Whenever I saw “Belle” on screen I never really saw Belle, I just saw Emma Watson. her character never invested me enough to believe that she IS Belle and don’t even get me started on her auto tuned voice...
rusted skarmory same, I saw Hermione trying to play Belle, at least I can give Hermione “well, she’s not an actress”, can’t give the same consideration to Emma Watson...
emma is pretty but she doesnt look like or feel like belle. its ok that she didnt look like belle, but she never really acted like her either and it just looked like she was friends with the beast and but didnt love him.
@@saklee1777 Emma has the girl-next-door look, she's not really ugly, but nowhere close to pretty. In contrast, Belle in the original Disney movie is supposed to be stunningly beautiful and elegant. I'm not even gonna comment on her acting or singing. Also, you can easily find much more professional looking dresses on Etsy than the mustardy yellowish mess of a dress appearing in this multimillion dollar flick. The fact is, I daily pass by DOZENS of absolutely gorgeous women who'd be much more fit for the role of real-life Belle, and some of them are bound to also be better singers, and if self-employed seamstresses on Etsy can easily sew a better dress than a crew of movie wardrobe specialists, you know you screwed up royally.
@@MartianFromMercury, good point. Read up on Dr. Lynn Hunt's writings on the French Revolution; especially "Politics, Culture, and Class in the French Revolution".
Something that’ll make you hate it more? Beast doesn’t even get his own “I love her” line. Yeah. Towards the climax, when Cogsworth asks why the Beast let Belle go, in the original, Beast says, “Because...I love her.” It’s the first time it’s ever said aloud. It shows the audience that he is well aware of his actions, and its consequences. The remake gives Mrs. Potts the opportunity to tell the Beast (and everyone else) how he feels about her, robbing his character of what should be the culmination of his arc. It’s his deal, Mrs. Potts. Nobody asked you.
@Some random person No but its twice as powerful and meaningful coming from a person who has a history with being too arrogant to say anything that could be remotely kind and loving, it shows he came a long way just to be able to say something of the kind with such an ease, that's the whole point.
Dude. I’ve been recently watching a live recording of the production of the Beauty and the Beast Broadway musical that took place in Los Angeles in 1995 that’s available on TH-cam, and in that one, when Cogsworth asks Beast why he let Belle go, the Beast didn’t say his line “Because I love her”, and Mrs. Potts tells the servants how he’s finally learned to love. And that was 22 years before the live-action remake came out. If you don’t believe me, watch the video yourself.
@Regina Takáts Got to disagree. The romance in the original progressed quite naturally in a way that made sense for both characters, so it made sense that she found herself not saying "I love you" until she thought he was dead.
Also, in the original you see how devastated The Beast is when he roars out of a broken heart and here; he just sings out his feelings like he’s bummed out or inconvenienced.
There's a specific scene in each movie that I think really spells out how the remake doesn't understand the original at all. Right as Belle is leaving the castle, and the servants are watching, there's a dialogue exchange where Cogsworth asks why The Beast let her go. In the original animated one, the Beast responds with "Because I love her.", showing his growth as a character and how painful it is for him to watch her go, but his willingness to let her have her own happiness over his humanity. In the remake, they give the line to Mrs. Potts "because he loves her", not only making the line more like exposition instead of character growth, but it robs a huge moment from the Beast and takes away from his arc.
Also the live action makes a massive mistake by adding the possible death of the servants. It makes the Beast letting her go seem like a dick move because he’s basically accepting their execution.
So many small details annoyed me like how the fountain scene with the sheep was skipped, how half the town is wearing blue, and how Belle in the remake wears her special yellow gown outside. In the original she only wears it inside the castle. Gaston never gets to see her in it.
I think one of the things that really annoyed me about Emma, and by extension, the whole film, was realised when I compared her to Lily James and her portrayal of Cinderella in the 2015 live action. We can use their ball gowns as exemplars. For Lily, if you watch her behind the scenes and even in the movie, you can tell that she uses the dress to get into the character of Cinderella - she’s even said that being in the dress made her feel the most in character. With Emma, she insisted on tailoring the dress to what *she* believed Belle should be like. In short, Lily used the opportunity to give us the best Cinderella she could, and Emma used the opportunity to give us the best Emma she could. lmao also that autotune was something else
I wouldn't say that the live action Cinderella movie was perfect it had it's off moments but it was way better then this one (and that's saying something)!You can tell that the actress who played the live action Cinderella was trying to act like the like the character in the live action movie like this comment mentioned she uses the dress to better play the character although the acting and facial expressions in some scenes turn out looking robotic and awkward you can tell shes trying to play the character but Emma Watson unlike the Cinderella actress looks like shes trying to play HER version of the classic character her acting has little to no resemblense to the real belle character and most scenes are just her looking more bored then the actress who played alice in the Tim burton films and she made changes to the costumes to look like her interpretation of bell
Maybe I'm not alone in this, but I'm kinda embarrassed to admit that I hear nothing unnatural about her voice. I guess flatness of her voice has something to do with it?
Tbh, I didn't really care much for Lily James' Cinderella dress, seemed rather underwhelming compared to the dress in the animated film (hard to top something so iconic), but I can respect that James utilized it to get into the character, giving us the sincerity that drives Disney magic. BUT we can agree that Belle's dress in the 2017 BatB was just bad, especially when we've seen far superior interpretations in COSPLAYS!!
I did hear the autotune on her voice but i figured that it would actually help her out like the ones in The Greatest Showman. Hugh Jackman, Zac Efron, Zendaya and the like are actually good/decent singers, so the autotune actually helps their songs. Emma Watson is not a good singer. I wouldn't have minded the autotune if it was used as a tool to improve the singing, not as a useless crutch
That's a shame since She really carried this movie as Madame De La Grande Bouche. Her theater face was uncanny but her voice was truly divine and outstanding. She deserved to sing more often.
Am I the only one who thought, 'Hmm. So Gaston's lifeless body is just lying there in the courtyard while everyone is celebrating and dancing? That'll be a fun discovery for someone!' "Tale as old as-ahhhhhhhhhh! Gaston is dead!"
I don't think he's dead. Sure its possible, but when you look the distance he fell from...he could have survived that..maybe with his legs or back broken though or if some masonry fell on him, then sure he's dead. But when Gaston fell in the animated film, he is absolutely dead.
Also I found her to act really pompous for a character like Belle, who is sweet and warm, but also firm. Like in the original she greets Gaston politely and even when he gets too ahead she's firm, but done with dignity, which made her naturally the bigger/respectable person. In the live action Gaston was actually nice to her when they meet (considering that everyone in the village apparently hates her when in the original no one actually hated her but just thought her odd) and she immediately shuts him down, she was rude to him and held no dignity. I did not have the respect for the live action Belle like I did with the cartoon.
I just presumed he had asked before on multiple occasions. Maybe my memory of the animated movie is warped because I assumed the same in that one too, especially since he had a wedding party already set up if she (finally?) said yes.
I said the same thing a few months ago when I saw the trailers. She acts the same way, she's mainly acts as the same character just with a different name. That wasn't Belle, that was "Emma Watson and the poorly designed CGI Beast".
It also shows that Disney at some point stopped caring about Art, and is now only obsessed with Money. it's sad. I have to wonder what old Walt himself would think of this.
Song asks, "How can a moment last forever? How can a story never be forgotten?" The mouse replies: Just cram a remake, reboot or remaster down their throats every few years. Don't ever let them forget who owns them!
@@arielruh7773 I hate to point this out but, mascots aren't really. They are literally creations of the company so, as a physical representation of Walt Disney's will as a corporation, Mickey Mouse is just as much to blame as the Disney company. If you need proof that even Mickey Mouse isn't above reproach, look at how they're trying to make Mickey Mouse a big deal again by slapping on a 'new' art style that is just the 1940s style with color and sharper lines. I wouldn't feel too bad off by hazarding a guess that a lot of the 'new episodes' are actually just rehashes of old stuff we've seen a million times. Face it, Disney is creatively bankrupt and hoping to survive off the coattails of Marvel and Star Wars until they can find someone to give them a fresh idea. If they can't find someone, they'll buy it off another studio or entity.
One of the reasons that I see that the musical numbers are terrible is because there is no movement. They just stand around and move their mouths, there's no dancing or even walking around. And.....of course the auto tune.
I have seen more facial expression from musicians on stage focussed on doing their art than the actors who are SUPPOSED TO EXPRESS themselves properly in this movie. I mean, they don't even sing that well(barring Audra McDonald). The least they can do is be expressive in their movements so that there is SOME energy in the musical scenes.
I turned off the movie halfway through the "Belle" song, pretty much right at the beginning. The girls singing about Gaston ("Be still, my heart, I must be dreaming!" etc.) were actually what did it for me. In the cartoon, even those random bit background chorus characters were expressive as all get out, with movement and shifting facial expressions and all sorts of little details. And then, in the live movie, they didn't move or express AT ALL. The camera actually gets behind them and you don't even see their faces. They just stand there, stiff as boards, now faceless, and blandly singing on top of it. It was just... sad. And all the characters were like that in the song. I just had to turn it off before my nostalgia was ruined.
@@SomeTH-camTraveler If the main characters hadn't been bland as well, I would almost say everyone else looking and sounding bored and lifeless and stiff and flat was a stylistic choice, to show how dull real life is.
Disney just gave into the whiny trolls bitching and moaning about the original, and everything that was unique and amazing just kind of sort was lost or ruined.
In the words of the great Epic Voice Guy in his La La Land Honest Trailer, “It’s way easier to teach world class singers how to act than it is to teach a world class actor how to sing.”
And that may be true, but I know many theater directors who much prefer casting ACTORS in singing roles than singers. Reason being? Singers focus on singing. It's their craft. They're good at what they do, but that doesn't always translate into good stage presence. In fact, many of them are just prima donnas - so much so that are hard to work with. In other words, you can't just train a world-class singer to act. It can be just as difficult. Singing however CAN be learned. Even folks who have no sense of rhythm can learn to pick up a beat (that was a major point in Mr. Holland's Opus - which is based on real events). For me, I would have to disagree with the premise. My experience is that world-class singers are often a detriment to the stage. I imagine it is similar in film.
Throughout the castle scenes, Belle looks more like she forgot her calculator at the SATs rather than afraid of being in a castle with a beastly looking creature. Actually, scratch that. A person forgetting their calculator at the SATs would look more afraid than her.
The sexist literacy is honestly so stupid and actually ironic. It’s really funny because, in this time period they’re trying to represent, female literacy wasn’t something that was frowned upon. There were even magazines for young women! In fact, the original Beauty and the Beast story was published in one! This just adds a whole other level of stupidity! Thanks Nostalgia Chick for the info I can spread!
Also, women didn’t wear the stereotypical wasp waist corsets Emma Watson complained about until the Victorian era, and the story takes place before then. Not to mention that French peasants couldn’t even wear corsets because back then they were expensive to make, not to mention restrictive and useless when it came to the working class. So while in theory Emma refusing to wear a corset is great because those are the most useless pieces of fashion besides lipliner, she’s also historically inaccurate by assuming all women wore corsets back then all the time.
That’s true, I heard in the original that she actually asked for a rose with three heads. when he went to the castle, and since it was enchanted, he was able to find it and pluck it out which caused the beast to corner him. her father then mentioned that he didn’t mean to take it but really wanted to give it to his daughter who requested for the same rose, and the beast commanded that since he stole something that he loved, her father has no choice but to let his daughter live in the castle with him, not as a prisoner but as a guest.
The Jim Carrey grinch and Doug walker show more emotion and passion than Waston! Hell you know what? The Mike Myres cat showed more emotion and passion than her.
all of these people asking what went wrong with this adaptation aren't asking the only question that matters... *WHERE DOES THE SOUL OF A CANDLESTICK GO?!*
I prefer the original library scene. It was one of my-if not is actually- my favorite scene(s). It gave belle more character and was just nice to see positive interaction with belle and a village person. I bring this up because I haven’t seen anyone talk about it.
Gaston in 1991: *pushes Belle on a wall* Belle in 1991: *politely but rightfully tells Gaston to stop* Gaston in 2017: hi Belle in 2017: BITCH HOW DARE YOU?! CANCELLED!!!
@@matheusmariani3108 remind me of live action Mulan really, there's one scene where the soldier was all like "hi!" and Mulan was all like "STEP AWAY FROM ME, MEN!!!" I don't know why Disney were constantly putting this kind of "strang endependent whoman" agenda on their characters, but instead of making them strong, they're making them a bitch
Yeah, animated Gaston was a massive jerk and actually threatening. Remake Gaston was just a clueless idiot. If anything Belle was more of a jerk than he was.
Because Gaston was literally the best part of the whole movie. Luke Evans and Josh Gad were awesome. Everything else was... Well, what the guy said in the video pretty much says it all lol
It just made me feel bad that he believes in a soul and afterlife. I truly believe that thinking there's an afterlife or soul is bad for people, as it cheapens life. You're less likely to live it to the fullest, if you think there's something coming next. Knowing that death is death, and you simply stop thinking really lights a fire under you, and enriches the one chance you have at life.
That would imply that he additionally believes that the afterlife is exactly the same as this life or that you even retain your sense of self/memories in the event that such a thing exists and occurs.
Emma had such a say in molding belle she totally missed that belle was supposed to be well read and opinionated but OPEN and warm and expressive. Emma is a reserved, standoffish and "above you" even when falling in love. the enchantress and the objects take priority to the main couple. beast never admits he loves her, instead Mrs. Potts does. the director totally missed the point of this movie and had to make it so political and "realistic" instead of realizing this a romance and a fairy tale
Gertrud Bondesson the political stuff you could argue is a lot of black actor randomly placed around the town and castle. Lefou begin more gay and “gay moment” (even if it was only for what 2 sec?). Having a man begin happy wearing a dress. And Belle befinner a inventering and invent a washing machine. These things could be argue begin political and some of these don’t really matter.
There were black people in France in the 1700's, and plenty of previous Disney character have been queer-coded or had effeminate manners, they just din't explicitly say that they were queer back then. As for Belle being an inventor, in the original it was her father that was ostracized for inventing things but painting the townsfolk as small-minded for hating new inventions was present in both movies, the remake was just more blunt about it. Would you consider Dumbo a political movie for portraying bullying and animal cruelty as bad?
Gertrud Bondesson yes, you are correct that there were black people in this time period (French history is not a subject I am strong at) but in 1700s I don’t think that Black was as good treated as they were here in this film with a black pastor/priest, high class black in the beast castle and the “kind” treatment the beast would give to his colored servant. When it comes to queer, the only character that could be argue begin queer imo is pleakley from lilo and stitch (if you could give me some other Disney character that is queer, that would be nice) . But yeah Lefou is the first openly gay character Disney have had. With the science thing, yes Morris was and is a inventor in the animated and the remake. But some people feel like it was forced and unnecessary that Belle is a inventor. Also we all need too think that some people feel that anything that could imply a left ideology is political. Also with the thing I say I may or may not agree. I am just starring what people feel this movie is pushing.
I agree with you 100% on your critiques. In fact I though you were too generous, especially near the end. Here are a few things I thought were unforgivable even if I could forgive everything else, which I can't. 1. Belle's clothes. - modern bra - (because Emma Watson said a feminist like Belle wouldn't wear a corset) like Belle wouldn't wear the underwear of her era? BTW corsets weren't dangerously synched in until the Victorian era. - Bloomers - women from that era wore short panties and stockings up to their thighs. - Hiking her dress up above her knee - that was something only prostitutes did. Belle might have been an independent woman, but I don't think she would advertise herself as a slut. 2. The fact that they have Belle attempting to escape. I know everyone says they liked this, saying that is shows spunk. But the point in the original was that she could have left at any time. Nothing is physically keeping there except... her word. Belle made a promise that she never meant to break. To claim she never intended to keep her word negated the monumental sacrifice in taking her father's place. In fact when she does run away she says this, "promise or no promise, I can't stay here another minute", and then when she comes back she says, "if you hadn't frightened me, I wouldn't have run away". It is her promise that's kept her a prisoner. That's why this was NEVER a case of Stockholm Syndrome. He never even locked the front door, or laid a hand on her. It also adds a great deal of weight when the Beast, quote, "releases" her. He releases her from her promise to stay there forever, not because he ever physically restrained her. 3. The fact that the Beast NEVER says he loves Belle. When asked why he let Belle go he's supposed to say "because, I love her", but he doesn't. Mrs. Potts delivers that line. It's made obvious that the love must be realized and verbally declared. The Beast never declares his love for her in so many words. Sure in action he does, but if that was what was needed then the curse would have been broken when Belle headed back to the castle. 4. This line by the Beast - "Leave me now, our time is short." His servants are going to die, and after condemning them to death by letting Belle go this is all he says to them! Then as they go of to face their impending death he selfishly sings a song lamenting that he will remain a beast. I lost whatever respect I might have had left for the character at that moment. 5. I know you touched on this one, but it is my favorite part of the original. The Beast is holding Gaston over the edge while he pleads for his life. The music changes and the Beast's face softens. Throughout the entire movie, at least in the original, the Beast is constantly told to control his temper. It is his unbridled temper that is his inner demon. And at that moment he finally controls it. He's still angry, still passionate, still powerful as he pulls Gaston in, orders him out, and then casts him away in contempt, but at that moment he becomes the "man" he was always meant to be. In this version he pulls Gaston in and lamely says "I am not a beast." - Yes, he is a beast, to say otherwise is a falsehood. The point was that in finally controlling his temper and passions, he's a beast who found his humanity. 6. The final one I'll point out is probably the most damning issue about this whole movie. I had to rewatch the end to make sure I wasn't seeing things. In the original and in this version the Beast had until "the last petal fell" to break the curse. In this version Belle and the Beast NEVER BREAK THE SPELL! The Beast never declares his love for Belle, and Belle only declares her love after the last petal falls. The enchantress witch breaks the spell for them. If she could have arbitrarily broken the spell at anytime then what was the point of the curse having a deadline in the first place? If Belle hadn't said she loved the Beast would she have stood by and let the Beast and all the servant die even though they had learned their lesson? How can you make a love can conquer all story when love didn't conquer anything! This was the worst part of the whole film. They did it to make it seem that it was to late, but all it did was "prove" that the love between them didn't matter at all. The Curse could have been broken at anytime the witch chose. The original was a great and near perfect movie. Since the movie was subtle all one needed was a little imagination to explain any "plot holes" it had. The rose blooming until his "21st year" can easily be taken to mean that it wouldn't begin to wilt until his 21st year. If so the Beast could have been cursed as a 18 or 19 yrs. old and then when he came of age at 21 is when the clock started ticking. The plot hole of the villagers is clearly explained by the following lines: in the prologue "the Beast concealed himself inside his castle", when he imprisons Maurice "so, you've come to stare at the beast", then when Belle begs for his release "he shouldn't have trespassed here". All saying that his isolation was self imposed, but that there were probably rumors about a beast in the castle. Also the castle is quite a ways from Belle's village explaining why the rumors never reached that far and the line from Belle when she first arrives "what is this place?". This new version's lazy writing doesn't answer any questions well, and frankly creates so many new ones that even imagination can't answer them. Just disbelief is left. I could go on forever. What they did to this movie is like someone deciding to paint a toothy grin on the Mona Lisa because they thought her smile was to subtle and they could make it better. I'm sorry about the rant. I didn't intend to go on this long. But I'm so sick of the remakes, especially when they slaughter the original story (just suffered through parts of the remake of Ben Hur, I couldn't even watch the whole thing, and am in a mood). The original Beauty and the Beast was brilliant enough that it won the accolade of being "the original" among the many versions and retellings of the classic tale. It's refreshing to hear someone recognize the newer version as the monstrosity it is.
THANK YOU! The movie was ruined for me when i first saw belle and was like 'oh my gosh, they're not calling her odd because she reads. They're calling her odd because she has her underwear sticking out for all to see. She's the town slut' Every decision made in this movie was a money grab and the choice for Emma Watson to be belle was the biggest one of all. I wanted so much to like this film with the rest of my disney loving friends that i lied about liking it when I left the cinema. Im so tired of these remakes, it makes me want to cry.
You missed one point which I think is the most important mess up of this remake. That is the servants outright told Belle about the curse. This is to me an unacceptable butcher of the original story. The core of the story is that Belle never knew the Beast is human. She actually believed he was a real Beast to the last moment, and yet still fell in love with him. That is the most fundamental moral of the story. Here not only they outright told her he's human under curse but even a prince. It's like saying "he's your prince charming, go get him". There can be no other thing that can butcher the moral more than this. I can't believe how many people actually like this disaster.
Parable Films I'm with you in every regard, good on you...but I actually really liked Ben-Hur, as a whole. Maybe it's because I've never bothered to see the original, maybe I just view it as a standalone film, but in any case, opinions differ. Your opinion on Beauty and the Beast is one I wholeheartedly agree with.
It's set in France and yet everyone has a British accent. Why ? Why couldn't they hire French actors or actors that could do a non stereotypical French accent? JUST WHY
As a french, I prefer earing british accents than an awful french one. Also, most of the appeal of the movie was the actors I think so a french cast wouldn't have work
The idea behind this Belle was to have a woman who didn't cry, was never intimidated or scared. It honestly wrecked the film, as she doesn't react as a normal person would in this situation, but instead always has a level of control on her situation.
That and the whole "invents the washing machine" thing, it just feels like they're hammering in the whole get more women into stem bullshit movement. I know it's small, and I know she's the daughter of an inventor, but the whole stinger with the the assholes who wrecked her creation because of the fact she's an inventor with no blackboard pointer to swing between her legs, it just feels very forced.
Exactly! That was one of the only parts of the movie I really liked. Perhaps even loved. Along with the cheesy try hard acting in the pub scene where Maurice yells "Listen to meeeee!" after a woman says "Crazy old Maurice." That made me laugh SO hard for some reason lol.
New Belle is flawless, fearless, expressionless... and so, bland and without evolution New Nala is flawless, fearless, expressionless... and so, bland and without evolution New Mulan is flawless, fearless, expressionless... and so, bland and without evolution (etc. ?) = Disney fall into wokism, confusing a good female character with a Mary-Sue
I'm actually kind of surprised you didn't at least mention the god-awful yellow dress Watson wore. It looks like a cheap prom dress on the clearance rack at Kohls. I've seen designers on Instagram recreate a more faithful and gorgeous dress from the animated movie! The costume designer should be ashamed!
Same happened to Cinderella's remake. Same shitty dress. Sad part is... you can sell the hell out of those! You could raise double the money by selling those dresses (if they were good). So... "you had one job!!!" would... fit better than any other dress down here.
Having read some articles, it's pretty clear this was a result of having to do what the star wanted. The other costumes in the movie are all time-period appropriate and great, but Emma Watson was vocal about how she wanted her dresses to be (according to her co-star, his daughter gave input to Emma too, but Emma only has ever mentioned herself in the decision.) The costume designer herself mentioned how expensive and difficult it was to make the costumes according to Emma's wishes (Emma wanted certain materials and refusal of corset and stays). It sounded like the designer had to change things that were previously completed at some points as well. Looking at her whole body of work in the past, the dress doesn't match up to her skills. It must've been stressful to meet those demands, only to get all the flak for its bad reception.
"I want adventure in the great wide somewhere, I want it more than I can tell" Animated Belle stands arms outstretched towards the winding river and mountains beyond. Back turned on the town and those who don't understand her. Live action Belle stands arms outstretched towards THE TOWN????? With her back toward THE GREAT WIDE SOMEWHERE???? Live action movie, you just turned the best symbolic moment of freedom and not needing social approval in the original one into a cheap revenge moment of needy approval. How dare you movie?!?! How dare you!!!! And after she says she want's more than this provincial life too. And that's when the movie lost all credit in my eyes. I hate those moments in movies.
Apparently once she auditioned, they didn't even consider anyone else. They just decided that she was going to be Belle. It had nothing to do with her talent, just her star power.
26:22 in the animated version, Belle confesses her love just BEFORE the last petal falls. Here, the petal has already fallen and the enchantress came in like, "Time to collect my magic rose and scold the prince even more." She sees the last petal has fallen and then sees Belle confess. Then she's kinda of like, "Eh, close enough. Live and be a prince again."
Here's where I felt like it should've gone: the Beast dies, Belle confesses her love, THEN the last petal falls and the other characters become inanimate objects and the enchantress watches Belle confess her love as the Beast dies. Probably would've worked better and it might've been more dramatic.
I try to comfort myself by thinking this is just a phase. Remember the mid 90's/early 2000's? That was Disney's "unnecessary direct to video sequel phase", and now they're going through an "unnecessary live action remake" phase. You'll see, when the last of these is made, the classics will continue to be beloved by generations to come, and the remakes will only be remembered by snarky reviewers making top 10 worst/least bad lists :)
That is pretty much exactly correct. They will be extremely dated because no love and actual care went into them, they will be remembered as the bland cash grabs they are, if they are remembered at all. Heck, some of the gratuitous sequels are better than these "live action" dung-heaps.
"There is no such thing as beasts!" That line makes absolutely no sense. Now if he'd said "There is no beast" or even said it with more emphasis, like "There's no such thing as ~BEASTS~", clearly mocking Maurice, then fine, but what he ended up saying was "animals aren't real".
Tinilif Abinin very true, in the animated he whined about the book Belle reading not having any pictures in it when earlier we were shown that the book indeed had pictures in it when Belle was showing the sheep a picture from the book she just got. I am going to put it bluntly, while Gaston was a great villain and had one good scheme, he is mostly a dumb ass, but maybe that is part of his charm as a good villain.
@@morganyoung3557 it's was mostly because of his ego that he didn't want to see anything else but beauty as valuable, hence why he chose Belle in the original is because she was "...the most beautiful girl in town, that makes her thr best! And don't I deserve the Best? ...here in town there's only she, who's as beautiful as me!" Anything that didn't make sense to him that was different or imperfect wasn't worth his time or seen as wrong...which makes sense for someone with prejudice of that time period as well as the towns people themselves.
@@matthewmuir8884 I don't understand your numbering. In my book set, the Wardrobe is book 1, Dawn Treader is book 3 (which was an awful movie, so disappointing), and The Horse and His Boy is number 5. They made book 1 (Wardrobe), book 2 (Caspian), and book 3 (Dawn Treader), according to my set, and they began work on book 4 (Silver Chair), skipping none. Now most likely no more movies will be made because of Netflix. Sigh. The Silver Chair is my favorite because of Puddleglum.
@@Andreamom001 I'm using how the books were numbered in the set they were in at the book store; i.e. chronological order. Your set is probably in the order in which the books were written, as he went back later to write Magician's Nephew and Horse and his Boy
I think the Narnia movies stopped because not only were the actors getting too old and were being phased out, such as Peter and Susan in Prince Caspian, but the movies were getting progressively worse and worse as they came out. The Lion Witch and Wardrobe was fantastic, and while I loved Prince Caspian it did have some notable flaws. However Voyage of the Dawn Treader was TERRIBLE. Eustace was painful to sit through, Lucy and Edmund had character arcs that were far less compelling than Peter and Susan’s in the previous film, and the story was very weak.
Disney in 1970: we want to put smiles to children’s faces by bringing them quality entertainment through amazing animation and storytelling Disney in 2019: All we want is money, we don’t care about the children we just want money
Um...in 1995 Michael Eisner was still the CEO of Disney...you know, the guy who said, “we have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective”. Disney has been about money for a long time, perhaps not early on, but definitely in the last 40 some years...
The thing that bothers me the most about the Enchantress in the movie is they try to justify her turning the staff into appliances by saying they didn't help when the Beast lost his mother and was manipulated by his father. Okay, what about Chip? He wasn't even alive when that happened, why punish a child who had nothing to do with anything.
Even in the original she was messed up. CinemaSins pointed it out. Enchantress cursed Beast until his 21st year, and that was 10 years before. That means... SHE CURSED A F***ING 11 YEAR OLD! Never mind Gaston, that b***h is the real villain!
You’re not wrong, but he is literally the only innocent one on the staff, and seriously, would YOU have left a single human child in that castle..? He’s better off as a cup.
When I was a kid I was genuinely terrified of the beasts first appearance when he scratched his painting in this movie my eyes were rolling all the way through my skull
@@Spickandspannotwoman I disagree. I loved the fact that it was scary, even if I could barely watch it for a few years. It was basically a horror movie for kids. The Land before Time was also terrifying and amazing to me as a kid.
Amber I couldn't agree more! I mean in the original we see him walk like a beast, occasionally changing to all fours, crouch on the floor, his tail moving, ears flapping. I mean no matter the lack of plot they perfected those animalistic like moves in freaking Avatar movie that was created oh guess what about a decade ago! And they did their research properly here... Ugh guess what we will reduce the budget and instead of making the character act like a beast let him become stuff as if wearing a corcet and has a craneattatched to his back! 😥😰😒
Ryan Gosling was offered the role of the Beast, but turned it down to appear in La La Land (2016) instead. Emma Watson was offered the lead role in that movie, but turned down that movie to star in this one. According to Ewan McGregor, the hardest part about playing Lumière was getting the character's French accent right, although his wife Eve Mavrakis is French. He said his voice ended up sounding Mexican instead of French, so he had to redo his dialogue after filming had completed. Emma Watson (Belle), Dame Emma Thompson (Mrs. Potts), Luke Evans (Gaston), and Nathan Mack (Chip) all share the same birthday, April 15, which was also the date of the first cast read through. Belle's ballroom gown required 3,000 feet of thread, and over 12,000 designer hours to complete. It was accentuated with 2,160 Swarovski crystals. During the ballroom scene, Emma Watson had a hard time not looking at her feet, because Dan Stevens was wearing steel toed shoes, and she was afraid he would step on her. Emma Watson revealed to fans that she would be playing the role of Belle, before it even went on record. A big fan of Beauty and the Beast (1991) since childhood, she told her fans that her "six-year-old self is on the ceiling, heart bursting." Luke Evans (Gaston) had to wear fake teeth during filming, due to having canines that are longer than normal, which he said would have made Gaston look like a vampire. Emma Watson said she was bored during the filming of "Be Our Guest", since all she did was sit on a chair. The crew would tell her jokes, to keep her entertained, as well as trigger genuine giggling, to be used in the scene. Emma Watson received $3 million upon signing, but made $15 million, since the movie made over $1 billion globally. Emma Watson and Dan Stevens said that their favorite scene to film was the iconic ballroom scene. During Belle and Beast's waltz, the letters WD can be seen in the coat of arms design on the floor. This is a nod to Walter Elias Disney. Unadjusted for inflation, this is the most expensive musical ever made, on a budget of $160 million. Emma Watson refused to wear a corset as part of her costume. To prepare for the role of Belle, Emma Watson re-watched Beauty and the Beast (1991), and began taking singing classes. Dan Stevens' favorite moment in the movie is when he roars at the wolves and scares them off. Highest domestic opening gross of all time for a movie rated PG, as well as highest grossing movie remake and musical of all time. Chappeau never speaks, even after reverting back to human form. LeFou is Disney's first canonical gay character in a feature-length movie. This is Ewan McGregor's first Disney movie. His next movie was playing the title character in Christopher Robin (2018). Emma Roberts, Kristen Stewart, Amanda Seyfried, Lily Collins, and Emmy Rossum were considered for the role of Belle. First Disney live-action remake to break the two hour mark. Emma Watson and Dame Emma Thompson appeared in the Harry Potter film franchise. LeFou means "The Fool" in French. Good name for this comical character. This movie is set in France. Emma Watson was born in France, and Ewan McGregor's ex-wife (and the mother of his children) Eve Mavrakis is French.
Am i the only one who noticed that Phillpe has been changed from a dun draft horse perchron to a warm blooded Arab? I'm sorry but if they are poor and lived on a farm...like in the original...they could NEVER afford an expensive and beautifully breed mount! For a film claiming to be historically accurate, there are many things in this movie that are incredibly inaccurate...
The horse used in the live action isn't an Arab. Specifically it's a PRE horse. Pura Raza Espanola. Or Andalusian. But you're right; if they wanted to represent accurate French farm life they should've gone for a draft breed. Either a Suffolk Punch (because those horses are typically blonde/dun/chestnut) or a Shire (which is the type of horse Phillipe was in the animated film).
Eh; by my personal metric, she's a decent actress. Not bad, not good. My metric is this: A bad actor is bad even when handed a good script. A decent actor depends on their script; they're bad with a bad script, and good with a good script. A good actor is good even when handed a bad script. A great actor elevates a bad script and is able to take lines that shouldn't work and make them work.
I like Emma's personality and ideals a bit tho... It's not something magnificent and I would probably not be friends with her,it also lands a bit badly at times,but she's not awful...
This is the one that makes me really worried about the Aladdin remake. How you can pad the film's runtime, but somehow speed up all the character development and emotion is beyond me. That and the whole issue of actors who can't sing if if they do try. Like, how much of an issue would it really have been to consider dubbing them, surely that's better than having the songs feel so jarring compared to the original.
My hope atleast with Aladdin is that since they couldn’t go with anyone well known, they intentionally chose someone with singing credentials. As opposed to this case where they chose the star power of Emma Watson and relied on that to outweigh her poor singing/ auto tune. Bleh
So, in this age of gender swaps, why not do that with this type of movie? We've seen a million ugly men who fall in love with beautiful women, how about one where the beast was the female and she has to get the love of some handsome dude for a change?
One of my biggest complaints was Belle's costuming. Emma Watson was consulted in the costuming department (like she has any qualifications) and refused to wear a corset because they were too restrictive (even though 18th century stays were common in working class women and still had a lot of mobility as well made from natural materials) and the iconic gold dress? Remember the weight of it? How beautifully it was animated? Nope in this movie we have a piss colored prom dress. Its sad because the Costume Designer Jacqueline Durran is a academy award winning designer for her work in Anna Karenina and the costumes in the rest of the movie were pretty good, but Emma Watson couldn't do was she was paid millions do and wear a costume designed by a professional.
Also if the dress if supposed to from some wardrobe in a palace it should look like a dress that one of the extras were wearing in the opening number- big dated court dress. Even if you completely disregard how ugly it was, it looked like the fancy dress of a chambermaid- in the sense that it was wayyy to simple to ever be found in palace plus it looked too modern in context of the movie and in that it looked like prom dress.
ThatStarWarsChick i totally agree. besides, belle was modest. she was never SIMPLE. animated belle was always adjusting her wardrobe to make sure it laid right; she walked like a graceful ballerina. you can be humble and still appreciate fine things when they are presented to you. but no, we had to make belle into the "every day woman" who has to have a logical, practical reason behind everything, even her wardrobe choices, because to be *too* feminine or *too* emotional-or emotional AT ALL in Emma's case-- is not a princess people should look up to anymore
OH MY GOSH! THANK YOU! I HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS SINCE THE FREAKING MOVIE CAME OUT! Sorry for the caps-lock, I am just so happy to finally find someone who gets it! It looked like a mediocre prom dress, at best, it was bland. And for Pete's sake, WEAR THE FREAKING CORSET! I have a degree in fashion design, I am not a feminist at ALL but one of my friends who graduated with me is and even she is like "wear the freaking corset!" If Watson was going to make a big deal out of this she has no business being in movies set in previous centuries. Period. It is what people wore then, if you are misrepresenting them then you are failing at your job as an actor. Plus her voice is garbage anyway. Thank you again! ♡
Audra Mcdonald is a legend in every sense of the word. She is an incredible talent who has won more Tony award than any other actor. In this movie she only features in 3 songs.
@Mario Carrillo So far the only good thing I can say about it is that they have the original song writers on there. Other than that I have no hopes for their movie.
Everyone keeps saying that "Oh, that if they did a live action remake, they can remove the gargolyes, thus warrants it", but I still say that reasoning for a remake is kinda BS. Yes, I would have to agree that in the animated movie, that would perhaps be the biggest flaw (or one of them given how much a lot of people tend to point them out) and I do see that the tone with them compared to everything else could have been better in there, but everything else in that movie was so good, so why is a remake even necessary? I can't even imagine how much they might end up watering down Frollo given how intimidating, evil, and fucked up he already was in the animated version compared to the book version. I've noticed that with many of these remakes, they always end up watering down the villains like Gaston, Scar, Jafar, Maleficent, etc. They were able to get away with what they had in the original back then and I don't know if it would end up sitting well if they even attempt it now. For me personally, while the gargoyles are a problem and notice the tonal issue with them, they are something I'm able to overlook and love everything else in it cause there's more good than bad.
They better use the staged production, which has Quasimodo talking to saint statues instead of gargoyles, plus Esmeralda dies and the epilogue is the novel ending where he dies of heartbreak. It is a gorgeous production, complete with the movie songs.
Can't wait to see what kind of destruction they bestow upon 'The Little Mermaid' and 'The Lion King'. Can't wait for the 2038 'Frozen' remake where they make the first 30 minutes a backstory about how Elsa got her powers and they give more character development to Oaken, while casting a non-singer to do 'Let it Go'.
Ranee MacIntosh For Little Mermaid the original actually suck so if they do a remake that was more faithful to the original story I am down with that. As for Lion King, well Jungle Book kind of showed how a remake starring all animals (sans Mowgli) can actually work; so I don’t mind it.
Ranee MacIntosh Its true. Story its pretty damn shallow as it takes a story about true love and self sacrifice and turn it into an artificial happy fest where the main character (who is pretty damn self centered considering all she does is want things her way) ends up getting everything with no struggle or character development. That movie is the reason why the whole “Disneyfication” stigma is place on a lot of other Disney movies. The only thing it has going for are the songs; hell that’s like the only content you get when you played the Little Mermaid levels in Kingdom Hearts . . . I hate those levels, they were pure cringe. Hunchback of Notre Dame, Moana and (appropriately enough) Frozen are better takes of Little Mermaid.
Can't disagree with you there, she's not a fave. I listen to foreign versions more. My personal favorites are Arabic, Swedish, Cantonese, Danish, and Putonghua (China's Mandarin) so you should check them out if you want to hear someone sing the song better than Idina!
I think they were trying to reach the watched-Reading-Rainbow-as-a-kid demographic. Should have gone full Levar Burton with that casting, really hit that message from the animated film on the head.
27:51 I like to imagine she's turning to the guy, mentally communicating to him "Really? They're just going to shove me aside and let her steal the song?"
The plot point of them becoming inanimate objects was actually taken from the Broadway musical version. Throughout the play the servants still retain many human features but are gradually losing them as time goes on, eventually getting to the point where they will become the inanimate objects, with some servants having already turned. Only this movie took it a step further, actually showing them die in the end until they all got restored. And another difference is Belle didn't know this in the musical. They mention it when she's not there but don't tell her in order to make her feelings for the beast grow naturally without any pressure. Here, Belle knows, and yet she takes her time anyway and leaves them knowing that she's condemning them to death. The critic is right. This made her selfish.
In the stage version, I always thought part of the reason they bring this up is to explain why the "objects" are the size of full-grown live human actors. They haven't fully turned into objects yet. So I don't know why they bothered to bring it into this film, other than making it more "dark, edgy and adult."
Emma Watson was slated to star in La La Land as Mia, but she dropped out due to commitment to this film. Conversely, Ryan Gosling turned down the role as the Beast in favor of La La Land. Emma Stone did the role of Mia better than what Watson could of done. Also, Emma Stone has a better yellow dress in La La Land than Watson in this film.
That's an insult to Vocaloids, just by quickly listening through any Miku playlist you'll clearly notice all the range and emotions she's able to portray despite being fully virtual.
Mitchell George and kevin costner's and arguably one of the best current singers in audra McDonald and you have her sing for like 2 minutes. How do you screw that up lol
What did you expect from the director of the Twilight saga? He probably thought Emma's emotionless expression was brilliant! I was sorely disappointed.
Bill condon was only the director of breaking dawn part 1 and 2 and those movies were much better than this. They were closer to the book but this doesn't get its source material at all.
I think Disney is to blame, when your main objective is to raise money (-based on nostalgia in this case; a loooot of remakes prove this point)... movies feel like marketing tools. While the original wanted to tell a story that, in the end, raised money, this one wants to raise money with a story that was written already and screen played already, double the money for half the effort.
But I think we can all agree that this movie at least added one character that the original really needed... The Plague Doctor that was on screen for less than ten seconds and was only there to tell Belle's father to leave.
This review is perfect. When I went to see the live action film, my whole family loved it, but I didn't. I couldnt put it into words, but it just didnt feel right, like putting a circle into a square hole. Your review is just the right wording to explain my feelings for this film.
I like how you put it as in circle in a square hole because a square in a hole would make it too much in the movie but no they just take out everything and it's like trying to put this into a shell of an object. A circle won't fill the square
snowyoreo663 I agree with critic The acting is just not invested in their characters and any unique changes they did make were either pointless or ruined by the bland facial expressions. I admit to watching it several times, but mostly for the songs...ya that’s it and Gaston he wasn’t bad.
I think if Disney wished to do a live action “remake” of this story I think it would of been cooler to focus on the beast’s point of view. Show how is childhood was bad, how he struggled in losing his humanity for being a beast for so many years, gain his humanity through his interactions with Belle, the list could go on about the interesting changes that could of been an interesting movie
I really don't get this obsession with live-action remakes. I get why Disney does it, cause they'd dissect their own kids and sell the organs on black market if they could, but the audiences? The animated version has all the advantages. Better performers, livelier cinematography and editing, no distracting CGI face, art design that doesn't look like the most overproduced tasteless kitsch. Is there still so little respect for animation in the West that people need to demand a "real movie" even when it turns out to be less intelligent and worse crafted than the original for kids?
For me, a greatly warranted remake is one that can offer something more/better/different from the original. I agree with a lot of Doug Walker's criticisms and thought this remake definitely did not offer me enough of those three things to have lasting appeal (plus did not do certain things as well as the original to begin with). However, I personally thought it at least offered enough for me to enjoy seeing it once and move on, so I weirdly both agree with Doug and still liked the movie. If you would like to read more, these are some of my specific thoughts: For instance, there is a big difference in the kind of performance one sees, when watching an animated human character versus a flesh-and-blood actor portraying said iconic character (note: I am not saying live-action is better than animation, just different). So for some people, it can be an exciting new experience to see characters like Maurice, Gaston, Lefou, etc. be portrayed in a live-action movie (I thought Kevin Kline, Luke Evans, and Josh Gad did great). There is always the potential for new songs to be brought to the table, as was already done in the Broadway show, and I did enjoy some of them in the remake too (like "How Does A Moment Last Forever" and "Evermore"). I also have never before seen a live-action movie that tries to portray characters like the servants-turned-furniture, which would be much more challenging to do in live-action (since you cannot just take a picture of an object, draw a human face on it, and animate it like any other cartoon character). Sure, I see how a few of them like Mrs. Potts can approach the uncanny valley at times for some people, but for the most part, I thought their live-action portrayals exceeded my expectations and Lumiere especially felt alive, expressive, creative in design, and fun. The remake's "Be Our Guest" made me feel like a kid again and I thought Ewan McGregor was great as his voice. So in that regard, I do consider the furniture's portrayals to be a very creative technological achievement, almost like the CGI talking animals in the live-action Jungle Book remake. Finally, there were at least a few unique character moments from the remake that I liked (even though I agree with Doug that most of the more important character moments were done much better in the original), and the fact that the animated film was based on a preexisting source material meant that a remake at least had the potential to explore into other elements of the original fairytale. But I still would not exactly go out of my way to see it again over the original, since it both lacks the original's near perfection in its narrative/pacing/visuals and does not offer enough things more/better/different to fully separate itself from the original. Predicting that this was going to be my reaction, I purposely avoided seeing the movie in theaters until after the first few weeks have passed (when corporate executions pay attention to profits the most), so I could then see the film, have a decent time, and appreciate the actors'/filmmakers' work while hopefully minimizing how much I "reward" the studio executives much higher up, for funding this project over something much more worth the time and budget. Personally, the one I am most worried about is "The Lion King," since it would literally just be turning a hand-drawn animated film into a 3D animated film (unless some of the backgrounds are real locations being filmed). The Jungle Book remake already did a near-perfect job, in my opinion, at creating animated animals that could talk, emote, and interact with live-action people, so the Lion King remake would not even have that new achievement going for it. It is especially concerning, since The Lion King's hand-drawn animation will be much more difficult for a remake's visuals to compete with than the original Jungle Book's. Plus, the Lion King is already nearly perfect in my opinion and not even based on any preexisting source material that could be further delved into, aside from loosely being inspired by Hamlet. The only things more/better/different I can imagine a Lion King remake doing is incorporating more of the Broadway songs (like "The Madness of King Scar"), maybe delving more into Scar's past and relationship with Mufasa (taking notes from Shakespeare works like Macbeth), doing some really minor touch ups on certain character moments, etc. But that is it. I cannot imagine there being much to offer. I guess I am also really concerned about Aladdin, since they are remaking this without Robin Williams and so soon after he died, which inherently is an uphill battle if one wants to do a good job and still come off as respectful to Williams.
The only live action movie I enjoyed from disney was Enchanted.. but that was technically a half and half of Live action and animation however because it wasn't a remake the live action was done quite well
Yeah...I don't get it either....I make an exception for the Jungle Book, because that is a source which leaves a lot of room for interpretation and Disney actually did a pretty good job with this one. But otherwise, the originals are great, what is the point of seeing a lesser version of it? I really don't get how they make so much money. I guess it is the Transformers effect.
I think the thing is that people keep on expecting something amazing out of-and being disappointed by-the live action remakes. Oh, with the animation, CGI, actors, and general directing advancements of the time then SURELY the remake will be a wonderous experience that not only matches the original but perhaps even surpasses it? Nope. It's just another shitty remake. But there's still the "what if" perpetually hanging as a specter in people's minds; What If it's actually something amazing, What If it genuinely respected and built off the original...and that little doubting question is enough to get millions of people to shell out hundreds of millions-even billions-of dollars. It's a money-making scam, low effort and low vision for incredible profit, and as long as there's profit like they've been getting then it'll keep happening year after year, decade after decade...I'm not even mad, really. It's a good business strategy. From an economic standpoint it's a good idea. I'm just disappointed.
Making these with humans costs a fraction of what a full animated film takes to make. It’s why you see so many. Their cheap (increasingly so as cgi gets easier and easier to use instead of taking the time and money for physical effects) and, as mentioned at the beginning, make a lot of money. What executive could resist?
Gaston was wearing a fashionable men's coat and hunters red shirts to blend in to the village people but made sense because he was a successful hunter...not a soldier
What's your favorite and least favorite Disney Live Action Remake?
Make sure to check out and support this week's charity - www.2secondsorless.org/
Channel Awesome Definitely Maleficent so freaking frustrating and ruins such a great character! Loved this month so much though!
The beauty and the best and nostalgic critic you awesome
Favorite: The Jungle Book.
Least Favorite: The Jungle Book.
It's the only one I watched, and the only one I will watch. I enjoyed it fine.
Channel Awesome my favourite: the jungle book
My least favourite: beauty and the beast
Channel Awesome Favorite: The Jungle Book 2016. Least favorite: Maleficent.
Whenever I saw “Belle” on screen I never really saw Belle, I just saw Emma Watson. her character never invested me enough to believe that she IS Belle and don’t even get me started on her auto tuned voice...
I said this exact thing. She's not Belle.
She's Emma Watson attempting (and failing) to play Belle.
At least you saw Watson.
Everything weird in the movie, I was basically thinking; "You grew up in a wizarding castle."
rusted skarmory same, I saw Hermione trying to play Belle, at least I can give Hermione “well, she’s not an actress”, can’t give the same consideration to Emma Watson...
emma is pretty but she doesnt look like or feel like belle. its ok that she didnt look like belle, but she never really acted like her either and it just looked like she was friends with the beast and but didnt love him.
@@saklee1777 Emma has the girl-next-door look, she's not really ugly, but nowhere close to pretty. In contrast, Belle in the original Disney movie is supposed to be stunningly beautiful and elegant. I'm not even gonna comment on her acting or singing. Also, you can easily find much more professional looking dresses on Etsy than the mustardy yellowish mess of a dress appearing in this multimillion dollar flick. The fact is, I daily pass by DOZENS of absolutely gorgeous women who'd be much more fit for the role of real-life Belle, and some of them are bound to also be better singers, and if self-employed seamstresses on Etsy can easily sew a better dress than a crew of movie wardrobe specialists, you know you screwed up royally.
So Belle and the Beasts' moms both died? Were they both named Martha?
ShadowSonic2 Why did you say that name?!?!
ShadowSonic2 nah, they don't have a flashback every movie reminding what happened
claudio cozzi MARTHA!
😂😂
Martha was probably their mother's name xDD in the original they're related
Didn't French women already know how to read in this time period?
The original Beauty and the Beast was PUBLISHED IN A WOMAN'S MAGAZINE!
Ofc, they had many magazines that were created esp. for women.
Eh, some. The big town/city dwellers more so than the rural areas.
@@MartianFromMercury, good point. Read up on Dr. Lynn Hunt's writings on the French Revolution; especially "Politics, Culture, and Class in the French Revolution".
even in the time period the story is set yes.
Something that’ll make you hate it more?
Beast doesn’t even get his own “I love her” line.
Yeah.
Towards the climax, when Cogsworth asks why the Beast let Belle go, in the original, Beast says, “Because...I love her.” It’s the first time it’s ever said aloud. It shows the audience that he is well aware of his actions, and its consequences.
The remake gives Mrs. Potts the opportunity to tell the Beast (and everyone else) how he feels about her, robbing his character of what should be the culmination of his arc. It’s his deal, Mrs. Potts. Nobody asked you.
@Some random person No but its twice as powerful and meaningful coming from a person who has a history with being too arrogant to say anything that could be remotely kind and loving, it shows he came a long way just to be able to say something of the kind with such an ease, that's the whole point.
Dude. I’ve been recently watching a live recording of the production of the Beauty and the Beast Broadway musical that took place in Los Angeles in 1995 that’s available on TH-cam, and in that one, when Cogsworth asks Beast why he let Belle go, the Beast didn’t say his line “Because I love her”, and Mrs. Potts tells the servants how he’s finally learned to love. And that was 22 years before the live-action remake came out. If you don’t believe me, watch the video yourself.
@@hunterolaughlin Dude, we're taking about another medium. Also it came first sooo... Explain where you were going with this because I don't get it.
@Regina Takáts Got to disagree. The romance in the original progressed quite naturally in a way that made sense for both characters, so it made sense that she found herself not saying "I love you" until she thought he was dead.
Also, in the original you see how devastated The Beast is when he roars out of a broken heart and here; he just sings out his feelings like he’s bummed out or inconvenienced.
There's a specific scene in each movie that I think really spells out how the remake doesn't understand the original at all.
Right as Belle is leaving the castle, and the servants are watching, there's a dialogue exchange where Cogsworth asks why The Beast let her go. In the original animated one, the Beast responds with "Because I love her.", showing his growth as a character and how painful it is for him to watch her go, but his willingness to let her have her own happiness over his humanity. In the remake, they give the line to Mrs. Potts "because he loves her", not only making the line more like exposition instead of character growth, but it robs a huge moment from the Beast and takes away from his arc.
I agree, that bit made me so angry. If you think about it there is no moment where the beast admits he likes nor loves Belle in the remake.
They were hoping the song Evermore would serve the same purpose as that scene, but it clearly doesn’t
Also the live action makes a massive mistake by adding the possible death of the servants. It makes the Beast letting her go seem like a dick move because he’s basically accepting their execution.
So many small details annoyed me like how the fountain scene with the sheep was skipped, how half the town is wearing blue, and how Belle in the remake wears her special yellow gown outside. In the original she only wears it inside the castle. Gaston never gets to see her in it.
Exactly. They rob everything that made the Beast a compelling character and just made him a blank slate.
I think one of the things that really annoyed me about Emma, and by extension, the whole film, was realised when I compared her to Lily James and her portrayal of Cinderella in the 2015 live action. We can use their ball gowns as exemplars. For Lily, if you watch her behind the scenes and even in the movie, you can tell that she uses the dress to get into the character of Cinderella - she’s even said that being in the dress made her feel the most in character. With Emma, she insisted on tailoring the dress to what *she* believed Belle should be like. In short, Lily used the opportunity to give us the best Cinderella she could, and Emma used the opportunity to give us the best Emma she could.
lmao also that autotune was something else
Cinderella was fantastic. This... was terrible.
I wouldn't say that the live action Cinderella movie was perfect it had it's off moments but it was way better then this one (and that's saying something)!You can tell that the actress who played the live action Cinderella was trying to act like the like the character in the live action movie like this comment mentioned she uses the dress to better play the character although the acting and facial expressions in some scenes turn out looking robotic and awkward you can tell shes trying to play the character but Emma Watson unlike the Cinderella actress looks like shes trying to play HER version of the classic character her acting has little to no resemblense to the real belle character and most scenes are just her looking more bored then the actress who played alice in the Tim burton films and she made changes to the costumes to look like her interpretation of bell
Maybe I'm not alone in this, but I'm kinda embarrassed to admit that I hear nothing unnatural about her voice. I guess flatness of her voice has something to do with it?
@Spammu Doggo SHE did? Not the makeup department's decision or something??
Tbh, I didn't really care much for Lily James' Cinderella dress, seemed rather underwhelming compared to the dress in the animated film (hard to top something so iconic), but I can respect that James utilized it to get into the character, giving us the sincerity that drives Disney magic. BUT we can agree that Belle's dress in the 2017 BatB was just bad, especially when we've seen far superior interpretations in COSPLAYS!!
Someone actually tried to tell me Emma Watson had no autotune on her voice. I can literally hear the pitch bend on every note.
Disgruntled Cashier yeah same here
I think she's actually the autotune for the computer. The robot was singing too emotionally.
I did hear the autotune on her voice but i figured that it would actually help her out like the ones in The Greatest Showman. Hugh Jackman, Zac Efron, Zendaya and the like are actually good/decent singers, so the autotune actually helps their songs.
Emma Watson is not a good singer. I wouldn't have minded the autotune if it was used as a tool to improve the singing, not as a useless crutch
Yes how did you know 😂
You can hear the robot in her voice
Imagine getting Audra Mcdonald in your movie... and letting her sing for the whole 20 seconds
Maybe that's all they could afford?
@@gokuxsephiroth4505 Disney owns everything, puh lease lol.
That's a shame since She really carried this movie as Madame De La Grande Bouche. Her theater face was uncanny but her voice was truly divine and outstanding. She deserved to sing more often.
Am I the only one who thought, 'Hmm. So Gaston's lifeless body is just lying there in the courtyard while everyone is celebrating and dancing? That'll be a fun discovery for someone!'
"Tale as old as-ahhhhhhhhhh! Gaston is dead!"
No one lifeless like Garston
Nooooo oooooone....
Dies like Gaston
attracts flies like Gaston
No one falls to the rocks and loses life like Gaston!
@@Double-R-Nothing you are sick like that remix
I don't think he's dead. Sure its possible, but when you look the distance he fell from...he could have survived that..maybe with his legs or back broken though or if some masonry fell on him, then sure he's dead. But when Gaston fell in the animated film, he is absolutely dead.
@@BrandontheBeldam2993 Don't you dare open the door for a sequel.
“Who cares if it blows? We’re rolling in the dough... Disney’s bland remake...”
There’s so much truth in this lil lyric.
GreaterStark disney would sue if that song actually made them loose two dollars
Fuck you
@@animebrat76 🤣🤣 You don't mess with the mouse.
Lol, True, HISHE Reference I presume?
NOBODY LIKE! I JUST MADE THIS 666 LIKES
Also I found her to act really pompous for a character like Belle, who is sweet and warm, but also firm. Like in the original she greets Gaston politely and even when he gets too ahead she's firm, but done with dignity, which made her naturally the bigger/respectable person. In the live action Gaston was actually nice to her when they meet (considering that everyone in the village apparently hates her when in the original no one actually hated her but just thought her odd) and she immediately shuts him down, she was rude to him and held no dignity. I did not have the respect for the live action Belle like I did with the cartoon.
The funny thing is that we should support her for that.
That's because here she's a Strong Independent Female™ character who don't need no man.
that is an excellent point. Another example of Disney counting on audiences definitely having seen the original.
Reverse nice guy lmao
That's what I thought too! She always had this facial expression of "are you fucking stupid?", and it looked really patronising.
"I'm never going to marry you, Gaston!"
I was just going to ask you out to Denny's; it's really not that big of a deal
I just presumed he had asked before on multiple occasions. Maybe my memory of the animated movie is warped because I assumed the same in that one too, especially since he had a wedding party already set up if she (finally?) said yes.
+@@jasonstraight1320 Correct. It's just in this version, the presentation sucks
Emma Watson has been acting her whole life but she's also been playing the same character her whole life.
James Owens
SHOTS FIRED!!!
SHOTS FIRED!!!
I said the same thing a few months ago when I saw the trailers.
She acts the same way, she's mainly acts as the same character just with a different name.
That wasn't Belle, that was "Emma Watson and the poorly designed CGI Beast".
The funny and ironic thing is that Emma Watson's performance in the Sorcerer Stone was better than here.
ΕΛΕΝΗ ΧΑΡΑΛΑΜΠΙΔΟΥ back then we didn't know that that was the only way that she could act.
THATS SOME HOT TEA
This film really shows what a master piece the original was.
@
But, that's what animation does! Drawings are able to exaggerate and push boundaries in movement and expression.
It also shows that Disney at some point stopped caring about Art, and is now only obsessed with Money. it's sad. I have to wonder what old Walt himself would think of this.
We didn't even need this remake to be reminded of how perfect the original was.
So we really needed this movie after all, now we apreciated the orginal more.
Imagine Watching A Remake First & The Original Second, What A Revelation You would Have.. 😆😄👌
*"Where does the soul of a candle stick goooooooo?!?!"*
ANTI- ROXAS ask a cannabis connoisseur. You'll get an answer you'll never forget
ANTI- ROXAS how is it malcom is a better lummier
MrDemonking30 Anyone can do better. Malcolm did it better in this case
This had me good
Poor Remake Pierre...
Song asks, "How can a moment last forever? How can a story never be forgotten?"
The mouse replies: Just cram a remake, reboot or remaster down their throats every few years. Don't ever let them forget who owns them!
So true
It's the company not Mickey's fault stop blaming the mascots, I'm trying to be nice
@@arielruh7773 I hate to point this out but, mascots aren't really. They are literally creations of the company so, as a physical representation of Walt Disney's will as a corporation, Mickey Mouse is just as much to blame as the Disney company. If you need proof that even Mickey Mouse isn't above reproach, look at how they're trying to make Mickey Mouse a big deal again by slapping on a 'new' art style that is just the 1940s style with color and sharper lines. I wouldn't feel too bad off by hazarding a guess that a lot of the 'new episodes' are actually just rehashes of old stuff we've seen a million times. Face it, Disney is creatively bankrupt and hoping to survive off the coattails of Marvel and Star Wars until they can find someone to give them a fresh idea. If they can't find someone, they'll buy it off another studio or entity.
One of the reasons that I see that the musical numbers are terrible is because there is no movement. They just stand around and move their mouths, there's no dancing or even walking around. And.....of course the auto tune.
I have seen more facial expression from musicians on stage focussed on doing their art than the actors who are SUPPOSED TO EXPRESS themselves properly in this movie.
I mean, they don't even sing that well(barring Audra McDonald). The least they can do is be expressive in their movements so that there is SOME energy in the musical scenes.
it's a bit ironic that the animated characters have more personality than the live action characters
Or that we feel more attached to the characters in the original even though the remake is 33 minutes longer.
I turned off the movie halfway through the "Belle" song, pretty much right at the beginning. The girls singing about Gaston ("Be still, my heart, I must be dreaming!" etc.) were actually what did it for me. In the cartoon, even those random bit background chorus characters were expressive as all get out, with movement and shifting facial expressions and all sorts of little details. And then, in the live movie, they didn't move or express AT ALL. The camera actually gets behind them and you don't even see their faces. They just stand there, stiff as boards, now faceless, and blandly singing on top of it. It was just... sad. And all the characters were like that in the song. I just had to turn it off before my nostalgia was ruined.
@@SomeTH-camTraveler If the main characters hadn't been bland as well, I would almost say everyone else looking and sounding bored and lifeless and stiff and flat was a stylistic choice, to show how dull real life is.
Disney just gave into the whiny trolls bitching and moaning about the original, and everything that was unique and amazing just kind of sort was lost or ruined.
funny how trying to sound like entitled critics don't really make you people sound any smarter
Disney should have listened to Cogsworth.
"if it's not broke, don't fix it"
Baroque*
Darla Ramirez really? XD
Darla Ramirez Wouldn't attempting to fix something require making big noticable changes?
But...
We've got to have... MoNeY
Darla Ramirez as well as “promises they don’t intend to keep.”
Tamara: does nothing but dress up and dance with a giant dollar sign
Me: still better than Watson
She’s very good isn’t she? I love that dress on her 🥰
@@Rat_Queen86 Gotta admit she really rocked it.
Yea her acting was beautiful
Plus, Tamara's cuter (IMO).
Yep. I’ll pay to watch more Tamara as a vampire sucking money dry
In the words of the great Epic Voice Guy in his La La Land Honest Trailer, “It’s way easier to teach world class singers how to act than it is to teach a world class actor how to sing.”
Except Emma Watson's acting is anything BUT world class.
The singing in La La Land is better than the singing in this movie!
Case in point: Lady Gaga in A Star Is Born!
And that may be true, but I know many theater directors who much prefer casting ACTORS in singing roles than singers. Reason being? Singers focus on singing. It's their craft. They're good at what they do, but that doesn't always translate into good stage presence. In fact, many of them are just prima donnas - so much so that are hard to work with.
In other words, you can't just train a world-class singer to act. It can be just as difficult. Singing however CAN be learned. Even folks who have no sense of rhythm can learn to pick up a beat (that was a major point in Mr. Holland's Opus - which is based on real events). For me, I would have to disagree with the premise. My experience is that world-class singers are often a detriment to the stage. I imagine it is similar in film.
Is it weird that I felt more invested with the line "Where does the soul of a candlestick go" than the WHOLE GOSH DAMN MOVIE?!?
Quote nope
Oh my god, you were so right about the "odd" scene. It was almost good. ALMOST.
Abby John Cena: ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT?
Just that scene. Not the whole thing.
Abby The Beast in the 1991 version looks awesome compared to his 2017 live action counterpart, he looks like a walking piece sh## with horns.
With less of a thick body. It look likes he starved himself over his emotional pain.
"Where does the soul of a candlestick go.................................WERE DOES THE SOUL OF A CANDLESTICK GOOOOO!!!" That part had me dying
I just came back for that part😂😂
Throughout the castle scenes, Belle looks more like she forgot her calculator at the SATs rather than afraid of being in a castle with a beastly looking creature. Actually, scratch that. A person forgetting their calculator at the SATs would look more afraid than her.
Anyone taking the SAT's or any kind of exam would be more scared than this Belle was in the Beat's Castle.
Anyone forgetting their calculator at their exam would be fucking choking to death of fear!! Being an engineering student, I know the feeling.
Anirudh Viswanathan as a person who forgot his on the PSAT, I can only imagine the pure horror. Unlike her who maybe has a gnat buzzing around her.
The sexist literacy is honestly so stupid and actually ironic. It’s really funny because, in this time period they’re trying to represent, female literacy wasn’t something that was frowned upon. There were even magazines for young women! In fact, the original Beauty and the Beast story was published in one! This just adds a whole other level of stupidity!
Thanks Nostalgia Chick for the info I can spread!
I think she would prefer being referred to as Lindsay Ellis
@Diane Berg But they were still for women
Also, women didn’t wear the stereotypical wasp waist corsets Emma Watson complained about until the Victorian era, and the story takes place before then. Not to mention that French peasants couldn’t even wear corsets because back then they were expensive to make, not to mention restrictive and useless when it came to the working class. So while
in theory Emma refusing to wear a corset is great because those are the most useless pieces of fashion besides lipliner, she’s also historically inaccurate by assuming all women wore corsets back then all the time.
@@colbaltmind5696 Huh. You learn something new every day.
I learned something new today.
Fun fact, Belle's father taking the rose from the garden was actually in the original story.
Yes but it’s pointless in this movie :3
Except there he takes the rose because it was a bait by the beast.
Yeah, I know, I'm a year late to the party.
That’s true, I heard in the original that she actually asked for a rose with three heads. when he went to the castle, and since it was enchanted, he was able to find it and pluck it out which caused the beast to corner him. her father then mentioned that he didn’t mean to take it but really wanted to give it to his daughter who requested for the same rose, and the beast commanded that since he stole something that he loved, her father has no choice but to let his daughter live in the castle with him, not as a prisoner but as a guest.
Solo Fam
@Daniel Brown Again, like the original novel. I never said it was a good adaptation did I?
Incredible how Tamara shows infinitely more emotion and passion in the short intro than Watson over 2 hours.
The Jim Carrey grinch and Doug walker show more emotion and passion than Waston!
Hell you know what? The Mike Myres cat showed more emotion and passion than her.
Watson is like the new Kristen Stewart.
Emma can't act. Just harry potter stans think she can.
"Pleasant weather then horrendous winter? I must be in Chicago!" As someone who lives in the Chicago area, this is 100% true.
That sounds like Ottawa, minus the pleasant weather part. It fluctuates constantly, but between different forms of dreary weather.
@@matthewmuir8884 I have lived in Quebec my whole life and the weather here never made sense either...
Four seasons in one day? Clearly, no one has ever been to Buffalo, NY.
I live in Michigan. I'm not 100% sure, but I think the weather here in the winter is much much worst
all of these people asking what went wrong with this adaptation aren't asking the only question that matters...
*WHERE DOES THE SOUL OF A CANDLESTICK GO?!*
Chris Moore Heaven
To the after-light
@@connorcoker5112 You sir, get a cookie
@@connorcoker5112 ba dum tss 🥁
I prefer the original library scene. It was one of my-if not is actually- my favorite scene(s). It gave belle more character and was just nice to see positive interaction with belle and a village person. I bring this up because I haven’t seen anyone talk about it.
Gaston in 1991: *pushes Belle on a wall*
Belle in 1991: *politely but rightfully tells Gaston to stop*
Gaston in 2017: hi
Belle in 2017: BITCH HOW DARE YOU?! CANCELLED!!!
...is this a social commentary?
@@jareddunn3512 ehhh can't really tell
@@matheusmariani3108 remind me of live action Mulan really, there's one scene where the soldier was all like "hi!" and Mulan was all like "STEP AWAY FROM ME, MEN!!!"
I don't know why Disney were constantly putting this kind of "strang endependent whoman" agenda on their characters, but instead of making them strong, they're making them a bitch
Yeah, animated Gaston was a massive jerk and actually threatening. Remake Gaston was just a clueless idiot. If anything Belle was more of a jerk than he was.
@@yudobudhi8428 Reminds me of Captain Marvel where she bullies(electrocutes in an unused version) a guy and steals his motorcycle for flirting badly.
No one gets their song sequence skipped over like Gaston.
thats cos it was actually good
HoopsAndDinoMan he must have actually liked it.
HoopsAndDinoMan HA! XD
Or he hated it so much he didn't want to acknowledge it
Because Gaston was literally the best part of the whole movie. Luke Evans and Josh Gad were awesome. Everything else was... Well, what the guy said in the video pretty much says it all lol
This movie tried superhard to fix plot holes when only it just created more confusing ones
I feel like what if they made him 11 when he “turned” away the fairy
It's like lost
Like the washing machine sequence… what if we used that to flesh out the Bimbettes instead of turning them into villains.
The original Beauty and the Beast is one of my favorite Disney films. So I was very disappointed with this remake.
MegaSoulHero me too.
Me too.
MegaSoulHero They will pay for bastardising the original!
It’s one of my favourite animated films of all time.
I liked this film it is a B+ for me
You've seen the original Beauty and the Beast? Wow, I didn't know so many people were into 1940's French cinema
The scene of Malcom as a candlestick suffering an existential crisis was more emotional and moving than most of the acting in the actual movie.
"Where does the soul of a candlestick go?"
This was both wonderfully hilarious and philosophically dark at the same time.
RandysRage the candlesticks soul would either go to purgatory or be reincarnated if the afterlife really existed.
AfterLIGHT
Light Yagami if he’d used the death note he wouldn’t go to heaven or hell.
It just made me feel bad that he believes in a soul and afterlife. I truly believe that thinking there's an afterlife or soul is bad for people, as it cheapens life. You're less likely to live it to the fullest, if you think there's something coming next. Knowing that death is death, and you simply stop thinking really lights a fire under you, and enriches the one chance you have at life.
That would imply that he additionally believes that the afterlife is exactly the same as this life or that you even retain your sense of self/memories in the event that such a thing exists and occurs.
Emma had such a say in molding belle she totally missed that belle was supposed to be well read and opinionated but OPEN and warm and expressive. Emma is a reserved, standoffish and "above you" even when falling in love. the enchantress and the objects take priority to the main couple. beast never admits he loves her, instead Mrs. Potts does. the director totally missed the point of this movie and had to make it so political and "realistic" instead of realizing this a romance and a fairy tale
I agree with the "realistic part" but political? There's no political themes in the remake that wasn't also present in the original.
Gertrud Bondesson the political stuff you could argue is a lot of black actor randomly placed around the town and castle. Lefou begin more gay and “gay moment” (even if it was only for what 2 sec?). Having a man begin happy wearing a dress. And Belle befinner a inventering and invent a washing machine. These things could be argue begin political and some of these don’t really matter.
There were black people in France in the 1700's, and plenty of previous Disney character have been queer-coded or had effeminate manners, they just din't explicitly say that they were queer back then. As for Belle being an inventor, in the original it was her father that was ostracized for inventing things but painting the townsfolk as small-minded for hating new inventions was present in both movies, the remake was just more blunt about it. Would you consider Dumbo a political movie for portraying bullying and animal cruelty as bad?
Gertrud Bondesson yes, you are correct that there were black people in this time period (French history is not a subject I am strong at) but in 1700s I don’t think that Black was as good treated as they were here in this film with a black pastor/priest, high class black in the beast castle and the “kind” treatment the beast would give to his colored servant.
When it comes to queer, the only character that could be argue begin queer imo is pleakley from lilo and stitch (if you could give me some other Disney character that is queer, that would be nice) . But yeah Lefou is the first openly gay character Disney have had.
With the science thing, yes Morris was and is a inventor in the animated and the remake. But some people feel like it was forced and unnecessary that Belle is a inventor.
Also we all need too think that some people feel that anything that could imply a left ideology is political.
Also with the thing I say I may or may not agree. I am just starring what people feel this movie is pushing.
KittenKindness 100% agree with what you are saying.
I agree with you 100% on your critiques. In fact I though you were too generous, especially near the end. Here are a few things I thought were unforgivable even if I could forgive everything else, which I can't.
1. Belle's clothes. - modern bra - (because Emma Watson said a feminist like Belle wouldn't wear a corset) like Belle wouldn't wear the underwear of her era? BTW corsets weren't dangerously synched in until the Victorian era. - Bloomers - women from that era wore short panties and stockings up to their thighs. - Hiking her dress up above her knee - that was something only prostitutes did. Belle might have been an independent woman, but I don't think she would advertise herself as a slut.
2. The fact that they have Belle attempting to escape. I know everyone says they liked this, saying that is shows spunk. But the point in the original was that she could have left at any time. Nothing is physically keeping there except... her word. Belle made a promise that she never meant to break. To claim she never intended to keep her word negated the monumental sacrifice in taking her father's place. In fact when she does run away she says this, "promise or no promise, I can't stay here another minute", and then when she comes back she says, "if you hadn't frightened me, I wouldn't have run away". It is her promise that's kept her a prisoner. That's why this was NEVER a case of Stockholm Syndrome. He never even locked the front door, or laid a hand on her. It also adds a great deal of weight when the Beast, quote, "releases" her. He releases her from her promise to stay there forever, not because he ever physically restrained her.
3. The fact that the Beast NEVER says he loves Belle. When asked why he let Belle go he's supposed to say "because, I love her", but he doesn't. Mrs. Potts delivers that line. It's made obvious that the love must be realized and verbally declared. The Beast never declares his love for her in so many words. Sure in action he does, but if that was what was needed then the curse would have been broken when Belle headed back to the castle.
4. This line by the Beast - "Leave me now, our time is short." His servants are going to die, and after condemning them to death by letting Belle go this is all he says to them! Then as they go of to face their impending death he selfishly sings a song lamenting that he will remain a beast. I lost whatever respect I might have had left for the character at that moment.
5. I know you touched on this one, but it is my favorite part of the original. The Beast is holding Gaston over the edge while he pleads for his life. The music changes and the Beast's face softens. Throughout the entire movie, at least in the original, the Beast is constantly told to control his temper. It is his unbridled temper that is his inner demon. And at that moment he finally controls it. He's still angry, still passionate, still powerful as he pulls Gaston in, orders him out, and then casts him away in contempt, but at that moment he becomes the "man" he was always meant to be. In this version he pulls Gaston in and lamely says "I am not a beast." - Yes, he is a beast, to say otherwise is a falsehood. The point was that in finally controlling his temper and passions, he's a beast who found his humanity.
6. The final one I'll point out is probably the most damning issue about this whole movie. I had to rewatch the end to make sure I wasn't seeing things. In the original and in this version the Beast had until "the last petal fell" to break the curse. In this version Belle and the Beast NEVER BREAK THE SPELL! The Beast never declares his love for Belle, and Belle only declares her love after the last petal falls. The enchantress witch breaks the spell for them. If she could have arbitrarily broken the spell at anytime then what was the point of the curse having a deadline in the first place? If Belle hadn't said she loved the Beast would she have stood by and let the Beast and all the servant die even though they had learned their lesson? How can you make a love can conquer all story when love didn't conquer anything! This was the worst part of the whole film. They did it to make it seem that it was to late, but all it did was "prove" that the love between them didn't matter at all. The Curse could have been broken at anytime the witch chose.
The original was a great and near perfect movie. Since the movie was subtle all one needed was a little imagination to explain any "plot holes" it had. The rose blooming until his "21st year" can easily be taken to mean that it wouldn't begin to wilt until his 21st year. If so the Beast could have been cursed as a 18 or 19 yrs. old and then when he came of age at 21 is when the clock started ticking.
The plot hole of the villagers is clearly explained by the following lines: in the prologue "the Beast concealed himself inside his castle", when he imprisons Maurice "so, you've come to stare at the beast", then when Belle begs for his release "he shouldn't have trespassed here". All saying that his isolation was self imposed, but that there were probably rumors about a beast in the castle. Also the castle is quite a ways from Belle's village explaining why the rumors never reached that far and the line from Belle when she first arrives "what is this place?". This new version's lazy writing doesn't answer any questions well, and frankly creates so many new ones that even imagination can't answer them. Just disbelief is left.
I could go on forever. What they did to this movie is like someone deciding to paint a toothy grin on the Mona Lisa because they thought her smile was to subtle and they could make it better.
I'm sorry about the rant. I didn't intend to go on this long. But I'm so sick of the remakes, especially when they slaughter the original story (just suffered through parts of the remake of Ben Hur, I couldn't even watch the whole thing, and am in a mood). The original Beauty and the Beast was brilliant enough that it won the accolade of being "the original" among the many versions and retellings of the classic tale. It's refreshing to hear someone recognize the newer version as the monstrosity it is.
Thank you for typing out my feeling towards this movie!
this comment take the full hight of a 27' screen. i am amazed. And i am also amazed that it is all a reasonable criticism of this movie.
THANK YOU! The movie was ruined for me when i first saw belle and was like 'oh my gosh, they're not calling her odd because she reads. They're calling her odd because she has her underwear sticking out for all to see. She's the town slut' Every decision made in this movie was a money grab and the choice for Emma Watson to be belle was the biggest one of all. I wanted so much to like this film with the rest of my disney loving friends that i lied about liking it when I left the cinema. Im so tired of these remakes, it makes me want to cry.
You missed one point which I think is the most important mess up of this remake. That is the servants outright told Belle about the curse. This is to me an unacceptable butcher of the original story. The core of the story is that Belle never knew the Beast is human. She actually believed he was a real Beast to the last moment, and yet still fell in love with him. That is the most fundamental moral of the story. Here not only they outright told her he's human under curse but even a prince. It's like saying "he's your prince charming, go get him". There can be no other thing that can butcher the moral more than this. I can't believe how many people actually like this disaster.
Parable Films I'm with you in every regard, good on you...but I actually really liked Ben-Hur, as a whole. Maybe it's because I've never bothered to see the original, maybe I just view it as a standalone film, but in any case, opinions differ. Your opinion on Beauty and the Beast is one I wholeheartedly agree with.
It's set in France and yet everyone has a British accent. Why ?
Why couldn't they hire French actors or actors that could do a non stereotypical French accent?
JUST WHY
Because Disney likes British accents, I guess.
As a french, I prefer earing british accents than an awful french one. Also, most of the appeal of the movie was the actors I think so a french cast wouldn't have work
@@ARCtheCartoonMaster It's just that these films claim to be so realistic, but now they're having a black Ariel, so idk
So, they pulled a Jean-Luc Picard by having the French characters played by Brits?
The casting is super hilarious half the cast is American half is English one is Scottish and one is Welsh
The idea behind this Belle was to have a woman who didn't cry, was never intimidated or scared. It honestly wrecked the film, as she doesn't react as a normal person would in this situation, but instead always has a level of control on her situation.
Once again, the "strong female character concept" forgets, that weakness and emotion makes a character more relatable and human.
Almost like they turned their Belle into a Mary...
N Slater "level of control of the situation" is not equal to just plain numb to emotions
Pepper Milk Alice from McGee's Alice has way more character. Best version of Alice so far.
That and the whole "invents the washing machine" thing, it just feels like they're hammering in the whole get more women into stem bullshit movement. I know it's small, and I know she's the daughter of an inventor, but the whole stinger with the the assholes who wrecked her creation because of the fact she's an inventor with no blackboard pointer to swing between her legs, it just feels very forced.
Doug is honestly a better singer than Emma Watson
Alondra Garcia You deserve all the Likes! Truer words of this scale have never been ushered before!
I know. I'm honestly kind of bummed this wasn't a full on musical review. Those were always my favorite reviews.
Who’s Doug?
Doug Funny?
Or??
And he's a very good voice actor. Do not try to change my mind.
He's probably a much better actor than her also!
I dont care what anyone says the snowball to belles face was worth the price of admission 😂
Really was the best part
Exactly! That was one of the only parts of the movie I really liked. Perhaps even loved. Along with the cheesy try hard acting in the pub scene where Maurice yells "Listen to meeeee!" after a woman says "Crazy old Maurice." That made me laugh SO hard for some reason lol.
SAME!!!!!🤣
that's what I want to do do disney right now (metaphorically of course)
Same lol
New Belle is flawless, fearless, expressionless... and so, bland and without evolution
New Nala is flawless, fearless, expressionless... and so, bland and without evolution
New Mulan is flawless, fearless, expressionless... and so, bland and without evolution
(etc. ?)
= Disney fall into wokism, confusing a good female character with a Mary-Sue
"We don't have enough good females characthers!"
Geez... I WONDER *WHY*
@@ClaudetteVioletta Disney wants marvel and Pixar to due all the work for them.
At least the old ones are good
I think many people hate the old Disney heroines because they are not feminist enough
@@queenarialya That problem is I don't think feminist mixes well with Fairy tales/ Fantasy.
I'm actually kind of surprised you didn't at least mention the god-awful yellow dress Watson wore. It looks like a cheap prom dress on the clearance rack at Kohls. I've seen designers on Instagram recreate a more faithful and gorgeous dress from the animated movie! The costume designer should be ashamed!
The Name Thing Is Not Happening TH-cam
..... Goddammit.
Same happened to Cinderella's remake. Same shitty dress.
Sad part is... you can sell the hell out of those! You could raise double the money by selling those dresses (if they were good).
So... "you had one job!!!" would... fit better than any other dress down here.
Bridezilla huh?
Having read some articles, it's pretty clear this was a result of having to do what the star wanted. The other costumes in the movie are all time-period appropriate and great, but Emma Watson was vocal about how she wanted her dresses to be (according to her co-star, his daughter gave input to Emma too, but Emma only has ever mentioned herself in the decision.) The costume designer herself mentioned how expensive and difficult it was to make the costumes according to Emma's wishes (Emma wanted certain materials and refusal of corset and stays). It sounded like the designer had to change things that were previously completed at some points as well. Looking at her whole body of work in the past, the dress doesn't match up to her skills. It must've been stressful to meet those demands, only to get all the flak for its bad reception.
The Disaster Artist Emma Watson designed it, we need to fire whoever let her design it
"I want adventure in the great wide somewhere, I want it more than I can tell"
Animated Belle stands arms outstretched towards the winding river and mountains beyond. Back turned on the town and those who don't understand her.
Live action Belle stands arms outstretched towards THE TOWN????? With her back toward THE GREAT WIDE SOMEWHERE????
Live action movie, you just turned the best symbolic moment of freedom and not needing social approval in the original one into a cheap revenge moment of needy approval. How dare you movie?!?! How dare you!!!! And after she says she want's more than this provincial life too.
And that's when the movie lost all credit in my eyes. I hate those moments in movies.
Snarky McSne Thank you for pointing that out!
Snarky McSne Yeah,such a small detail with a huge meaning. They fucked it up badly.
There was a lot of them but among the biggest for me were the ballroom scene, the scene where he lets her go, and the scene where the beast dies.
Where DOES the soul of a candlestick go?
*WHERE DOES THE SOUL OF A CANDLESTICK GO?*
Isagail to PSA hell.
Isagail greatest moment of Malcolm yet imo
Brilliant joke
It is definitely in the top five, but for me, it can't quite beat his rants about oranges. I die of laughter every time.
All I could think about when watching this scene was "If there's no silicon heaven then where do all the calculators go!?"
The only reason I think why they chose Emma Watson to play belle is because her character Hermione Granger was also a bookworm.
i think it literally boils down to "we need a brunette to play Belle".
Apparently once she auditioned, they didn't even consider anyone else. They just decided that she was going to be Belle. It had nothing to do with her talent, just her star power.
@@lukeroberson2115 yea they should have chosen someone else because she did not remind me of belle in any way.
@@ZugzugZugzugson Emma Watson’s hair isn’t even that dark either.
*WHERE DOES THE SOUL OF A CANDLESTICK GO?????*
I need a t shirt of that
Malcom is a _treasure_ that was glorious.
Sascha Houpt if the afterlife is real then the soul of candlestick would either go to purgatory or get reincarnated.
The great wax museum in the sky
THE WORLD MAY NEVER KNOW!
26:22 in the animated version, Belle confesses her love just BEFORE the last petal falls. Here, the petal has already fallen and the enchantress came in like, "Time to collect my magic rose and scold the prince even more."
She sees the last petal has fallen and then sees Belle confess. Then she's kinda of like, "Eh, close enough. Live and be a prince again."
Here's where I felt like it should've gone: the Beast dies, Belle confesses her love, THEN the last petal falls and the other characters become inanimate objects and the enchantress watches Belle confess her love as the Beast dies. Probably would've worked better and it might've been more dramatic.
jagirl966 To be fair though I think the reason why the enchantress lifted the curse was because she saw that the Beast redeemed himself.
This is an actual insult to the original.
I agree.
Probably every remake is
The Remakes are an insult to all the animators who worked on the originals.
Since when did Disney care? Money is Money.
Lala Mina I thought the Aladdin remake was good, will smith did a pretty good job as the genie 🧞♂️
If I can praise anything about this film, is the damn good performance delivered by Gaston's actor. He was for me the best part of this movie.
His name is Luke Evans
I try to comfort myself by thinking this is just a phase. Remember the mid 90's/early 2000's? That was Disney's "unnecessary direct to video sequel phase", and now they're going through an "unnecessary live action remake" phase. You'll see, when the last of these is made, the classics will continue to be beloved by generations to come, and the remakes will only be remembered by snarky reviewers making top 10 worst/least bad lists :)
Kris Lundell no...theyee beyond saving now...let em all burn out
That is pretty much exactly correct. They will be extremely dated because no love and actual care went into them, they will be remembered as the bland cash grabs they are, if they are remembered at all.
Heck, some of the gratuitous sequels are better than these "live action" dung-heaps.
Considering how much money they've been making off of these remakes I wouldn't hold your breath
Kris Lundell What about the 2016 remake of the Jungle Book? (Check the score on Rotten Tomatoes)
Kris Lundell Execpt Beauty and the Beast 2017 made over a billion dollars while the direct to dvd movies were often barely profitable.
"There is no such thing as beasts!"
That line makes absolutely no sense. Now if he'd said "There is no beast" or even said it with more emphasis, like "There's no such thing as ~BEASTS~", clearly mocking Maurice, then fine, but what he ended up saying was "animals aren't real".
Alex Summers I was thinking the same thing! 😂😂😂
Tinilif Abinin very true, in the animated he whined about the book Belle reading not having any pictures in it when earlier we were shown that the book indeed had pictures in it when Belle was showing the sheep a picture from the book she just got. I am going to put it bluntly, while Gaston was a great villain and had one good scheme, he is mostly a dumb ass, but maybe that is part of his charm as a good villain.
@@morganyoung3557 it's was mostly because of his ego that he didn't want to see anything else but beauty as valuable, hence why he chose Belle in the original is because she was "...the most beautiful girl in town, that makes her thr best! And don't I deserve the Best? ...here in town there's only she, who's as beautiful as me!" Anything that didn't make sense to him that was different or imperfect wasn't worth his time or seen as wrong...which makes sense for someone with prejudice of that time period as well as the towns people themselves.
YOU KNOW WHAT I WISH???
I wish Disney was turning the rest of the NARNIA books into films, instead of these pointless classic cartoon remakes!
Yeah; why did they abruptly stop at book 5? And why did they skip book 3? I understand skipping book 1 since it was a prequel, but book 3?
They were working on the Silver Chair movie for a while recently, but Netflix bought the rights to Narnia and wants to make a TV series instead.
@@matthewmuir8884 I don't understand your numbering. In my book set, the Wardrobe is book 1, Dawn Treader is book 3 (which was an awful movie, so disappointing), and The Horse and His Boy is number 5. They made book 1 (Wardrobe), book 2 (Caspian), and book 3 (Dawn Treader), according to my set, and they began work on book 4 (Silver Chair), skipping none. Now most likely no more movies will be made because of Netflix. Sigh. The Silver Chair is my favorite because of Puddleglum.
@@Andreamom001 I'm using how the books were numbered in the set they were in at the book store; i.e. chronological order. Your set is probably in the order in which the books were written, as he went back later to write Magician's Nephew and Horse and his Boy
I think the Narnia movies stopped because not only were the actors getting too old and were being phased out, such as Peter and Susan in Prince Caspian, but the movies were getting progressively worse and worse as they came out. The Lion Witch and Wardrobe was fantastic, and while I loved Prince Caspian it did have some notable flaws. However Voyage of the Dawn Treader was TERRIBLE. Eustace was painful to sit through, Lucy and Edmund had character arcs that were far less compelling than Peter and Susan’s in the previous film, and the story was very weak.
Disney in 1970: we want to put smiles to children’s faces by bringing them quality entertainment through amazing animation and storytelling
Disney in 2019: All we want is money, we don’t care about the children we just want money
He means kids aren't the main focus when it comes to the filmmaking now, unlike in the period before Michael Eisner
Aaronrm
Meanwhile, at Pixar: Remember your old statement guys? We’re trying to recapture that.
Lmao
Um...in 1995 Michael Eisner was still the CEO of Disney...you know, the guy who said, “we have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective”. Disney has been about money for a long time, perhaps not early on, but definitely in the last 40 some years...
On the bright side let’s just hope this money goes into making good marvel movies and mandalorian
The thing that bothers me the most about the Enchantress in the movie is they try to justify her turning the staff into appliances by saying they didn't help when the Beast lost his mother and was manipulated by his father. Okay, what about Chip? He wasn't even alive when that happened, why punish a child who had nothing to do with anything.
lets not forget about the fact she broke in slamming the glass windows
what were they suppose to do? if they helped what could have happend they were just the help, standing up to the king may not go so well for them
Even in the original she was messed up. CinemaSins pointed it out. Enchantress cursed Beast until his 21st year, and that was 10 years before. That means... SHE CURSED A F***ING 11 YEAR OLD! Never mind Gaston, that b***h is the real villain!
@@bbgunz1705 puberty must have been....interesting for him to say the least
You’re not wrong, but he is literally the only innocent one on the staff, and seriously, would YOU have left a single human child in that castle..? He’s better off as a cup.
Jesus the remake version of Beast is so snobby, even prissy. Like where is the wild character we fell in love with in the original?
Okay...how can High School Musical look more energized when they randomly break into song? And Gaston looks like the villain from Lazy Town.
Hey at least Robby Rotten is energetic in every movement.
Strawberry Seeds hey he was number one
triforceofcourage100 he still *is* number one
Faith Haps funny that you say that, because Robbie Rotten is supposed to be lazy af xD
Faith Haps and he wants to turn the town lazy
To quote Lindsay Ellis: thanks I hate it.
When I was a kid I was genuinely terrified of the beasts first appearance when he scratched his painting in this movie my eyes were rolling all the way through my skull
Same, that made me scared as well 😨
Same. I barely watched the movie as a kid because of the scene before we scene the beast.
@@Spickandspannotwoman I disagree. I loved the fact that it was scary, even if I could barely watch it for a few years. It was basically a horror movie for kids. The Land before Time was also terrifying and amazing to me as a kid.
I knew the original was better but didn't realize they had messed it up that bad
If you've seen the original than you have seen the remake...
TheCreepypro they did cover up some plotholes but at the same time, some parts were forced
TRUTH!!!
I like the critic because he makes me actually think more openly about a movie, I now realize how much more bland this is then the original
I hate how the beast walks in the live action remake, it's so stiff and weird and doesn't fit at all with his animalistic character
Thomas Chancey and his voice just sounds like a sulky teenager 🤣
They were aiming for a mix of CGI and the design and costumes of the very first adaptation in french. They did fail
Thomas Chancey ikr
I hate how he doesnt walk quadrapedally or on his knuckles once. Kind of weird but small kitpick
Amber I couldn't agree more! I mean in the original we see him walk like a beast, occasionally changing to all fours, crouch on the floor, his tail moving, ears flapping.
I mean no matter the lack of plot they perfected those animalistic like moves in freaking Avatar movie that was created oh guess what about a decade ago! And they did their research properly here...
Ugh guess what we will reduce the budget and instead of making the character act like a beast let him become stuff as if wearing a corcet and has a craneattatched to his back!
😥😰😒
Ryan Gosling was offered the role of the Beast, but turned it down to appear in La La Land (2016) instead. Emma Watson was offered the lead role in that movie, but turned down that movie to star in this one.
According to Ewan McGregor, the hardest part about playing Lumière was getting the character's French accent right, although his wife Eve Mavrakis is French. He said his voice ended up sounding Mexican instead of French, so he had to redo his dialogue after filming had completed.
Emma Watson (Belle), Dame Emma Thompson (Mrs. Potts), Luke Evans (Gaston), and Nathan Mack (Chip) all share the same birthday, April 15, which was also the date of the first cast read through.
Belle's ballroom gown required 3,000 feet of thread, and over 12,000 designer hours to complete. It was accentuated with 2,160 Swarovski crystals.
During the ballroom scene, Emma Watson had a hard time not looking at her feet, because Dan Stevens was wearing steel toed shoes, and she was afraid he would step on her.
Emma Watson revealed to fans that she would be playing the role of Belle, before it even went on record. A big fan of Beauty and the Beast (1991) since childhood, she told her fans that her "six-year-old self is on the ceiling, heart bursting."
Luke Evans (Gaston) had to wear fake teeth during filming, due to having canines that are longer than normal, which he said would have made Gaston look like a vampire.
Emma Watson said she was bored during the filming of "Be Our Guest", since all she did was sit on a chair. The crew would tell her jokes, to keep her entertained, as well as trigger genuine giggling, to be used in the scene.
Emma Watson received $3 million upon signing, but made $15 million, since the movie made over $1 billion globally.
Emma Watson and Dan Stevens said that their favorite scene to film was the iconic ballroom scene.
During Belle and Beast's waltz, the letters WD can be seen in the coat of arms design on the floor. This is a nod to Walter Elias Disney.
Unadjusted for inflation, this is the most expensive musical ever made, on a budget of $160 million.
Emma Watson refused to wear a corset as part of her costume.
To prepare for the role of Belle, Emma Watson re-watched Beauty and the Beast (1991), and began taking singing classes.
Dan Stevens' favorite moment in the movie is when he roars at the wolves and scares them off.
Highest domestic opening gross of all time for a movie rated PG, as well as highest grossing movie remake and musical of all time.
Chappeau never speaks, even after reverting back to human form.
LeFou is Disney's first canonical gay character in a feature-length movie.
This is Ewan McGregor's first Disney movie. His next movie was playing the title character in Christopher Robin (2018).
Emma Roberts, Kristen Stewart, Amanda Seyfried, Lily Collins, and Emmy Rossum were considered for the role of Belle.
First Disney live-action remake to break the two hour mark.
Emma Watson and Dame Emma Thompson appeared in the Harry Potter film franchise.
LeFou means "The Fool" in French. Good name for this comical character.
This movie is set in France. Emma Watson was born in France, and Ewan McGregor's ex-wife (and the mother of his children) Eve Mavrakis is French.
If its not Baroque don't fix it!
Kevin Murphy They should have taken Cogsworth's advice...
Oml that pun XD
You win
Kevin Murphy haha, lol!!!
Kevin Murphy best use of the quote ever!
“Where does the soul of a candlestick go?”
My new favorite line ever.
suadela87
_existential crisis intensifies_
*_WHERE DOES THE SOUL OF A CANDLESTICK GOHOHOHO?!?_*
Lamp heaven?
Am i the only one who noticed that Phillpe has been changed from a dun draft horse perchron to a warm blooded Arab? I'm sorry but if they are poor and lived on a farm...like in the original...they could NEVER afford an expensive and beautifully breed mount! For a film claiming to be historically accurate, there are many things in this movie that are incredibly inaccurate...
Like shitting on Belle for being able to read even though it was seen as being a women's skill.
Historically accurate? Like having black people living in a village in 18th century France?
We love a horse critic!👌
That's very true!
The horse used in the live action isn't an Arab. Specifically it's a PRE horse. Pura Raza Espanola. Or Andalusian. But you're right; if they wanted to represent accurate French farm life they should've gone for a draft breed. Either a Suffolk Punch (because those horses are typically blonde/dun/chestnut) or a Shire (which is the type of horse Phillipe was in the animated film).
It's time that we recognize Ema Watson is just as bad as Kristen Stewart but we like her better because she played Hermione and not Bella Swan
what's funny is Kristen is the better actress who landed a bad role.
Eh; by my personal metric, she's a decent actress. Not bad, not good. My metric is this:
A bad actor is bad even when handed a good script.
A decent actor depends on their script; they're bad with a bad script, and good with a good script.
A good actor is good even when handed a bad script.
A great actor elevates a bad script and is able to take lines that shouldn't work and make them work.
Yeah this is also helped by how confusingly similar they look kinda like Luke Evans and Orlando bloom
@@matthewmuir8884 You have described it in such a good way!
I like Emma's personality and ideals a bit tho...
It's not something magnificent and I would probably not be friends with her,it also lands a bit badly at times,but she's not awful...
This is the one that makes me really worried about the Aladdin remake. How you can pad the film's runtime, but somehow speed up all the character development and emotion is beyond me. That and the whole issue of actors who can't sing if if they do try. Like, how much of an issue would it really have been to consider dubbing them, surely that's better than having the songs feel so jarring compared to the original.
wait, did they announce an aladdin remake?
it's already done filming lol. They are currently in post-production. It will be released in 2019.
Robin Williams is the only Geenie they had better get Eric Goldberg to animate him
My hope atleast with Aladdin is that since they couldn’t go with anyone well known, they intentionally chose someone with singing credentials. As opposed to this case where they chose the star power of Emma Watson and relied on that to outweigh her poor singing/ auto tune. Bleh
The girl who plays jasmine has a great voice, so I have some hope!
More emotions from Tamera's Belle than Emma Watson's.
Wait till you see Watson's other 2017 film, The Circle.
Belle: hello who’s there
Luminaire: HELLO THERE
General Kenobi
@@duolightningproductionstud1435 You are, a.. Candlestick?
“You sound like Stephen Hawking’s voice box!”
**winces** Too soon, Doug...
RIP...
I smell another top 11 fuck ups
the voice box is still alive.
They probably made the video before his death.
I think they had all the disney life action remake month video already made at the beginning of the month.
So, in this age of gender swaps, why not do that with this type of movie? We've seen a million ugly men who fall in love with beautiful women, how about one where the beast was the female and she has to get the love of some handsome dude for a change?
Because men are shallow monsters that could never love someone less attractive than them. Haven't you been paying attention!?
How dare you even suggest that not all women are beautiful, say goodbye to job, life and freedom.
Its called the loathly lady archetype - its has been done before, but the only time Hollywood has done it was in the Arnold Conan movie.
If nothing else, we got close to that with Shrek
Its called the feminist agenda.
Nah nah nah nah nah naaah, Tale as old as time, scam as old as crime, Beauty On Repeeeeeeat!
A tale as old as time. Doing this tale again is a war crime, Beauty on Repeeeeeeeaaaaat 2.
Markus Haahr wtf XD
modern crap das gay, nothing less to say, beauty on repeeeeeeat
Okay none of you were as funny as Markus
shut your crap hole, you try and churn out some good lyrics
The lion king was worse but this one angered me more because I rewatched the original every Christmas till I was 12.
It's sad how Tamara's version of Belle's dress is still 10 times better than Emma Watson's version of Belle's dress.
I laughed when I realised that this is the first time that particular dress has been worn by a female on this show XD
One of my biggest complaints was Belle's costuming. Emma Watson was consulted in the costuming department (like she has any qualifications) and refused to wear a corset because they were too restrictive (even though 18th century stays were common in working class women and still had a lot of mobility as well made from natural materials) and the iconic gold dress? Remember the weight of it? How beautifully it was animated? Nope in this movie we have a piss colored prom dress.
Its sad because the Costume Designer Jacqueline Durran is a academy award winning designer for her work in Anna Karenina and the costumes in the rest of the movie were pretty good, but Emma Watson couldn't do was she was paid millions do and wear a costume designed by a professional.
But hey, at least Mark Bridges got an Oscar and a jetski for Phantom Thread. Lol
Also if the dress if supposed to from some wardrobe in a palace it should look like a dress that one of the extras were wearing in the opening number- big dated court dress. Even if you completely disregard how ugly it was, it looked like the fancy dress of a chambermaid- in the sense that it was wayyy to simple to ever be found in palace plus it looked too modern in context of the movie and in that it looked like prom dress.
ThatStarWarsChick i totally agree. besides, belle was modest. she was never SIMPLE. animated belle was always adjusting her wardrobe to make sure it laid right; she walked like a graceful ballerina. you can be humble and still appreciate fine things when they are presented to you. but no, we had to make belle into the "every day woman" who has to have a logical, practical reason behind everything, even her wardrobe choices, because to be *too* feminine or *too* emotional-or emotional AT ALL in Emma's case-- is not a princess people should look up to anymore
FUCKING GLITTER GLUE
OH MY GOSH! THANK YOU! I HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS SINCE THE FREAKING MOVIE CAME OUT! Sorry for the caps-lock, I am just so happy to finally find someone who gets it! It looked like a mediocre prom dress, at best, it was bland. And for Pete's sake, WEAR THE FREAKING CORSET! I have a degree in fashion design, I am not a feminist at ALL but one of my friends who graduated with me is and even she is like "wear the freaking corset!"
If Watson was going to make a big deal out of this she has no business being in movies set in previous centuries. Period. It is what people wore then, if you are misrepresenting them then you are failing at your job as an actor. Plus her voice is garbage anyway.
Thank you again! ♡
This is the most honest and real commentary I have heard about this movie
Irayda E. Tejeda R
Yeah really amps up its rewatchability.
The Irony, from a channel about exaggeration and improper criticism. But, he got it. He actually got it.
True True
Audra Mcdonald is a legend in every sense of the word. She is an incredible talent who has won more Tony award than any other actor. In this movie she only features in 3 songs.
She should have been in all of it!!
I swear to god if they do a "live action" remake of The Hunchback of Notre Dame i'm going to loose it.
@Mario Carrillo So far the only good thing I can say about it is that they have the original song writers on there. Other than that I have no hopes for their movie.
Everyone keeps saying that "Oh, that if they did a live action remake, they can remove the gargolyes, thus warrants it", but I still say that reasoning for a remake is kinda BS. Yes, I would have to agree that in the animated movie, that would perhaps be the biggest flaw (or one of them given how much a lot of people tend to point them out) and I do see that the tone with them compared to everything else could have been better in there, but everything else in that movie was so good, so why is a remake even necessary? I can't even imagine how much they might end up watering down Frollo given how intimidating, evil, and fucked up he already was in the animated version compared to the book version. I've noticed that with many of these remakes, they always end up watering down the villains like Gaston, Scar, Jafar, Maleficent, etc. They were able to get away with what they had in the original back then and I don't know if it would end up sitting well if they even attempt it now. For me personally, while the gargoyles are a problem and notice the tonal issue with them, they are something I'm able to overlook and love everything else in it cause there's more good than bad.
What really scares me is that they have confirmed they are working on a live action remake of Lilo and Stitch.
God save us all...
@Mario Carrillo Goddamn it!!
They better use the staged production, which has Quasimodo talking to saint statues instead of gargoyles, plus Esmeralda dies and the epilogue is the novel ending where he dies of heartbreak. It is a gorgeous production, complete with the movie songs.
Can't wait to see what kind of destruction they bestow upon 'The Little Mermaid' and 'The Lion King'. Can't wait for the 2038 'Frozen' remake where they make the first 30 minutes a backstory about how Elsa got her powers and they give more character development to Oaken, while casting a non-singer to do 'Let it Go'.
Ranee MacIntosh For Little Mermaid the original actually suck so if they do a remake that was more faithful to the original story I am down with that. As for Lion King, well Jungle Book kind of showed how a remake starring all animals (sans Mowgli) can actually work; so I don’t mind it.
"the little mermaid sucks" stopped reading there.
Ranee MacIntosh Its true. Story its pretty damn shallow as it takes a story about true love and self sacrifice and turn it into an artificial happy fest where the main character (who is pretty damn self centered considering all she does is want things her way) ends up getting everything with no struggle or character development. That movie is the reason why the whole “Disneyfication” stigma is place on a lot of other Disney movies. The only thing it has going for are the songs; hell that’s like the only content you get when you played the Little Mermaid levels in Kingdom Hearts . . . I hate those levels, they were pure cringe.
Hunchback of Notre Dame, Moana and (appropriately enough) Frozen are better takes of Little Mermaid.
Honestly, any non singer could probably have sung that song better Menzel did.
Can't disagree with you there, she's not a fave. I listen to foreign versions more. My personal favorites are Arabic, Swedish, Cantonese, Danish, and Putonghua (China's Mandarin) so you should check them out if you want to hear someone sing the song better than Idina!
The Beast has a book that can take him anywhere?
WHAT????
Gold Wolf yeah... That choice just gave the mirror a HUGE middle finger.
I think they were trying to reach the watched-Reading-Rainbow-as-a-kid demographic. Should have gone full Levar Burton with that casting, really hit that message from the animated film on the head.
Tamara's acting is totally better than Emma's XDDD
I mean seriously - after HP series Watson forgot how to acting.
Lol yes
27:51 I like to imagine she's turning to the guy, mentally communicating to him "Really? They're just going to shove me aside and let her steal the song?"
And I'm sure the anger from her mind is more pleasing than Emma Thompson's voice.
The plot point of them becoming inanimate objects was actually taken from the Broadway musical version. Throughout the play the servants still retain many human features but are gradually losing them as time goes on, eventually getting to the point where they will become the inanimate objects, with some servants having already turned. Only this movie took it a step further, actually showing them die in the end until they all got restored. And another difference is Belle didn't know this in the musical. They mention it when she's not there but don't tell her in order to make her feelings for the beast grow naturally without any pressure. Here, Belle knows, and yet she takes her time anyway and leaves them knowing that she's condemning them to death. The critic is right. This made her selfish.
In the stage version, I always thought part of the reason they bring this up is to explain why the "objects" are the size of full-grown live human actors. They haven't fully turned into objects yet. So I don't know why they bothered to bring it into this film, other than making it more "dark, edgy and adult."
Emma Watson was slated to star in La La Land as Mia, but she dropped out due to commitment to this film. Conversely, Ryan Gosling turned down the role as the Beast in favor of La La Land.
Emma Stone did the role of Mia better than what Watson could of done.
Also, Emma Stone has a better yellow dress in La La Land than Watson in this film.
Apparently she wanted filming to be relocated to London lol 🙄
@Hannah Papernick-Yudin lol watson designed the dress....
@Hannah Papernick-Yudin Watson for some reason, had a lot of creative control over the design of the iconic dress 🙄
@@Dany_lop At this point can someone tell Emma that the only thing she was good for was being in Harry Potter.
And Emma Stone won an Oscar for La La Land, where as Emma Watson probably wouldn't have even been nominated.
Belle literally sounds like a vocaloid voicebank. Enough said.
Even Vocaloids sound better and have more emotion than her.
I can name you several vocaloid songs where you can hear emotions. in Vocaloid songs is real work, Emma Watson didn't even tried.
Malvoish I know they can 😂 I’m talking about ollllllddddd vocaloids like the V1 era
@@imperfectanimal57 even those had more emotions 😩
That's an insult to Vocaloids, just by quickly listening through any Miku playlist you'll clearly notice all the range and emotions she's able to portray despite being fully virtual.
*But where does the soul of a candlestick go?!?*
But seriously, this movie's absolute garbage
Haha dude that was my favorite part. Malcom is hilarious all the time.
That joke got dark very quickly.
That parody song is just...magical.
This movie had Obi-Wan Kenobi, Gandalf, Hermione Granger, and Matthew Crawley from Downton Abbey. And it wasn’t awesome!!! 😤
Mitchell George and kevin costner's and arguably one of the best current singers in audra McDonald and you have her sing for like 2 minutes. How do you screw that up lol
Gandalf? Who did Sir Ian McKellen play? Oh, and you forgot David from LEGION there, too.
@@louisduarte8763 McKellen played Cogsworth.
How can you mess up Ian McKellen?
@@TheSmart-CasualGamer Golden Compass and this movie. Only those two though, lol.
The opening song alone deserves a thousand likes.
Because everything else was drowned in autotune
What did you expect from the director of the Twilight saga? He probably thought Emma's emotionless expression was brilliant! I was sorely disappointed.
What, that's who they got to direct this movie?! WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THE PRODUCTION CREW OF TGE MOVIE?!?!
I had no idea the director of Twilight was involved with this movie. Well, a lot of things make sense now...
Bill condon was only the director of breaking dawn part 1 and 2 and those movies were much better than this. They were closer to the book but this doesn't get its source material at all.
I think Disney is to blame, when your main objective is to raise money (-based on nostalgia in this case; a loooot of remakes prove this point)... movies feel like marketing tools.
While the original wanted to tell a story that, in the end, raised money, this one wants to raise money with a story that was written already and screen played already, double the money for half the effort.
^ I second Luciana's answer.
But I think we can all agree that this movie at least added one character that the original really needed...
The Plague Doctor that was on screen for less than ten seconds and was only there to tell Belle's father to leave.
This review is perfect. When I went to see the live action film, my whole family loved it, but I didn't. I couldnt put it into words, but it just didnt feel right, like putting a circle into a square hole. Your review is just the right wording to explain my feelings for this film.
I like how you put it as in circle in a square hole because a square in a hole would make it too much in the movie but no they just take out everything and it's like trying to put this into a shell of an object. A circle won't fill the square
snowyoreo663 exactlyyyy
snowyoreo663 I agree with critic The acting is just not invested in their characters and any unique changes they did make were either pointless or ruined by the bland facial expressions. I admit to watching it several times, but mostly for the songs...ya that’s it and Gaston he wasn’t bad.
I think if Disney wished to do a live action “remake” of this story I think it would of been cooler to focus on the beast’s point of view. Show how is childhood was bad, how he struggled in losing his humanity for being a beast for so many years, gain his humanity through his interactions with Belle, the list could go on about the interesting changes that could of been an interesting movie
True
I really don't get this obsession with live-action remakes. I get why Disney does it, cause they'd dissect their own kids and sell the organs on black market if they could, but the audiences? The animated version has all the advantages. Better performers, livelier cinematography and editing, no distracting CGI face, art design that doesn't look like the most overproduced tasteless kitsch. Is there still so little respect for animation in the West that people need to demand a "real movie" even when it turns out to be less intelligent and worse crafted than the original for kids?
For me, a greatly warranted remake is one that can offer something more/better/different from the original. I agree with a lot of Doug Walker's criticisms and thought this remake definitely did not offer me enough of those three things to have lasting appeal (plus did not do certain things as well as the original to begin with). However, I personally thought it at least offered enough for me to enjoy seeing it once and move on, so I weirdly both agree with Doug and still liked the movie. If you would like to read more, these are some of my specific thoughts:
For instance, there is a big difference in the kind of performance one sees, when watching an animated human character versus a flesh-and-blood actor portraying said iconic character (note: I am not saying live-action is better than animation, just different). So for some people, it can be an exciting new experience to see characters like Maurice, Gaston, Lefou, etc. be portrayed in a live-action movie (I thought Kevin Kline, Luke Evans, and Josh Gad did great). There is always the potential for new songs to be brought to the table, as was already done in the Broadway show, and I did enjoy some of them in the remake too (like "How Does A Moment Last Forever" and "Evermore"). I also have never before seen a live-action movie that tries to portray characters like the servants-turned-furniture, which would be much more challenging to do in live-action (since you cannot just take a picture of an object, draw a human face on it, and animate it like any other cartoon character). Sure, I see how a few of them like Mrs. Potts can approach the uncanny valley at times for some people, but for the most part, I thought their live-action portrayals exceeded my expectations and Lumiere especially felt alive, expressive, creative in design, and fun. The remake's "Be Our Guest" made me feel like a kid again and I thought Ewan McGregor was great as his voice. So in that regard, I do consider the furniture's portrayals to be a very creative technological achievement, almost like the CGI talking animals in the live-action Jungle Book remake. Finally, there were at least a few unique character moments from the remake that I liked (even though I agree with Doug that most of the more important character moments were done much better in the original), and the fact that the animated film was based on a preexisting source material meant that a remake at least had the potential to explore into other elements of the original fairytale.
But I still would not exactly go out of my way to see it again over the original, since it both lacks the original's near perfection in its narrative/pacing/visuals and does not offer enough things more/better/different to fully separate itself from the original. Predicting that this was going to be my reaction, I purposely avoided seeing the movie in theaters until after the first few weeks have passed (when corporate executions pay attention to profits the most), so I could then see the film, have a decent time, and appreciate the actors'/filmmakers' work while hopefully minimizing how much I "reward" the studio executives much higher up, for funding this project over something much more worth the time and budget.
Personally, the one I am most worried about is "The Lion King," since it would literally just be turning a hand-drawn animated film into a 3D animated film (unless some of the backgrounds are real locations being filmed). The Jungle Book remake already did a near-perfect job, in my opinion, at creating animated animals that could talk, emote, and interact with live-action people, so the Lion King remake would not even have that new achievement going for it. It is especially concerning, since The Lion King's hand-drawn animation will be much more difficult for a remake's visuals to compete with than the original Jungle Book's. Plus, the Lion King is already nearly perfect in my opinion and not even based on any preexisting source material that could be further delved into, aside from loosely being inspired by Hamlet. The only things more/better/different I can imagine a Lion King remake doing is incorporating more of the Broadway songs (like "The Madness of King Scar"), maybe delving more into Scar's past and relationship with Mufasa (taking notes from Shakespeare works like Macbeth), doing some really minor touch ups on certain character moments, etc. But that is it. I cannot imagine there being much to offer. I guess I am also really concerned about Aladdin, since they are remaking this without Robin Williams and so soon after he died, which inherently is an uphill battle if one wants to do a good job and still come off as respectful to Williams.
The only live action movie I enjoyed from disney was Enchanted.. but that was technically a half and half of Live action and animation
however because it wasn't a remake the live action was done quite well
Yeah...I don't get it either....I make an exception for the Jungle Book, because that is a source which leaves a lot of room for interpretation and Disney actually did a pretty good job with this one. But otherwise, the originals are great, what is the point of seeing a lesser version of it? I really don't get how they make so much money. I guess it is the Transformers effect.
I think the thing is that people keep on expecting something amazing out of-and being disappointed by-the live action remakes. Oh, with the animation, CGI, actors, and general directing advancements of the time then SURELY the remake will be a wonderous experience that not only matches the original but perhaps even surpasses it?
Nope. It's just another shitty remake. But there's still the "what if" perpetually hanging as a specter in people's minds; What If it's actually something amazing, What If it genuinely respected and built off the original...and that little doubting question is enough to get millions of people to shell out hundreds of millions-even billions-of dollars.
It's a money-making scam, low effort and low vision for incredible profit, and as long as there's profit like they've been getting then it'll keep happening year after year, decade after decade...I'm not even mad, really. It's a good business strategy. From an economic standpoint it's a good idea. I'm just disappointed.
Making these with humans costs a fraction of what a full animated film takes to make. It’s why you see so many. Their cheap (increasingly so as cgi gets easier and easier to use instead of taking the time and money for physical effects) and, as mentioned at the beginning, make a lot of money. What executive could resist?
If Gaston is in the French army then he should be wearing blue
Why is he wearing English red
Fotus armored Spartan 3 seriously...this film claims to be historically accurate yet makes sssooo many mistakes
Gaston was wearing a fashionable men's coat and hunters red shirts to blend in to the village people but made sense because he was a successful hunter...not a soldier
Da
Actually, the French uniforms at that time were white with gold. The French adopted blue during the Revolution and the government of Napoleon.
Mitchell George I know that but from what I can tell this takes place after the Napoleonic wars
Wasn't the original Beauty and the Beast published in a magazine targeted towards Women?
"Whoops."
"Whoopsie."
Pitch meeting😂😂
Plot holes are tight!
There were even literary salons where ladies of the French court would write and tell stories to one another.
Fucking this movie up was super easy, barely an inconvenience.
14:46 I like how the Beast threw a temper tantrum cause Doug called him a dumbass