|
Pablo Bluth posted:Teaser trailer for the next film by the national treasures that are Aardman... The adult part of me wants to say this looks dumb, but the running band making nonsense music had me in tears so ???
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:38 |
|
|
Well Nick Park has always ran in the field of dumb ideas. Like doing Universal/Hammer horror pastiche set in a vegetable obsessed township, starring heroes who run a Pest removal service called Anti-Pesto. It's endearingly in it's dumbness and wordplay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
Barudak posted:The opening was honestly dull because, frankly, we dont really need that information and we certainly dont need a voice over narration stating literally what we are seeing. Later, the fulm had to segue into Belles backstory which added nothing and more details on the beasts backstory which also added nothing and sort of muddled the point of Beasts character. I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt that way about the ending. I honestly thought that everyone was going to "die" (well, turn into the objects they were imitating, same diff I suppose) and Belle would say "I love you" and then cue the transformation music. Nooooooo instead we needed to Enchantress to come in and say "hey look, someone said the love word to you and meant it, good job, you can all be human again" and then she disappears. I agree with what a lot of people are saying in that there was a lot of superfluous fluff added in that didn't need to be there. If you are going to actually show Adam/the beast being a dick or...something at the beginning of the film then we don't need narration. You have an old woman and she turns into an enchantress, you have actual people on the screen that are acting, let THEM deliver the exposition. Of course I may just be saying this because I was actually really underwhelmed by the delivery of the narration, there's a certain je ne sais quoi (one of the few jokes I actually laughed out loud at in the film) about the original that they didn't try to recapture so it ends up falling flat. I think the only changes I liked as far as story goes is taking away the whole "Beast no know how to read  " thing from the special addition because I think that was one of the stupidest additions, and putting in Maurice being thrown in the tower for "stealing" a rose. I always liked that detail from the fairy tale and it makes the Beast less of an rear end in a top hat when we first meet him.Overall I thought this was ok but if I am going to be honest I think this may be the last of the live action remakes I see in the theatre since a) I don't have a lot of love for The Little Mermaid and b) Aladdin is just not going to be as good without Robin Williams. If what people are saying about Emma Watson being autotuned for some of the songs is true that makes me about as upset as the singing in La La Land, why the gently caress are we paying these people millions of dollars to then get outshined by better singers in the same movie? I mean it's not like these actors can't afford the best voice coaches in the world or anything and short of being tone deaf (which I almost wondered if Ryan Gosling was considering his lack of range and pitch) learning how to sing isn't that hard, especially considering how much loving time actors spend at the gym for super hero roles. However saying all of that I enjoyed the retakes of all the songs and as much as I enjoyed every aspect of Gaston I did feel that Luke could've bit a bit more mmph into some of his moments, especially in the Mob Song. Also I don't know if Beast's new song is new for the movie or if I just don't remember it from the stage version but it was good, Dan sang it well and it was just a good song that I am for sure going to learn and sing every chance I can. Menken's still got 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
The learning to read bit from the special edition of beauty in the beast is absolutely cringe worthy, and I totally hate it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Pick posted:The learning to read bit from the special edition of beauty in the beast is absolutely cringe worthy, and I totally hate it. I like how he struggles with "two" but gets "households" immediately.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
Caught the new BatB this weekend cuz it's the wife's favorite Disney film and we were both underwhelmed. Along with what's already been said in the thread, the whole thing felt weirdly reticent to commit to the grandeur and spectacle of the 1991 animated film. Emma Watson just kinda shows up, Lumiere and Cogsworth don't have the same chemistry, the iconic ballroom dance was whatever... there were some changes I liked, like Beast being a funnier mumbly grump and Gaston & LeFou's relationship, but overall it felt like everyone tried really hard not to make any mistakes and forgot to do something special. The film was technically faultless, but just perfunctory. 7/10 I guess?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
I never really had a soft spot for the original Beauty and the Beast. This version was alright, if not better than my expectations. When they got something right (Be Our Guest / love montage), they really nailed it. It goes the other way too with the bad things. The new subplots, bad CGI, Emma Watson singing. She was clearly one of the weakest parts of the film and probably miscast. Overall I left the theater kind of in a weird funk thinking how the other films will be adapted. With the level of CGI on display, Aladdin will probably be a disaster trying to replicate the Genie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
It's not out here yet but I've been listening to the soundtrack a bit and Emma Watson is so autotuned it's painful. Yeah, really bad stunt casting when they could have picked some up and comer who can really sing. Most of the other cast sings well (except for Ewan McG whose main problem is his awful fake accent, not his actual singing) Emma Thompson (Mrs Potts) is especially wonderful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
If I were Bi I'd take the Beast over the Beauty in this film. Emma Watson was so average and plain it felt like she was playing Belle like a bureaucrat who acts 90 percent through their eyebrows. Gaston dies not because he's a hot-blooded, heartless brute but because he's an idiot who doesn't notice where he's standing. But what really slighted me was the tone. It was like they aimed for "Darker" but instead landed into "Mean-Spirited". If the townspeople were always such jerks to Belle then she would have convinced her father to move as soon as she could talk. It bugs me when the makers dial up the misery switch in an adaptation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
Im a bi bureaucrat Also a beast
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
Inspector Gesicht posted:It bugs me when the makers dial up the misery switch in an adaptation. so you weren't especially happy with the new subplot about Belle learning about what happened to her mom? I mean it was still nice since it added more for Belle and Beast to do together but the resolution seemed a little over the top.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 08:21
|
|
|
Aces High posted:so you weren't especially happy with the new subplot about Belle learning about what happened to her mom? I mean it was still nice since it added more for Belle and Beast to do together but the resolution seemed a little over the top. The part I didn't like about the new subplot was the whole, "Oh by the way, that enchantress that cursed me gave me a magic mirror but also a magic book I never mentioned before or am seen using and you can use it to teleport literally anywhere you can imagine and bring back items from that place." Like, huh? The mirror at least works thematically (he hates looking at himself, so he can use it to really see others for once) but the book comes out of nowhere. I think the animated version is a great film but I don't hold so much love for it that I don't think you can make changes, I just wish that change (and a couple others) made a little more sense, or felt a little more thought through.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 12:24
|
|
|
Harlock posted:I never really had a soft spot for the original Beauty and the Beast. This version was alright, if not better than my expectations. When they got something right (Be Our Guest / love montage), they really nailed it. It goes the other way too with the bad things. The new subplots, bad CGI, Emma Watson singing. She was clearly one of the weakest parts of the film and probably miscast. I didn't think there was anything wrong with the cgi..  But then again, I didn't have a problem with the cgi Tarkin and Leia in Rogue One, so my opinion is probably worthless.b
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
The book highlighted another issue for me. When it was introduced not in a million years did I think it would be used to wrap up belles moms backstory. I thought it would used to close the "this provincial life" plot thread by having beast reveal its a curse it lets you travel anywhere but there are no people so hes always alone and now he and Belle can travel the world shes never seen as a series of private dates, then juxtaposing that with her father dragging her from this idyllic situation with beast. Instead a plot we didnt need gets details we never wanted and the book is summarily forgotten.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Well, to the surprise of no one, it's making buttloads of money. More of the same incoming. Also lol at Boss Baby sitting at 43% on RT. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Oh, that's already out? Huh. I dunno, nothing about it struck me as particularly interesting;  at best, and even that's pushing it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
Please kill Boss Baby in it's crib before we have to deal with a sequel
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Prescreenings, I think. I find it pretty telling since animated movies generally wind up with incredibly bloated scores. 50%-75% is range, less is  territory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Ah, I didn't bother reading the dates of when showings were locally, just that they popped up at all when I Googled. Just under two weeks to go, fair enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
Is this where we talk about the new Beauty and the Beast movie? Cool. I had a good time but it was so forgettable. I feel like it had poor sound design and we just kind of move from set piece to set piece without any real sense of why. I wonder if the script suffered from last-minute rewrites. there appears to be a vestigial plot line that deals with Maurice being so afraid of the outside world that he errs on the side of taking no action. This is resolved when we discover the reason for his fear (fearing death brought on by disease) and his leap from passivity to action (being convinced by Belle to pick the lock) but the whole subplot is poorly formed since we already see that he's willing to take action when he grabs Gaston to go look for Belle. Also the cause of Belle's mother's death was supposed to be a big cathartic reveal, but it fell flat since it seemed like the only person who wasn't over it was Maurice, and in the movie we got I couldn't even tell you how his character evolved over the course of the film. How was he different at the start than he was at the end? It's OK to have a static character but the half-implemented character development just seems unsatisfying. I really liked LeFou though, he had a pretty satisfying arc and had some great lines. I also like how in this version the Beast is also into literature. It makes the reason Belle is drawn to his world more cohesive -- she's a proto-academic in a town that doesn't satisfy her intellectual needs; she then meets an individual who can satisfy those needs. This does address a complaint I had about the original - she leaves the semi-illiterate villagers for...a semi-illiterate Prince, making her original dissatisfaction seem more rooted in her desire for the trappings of wealth. The set pieces just didn't stand out to me as those of the original film, in part owing to poor sound design so sadly I think the movie is just meh and I don't know if I'll have much of a desire to see it again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Just saw the new Beauty and the Beast. I really enjoyed this movie, but I think enjoyment depends on how you go into it. If you watch this one as kind of an updated tribute to the original - like the Broadway musical, for example - it's quite enjoyable. Lovely sets and costumes, most of the cast is phenomenal and do great work, they add some cool backstories, new perspectives and new songs. "Days in the Sun" is lovely, and "Evermore" is growing on me, but I'll always and forever be a sap for Alan Menken. I liked the changes to Beast - he's more like in the fairy tale: a frustrated, fully-adult dandy rather than a lumbering brute who's barely out of his teens and doesn't remember much about being human. I don't necessarily prefer him to 1.0, but I found it entertaining. This film is like a fun theme park ride and then you can go back to watching the 1991 classic. But I agree with most of the posters here: as a standalone film, it doesn't work. This movie actually *depends* on people having seen and enjoyed the 1991 film. It's "here's the original, with some extra shiny stuff in it." If people saw this without ever having seen the original, I don't think they'd enjoy it as much. Honestly, I think Disney should steer clear of remaking the Renaissance films - the reason the new Cinderella worked was because the original was simple enough that you could add extra character development without overstuffing the movie. But BaTB, the Little Mermaid, Aladdin, etc - they were already focusing more on the characters by then. 1991 did much more, emotionally, with much less. 2017 overexplains (and over-orchestrates, over-saturates, etc.) and thus dilutes the emotional punch that made the original so gothic and broody without crossing the line. The only thing this film did *better* than the original was Josh Gad's LeFou, who was spectacular. EDIT: Also loved the scene where Beast nails Belle in the face with a snowball. Don't know why, wasn't expecting the scene to end that way and I nearly choked on my popcorn. AnimeJune fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
Accidental double post. sorry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
Pick posted:Oh my god. Send me your address or smh so I can send them some less lovely movies. It's Netflix. They had good choices. And they chose those.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
i am both a beauty and a beast
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
You're one of those bosses with overly dramatic backstories from MGS4?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Beasty and the Beaut (I should probably watch the bonus features of that some time... the '91 one, that is.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
Beauty and the Beast doesn't have to be realistic or even particularly nuanced. It's a metaphor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
I feel kind of bad for Watson, since almost everyone that's talking about the movie focuses on how auto-tuned her voice is - that has to be humiliating.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
Well maybe she should learn to sing then
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
Hedrigall posted:Well maybe she should learn to sing then I can see circumstances - George Clooney actually has a decent voice, but they didn't have time to get it to snuff for O Brother - the Coens are notorious perfectionists, thus a stunt voice was brought in for "Man of Constant Sorrow" (He was rather mortified by this). But yeah, she had to know they were autotuning her voice, and at that point - it would probably be less humiliating if they had brought in a stunt singer, especially if it's to the point that the average listener can pick up on it. Though honestly Watson was just not a good fit for what they wanted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
It was total stunt casting. She doesn't fit the character or have the actual talent needed to be the lead in a musical
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
I want to live in the universe where Ariana Grande and John Legend actually played Beauty and the Beast instead of just sung the song for the credits.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
Hedrigall posted:It was total stunt casting. She doesn't fit the character or have the actual talent needed to be the lead in a musical At least Mulan isn't going to be a musical, so this shouldn't happen again! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
She has talent, but shouldn't have been in this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
Janelle Monae would have been the perfect Belle.  Yeah she's like 30 but so is Emma Watson, almost. And Janelle can loving sing!
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
Pick posted:She has talent, but shouldn't have been in this. It's not the most ridiculous casting choice I've seen (Arnold Schwarzenegger as 'Former Olympic Gymnast Mr. Freeze' still tops my list), but definitely a poor choice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Waffleman_ posted:At least Mulan isn't going to be a musical, so this shouldn't happen again! Look if they can hire one actor other than James Hong to pronounce Zhou right the whole film will be fine. Ive made peace with them calling her Fa Mulan instead of Hua Mulan like some Guanxi yokels.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
Robindaybird posted:It's not the most ridiculous casting choice I've seen (Arnold Schwarzenegger as 'Former Olympic Gymnast Mr. Freeze' still tops my list), but definitely a poor choice. Almost as bad as choosing Ewan McGregor for Lumiere, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
I'm sure Emma Watson in crying into her giant pay packet as we speak.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:38 |
|
|
I love me some Ewan McGregor but hes abominable as Lumiere instead of campy as hell and strangely charming like Arnold Mr. Freeze.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 01:29
|
|