL the movies I review. "Wow, did that movie suck. Oh God, I'm gonna have to watch it AGAIN as I write and edit this review! NOOOO!!!!!" lol Like her counter-arguments to some of my points, I know I can't make you LIKE this narrative device, but hopefully I've done a good job of explaining what's going on.
Bobsheaux Oh! I’m so envious of you guys, you’re such a sweet perfect couple 😊 it would be nice to find my perfect someone to treat me so adoringly. I haven’t had the time to watch your full review but already knowing I would agree with you I gave it a like and plan on trying to watch it soon when I can.
Fairy tales and fantasy are not the same genre. There is overlap but the big difference is Fantasy is about building your own unique system and world of logic, while fairy tale is all about giving logic a back seat while leading you through the story with emotion. Harry Potter is a fantasy because it has it's own in universe rules for how it's magic system, and government, and education works, but in stories like Pinocchio you remember how terrifying the donkey transformation sequence was, and it probably wouldn't have had the same scary effect if they walked you through how that magic worked. In Snow white, not explaining how the prince found her and woke her up is not nearly as important as how wonderful it feels that this nice young woman isn't dead. (That's also why I disagree with you on comparing white people in Wakanda to black people in pre-revolutionary France. Black Panther is science fantasy not a fairy tale) That's just the way Fairy tales are, and that's not to say that fairy tails can't be criticized but nit picking about how something isn't realistically logical in a in a fairy tale is like complaining that it's not realistic to spontaneously break out into a song and dance number in a musical. Maybe you can't get into that, well then it's just not your genre. Some people can't get into horror or war spy thrillers because they just don't like the trappings that come with that genre. That's fine, to each their own The reason I bring this up is because these live action remakes suck because they are trying to half ass-idly turn fairy tales into fantasy and it's not done well or with respect to the story. "Why don't the peasants know about the castle?" "What's the backstory to the beast being so mean in the first place?" "What did the castle workers do to be held responsible for the prince's actions?" . All of these questions focus on the wrongs things. There's a beautiful and simple story here about forgiveness, and choosing being a better person, and finding love in strange places but we gotta bring everything to a screeching halt to explain these little things that don't help move the story along, have nothing to do with the themes at best and get in the way of the themes at worst. and in it's place we get rid of actual important parts, like the Beast becoming be a better person.
I think Disney does have an official recipe for the "grey stuff" that they provide at Disney world so people can make it themselves. But I don't know if they will tell you what it is or not.
Dear men, All you have to do in order to write female characters and appease your average modern moviegoer -even the most staunch of tumblr "feminists" who took a whopping one Women's Studies course in college- is write them as people. This means that they would be constrained by the ideals of their time and framed by that culture. If a female character is trying to fight the system that kept her oppressed it needs to be subtle, otherwise she would likely be imprisoned, brainwashed, banished, or killed ("corrective rape" happened too, but this is a Disney film). Also, there's nothing wrong with a girl liking pretty clothes and still being intelligent. Just try to think about how SHE feels wearing the dress rather than showing it off for horny male viewers and your writing will still be spectacular. Note: I'll admit that I never cared much for Belle in the original movie because I think she's a little too perfect, but here she's waaay too much of a jerk who's fixated on her mom and the past because… that's important, I guess. Screw implications and dialog that allows characters to bond naturally and quickly. Just show what happened. It doesn't bog down the movie at all. The motto "show, don't tell" works 9/10 times, but this is the one time the filmmakers SHOULD have just told that in a clever way.
THANK YOU!! I feel like this is something people have lost sight of these days. All you have to do to write good female, black, gay, transgender (or whatever) characters is to write them as CHARACTERS first, and let everything else flow out naturally through the narrative. These days I swear it's like they write these movies with a checklist on a clipboard. Nothing is subtle, it always feels forced, and it generally comes across like the writers have spent WAY too much time on Tumblr! :/
I agree with you in that a strong female character shouldn't feel forced or in your face. However, I am starting to understand why many people (feminist or simply egalitarian) are upset and concerned about misogyny. I have seen many hateful men who view women as emotional and simple creatures that are out to destroy society. While I know that feminism has extremists and deserves criticism, it goes to show how a response can also go too far and become a monster.
@@cadethumann8605 Blame the shitty legal system, I guess. 🤷♀️ I mean a boy is due to go to prison because his female molester got pregnant, wants back-child support and she gets away scot free all the while feminists are more concerned about video game tiddies destroying society. We have newspaper headlines talking about how 1/4 of the homeless are women...therefore homelessness is a women's issue. We've also got women getting away with knife crime or attempted murder because they're too pretty for prison. I mean, granted, women really aren't to blame for this. It's more so the men that decided spoiling women rotten and letting them get away with shit was a great idea. But assuming "some" men's paranoia over women just "happened" is stupid. Political narratives don't just fall from the sky.
@@ValD98 I agree that society shouldn't forget that women can be over privileged and/or bad and that men can be victims. Again, as an egalitarian, I wish for people to be fair as possible. Yes, there are differences and certain roles more suited for one (military for men since they are stronger) but I stand by for equal punishment/reward for equal actions. However, I have seen man many disgusting men who go way to far in there reactions by being straight up misogynistic. They may have an understandable cause, but they don't justify the means. For instance, I have seen men going around shaming relationships and telling men to not marry at all. I tried to talk with these guys and come up with peaceful compromises but since I didn't align with their agenda nor view all women as evil, I was called "blue-pilled" and disregarded. As geralt of rivia has said, evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling. If I were to choose between one evil and another, I simply rather not choose.
It's like this movie's writers forgot that the original story was written in the 1700's equivalent of a woman's magazine as a way to give girls hope that arranged marriage wouldn't be absolutely terrifying. Which means girls reading wouldn't be controversial just odd that Belle does it to the extent that she does. Though in the original novel, she was praised for her education and her sisters were scorned for not paying attention to theirs. As an adaptation of either the book or the animated classic this version fails.
Actually the plot hole with the lyrics in Be Our Guest is explained in a flashback in Beauty and the Beast: the Enchanted Christmas where it reveals Beast was, in fact, a child.
17:19 "Look, just because it's a remake, it doesn't mean it has to be a carbon copy of the original." So... does that mean it shouldn't have logic into it?
You know I'm pretty sure Bob here has hated most of the Disney live action remakes. Eventually he will get to Aladdin and Lion King at some point in either the near or far future. The popcorn will be waiting
Jacob Childress I’m so unhappy about Aladdin and the 🦁 king. I feel bad for not appreciating the animated ones more when I watched them on cassette. I never once thought they would be changed in the future.
@@artbytesia sadly jon faveru tried really hard with Lion King 2019. But man was that a mess. Disney better triple his pay after that failure and guilting him into making a live action version nobody asked for. POOR GUY! :C
24:18, he doesn't forget how to use a spoon, he physically CANNOT use it, as he has fangs in his mouth, then in the ballroom scene when he is eating with Belle you can see how he learns to put the spoon between his fangs and slurps slowly to be polite. The original movie did that in a great way
6:57 For me, I always assumed that the prince was the ruler of a principality, a tiny nation ruled by, well, a prince. There happen to be three around in Europe today: Andorra, Liechtenstein and Monaco. So why they didn't just handwave the obscurity of a *freaking prince* by making him the ruler of some obscure nation that nobody would know or care about in this day and age when we have Internet, let alone back then when information was spread through word of mouth and the occasional print media, I have no freaking clue. 32:35 Uh... how exactly is getting rid of the gloves a statement of the patriarchy? I mean, I get that this movie was trying to be more feminist - as if we even needed that - but not everything in this movie is trying to be feminist. If that was the case, they'd probably depict Belle ditching the Beast for the wardrobe, because apparently just being with a man means you need a man.
I agree on the "Prince", a young child being in position of power without proper guidance and instead having servants cater to him would've better been a better explanation than daddy issues for his personality. (Also, what is with making Kings tyrants in order to make the actions of a insulted fairy look justified?) As for the dress, Watson herself said it was to be a feminist statement, it really just showed her ignorance of period costumes and clothing history.
@@CoolG97 If she really wanted to be more feminist without ignoring historical accuracy, she should've just been in a movie set in the modern day. Why does she think _Inside Out_ was better received than _Brave_ , for example? Also, if she really thinks gloves are somehow sexist against women, then I guess we should denounce _The Buzz on Maggie_ as sexist, because it *dares* to depict its female protagonist with Mickey Mouse gloves. Oh, the horror(!)
@@CoolG97 Right. Emma has no fucking CLUE what corsets were for. She says she didn't want to wear one since she didn't want girls to get the wrong idea about how you have to be thin to be pretty...while she's already only 24" in the waist. Aside from even the correct silhouette, corsets helped support the weight of heavy skirts and distributed the weight over the torso for rich women. For provincial women, it provided back-support. I'm literally wearing a corset right now for back support. A legit actual corset, though there is medical back-support based on the the exact same things as a corset. If Emma wanted to avoid the message about thinness, then she could have worn a corset made in such a way that her waist looked a few inches bigger. I went into all of this, and a hell of a lot more, on my blog. The pinned post at the top has the links. ariacouture.com/blog . This movie just bothers me so, so much, and most of it comes down to changes Emma wanted.
( Sarcastic tone) I’m some glad that Bell was made an inventor and she invented a washing machine, then never invents anything else. It was just so needed. That and unlike other inventors from other kids films like Lewis from Meet the Robinson, or the professor from nutty professor or the guy from Chatty chatty bang bang . Bell gives up after one invention, which is a great lesson for kids.
The Beast in the original after he saves Belle from the wolves: '' I never felt that for anyone esle before. I want to do something for her... but what? '' That means he see she is a good person, respects her and wants her to be happy. Aaaaaww 🥰 The beast in the remake: '' She's a daughter of a thief! '' then later '' You can start with a few books here. '' He's a jerk and a show-off, insults her tastes for books and never appologise for it. His attitude is horrible! The Enchantress is a villain in this movie. Not only she put a spell on the castle and people who did nothing wrong to her BUT she also separated families, whipe their memories AND didn't helped Maurice after saving him from the woods. She let an innocent man gets beated by the villagers. I am supposed to find her kind? Nope, can't happen!
Im not even a fan of the original, but even l felt betrayed with thid movie. Omg! I hated this thing. From the trailer l said it looked horrible, and horrible it was.
I usually love Raven, but in this review she just comes off as stubborn and kind of unlikable. Her arguments film-wise are pretty weak, and when Bob suggests ways to improve the movie she jumps in with "No! I like it! How dare you not like it!" If he was saying all these things during the actual date I get why she might get annoyed. But this is a review... one she "allowed" him to make (right after asking him to make it while he refused?)
The only thing that's going to cure that lame and tame beast is a damn Snickers. Everyone is just so soft spoken. No roar, no wobbly notes when Lefou is singing. It's just meh.
They could have fixed the humility by asking for a rose part by having her father insist on getting her something despite her telling him she is perfectly happy until she finally says "how about a rose -to brighten up my favorite reading window?" Or something. And had they included Beast struggling over the decision to let her go, the uplifting solo could have been saved. He has lost to the curse but saved his soul. Belle is gone but he isn't weighed down by keeping her prisoner. Her freedom is all he needs even as he mourns her leaving him.
One little criticism of you. You mention that in the time that this movie is set (probably ~1700), being gay would be a big no-no, but in fact, during this time France was actually unexpectedly accepting of homosexuality (or at least the nobles were, can't say for the peasantry and the Clergy was definitely against it). The Court of Louis XIV (who reigned from ~1640-1720) was full of out-and-proud homosexuals and bisexuals, most notably the king's own brother, Phillip of Orleans. In fact, I remember the story about one bisexual noble who would have very implicit relations with all sorts of men (including the aforementioned brother Phillip) and everyone was perfectly fine with it, but what _did_ get him in trouble was trying to get into a heterosexual relationship with the King's favorite mistress. edit: That being said, they still only made Lafou gay for the sake of being gay while simultaneously making him even less important to the story.
Or how about the irony that quite a large percentage of women COULD read, and that Belle wouldn't be special just for reading. Belle being a romantic and a *dreamer*, and loving it so much was her main trait in the original. She loved fantasy and romance, as stated in her song. Somehow Emma Watson tried to be all feminists but bollixed everything by not realizing women could already read. For aristocracy, female literacy rate was 85% (To men's 90+) Among merchants and soldiers (her town) and the like it was 65% F/ 80% M. The absolute worst literacy measures of France in that time period was 30F-45M for rural farmers, and that was measured at the time of marriage not an ongoing study of any sort. Even then, these numbers are of those who can read AND write. Those who could read enough to get by, religious readings, almanacs and work-like readings, etc but not necessarily write correctly, they aren't included in those numbers. So yeah, the sneering in this movie? Nonsense. Nearly all of those people would read religious texts, and the majority would casually read as well. Only a tiny percentage would be truly illiterate.
So one problem with the Astral Projection theory on the book that still makes no sense. What;s the point of the Mirror then? he has this magic book that STILL let's him see anywhere in the world. So, what's the point of having a mirror that's supposed to do the same thing?
My judgement on remakes is always "If this were the original would it be liked enough that we be remaking it today?" And while I did have issues with it, I didn't hate it as much as you. I do think this qualifies.
I just dislike them because they seem like make-money-fast attempts by Disney and copouts for filmmakers who are too lazy to come up with original plots and characters. It's really sad how I came up with a more original idea in ten or so seconds yesterday than most of the ideas Disney has in recent years. (Sure, there are Zootopia and Moana, but then after that...)
Huh, I always assumed the "any other female would do anything to be in her shoes" line was his own ego and the three village girls were into him because of his muscular built, his position as hunter and local "big man", and because their village doesn't offer a lot of options. But yeah, I suppose there's no arguing about taste, and I suppose if you cut of the head he looks alright, but I always found his features very ugly, especially when compared with other handsome Disney men. @Hannah Papernick-Yudin
I hate how in the first scene where we see him he calls himself beautiful. It’s one of the examples of how vain he is and how unappealing I found him to be. I think the beast in human form looks better than him.
Ghost-Raven was an absolute delight. Although, it would've been funny if she cursed Bob to become a beast for bad-mouthing the remake. Heck, he could've called himself 'Beast-Sheaux!' Back when this film came out, I was hoping to avoid it. But when I got home for spring break, my mom was like, 'You will... join me for the remake. That's not a request!' Okay, it wasn't exactly like that, but long-story-short, we saw it, she liked it fine and I was ambivalent towards it. But of course, we both preferred the cartoon. Speaking of which, I love how you analyzed the animation of the original film and used it to demonstrate the issues with the remake. It really helps me remember why I love animation so much, especially regarding Disney's classic hand-drawn features.
YAY it's back!!!! I've been checking like three times a day! IMO the use of black extras is just looking for lazy diversity point. Are they significant characters? Do they matter? Are they literally just there to make people go "oh, look, Disney isn't racist" while the entire movie focuses on white people? Either commit to actually changing the story, or don't waste my time.
17:26 While it's true a remake doesn't have to be a carbon copy of the original, you have to make changes that make sense. How about this, add one thing of dialog where the beast tells them he doesn't want to see her out of that cage, that would justify them using the roof to get her to the room (since it would be less likely to bump into him) and it would explain why they are going behind his back.
I remember Emma Watson mentioning on a press tour for the film that this version of Belle was more “feminist” because she invented a washing machine, which the townspeople cruelly then destroyed. It boggled my mind because I thought to myself: *”Why? Wasn’t Belle already feminist in the animated film? Did they forget that Belle was a strong, independent woman in the original?”* In the animated film, Belle was literate, assertive, smart, and not shallow (she even says this about Gaston to her father Maurice: *”He’s handsome, alright? And rude and conceited. Oh papa, he’s not for me.”).* And sure, there’s nothing wrong with having a female character invent stuff, but the problem is that it doesn’t go anywhere, so it feels like feminist lip service. Belle invents a washing machine, but the townspeople destroy it. Belle also created a rope made of clothes to help herself escape out of the Beast’s castle through the window, but she stays in her room instead. If they wanted to make Belle an inventor, she could be more like an apprentice to her father, in which they both invent stuff as a form of father-daughter bonding.
This movie is the worst of both worlds. A bad movie and a badly portrayed empowerment message. Especially done by emma watson. The girl who went up to the UN (or whatever it was) and complained about rape being taught in universoties everywhere that it's not a big deal. Like, nani the fuck?
just tell your girlfriend to REwatch BOTH of the movies THEN make a HONEST judgement and can not have difference in FACTS, facts are NOT opinions this movie is GARBAGE and you Bob perfectly described it REALIZE it please.
35:38 Does anyone else think it's weird that earlier in the film, Maurice and Gaston couldn't find the castle but during the song, Gaston just found it, no problem? Bob, I'm with you 100%, this movie is ASS!!! sorry Raven...
Oh I remember actually only one Thing from this movie and it was how stupid this feminist symbolism was. 1. why making belle an inventor without it even having a little bit influence on the plot. 2. why acting like teaching a girl to read is disgusting? Reading women were not that rare at this time. The original story of beauty and the beast was even written for women. 3. why making all of the towns people jerks? Just so that people cant even try to empathize with them or why they think that way?
Well in the original 1991 film everyone in the film had American accents except for Lumier and the feather duster. And no one really complained about that.
i hated that the servents told belle that they and the beast were cursed by the witch (or whatever she is). because in the original belle fell in love with beast by herself and didn’t even know that he was actually human. that was sweet and added more chemistry between the 2.
Lol @ 36:05 - 36:24 when he completely debunked the crow/raven chick's "astral projection" theory. The fact that Belle was able to physically take a memento back with her pretty much proves the book is a legit teleportation device.
Yes thank you, with astral projection you can’t physically touch items and take them with you. I was rather annoyed with Ravens remarks on this film when her points were based on “no you’re wrong just because.”Despite the flaws in the film. I enjoyed this movie too, but can admit it has soooo many issues from the original, from lack of emotion and expression to Emma’s auto tuned artificial voice. Her singing has nothing to do with her acting...
Yes! The video is back from the copyright gulag!
To bad it'll be re banned in Europe
@@AlSidre Screw Article 17!
AlSidre ugh I’m an American living in Europe currently. Please don’t happen.
@@MFields2178 It takes two years for shit like that to become law, hopefully by then the EU will have argued themselves into the ground.
@Oriental Studios Freaking thin skinned hypocrites, can't handle criticism but happy to talk down to everyone else.
I think Emma Watson and the writers were trying so hard to make Belle seem all "anti-patriarchy modern woman" that they missed a main reason of why original Belle was a role model for girls: she taught him how to treat her and she didn't tolerate or justify his bad behavior, which made him a better person not just to her, but to the staff as well. That is more feminist than "omg, she made a washing machine and didn't wear gloves! What a modern woman!"
The funny thing is that originally Belle was written by a feminist called Linda Wolverton, she wanted Belle being more than Jo from the Little Women
@@ingridsuperfreak Yet the faux feminist live-action remake of “Beauty and the Beast” was written by *two men:* Stephen Chbosky and Evan Spiliotopoulos.
Coincidence? I think NOT!
I swear movies are trying so hard to make the feminazis happy that they are forgetting to make their female characters actually be female.
Honestly, you don't even need to call the original feminist - just call it what it is: an actually well written film with a well written protagonist. Not everything has to be politicised, or as Reddit would say, pointlessly gendered.
@@ARCtheCartoonMaster Why not ? Linda Wolverton said she wanted to do her 'agenda" in her script and she did . Belle was more proactive than Ariel and all the rest of the previous princesses. Remember also that she was the first screenwriter in a Disney movie and the first being a woman with a cast of primarily men involved in the production, they wanted Belle to be cooking for her father and Linda wanted to show Belle marking a map with all the places she wanted to visit 😊. Linda was the feminist that wanted equality for men and women , now Emma Watson and all this crew are just hembrists
The Broadway musical version of Beauty and the Beast was *SO MUCH BETTER THAN THIS GOD-AWFUL REMAKE!!!*
Hell, the Golden Films version (starring Old Man, of course!) was way better than this!
@Inacio's Second Channel Ah!!
@@mitchfletcher2386 Truer words haveth never been spoken! XD
So true the broadway musicals are the only ! Good live action remakes
The only live action remakes i like are cinderella and alice in wonderland the rest of disney live action remakes are garbage !
Yeah. I didn't understand why the Live-Action Remake wasn't just the Broadway musical in live-action.
Why did Belle and the Beast loved each other in the original: trust, chermistry, a good development of the relationship, etc.
Here: they're both snobs
In the 2017 remake they have the chemistry of Olive oil & water
jbiehlable I Did. It was auto correct
Even the part where the Beast gives her his library feels forced in this version. In the original, he did it just because he's starting to have feelings for her and wants to do something nice. Here it's like, "Yeah, I have a library and whatever. Oh, you like it? Well, I guess you could have it or something."
In real wold the Beast would have gone to prison for he did
María Elena they also both had dead moms.
Can we also talk about how the beast never actually acted like one? Like seriously HE NEVER ACTUALLY ACTS LIKE HES TURNING MORE BEAST LIKE. They tell us but never show us. He acts way to proper.
right? and flapping his cape around and throwing a tantrum? That's a five year old who was denied candy. Not a 6foot+ beast.
He even has facial expressions not like a beast, but like a pompous narcissistic asshole.
Thank you, he acts no different than a human. Granted that's true to the original fairy tale, but there he was a gentleman if a bit dim and at not a narcissistic douche bag. (Even Gaston is more likable in this version.)
There's also the fact that because they "fixed" the "plot hole" about him being 11 when cursed that we don't have a reference for how long the curse has been active. (Could've been years or months for all we know)
Gaby Droz Well the original he acted like a beast he would run on all fours and he’s temper was even that of a terrible beast he didn’t even have common table manners he would just dig into his food food like an animal.
@@StarDreamsStudios Also his temper was related to being territorial like a beast, he wasn't a bad guy he just couldn't remember how to act like a human. (According the directors the Beast doesn't even remember his name.)
LA Beast on the other hand is just jerk with daddy issue, quite shallow compared to the original.
There was literally no point to making La Fou gay other than social brownie points
Seriously he dances with a guy for two seconds, and the first canon gay Disney character is the villain’s bumbling sidekick (slowclaps)
As a gay guy Disney doesn't get any brownie points from me for that poor poor attempt at being progressive. Lets remember that LeFou means "The Fool" so in trying to be more progressive they made the movie less progressive.
And if your are going to put any lgbt+ characters into your movies please think first. (Having them to check some nonexisting list is no way to make good characters and story) Changing some side character and making them gay but doing literally nothing with it (besides jokes which is the opposite of what we want) is not how you handle it.
And think of the time period, just because it's a fairy tail doesn't mean you can do anything you want if you set it in an actual time and place. (1700s France) It just makes it look like you didn't do any research on the period you set the story in.
^Would work a lot better if you had it in a completely fiction setting cause then you could build the world however you feel like, but it's not set in a fictional place/time.
While Disney hasn't acknowledged it themselves, the writers of "Gargoyles" (show and comics) confirmed that Lexington was gay. Even if it wasn't really explored in-show either (it wasn't revealed until after the show was cancelled as he apparently hadn't "fully realized it himself"), he was a well-rounded character with a great personality and a wide array of talents, not just the doofy sidekick.
Sad that a character who never actually "came out" on screen was a better LGBT+ character than the character who danced with a guy for 2 seconds.
Ally Gator Animator I consider that character being gay the equivalent of a certain writer commenting about how a character was gay all along (plus the fact that you, the reader, are infact also gay)
Lol you're not wrong, at least with Lexington you could argue that it was motivated by the characters VA coming out around the same time (not that it makes it automatically better handled, but you can see it as a sign of support for the VA and actually having positive intentions other than merely wanting to seem "woke"), Dumbledore was just out of nowhere.@@creed8712
Julia 713 Le Fou is what I like to call “fake gay”. It’s when a character that does nothing gay and nothing about that character being supposedly gay is never explained or expressed in the movie or media, but a writer or director says that the character is gay outside of the movie.
A rule of thumb with gay characters is if the character’s sexuality plays no role in the plot, it should be removed. A gay character can only work if the character’s gayness is important to the plot or comes into play somewhere in the movie or media. An example of this is Sir Loras from Game of Thrones, because his gay relationships were important in inspiring multiple characters’s actions and was also used against his house as a political move later on in the series.
Oh, wow; I really CAN hear the autotune!
How? I cant tell the difference
@@albertschoise8091 Its hard to explain, but if you listen to enough songs that use it [and pretty heavily] you can spot it
TorridPrime217 ..... yeah I don’t hear it. But hey people always sound like whistles to me
@@albertschoise8091 Listen to "I want much more than this provincial life" and there's a blip in the autotune
@@albertschoise8091 If it sounds more like a synthesizer, it's definitely autotuned.
Emma. Watson. makes. a. horrible. Belle.
She is not Belle. She is Emma Watson attempting to play Belle.
You can't change my mind.
I see it as Hermione Granger cosplaying as Belle.
@@Jessidafennecfox now that you say that? Yes. Absolutely.
Honestly, I could just never see her as Belle. Belle is my favourite princess, and Emma just….. it didn’t work
Personally, I always thought that Anne Hathaway would have made the perfect Belle. Not only is she a wonderful actress and a fantastic role model for women, but she can...you know...ACTUALLY SING!
@@Emberilliance I thought Anna Kendrick would have been a good choice
When Emma Watson sings I sometimes forget if it's her voice doing it or an AI
Yeah I know
It's a joke
Hatsune Watson?
I heard worse singing and no it's not Pierce Bronson nor Russel Crowe
I know shes a good actor but for fuck sake she cant sing and I heard they heavily edited her singing to make it sound listenable too. And of course she threw a fit over that and I was like girl u are an adult not a damn child please!
You know what her singing sounds like? It sounds like that singing android from that “I Feel Fantastic” video.
Sorry Raven, I couldn't get through this movie. Not when I was constantly thinking about the original and how adorable beast was in it.
The original is good, but the Beast is not adorable, he's an asshole almost the entire movie 😶
At least it wasnt horrible like the remake
Eugenia Verónica Bonsembiante I don’t exactly feel like he was an a-hole but I don’t think he’s adorable either just because I don’t think he’s supposed to be anyway.
@@unamed2516 well, everyone has a different opinion about the Beast 😂😂😂 All of them are valid!
@@zoazede2098 he's an antisocial furry with anger issues in a world where furry lovers don't exist who meets a girl who stands up to him so well he has to shut up and calm down, letting him think and form a bond with Bell, who is rescued by him, given freedom to rome the castle, and a library thensize of, well a mansion. Some may ask how can he know she lioed books (been a while so not every detqil is frwsh in my head) but if I do remember his servants did gey hinted that she liked books. Then there's him learning to eat properly, and all the rest we know, where we actually see them bond. Hell in the one with added content we evem get the beast reading for the fitst time in a long time since he was cursed, so he can better bond with her. And when he figjts gaston, he shows mercy to the man who tried to kill him, only telling him to get the f#ck out of his swamp beforr getting backstabbed and unintentionally killing gaston. Was he an asshole ay the start? Yes. Lots of protagonists start out as idiots or assholes or whatever. But they grow. I don't see anything really change in either of them in the 2017 movie. SnobXsnob become....showoff/feminist (aka bigger snob by tossing off her gown dramatically because.....men? Idk man I'm trying).
Eugenia Verónica Bonsembiante sorry but I don’t see being how being stuck in a castle as a hideous beast would put someone in a good mood plus he was even a bit of a dick before he was cursed
Beauty and the Beast has always been my favorite Disney movie. The remake of it as honestly by far my least favorite of the remakes. I have never felt so betrayed on seeing how badly they made this. All in attempt to cover the "plot holes". The only thing I liked about this movie is McDonald's singing (even though she only sang just a little.) and the guy who played Belle's father. It's fine if Raven liked this movie but I am with Bob. I hated this movie.
Major Chris Seeing this movie made me not care about seeing any other type of new remake from Disney.
@@unamed2516 I mean there are a couple of remakes I am okay with. I am one of the few to like Maleficent. But yeah the Beauty and the Beast remake is really the worst.
Major Chris When I saw Maleficent in theaters I kind of liked it but then thought it wasn’t good afterwards. I can’t believe that now their actually going to make a sequel to that, I personally don’t think it’s needed.
Once again, I just watch the reviews because I don't want to even give this movie the time of night on Netflix.
@@FilmmakeroftheFuture I have watched Nostalgia Critic, Lindsay Ellis's and now Bob's reviews on this movie because I wanted to see just how much they say how bad this movie is. They all pretty much say the movie is just a quick cash grab and the fact the lame attempt to cover the so called plot holes which only makes way more plot holes is ridiculous. Like I said, for those who enjoyed the movie, good for them. Me, I never will.
Yeah, this made me wanna watch the animated movie again, sorry Raven, it's just the original movie spoke louder to me, than this movie. I related to that beast more, because I felt like no one wanted me, because of how I looked.
Bijan Hakimian I understand exactly how that feels...
I totally agree, that's why I felt like the Beast and understood his story
Yeah... But the beast was once VERY good looking
As an animator these live action remakes just piss me off because their very nature implies that the animated ones weren't "deep" or "mature" enough. and the thing is like 90% of them rely on animation... it's just "more realistic" (like that somehow makes it better.)
The lead actor in the new Aladdin movie even bragged about how it's so much better because you're seeing "real emotion" (even though it's still just an actor pretending... and if the trailers are anything to go off of, a bad actor to boot.)
a I get that a lot of talented people work on these movies... that doesn't make them good, I'd argue it makes it worse because now all their talent is being wasted. Just look at The Lion King, so much obvious talent wasted on what's going to be a shot for shot remake but with less emotion (making the animals look so realistic hinders what you can do with them really.)
Sorry about this rant, these things just really stir me up.
re: Aladdin - Wow, fer real? Because the whole Will Smith thing wasn't rocky ENOUGH, I guess?
Gosh...that’s HORRIBLE
@@Bobsheaux bring back this opening theme song its YOUR theme!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What emotion? That stupid actor HAD no emotion. Unless we count smug. He did smug I guess
No PLEASE get stirred up. More people should be angry about what Disney is doing to these beautiful classics.
Disney's copyright strike is defeated by...KING BOB!
ALL GLORY KING BOB!
Greatsaiyakirby KING BBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBBBBBBBB!!!!!
14:00 In the animated version, when Beast was shown at the top of the stairs, that scared the holy SHIT out of 3 year old me. I was terrified, but I loved it! THAT is how you make a masterful, intimidating entrance. The 2017 version? I was just like, "meh"
Same😂I was shitting in my pants😂
@@disneydisney1490 Me too. I was 6 and it was first Disney movie I saw in theaters.
Yeah dude, the way the Beast's voice boomed when he yelled was so intimidating and when he grabbed Maurice and took him out the door I remember being legitimately scared as a kid! I didn't like that feeling then but as an adult I'm so grateful for it cuz movies SHOULD make kids spooked, it SHOULD feel like there are actual stakes, it SHOULD feel like there's actual character development. The one thing I never was when watching the original film was bored.
One thing that bothers me about the Gaston song is they really over did it with the red. The central characters get lost because there is so much red in the background!
They did the same thing with all the blue background characters and Belle's main outfit. She blended in too much.
It's like M. Night Shyamalan directed this film.
I hated this movie, but I loved the sweet little scene with bells father in the beginning. Were he sings with and works on the music box
That's one of the few improvements this movie made. Actually, the only improvement.
@@ariaalexandria3324 AGREED
Honestly I'm not even sure why Disney is making live action versions of they're classic animated movies who asked for them in the first place?
It’d be the best if Maurice said that Bell’s mum was odd instead of fearless, but it is a really great scene
Same
10:47 - 11:08 WHEN WILL PEOPLE JUST LET WOMEN USE WASHING MACHINES?!- My God, that sounds sexist, "Beauty and the Beast". 😓
Sebastian Emond hahahahahaha! Nostalgia Critic!
LOL!!!🤣🤣🤣
Is it sexist to say "let men play with their comic books!"
Fitting, because now Bobsheaux is doing Disney Remake month.
You made a Nostalgia Critic reference!
Raven is being frustratingly stubborn in this video.
Alexander John Babbage she’s annoying..
Eugenia Verónica Bonsembiante 🤨well shit that escalated quickly...you ok bro?
Hipstershy well I don’t like her acting lol
Yay. More sexism from stupid internet trolls looking for attention.
nkbujvytcygvujno stfu I don’t like her because she’s annoying not because she’s a girl...
"you know Astral projection and we have been talking through skype..." this is LEGIT the best joke I heard about Astral Projection. Also, your comparisons to the original movie just made me realize how much I miss hand-drawn animation...
Might I suggest anime?
@@gothnerd887 thats the same as saying "may i suggest cartoons?"
@@gothnerd887 oh, I LOVE anime *points to my own icon* and japanese animation does restores my faith in it, especialy Hayao Miyazaki and Mamoru Hosoda.
You should see Mary Poppins Returns, if you haven't already. It has the feel of the original movie, or of any older movie, it's well-done, fun, and funny, and it actually brings back hand-drawn animation. Even if it's only temporary, at least it's there.
@@albertschoise8091 buuurn, you filth
I am so glad I am not the only one that was disappointed in this movie
REPO PIG Yeah I myself pretty much hate it but I still can’t help watching it on Netflix for the visuals and other stuff.
@@unamed2516 I just wished it was so much better, I went to the first showing of it and I was just so disappointed.
REPO PIG Yeah I know it just hurts inside to see a movie you like be remade so badly. I mean the original isn’t awesomely perfect, their are little things I don’t like in it but it’s still much better than the 2017 remake.
I don't like computer enhanced movies anymore
I like the 80s and 70s quality of video better
It doesn't get anymore actuallistic than that
Ash Kitt it seems like Disney seems to also favor English actors like they did in wonderland and Snow white
I'm convinced that Disney classics seems to really favor the Europeans
Maybe the Gaston from Disney World should have taken the part
@Brandon Roberts No one hangs onto their dignity like GASTON!
Disney World Gaston died.
Good actor=/=good singer. And vice versa.
You seem to be under the impression that emma watson is a good actor.
@@ilikecookies9796 Not really. I just think Raven made a poor defense for Emma Watson's singing.
@@Sparking_Roar97 Agreed!
This cant be Beauty & The Beast, it is missing Old Man. Without Old Man, Beauty & The Beast is....completely worthless now...HHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEE!!!
It must have gotten wet.
@@Sean_Bird Ooh! A delicious candle.
It looks like I was expected!
@@michaelstrong5383 *throws daughters in the trash*
Funny that you mentioned phelous because i again I feel that the animated one did it better with removing the stealing roses aspect and just be him trespassing in the first place set him off
If the book is in fact just astral projection, then how did Belle take the tin rose from her old home?
Because potatoes.
@@mitchfletcher2386 No, no, no, say it like this: "Because shut up."
@@artbytesia That works, too.
Xanegoh great question, no idea
It's proof that it's not a projection. She was there to interact.
I definitely went to see this and was determined to give it a chance, but I was so let down. (Heck, my account name is inspired from Belle since she's one of my favorite fictional characters ever.) Something I appreciate Bobsheaux and even Nostalgia Critic pointing out is the lack of emotion. For example when Beast let's Belle go back to Maurice, we see Beast gently touch the bell jar and looks sadly at the wilting rose. He looks so devastated to let her go and his voice is on the verge of tears. So much emotion in the hand drawn animation and yet the live action doesn't seem to have as much soul. Not going to bash anyone who likes this, but that's my perspective.
And don't forget when he gives Belle the mirror and touches her hair tenderly as he tells her to take it so she would look back remember him...that was so sweet and touching, this version is just Beast reading lines
@@ingridsuperfreak That's so true on both points! Touching Belle's hair shows how gentle he's become and a nonverbal way of saying he loves her. 2017 Beast sounds like he's reading lines instead of acting. Shame too since the actor has been great in other movies.
Im a 32 year old man...and i will.never be ashamed to admit this is in my top 5 favorite stories
Urgh this movie is so unnecessary to even exist...
I didn't really have any thoughts on this remake. It's the remake of Mulan that I'm dreading.
I'm Hyped~
I honestly could really see a Mulan live-action remake work really well provided they handle it a certain way, which they probably won't, but you can't blame a guy for dreaming lol
I would love to see it play out like a mix between a Kung Fu film and a period piece on top of the deeply personal story that it tells. I would actually like to see it done with subtitles if possible, as I think hearing the words spoken in Chinese (I'm guessing Mandarin specifically given the time period, but I really wouldn't know for sure.) with English subtitles would give it a better flow, although it would probably make a couple of songs a bit more difficult, but I think it could be made to work well regardless.
When I stated that I would like to see some of its structure resemble a Kung Fu film, I don't mean the Wuxia elements. (The flying around and over-the-top aerial moves, etc.) I would really like to see the action performed with the careful and expertly-handled choreography that you would see in a high budget martial arts film. (Movies like Red Cliff and The Lost Bladesman are good examples of how to combine historical elements with impressive action that still remains relatively grounded in some form of reality.)
If there is one thing I would suggest NOT doing, it's pulling a live action genie on us with the ancestral spirits, and for the love of GOD don't mess up Mushu!!! Granted, I'm not sure how to make his character work outside of animation, but I'm sure something could be done. Maybe they could alter it a bit so that his physical form can show expressions of his feelings physically, but have his dialogue be heard by way of telepathy of sorts so they wouldn't have to animate his mouth moving. It's probably a bad idea that wouldn't work, but it would be an understandable change of some kind. After all, Mushu is a dragon, not a lizard. He doesn't do that tongue thing :P
As for cast suggestions: I would suggest Michelle Yeoh as Mulan's mother, Andy Lau as Captain Lee Shang, (I think that was his name, but I haven't seen the film since I was a little kid and I'm currently 26.) Although I forget his name, I think the actor who played Kublai Khan in the Netflix series Marco Polo would make for a perfect villain in the form of the Hun leader. Jackie Chan would make an awesome choice as Mulan's father, and Jet Li would be a cool Emperor because he has that calm but wise demeanor that would suit him for the role perfectly. As for the voice of Mushu, I would go with Chow Yun Fat, as he can be pretty good with comedic dialogue, and is capable of switching from jokes to sincerity on the dime.
As far as side characters go, I don't have many concrete ideas, but a couple are: Captain Shang's father (The General) played by Sammo Hung, and sadly I can't think of any suggestions for the Minister, Yao, Chin Po, or the skinny one, (I can't remember his name off the top of my head.) I also don't know who I would pick for the ancestors, but that would be bound to be hilarious either way lol
As for the role of Mulan specifically, I would probably go with someone who is either not well-known yet, or someone who is known but looks believably young enough to play the character. I would've suggested Maggie Q, but I only remember what she looked like from the movie, "Hero," (also starring Jet Li as the main protagonist) and that was made a while ago now. (Early 2000's I think.)
Of course, I think it's certain that Disney would NEVER put in this kind of thought and effort into making a live-action Mulan film stand out when they could easily go for marketable and nostalgia-grabbing in order to make a quick buck based on their tactics of manipulation, the likes of which they have thrived on with at least a few of their film franchises for years. I still think it's a fun topic to think about and discuss though :)
@Hannah Papernick-Yudin No, from what I've heard, "Be Prepared" is confirmed.
@@Godzillakingofkaiju1 Seriously? HELL YEAH!!!
Hey, at least it won't be a musical... then they won't have to ruin the songs
29:07 - 29:16 Hahaha, so *romantic!* He nearly killed the only hope he has of breaking the curse! Hahaha hahaha!
jbiehlable Libtard agenda
@jbiehlable Shameless Pandering?
IT'S BACK! Was so upset to see this in my sub box marked "1 hour ago" only to find it was already down. Glad to finally see it!
I JUST REALIZED A PLOT HOLE
If the enchantress erased everyones memory if the castle then how is beast suppose to fall in love with someone? NO ONE KNOWS HE EVEN EXISTS!!!
More confirmation of what a crazy bitch she is.
@@Bobsheaux Agreed.
Emma Watsons 'Wonderful Actress'
Gag me. Her talent never progressed past Harry Potter 2
Never in my life have I heard greater truth.
So true it hurts.
Yeah, even here, I still see her as Hermione rather than Belle.
@@michaelstrong5383 I think that's how it's always going to be
She just isn’t a talented singer.
I had a lot of issues with this remake, but now watching this I realize another big one. In the original, I actually felt empathetic for the Beast from beginning. He's scary, he's mean, you can feel there's more than that. The way he's attracted to Belle but doesn't think he'll ever have a chance because of how he looks, just how distraught and helpless he is about this situation in general--it really makes him feel relatable and human. In the remake he just feels like a snooty jackass that I don't want to be around at all.
"She's the daughter of a common thief! What do you think that makes her?" Um, okay, but you don't really have a lot of options here, pal. And time is running out, so maybe you should at least try. You're fate is not the only one at stake here--EVERYONE ELSE IS LITERALLY GOING TO TURN INTO SOULLESS FURNITURE. But she doesn't suit your tastes? Okay, by all means, let your one chance go by!
I don't feel anything for remake Beast, except exasperation. If he's such a stuck up ass, then he can just STAY a beast for all I care.
The original Beast was also rather cute in his awkwardness when trying to be nice and him being a child when his transformation happen just adds on the tragedy, we really don't know how long it was in this film (could've been a few months to a year for all we know.) but it doesn't really have the same weight as the transformation didn't seem cause an psyche issues to him like in the original and is pretty much cosmetic.
Basically the animated Beast is socially akward? Yeah, I prefer that.
The CGI would be one thing, but I hate this version of the Beast.
Animated was cursed a kid and feeling the task was impossible just resigned to his fate.
Is it a cruel curse to place on kid? Yes, the Enchantress is a fairy (Remember the one that thought being snubbed an invite was worth killing a kid)
This one is stuck up and has daddy issues, aside from the shot of the bones, nothing implies him becoming animal.
(Also minor nitpick that's in this film to "fix" something in the original. A son of King isn't called a "Prince" in France they are called "Dauphin". Prince would be the title of the ruler of a Principality, so the Beast's parents can be dead and he still be called a Prince and not a King. A young child being put in a position of power with no guidance but servants that cater to his every whim, yeah that doesn't do enough to explain his personality pre-curse at all.)
Um it never said the Enchantress was a fairy in the original. It just said "Enchantress." Implying that this Enchantress is related to Maleficent is strange as well because she isn't an enchantress. She was called, I think, just an evil fairy. The three good faries from Sleeping Beauty aren't related to her they just all happen to be the same species and all have magical powers, what matters is how they were used. Also, don't bother trying to link movies that were never related.
❤️ The original Beauty and the Beast is one of my favourite Disney films ❤️
I remember walking out of the theater after seeing the remake in the theater and I just looked at my sister and said “What the HEKK was that?!” My biggest issue was how everything was rushed. And the wolf attack scene had much less impact than the original did. And the end transformation was such a letdown; they rushed through it.
My biggest issue with Emma Watson was her portrayal of Belle. One word: condescending.
I agree Emmy Rossum would have been perfect. Or Anne Hathaway
My sis-in-law suggested Anna Kendrick the other day. YES! SHE'D be perfect too! You dropped the ball SO hard on this, Disney.
YEEES. Emmy Rossum is a little too old to play Belle now but if Disney would have done this remake 10 years ago Emmy would have done perfectly. She is the kind of actor and singer to pull off Belle.
I have to say this. Beauty and the Beast was my favorite disney movie growing up. As a kid, I identified with Belle. I loved the story, the romance, everything. So believe me when I say that I absolutely HATE this remake. It's insulting to the original and a real waste of time. I've never felt like someone slapped me in the face with a movie until this one.
Hey Bob, just a bit of constructive criticism, maybe you could try turning your intro volume down a bit to match the rest of the video? I find myself turning the volume way down during the intro but turning it back up a decent amount to listen to the rest of the video; I've tested it on a few different devices too to see if it was on just one device but it's on all of them. :)
So, the servants were punished along with the beast because an eleven year old wasn't letting an intruder inside of the castle like his parents always warned him not to do because they could have ulterior motives, their memories of their friends and family inside and outside of the castle were erased, they wouldn't be living objects for all eternity but rather turn into inanimate objects which means they would be dead and where does the soul of a candlestick go?, and nobody inside and outside of the castle would've had memories of the friends and families of the object servants who pretty much died. Some "all-knowing angel" the enchantress is. She's a f***ing psychopath! The enchantress is on the levels of maleficent. In fact, she puts maleficent to shame. WTAF.
Yeah Maleficent was fine with just killing a kid, the Enchantress spent 10 years mentally torturing one and his entire staff.
Gaby Droz exactly. Maleficent was evil, but this fairy is just psychotic.
I've heard people dissect the original movie and they even say Gaston had his reasons for wanting to kill the beast since he found out there was this mysterious castle holding a monster that held belle hostage and for all he knew belle was suffering from Stockholm syndrome when coming back to ramble how great he was after maurice said otherwise before.
He's here to kinda be the village's protector and then he finds out theres a dangerous monster out there, of course he's not gonna think it's not dangerous and sweet, he doesn't know what it could do and he already took belle hostage.
Combine that with the fact beast was 11 when she transformed him and it's reasonable for him to not trust her at that age and the only real villain of this story seems to be the enchantress.
One thing I can say that doesn't work with the movie is that in an attempt to look "woke" they actually end up being even more backwards. By putting in more explanations, it just opens up bigger plotholes. As said before, changes like the house being in the middle of the village really makes Belle less of an outlier thematically. Also cutting out the wedding scene lessens the impact of why Belle is so pissed off and again downplays how Gaston sees her as a prize to be won. Also the Beast is much more like the Jean Coteau version, where he's more an aristocratic mannered guy. In contrast with how Beast is more of an animal, which the 2017 version failed to convince.
I'm five minutes in and I'm confused.
The Bobsheaux lore is more confusing then Kingdom Hearts.
My favorite kind of intruders are the totally expected ones.
If you're going to intrude, at least have the courtesy of waiting to be invited first.
"Looks like I was expected! HEEEEEEEEEEEE!"
@@masterofgaburincho "Ooh, a delicious candle!" *gulp*
@@mitchfletcher2386 Phelan's Beauty and the Beast review. MAGAWD! I've forgotten it completely!
The movie: "Black noble women, because what's historical accuracy?"
A few scenes later..
"Look how oppressed the women are in this century!"
To be fair, considering it's from disney, it feels much more pandering and unecessary than if it was from a different place.
"Ya know Amy, anytime someone brings up the breaking of gender norms, it ultimately undermines the concept of gender equality by implying THIS is the acception, and NOT the status quo."
@@wastelandlegocheemyeah, Knuckles is right. Show, but don’t tell.
I saw this a few nights ago and it pales to Disney’s original animated classic by a good deal. The Jungle Book was good, Maleficent was flawed, and I’ve never seen Cinderella remake.
Cinderella is bland
Apart from Cate Blanchett trying her best, you're not really missing much for the Cinderella remake.
I liked Jungle Book a lot actually, they expanded on Mowgli's family and I don't mind what they did with Shere Khan.
All of Raven's reasons for liking just seem so desperate and staw-man like. She takes aspects that were done far better in the original and praises the little details and ignores all critisim and even gets mad when Bob debunks it. And when she gives some completely BS reason, Bob stops arguing and acts like she won even though she's just being a bratt who can't actually give any valid reasoning.
Yeah, Raven was kind of insufferable in this review.
She’s not in all of his reviews right? Because if she is, this going to suck 🙄🤦♀️
Pussy whipped
Beemanq WHEEEEZE
@@jostockton. Yeah, but you shouldn't use straw men to make points. You should actually give valid points and show 2 sides of an arguement.
I wouldn't mind Raven as much if she actually acknowledges Bob. He debunks all of her points and she gets mad instead of offering anything else.
17:19 "Just because it's a remake doesn't mean it has to be a carbon copy" would be a great argument for defending this movie... if it wasn't 95% carbon copy.
Apologies for mentioning another reviewer, but Lindsay Ellis was beautifully succint, "Thanks Disney, I hate it!"
I love that review. I 100% agree with everything she says.
@Oriental Studios wait she did what? when did that happen.
@Oriental Studios WTF???
My goodness this movie is full of unfortunate implications! Funny how all this insistence on "representation" and being "progressive" ends up creating the very problems it claims to be trying to solve!
When she invents the *washing machine,* it has long since passed the point of complaining about representation.
That's what happens when you call yourself getting all political in what's supposed to be a form of entertainment. Hence the current saying nowadays, "Get Woke, Go Broke!"
@@cartooncritique6625
By this point we need a saying for people that try to hard to call out the "wokeness" of others.
@@Bezaliel13 Do we really? Especially when most people claiming to be "woke" are just pandering trend-chasers looking for a metaphorical pat-on-the-back for pretending to be "progressive"; and that goes triple for the pretentious "Suits" who make-up mainstream.
@@cartooncritique6625
I personally have never heard anyone call themselves "woke," but I have seen plenty of videos complaining about others trying to be "woke," like most videos ranting on the She-Ra reboot, channels centered around complaining about comics, Captain Cummings, sometimes Bobsheaux, Alpha Jay's video about representation not being ground breaking, and channels that I would logically avoid when I would be against the "woke hunting" crap.
p.s.
I was vague about the comics, excluding Captain Cummings, one because I think Diversity changed to "ya boi Zack" or something.
I can finally watch the video, Bob!!!
If Angry Cartoon Beast doesn't scare the pants off of you, Angry Ghost Raven will!!!!!
A ghost Raven that's also your girlfriend
That's what makes it scarier!
@@scourgeanimations444 ok
Sidenote so my first comment doesn't run too long: Emma Watson's issue with the dress was the corset they wanted her to wear as part of it, calling it oppressive and unfeminist. She then designed the lame dress we see in the film herself.
Hey Emma, maybe you should've thought about stuff like this before accepting the lead role in a period piece.
Man, I'm Hispanic and if I see a movie showing something as unrealistic as Hispanics in equal terms with the French aristocracy in pre-Revolutionary France I'll be more offended than flattered
👏👍
I think Brendan fraser should play Gaston.
@jbiehlable Me too!
Him or Henry Cavill.
@@arnold20139 No one escapes Planet Krypton and gets superpowers like GASTON!
Watch doom patrol. Brendan Frasier won't look much better as Gaston these days
Idk, man. I cannot stand things like Twilight and Fifty Shades of Grey (this one is really on principal) and if I had a partner insist on me just sitting there and "enjoying" them even though I am very vocal about why I despise them, I'd have to reconsider my relationship. I mean, yeah, little thing in the grand scheme of things and I might do it as a gesture but to be forced? To have one sit there and say I am mad at you because you will not watch this thing you do not like that's a little close to coercion and control and therefore close to abuse.
I mean, yeah this is a framing device and a joke but it still is an uncomfortable trope in media where a guy is made to suck things up in this manner. Especially to someone like Bob who willing goes along with other things like dressing up as a Troll or wearing an outfit in a review or even reviewing things he doesn't necessarily want to because it makes Raven happy. Like it is sweet the effort he goes to to make Raven happy within the narrative of these reviews and it is heartbreaking to have Raven go "I am mad at you for this one thing". I mean, I am pretty sure Raven is very sweet to Bob in real life and this is not how she would normally react to something as an actual person, just idk it is a harmful narrative when you take other reviews in context. Like again from the show's perspective Bob does things just to make her happy and normally it is sweet because there is a feeling that "Bob doesn't have to do this". This just colors it differently like "Bob should be doing this because he is a male and insensitive to his ladies feelings and should suck it up because that is what a boyfriend does". And yeah this has been done before but this seems to cross a line. Like from a narrative perspective it wasn't a review he was doing for her, he didn't want to watch one movie and she decided to haunt him. To torment him.
Again I know it is just a framing device I just, don't like it. Other than that the review is of the high quality that I always expect, including how Bob and Raven look at the movies from two different perspectives. That is always fun in their reviews. Just you know, made me think of some abusive relationships and I have been through and I wanted to point out why I feel this is not indicative of what should be normal or acceptable as this is something that is normally betrayed as normal and acceptable.
Also I am sorry I cannot sit here and just enjoy the review fully and I would love for this to be part of a larger narrative where it is a manifestation of his guilt or something.
That would fix this complaint for the most part.
You're quite correct in how Raven is VERY sweet to me in real life. She'll do anything she can to treat me like nothing less than a king. She "laments" in this review about how movies used to be something that you just ENJOYED, not STUDIED, but she enjoys my commentary about whatever movie we're watching, even on Date Night. I've even poked fun at Moulin Rouge, which both of us really enjoyed. But I learned the hard way that there's a limit, I.E. I don't want to make my special lady feel STUPID for enjoying something of which I'm not particularly fond. The back-&-forth you see between us in this review happens pretty much with EVERY movie I'm taking notes on, just to make sure I've got as clear a picture of what's happening and why as possible. (I was pretty on-board with her theory of the magic book using ASTRAL PROJECTION instead of teleportation, until that damn rattle destroyed it. lol) It isn't "I'm trying to get you to like this, or shut up!!", but more like "You should know that THIS is what's actually happening before you form your opinion." We see it a lot more in this review than in others because... well, that's more or less how it went down during Date Night, when it wasn't supposed to.
And bear in mind this isn't about me not WANTING to watch the movie; I've seen enough remakes that were decently made (thank you, Tim Burton lol) to make me want to give this one a chance. Me not wanting to REVISIT it is played up mostly for laughs, since it's generally true of ALL the movies I review. "Wow, did that movie suck. Oh God, I'm gonna have to watch it AGAIN as I write and edit this review! NOOOO!!!!!" lol
Like her counter-arguments to some of my points, I know I can't make you LIKE this narrative device, but hopefully I've done a good job of explaining what's going on.
Bobsheaux Oh! I’m so envious of you guys, you’re such a sweet perfect couple 😊 it would be nice to find my perfect someone to treat me so adoringly. I haven’t had the time to watch your full review but already knowing I would agree with you I gave it a like and plan on trying to watch it soon when I can.
Fairy tales and fantasy are not the same genre. There is overlap but the big difference is Fantasy is about building your own unique system and world of logic, while fairy tale is all about giving logic a back seat while leading you through the story with emotion.
Harry Potter is a fantasy because it has it's own in universe rules for how it's magic system, and government, and education works, but in stories like Pinocchio you remember how terrifying the donkey transformation sequence was, and it probably wouldn't have had the same scary effect if they walked you through how that magic worked. In Snow white, not explaining how the prince found her and woke her up is not nearly as important as how wonderful it feels that this nice young woman isn't dead. (That's also why I disagree with you on comparing white people in Wakanda to black people in pre-revolutionary France. Black Panther is science fantasy not a fairy tale)
That's just the way Fairy tales are, and that's not to say that fairy tails can't be criticized but nit picking about how something isn't realistically logical in a in a fairy tale is like complaining that it's not realistic to spontaneously break out into a song and dance number in a musical. Maybe you can't get into that, well then it's just not your genre. Some people can't get into horror or war spy thrillers because they just don't like the trappings that come with that genre. That's fine, to each their own
The reason I bring this up is because these live action remakes suck because they are trying to half ass-idly turn fairy tales into fantasy and it's not done well or with respect to the story.
"Why don't the peasants know about the castle?" "What's the backstory to the beast being so mean in the first place?" "What did the castle workers do to be held responsible for the prince's actions?" . All of these questions focus on the wrongs things. There's a beautiful and simple story here about forgiveness, and choosing being a better person, and finding love in strange places but we gotta bring everything to a screeching halt to explain these little things that don't help move the story along, have nothing to do with the themes at best and get in the way of the themes at worst. and in it's place we get rid of actual important parts, like the Beast becoming be a better person.
To quote Cogsworth, “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.”
These remakes to me are the perfect example of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
I agree with ya Bob this movie sucks
doubt it
Okay, my biggest problem...
WhY iS thE GRaY sTuFf cAvIEr iNSteAd oF a mySTeRy
I think Disney does have an official recipe for the "grey stuff" that they provide at Disney world so people can make it themselves. But I don't know if they will tell you what it is or not.
There is an official recipe. It’s a frosting for cookies made from Oreos and pudding. It’s really good on top of sugar cookies. Highly recommend.
Because at 37:39 of course she's in her undergarments. That's how super heroes fight for justice.
So what is the point of these live action remakes when MARVEL alone makes Disney enough money to buy all of Scandinavia and rename it Arendelle?
Oh God, no!! Don't give them any ideas!! O_O
Dear men,
All you have to do in order to write female characters and appease your average modern moviegoer -even the most staunch of tumblr "feminists" who took a whopping one Women's Studies course in college- is write them as people. This means that they would be constrained by the ideals of their time and framed by that culture. If a female character is trying to fight the system that kept her oppressed it needs to be subtle, otherwise she would likely be imprisoned, brainwashed, banished, or killed ("corrective rape" happened too, but this is a Disney film). Also, there's nothing wrong with a girl liking pretty clothes and still being intelligent. Just try to think about how SHE feels wearing the dress rather than showing it off for horny male viewers and your writing will still be spectacular.
Note: I'll admit that I never cared much for Belle in the original movie because I think she's a little too perfect, but here she's waaay too much of a jerk who's fixated on her mom and the past because… that's important, I guess. Screw implications and dialog that allows characters to bond naturally and quickly. Just show what happened. It doesn't bog down the movie at all. The motto "show, don't tell" works 9/10 times, but this is the one time the filmmakers SHOULD have just told that in a clever way.
THANK YOU!! I feel like this is something people have lost sight of these days. All you have to do to write good female, black, gay, transgender (or whatever) characters is to write them as CHARACTERS first, and let everything else flow out naturally through the narrative. These days I swear it's like they write these movies with a checklist on a clipboard. Nothing is subtle, it always feels forced, and it generally comes across like the writers have spent WAY too much time on Tumblr! :/
I agree with you in that a strong female character shouldn't feel forced or in your face.
However, I am starting to understand why many people (feminist or simply egalitarian) are upset and concerned about misogyny. I have seen many hateful men who view women as emotional and simple creatures that are out to destroy society. While I know that feminism has extremists and deserves criticism, it goes to show how a response can also go too far and become a monster.
Hey, yeah, it's odd to claim "I'm being progressive" when you still use some cliches that have just got to go anyway.
@@cadethumann8605 Blame the shitty legal system, I guess. 🤷♀️ I mean a boy is due to go to prison because his female molester got pregnant, wants back-child support and she gets away scot free all the while feminists are more concerned about video game tiddies destroying society. We have newspaper headlines talking about how 1/4 of the homeless are women...therefore homelessness is a women's issue. We've also got women getting away with knife crime or attempted murder because they're too pretty for prison.
I mean, granted, women really aren't to blame for this. It's more so the men that decided spoiling women rotten and letting them get away with shit was a great idea. But assuming "some" men's paranoia over women just "happened" is stupid. Political narratives don't just fall from the sky.
@@ValD98 I agree that society shouldn't forget that women can be over privileged and/or bad and that men can be victims. Again, as an egalitarian, I wish for people to be fair as possible. Yes, there are differences and certain roles more suited for one (military for men since they are stronger) but I stand by for equal punishment/reward for equal actions.
However, I have seen man many disgusting men who go way to far in there reactions by being straight up misogynistic. They may have an understandable cause, but they don't justify the means. For instance, I have seen men going around shaming relationships and telling men to not marry at all. I tried to talk with these guys and come up with peaceful compromises but since I didn't align with their agenda nor view all women as evil, I was called "blue-pilled" and disregarded.
As geralt of rivia has said, evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling. If I were to choose between one evil and another, I simply rather not choose.
It's like this movie's writers forgot that the original story was written in the 1700's equivalent of a woman's magazine as a way to give girls hope that arranged marriage wouldn't be absolutely terrifying. Which means girls reading wouldn't be controversial just odd that Belle does it to the extent that she does. Though in the original novel, she was praised for her education and her sisters were scorned for not paying attention to theirs. As an adaptation of either the book or the animated classic this version fails.
Actually the plot hole with the lyrics in Be Our Guest is explained in a flashback in Beauty and the Beast: the Enchanted Christmas where it reveals Beast was, in fact, a child.
Nobody reboots like Gaston. Except in this version he is not at all likable here.
17:19 "Look, just because it's a remake, it doesn't mean it has to be a carbon copy of the original."
So... does that mean it shouldn't have logic into it?
You know I'm pretty sure Bob here has hated most of the Disney live action remakes. Eventually he will get to Aladdin and Lion King at some point in either the near or far future. The popcorn will be waiting
Jacob Childress I’m so unhappy about Aladdin and the 🦁 king. I feel bad for not appreciating the animated ones more when I watched them on cassette. I never once thought they would be changed in the future.
@@unamed2516 What's next? A live-action Lady and the Tramp?
Oh, wait...
@@artbytesia sadly jon faveru tried really hard with Lion King 2019. But man was that a mess. Disney better triple his pay after that failure and guilting him into making a live action version nobody asked for. POOR GUY! :C
@@somedudewhodraws9377 Walt Disney wasn't even alive when the original Lion King was made.
24:18, he doesn't forget how to use a spoon, he physically CANNOT use it, as he has fangs in his mouth, then in the ballroom scene when he is eating with Belle you can see how he learns to put the spoon between his fangs and slurps slowly to be polite. The original movie did that in a great way
Since Raven is well a bird and the chains represent pain and regret, are those chains a Bird-en to her 😂
6:57 For me, I always assumed that the prince was the ruler of a principality, a tiny nation ruled by, well, a prince. There happen to be three around in Europe today: Andorra, Liechtenstein and Monaco. So why they didn't just handwave the obscurity of a *freaking prince* by making him the ruler of some obscure nation that nobody would know or care about in this day and age when we have Internet, let alone back then when information was spread through word of mouth and the occasional print media, I have no freaking clue.
32:35 Uh... how exactly is getting rid of the gloves a statement of the patriarchy? I mean, I get that this movie was trying to be more feminist - as if we even needed that - but not everything in this movie is trying to be feminist. If that was the case, they'd probably depict Belle ditching the Beast for the wardrobe, because apparently just being with a man means you need a man.
I agree on the "Prince", a young child being in position of power without proper guidance and instead having servants cater to him would've better been a better explanation than daddy issues for his personality. (Also, what is with making Kings tyrants in order to make the actions of a insulted fairy look justified?)
As for the dress, Watson herself said it was to be a feminist statement, it really just showed her ignorance of period costumes and clothing history.
@@CoolG97 If she really wanted to be more feminist without ignoring historical accuracy, she should've just been in a movie set in the modern day. Why does she think _Inside Out_ was better received than _Brave_ , for example?
Also, if she really thinks gloves are somehow sexist against women, then I guess we should denounce _The Buzz on Maggie_ as sexist, because it *dares* to depict its female protagonist with Mickey Mouse gloves. Oh, the horror(!)
@@nnewt8445 Funny you mention Modern Day, there's a modern retelling called Beastly that while not good does a better job than this film.
@@CoolG97 Well, I think I should check that film out at some point. Thanks for pointing it out! :)
@@CoolG97 Right. Emma has no fucking CLUE what corsets were for. She says she didn't want to wear one since she didn't want girls to get the wrong idea about how you have to be thin to be pretty...while she's already only 24" in the waist. Aside from even the correct silhouette, corsets helped support the weight of heavy skirts and distributed the weight over the torso for rich women. For provincial women, it provided back-support. I'm literally wearing a corset right now for back support. A legit actual corset, though there is medical back-support based on the the exact same things as a corset. If Emma wanted to avoid the message about thinness, then she could have worn a corset made in such a way that her waist looked a few inches bigger. I went into all of this, and a hell of a lot more, on my blog. The pinned post at the top has the links. ariacouture.com/blog . This movie just bothers me so, so much, and most of it comes down to changes Emma wanted.
( Sarcastic tone) I’m some glad that Bell was made an inventor and she invented a washing machine, then never invents anything else. It was just so needed.
That and unlike other inventors from other kids films like Lewis from Meet the Robinson, or the professor from nutty professor or the guy from Chatty chatty bang bang . Bell gives up after one invention, which is a great lesson for kids.
And you know, the fact that other characters wear blue.
THANK YOU.
@@Bobsheaux Considering that was one of the reasons why they found Belle so weird.
I guess they forgot.
The Beast in the original after he saves Belle from the wolves: '' I never felt that for anyone esle before. I want to do something for her... but what? '' That means he see she is a good person, respects her and wants her to be happy. Aaaaaww 🥰
The beast in the remake: '' She's a daughter of a thief! '' then later '' You can start with a few books here. '' He's a jerk and a show-off, insults her tastes for books and never appologise for it. His attitude is horrible!
The Enchantress is a villain in this movie. Not only she put a spell on the castle and people who did nothing wrong to her BUT she also separated families, whipe their memories AND didn't helped Maurice after saving him from the woods. She let an innocent man gets beated by the villagers. I am supposed to find her kind? Nope, can't happen!
Im not even a fan of the original, but even l felt betrayed with thid movie. Omg! I hated this thing. From the trailer l said it looked horrible, and horrible it was.
I usually love Raven, but in this review she just comes off as stubborn and kind of unlikable. Her arguments film-wise are pretty weak, and when Bob suggests ways to improve the movie she jumps in with "No! I like it! How dare you not like it!"
If he was saying all these things during the actual date I get why she might get annoyed. But this is a review... one she "allowed" him to make (right after asking him to make it while he refused?)
seconded.
The only thing that's going to cure that lame and tame beast is a damn Snickers. Everyone is just so soft spoken. No roar, no wobbly notes when Lefou is singing. It's just meh.
They could have fixed the humility by asking for a rose part by having her father insist on getting her something despite her telling him she is perfectly happy until she finally says "how about a rose -to brighten up my favorite reading window?" Or something.
And had they included Beast struggling over the decision to let her go, the uplifting solo could have been saved. He has lost to the curse but saved his soul. Belle is gone but he isn't weighed down by keeping her prisoner. Her freedom is all he needs even as he mourns her leaving him.
One little criticism of you. You mention that in the time that this movie is set (probably ~1700), being gay would be a big no-no, but in fact, during this time France was actually unexpectedly accepting of homosexuality (or at least the nobles were, can't say for the peasantry and the Clergy was definitely against it). The Court of Louis XIV (who reigned from ~1640-1720) was full of out-and-proud homosexuals and bisexuals, most notably the king's own brother, Phillip of Orleans. In fact, I remember the story about one bisexual noble who would have very implicit relations with all sorts of men (including the aforementioned brother Phillip) and everyone was perfectly fine with it, but what _did_ get him in trouble was trying to get into a heterosexual relationship with the King's favorite mistress.
edit: That being said, they still only made Lafou gay for the sake of being gay while simultaneously making him even less important to the story.
Or how about the irony that quite a large percentage of women COULD read, and that Belle wouldn't be special just for reading. Belle being a romantic and a *dreamer*, and loving it so much was her main trait in the original. She loved fantasy and romance, as stated in her song. Somehow Emma Watson tried to be all feminists but bollixed everything by not realizing women could already read. For aristocracy, female literacy rate was 85% (To men's 90+) Among merchants and soldiers (her town) and the like it was 65% F/ 80% M. The absolute worst literacy measures of France in that time period was 30F-45M for rural farmers, and that was measured at the time of marriage not an ongoing study of any sort. Even then, these numbers are of those who can read AND write. Those who could read enough to get by, religious readings, almanacs and work-like readings, etc but not necessarily write correctly, they aren't included in those numbers. So yeah, the sneering in this movie? Nonsense. Nearly all of those people would read religious texts, and the majority would casually read as well. Only a tiny percentage would be truly illiterate.
Folfelit Foloulafé admittedly, that I did not know, though it does make sense.
So one problem with the Astral Projection theory on the book that still makes no sense.
What;s the point of the Mirror then? he has this magic book that STILL let's him see anywhere in the world. So, what's the point of having a mirror that's supposed to do the same thing?
Mirror is for finding people, book is for seeing places only?
My judgement on remakes is always "If this were the original would it be liked enough that we be remaking it today?" And while I did have issues with it, I didn't hate it as much as you. I do think this qualifies.
I just dislike them because they seem like make-money-fast attempts by Disney and copouts for filmmakers who are too lazy to come up with original plots and characters. It's really sad how I came up with a more original idea in ten or so seconds yesterday than most of the ideas Disney has in recent years. (Sure, there are Zootopia and Moana, but then after that...)
Gaston from the animated movie is supposed to be attractive? O_o
Because I would have never thought so...
Huh, I always assumed the "any other female would do anything to be in her shoes" line was his own ego and the three village girls were into him because of his muscular built, his position as hunter and local "big man", and because their village doesn't offer a lot of options.
But yeah, I suppose there's no arguing about taste, and I suppose if you cut of the head he looks alright, but I always found his features very ugly, especially when compared with other handsome Disney men. @Hannah Papernick-Yudin
I also think he's quite ugly 😁😁😁😁😁
I hate how in the first scene where we see him he calls himself beautiful. It’s one of the examples of how vain he is and how unappealing I found him to be. I think the beast in human form looks better than him.
An where is the muscles they should’ve got the guy that played Aquaman
Ghost-Raven was an absolute delight. Although, it would've been funny if she cursed Bob to become a beast for bad-mouthing the remake. Heck, he could've called himself 'Beast-Sheaux!'
Back when this film came out, I was hoping to avoid it. But when I got home for spring break, my mom was like, 'You will... join me for the remake. That's not a request!' Okay, it wasn't exactly like that, but long-story-short, we saw it, she liked it fine and I was ambivalent towards it. But of course, we both preferred the cartoon. Speaking of which, I love how you analyzed the animation of the original film and used it to demonstrate the issues with the remake. It really helps me remember why I love animation so much, especially regarding Disney's classic hand-drawn features.
Why don't they do hand-drawn anymore? What's with all the CGI gobbledygook these days?
YAY it's back!!!! I've been checking like three times a day!
IMO the use of black extras is just looking for lazy diversity point. Are they significant characters? Do they matter? Are they literally just there to make people go "oh, look, Disney isn't racist" while the entire movie focuses on white people? Either commit to actually changing the story, or don't waste my time.
It's not even July and we're having an early Christmas Carol?
Ta-da! (Must be a Bobsheaux!)
17:26 While it's true a remake doesn't have to be a carbon copy of the original, you have to make changes that make sense.
How about this, add one thing of dialog where the beast tells them he doesn't want to see her out of that cage, that would justify them using the roof to get her to the room (since it would be less likely to bump into him) and it would explain why they are going behind his back.
I remember Emma Watson mentioning on a press tour for the film that this version of Belle was more “feminist” because she invented a washing machine, which the townspeople cruelly then destroyed.
It boggled my mind because I thought to myself:
*”Why? Wasn’t Belle already feminist in the animated film? Did they forget that Belle was a strong, independent woman in the original?”*
In the animated film, Belle was literate, assertive, smart, and not shallow (she even says this about Gaston to her father Maurice: *”He’s handsome, alright? And rude and conceited. Oh papa, he’s not for me.”).*
And sure, there’s nothing wrong with having a female character invent stuff, but the problem is that it doesn’t go anywhere, so it feels like feminist lip service.
Belle invents a washing machine, but the townspeople destroy it. Belle also created a rope made of clothes to help herself escape out of the Beast’s castle through the window, but she stays in her room instead.
If they wanted to make Belle an inventor, she could be more like an apprentice to her father, in which they both invent stuff as a form of father-daughter bonding.
*"YA KNOW, Amy" intensifies*
@@wastelandlegocheem Who’s Amy?
@@beethovensfidelio th-cam.com/video/dWBn0nS8s0A/w-d-xo.html
@@wastelandlegocheem I got it. I thought it was an insult like “shut up, Meg!”. 😂
This movie is the worst of both worlds. A bad movie and a badly portrayed empowerment message. Especially done by emma watson. The girl who went up to the UN (or whatever it was) and complained about rape being taught in universoties everywhere that it's not a big deal. Like, nani the fuck?
To quote miss Lindsay Ellis “thanks I hate it”
just tell your girlfriend to REwatch BOTH of the movies THEN make a HONEST judgement
and can not have difference in FACTS, facts are NOT opinions
this movie is GARBAGE and you Bob perfectly described it
REALIZE it please.
35:38 Does anyone else think it's weird that earlier in the film, Maurice and Gaston couldn't find the castle but during the song, Gaston just found it, no problem? Bob, I'm with you 100%, this movie is ASS!!! sorry Raven...
I've been betrayed! ;)
I've already reviewed this movie! You knew my side for almost a year at this point!!! (P.S. still love you though!)
@@raisorblade Nope...BETRAYAL!!! (Love you too!)
As of right now, I will only watch people review this movie, but not the movie itself.
FilmmakeroftheFuture I do the same things sometimes.
Same.
Smart move! 👍
Must be a Beastsheaux!
The Copyright claim is all wet? It's completely useless now. Heeeee
Then let him die!
Oh, a delicious copyright claim
Oh I remember actually only one Thing from this movie and it was how stupid this feminist symbolism was.
1. why making belle an inventor without it even having a little bit influence on the plot.
2. why acting like teaching a girl to read is disgusting? Reading women were not that rare at this time. The original story of beauty and the beast was even written for women.
3. why making all of the towns people jerks? Just so that people cant even try to empathize with them or why they think that way?
If He’s a “French prince”, why is everyone in the movie British besides Lumier and The feather duster
French Prince of Belgravia
Um potatoes?
Well in the original 1991 film everyone in the film had American accents except for Lumier and the feather duster. And no one really complained about that.
i hated that the servents told belle that they and the beast were cursed by the witch (or whatever she is). because in the original belle fell in love with beast by herself and didn’t even know that he was actually human. that was sweet and added more chemistry between the 2.
Emma Watson’s singing is so obviously auto tuned I think I will call her ‘Soundwave’ instead.
Lol @ 36:05 - 36:24 when he completely debunked the crow/raven chick's "astral projection" theory. The fact that Belle was able to physically take a memento back with her pretty much proves the book is a legit teleportation device.
Yes thank you, with astral projection you can’t physically touch items and take them with you. I was rather annoyed with Ravens remarks on this film when her points were based on “no you’re wrong just because.”Despite the flaws in the film. I enjoyed this movie too, but can admit it has soooo many issues from the original, from lack of emotion and expression to Emma’s auto tuned artificial voice. Her singing has nothing to do with her acting...
In every side by side comparison, it's just so blatant how superior the original was in acting, cinematography, and set design.
The animators had to put more effort into the 1993 film.
Disney, it doesn't matter what role you cast Josh Gadd in. If he's singing in that role, all I'll hear is that in summer, he'll be a...happy snowman.
Oh my gosh, that line in the song is AWFUL!
Actually every peasant girl who marries into royalty within the world of Disney wear gloves!
Cinderella, belle and Tiana!