Something I realised it was absent in the 2017 movie during the relationship between Belle and the Beast? physical contact, which was increasing during the 1991 movie, at first Belle helping Beast with his wounds, then Beast taking her hands guiding her to the library, then Belle grabing Beast''s hands when he showed her his library saying thank you.....and then the dancing moment and when the Beast let her go, he played with her hair a little, showing how affectionate he became towards her, and she even touched his face before she leaves the castle, that's CHEMISTRY!, that's a little of INTIMACY, two things I never saw in the entire movie!. She was like "oh gosh I can't stand this monster"
I think in the animated movie they had more of an emotional, affectionate relationship. The live action movie was more intellectual and reserved. Like a Jane Austen novel. Even with no one around to chaperone, you shouldn't be doing too much touching. But I did also wonder if part of it was the difficulty of the CGI. It's one thing to have the actor hold a plate or a book. But if you have to animate each individual hair moving when Belle touches his face, that's probably more difficult.
@@TheSongwritingCat Disney should have thought about it before doing this movie, first of all, they should have made Dan Steven's appearance with make up instead of CGI, they were thinking about it, it would have given him more personality. You are right, maybe it was difficult to make Beast a touching monster with CGI, but at the end it made this story bland and out of feelings. An intellectual level would have been a different point of view, but they decided to be straight to the original, so the comparison will be always there
Oh yeah in the original animated film the chemistry and the intimacy was clearly there and naturally developed, but here, absolutely none of that, all in the name of political statements and crud like that. Keep politics far away from entertainment as humanly possible unless your making a political thriller or something!
Sympathising Gaston totally ruined the point of the character. Gaston was supposed to be the antithesis of the Beast; where the Beast is unappealing and monstrous on the outside but kind-hearted and generous on the inside, Gaston is the opposite; attractive and charismatic on the outside, but monstrous on the inside. Making him sympathetic ruins that mirroring.
yeah but that’s modern Disney for you. it all goes back to them fundamentally misunderstanding their own movies. there’s rarely ever a villain or “bad guy”, every single character has to be somewhat redeemable. Disney seems to think it’s audiences need to be spoon-fed the message nowadays.
That’s not entirely true though because the reason the beast was cursed in the first place was because he was exactly like Gaston, an incredibly terrible rude but outwardly beautiful/handsome looking person. I think it should be fine for Disney to deepen the characters inside the stories of the animated movies because if they copied the animated movie completely it would be just a cheap life action copy. I think they did approach the issue misguided but the fact that everyone seems to think Gaston can’t be a 3 dimensional character when he’s literally what the Beast was like before he was cursed kind of feels like you didn’t get the entire message of the beauty and the beast, that you can, and should change to be a better person for the one you love. Villains can be great even if they’re one dimensional but since the animated movie already has that type of villain why not allow them to change it up a bit for an interesting twist. You can argue that Gaston in the original doesn’t want to learn to change but it’s mostly because he never gets cursed or scorned by the people in the village much like the servants never stopped the beast before he was cursed for being a terrible person. Also again, that’s the original animated movie’s story since the live action involves real people playing the characters, a more 3 dimensional character seems fitting. I feel like people are just hating the idea of change because the nostalgia of the old animated movies are still present and it’s kind of clouding everyone’s judgement
@@jeel6576 noo, it doesn't work. They kept the original story, they changed the characters: doesn't mesh very well. They needed to alter the stroy to accomodate the new "three dimensional characters", but alas, they didn't. That's why it doesn't work.
It’s also bizarre because in the original he also represents and spearheads the misogyny that keeps Belle down. The remake makes a big deal about girlbossing and yet it tries to make you feel bad for Gaston.
Can't wait until the Hunchback of Notre Dame remake reveals Frollo is attracted to Esmeralda since she reminds him of his mother whom was hanged, burned, and whipped to death wile giving birth to him.
Tbh, if they decide to follow the plot of the original novel by Victor Hugo, like the musical, it would be quite interesting. Of course, it would need to be Disney's idea of "woke", so Esmeralda will undeniably be turned into a gIrL bOSs/giant prick. Oh well.
I find it genuinely fascinating that the harder Disney tries to empower their female characters in these remakes, the LESS compelling they become. The townspeople's issue with Belle was never that she could read, it's that she was a weird introvert who preferred reading over basically any other activity. They fucked this up with Mulan as well! Why is she a Jedi now? The whole point of the original was that she worked her ass off and became just as skillful a warrior as any man despite everything stacked against her. Now she just has crazy superpowers and is better than everyone to begin with.
You're wrong about Belle. She WAS judged by being a woman and reading, Gaston himself says "everyone is aware that it is not right for a woman to read". But yes the rest is right.
@@mieshocked1450 Perhaps it was more of a subtextual thing in the animated film (woman who could read *and* preferred to read over interacting with others) which was focused upon more in the live-action version.
It's because their female empowerment is written through a lens of their OWN sexism and misogyny, so they literally don't know how to make it ACTUALLY EMPOWERING
The whole 'teaching another girl to read' thing is what bothers me the most about this adaptation. Belle wasn't considered weird because she *could* read, it's because she liked to read, because she preferred to read over engaging any of the poor provincial townies. And boy, my introverted ass sure did relate to animated Belle preferring to lose herself in books instead of human contact. That was kind of the point of Belle, to relate to all the little girls who felt like the outcasts, alone and stuck in a little nothing town with nothing to do. Plus, how does a town with only be one literate woman end up having it's own fully stocked bookshop!?
Yes! In cinema it's usually a guy who is different, weird and potentially outcasted, so as a girl who spent almost every break and lunch in primary school reading alone it was really nice to see a character like Belle.
Also the fact a black man could own a library but a girl wasn't allowed to read bothered me. This movie just made me annoyed It felt like forced feminism.
@@ghoulish_graveyard It's fake feminism. Taking a perfectly fine screenplay written by a woman and letting two dudes write a new screenplay "fixing" problems that were only identified by pedantic (male) youtubers.
One thing that really surprised me when i grew up is that Belle is not an intellectual. In media she's treated as this super smart know it all. And she IS smart, but her real characteristic is that she's a romantic and a dreamer. She doesn't read metaphysics, she reads stories about far off places, sword fights, and fairy tales. She dreams life can be bigger that what she has. She doesn't have TV, internet, or games, so she relies on books to give her that excitement. If she had a choice she wouldn't be reading but LIVING that life. She doesn't care what people think because this inner life is so much more important to her. Making her an inventor changes her fundamental character.
What I definitely can't stand from this movie is the fact that in the original; the beast was losing his "humanity" with the spell as time went by: The beast initially walked on four legs because he had forgotten how to walk on two legs, he had forgotten how to read (and Belle helps him), etc. Belle's presence made him force himself to change; To fight his curse. Belle came to bring his humanity back. And the 1991 film made us understand it very well and in a beautiful way. And NOW, in this new version it is assumed that the Beast knows how to read, walks perfectly upright, and has no other problems with his spell but with his "physical appearance". It's what I can't stand of this movie. In the original film, Belle did not find a cultured beast (who read every single book of his library 🙄), but in a bad mood as in this new film; she found someone broken, rude, almost animal, with almost no part of his humanity and returned it with her kindness and sweetness. Something that in my humble opinion, they did not demonstrate in this live-action. I love 1991 version so much 💛, too bad they didn’t made clear (or even showed!)so many morals and metaphors the original had... They just changed it so much that it feels somehow empty when you watch it.
Sweet Rose in the original Story he had his humanity and a heart of gold, the lesson for belle was to look past his ugliness and him not being witty and to see his heart of gold. Now I love both this version and the animated version. It’s like they were trying to borrow from the fairy tale or something
I get what they were trying to do. He's less of a cartoonish buffoon. As they're falling in love, they can bond over mutual intelligence and common interests. But they could have just changed it so he can read in this version but still needed to regain his humanity.
@ what does your asperger have to do with this? Dont belittle someone saying youre betted than them by stating a disorder and claiming it wasnt a hindrance to your mental capacity.. Dont be shallow
So empty you could say they cared more for LOOKING like the original instead of treasuring its ESSENCE... in a story about valuing a person's INNER beauty rather than their LOOKS, how insulting is that? T v T
If anything, Gaston having PTSD is an INCREDIBLY insulting caricature of former soldiers with PTSD, since Gaston is STILL unhinged, arrogant, irrational, and cruel, and we shouldn't empathize with that; otherwise, they would have given Gaston some kind of redemption arc. It's not just pointless, it actively detracts from the character.
It isn't even PTSD; he doesn't get frighted by flashbacks you know, he isn't scared, he is just pleased with the thought of killing and war and how in hell is this PTSD?
Ah, yes, the dubious pleasure/benefit of mainstream armchair-"experts" getting paid for writing about characters with mental health conditions (like the rare and not-at-all studied or documented PTSD, of which there is so little information on, eh?) that they spent all of two minutes researching on a wiki... Thanks (but no thanks) for the social recognition and accompanying further distortion of poorly-explained facts, movie writers, amirite? *laughs... cries*
Belle was kind and humble, and she was educated. She wasn’t condescending but just brushes away the misunderstandings of the town. Emma Watson’s Belle was literally the most annoying person ever, she was constantly rude to people and never bothered to communicate to them. They were rude in return and she came to the conclusion that the reason they don't like her is because she's so much better than them.
Even as a guy, that's what drives me CRAZY about most "heroines" in movies or TV today. They seem to think that a powerful or influential woman is only one that is loud, rebellious, and/or gruff and tough. It's infuriating, because NOTHING could be farther from the truth. My mother is often gentle and very tenderhearted, yet she is one of the most remarkable women I've ever known. I feel so bad for parents with little girls today.
@@thunderbird1921 Oof. Seriously, instead of just integrating a masculine girl, a feminine boy, and still have feminine women and masculine men heroes, they’ve decided that heroes can ONLY be masculine. And as a feminine woman, I never saw a good representation of my personality in movies I watched. If you’re actually “woke” you need to make heroes of every gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and personality type. Another thing that angers me is the only representation Native American people get is pochahantas? A aged up, romanticized, “amazing” story of a Native American girl abandoning her people and culture for some European man she knows nothing about, who’s men killed her people? Not to mention during the time frame the real pochahantas was 12-14 years old? Disney has some problems to fix.
I think that the egolatry thing is more like an Emma Watson's characteristic rather than something that came out with Belle herself. I mean, I've never had seen any Emma Watson's movie where she doesn't seems to believe she worths more than anyone else in the world. And it doesn't help at all that the dialogue she had to read was... well, let's just say narcisist at it's best. I don't know, that's just what I think. Btw, I'm not a native english speaker, so sorry if I made mistakes.
I can't wait for the Beauty and the Beast 2 live-action remake where they actually show Gaston eating 4-dozen eggs every morning to help him get large. I mean they say he did it... But we can't KNOW he did unless we see it in an excruciating 20-minute scene.
I also can't wait for them to explain the egg economy (the eggconomy, if you will) and how Gaston is able to afford and obtain roughly 350 eggs A WEEK in this so-called "poor provincial town".
Those eggs were comfort-eating binges to protect him from the cruelty and negligence of his abusive father! Who was a wealthy slave trader, hence his ability to afford the eggs. And now the movie is better.
Erick Wright Gaspar Noë can direct the film, and the 20 minute egg scene will borrow much of the uncomfortable nature of the 11 minute rape scene in Irreversible
No mention of the triplets? Gaston wanted Belle (known to the town folks as strange and special) over the attractive and accessible triplets of the original version, but the triplets were made unattractive in the live action version, thereby making Belle's beauty more important, and her special traits of less value.
Yeah. The whole point was that even though he could have women most of the men in town could only dream about, he wanted the best for himself because he felt that he deserved it. It wasn’t “well, those girls are ugly, so you’ll do.” Also, how about that bit where he kicks mud on them? Even for people who judge based on appearances, that should’ve killed off any desire and given him a bad rep. But I guess we gotta establish that he’s a jerk. ... except the original did that by having him make disparaging comments about Belle reading and making fun of her father. And more I could list but it would take too long.
I think because with, say, Enchanted it felt like it came from a place of love. (I mean, the creators outright said it was meant to be a love letter to the classics.) Now if it's not outright cynical it just feels... the word that feels the most right to me is weary.
"Our old movies were TERRIBLE! They only taught bad messages like how you should marry a man after you just met them and that stolkholm syndrome is fun and nothing else and weren't feminist-friendly in the slightest!" Like, did they even WATCH their old movies or just have some jaded CinemaSins writer regurgitate some Hot Takes? Mulan was the greatest girl power movie of all time. ALL TIME.
If they really wanted to take a feminist "Belle has a job and faces patriarchy" route, fine no prob, I just don't get why they didn't make her an aspiring author instead of inventor??? It would have connected all the dots! 1) It's the logical continuity of her well-known passion for reading, so it sounds less forced. 2) That makes her having her own independent aspiration, instead of ironically making her a copypaste of her father, a man. 3) The Beast being already cultured and literature enthusiast in the movie, her writing would be a new way to make him evolve and step out of superficiality. At first he would just see in Belle a pretty woman and think that "gentleman manners", a beautiful castle, pretty dresses and exuberant dinners are enough to make her happy. Finding out later about her talent and being touched by her writing would be like meeting her for the first time and make him understand more what she needs (a literal take of "reading through" her) 4) While reading wasn't forbidden for women, being a female author on the other hand was more complicated! Allowed, but subject to hard criticism. Madame de Villeneuve, the original author of the tale wrote herself in her preface something like "I hope that me being a woman won't influence too much the reading". And even if things have evolved, it's a topic that is still relevant... So more impactful than a naive, not relatable "WoMeN dOn'T rEaD" line that makes the viewer vaguely outraged for 2sec. 5) Speaking of relevance, it would bring an other dimension to the "Belle" song. By adding a couple of speaking lines, it would enlighten the fact that she can write as much as she can, ultimately even without bad intent people can't help but mostly comment on her appearance (a struggle Emma Watson herself must be familiar with btw). Apparence being... you know... the topic of the tale. During the song Belle could submit her work to the printing house for the local newspaper instead of going to the bookshop, leading smoothly to that theme without denaturing the animated movie. 6) To make the Beast more special to her, instead of making the father heartwarmingly perfect, he could himself being reluctant about her career, agreeing that she's talented, but out of worry encouraging her to lower her ambitions. It could also work if she was an inventor actually, but him having a different job would make him more easily belittle at first how it's important for her. The Beast would be the only person she knows to genuinely support her firmly. She would evolve as more confident thanks to him, so there would be a character development on her side too, and a special bond between them. 7) Since her mother was also a creative, Belle would think that her mother would have understand her better than her father, and therefore MAYBE, maybe, the mother plot would make more sense and be more touching. Maybe her mother struggled as a painter and was more violently critized than her male counterparts, explaining her father's overprotection suggested sooner? 8) Gaston could praise Belle's work to seduce her, but she would instantly suspect him to be fake and read it superficially. On the contrary the Beast would give more severe feedbacks if he doesn't like a sentence, which would actually charm Belle because they're constructive and meaningful. I think that's a cool thing to show to children, and that's once again in line with "don't be fooled by the look". You know... the topic of the tale. (Also he could actually be a literate noble, but snobbish and lacking of the Beast's artistic sensitivity, which would make the story less classist- anyway I digress) 9) Other modern take, Gaston could be a more subtle toxic villain and promises to use his wealth and popularity to help her to publish novels, patronizingly stating that "he supports women, unlike his father". He would admit later when she comes back that it was obviously a fake promise to make her accept his wedding proposal and that her work is the least of his concern. In contrast to her father who would be reluctant but genuinely wishing her the best. You know... the topic of the tale. 10) Cool homage to Gabrielle-Suzanne de Villeneuve, a FEMALE 18th century writer who provided us that tale.
In the animated version, it's implied her favorite book is the story she's about to go through. Having the live action end with her writing her own story would be a wonderful bookend for Belle!
I know I’m late to the party, but... god, the whole mess of a situation that was LeFou is even more insulting when you think about the fact that the original Beauty and the Beast was dedicated to Howard Ashman, a gay man who died of AIDS while working on the film. Way to honor his memory, Disney...
This was one of the reasons why I didn’t like the film. Howard Ashman was one of the people responsible for the Disney renaissance in the late 80s and this is how they repaid him... it’s not just LeFou, but simply how bad this version is. It made me feel a little disturbed.
Not only dedicated to him, he wrote all the songs and had considerable power over the creative process -- without him, the Disney renaissance would arguably not have happened. Eisner knew how much of a genius he was and had the entirety production of Beauty moved from LA to New York so Ashman didn't have to travel since he was already dying of AIDS. Further, this movie was made during the height of the AIDS crisis and the homophobic hysteria surrounding it; in this light, the Mob Song especially has a whole lot of applicability. And then they repaid him by making the First Gay™ the insult we see before us. Seriously, fuck Disney.
I'm pissed off that they didn't make Cogsworth the gay character for two reasons: 1. It would have been a great inside joke since in the original movie and this one, he was played by gay actors (David Ogden Stiers and Sir Ian McKellen, respectively), and 2. Instead of the stupid "nagging wife" joke (what is this, the '50s?), it would have been cute to have Patrick Stewart cameo as his husband at the end. God, movie, you blew it!
About the whole “Why would the witch do that to a child?” And “why would the witch also curse the staff?” Things. Did no one just think “Oh, the witch is an asshole” and move on? I mean, she was a witch in a fairy tale. Being mean often comes with the territory.
The witch isn't a character, she's an agent of dramatic irony and karma for the purpose of story setup. She doesn't need to be more than that. She's here to inflict punishment on a privileged royal who looks at an old woman, dying of hunger and hypothermia, and responds with "ew, useless peasant, gross." and is willing to condemn someone to an agonizing death because she didn't have anything "valuable" to offer him. He could have let her coop up in the servant quarters and not even look at her, not miss the serving of bread and soup that would feed her through the night. The cost to him would have been practically nothing to save someone from dying, but he's such a terrible person that he wouldn't give even that. The moral of being generous and merciful, especially in winter, would hold for basically the entire existence of humanity. It's possibly the biggest dick move in the history of hospitality.
@Morphing Taxi She can be justified in being upset at the Prince/Beast's violation of protocols of hospitality, while also being an arsehole who decides to use the entire castle staff as part of her punishment of the Prince/Beast. These are not mutually exclusive, and frankly entirely consistent with the kind of capricious nature of such agents in much of human myth and folklore. The narrative plot device can be morally ambiguous, amoral by design, or simply without any defined morality; it doesn't matter to the story. All you need to know is that the witch/enchantress sought out hospitality, the Prince violated social protocols of hospitality due to his character flaws, and the spurned witch/enchantress placed a curse upon him and his entire castle / staff as a result.
She's not a witch in the original fairytale. She's a spiteful old fairy who was tasked with being the Prince's governess while the Queen was busy waging war to defend her kingdom from invaders after the death of the King. Then when the Prince was about 15, right after the long war ended, the old hag fairy demanded the Prince's hand in marriage and the Queen refused on counts of her age and lack of royal blood. So she cursed the prince to spite them all. This was long after she had already busted Belle's fairy mother to the fairy council for having married a human king and then tried to court Belle's biological father(a king) using and beauty disguise- and when that didn't work she hired assassins to kidnap baby Belle and kill her. They would have gotten away with it if Belle's fairy aunt(mother's sister) had not been watching over her, turned into a bear and slaughtered the assassins before then faking Belle's death and entrusting her to a merchant who had just lost his own youngest daughter for her own safety.
@@junieb9446 What kind of character flaw is an 11-year old refusing to let a suspicious stranger into their home? Is the lesson here "always let strangers into your house or face consequences"?
@@pinkcupcake4717 She was a whole character and the primary villain to both Belle and the Beast in the original fairytale. She cursed the prince to punish him and his mother for not wanting to marry her son off to an old hag with no royal blood and she tried to have Belle kidnapped and murdered out of spite after getting her mother arrested and taken away.
Good god, and the CGI beast's expressions are so flat it's painful. The og beauty and the beast shows emotion so well it's a shock that a live action version falls so short.
And it goes further with the Beast and Gaston parallels. While Beast becomes human when he learns how to see others as people, Gaston is driven to be more monstrous because he has values Belle as a trophy or prize, *objectifying* a woman down to her physical appearance. A human sees the humanity in others, a monster views them as objects. Also, the bimbettes in town that Gaston uses as a lift during the Gaston sequence? They're *dumb-belles* . Visual puns that add to the larger metaphor!
I actually really like the idea of a fairy cursing an eleven-year-old boy and his innocent servants, because fairies were sort of . . . well . . . fickle and malevolent.
Fickle? All the time. Malevolent? Occasionally. My reading on them was they were mostly alien. They came from an older world, the world that came before ours that had radically different rules. I like to think that more often than not, they just saw the world in such a different way from the rest of us that sometimes they just straight up did not understand what they were doing. Even when they were trying to be nice, they often caused real trouble for people. I think the idea behind fairies was that sometimes, life just can't be explained and there are some things that are just inherently dangerous, even if they're not evil. You get too close to them and they will destroy you.
@@dreamyanon5151 See, that's not an unfair reading by any means, but as I said, even when they're trying to be nice, that often goes wrong. Malevolent or not, danger is the more important point. It's best not to get involved with them.
Yep! In no point in the animation they state the sorcerer was good or fair. You're totally free to think she's hypocritical or just a piece of garbage.
The Mom/Plague scene was so vital to the plot that I missed the entire thing in the theater because I needed to visit the toilet, and my only confusion when I returned was how I'd somehow managed to miss nothing
When I was a little kid I always attributed the plot hole of the beasts age him being suspended in time. Like all of the people of the castle didn’t age for the 10 years but only started when the petals started to fall. This made the issue of him being 11 go away and made the enchantress less of a jerk
Or fill the plot hole with simply the fact that out of all the enchanted people, the prince/beast was the only actually living creature. Inanimate objects don't "age" in the same sense, even if enchanted. Therefore, all the others were frozen in time while the beast was the only one who continued to age.
The whole "enchantment made the village forget" thing is so unnecessary. I always assumed that he was a secondary royal (has the title, has the money, no actual impact on the public), and this was the weird rural vacation castle that we never use, so let's stick the orphaned royal there and let him be raised by the staff so we don't have to think about him.
You're so right, this castle is in the middle of nowhere, it's highly unlikely to be the seat of real power. And especially as he is a Prince, not a King. This is confirmed to be France, which is not a principality, so he's not the King of the village (like that's a thing). A Prince can be any number of individuals: he's not the Crown Prince, so he might not be anywhere near in line for the throne, like Prince Andrew or Prince Edward here in the UK. Now I like the royal family, but I don't know where Prince Edward lives day to day and he's actually a prince of my own country. The narration even says at the start 'In a faraway land A young prince lived in a shining castle' not 'The prince'. It's nitpicky to point out the difference there, but it's nitpicky of people to complain about the village not knowing about him so why not. He might not be a prince of THIS kingdom at all, there is no reason to assume he is. Perhaps he was exiled from his own, or fled from there after a revolution and is in hiding. [To any pedantic nitpickers reading this at some point, I know that the narration later says 'the prince', but this is after his introduction so only being clear that its the same prince in discussion]. It's fun to ask silly questions like 'why don't they know about the prince?' among friends while you watch a film of course, but when it becomes actual film criticism it's silly. I guess it just points to how good the original is, a masterpiece of animation and film in general: there's nothing else to complain about in it.
@@richardbourton4523 Exactly! Most people don't realize that The Beast may not have been an actual royal monarch. Especially given that, in the 1991 version, his parents are presumably dead. Meaning that he would have been declared king at this point already. So everyone still calling him "prince" means that he was one of those petty "kings". Germany around this time (1700's) had an even better example of this, as it was made up of tiny kingdoms with even elected officials of a particular realm taking on the title of prince in some cases. Which is why I like that you mention his kingdom being in a "far away land". Even the architecture of the beast's castle (very evident at the opening of the movie) is not very classically "French". The 2017 movie sort of makes the beast's castle in a style closer to Versailles, but it also adds on all of these unnecessary gothic spires that completely clash with the rococo Versailles look I think they were TRYING to go for. That's why I adore the 1991 version. The Beast's kingdom is set in such a storybook/fairytale like setting that would appeal to Belle's love of that exact thing (obviously more so after the entire transformation). But that also brings me to another point. Belle's love for adventure and something new. We know she initially goes to the castle to find Maurice and rescue him, but she also fearlessly agrees to stay... because there IS something more at that castle than her boring provincial life back home. It is exciting. It is adventurous! She is in one of her beloved stories. When Cogsworth and Lumiere are giving her a tour of the castle and she happens to stumble upon the staircase to the West Wing, she isn't afraid when they reveal that to her. She smiles and says in an excited tone, "Ah! So THAT'S the West Wing!" showing exactly that she does not feel threatened or "stockholmed" at the castle. This is all something Belle wants for herself. Following that scene we DO see her leave saying, "Promise or not promise, I can't stay here another minute!" Which totally disproves everyone saying she developed Stockholm syndrome lol
@@brianbarnes5296 I totally agree, and really resent the ‘Belle has Stockholm syndrome’ thing, like that’s just not what happens in the movie? It’s not as simple as anyone just ‘falling in love with your captor’: there’s more to it!
The yellow dress was more of your eighth grade Miss Small Town pageant style. It seemed cheap, wasn't ultimately designed to flatter Emma, and it clearly took intermediate skill at best to make. I know that Emma refused to wear a corset regardless of the period and her choice was respected. But the only excuse for the end result that I could think of is that the costumers had some BANGING designs and they were mad that they had to scrap them.
I'm starting to wonder if they purposely made her dress that ugly specifically because she made them scrap their original designs. Like I'm sure the thg already something in mind before she was cast. Emma Watson's dress was absolute tragedy.
@@shiloha5646 I'll certainly check out the video. I personally love corsets and everything you mentioned is completely true! Even if they're not designed to be historically accurate, they can retain the comfort and style they're meant to give to an outfit when they are made with quality. I just can't imagine being the lead costumer and being told by a misinformed actress that I couldn't put her in something and watching her get her way without at least a small history lesson.
@Shiloh A Exactly. And Jacqueline Durran is actually a pretty great costume designer (except for the attrocity called Little Woman). Atonement is one of my favorite costuming moments by far. I think that she had some pretty amazing choices and the director and Emma just passed on them cause they though they knew better lol. One of the dumbest moments in history.
1) Belle wouldn’t have even worn a corset, she would’ve worn stays and 2)If Emma Watson did any research into the time period she is supposed to be portraying she’d known that actual stays and corsets we’re torture devices but are basically a bra and when properly made aren’t any more dangerous or uncomfortable than a bra. They give support and create the silhouette of wherever time they’re made in.
@@maddimagpie While I completely agree with everything all of you have said, there are still situations where I'd fully understand someone wanting to pass on a corset. For example, I own multiple handcrafted made-to-order fashion corsets (not waist trainers) and I've been known to wear them for an entire day at my local Ren Fest and ... ya'll ... as someone who poops on average ~3 times a day, corsets can be a pain. It is actually physically impossible to poop when all of your abdominal tissue is already constricted. If I were Emma Watson, staring down the barrel of multiple 12-hour shoots in an ornate and expensive corseted yellow dress, I would also try to nix the cinch, if for nothing else than my desire to consume something not puree'd in a blender in my trailer.
I heard a 14-year-old girl outside the Guardians of the Galaxy ride at Disneyland give it the most perfect critique I've ever heard: "it's beautiful but I hate it."
@Elvick I think there are some interesting artistic choices. A couple of costumes, a piece of furniture, etc. But anything good is overwhelmed by the direction, lighting, editing, endless CGI, etc. There's a lack of vision. One of the guys who wrote the screenplay also wrote Huntsman: Winter's War. That's not a great movie either, but it chooses an aesthetic and goes hard. I think they thought they were being bold with vague "historical accuracy" but then they didn't commit to it.
Surprised you didn't highlight the removal of Beast's illiteracy. I always found that to be a fundamental plot point to his transformation as a person and his understanding of Belle. He doesn't know how to read, and so in his pride, he dismisses it as stupid and a waste of time. The irony that he has this massive library to impress people, but he can't actually enjoy any of it. As Belle teaches him to read, they bond naturally through a mutual activity. By becoming engaged in a story, he learns that he was wrong about something and Belle was right, softening his pride and opening himself up to what other people have to say. We get to see him mature. He gets excited and happy and shows new emotions. Even the story they're reading (King Arthur) has implications. He sees that an ordinary boy can be a king, which maybe deep down makes him think that maybe a beast could become a man. That's reaching a bit, maybe, but I think the correlation is there. Making him literate and removing the "teaching beast to be more human through reading" aspect undermines the entire plot, and I can't for the life of me understand why they would change that. All they had to do was adapt the broadway version, if they wanted a live action movie. That's it. Such a failure.
THANK YOU - I thought I was the only one who was greatly irritated by this. Beast's illiteracy is a crucial factor to his lack of development and actual education that is then carefully and encouragingly built through the act of reading with a passionate, caring companion such as Belle. When he admits that he can not read, he is embarrassed and this is after he has clearly developed an appreciation for stories and why Belle enjoys them. He is ashamed for not having been taught but instead of being mocked or being enabled to continue living in his lack of education which is what the servants did (this is not a character fault as it makes sense that servants of such a powerful master would simply enable him to continue his ways) Belle is of course initially surprised but lovingly (because Belle is noted on her honesty and kindness as a person but of course, just scratch that, Disney) encourages the Beast to try reading and patiently listens to him and corrects his pronunciation errors. Plus, it's Romeo and Juliet which is in all fairness pretty lengthy and complicated so for Belle to patiently teach him to read that is honestly admirable. But no. Just scrap the whole thing. Bin that concept and ditch the connection. Sorry for the rant but this is such a crucial factor in this old, beloved tale that seems to be overlooked.
Yes, this! I hated that change in the live action version. Not only is he an absolute a-hole when he rolls his eyes and is condescending about her choice of favorite book, but it also portrays him as some kind of book snob while he was supposed to be the complete opposite, which added to his character growth in the original movie. His snobbish ways adds to absolutely nothing in the live action version either. He didn’t teach her anything nor did he learn anything from her. That scene when he then shows off his library just adds to that bs. I really hated this adaption.
I knew something felt off with the “Library Reveal” scene but I couldn’t place it until Lindsey pointed it out 🤣 It was so iconic and it felt like the start of a massive shift in the Beast’s personality and their romantic dynamic. Letting her have the library was a gift, and it was really sweet how unsure he was when he asked if Belle if she liked it. But the tone was so different in the 2017 version, and as Lindsey said, he’s just “showing off”, goddamn
such an important point about the townsfolk getting an unnecessary redemption arc, Howard Ashman who was the driving force behind the lyrics died of AIDS related health issues after the film and he wanted to illustrate the dangers of people like Gaston and their ability to weaponise prejudice and fear to attack the people on the fringes of society like Maurice and Belle in songs like Mob Song
While i also hate the "dumb, incompotent dad" trope, it DID actually serve a purpose in animated Beauty and the Beast. Belles' dad being a bit unhinged, and the town knowing it, gave Gaston less resistance to do something so horrible in his persuit of Belle.
Cinderella 3 is a goofy half-masterpiece of a direct-to-VHS sequel, and I love it. I saw a couple scenes over my daughter's shoulder a couple years ago, and the minute Prince Charming nope'd out the window I was sold. Also, any time Jennifer Hale or Jim Cummings get to perform their spot-on impersonations of dead classic-Disney voice actors, it's golden.
Of all those sequels that were made the only two I really liked was Cinderella 3 and Bambi 2. Bambi 2 was just straight forward fill-in-the-time-gap story developing the estranged relationship between a previously absent father and his newly motherless son. I like a handful of aspects from the third little mermaid movie such as Triton's reason for hating humans, the reason Sebastian is so highly regarded with Triton, exploring the personalities of Ariel's sisters. Everything else was ...not great. Flouder was a completely different character. The villain sucked. At least it wasn't a complete waste like the second little mermaid movie which I generally pretend doesn't exist.
Cinderella 3 is the best of the buch and I say that with pride! Little Mermaid 3 was pretty nice, and worked as a story on its own. Bambi 2 was also quite good and interesting! Mulan 2 isn't *that* bad... And I just refuse to believe Pocahontas 2, Little Mermaid 2 and (worst of them all) Hunchback 2 even exist.
"We can't leave things to people's imaginations. Then they might go make an Internet about it." "Go make an Internet about it" is now a phrase I will use on the regular. Thank you.
I am late here but what I have noticed from the relationship of belle and the beast was that it was mostly the beast making belle fall in love with him instead of the other way around. In the original you can see that the beast was actually the one who was falling for belle which in turn making him care for her and him wanting to change things about himself because of how kind and understanding belle was. In the remake, it was just belle falling in love with the beast and while the beast remains snarky and unempathetic. Belle was just adjusting to his needs and "accepting" his flaws while she also remains snarky and being better than anyone else.
Omg right??? It makes the original's dynamic all the more sweet. There's just a mutual fondness between the two and you can tell that they really care about one another. Live action? I dont even know.
That's why many women, me included, prefers Beast more than his human form , because we all learned to love him even before Belle did. He changed for his own volition, he wanted to make Belle happy and the library scene wasn't cute because the Beast was showing off his book collection; it was cute because he even asked Belle to cloae her eyes because he has a surprise for her, showing that behind that fluffiness there was a child and cute personality that wanted to make you smile and being happy being there . Emma Watson added that stupid phrase in the balcony scene saying "can anybody be happy if they aren't free"??? for the dummies and their Stockholm syndrome thing .....but indeed Belle WAS HAPPY!!! she only missed her papa , she had everything she wanted there ; a nice castle where everybody attended her nicely ; someone who understands her passion and even read together ❤❤. That's why after all she stays in the castle with Adam , her father and the town is no longer a issue .
I was so disapointed by the library scene. That was the best scene in the original, both for the character growth that beast noticed that Belle loved books and actively thought about a present and the epic library reveal. But the new one threw the scene away "Oh I guess you can have my library, it's dark and dank."
Even worse, it's yet another negg: "You can start educating yourself by reading any book in my library. Because all of them are better than the crap you like."
@@kragary Oh man, I didn't even think about that! I was so focused on the bad lighting and bad cinematography. All Disney had to do was make the original scene live action, but no, we get a negg instead.
Plus the way she looks so happy in the library. Felt like she fell in love with him because he gave her something she wanted, not out of genuine kindness.
Being a combat vet, the scene where Gaston was being calmed via remembering the horror of war while being a bloodthirsty psychopath really gives the WORST possible impression of what PTSD is. It's stupid and menial, but wow did that scene piss me off.
@@Guru_1092 then use subversive tactics properly. Use appropriate setting jargon of that period and of that setting. Modern lingo doesn't fit and shatters subversion. It simply becomes a modern meme instead of timeless story telling
the thing about belle reading books was never "omg she is so feminist she can read" it was more of "she lives in her own world, reads a lot of stories,wants adventures and doesn t care about what other people think". in the original disney movie, the people from the town say that her head is always stuck in a book and that they just don t understand how a person can care so little about her looks and the handsome hunter everyone loves. they were mostly kind to her but they just didn t care about the stories she reads about. the whole point of the story is that belle wants an adventure, a story of her own (which she gets) not "she wants to teach girls how to read and she invents stuff".
She still insults everybody else in the middle of the street. She called the baker DUMB in the intro song. She's such an insufferable bitch. Yeah you can read. It's not like she WROTE a book. Good luck making bread out of pages.
@@fabiomoreira1506 She never calls the baker, or anyone else in town, dumb. Her line is "There goes the baker with his tray like always, the same old bread and rolls to sell." She is never rude to any of the villagers (except Gaston, but that's because he keeps trying to pressure her into marriage.)
Fabio Moreira But she’s not wrong?The townspeople aren’t exactly intellectual or out of the ordinary. She doesn’t even think it’s a bad thing, she just feels like she doesn’t fit there. And it’s not like townspeople are any better to her or Maurice.
@@thisgoddamusernamestoodamnlong Sorry to say, but entire communities basically style their entire attitude and arguments just like CinemaSins. Full of tired "gotcha's" and tangential nitpicking and constant bad faith bullshit - I mean, have you seen any argument in a controversial video game TH-cam video and seen how it goes? It's exactly as exhausting and stupid as you'd expect.
As the father of a girl with an interest in theater, I have seen more adaptations of Beauty and the Beast than I care to count, most of them being some chopped-down form of the Disney stage musical. And the thing that struck me when I tried watching this live-action movie is that it's the most listless, low-energy version of this story I've ever seen. It's considerably less watchable than the outdoor YMCA camp staging in which everyone was played by a ten-year-old.
Matt McIrvin Yes! Honestly, I was surprised how flat and unconvincing the acting in this film was, considering it was a high-budget Disney production. A darned shame!
Very true, tho I mostly attribute that to Emma Watson's acting, since I actually enjoyed Luke Evan's performance as Gaston and I actually wasn't looking forward to his casting. Lefou definitely wasn't low energy and I found the rest of the cast passable. Emma, tho, was literally less emotional than sheets of paper (drawn animation paper to be exact.
Escape Goat ...but then, NEVER USES THE BOOK to help fix anything that the characters have to did with in the entire movie! Why over-explain the “science” behind all the other enchantments & plot holes, but then add the most useful magic MacGuffin that gets forgotten by the film’s cast save for needing it for a pointless scene that goes absolutely nowhere? Yeah, making a big deal about this Lefou being gay & crushing on Gaston is equally as dumb as it’s in the same fruitless vein of adding that book of Instant Transmission, since that too went nowhere relevant, but at least I wasn’t yelling: “Use the teleport book to save Maurice and end the movie already!!!” in the theater upsetting my date - at least she liked this crappy remake!!
@@zau64I only saw this movie once so I might be misremembering, but I swear she took something from the house and brought it back with her when they poofed back to the castle, meaning they were physically there.
Another problem with the live action movie is that it is so dark - like literally, I can't make out most of the expressions in a lot of scenes. The animated version managed to have dimly lit scenes but you could still see everything clearly.
This is more a problem with most modern moviemaking- the executives of most companies seem to have caught some idea that having a film be deliberately hard to see, with lots of shadow and darkness, makes it look more mature, gritty, and realistic. This idea seems to have originated after The Dark Knight, and the trend just keeps getting worse with each movie put out this way. Lighting departments are actually staffed with people trained in using dark-colored blue and grey light to make a scene look dark while still clearly showing what’s going on- they’re just being _told_ not to do this. Because privileged rich idiots are always the ones put in charge of moviemaking companies, and they don’t know what audiences want, so they just keep following bad trends and ignoring the advice of anyone with talent on staff.
Soo... I paused the video and wrote a whole three-paragraph screed on how stupid the literacy subplot was literally thirty seconds before the part where you talk about just that. Mea stulta. Anyway, I'm reworking it a little, because I did actually have an original point hidden in there. Not only was female literacy not considered a bad thing, but Belle as presented in this movie would actually have been the It Girl of the village. A woman who _can_ read is useful (and remember that marriage at the time was more of a business transaction than a romantic one), but a woman who _likes_ to read is a real catch. A well-lettered woman was entrée into the upper classes, someone who can chat pleasantly with the wives of aristocrats, and thus introduce her friends (maybe someone's younger sister wants a job as a maid? A widow or spinster wants to be a lord's cook?), as well as introduce her husband to theirs (hello business opportunities!). A woman _wants_ to teach children to read can teach _her_ children to read, instead of paying a tutor. She can also assist the local priest in teaching the youngest children to read, which would have been serious social brownie points at the time. And a woman who invents labor-saving devices is hugely popular in a society where people have to work 16-hour days to keep food on the table and stay out of debtors' prison. Even moreso if she rents out the device or starts a business making and selling them, bringing in extra cash or favors for the household. Granted, the business would technically belong to her father, but since he would have nothing to do with the running of it, the business would probably be part of her dowry and pass to her husband so she could keep running it, making her an even better catch. Basically, Belle wouldn't be that weird feminist chick. She'd be the most popular woman in the village, with women hoping she could help them rise socially or do them favors and every single man in the village proposing to her father left and right. There are _so_ many ways in which women were second-class citizens in pre-industrial France, but reading and inventing are absolutely _the worst_ choices the filmmakers could have made for something to make Belle a social outcast. It worked in the animated version, because people said she was reading instead of getting work done (not getting work done would be a _big_ no-no)-and because the animated version isn't _trying_ to be true to the setting-but in the live-action, she's actually teaching someone to read _while_ getting her chores done, which means she's using her intelligence to get two jobs done at once instead, which the villagers would see a good thing.
tildessmoo but it’s easier to say that women were treated like trash, but hey, y’all got it great now, right? She’s a strong independent woman; she’s a rebel
Yes! This would have been a really interesting direction for the movie anyway- maybe they could have made Belle really desirable because of these traits but she feels that people only see those things about her rather than her personality. At least that way she could have had some sort of level ground with the beast, who would see that as a beautiful young woman he probably wouldn't stand a chance with her, but getting to know her as a person, maybe he would. Damn there were so many awesome ways this remake could go- even though the original is amazing- and they blew it at every turn.
The thing that annoyed me the most (besides the magic book - that was the most jarring and unnecessary), was the fact that the changes to both the Beast's character and Gaston's blurred them too close together. One of the biggest points I always make in defense of the original movie is that even when the Beast is at his worst, he's more redeemable than Gaston. For one thing, like some other comments have pointed out, the original Beast is very childlike; his rages are scary because he's a beast, but they're very much a spoiled child's impulsive temper tantrums that he regrets afterwards. He clearly comes across as a boy who was cursed very young and never really grew up until Belle's arrival. He's never sexist either; his initial rudeness has nothing to do with Belle's gender. Portraying him as a foppish, woman-objectifying adult when he's cursed and cutting the moments of guilt and sincere attempts at kindness from his early scenes with Belle just doesn't feel right. Ditto the whole "Gaston has PTSD" conceit and all his new interactions with Maurice. Until the very end, the original Gaston is never prone to impulsiveness or outbursts of temper. He's a cold-blooded manipulator, which is worse. All this fits with the story's main theme too. Not only is the Beast ugly on the outside while Gaston is handsome, he's also more outwardly unpleasant at first while Gaston seems affable and funny, if boorish. But these traits are just as superficial as their looks; the original Beast always has inner decency and vulnerability, while Gaston has none. The live-action version makes them just too similar throughout.
It's like they tried to make Gaston both more and less villainous which... works out predictably awkwardly. I mean just compare the scene where Gaston approached Belle in the town about her book. In the original, he outright dismisses her hobby because it would lead to her developing her own autonomy. In the new one, he tries to make small talk about it coming across more like a bumbling 14-year-old who doesn't know how to talk to girls...
Just because you're not as bad as one person doesn't necessarily make you good. They're just horrible in different ways. Like saying someone who beats a woman is better than a rapist. Both are still horrible people who inflict pain on their victims, just in different ways. Gaston was a POS but at least he KNEW Belle and wanted her despite what the townspeople saw as weird. The beast just wanted her so she could break the spell and turn him and all his servants back into people again.
yeah but you see here, theres something called growth in the original. the beast had thoughts of having her break the spell pushed on to him because of his servants. he has no confidence in himself that itll actually work. he does try to make her like him as well as do genuine stuff just to make her happy. like showing her his library and letting her have access it to it at all times. he did it just to make her happy for all shes done. he dances with her to form a connection and maybe make her fall in love but at this point hes falling in love himself. then he lets her go when she needs to instead of forcing her to stay. thats growth. we see beat grow from a selfish shut in whos given up hope to a caring person willing to let his own needs go in order to make the woman he loves happy. gaston saw belle as a trophy. a woman who was very different from the rest of them and therefor should be his. he also had no respect for her, envisioning their marriage as her basically attending to her man which is not an idea belle was fond of. we then see as gaston continues to have his anger and frustration get the better of him and makes him a worse person. rallying the townsfolk to his aid to kill what he perceives as a threat to his love for belle and he just wants a new trophy. its like the original had characters in them or something.
What's interesting in the original is Belle's harshness toward the beast for a while, and how it affected him slowly. If you ever watch The Madness of King George (VERY interesting film), there's a POWERFUL quote by Dr. Willis, the king's physician. He says "Who can thrive on such a daily dose of compliance? To be CURBED, STOOD UP TO, it exercises the character." He goes to suggest it's the want of such discipline that creates tyrants. In B&TB's context, only after this is accomplished can one seek to build a positive relationship with someone AT ALL. Moral of the story, discipline your kids and hold strong folks in check.
@@MagnusTNT But Ron and Hermione seemed to enjoy bickering in the books. There was a scene where Harry tried to make them stop and both turned to him and yelled at him to be quiet before turing back to each other and bickering. Plus the back and forth was more lively than this shit show. Also Ron always stood up for Hermione. Tldr, Ron and Hermione are not the same as Belle and the beast.
@@EspeonMistress00 well Ron in the movies actually agreed with snape about Hermione being an insufferable know it all. Also while you're logic may apply to some scenes, some of there arguments led to Hermione in tears and ron being physically injured, so while I get what you're saying, they seemed to be quite miserable alot of the time. Also what book and what chapter did Hermione and Ron yell at Harry and continue bickering, I legit don't remember that part
@@MagnusTNT The movies are not canon. And only once did the situation become miserable and it's because of Lavender Brown becoming a wedge between Ron and Hermione.
I'm glad somebody finally addresses that they weren't supposed to tell Belle about the rose or the curse! Every time I tell that to someone they don't understand that she's supposed to develop those feelings without her knowing he was human once. She's supposed to develop these feelings thinking that he is truly a beast, but she loves him anyway. I honestly hated this remake, and my friends hate me for hating it.
There are ways she can know about the curse and it can be appropriate. Christophe Gan's "Beauty and the Beast" did well with this. But the Beast wasn't trying to make Belle fall in love with him. He pretty much figured that she couldn't. The rose her father picked had a "Life for a life" rule attached to it. So if the rose is taken, then a life must pay for it. And Belle chooses that it must be her own life. (And there's a whole reason for that that makes sense.) So it can be done, but you have to take a completely different approach to the whole concept. And that is precisely the problem with this version.
Sweaty I mean, that's not like they tell her HOW to break the curse or that she has to fall in love with Beast. When Belle asks what she can do to help, they just say they're cursed and have made their peace with things. Still, I'm sorry your friends treat you that way.
Bruh that library scene really cemented why I hate the remake so much. Bad singing aside, that library scene was suppose to be a huge thing for both belle and the beast and the remake just said meh.
why can't they just say "okay, this character is gay" than move on, oh yeah, china doesn't like gay people, so just SUBTEXT. come on disney, just man up and say a character is gay.
One of my favorite parts in the original film was how books are something that help bond Belle and the Beast. He's an adult with anger problems but you get to see how he's still just a boy because a simple thing like reading makes him so happy & peaceful. It's also significant considering how Belle was constantly mocked for reading by everyone in town and Gaston saying "it's not right for a woman to read". Contrastingly, the Beast loves hearing Belle read and she teaches him to read as well, signifying his growing up. THAT is a good dynamic, not the Beast sneering at Belle for liking Romeo and Juliet.
I don't mind him sneering at R&J. It's a silly idea of romance and more of a cautionary tale about overly emotional teens. But the screenplay didn't do enough to show them bonding over literature. Oh, he allows her to read him a poem and then they stare out into the distance in companionable silence? So many men scoff at romance but don't understand it well enough to write it.
TheSongwritingCat - My point was moreso that in the live action everyone sneers at her for reading, and then when she finally meets someone who also likes reading he’s a dick about what she enjoys. This erases the crucial difference between the Beast and everyone else-where Gaston is a rude, ignorant dumbass, the Beast is a rude, pretentious brat who, instead of mocking her for reading, mocks her for reading the wrong things. OG Beast loved when Belle read to him and would encourage her to do so because he found the same passion in stories as she did.
So did they put that in because "He's a dude and dudes wouldn't dig romance or girly things like that"? Well, I'm a dude. I grew up watching Disney princess movies and loving them. I was into things like Beatrix Potter and the Secret Garden as a kid. What I'm saying is just because you see several videos of a guy scoffing at the idea of something romantic doesn't mean there isn't someone who genuinely loves that who exists.
Personally, I didn't like the live-action BB is because they never showed off how clever Belle can be. I'm not talking about her book-smarts. Animated-Belle had guile, she managed to tricked Gaston out of her house, while Watson just vents off her disgust and frustration in a song.
The original reminds me a bit of Mulan... we learn that Mulan's crafty and resourceful from the first like... 3 minutes of her screentime. Mulan's cleverness is what saves the day/China twice over. The movie doesn't hit us over the head with "WOW ISN'T MULAN SO SMART? DID YOU NOTICE BEING SMART IS HER DEFINING CHARACTER TRAIT? ISN'T IT A SHAME THAT SHE'S A WOMAN IN THIS SOCIETY?" right away like the damn washing machine scene in the remake.
hmmm…interesting. Thinking back, Mulan's craftiness also causes her to get in trouble in the beginning, setting a chicken lose and setting a house (and a bride connoisseur's butt) on fire. I think that makes a big difference from BB. Mulan's cleverness is a good trait that saved China, but it also is the reason she causes so much disruption at home. In other words, it tells us that its a disruptive quality she has, but overall a good and praiseworthy one and she is rewarded for keeping that cleverness. We see how it causes antagonism, but we also see that its good. Bell's similar innovativeness remake is a good character trait. Just, objectively good. Why is the town against a washing machine? Why doesnt the town like women reading? Bell's relationship with town seems to setup a subplot, as Lindsey Ellis describes, where her talent someday becomes recognized. While this talent does help her to make a explosive to free her dad, its not really a fitting end to the arc. Having her be creative and inventive isn't really a problem, I think, its how the town responds to it. IF they had shown she made a washing machine and the town didnt notice or shrugged it off, at least then it would be more akin to characterization, and that would make her making an explosive believable (its still believable in the movie) without making it a subplot….still I'm not a film expert, maybe that would still make that inventive quality go nowhere in the movie….
Part of the problem is that animated Gaston was more openly menacing. He crowds into her personal space and forces his way into her house so she has to be clever to stay safe and avoid upsetting him (a realistic danger for a woman rejecting a man) while still getting him out of the house. Live action Gaston grabs her skirt one time but she quickly pulls it back and darts into her house. There's no sense of physical coercion. Because live action Belle is so capable, we don't see Gaston as a threat anymore. It's like how live action Belle has to tell us that she's definitely not scared... which means we never see her being vulnerable. Real courage is not never being frightened. It's being frightened and still choosing to act.
No mention of my favorite nitpick of this movie. Why is there only one person with a French accent in a provincial town in France? Why does literally everyone else have a British accent? In the original it at least makes a tiny bit of sense that a lot of the characters have American accents since it's a movie produced by an American company... but the British accents... why?
It's a little thing called "translation convention". Essentially, it's the idea that if a story takes place exclusively within a certain country (in this case, France), and all the characters are stated to be native to that country or at least able to speak the language, then you can assume that in-universe they are all speaking the language native to that country (French), and the fact that the actors are using their own native language and accents is purely for the audience's benefit. In this case, a vast majority of the main cast was British (Emma Watson, Dan Stevens, Luke Evans, Ian McKellen, Ewan McGregor, Emma Thompson, plus a significant majority of the supporting cast as well) so that became the standard accent as opposed to the mostly American cast of the original. Really, what people should have a problem with is that fact that in both version Lumiere has is speaking with a French accent since that instantly breaks the accepted rules of translation convention and makes him seem like a French person speaking another language.
It’s a shame Lindsey couldn’t hold all these feelings in until Mulan 2020, because that movie takes every problem she points out here and ramps it up to 11. I want to watch her destroy that movie.
@@LilyApus She said the Raya movie was a rip-off of Avatar the Last Airbender. Disney fans called her racist for saying East Asian cultures are the same as a South East Asian cultures, which she didn't. They saw any criticism for that movie as punching down because it was pandering to an underrepresented culture, so nothing she said reached them. ...Except when she compared herself to a trans person who got harassed online by transphobes. She made a video about this mess called "Mask Off." I wouldn't recommend watching it because it takes _forever_ to get to the point. Other TH-camrs have made videos about it which is how I know in the first place. Good news is Xiran Jay Zhao, who destroyed the Mulan remake, has since gathered South East Asian people to destroy Raya the same way and effectively defend Lindsay. I haven't seen any changes, though. Lindsay's still gone.
@@kimifw58 I assume this all happened on twitter which is a terrible place to go with opinions of any kind because if there is one place on the entire internet that is determined to read way into something it's there, also seeing that she made a few videos after the "Mask off" one it seems like her desire for TH-cam naturally died off sometime after that incident which is a real shame, hopefully her book worked out for her and she doesn't "need" to make videos, but I sure will miss the ones she will never make, I do find it intensely ironic the things she has covered so far of which there have been quite a few hot topics that a shitty dragon movie that was designed to pander to people which is never a good goal in the first place and should insult them more than empower them is what sends the mob after her in the end. also I love the Dib pfp, and thank you for answering in detail.
@@LilyApus as far as I can surmise, it became really exhausting for her because this kind of thing had happened before, except the other times it was usually right wing twitter dragging her for something she'd said in a video. For as long as I've been a subscriber, I remember it happening twice before this final blow. There's a wonderful video of a talk she gave at an event, speaking generally about TH-cam, video essays and her Hugo nomination, but it's a little disheartening because she's visibly so nervous - it was right after one of those attacks. You're right, twitter is a hellscape. It honestly makes me sad because her videos are genuinely good content. But her two books are really good (highly recommend) and she's making videos exclusively on nebula now, which people have to pay/subscribe to access, and that makes it much harder for something like this to happen again.
18:50 I think you nail this bit 100%. Lots of remakes suffer from this. Its like the writer of the remake doesn't understand the significance, emotionally, of these moments in the original film.... they dont understand that the Beast wanting to give Belle access to the library was an act of love from him. Thats a huge deal, a huge growth in the character. To make it a scene where he is simply boasting about his library completely destroys the meaning and the character growth. So sad that they did this and clearly dont understand or care what it does to the meaning
"We have no obligation to make art, history, or statements. But to make money it is often important to make art, history, or some significant statement." I will give this guy points for honesty...
Fantastic read, Disneywar. His Singles and Doubles idea wasn't a bad idea moneywise. But he got drunk on power like most people and went from medium budget movies that turn a steady profit to titanic messes like Pearl Harbor.
Nothing has ever soured the magic Disney creates for me more than that quote. All of the passion and effort from the creative teams during the Disney Renaissance to be led by that line of thinking. It sours everything. that so much powerful and innovative creations were an afterthought and byproduct instead of wanting to make the stockholders happy.
Exactly! I'm a child of the 80's. Most of my childhood cartoons were nothing more than 30 minute long toy commercials. Doesn't mean they weren't great. Money is a great motivating factor. Unfortunately most other contemporary art is not valued like this.
I think the meta commentary worked in Enchanted, cause its basically a parody. But when it comes to the other films, I think it cheapens the overall product.
@@eatatjoes6751 It also worked because the character growth went both ways. Giselle learns that feelings can change and life is more complicated than she thought, while Robert opens himself up to optimism and whimsy after his heart was broken. So on a meta level the story is saying that while childlike fantasy is no substitute for real world, that sense of wonder and joy is important to keep around.
@@eatatjoes6751Yeah, aside from Enchanted all the jabs at Disney feel very mean spirited and self-deprecating as in "Hey guys look, we're in on the joke haha"
See, they SHOULD have gone this route. What happened to Beast himself may have been justified, but his staff were innocents. The Enchantress was following Fair Folk rules, which are not our own, and it's okay to depict her as kind of a terrible person in her own right.
@@ingonyama70 Personally, I think making her obviously a fairy and less like a human witch solves this problem. Fairies are not rational. It's not about lessons and morality.
@TheSongwritingCat well, it sometimes is still about morality but more in a dramatic irony sense then a straight forward "don't be like that". Usually it ranges from "be hospitable" to "don't howl at night in January or a parade of ghosts will drop a horse leg down your chimney"
So when I was a child the thing I loved most about b&tb was belles love of reading. I didn't care about the magic or the true love, all I wanted was to ride around on a ladder in her library room. The thing I hated about this remake is the beast mocks her love of reading at every turn. He mocks Shakespeare and doesn't give her the library room out of love. He literally just says oh this boring room over there I don't care about, there you go. And even her library in the village became 5books on a shelf in a church. Took all the magic out of it.
I never saw the Beast being cursed young as a plot hole, or even a problem. Yeah, the Enchantress cursed him when he was 11. So what? She's magic, she does what she likes, she doesn't care what you think is "logical".
It makes her kind of a giant bitch, cause she's cursing a _child_. Like sure, if he's 11 he's still a spoiled brat for behaving that way, but he's also just a child, so honestly how much humility, emotional maturity and empathy can you realistically expect? Those are things you learn over time and while it's never great to behave the way the prince did, if he was just 11 there's an honest to God chance that he just hasn't understood yet how much shallowness can hurt others. If he's a few years older you'd expect him to know though, so if he still treats others badly for superficial reasons, he's probably a bad person, so punishing him by cursing him is less of a bitch move. In that case he should have known better.
The way I always saw it, I always assumed the enchantress was a fae creature who just did things on a whim. So when she decided to knock on the castle of this young kid, and he probably acted like a baby Joffrey, she decided to just drop a karmic punishment on him, because that's just how the fae do.
@@HerrMisterTheo I agree that what the enchantress did was really shitty but honestly I thought that the enchantress was... like... part of the fae. And they tend to have a whole different dynamic then humans do. So when the prince refused her 3 days she took it as a greatter disrespect than most would.
@@Lord_Of_Night Well they never actually say how old he is, but you're right that he appears to be an adult in the pictures. But the narrator says that the rose will bloom until his 21st year, so he must be aging a bit. But I agree with Lindsay's broader point that trying to pick apart the minute logic of this movie is absolutely missing the forest for the trees XD
Back when I still obsessed with Disney, I wanted to love this movie. I really really do. I was excited that they decided Emma Watson as Belle. Boy, I was so wrong about that. The acting is so bad, the writing features so many potential subplots that didn't go anywhere, and the worse of all, not chemistry between Belle and Beast. There are no intense romantic moments like in the original. As a result, the dance scene looked plain and meaningless, because the movie failed to make me believe that they are actually in love. This movie, unfortunately, breaks all my obsession toward Disney, from loving it to hating it, to not caring about it anymore. When I looked back at this moment, it still kinda sad.
Not to mention the adamant focus on an inconsequential detail like not wearing a corset with the ballgown and THAT is the thing that made Belle so feminist shows how Disney (and consequently Emma Watson) still have outdated views on actual feminism. If they REALLY wanted to have a real feminist character they would have made her a woman of color in a provincial French town in that time period and all the struggles that a woman would have there. Same with the "gay" character. You could have done anything better than the outdated 90's view of homosexuality which is gay = offensively femme. Sigh.
@@sarakhairuddin5041 Cinderella 2015 actually my favoritr Disney live action adaptation that are not retelling like Maleficent🥰🥰🥰🥰. It is straight up adaptation of the original story and straight fairy tale adaptation with enough update for modern audienxe without losing all the fairy tale magic. It actually felt like fairy tale free from all the satire and cynical comedy that you usually found on Shrek which is rarity in this post fairy tale deconstruction era. To be honest, looking at the interview and behind the scene of Cindetela 2015, the movie is more like a readaptation of the same material with some borrowed element from Disney animated movie rather than direct remake of the animated movie. It managed to stand as its own. Add thst to not making it into musical, it felt magical, new, and nostalgic at the same time. Sorry i talk lot😝
these animated movies were never meant to be made into live action versions... regardless of how much money you throw into something like this, it will still be shite
I used to appreciate the humor of pointing out nit picky things, but the recent reviews on his channel have been just personal attacks on the things everyone liked about a movie not continuity errors and granted probably far less researched.
I hate Cinema Sins. "The director's first dog was a husky." *sin count goes up by one* "This woman's shirt is blue." *sin count goes up by one* "The band ZZ Top appeared as extras in this scene." *sin goes up by three* Most of those "nitpicks" make no damn sense. It's basically: He points out random trivia, then counts it as bad for some reason.
@@anna570 The issue with the old format of Cinema Sins videos was that short videos are no longer conductive towards advertisements with modern TH-cam. A minimum of 10 minutes is needed to receive multiple ad slots, thus making money for the company behind Cinema Sins. The second problem is that new videos need to be released more routinely for Cinema Sins to maintain its position on TH-cam's suggested video section. More routine videos means less thought out content, and requires the creators to continuously search out new potential topics. If there was just one of these problem there wouldn't be an issue honestly. The fact both have to exist creates long, drawn out, poorly researched nitpicks instead of constructive criticisms of flaws often purposefully overlooked in movies.
It's indeed so stupid that they added "Belle reading a girl to read" is so stupid. 50% of woman could read. Even if you were poor, you still had chances to learn to read and write. And Disney be like "Let me conveniently forget!!"
Belle is suposed to be living in a provincial town somewhere in France in 1700's, it was weird that someone who was not a noble or a priest could read at the time
Bidane Martinez-Huerta More like, different effect. “thanks i hate it” is so quick and blunt and droll. “Thanks, I hate it!” has a bit of an upbeat comedic beat.
One thing that I wish had been touched on... this "live action" remake was still fully dependent on animation... but the animation is actually a hindrance to the story due to the reliance on realism and desire to supposedly be plot hole free. Something about the 1991 movie that was so masterful was how the animators brought the objects to life with personality and with feelings. They created actual characters who could express themselves, and who the audience could connect with. The animation in the 2017 version just made realistic looking objects that were self ambulatory and could talk. The matronly warmth of Mrs Potts' round face and big nose (the spout) is replaced by 2D lines painted on the side of a teapot. Lumiere and Cogsworth have basically no expression for the entire movie, and so much of Lumiere's charm is robbed by us not seeing his mischievous smirks and winks. It's an example which Lindsay references sometimes about filmmakers not really understanding their mediums... the 2017 crew was so in the mindset of making this "live action realism" movie that they didn't understand what it was about the animated movie that made it so good. Likewise, the animation for Beast also is a massive downgrade when it comes to emotional resonance. The 1991 movie makes a HUGE deal about Beast's eyes. They are drawn large, and they are expressive as hell, in a way that you can really only get from a cartoon or a very theatrical live actor. The 2017 motion capture vfx made his eyes smaller and got rid of all the color contrast of his brows, leading to a super stoic overall look that is kind of flat for the majority of the film. Couple that with the changes to the screenplay that caused the actor to make different acting choices, and the emotional impact of the character is weakened significantly. They keep the shot of his eyes toward the end, but it doesn't mean anything because his eyes haven't really mattered up to that point.
(Time to reply to a year-old comment, woohoo) Yes to everything you said about how the animation added to the characters! With Beast's eyes, his design really emphasizes their blueness: they're a pale shade that contrasts almost perfectly with the deep, warm browns of his fur, and the lines point to/frame them primarily. And we don't see blue eyes in the animal kingdom much, usually we see them in animals that are close companions to humans, like cats and dogs, (and even then, it's rare.) Really, blue eyes are only common in humans. Since the blue already feels familiar, we're more inclined to relate to him subconsciously, despite his animalistic traits.
I honestly think the live action remakes are an insult to animation as a medium. They imply that the only reason a film was animated is because effects were not good enough to do it in live action and now they are? This is so wrong-headed: there is nothing in Snow White that could not have been done well enough in live action in 1937. Choosing animation was not done for fun, he nearly went bankrupt on his insane gamble, when live action would have been easier, cheaper and more respected. Disney chose animation for a reason, these films are animated for a reason. It gets more and more stark the longer the remakes went on. The Lion King was animated because you cannot convey that sense of emotion through realistic lion faces. I HATED the live action lion king, it was like corpses of lions shuflfing around, incapable of expressing emotion visually. I counted how many times a clear emotion was depicted in that film: 21 times in the whole movie. I know that sounds pedantic to do but it frustrates me so much. Animation allows anthropomorphism (e.g. of lions without them looking creepy), impractical choreography, incredible lighting and colours, magical transformations, crowd scenes and sets and locations that could never be portrayed in live action, minute control over every part of a character from looks and performance/acting and movement. Nothing comes for free in animation, it is all deliberate choices to tell a story in the best way. It's probably the greatest medium for storytelling after our own imaginations and then these remakes throw all that away. When Glen Keane drew the Beast he imbued so much pathos, life and interiority into him that shines through, Mark Henn gave so much complexity to Belle's performance (alongside Paige O Hara's voice acting of course). Instead we get Dan Steven's fighting through impenetrable CGI which Emma Watson has to try and act around (and with that train wreck of a film, the script isn't doing them any favours either). It's so disheartened and as I say, an insult to the great artists who made the original films.
God I got so mad watching this. The cartoon is so perfectly realised - it's simple, concise, it's affecting on a human level in a way both children and adults can understand, it's beautifully animated, and the story makes sense in the way that fairy tales makes sense - not in the way a science manual makes sense. Adults are kind of ruining fairy tales for kids by imposing all their anxious, self conscious stuff onto them. Just because you can't believe in magic doesn't mean the kids can't. I love your videos Lindsay!
Or that you’re clearly milking your brand by saying “hey, remember that thing you liked as a kid? Here it is again, only slightly different and worse!” I don’t get why these keep making money honestly.
Interesting comment. Let's imagine we are back in the time before Disney started remaking animated films as live-action ones, (2016?). Why should a live-action film be considered an upgrade to an animated one? I don't think they used the term "upgrade" but the marketing of these films implies it. But animation is more laborious and it offers more possibilities.
I always considered that the staff was turned into objects because the Beast treated people as objects, and the witch wanted to reflect that. That was unfair for the staff, but it was part of the Beast's "punishment". But then the movie want me to believe the staff were cursed because they were responsible of the Beast's education and didn't help him with his cruel father... Even if the cursed people in this castle includes a child and a dog.
Yup, and as others have said, it is actually good, becuase yeah, it updates some things based on criticisim, but it's mostly minor and not at all relevant stuff or actually well done (Like ''Hey, they actually meet each other before the ball, and they have chemestry and it's overall a decent scene'' Or ''The prince has a name that's not Charming' and Cinderella also has a real name'), although the changes to the Stepmother are hit or miss.
Ironically Disney took the magic out of this movie. I think it has to do in part, because it's live-action and they wanted to make it seem more realistic. But the overexplaining killed the magic that existed.
I will always remember my sister, who LOVES beauty and the beast, dragging me to watch this with her for emotional support. She knew it was going to be bad but still wanted to see it, you could see her soul dying a bit in the glow of the move theater
My god, this is amazing. I might add one more point: The whole point of the first "Beauty and the Beast" was actually a bit of a meta-reaction, too. Before that film, Disney faced criticism for always depicting the "ugly" people as villains. The old film sought to remedy that problem to show beautiful people (like Gaston) could be villains, and the "ugly" people (the Beast) could be good people. The whole point was not to judge people by appearances, but how they act. The animated movie succeeded in getting that message across because it stayed FOCUSED on this one message and built a story around it. The live action movie lacked any of that FOCUS. It wanted a thousand different messages, ideas, and themes, and the story suffered for it. It's not *wrong* to have a meta-reaction in a film, just keep your focus on what is the core message of the story.
From Kentucky to Tokyo And of course the same message was clearly shown in how the curse came to be, in the prince rejecting an old, ugly woman. And come to think of it, it might even go as far as the servants, because since they were objects, none of them was pretty or ugly, they were just personalities.
adding the mom subplot could’ve been a great opportunity to show The Beast comforting Bell in a very vulnerable moment. Bell is learning that she’s lost a parent, and Beast has already experienced that hardship twice. He could have been seen becoming visibly uncomfortable as he cycles through which coping mechanism he’ll use to avoid something that’s pained him in the past. Should be get angry and scare her away? Should he remove himself physically from the scene? Maybe he tries to and at the final second, in a moment of vulnerability, he turns around and comforts Bell in a mutual moment of mourning and acceptance. That could’ve been an entire emotional climax in and of itself... but apparently they didn’t do that
Tbh, i dont like the trope of "disney characters making fun of disney in the movie theyre in" I just want to watch a fun fairytale i dont need or want that included
In all honesty, I think most ppl haven't met Gaston in real life but they have definitely placed the label of Gaston onto ppl they hated, now do ppl like gaston exist? Of course look at any rich kid and u will see them but still ppl this horrible are pretty rare
Honestly, the remake doesn't try to make Gaston sympathetic, it just adds a weirdly dark backstory. He's still a psychopath IN that backstory though -- it just kind of adds the barely-veiled implication that he enjoys killing people.
The one trend I've disliked since online criticism started happening is the idea that internal consistency is more important than any other element in a movie.
It's a bad thing when you (generic you) have nothing to say on something and you pick a "random nitpick criticism from the internet" and make it the theme of the movie. Internet sometimes is a serious issue for critical thinking... well more the sometimes in than last years.
Max Xam But that doesn't have anything to do with the film's internal consistency, as internet discussion happens once the film or at least the trailers have been released, once you can't really change it.
I think it does, in its perception. Today it's all about taking sides on the internet, be with or against. So if I admit there is something wrong in the film's internal consistency it is assumed that I hate it. On the contrary, it seems to me that if I really like something, i should have no criticism whatsever about it. I am afraid that the internet discussions are able to "change" a film, perverting the perception we have about it. If you like a film, you can have something to criticize. I f you don't like a movie, there can be things, scenes, interpretations that you like in it. It's like there is no middle ground. Btw I don't like this film.
Agreed. I criticize the hell out of things I like, and sometimes enjoy nitpicking, but unless such things actually ruin the enjoyment or "form" of a piece of media I don't think these should be given concession just because some people notice them, because as pointed out many times in this video, sometimes filling the holes just turn into clumsy, far too pointed dialogue that ultimately mess up the impact of the story, and spoon-feed the audience information.
Honestly the old Disney movies age really well in my opinion, especially as we grow from the outdated versions of performative feminism that we used to view them with (like saying that Cinderella isn't feminist enough when that's really just victim-blaming) and that is precisely the problem with the live-action remakes. They try to improve things that don't necessarily need to be improved upon and go about it in that same performative way of the mid 2000s that we're trying to move away from.
Thank you for the Cinderella defense, I can't stand people hating on her. She's such a strong role model, what is stronger than remaining a good, kind person in the face of the worst abuse? She directs her own rescue when the chance comes too. And most people criticising it haven't even watched it recently, cause she talks back to her step-family a lot and is quite almost bitchy about them, which is bravery beyond belief. My test of people's bad faith criticisms is always: 'what colour is Cinderella's dress in the 1950 film?' If they say blue and not silver/white then you know they haven't seen it recently and are just working off the cultural opinion of Cinderella and wider princess culture. I love Cinderella and if people could aspire to be half as strong and kind as her then the world would be a much better place.
@@richardbourton4523 I saw Cinderella recently and i personally think that cinders' dress was a pale silver blue of sorts. Why else would disney still portray it as such when like, it isnt? I know the lighting makes it look that way but even in the ballroom scene you can see the extremely light blue used to color the gown, ik im legally blind but jus sayin
@@alicemadness999 supposedly, the marketing teams wanted a less wedding-like dress for merchandise (which I don’t understand and don’t have a citation for) so they moved it towards blue. It definitely seems to be originally silver, but it depends which restoration of the film you’re watching, as some have altered the colouration enough that it becomes blue (goodness knows what the Disney+ version looks like). This video does a great job of studying it: th-cam.com/video/UycDew30Sy8/w-d-xo.html
Jenny Sweeney It really does! Lol even as a child I remember thinking that was a stupid and weird line. Now as an adult I realize it's because is extremely sloppy and lazy exposition.
@@winterlynn9012 Here's a better way for them: Morgana acts crazy, another character calls her crazier than her sister. Then she says something about Ursula mentioning her by name, possibly giving us an early indication of her bitterness towards her to develop her character. Or you could have Sebastian awkwardly yelp it lol.
A lot of the "subversive" stuff in the remake doesn't work, because the original was already subverting a lot of traditional tropes. Our villain is the manly-man town hero who would traditionally save the damsel from the monster. While it's obvious to the audience he's really the bad guy, he starts out as more of a comic buffoon and gets more and more threatening as the film goes on. The new film acts like it's going to re-subvert Gaston into a "Maleficent"-style misunderstood Disney villain, then -- PLOT TWIST! -- reveals he was still the evil Gaston all along! I guess maybe he's a play on modern bullies hiding behind pseudo-progressive posturing, but that's not really a fairy tale trope.
I didn't think he was going to be sympathetic and misunderstood but I was getting the sense that he was going to represent a practical reality. Like, what were her options when her father died if she didn't have any marketable skills? But then, nope, he turned into a homicidal maniac. And Belle never needed to learn a trade and the movie never had to make the argument that it doesn't matter if a guy is relatively decent... if you still don't want to marry him, that's your choice.
@@IMayOrMayHaveNot Yep. Boomers love making jokes about 'the ol' Ball and chain - wife is a nag and I'm miserable' except that of course they'd never get divorced in fear of actually looking after themselves and their house when the wife has gone.
And also, in Beaty and the beast (1991) Belle felt alone because she had no one to share her hobbies with. The only persone who loved books as she did, was the man from the book shop, but he is represented as a very old man, and an eventual friendship with a young girl was unlikly. In the new version of Beauty and the beast, the man from the book shop was a young and hot man! Why on earth did Belle feel alone? She had an opportunity to have a friend with her same passion for reading, there is no reason she should feel totally alone as in the previous movie.
I like that the reading part also adds “random one nice black guard” who helps Belle clean up her clothes. Like the most pointless type of diversity; very progressive.
God the subtext of that moment is truly appalling. "No no, you see, he was nice because he *gets* it! He recognizes that the vague allusion to oppression she experienced is **exactly** like his, because all oppression is experienced in the exact same way by all marginalized identities!" It's as though someone tried to explain intersectionality to them and they were like, "I heard 'intersection', I think I got it."
yeah, like, you're telling me a girl being literate and useful to the rest of her town is unacceptable but apparently racism isn't a thing in this pre-revolutionary provincial village?
To be honest, Pre-Revolutionary France did depend heavily on its slave colony in Haiti and had a distinct difference between slaves and “free people of color”. It is quite likely that some of these “free people of color” could have ended up in rural France (particularly if the local nobility was particularly wealthy) in some capacity. So the presence of black characters isn’t really out of place (although maybe the town would have been more overtly prejudiced) given the time period and the deep economic ties that France had to Haiti. If we are going to judge this film on that regard, we might as well write off “The Crucible” for having Tituba (an enslaved black woman living in New England in the 1690’s) or any of Charles Dickens’ stories that feature Australians returning to the British Mainland.
To be wildly pedantic, the movie is set in 1400s france. Thomas Crapper invented the U bend toilet in 1880. The word Crapper wasn’t used to refer to a toilet until then, his brand of toilet became so popular it became almost a generic term, like frisbee or Tupperware. So in fifteenth century France there would have been no connection between the name Crapper and latrines. But now that I think of it Latrine Toilette is a great name for an anthropomorphic shitter.
A big gripe for me was the dumbing down of the Antagonist and Protagonist. In the Animated films both the beast and Gaston were powerhouses, Gaston was considered the prime male the Alpha but the town because of his feats and physical attributes (yes I mean the bloody biceps) and the beast was designed in a way to inspire FEAR and that was the biggest challenge. However in the live action Gaston is just a war vet and the beast just looks like a remake of the Satir from Pan's Labyrinth, hardly scary. This was part of why the animated film was more powerful, the Beast was Gaston's ultimate love rival because no only had he gained Belle's affections but also that the Beast was the pinnacle animal for Gaston to prove who was the best, kinda like taking out a werewolf, major hunter points. The other part was how in the animated movie the roles were reversed, In the animated movie, in the beginning, it was the beast who was mean, spiteful and aggressive while Gaston was charming, polite (albeit presumptuous and arrogant) then by the end of the film the roles reverse with the Beast actually not trying to defend himself for no reason while Gaston actually becomes the beast in a way. In the Live action, their attitudes are blurred so much I personally didn't care if Belle walked away from both of them. But that's my view.
![ลองสุ่มไอโฟน 990 โกงมั้ย? [ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.101 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bfsWe0j492k/mqdefault.jpg)
At least this film had one redeeming feature: it's a great comparison to show why the original worked.
Same with all Disney remakes. Lion King 2019 made me realize how perfect the direction was for Mufasa's death in the original.
Suzette C. I literally forgot they did a “live action” lion king. I read your comment and didn’t register that I saw that movie.
@TexMechs
You guys would probably want to kill me but I loved the 2019 more than the original ^^;
Hi
Erez CrestFallen gasp. but whyyyy.
i wanted to like it so bad too but got all confused and quiet after i watched it bc i just felt..empty inside.
The bonding over their shared mother tragedy makes more sense once you realize they're both named Martha
More like their father's names are both Maurice.
"You will never leave this castle! "
"My father's name is Maurice."
"Then you must go to him."
MARTHA!
How do you know that name?!?!
lol
WHY DID YOU SAY THAT NAME?!
Something I realised it was absent in the 2017 movie during the relationship between Belle and the Beast? physical contact, which was increasing during the 1991 movie, at first Belle helping Beast with his wounds, then Beast taking her hands guiding her to the library, then Belle grabing Beast''s hands when he showed her his library saying thank you.....and then the dancing moment and when the Beast let her go, he played with her hair a little, showing how affectionate he became towards her, and she even touched his face before she leaves the castle, that's CHEMISTRY!, that's a little of INTIMACY, two things I never saw in the entire movie!. She was like "oh gosh I can't stand this monster"
I think in the animated movie they had more of an emotional, affectionate relationship. The live action movie was more intellectual and reserved. Like a Jane Austen novel. Even with no one around to chaperone, you shouldn't be doing too much touching. But I did also wonder if part of it was the difficulty of the CGI. It's one thing to have the actor hold a plate or a book. But if you have to animate each individual hair moving when Belle touches his face, that's probably more difficult.
@@TheSongwritingCat Disney should have thought about it before doing this movie, first of all, they should have made Dan Steven's appearance with make up instead of CGI, they were thinking about it, it would have given him more personality. You are right, maybe it was difficult to make Beast a touching monster with CGI, but at the end it made this story bland and out of feelings. An intellectual level would have been a different point of view, but they decided to be straight to the original, so the comparison will be always there
Oh yeah in the original animated film the chemistry and the intimacy was clearly there and naturally developed, but here, absolutely none of that, all in the name of political statements and crud like that.
Keep politics far away from entertainment as humanly possible unless your making a political thriller or something!
moving drawings were more human than actual humans in this live action
@@alicjakempisty2729 absolutely true, which coming from Disney is pretty sad, 'cause they have many resources to make better effects
Sympathising Gaston totally ruined the point of the character. Gaston was supposed to be the antithesis of the Beast; where the Beast is unappealing and monstrous on the outside but kind-hearted and generous on the inside, Gaston is the opposite; attractive and charismatic on the outside, but monstrous on the inside. Making him sympathetic ruins that mirroring.
yeah but that’s modern Disney for you. it all goes back to them fundamentally misunderstanding their own movies. there’s rarely ever a villain or “bad guy”, every single character has to be somewhat redeemable. Disney seems to think it’s audiences need to be spoon-fed the message nowadays.
That’s not entirely true though because the reason the beast was cursed in the first place was because he was exactly like Gaston, an incredibly terrible rude but outwardly beautiful/handsome looking person. I think it should be fine for Disney to deepen the characters inside the stories of the animated movies because if they copied the animated movie completely it would be just a cheap life action copy. I think they did approach the issue misguided but the fact that everyone seems to think Gaston can’t be a 3 dimensional character when he’s literally what the Beast was like before he was cursed kind of feels like you didn’t get the entire message of the beauty and the beast, that you can, and should change to be a better person for the one you love. Villains can be great even if they’re one dimensional but since the animated movie already has that type of villain why not allow them to change it up a bit for an interesting twist. You can argue that Gaston in the original doesn’t want to learn to change but it’s mostly because he never gets cursed or scorned by the people in the village much like the servants never stopped the beast before he was cursed for being a terrible person. Also again, that’s the original animated movie’s story since the live action involves real people playing the characters, a more 3 dimensional character seems fitting. I feel like people are just hating the idea of change because the nostalgia of the old animated movies are still present and it’s kind of clouding everyone’s judgement
@@jeel6576 noo, it doesn't work. They kept the original story, they changed the characters: doesn't mesh very well. They needed to alter the stroy to accomodate the new "three dimensional characters", but alas, they didn't. That's why it doesn't work.
"Unappealing"
It’s also bizarre because in the original he also represents and spearheads the misogyny that keeps Belle down. The remake makes a big deal about girlbossing and yet it tries to make you feel bad for Gaston.
"They bond over their mothers being dead"
If that isn't the most Disney thing I've ever heard...
Martha!
@ bitch that’s my aunts name. That doesn’t mean I’m gonna be buddy buddy with a masked lunatic that was trying to kill me
Sokka and Zuko:Hello there
Can't wait until the Hunchback of Notre Dame remake reveals Frollo is attracted to Esmeralda since she reminds him of his mother whom was hanged, burned, and whipped to death wile giving birth to him.
Midnight Rantzzz what is this? Berserk?
Okay...
That little comment,
Gave me berserk vibes.
Hot.
Tbh, if they decide to follow the plot of the original novel by Victor Hugo, like the musical, it would be quite interesting. Of course, it would need to be Disney's idea of "woke", so Esmeralda will undeniably be turned into a gIrL bOSs/giant prick. Oh well.
I first read that as Frollo hanging, burning, and whipping his mother to death while still in the womb. XD
I HATE that Beast doesn't even say "because I love her" when Belle leaves. Why TF did they give that crucial line to the goddamn teapot?!
Because the Beast is male and therefor isn't "brave" enough to say it out loud.
Coz she's a woman and the Beast is a man so is inherently stoooopid.
He doesn't say it in the Broadway show either.
Because the beast doesn't know what love is?
In the Broadway version he at least sings about how miserable he feels, which fits into the medium.
I find it genuinely fascinating that the harder Disney tries to empower their female characters in these remakes, the LESS compelling they become. The townspeople's issue with Belle was never that she could read, it's that she was a weird introvert who preferred reading over basically any other activity.
They fucked this up with Mulan as well! Why is she a Jedi now? The whole point of the original was that she worked her ass off and became just as skillful a warrior as any man despite everything stacked against her. Now she just has crazy superpowers and is better than everyone to begin with.
As an asian i didn't bother watching mulan. The trailers alone buzzed me off
You're wrong about Belle. She WAS judged by being a woman and reading, Gaston himself says "everyone is aware that it is not right for a woman to read".
But yes the rest is right.
@@mieshocked1450 Perhaps it was more of a subtextual thing in the animated film (woman who could read *and* preferred to read over interacting with others) which was focused upon more in the live-action version.
Animated vs. live-action Belle and Mulan are perfect examples of strong female characters vs. Strong Female CharactersTM
It's because their female empowerment is written through a lens of their OWN sexism and misogyny, so they literally don't know how to make it ACTUALLY EMPOWERING
The whole 'teaching another girl to read' thing is what bothers me the most about this adaptation. Belle wasn't considered weird because she *could* read, it's because she liked to read, because she preferred to read over engaging any of the poor provincial townies.
And boy, my introverted ass sure did relate to animated Belle preferring to lose herself in books instead of human contact. That was kind of the point of Belle, to relate to all the little girls who felt like the outcasts, alone and stuck in a little nothing town with nothing to do.
Plus, how does a town with only be one literate woman end up having it's own fully stocked bookshop!?
Yes! In cinema it's usually a guy who is different, weird and potentially outcasted, so as a girl who spent almost every break and lunch in primary school reading alone it was really nice to see a character like Belle.
Also the fact a black man could own a library but a girl wasn't allowed to read bothered me.
This movie just made me annoyed
It felt like forced feminism.
@@ghoulish_graveyard It's fake feminism. Taking a perfectly fine screenplay written by a woman and letting two dudes write a new screenplay "fixing" problems that were only identified by pedantic (male) youtubers.
@@TheSongwritingCat not fake feminism
Just feminism
One thing that really surprised me when i grew up is that Belle is not an intellectual. In media she's treated as this super smart know it all. And she IS smart, but her real characteristic is that she's a romantic and a dreamer. She doesn't read metaphysics, she reads stories about far off places, sword fights, and fairy tales. She dreams life can be bigger that what she has. She doesn't have TV, internet, or games, so she relies on books to give her that excitement. If she had a choice she wouldn't be reading but LIVING that life. She doesn't care what people think because this inner life is so much more important to her. Making her an inventor changes her fundamental character.
What I definitely can't stand from this movie is the fact that in the original; the beast was losing his "humanity" with the spell as time went by: The beast initially walked on four legs because he had forgotten how to walk on two legs, he had forgotten how to read (and Belle helps him), etc. Belle's presence made him force himself to change; To fight his curse. Belle came to bring his humanity back. And the 1991 film made us understand it very well and in a beautiful way.
And NOW, in this new version it is assumed that the Beast knows how to read, walks perfectly upright, and has no other problems with his spell but with his "physical appearance". It's what I can't stand of this movie. In the original film, Belle did not find a cultured beast (who read every single book of his library 🙄), but in a bad mood as in this new film; she found someone broken, rude, almost animal, with almost no part of his humanity and returned it with her kindness and sweetness. Something that in my humble opinion, they did not demonstrate in this live-action.
I love 1991 version so much 💛, too bad they didn’t made clear (or even showed!)so many morals and metaphors the original had... They just changed it so much that it feels somehow empty when you watch it.
Sweet Rose in the original Story he had his humanity and a heart of gold, the lesson for belle was to look past his ugliness and him not being witty and to see his heart of gold. Now I love both this version and the animated version. It’s like they were trying to borrow from the fairy tale or something
I get what they were trying to do. He's less of a cartoonish buffoon. As they're falling in love, they can bond over mutual intelligence and common interests. But they could have just changed it so he can read in this version but still needed to regain his humanity.
@ what does your asperger have to do with this? Dont belittle someone saying youre betted than them by stating a disorder and claiming it wasnt a hindrance to your mental capacity.. Dont be shallow
that's a fine point
So empty you could say they cared more for LOOKING like the original instead of treasuring its ESSENCE... in a story about valuing a person's INNER beauty rather than their LOOKS, how insulting is that? T v T
If anything, Gaston having PTSD is an INCREDIBLY insulting caricature of former soldiers with PTSD, since Gaston is STILL unhinged, arrogant, irrational, and cruel, and we shouldn't empathize with that; otherwise, they would have given Gaston some kind of redemption arc. It's not just pointless, it actively detracts from the character.
Seems like they tried to portray ptsd and wound up creating a more disturbing psychopath instead.
It isn't even PTSD; he doesn't get frighted by flashbacks you know, he isn't scared, he is just pleased with the thought of killing and war and how in hell is this PTSD?
Ah, yes, the dubious pleasure/benefit of mainstream armchair-"experts" getting paid for writing about characters with mental health conditions (like the rare and not-at-all studied or documented PTSD, of which there is so little information on, eh?) that they spent all of two minutes researching on a wiki...
Thanks (but no thanks) for the social recognition and accompanying further distortion of poorly-explained facts, movie writers, amirite? *laughs... cries*
BLACKIESBOY TRUTH!
Like, remember what LeFou says to help Gaston calm down from his PTSD? To think of "grieving widows". Like, holy fuck.
Belle was kind and humble, and she was educated. She wasn’t condescending but just brushes away the misunderstandings of the town. Emma Watson’s Belle was literally the most annoying person ever, she was constantly rude to people and never bothered to communicate to them. They were rude in return and she came to the conclusion that the reason they don't like her is because she's so much better than them.
Even as a guy, that's what drives me CRAZY about most "heroines" in movies or TV today. They seem to think that a powerful or influential woman is only one that is loud, rebellious, and/or gruff and tough. It's infuriating, because NOTHING could be farther from the truth. My mother is often gentle and very tenderhearted, yet she is one of the most remarkable women I've ever known. I feel so bad for parents with little girls today.
@@thunderbird1921 Oof. Seriously, instead of just integrating a masculine girl, a feminine boy, and still have feminine women and masculine men heroes, they’ve decided that heroes can ONLY be masculine. And as a feminine woman, I never saw a good representation of my personality in movies I watched. If you’re actually “woke” you need to make heroes of every gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and personality type. Another thing that angers me is the only representation Native American people get is pochahantas? A aged up, romanticized, “amazing” story of a Native American girl abandoning her people and culture for some European man she knows nothing about, who’s men killed her people? Not to mention during the time frame the real pochahantas was 12-14 years old? Disney has some problems to fix.
I think that the egolatry thing is more like an Emma Watson's characteristic rather than something that came out with Belle herself. I mean, I've never had seen any Emma Watson's movie where she doesn't seems to believe she worths more than anyone else in the world.
And it doesn't help at all that the dialogue she had to read was... well, let's just say narcisist at it's best. I don't know, that's just what I think.
Btw, I'm not a native english speaker, so sorry if I made mistakes.
@@martinaroncl.5489 I agree completely.
Emma Watsons Belle only has two redeeming qualities 1: She looks Beautiful and 2: She sounds nice
I can't wait for the Beauty and the Beast 2 live-action remake where they actually show Gaston eating 4-dozen eggs every morning to help him get large. I mean they say he did it... But we can't KNOW he did unless we see it in an excruciating 20-minute scene.
I also can't wait for them to explain the egg economy (the eggconomy, if you will) and how Gaston is able to afford and obtain roughly 350 eggs A WEEK in this so-called "poor provincial town".
Those eggs were comfort-eating binges to protect him from the cruelty and negligence of his abusive father! Who was a wealthy slave trader, hence his ability to afford the eggs. And now the movie is better.
Erick Wright Gaspar Noë can direct the film, and the 20 minute egg scene will borrow much of the uncomfortable nature of the 11 minute rape scene in Irreversible
you say that but I want to watch that so bad. I want to watch an actor eat all those eggs.
Did he use antlers in ALL of his decorating, or was there a time when he chose some different motif?
No mention of the triplets? Gaston wanted Belle (known to the town folks as strange and special) over the attractive and accessible triplets of the original version, but the triplets were made unattractive in the live action version, thereby making Belle's beauty more important, and her special traits of less value.
Yeah. The whole point was that even though he could have women most of the men in town could only dream about, he wanted the best for himself because he felt that he deserved it. It wasn’t “well, those girls are ugly, so you’ll do.”
Also, how about that bit where he kicks mud on them? Even for people who judge based on appearances, that should’ve killed off any desire and given him a bad rep. But I guess we gotta establish that he’s a jerk.
... except the original did that by having him make disparaging comments about Belle reading and making fun of her father. And more I could list but it would take too long.
This!!
@@animeotaku307 I see that Repo! reference... lol
Well, that's subjective.
At least Beauty’s sisters from the original story should have been included in the movie.
Disney poking fun at itself was cute and suprising the first couple of times, but now its just *painful*
Yeah, it is getting a tad... "Oh, sweetie, don't. Have some pride".
I think because with, say, Enchanted it felt like it came from a place of love. (I mean, the creators outright said it was meant to be a love letter to the classics.) Now if it's not outright cynical it just feels... the word that feels the most right to me is weary.
I just cringed in the Wreck it Ralph 2 trailer and I'm getting tired of them doing this.
it's kinda like the lampshading jokes in the big bang theory.... only disney doesn't suck 99% of the time
"Our old movies were TERRIBLE! They only taught bad messages like how you should marry a man after you just met them and that stolkholm syndrome is fun and nothing else and weren't feminist-friendly in the slightest!" Like, did they even WATCH their old movies or just have some jaded CinemaSins writer regurgitate some Hot Takes? Mulan was the greatest girl power movie of all time. ALL TIME.
If they really wanted to take a feminist "Belle has a job and faces patriarchy" route, fine no prob, I just don't get why they didn't make her an aspiring author instead of inventor??? It would have connected all the dots!
1) It's the logical continuity of her well-known passion for reading, so it sounds less forced.
2) That makes her having her own independent aspiration, instead of ironically making her a copypaste of her father, a man.
3) The Beast being already cultured and literature enthusiast in the movie, her writing would be a new way to make him evolve and step out of superficiality. At first he would just see in Belle a pretty woman and think that "gentleman manners", a beautiful castle, pretty dresses and exuberant dinners are enough to make her happy. Finding out later about her talent and being touched by her writing would be like meeting her for the first time and make him understand more what she needs (a literal take of "reading through" her)
4) While reading wasn't forbidden for women, being a female author on the other hand was more complicated! Allowed, but subject to hard criticism. Madame de Villeneuve, the original author of the tale wrote herself in her preface something like "I hope that me being a woman won't influence too much the reading". And even if things have evolved, it's a topic that is still relevant... So more impactful than a naive, not relatable "WoMeN dOn'T rEaD" line that makes the viewer vaguely outraged for 2sec.
5) Speaking of relevance, it would bring an other dimension to the "Belle" song. By adding a couple of speaking lines, it would enlighten the fact that she can write as much as she can, ultimately even without bad intent people can't help but mostly comment on her appearance (a struggle Emma Watson herself must be familiar with btw). Apparence being... you know... the topic of the tale. During the song Belle could submit her work to the printing house for the local newspaper instead of going to the bookshop, leading smoothly to that theme without denaturing the animated movie.
6) To make the Beast more special to her, instead of making the father heartwarmingly perfect, he could himself being reluctant about her career, agreeing that she's talented, but out of worry encouraging her to lower her ambitions. It could also work if she was an inventor actually, but him having a different job would make him more easily belittle at first how it's important for her. The Beast would be the only person she knows to genuinely support her firmly. She would evolve as more confident thanks to him, so there would be a character development on her side too, and a special bond between them.
7) Since her mother was also a creative, Belle would think that her mother would have understand her better than her father, and therefore MAYBE, maybe, the mother plot would make more sense and be more touching. Maybe her mother struggled as a painter and was more violently critized than her male counterparts, explaining her father's overprotection suggested sooner?
8) Gaston could praise Belle's work to seduce her, but she would instantly suspect him to be fake and read it superficially. On the contrary the Beast would give more severe feedbacks if he doesn't like a sentence, which would actually charm Belle because they're constructive and meaningful. I think that's a cool thing to show to children, and that's once again in line with "don't be fooled by the look". You know... the topic of the tale. (Also he could actually be a literate noble, but snobbish and lacking of the Beast's artistic sensitivity, which would make the story less classist- anyway I digress)
9) Other modern take, Gaston could be a more subtle toxic villain and promises to use his wealth and popularity to help her to publish novels, patronizingly stating that "he supports women, unlike his father". He would admit later when she comes back that it was obviously a fake promise to make her accept his wedding proposal and that her work is the least of his concern. In contrast to her father who would be reluctant but genuinely wishing her the best. You know... the topic of the tale.
10) Cool homage to Gabrielle-Suzanne de Villeneuve, a FEMALE 18th century writer who provided us that tale.
Oh man, that is very good. And now I'm even more annoyed at the film.
You should write a book or a movie. I mean it.
Thank you both for your replies, that's sweet
That would indeed make a lotta sense
In the animated version, it's implied her favorite book is the story she's about to go through. Having the live action end with her writing her own story would be a wonderful bookend for Belle!
I know I’m late to the party, but... god, the whole mess of a situation that was LeFou is even more insulting when you think about the fact that the original Beauty and the Beast was dedicated to Howard Ashman, a gay man who died of AIDS while working on the film. Way to honor his memory, Disney...
When are they gonna learn 😣
This was one of the reasons why I didn’t like the film. Howard Ashman was one of the people responsible for the Disney renaissance in the late 80s and this is how they repaid him... it’s not just LeFou, but simply how bad this version is. It made me feel a little disturbed.
rvnclw wow I had no idea, thanks for the info. I hate the movie more now
Not only dedicated to him, he wrote all the songs and had considerable power over the creative process -- without him, the Disney renaissance would arguably not have happened. Eisner knew how much of a genius he was and had the entirety production of Beauty moved from LA to New York so Ashman didn't have to travel since he was already dying of AIDS. Further, this movie was made during the height of the AIDS crisis and the homophobic hysteria surrounding it; in this light, the Mob Song especially has a whole lot of applicability.
And then they repaid him by making the First Gay™ the insult we see before us. Seriously, fuck Disney.
I'm pissed off that they didn't make Cogsworth the gay character for two reasons:
1. It would have been a great inside joke since in the original movie and this one, he was played by gay actors (David Ogden Stiers and Sir Ian McKellen, respectively), and
2. Instead of the stupid "nagging wife" joke (what is this, the '50s?), it would have been cute to have Patrick Stewart cameo as his husband at the end.
God, movie, you blew it!
About the whole “Why would the witch do that to a child?” And “why would the witch also curse the staff?” Things. Did no one just think “Oh, the witch is an asshole” and move on? I mean, she was a witch in a fairy tale. Being mean often comes with the territory.
The witch isn't a character, she's an agent of dramatic irony and karma for the purpose of story setup. She doesn't need to be more than that.
She's here to inflict punishment on a privileged royal who looks at an old woman, dying of hunger and hypothermia, and responds with "ew, useless peasant, gross." and is willing to condemn someone to an agonizing death because she didn't have anything "valuable" to offer him. He could have let her coop up in the servant quarters and not even look at her, not miss the serving of bread and soup that would feed her through the night. The cost to him would have been practically nothing to save someone from dying, but he's such a terrible person that he wouldn't give even that.
The moral of being generous and merciful, especially in winter, would hold for basically the entire existence of humanity. It's possibly the biggest dick move in the history of hospitality.
@Morphing Taxi She can be justified in being upset at the Prince/Beast's violation of protocols of hospitality, while also being an arsehole who decides to use the entire castle staff as part of her punishment of the Prince/Beast. These are not mutually exclusive, and frankly entirely consistent with the kind of capricious nature of such agents in much of human myth and folklore. The narrative plot device can be morally ambiguous, amoral by design, or simply without any defined morality; it doesn't matter to the story. All you need to know is that the witch/enchantress sought out hospitality, the Prince violated social protocols of hospitality due to his character flaws, and the spurned witch/enchantress placed a curse upon him and his entire castle / staff as a result.
She's not a witch in the original fairytale. She's a spiteful old fairy who was tasked with being the Prince's governess while the Queen was busy waging war to defend her kingdom from invaders after the death of the King. Then when the Prince was about 15, right after the long war ended, the old hag fairy demanded the Prince's hand in marriage and the Queen refused on counts of her age and lack of royal blood. So she cursed the prince to spite them all. This was long after she had already busted Belle's fairy mother to the fairy council for having married a human king and then tried to court Belle's biological father(a king) using and beauty disguise- and when that didn't work she hired assassins to kidnap baby Belle and kill her. They would have gotten away with it if Belle's fairy aunt(mother's sister) had not been watching over her, turned into a bear and slaughtered the assassins before then faking Belle's death and entrusting her to a merchant who had just lost his own youngest daughter for her own safety.
@@junieb9446 What kind of character flaw is an 11-year old refusing to let a suspicious stranger into their home? Is the lesson here "always let strangers into your house or face consequences"?
@@pinkcupcake4717 She was a whole character and the primary villain to both Belle and the Beast in the original fairytale. She cursed the prince to punish him and his mother for not wanting to marry her son off to an old hag with no royal blood and she tried to have Belle kidnapped and murdered out of spite after getting her mother arrested and taken away.
Good god, and the CGI beast's expressions are so flat it's painful. The og beauty and the beast shows emotion so well it's a shock that a live action version falls so short.
This seems to be a big flaw in a lot of Disney's recent CGI, the lion king was atrocious for that
“That’s Ursula’s crazy sister” took me out bruh
In the animation the servants were furniture because the beast saw them as objects and not people. Its a metaphore goddamit.
I never saw it like that damn
@@JadeEyes1 OP means he figuratively saw them as objects and tools, so the enchantress made them litterally become objects
And it goes further with the Beast and Gaston parallels. While Beast becomes human when he learns how to see others as people, Gaston is driven to be more monstrous because he has values Belle as a trophy or prize, *objectifying* a woman down to her physical appearance. A human sees the humanity in others, a monster views them as objects.
Also, the bimbettes in town that Gaston uses as a lift during the Gaston sequence? They're *dumb-belles* . Visual puns that add to the larger metaphor!
i mean i think what Emma Watson did in this movie was great making belle even more independent and strong then before
Google made me do it nope
I actually really like the idea of a fairy cursing an eleven-year-old boy and his innocent servants, because fairies were sort of . . . well . . . fickle and malevolent.
Fickle? All the time. Malevolent? Occasionally. My reading on them was they were mostly alien. They came from an older world, the world that came before ours that had radically different rules. I like to think that more often than not, they just saw the world in such a different way from the rest of us that sometimes they just straight up did not understand what they were doing. Even when they were trying to be nice, they often caused real trouble for people. I think the idea behind fairies was that sometimes, life just can't be explained and there are some things that are just inherently dangerous, even if they're not evil. You get too close to them and they will destroy you.
@@cheezemonkeyeater I think the OC aligns with what most people think of as "fae".
@@dreamyanon5151 See, that's not an unfair reading by any means, but as I said, even when they're trying to be nice, that often goes wrong. Malevolent or not, danger is the more important point. It's best not to get involved with them.
Yep! In no point in the animation they state the sorcerer was good or fair. You're totally free to think she's hypocritical or just a piece of garbage.
Uhmmm... Did someone forget Aurora was cursed when she was still an infant...
Belle's father: picks a flower
The beast: "You have committed crimes against Skyrim and her people. What say you in your defense?"
No one escapes Cidna Mine.....no one
Have you heard of the high Elves?
Maurice: uh... what's a Skyrim?
"Do you get to the cloud district very often? Oh what am I thinking, of course you don't." ...You'd know not to pick the roses.
Your finally awake.
The Mom/Plague scene was so vital to the plot that I missed the entire thing in the theater because I needed to visit the toilet, and my only confusion when I returned was how I'd somehow managed to miss nothing
lol. That was exactly when I needed to duck out. Truer words…
Beast shows Belle his library just to show off
"Look at this stuff
Isn't it neat?
Isn't this asshole's estate fucking sweet??"
*S E E H O W B E A S T G L I T T E R S*
Sorrow TV? Is that you?
Look at this stuff
Isn't it neat
He boot is to big for he god damn feet
Omg, I died.
I almost choked on my food reading this.
"the regina george of CEOs" is the most powerful statement to describe someone I have ever heard and will keep it close to my heart to use for later
Also, “Daddy of daddies”. 🤣 I’m storing that for future use.
Very fetch.
When I was a little kid I always attributed the plot hole of the beasts age him being suspended in time. Like all of the people of the castle didn’t age for the 10 years but only started when the petals started to fall. This made the issue of him being 11 go away and made the enchantress less of a jerk
And I think, in the original story, this was exactly the case.
Wouldn't that still make him 11 for ten years?
@@memeosaurusrex3382 No, he would've been beasted as a young adult and stayed that for 10 years.
This is what I always assumed, too. Especially because of Chip, who looks like he's maybe four or five, if that.
Or fill the plot hole with simply the fact that out of all the enchanted people, the prince/beast was the only actually living creature. Inanimate objects don't "age" in the same sense, even if enchanted. Therefore, all the others were frozen in time while the beast was the only one who continued to age.
The whole "enchantment made the village forget" thing is so unnecessary. I always assumed that he was a secondary royal (has the title, has the money, no actual impact on the public), and this was the weird rural vacation castle that we never use, so let's stick the orphaned royal there and let him be raised by the staff so we don't have to think about him.
You're so right, this castle is in the middle of nowhere, it's highly unlikely to be the seat of real power. And especially as he is a Prince, not a King. This is confirmed to be France, which is not a principality, so he's not the King of the village (like that's a thing). A Prince can be any number of individuals: he's not the Crown Prince, so he might not be anywhere near in line for the throne, like Prince Andrew or Prince Edward here in the UK. Now I like the royal family, but I don't know where Prince Edward lives day to day and he's actually a prince of my own country. The narration even says at the start 'In a faraway land A young prince lived in a shining castle' not 'The prince'. It's nitpicky to point out the difference there, but it's nitpicky of people to complain about the village not knowing about him so why not. He might not be a prince of THIS kingdom at all, there is no reason to assume he is. Perhaps he was exiled from his own, or fled from there after a revolution and is in hiding. [To any pedantic nitpickers reading this at some point, I know that the narration later says 'the prince', but this is after his introduction so only being clear that its the same prince in discussion]. It's fun to ask silly questions like 'why don't they know about the prince?' among friends while you watch a film of course, but when it becomes actual film criticism it's silly. I guess it just points to how good the original is, a masterpiece of animation and film in general: there's nothing else to complain about in it.
@@richardbourton4523 Exactly! Most people don't realize that The Beast may not have been an actual royal monarch. Especially given that, in the 1991 version, his parents are presumably dead. Meaning that he would have been declared king at this point already. So everyone still calling him "prince" means that he was one of those petty "kings". Germany around this time (1700's) had an even better example of this, as it was made up of tiny kingdoms with even elected officials of a particular realm taking on the title of prince in some cases. Which is why I like that you mention his kingdom being in a "far away land". Even the architecture of the beast's castle (very evident at the opening of the movie) is not very classically "French". The 2017 movie sort of makes the beast's castle in a style closer to Versailles, but it also adds on all of these unnecessary gothic spires that completely clash with the rococo Versailles look I think they were TRYING to go for. That's why I adore the 1991 version. The Beast's kingdom is set in such a storybook/fairytale like setting that would appeal to Belle's love of that exact thing (obviously more so after the entire transformation). But that also brings me to another point. Belle's love for adventure and something new. We know she initially goes to the castle to find Maurice and rescue him, but she also fearlessly agrees to stay... because there IS something more at that castle than her boring provincial life back home. It is exciting. It is adventurous! She is in one of her beloved stories. When Cogsworth and Lumiere are giving her a tour of the castle and she happens to stumble upon the staircase to the West Wing, she isn't afraid when they reveal that to her. She smiles and says in an excited tone, "Ah! So THAT'S the West Wing!" showing exactly that she does not feel threatened or "stockholmed" at the castle. This is all something Belle wants for herself. Following that scene we DO see her leave saying, "Promise or not promise, I can't stay here another minute!" Which totally disproves everyone saying she developed Stockholm syndrome lol
@@brianbarnes5296 I totally agree, and really resent the ‘Belle has Stockholm syndrome’ thing, like that’s just not what happens in the movie? It’s not as simple as anyone just ‘falling in love with your captor’: there’s more to it!
The yellow dress was more of your eighth grade Miss Small Town pageant style. It seemed cheap, wasn't ultimately designed to flatter Emma, and it clearly took intermediate skill at best to make. I know that Emma refused to wear a corset regardless of the period and her choice was respected. But the only excuse for the end result that I could think of is that the costumers had some BANGING designs and they were mad that they had to scrap them.
I'm starting to wonder if they purposely made her dress that ugly specifically because she made them scrap their original designs. Like I'm sure the thg already something in mind before she was cast. Emma Watson's dress was absolute tragedy.
@@shiloha5646 I'll certainly check out the video. I personally love corsets and everything you mentioned is completely true! Even if they're not designed to be historically accurate, they can retain the comfort and style they're meant to give to an outfit when they are made with quality. I just can't imagine being the lead costumer and being told by a misinformed actress that I couldn't put her in something and watching her get her way without at least a small history lesson.
@Shiloh A Exactly. And Jacqueline Durran is actually a pretty great costume designer (except for the attrocity called Little Woman). Atonement is one of my favorite costuming moments by far. I think that she had some pretty amazing choices and the director and Emma just passed on them cause they though they knew better lol. One of the dumbest moments in history.
1) Belle wouldn’t have even worn a corset, she would’ve worn stays and 2)If Emma Watson did any research into the time period she is supposed to be portraying she’d known that actual stays and corsets we’re torture devices but are basically a bra and when properly made aren’t any more dangerous or uncomfortable than a bra. They give support and create the silhouette of wherever time they’re made in.
@@maddimagpie While I completely agree with everything all of you have said, there are still situations where I'd fully understand someone wanting to pass on a corset. For example, I own multiple handcrafted made-to-order fashion corsets (not waist trainers) and I've been known to wear them for an entire day at my local Ren Fest and ... ya'll ... as someone who poops on average ~3 times a day, corsets can be a pain. It is actually physically impossible to poop when all of your abdominal tissue is already constricted.
If I were Emma Watson, staring down the barrel of multiple 12-hour shoots in an ornate and expensive corseted yellow dress, I would also try to nix the cinch, if for nothing else than my desire to consume something not puree'd in a blender in my trailer.
I heard a 14-year-old girl outside the Guardians of the Galaxy ride at Disneyland give it the most perfect critique I've ever heard: "it's beautiful but I hate it."
Give that girl a medal. She knows.
Exactly! Extremely pretty on the outside, but empty and completely worthless on the inside!
@@NexusKin 😆
@Elvick I think there are some interesting artistic choices. A couple of costumes, a piece of furniture, etc. But anything good is overwhelmed by the direction, lighting, editing, endless CGI, etc. There's a lack of vision. One of the guys who wrote the screenplay also wrote Huntsman: Winter's War. That's not a great movie either, but it chooses an aesthetic and goes hard. I think they thought they were being bold with vague "historical accuracy" but then they didn't commit to it.
Surprised you didn't highlight the removal of Beast's illiteracy. I always found that to be a fundamental plot point to his transformation as a person and his understanding of Belle.
He doesn't know how to read, and so in his pride, he dismisses it as stupid and a waste of time. The irony that he has this massive library to impress people, but he can't actually enjoy any of it.
As Belle teaches him to read, they bond naturally through a mutual activity. By becoming engaged in a story, he learns that he was wrong about something and Belle was right, softening his pride and opening himself up to what other people have to say.
We get to see him mature. He gets excited and happy and shows new emotions.
Even the story they're reading (King Arthur) has implications. He sees that an ordinary boy can be a king, which maybe deep down makes him think that maybe a beast could become a man. That's reaching a bit, maybe, but I think the correlation is there.
Making him literate and removing the "teaching beast to be more human through reading" aspect undermines the entire plot, and I can't for the life of me understand why they would change that.
All they had to do was adapt the broadway version, if they wanted a live action movie. That's it. Such a failure.
Timothy Snyder +
And considering they added the whole "Women reading!?" thing, one would think it be some sort of pay-off.
THANK YOU - I thought I was the only one who was greatly irritated by this. Beast's illiteracy is a crucial factor to his lack of development and actual education that is then carefully and encouragingly built through the act of reading with a passionate, caring companion such as Belle. When he admits that he can not read, he is embarrassed and this is after he has clearly developed an appreciation for stories and why Belle enjoys them. He is ashamed for not having been taught but instead of being mocked or being enabled to continue living in his lack of education which is what the servants did (this is not a character fault as it makes sense that servants of such a powerful master would simply enable him to continue his ways) Belle is of course initially surprised but lovingly (because Belle is noted on her honesty and kindness as a person but of course, just scratch that, Disney) encourages the Beast to try reading and patiently listens to him and corrects his pronunciation errors.
Plus, it's Romeo and Juliet which is in all fairness pretty lengthy and complicated so for Belle to patiently teach him to read that is honestly admirable.
But no. Just scrap the whole thing. Bin that concept and ditch the connection.
Sorry for the rant but this is such a crucial factor in this old, beloved tale that seems to be overlooked.
That scene was originally cut from the movie and added to the home video version along with an additional song. That's why she doesn't mention it.
Yes, this! I hated that change in the live action version. Not only is he an absolute a-hole when he rolls his eyes and is condescending about her choice of favorite book, but it also portrays him as some kind of book snob while he was supposed to be the complete opposite, which added to his character growth in the original movie. His snobbish ways adds to absolutely nothing in the live action version either. He didn’t teach her anything nor did he learn anything from her. That scene when he then shows off his library just adds to that bs. I really hated this adaption.
I knew something felt off with the “Library Reveal” scene but I couldn’t place it until Lindsey pointed it out 🤣 It was so iconic and it felt like the start of a massive shift in the Beast’s personality and their romantic dynamic. Letting her have the library was a gift, and it was really sweet how unsure he was when he asked if Belle if she liked it. But the tone was so different in the 2017 version, and as Lindsey said, he’s just “showing off”, goddamn
such an important point about the townsfolk getting an unnecessary redemption arc, Howard Ashman who was the driving force behind the lyrics died of AIDS related health issues after the film and he wanted to illustrate the dangers of people like Gaston and their ability to weaponise prejudice and fear to attack the people on the fringes of society like Maurice and Belle in songs like Mob Song
I've always loved the design of the beast in the 1991 movie and in the modern one he just looks like some guy's buffalo fursona.
OMG LOL ....buffalo fursona! You're totally right! XD
He reminded me of this centaurs of Harry Potter...maybe that’s why I found their relationship so creppy
I just choked on my drink! 😂😂
I call him Torgo
@alaplaya5 -- Geez, you're right. Now I can't unsee it. Here, and probably in HP now also, lol.
I'm so glad disney made an entire movie for the imdb forums
If this was pre 2017 I’d agree with you.
Too bad they shut down the forums last year so it doesn’t even have that
There aren't any forums anymore, dummy!
What Eric Taxxon meant to say was that Disney made an entire movie for this comment thread.
(Nice to see you here, Eric, by the way.)
They shut it down just before the movie came out. I saw so much arguing if it would suck or not. I kinda miss it honestly.
While i also hate the "dumb, incompotent dad" trope, it DID actually serve a purpose in animated Beauty and the Beast. Belles' dad being a bit unhinged, and the town knowing it, gave Gaston less resistance to do something so horrible in his persuit of Belle.
Yes!!!!
Cinderella 3 is a goofy half-masterpiece of a direct-to-VHS sequel, and I love it. I saw a couple scenes over my daughter's shoulder a couple years ago, and the minute Prince Charming nope'd out the window I was sold. Also, any time Jennifer Hale or Jim Cummings get to perform their spot-on impersonations of dead classic-Disney voice actors, it's golden.
It's so weirdly good and it gives both the Prince and Cinderella some character development
cinderella 3 is genuinely better than any of these live-action remakes
Of all those sequels that were made the only two I really liked was Cinderella 3 and Bambi 2. Bambi 2 was just straight forward fill-in-the-time-gap story developing the estranged relationship between a previously absent father and his newly motherless son.
I like a handful of aspects from the third little mermaid movie such as Triton's reason for hating humans, the reason Sebastian is so highly regarded with Triton, exploring the personalities of Ariel's sisters. Everything else was ...not great. Flouder was a completely different character. The villain sucked. At least it wasn't a complete waste like the second little mermaid movie which I generally pretend doesn't exist.
I wish you could "bookmark" yt comments like Quora answers, because this entire "thread" has me nodding in agreement and "yep, that!"-ing.
Cinderella 3 is the best of the buch and I say that with pride!
Little Mermaid 3 was pretty nice, and worked as a story on its own. Bambi 2 was also quite good and interesting! Mulan 2 isn't *that* bad...
And I just refuse to believe Pocahontas 2, Little Mermaid 2 and (worst of them all) Hunchback 2 even exist.
"We can't leave things to people's imaginations. Then they might go make an Internet about it."
"Go make an Internet about it" is now a phrase I will use on the regular. Thank you.
But I thought that's what the best movies do. They let people interpret some of the things behind it as to what they could possibly mean.
Christopher Regan Exactly
Covers all the bases :D
The best thing I've ever had to say about the live-action remake is that it really made me appreciate how good the animated film is.
Same!! The whole time I was watching it I was just itching to watch the original! Especially for any of the musical bits...
The NPC wanna do that even more watch the 30 min stage production at Hollywood studios
I am late here but what I have noticed from the relationship of belle and the beast was that it was mostly the beast making belle fall in love with him instead of the other way around. In the original you can see that the beast was actually the one who was falling for belle which in turn making him care for her and him wanting to change things about himself because of how kind and understanding belle was. In the remake, it was just belle falling in love with the beast and while the beast remains snarky and unempathetic. Belle was just adjusting to his needs and "accepting" his flaws while she also remains snarky and being better than anyone else.
Omg right??? It makes the original's dynamic all the more sweet. There's just a mutual fondness between the two and you can tell that they really care about one another. Live action? I dont even know.
Also the curse said he had to learn to love not make a girl love him which is so much better
That's why many women, me included, prefers Beast more than his human form , because we all learned to love him even before Belle did. He changed for his own volition, he wanted to make Belle happy and the library scene wasn't cute because the Beast was showing off his book collection; it was cute because he even asked Belle to cloae her eyes because he has a surprise for her, showing that behind that fluffiness there was a child and cute personality that wanted to make you smile and being happy being there . Emma Watson added that stupid phrase in the balcony scene saying "can anybody be happy if they aren't free"??? for the dummies and their Stockholm syndrome thing .....but indeed Belle WAS HAPPY!!! she only missed her papa , she had everything she wanted there ; a nice castle where everybody attended her nicely ; someone who understands her passion and even read together ❤❤. That's why after all she stays in the castle with Adam , her father and the town is no longer a issue .
I was so disapointed by the library scene. That was the best scene in the original, both for the character growth that beast noticed that Belle loved books and actively thought about a present and the epic library reveal. But the new one threw the scene away "Oh I guess you can have my library, it's dark and dank."
Even worse, it's yet another negg: "You can start educating yourself by reading any book in my library. Because all of them are better than the crap you like."
@@kragary Oh man, I didn't even think about that! I was so focused on the bad lighting and bad cinematography. All Disney had to do was make the original scene live action, but no, we get a negg instead.
Plus the way she looks so happy in the library. Felt like she fell in love with him because he gave her something she wanted, not out of genuine kindness.
@@marissach fun fact that library is the Biblioteca da universidade de Coimbra in Portugal.
@@kombuchas4684 and this differs from reality... how?
Being a combat vet, the scene where Gaston was being calmed via remembering the horror of war while being a bloodthirsty psychopath really gives the WORST possible impression of what PTSD is. It's stupid and menial, but wow did that scene piss me off.
Think u mean "trivial"
Also such nonsense 'ptsd' and 'happy place' nonsense didn't fit. It's a modern day moniker that doesn't fit
NotAnyone WorthRemembering Yeah, if they were going to try and give Gaston a bizarrely sympathetic backstory they might as well do it RIGHT.
See, that's why I actually never thought it was PTSD! I thought he was just an axe-crazy psychopath who got an erection in the war.
@@Guru_1092 then use subversive tactics properly. Use appropriate setting jargon of that period and of that setting. Modern lingo doesn't fit and shatters subversion. It simply becomes a modern meme instead of timeless story telling
the thing about belle reading books was never "omg she is so feminist she can read" it was more of "she lives in her own world, reads a lot of stories,wants adventures and doesn t care about what other people think". in the original disney movie, the people from the town say that her head is always stuck in a book and that they just don t understand how a person can care so little about her looks and the handsome hunter everyone loves. they were mostly kind to her but they just didn t care about the stories she reads about. the whole point of the story is that belle wants an adventure, a story of her own (which she gets) not "she wants to teach girls how to read and she invents stuff".
i mean, ik its a change cause its not the same movie but stop pretending she was always like that
She still insults everybody else in the middle of the street. She called the baker DUMB in the intro song. She's such an insufferable bitch. Yeah you can read. It's not like she WROTE a book. Good luck making bread out of pages.
@@fabiomoreira1506 She never calls the baker, or anyone else in town, dumb. Her line is "There goes the baker with his tray like always, the same old bread and rolls to sell." She is never rude to any of the villagers (except Gaston, but that's because he keeps trying to pressure her into marriage.)
@@MmMm-sf7pe "little town with little people". Why is she so big?
Fabio Moreira But she’s not wrong?The townspeople aren’t exactly intellectual or out of the ordinary. She doesn’t even think it’s a bad thing, she just feels like she doesn’t fit there. And it’s not like townspeople are any better to her or Maurice.
That opening rant against CimenaSins and other pedantic bad faith reviewers is the single greatest murder-by-words I've seen against any TH-camr.
It’s a perfect complement to Folding Idea’s recent “love letter” to the Nostalgia Critic.
please don't tell me people take CinemaSins seriously. their whole schtick is being nitpicky assholes
@@thisgoddamusernamestoodamnlong Sorry to say, but entire communities basically style their entire attitude and arguments just like CinemaSins. Full of tired "gotcha's" and tangential nitpicking and constant bad faith bullshit - I mean, have you seen any argument in a controversial video game TH-cam video and seen how it goes? It's exactly as exhausting and stupid as you'd expect.
@@Lardo137 No I haven't. do those people not realize CS is making fun of them?
@@thisgoddamusernamestoodamnlong nope
As the father of a girl with an interest in theater, I have seen more adaptations of Beauty and the Beast than I care to count, most of them being some chopped-down form of the Disney stage musical. And the thing that struck me when I tried watching this live-action movie is that it's the most listless, low-energy version of this story I've ever seen. It's considerably less watchable than the outdoor YMCA camp staging in which everyone was played by a ten-year-old.
Matt McIrvin Yes! Honestly, I was surprised how flat and unconvincing the acting in this film was, considering it was a high-budget Disney production. A darned shame!
Matt McIrvin even from the trailers I thought it looked kind of bland simply because of the lack of energy .
Matt McIrvin
Plus autotune of the two leads
Very true, tho I mostly attribute that to Emma Watson's acting, since I actually enjoyed Luke Evan's performance as Gaston and I actually wasn't looking forward to his casting. Lefou definitely wasn't low energy and I found the rest of the cast passable. Emma, tho, was literally less emotional than sheets of paper (drawn animation paper to be exact.
GASP Ursula's crazy sister!!!!!
that's it. that's the entire plot of that film.
No wonder it was DTV!
Phryne Mnesarete ok but wasn’t Ursula also Tridents sister? Making her also Tridents crazy sister?
Edit: Sorry I meant Triton 😑
Phryne Mnesarete and my entire life
@@benjaminwilliams8030 Same.
@@RosegoIdFox *triton*
You strike me as "film school Professor" meets "Wine Aunt" and I'm here for it
Hahaha yes I love it!!
"wine aunt". perfect, I could never put into words why she's so damn sympathetic XD
"Cinderella 3" is really the best of all Disney DVD-sequels. I like it.
"the worst change has got be..."
Lefou?
"The teleportation book..."
THE WHAT
Escape Goat ...but then, NEVER USES THE BOOK to help fix anything that the characters have to did with in the entire movie! Why over-explain the “science” behind all the other enchantments & plot holes, but then add the most useful magic MacGuffin that gets forgotten by the film’s cast save for needing it for a pointless scene that goes absolutely nowhere? Yeah, making a big deal about this Lefou being gay & crushing on Gaston is equally as dumb as it’s in the same fruitless vein of adding that book of Instant Transmission, since that too went nowhere relevant, but at least I wasn’t yelling: “Use the teleport book to save Maurice and end the movie already!!!” in the theater upsetting my date - at least she liked this crappy remake!!
I thought the book only showed an image of a time and place. I don't think it actually brought them there.
@@zau64I only saw this movie once so I might be misremembering, but I swear she took something from the house and brought it back with her when they poofed back to the castle, meaning they were physically there.
She had the rattle with her in the carriage at the end of the movie
Exactly!
I love how educational your content is. It’s so layered and smart, and says so much more than other film channels. Keep up the incredible work!
Quinton Reviews yeah and it's so much unlike yours... Jk lol.
Quinton Reviews Loved the Rage Comics video :)
So. Crossover episode?
Stop flirting. :P
yea Quinton shes married!
And they moved Mrs. Potts' face from her FRONT to her SIDE! The tea pouring spout was supposed to be her nose, gawds dammit!
Omg I thought I was the only one who noticed that. It low-key really bothered me
I knewww something about her design looked really different but I couldn't put my finger on it
Now she's got real bad earwax
well dear child, the animaters fucked up a lot of CG details, probably on purpose too..
To be fair, that could have been way CREPPIER. And yes, that's already possible.
Another problem with the live action movie is that it is so dark - like literally, I can't make out most of the expressions in a lot of scenes. The animated version managed to have dimly lit scenes but you could still see everything clearly.
Exactly. Even the scenes she shows in the review are so dark I can't see a thing!!!
This is more a problem with most modern moviemaking- the executives of most companies seem to have caught some idea that having a film be deliberately hard to see, with lots of shadow and darkness, makes it look more mature, gritty, and realistic. This idea seems to have originated after The Dark Knight, and the trend just keeps getting worse with each movie put out this way. Lighting departments are actually staffed with people trained in using dark-colored blue and grey light to make a scene look dark while still clearly showing what’s going on- they’re just being _told_ not to do this. Because privileged rich idiots are always the ones put in charge of moviemaking companies, and they don’t know what audiences want, so they just keep following bad trends and ignoring the advice of anyone with talent on staff.
Soo... I paused the video and wrote a whole three-paragraph screed on how stupid the literacy subplot was literally thirty seconds before the part where you talk about just that. Mea stulta. Anyway, I'm reworking it a little, because I did actually have an original point hidden in there.
Not only was female literacy not considered a bad thing, but Belle as presented in this movie would actually have been the It Girl of the village. A woman who _can_ read is useful (and remember that marriage at the time was more of a business transaction than a romantic one), but a woman who _likes_ to read is a real catch. A well-lettered woman was entrée into the upper classes, someone who can chat pleasantly with the wives of aristocrats, and thus introduce her friends (maybe someone's younger sister wants a job as a maid? A widow or spinster wants to be a lord's cook?), as well as introduce her husband to theirs (hello business opportunities!). A woman _wants_ to teach children to read can teach _her_ children to read, instead of paying a tutor. She can also assist the local priest in teaching the youngest children to read, which would have been serious social brownie points at the time. And a woman who invents labor-saving devices is hugely popular in a society where people have to work 16-hour days to keep food on the table and stay out of debtors' prison. Even moreso if she rents out the device or starts a business making and selling them, bringing in extra cash or favors for the household. Granted, the business would technically belong to her father, but since he would have nothing to do with the running of it, the business would probably be part of her dowry and pass to her husband so she could keep running it, making her an even better catch.
Basically, Belle wouldn't be that weird feminist chick. She'd be the most popular woman in the village, with women hoping she could help them rise socially or do them favors and every single man in the village proposing to her father left and right. There are _so_ many ways in which women were second-class citizens in pre-industrial France, but reading and inventing are absolutely _the worst_ choices the filmmakers could have made for something to make Belle a social outcast. It worked in the animated version, because people said she was reading instead of getting work done (not getting work done would be a _big_ no-no)-and because the animated version isn't _trying_ to be true to the setting-but in the live-action, she's actually teaching someone to read _while_ getting her chores done, which means she's using her intelligence to get two jobs done at once instead, which the villagers would see a good thing.
Ooh! That’s a nice bit of history. Good to know!
FUCKING THANK YOU!
tildessmoo but it’s easier to say that women were treated like trash, but hey, y’all got it great now, right?
She’s a strong independent woman; she’s a rebel
I was thinking about this as well, and I love that you actually knew this. Awesome!
Yes! This would have been a really interesting direction for the movie anyway- maybe they could have made Belle really desirable because of these traits but she feels that people only see those things about her rather than her personality. At least that way she could have had some sort of level ground with the beast, who would see that as a beautiful young woman he probably wouldn't stand a chance with her, but getting to know her as a person, maybe he would. Damn there were so many awesome ways this remake could go- even though the original is amazing- and they blew it at every turn.
The thing that annoyed me the most (besides the magic book - that was the most jarring and unnecessary), was the fact that the changes to both the Beast's character and Gaston's blurred them too close together. One of the biggest points I always make in defense of the original movie is that even when the Beast is at his worst, he's more redeemable than Gaston. For one thing, like some other comments have pointed out, the original Beast is very childlike; his rages are scary because he's a beast, but they're very much a spoiled child's impulsive temper tantrums that he regrets afterwards. He clearly comes across as a boy who was cursed very young and never really grew up until Belle's arrival. He's never sexist either; his initial rudeness has nothing to do with Belle's gender. Portraying him as a foppish, woman-objectifying adult when he's cursed and cutting the moments of guilt and sincere attempts at kindness from his early scenes with Belle just doesn't feel right. Ditto the whole "Gaston has PTSD" conceit and all his new interactions with Maurice. Until the very end, the original Gaston is never prone to impulsiveness or outbursts of temper. He's a cold-blooded manipulator, which is worse. All this fits with the story's main theme too. Not only is the Beast ugly on the outside while Gaston is handsome, he's also more outwardly unpleasant at first while Gaston seems affable and funny, if boorish. But these traits are just as superficial as their looks; the original Beast always has inner decency and vulnerability, while Gaston has none. The live-action version makes them just too similar throughout.
It's like they tried to make Gaston both more and less villainous which... works out predictably awkwardly.
I mean just compare the scene where Gaston approached Belle in the town about her book. In the original, he outright dismisses her hobby because it would lead to her developing her own autonomy. In the new one, he tries to make small talk about it coming across more like a bumbling 14-year-old who doesn't know how to talk to girls...
Well said! +Jordan Serchuk
Just because you're not as bad as one person doesn't necessarily make you good. They're just horrible in different ways. Like saying someone who beats a woman is better than a rapist. Both are still horrible people who inflict pain on their victims, just in different ways. Gaston was a POS but at least he KNEW Belle and wanted her despite what the townspeople saw as weird. The beast just wanted her so she could break the spell and turn him and all his servants back into people again.
yeah but you see here, theres something called growth in the original. the beast had thoughts of having her break the spell pushed on to him because of his servants. he has no confidence in himself that itll actually work. he does try to make her like him as well as do genuine stuff just to make her happy. like showing her his library and letting her have access it to it at all times. he did it just to make her happy for all shes done. he dances with her to form a connection and maybe make her fall in love but at this point hes falling in love himself. then he lets her go when she needs to instead of forcing her to stay. thats growth. we see beat grow from a selfish shut in whos given up hope to a caring person willing to let his own needs go in order to make the woman he loves happy.
gaston saw belle as a trophy. a woman who was very different from the rest of them and therefor should be his. he also had no respect for her, envisioning their marriage as her basically attending to her man which is not an idea belle was fond of. we then see as gaston continues to have his anger and frustration get the better of him and makes him a worse person. rallying the townsfolk to his aid to kill what he perceives as a threat to his love for belle and he just wants a new trophy.
its like the original had characters in them or something.
He wanted her for his own ego. Not much better
'Wow your pores are much less noticeable now that I have human eyes'
'IT IS YOU!'
It would be great if in the end "The Beast" still is a dick, but more likeable, kind like Kirito in SAO Abridged.
So romantic!
That would of been adorable!
It’s so funny how in their attempt to make the movie more feminist, they made everything about it so much creepier and insulting than it ever was
Most attempts at "feminism" in media in a nutshell
Wow, even Beauty and the Beast decides to go the "just have the couple argue and be snarky with each other and they'll have automatic chemistry" route
What's interesting in the original is Belle's harshness toward the beast for a while, and how it affected him slowly. If you ever watch The Madness of King George (VERY interesting film), there's a POWERFUL quote by Dr. Willis, the king's physician. He says "Who can thrive on such a daily dose of compliance? To be CURBED, STOOD UP TO, it exercises the character." He goes to suggest it's the want of such discipline that creates tyrants. In B&TB's context, only after this is accomplished can one seek to build a positive relationship with someone AT ALL. Moral of the story, discipline your kids and hold strong folks in check.
Ironic since thats pretty much what happened with Hermione and Ron
@@MagnusTNT But Ron and Hermione seemed to enjoy bickering in the books. There was a scene where Harry tried to make them stop and both turned to him and yelled at him to be quiet before turing back to each other and bickering. Plus the back and forth was more lively than this shit show.
Also Ron always stood up for Hermione.
Tldr, Ron and Hermione are not the same as Belle and the beast.
@@EspeonMistress00 well Ron in the movies actually agreed with snape about Hermione being an insufferable know it all. Also while you're logic may apply to some scenes, some of there arguments led to Hermione in tears and ron being physically injured, so while I get what you're saying, they seemed to be quite miserable alot of the time. Also what book and what chapter did Hermione and Ron yell at Harry and continue bickering, I legit don't remember that part
@@MagnusTNT The movies are not canon. And only once did the situation become miserable and it's because of Lavender Brown becoming a wedge between Ron and Hermione.
I'm glad somebody finally addresses that they weren't supposed to tell Belle about the rose or the curse! Every time I tell that to someone they don't understand that she's supposed to develop those feelings without her knowing he was human once. She's supposed to develop these feelings thinking that he is truly a beast, but she loves him anyway. I honestly hated this remake, and my friends hate me for hating it.
There are ways she can know about the curse and it can be appropriate. Christophe Gan's "Beauty and the Beast" did well with this. But the Beast wasn't trying to make Belle fall in love with him. He pretty much figured that she couldn't. The rose her father picked had a "Life for a life" rule attached to it. So if the rose is taken, then a life must pay for it. And Belle chooses that it must be her own life. (And there's a whole reason for that that makes sense.)
So it can be done, but you have to take a completely different approach to the whole concept. And that is precisely the problem with this version.
You must be the wise one amongst your friends :|
@@TheRisky9 was that with Scott as the beast? That version was epic
Sweaty I mean, that's not like they tell her HOW to break the curse or that she has to fall in love with Beast. When Belle asks what she can do to help, they just say they're cursed and have made their peace with things.
Still, I'm sorry your friends treat you that way.
Someone likes this movie. The apocalypse has arrived way too early.
Bruh that library scene really cemented why I hate the remake so much. Bad singing aside, that library scene was suppose to be a huge thing for both belle and the beast and the remake just said meh.
I swear to god, Disney has had like at least 5 "first gay characters" at this point.
why can't they just say "okay, this character is gay" than move on, oh yeah, china doesn't like gay people, so just SUBTEXT. come on disney, just man up and say a character is gay.
I guess they did that with Cruella too
@@angelifiona513 and yet they still danced around making it explicitly clear that he's gay because, ya know, Russia and China
It’s always been Donald Duck
@@lifotheparty6195 Is Daisy his beard?
One of my favorite parts in the original film was how books are something that help bond Belle and the Beast. He's an adult with anger problems but you get to see how he's still just a boy because a simple thing like reading makes him so happy & peaceful. It's also significant considering how Belle was constantly mocked for reading by everyone in town and Gaston saying "it's not right for a woman to read". Contrastingly, the Beast loves hearing Belle read and she teaches him to read as well, signifying his growing up. THAT is a good dynamic, not the Beast sneering at Belle for liking Romeo and Juliet.
THIS! I kinda wish this little part was kept (the "Human Again" song I don't care for and don't mind its exclusion), It's just so.... perfect.
I don't mind him sneering at R&J. It's a silly idea of romance and more of a cautionary tale about overly emotional teens. But the screenplay didn't do enough to show them bonding over literature. Oh, he allows her to read him a poem and then they stare out into the distance in companionable silence? So many men scoff at romance but don't understand it well enough to write it.
TheSongwritingCat - My point was moreso that in the live action everyone sneers at her for reading, and then when she finally meets someone who also likes reading he’s a dick about what she enjoys. This erases the crucial difference between the Beast and everyone else-where Gaston is a rude, ignorant dumbass, the Beast is a rude, pretentious brat who, instead of mocking her for reading, mocks her for reading the wrong things. OG Beast loved when Belle read to him and would encourage her to do so because he found the same passion in stories as she did.
So did they put that in because "He's a dude and dudes wouldn't dig romance or girly things like that"? Well, I'm a dude. I grew up watching Disney princess movies and loving them. I was into things like Beatrix Potter and the Secret Garden as a kid. What I'm saying is just because you see several videos of a guy scoffing at the idea of something romantic doesn't mean there isn't someone who genuinely loves that who exists.
Exactly! How is this Beast's reaction to Belle's favorite book any different than how Gaston would react?? I hate it
Personally, I didn't like the live-action BB is because they never showed off how clever Belle can be. I'm not talking about her book-smarts. Animated-Belle had guile, she managed to tricked Gaston out of her house, while Watson just vents off her disgust and frustration in a song.
The original reminds me a bit of Mulan... we learn that Mulan's crafty and resourceful from the first like... 3 minutes of her screentime. Mulan's cleverness is what saves the day/China twice over. The movie doesn't hit us over the head with "WOW ISN'T MULAN SO SMART? DID YOU NOTICE BEING SMART IS HER DEFINING CHARACTER TRAIT? ISN'T IT A SHAME THAT SHE'S A WOMAN IN THIS SOCIETY?" right away like the damn washing machine scene in the remake.
hmmm…interesting. Thinking back, Mulan's craftiness also causes her to get in trouble in the beginning, setting a chicken lose and setting a house (and a bride connoisseur's butt) on fire.
I think that makes a big difference from BB. Mulan's cleverness is a good trait that saved China, but it also is the reason she causes so much disruption at home. In other words, it tells us that its a disruptive quality she has, but overall a good and praiseworthy one and she is rewarded for keeping that cleverness. We see how it causes antagonism, but we also see that its good.
Bell's similar innovativeness remake is a good character trait. Just, objectively good. Why is the town against a washing machine? Why doesnt the town like women reading? Bell's relationship with town seems to setup a subplot, as Lindsey Ellis describes, where her talent someday becomes recognized. While this talent does help her to make a explosive to free her dad, its not really a fitting end to the arc. Having her be creative and inventive isn't really a problem, I think, its how the town responds to it. IF they had shown she made a washing machine and the town didnt notice or shrugged it off, at least then it would be more akin to characterization, and that would make her making an explosive believable (its still believable in the movie) without making it a subplot….still I'm not a film expert, maybe that would still make that inventive quality go nowhere in the movie….
Part of the problem is that animated Gaston was more openly menacing. He crowds into her personal space and forces his way into her house so she has to be clever to stay safe and avoid upsetting him (a realistic danger for a woman rejecting a man) while still getting him out of the house. Live action Gaston grabs her skirt one time but she quickly pulls it back and darts into her house. There's no sense of physical coercion. Because live action Belle is so capable, we don't see Gaston as a threat anymore. It's like how live action Belle has to tell us that she's definitely not scared... which means we never see her being vulnerable. Real courage is not never being frightened. It's being frightened and still choosing to act.
No mention of my favorite nitpick of this movie. Why is there only one person with a French accent in a provincial town in France? Why does literally everyone else have a British accent? In the original it at least makes a tiny bit of sense that a lot of the characters have American accents since it's a movie produced by an American company... but the British accents... why?
It's a little thing called "translation convention". Essentially, it's the idea that if a story takes place exclusively within a certain country (in this case, France), and all the characters are stated to be native to that country or at least able to speak the language, then you can assume that in-universe they are all speaking the language native to that country (French), and the fact that the actors are using their own native language and accents is purely for the audience's benefit. In this case, a vast majority of the main cast was British (Emma Watson, Dan Stevens, Luke Evans, Ian McKellen, Ewan McGregor, Emma Thompson, plus a significant majority of the supporting cast as well) so that became the standard accent as opposed to the mostly American cast of the original. Really, what people should have a problem with is that fact that in both version Lumiere has is speaking with a French accent since that instantly breaks the accepted rules of translation convention and makes him seem like a French person speaking another language.
Make him a duke instead of a prince and set it in the English countryside. There were so many Brits in the cast it was painfully not French.
A wizard did it.
It’s a shame Lindsey couldn’t hold all these feelings in until Mulan 2020, because that movie takes every problem she points out here and ramps it up to 11. I want to watch her destroy that movie.
I don't think she ever will because that "Raya = Avatar" backlash seems to have scared her off of TH-cam for good.
@@kimifw58 oh shit what happened? I just found this channel and I didn't realize it was seemingly dead..
@@LilyApus She said the Raya movie was a rip-off of Avatar the Last Airbender. Disney fans called her racist for saying East Asian cultures are the same as a South East Asian cultures, which she didn't. They saw any criticism for that movie as punching down because it was pandering to an underrepresented culture, so nothing she said reached them. ...Except when she compared herself to a trans person who got harassed online by transphobes. She made a video about this mess called "Mask Off." I wouldn't recommend watching it because it takes _forever_ to get to the point. Other TH-camrs have made videos about it which is how I know in the first place. Good news is Xiran Jay Zhao, who destroyed the Mulan remake, has since gathered South East Asian people to destroy Raya the same way and effectively defend Lindsay. I haven't seen any changes, though. Lindsay's still gone.
@@kimifw58 I assume this all happened on twitter which is a terrible place to go with opinions of any kind because if there is one place on the entire internet that is determined to read way into something it's there, also seeing that she made a few videos after the "Mask off" one it seems like her desire for TH-cam naturally died off sometime after that incident which is a real shame, hopefully her book worked out for her and she doesn't "need" to make videos, but I sure will miss the ones she will never make, I do find it intensely ironic the things she has covered so far of which there have been quite a few hot topics that a shitty dragon movie that was designed to pander to people which is never a good goal in the first place and should insult them more than empower them is what sends the mob after her in the end.
also I love the Dib pfp, and thank you for answering in detail.
@@LilyApus as far as I can surmise, it became really exhausting for her because this kind of thing had happened before, except the other times it was usually right wing twitter dragging her for something she'd said in a video. For as long as I've been a subscriber, I remember it happening twice before this final blow. There's a wonderful video of a talk she gave at an event, speaking generally about TH-cam, video essays and her Hugo nomination, but it's a little disheartening because she's visibly so nervous - it was right after one of those attacks. You're right, twitter is a hellscape. It honestly makes me sad because her videos are genuinely good content. But her two books are really good (highly recommend) and she's making videos exclusively on nebula now, which people have to pay/subscribe to access, and that makes it much harder for something like this to happen again.
18:50 I think you nail this bit 100%. Lots of remakes suffer from this. Its like the writer of the remake doesn't understand the significance, emotionally, of these moments in the original film.... they dont understand that the Beast wanting to give Belle access to the library was an act of love from him. Thats a huge deal, a huge growth in the character. To make it a scene where he is simply boasting about his library completely destroys the meaning and the character growth. So sad that they did this and clearly dont understand or care what it does to the meaning
"Thanks, I hate it" is a great way to sum up the last three years.
CEC the Ronin *my entire life
That line is what I think of Disney these days.
I think Coco and Big Hero 6 were really good.
@@peral9728 Orange man legitimately quite bad for America both on foreign and national scale
@@peral9728 r/therightcantmeme
"We have no obligation to make art, history, or statements. But to make money it is often important to make art, history, or some significant statement."
I will give this guy points for honesty...
Fantastic read, Disneywar. His Singles and Doubles idea wasn't a bad idea moneywise. But he got drunk on power like most people and went from medium budget movies that turn a steady profit to titanic messes like Pearl Harbor.
Nothing has ever soured the magic Disney creates for me more than that quote. All of the passion and effort from the creative teams during the Disney Renaissance to be led by that line of thinking. It sours everything. that so much powerful and innovative creations were an afterthought and byproduct instead of wanting to make the stockholders happy.
Exactly! I'm a child of the 80's. Most of my childhood cartoons were nothing more than 30 minute long toy commercials. Doesn't mean they weren't great. Money is a great motivating factor. Unfortunately most other contemporary art is not valued like this.
"Greed, for lack of a better word, is good."
At least he did understand the single prime point of a business: profit.
Achillez It, honestly, makes me respect him more.
I think the meta commentary worked in Enchanted, cause its basically a parody. But when it comes to the other films, I think it cheapens the overall product.
The meta commentary worked in Enchanted because it felt more genuine.
@@eatatjoes6751 It also worked because the character growth went both ways. Giselle learns that feelings can change and life is more complicated than she thought, while Robert opens himself up to optimism and whimsy after his heart was broken. So on a meta level the story is saying that while childlike fantasy is no substitute for real world, that sense of wonder and joy is important to keep around.
@@eatatjoes6751Yeah, aside from Enchanted all the jabs at Disney feel very mean spirited and self-deprecating as in "Hey guys look, we're in on the joke haha"
"Wow. Such Gay. Very Representation." - this channel makes me lmfao
"You're welcome, GAYS!"
Wanda Nemer thanks, I hate it!
"The L's, the B's, the T's, the G's, and of course you filthy, FILTHY Q's." XD
@@crimsonwizahd2358 is that from Dave Chapelle?
@@braintwo3398 Nah it's from the video. Just thought it was a funny line.
"if I can't live as a cup, I'll die as a cup!" had me bursting out laughing, thanks XD
“Why were the servants punished?”
Because the Enchantress was a jerk. That’s why.
Maybe the Enchantress was trying to teach him that his actions will affect others as well? But yah she was.
See, they SHOULD have gone this route. What happened to Beast himself may have been justified, but his staff were innocents. The Enchantress was following Fair Folk rules, which are not our own, and it's okay to depict her as kind of a terrible person in her own right.
But the witch saves the day in this version. Despite being even more unlikable then in the original. I don't get it.
@@ingonyama70 Personally, I think making her obviously a fairy and less like a human witch solves this problem. Fairies are not rational. It's not about lessons and morality.
@TheSongwritingCat well, it sometimes is still about morality but more in a dramatic irony sense then a straight forward "don't be like that". Usually it ranges from "be hospitable" to "don't howl at night in January or a parade of ghosts will drop a horse leg down your chimney"
So when I was a child the thing I loved most about b&tb was belles love of reading. I didn't care about the magic or the true love, all I wanted was to ride around on a ladder in her library room.
The thing I hated about this remake is the beast mocks her love of reading at every turn. He mocks Shakespeare and doesn't give her the library room out of love. He literally just says oh this boring room over there I don't care about, there you go. And even her library in the village became 5books on a shelf in a church. Took all the magic out of it.
I never saw the Beast being cursed young as a plot hole, or even a problem. Yeah, the Enchantress cursed him when he was 11. So what? She's magic, she does what she likes, she doesn't care what you think is "logical".
It makes her kind of a giant bitch, cause she's cursing a _child_. Like sure, if he's 11 he's still a spoiled brat for behaving that way, but he's also just a child, so honestly how much humility, emotional maturity and empathy can you realistically expect? Those are things you learn over time and while it's never great to behave the way the prince did, if he was just 11 there's an honest to God chance that he just hasn't understood yet how much shallowness can hurt others.
If he's a few years older you'd expect him to know though, so if he still treats others badly for superficial reasons, he's probably a bad person, so punishing him by cursing him is less of a bitch move. In that case he should have known better.
The way I always saw it, I always assumed the enchantress was a fae creature who just did things on a whim. So when she decided to knock on the castle of this young kid, and he probably acted like a baby Joffrey, she decided to just drop a karmic punishment on him, because that's just how the fae do.
@@HerrMisterTheo I agree that what the enchantress did was really shitty but honestly I thought that the enchantress was... like... part of the fae. And they tend to have a whole different dynamic then humans do. So when the prince refused her 3 days she took it as a greatter disrespect than most would.
In the original, he was an adult when he got cursed, and I just assume time wasn't going to age him.
@@Lord_Of_Night Well they never actually say how old he is, but you're right that he appears to be an adult in the pictures. But the narrator says that the rose will bloom until his 21st year, so he must be aging a bit. But I agree with Lindsay's broader point that trying to pick apart the minute logic of this movie is absolutely missing the forest for the trees XD
Back when I still obsessed with Disney, I wanted to love this movie. I really really do. I was excited that they decided Emma Watson as Belle. Boy, I was so wrong about that. The acting is so bad, the writing features so many potential subplots that didn't go anywhere, and the worse of all, not chemistry between Belle and Beast. There are no intense romantic moments like in the original. As a result, the dance scene looked plain and meaningless, because the movie failed to make me believe that they are actually in love. This movie, unfortunately, breaks all my obsession toward Disney, from loving it to hating it, to not caring about it anymore. When I looked back at this moment, it still kinda sad.
Not to mention the adamant focus on an inconsequential detail like not wearing a corset with the ballgown and THAT is the thing that made Belle so feminist shows how Disney (and consequently Emma Watson) still have outdated views on actual feminism. If they REALLY wanted to have a real feminist character they would have made her a woman of color in a provincial French town in that time period and all the struggles that a woman would have there. Same with the "gay" character. You could have done anything better than the outdated 90's view of homosexuality which is gay = offensively femme.
Sigh.
You should watch the Cinderella adaptation version, that's literally the only Disney live action movie that has true magic in them
@@sarakhairuddin5041 Cinderella 2015 actually my favoritr Disney live action adaptation that are not retelling like Maleficent🥰🥰🥰🥰. It is straight up adaptation of the original story and straight fairy tale adaptation with enough update for modern audienxe without losing all the fairy tale magic. It actually felt like fairy tale free from all the satire and cynical comedy that you usually found on Shrek which is rarity in this post fairy tale deconstruction era. To be honest, looking at the interview and behind the scene of Cindetela 2015, the movie is more like a readaptation of the same material with some borrowed element from Disney animated movie rather than direct remake of the animated movie. It managed to stand as its own. Add thst to not making it into musical, it felt magical, new, and nostalgic at the same time. Sorry i talk lot😝
these animated movies were never meant to be made into live action versions... regardless of how much money you throw into something like this, it will still be shite
I wasn't prepared for that snipe at Cinemasins but I'm here for it
I used to appreciate the humor of pointing out nit picky things, but the recent reviews on his channel have been just personal attacks on the things everyone liked about a movie not continuity errors and granted probably far less researched.
I hate Cinema Sins.
"The director's first dog was a husky."
*sin count goes up by one*
"This woman's shirt is blue."
*sin count goes up by one*
"The band ZZ Top appeared as extras in this scene."
*sin goes up by three*
Most of those "nitpicks" make no damn sense. It's basically: He points out random trivia, then counts it as bad for some reason.
ElPayasoMalo you can’t forget that literally everything is a cliche now
@@anna570 The issue with the old format of Cinema Sins videos was that short videos are no longer conductive towards advertisements with modern TH-cam. A minimum of 10 minutes is needed to receive multiple ad slots, thus making money for the company behind Cinema Sins. The second problem is that new videos need to be released more routinely for Cinema Sins to maintain its position on TH-cam's suggested video section. More routine videos means less thought out content, and requires the creators to continuously search out new potential topics. If there was just one of these problem there wouldn't be an issue honestly. The fact both have to exist creates long, drawn out, poorly researched nitpicks instead of constructive criticisms of flaws often purposefully overlooked in movies.
It's indeed so stupid that they added "Belle reading a girl to read" is so stupid. 50% of woman could read. Even if you were poor, you still had chances to learn to read and write. And Disney be like "Let me conveniently forget!!"
The original tale was wrote by a *women*
What time period are we talking about? Cause majority of women could not read in the 19th century and prior to.
@@TaraCarmelina In the 1700's, were this movie takes place and the original tale was written and also taking place
yeah I'm pretty sure access to literacy has historically been a class thing way more than it's been a gender thing
Belle is suposed to be living in a provincial town somewhere in France in 1700's, it was weird that someone who was not a noble or a priest could read at the time
"Thanks I hate it" is now a thing for me
Ay RC!
Me too lol
It's more effective if you add a comma, "Thanks, I hate it!"
Welcome to Facebook tag groups, enjoy your stay
Bidane Martinez-Huerta More like, different effect. “thanks i hate it” is so quick and blunt and droll. “Thanks, I hate it!” has a bit of an upbeat comedic beat.
One thing that I wish had been touched on... this "live action" remake was still fully dependent on animation... but the animation is actually a hindrance to the story due to the reliance on realism and desire to supposedly be plot hole free. Something about the 1991 movie that was so masterful was how the animators brought the objects to life with personality and with feelings. They created actual characters who could express themselves, and who the audience could connect with.
The animation in the 2017 version just made realistic looking objects that were self ambulatory and could talk. The matronly warmth of Mrs Potts' round face and big nose (the spout) is replaced by 2D lines painted on the side of a teapot. Lumiere and Cogsworth have basically no expression for the entire movie, and so much of Lumiere's charm is robbed by us not seeing his mischievous smirks and winks. It's an example which Lindsay references sometimes about filmmakers not really understanding their mediums... the 2017 crew was so in the mindset of making this "live action realism" movie that they didn't understand what it was about the animated movie that made it so good.
Likewise, the animation for Beast also is a massive downgrade when it comes to emotional resonance. The 1991 movie makes a HUGE deal about Beast's eyes. They are drawn large, and they are expressive as hell, in a way that you can really only get from a cartoon or a very theatrical live actor. The 2017 motion capture vfx made his eyes smaller and got rid of all the color contrast of his brows, leading to a super stoic overall look that is kind of flat for the majority of the film. Couple that with the changes to the screenplay that caused the actor to make different acting choices, and the emotional impact of the character is weakened significantly. They keep the shot of his eyes toward the end, but it doesn't mean anything because his eyes haven't really mattered up to that point.
(Time to reply to a year-old comment, woohoo)
Yes to everything you said about how the animation added to the characters!
With Beast's eyes, his design really emphasizes their blueness: they're a pale shade that contrasts almost perfectly with the deep, warm browns of his fur, and the lines point to/frame them primarily. And we don't see blue eyes in the animal kingdom much, usually we see them in animals that are close companions to humans, like cats and dogs, (and even then, it's rare.) Really, blue eyes are only common in humans.
Since the blue already feels familiar, we're more inclined to relate to him subconsciously, despite his animalistic traits.
@@ShayLaLaLooHoo great observation. His eyes are the only human part left of him, which is why Belle can tell that it's him after he transforms back
I honestly think the live action remakes are an insult to animation as a medium. They imply that the only reason a film was animated is because effects were not good enough to do it in live action and now they are? This is so wrong-headed: there is nothing in Snow White that could not have been done well enough in live action in 1937. Choosing animation was not done for fun, he nearly went bankrupt on his insane gamble, when live action would have been easier, cheaper and more respected. Disney chose animation for a reason, these films are animated for a reason. It gets more and more stark the longer the remakes went on. The Lion King was animated because you cannot convey that sense of emotion through realistic lion faces. I HATED the live action lion king, it was like corpses of lions shuflfing around, incapable of expressing emotion visually. I counted how many times a clear emotion was depicted in that film: 21 times in the whole movie. I know that sounds pedantic to do but it frustrates me so much. Animation allows anthropomorphism (e.g. of lions without them looking creepy), impractical choreography, incredible lighting and colours, magical transformations, crowd scenes and sets and locations that could never be portrayed in live action, minute control over every part of a character from looks and performance/acting and movement. Nothing comes for free in animation, it is all deliberate choices to tell a story in the best way. It's probably the greatest medium for storytelling after our own imaginations and then these remakes throw all that away. When Glen Keane drew the Beast he imbued so much pathos, life and interiority into him that shines through, Mark Henn gave so much complexity to Belle's performance (alongside Paige O Hara's voice acting of course). Instead we get Dan Steven's fighting through impenetrable CGI which Emma Watson has to try and act around (and with that train wreck of a film, the script isn't doing them any favours either). It's so disheartened and as I say, an insult to the great artists who made the original films.
God I got so mad watching this. The cartoon is so perfectly realised - it's simple, concise, it's affecting on a human level in a way both children and adults can understand, it's beautifully animated, and the story makes sense in the way that fairy tales makes sense - not in the way a science manual makes sense. Adults are kind of ruining fairy tales for kids by imposing all their anxious, self conscious stuff onto them. Just because you can't believe in magic doesn't mean the kids can't. I love your videos Lindsay!
safe space Only it wasn't better.
...but it did really bother me that beast couldn’t read and that he magically became hot.
Or that you’re clearly milking your brand by saying “hey, remember that thing you liked as a kid? Here it is again, only slightly different and worse!” I don’t get why these keep making money honestly.
Interesting comment. Let's imagine we are back in the time before Disney started remaking animated films as live-action ones, (2016?). Why should a live-action film be considered an upgrade to an animated one? I don't think they used the term "upgrade" but the marketing of these films implies it. But animation is more laborious and it offers more possibilities.
I always considered that the staff was turned into objects because the Beast treated people as objects, and the witch wanted to reflect that. That was unfair for the staff, but it was part of the Beast's "punishment".
But then the movie want me to believe the staff were cursed because they were responsible of the Beast's education and didn't help him with his cruel father... Even if the cursed people in this castle includes a child and a dog.
Wait... There was a 2015 Cinderella??
Damn, my adblock must be working wonders.
Also, gotta love the Beauty and the Beast eurobeat style remix.
The 2015 Cinderella is actually pretty good. Doesn’t pick uo momentum till the announcement of the Ball, but enjoyable
It was awful. The message was: "Be a doormat with a nonexistent waist."
Wendy Weissman the original had that also
Yup, and as others have said, it is actually good, becuase yeah, it updates some things based on criticisim, but it's mostly minor and not at all relevant stuff or actually well done (Like ''Hey, they actually meet each other before the ball, and they have chemestry and it's overall a decent scene'' Or ''The prince has a name that's not Charming' and Cinderella also has a real name'), although the changes to the Stepmother are hit or miss.
After having seen MANY takes on this movie, I'm glad that there's one thing that's always a constant.
*Audra McDonald is great.*
She's amazing. And her songs were the only ones I bought from this remake. The beginning Aria is so good!
Ironically Disney took the magic out of this movie. I think it has to do in part, because it's live-action and they wanted to make it seem more realistic. But the overexplaining killed the magic that existed.
I will always remember my sister, who LOVES beauty and the beast, dragging me to watch this with her for emotional support. She knew it was going to be bad but still wanted to see it, you could see her soul dying a bit in the glow of the move theater
This movie feels like it was directed by a writer for Buzzfeed.
Yeah. All that's missing is Taylor Swift.
Emma Watson would have eaten the whole plate, but the plate had eyes, and it totally spoiled her appetite.
Either that or she would have already Transfigured said plate back into a person. ;)
Right. Or would have started a movement to free all the servants!
Or both! It would be like S.P.E.W. all over again! ;)
S.P.E.W. wasn't even in the movies.
Kings and Generals My theory is that she was messing around with time turners and went too far back in time.
My god, this is amazing. I might add one more point: The whole point of the first "Beauty and the Beast" was actually a bit of a meta-reaction, too. Before that film, Disney faced criticism for always depicting the "ugly" people as villains. The old film sought to remedy that problem to show beautiful people (like Gaston) could be villains, and the "ugly" people (the Beast) could be good people. The whole point was not to judge people by appearances, but how they act. The animated movie succeeded in getting that message across because it stayed FOCUSED on this one message and built a story around it. The live action movie lacked any of that FOCUS. It wanted a thousand different messages, ideas, and themes, and the story suffered for it. It's not *wrong* to have a meta-reaction in a film, just keep your focus on what is the core message of the story.
From Kentucky to Tokyo And of course the same message was clearly shown in how the curse came to be, in the prince rejecting an old, ugly woman. And come to think of it, it might even go as far as the servants, because since they were objects, none of them was pretty or ugly, they were just personalities.
In fact, it achieved the opposite, since the Beast was *not* a sympathetic character and Gaston kind of was.
God, yes. The screenplay of the remake is so muddled.
adding the mom subplot could’ve been a great opportunity to show The Beast comforting Bell in a very vulnerable moment. Bell is learning that she’s lost a parent, and Beast has already experienced that hardship twice. He could have been seen becoming visibly uncomfortable as he cycles through which coping mechanism he’ll use to avoid something that’s pained him in the past. Should be get angry and scare her away? Should he remove himself physically from the scene? Maybe he tries to and at the final second, in a moment of vulnerability, he turns around and comforts Bell in a mutual moment of mourning and acceptance. That could’ve been an entire emotional climax in and of itself...
but apparently they didn’t do that
Tbh, i dont like the trope of "disney characters making fun of disney in the movie theyre in"
I just want to watch a fun fairytale i dont need or want that included
Me too.
I didn't mind it in Enchanted, but that's because it was coming from a place of love. Not trying to be woke.
@@ForrestFox626 I know right.
@@alexanderpowell2097 That also helps
Like that cringy princess scene in Wreck it Ralph 2.
The Original: "You've met Gastons in real life before"
the Remake, crying: "Gaston is so misunderstood"
In all honesty, I think most ppl haven't met Gaston in real life but they have definitely placed the label of Gaston onto ppl they hated, now do ppl like gaston exist? Of course look at any rich kid and u will see them but still ppl this horrible are pretty rare
Honestly, the remake doesn't try to make Gaston sympathetic, it just adds a weirdly dark backstory. He's still a psychopath IN that backstory though -- it just kind of adds the barely-veiled implication that he enjoys killing people.
How can a man who eats 2 dozen eggs a day be bad?
@@misanthropicservitorofmars2116 I read that in Ariel's voice.... "how can a world that makes such wonderful things [beat] be bad?"
Cat Princess 101 I know, I was referring to when he was 3 years old to undersell just how amazing he is.
The one trend I've disliked since online criticism started happening is the idea that internal consistency is more important than any other element in a movie.
xingcat Why is that a bad thing? A movie shouldn't be able to just contradict it's own rules whenever they become inconvenient.
It's a bad thing when you (generic you) have nothing to say on something and you pick a "random nitpick criticism from the internet" and make it the theme of the movie. Internet sometimes is a serious issue for critical thinking... well more the sometimes in than last years.
Max Xam But that doesn't have anything to do with the film's internal consistency, as internet discussion happens once the film or at least the trailers have been released, once you can't really change it.
I think it does, in its perception. Today it's all about taking sides on the internet, be with or against. So if I admit there is something wrong in the film's internal consistency it is assumed that I hate it. On the contrary, it seems to me that if I really like something, i should have no criticism whatsever about it. I am afraid that the internet discussions are able to "change" a film, perverting the perception we have about it. If you like a film, you can have something to criticize. I f you don't like a movie, there can be things, scenes, interpretations that you like in it. It's like there is no middle ground.
Btw I don't like this film.
Agreed. I criticize the hell out of things I like, and sometimes enjoy nitpicking, but unless such things actually ruin the enjoyment or "form" of a piece of media I don't think these should be given concession just because some people notice them, because as pointed out many times in this video, sometimes filling the holes just turn into clumsy, far too pointed dialogue that ultimately mess up the impact of the story, and spoon-feed the audience information.
Honestly the old Disney movies age really well in my opinion, especially as we grow from the outdated versions of performative feminism that we used to view them with (like saying that Cinderella isn't feminist enough when that's really just victim-blaming) and that is precisely the problem with the live-action remakes. They try to improve things that don't necessarily need to be improved upon and go about it in that same performative way of the mid 2000s that we're trying to move away from.
Thank you for the Cinderella defense, I can't stand people hating on her. She's such a strong role model, what is stronger than remaining a good, kind person in the face of the worst abuse? She directs her own rescue when the chance comes too. And most people criticising it haven't even watched it recently, cause she talks back to her step-family a lot and is quite almost bitchy about them, which is bravery beyond belief. My test of people's bad faith criticisms is always: 'what colour is Cinderella's dress in the 1950 film?' If they say blue and not silver/white then you know they haven't seen it recently and are just working off the cultural opinion of Cinderella and wider princess culture. I love Cinderella and if people could aspire to be half as strong and kind as her then the world would be a much better place.
@@richardbourton4523 I saw Cinderella recently and i personally think that cinders' dress was a pale silver blue of sorts. Why else would disney still portray it as such when like, it isnt? I know the lighting makes it look that way but even in the ballroom scene you can see the extremely light blue used to color the gown, ik im legally blind but jus sayin
@@alicemadness999 supposedly, the marketing teams wanted a less wedding-like dress for merchandise (which I don’t understand and don’t have a citation for) so they moved it towards blue. It definitely seems to be originally silver, but it depends which restoration of the film you’re watching, as some have altered the colouration enough that it becomes blue (goodness knows what the Disney+ version looks like). This video does a great job of studying it: th-cam.com/video/UycDew30Sy8/w-d-xo.html
Morgana, "Ursula's crazy sister" still wins the 'most awkward and ham fisted character name introduction' award XD
Jenny Sweeney It really does! Lol even as a child I remember thinking that was a stupid and weird line. Now as an adult I realize it's because is extremely sloppy and lazy exposition.
@@winterlynn9012 Here's a better way for them:
Morgana acts crazy, another character calls her crazier than her sister. Then she says something about Ursula mentioning her by name, possibly giving us an early indication of her bitterness towards her to develop her character.
Or you could have Sebastian awkwardly yelp it lol.
I mean. That’s true, but man did I love Melody as a kid.
Jenny Sweeney was Ursula meant to be not crazy lol
Winter Harris SAME 😂 I’ve always made fun of it
A lot of the "subversive" stuff in the remake doesn't work, because the original was already subverting a lot of traditional tropes. Our villain is the manly-man town hero who would traditionally save the damsel from the monster. While it's obvious to the audience he's really the bad guy, he starts out as more of a comic buffoon and gets more and more threatening as the film goes on. The new film acts like it's going to re-subvert Gaston into a "Maleficent"-style misunderstood Disney villain, then -- PLOT TWIST! -- reveals he was still the evil Gaston all along! I guess maybe he's a play on modern bullies hiding behind pseudo-progressive posturing, but that's not really a fairy tale trope.
I didn't think he was going to be sympathetic and misunderstood but I was getting the sense that he was going to represent a practical reality. Like, what were her options when her father died if she didn't have any marketable skills? But then, nope, he turned into a homicidal maniac. And Belle never needed to learn a trade and the movie never had to make the argument that it doesn't matter if a guy is relatively decent... if you still don't want to marry him, that's your choice.
Modern Disney: Look at us putting a gay character in our movie!! We're so Woke™!
Also modern Disney: Haha we're going to make an I Hate My Wife joke
Peak boomer humour. "Wife bad, marriage bad."
@@LadyAhro Calls an obvious Gen Z kid a boomer = imbecile.
@@eraliaa3219 LadyAhro wasn't calling the kid who made the main comment a boomer, she was saying the marriage-type of jokes are typical boomer humor.
@@IMayOrMayHaveNot Yep. Boomers love making jokes about 'the ol' Ball and chain - wife is a nag and I'm miserable' except that of course they'd never get divorced in fear of actually looking after themselves and their house when the wife has gone.
i dont see any connection between those two
And also, in Beaty and the beast (1991) Belle felt alone because she had no one to share her hobbies with. The only persone who loved books as she did, was the man from the book shop, but he is represented as a very old man, and an eventual friendship with a young girl was unlikly. In the new version of Beauty and the beast, the man from the book shop was a young and hot man! Why on earth did Belle feel alone? She had an opportunity to have a friend with her same passion for reading, there is no reason she should feel totally alone as in the previous movie.
I like that the reading part also adds “random one nice black guard” who helps Belle clean up her clothes. Like the most pointless type of diversity; very progressive.
God the subtext of that moment is truly appalling.
"No no, you see, he was nice because he *gets* it! He recognizes that the vague allusion to oppression she experienced is **exactly** like his, because all oppression is experienced in the exact same way by all marginalized identities!"
It's as though someone tried to explain intersectionality to them and they were like, "I heard 'intersection', I think I got it."
yeah, like, you're telling me a girl being literate and useful to the rest of her town is unacceptable but apparently racism isn't a thing in this pre-revolutionary provincial village?
I thought he was the librarian? Not saying that makes anything better, just that they tried to have them be friends, because books.
To be honest, Pre-Revolutionary France did depend heavily on its slave colony in Haiti and had a distinct difference between slaves and “free people of color”. It is quite likely that some of these “free people of color” could have ended up in rural France (particularly if the local nobility was particularly wealthy) in some capacity. So the presence of black characters isn’t really out of place (although maybe the town would have been more overtly prejudiced) given the time period and the deep economic ties that France had to Haiti. If we are going to judge this film on that regard, we might as well write off “The Crucible” for having Tituba (an enslaved black woman living in New England in the 1690’s) or any of Charles Dickens’ stories that feature Australians returning to the British Mainland.
Jonathan Bowers someone’s been reading their gcse texts - the crucible and great expectations lol
Madame Crapper is now officially my self-insert character in Beauty and the Beast.
To be wildly pedantic, the movie is set in 1400s france. Thomas Crapper invented the U bend toilet in 1880. The word Crapper wasn’t used to refer to a toilet until then, his brand of toilet became so popular it became almost a generic term, like frisbee or Tupperware.
So in fifteenth century France there would have been no connection between the name Crapper and latrines.
But now that I think of it Latrine Toilette is a great name for an anthropomorphic shitter.
@@kelzbelz313 Stephen Merchant's M. Toilette was cut from the theatrical version.
rubino 83 such a waste of talent
#WeStanForMadameCrapper
@@kelzbelz313 "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" has a character named Latrine. She changed it from her given name, Shithouse.
A big gripe for me was the dumbing down of the Antagonist and Protagonist.
In the Animated films both the beast and Gaston were powerhouses, Gaston was considered the prime male the Alpha but the town because of his feats and physical attributes (yes I mean the bloody biceps) and the beast was designed in a way to inspire FEAR and that was the biggest challenge. However in the live action Gaston is just a war vet and the beast just looks like a remake of the Satir from Pan's Labyrinth, hardly scary.
This was part of why the animated film was more powerful, the Beast was Gaston's ultimate love rival because no only had he gained Belle's affections but also that the Beast was the pinnacle animal for Gaston to prove who was the best, kinda like taking out a werewolf, major hunter points.
The other part was how in the animated movie the roles were reversed,
In the animated movie, in the beginning, it was the beast who was mean, spiteful and aggressive while Gaston was charming, polite (albeit presumptuous and arrogant) then by the end of the film the roles reverse with the Beast actually not trying to defend himself for no reason while Gaston actually becomes the beast in a way.
In the Live action, their attitudes are blurred so much I personally didn't care if Belle walked away from both of them.
But that's my view.
"Gaston was considered the prime male"
Gaston *is* especially good at expectorating
@@dndboy13 And every last inch of him is covered in hair.