Disney's Beauty and the Beast (2017) | Page 6 | Inside Universal Forums

Disney's Beauty and the Beast (2017)

  • Signing up for a Premium Membership is a donation to help Inside Universal maintain costs and offers an ad-free experience on the forum. Learn more about it here.
I enjoyed it. I wouldn't say it was "amazing", but it was good. I understand the desire to insert backstories that try to create a deeper emotional bond, but in the end that's all it was: an attempt.

The only person I felt for and understood why they became the way they were was Beast. But that's because I'm interested in Psychology and Counseling.

Fine movie, but Jungle Book still reigns as my favorite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: awhen
I enjoyed it. I wouldn't say it was "amazing", but it was good. I understand the desire to insert backstories that try to create a deeper emotional bond, but in the end that's all it was: an attempt.

It's an interesting study of what is and what isn't necessary to tell a story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USO92
I enjoyed it. I wouldn't say it was "amazing", but it was good. I understand the desire to insert backstories that try to create a deeper emotional bond, but in the end that's all it was: an attempt.

The only person I felt for and understood why they became the way they were was Beast. But that's because I'm interested in Psychology and Counseling.

Fine movie, but Jungle Book still reigns as my favorite.

The only one you felt for was the captor? That's an interesting viewpoint. With your background, what do you take from the Stockholm syndrome Belle exchibits?
 
The only one you felt for was the captor? That's an interesting viewpoint. With your background, what do you take from the Stockholm syndrome Belle exchibits?

In terms of why he was an insufferable jerk, I can see. If we're thinking in legitimate terms here, the Beast lost his mother and his father was a manipulative a-hole. The trauma of losing his mother and his hatred towards his father rendered the same insufferable personality in himself. It only grew worse when the witch cursed him to live in isolation. He's been stripped of everything he has and the only way he knows how to deal with trauma is through anger. By no means does it justify, it's just relatable.

As for Belle, that's a tough question. It's dangerous and I would never condone such things. As to why Disney, the overlord company of all things cute, is perpetuating this is beyond me. It seems that they want to preach a message of individualism and feminism, but all the while promoting unhealthy expressions of love. And for what? A cute love story? A girl falling in love with a douchebag? An abuser? Nothing in Belle's backstory reveals to me why she would be attracted to such a character. I mean, he changes, but still. The one thing that perpetuates her change of mind is his coming to her help. All of a sudden everything is ok? I don't know. It's iffy.
 
In terms of why he was an insufferable jerk, I can see. If we're thinking in legitimate terms here, the Beast lost his mother and his father was a manipulative a-hole. The trauma of losing his mother and his hatred towards his father rendered the same insufferable personality in himself. It only grew worse when the witch cursed him to live in isolation. He's been stripped of everything he has and the only way he knows how to deal with trauma is through anger. By no means does it justify, it's just relatable.

As for Belle, that's a tough question. It's dangerous and I would never condone such things. As to why Disney, the overlord company of all things cute, is perpetuating this is beyond me. It seems that they want to preach a message of individualism and feminism, but all the while promoting unhealthy expressions of love. And for what? A cute love story? A girl falling in love with a douchebag? An abuser? Nothing in Belle's backstory reveals to me why she would be attracted to such a character. I mean, he changes, but still. The one thing that perpetuates her change of mind is his coming to her help. All of a sudden everything is ok? I don't know. It's iffy.
Heh, the Beast sounds like some politician out there, way out there. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: USO92
I noticed even though they didn't use any of the Broadway songs, they did sneak in an instrumental of "Home" in there from the play. (I do wish they had used "if I cant love her" from the play though. Was better than "Evermore" or whatever the Beast sang)
 
Even though this was mostly a retelling, I really enjoyed how they added some extra depth to the characters and their stories that we had not known in detail before.

Also, I thought the whole "LeFou is Gay!" thing was way overblown. There was a few comments here or there, but the moment towards the end people were talking about is a blink and you miss it type deal.
 
And these movies are popular as all get out so there's really nothing deterring them from continuing to do the same thing every year.
Absolutely, Pixiedusters are lapping it up as predicted.

My thoughts:
  • The use of Autotune was clear - Emma is clearly not a singer.
  • The Beast CGI was average - as a result, there was no need to cast a famous actor as Beast.
  • A decision should have been made to line by line redo the original, or note.
  • Emma Thompson's 'Mockney' (Mock Cockney) accent was off putting
  • Josh Gad slipped into Olaf every now and then. If you want Jack Black, just hire Jack Black.
 
Josh Gad slipped into Olaf every now and then.
I noticed that too. Of course the Olaf voice is mostly part of his natural voice and it was the same voice style he used when he starred in The Book of Mormon. People just associate him with Olaf now so it's different.
 
I noticed that too. Of course the Olaf voice is mostly part of his natural voice and it was the same voice style he used when he starred in The Book of Mormon. People just associate him with Olaf now so it's different.
Went and listened to the original BATB soundtrack after, and LeFou does have lispy kinda voice, just like Olaf.
 
I absolutely loved it, it was magical. Me and the Mrs fell in love with it all over again (we do say the original is our film though). Also loved Jungle Book. Thought Cinderella was good, but not great. Not seen Malificent yet. I'd say Jungle Book and BatB have been the best so far. :D
 
Worth noting it had the 4th highest grossing second-weekend of all-time and also the 4th fastest film to reach $300M domestically (did so 1 day sooner than Rogue One).

Disney is likely looking at another record breaking year at the box office with GotG 2, Pirates 5, Cars 3, Thor 3, Coco and SW8 all due for release this year as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jtsalien and Jon84
We just saw this earlier today. We loved it. B&B animated is our favorite animated movie, but we enjoyed this even more. I agree with Jon concerning Emma's accent didn't quite fit. But her look was right for the movie. She's not stunning looking but is beautiful in a more simple pretty way, and that fits the role well....And I agree with Alexshow. Luke Evans (Gaston)and Josh Gad (Le Fou) stole the film. All in all, very entertaining and enjoyable, and a few notches above Cinderella, even though Cindy was directed by the great Kenneth Branaugh (Henry V)
 
Upon third viewing,

I still not feeling the film. It tried to hard to be deeper than necessary and for a film about French people, the prominent British accents were off putting. Though I loved the diversity present in the film, at times it was distracting especially the dark skinned librarian with the blonde wig. Along with the Enchantress/Agatha, they tried to make two roles that didn't need to be made bigger at all big for no reason. It was also off putting how when you see the music box thingy, how much the mom looks like Minnie Driver.

Emma Watson is the biggest weakness and her acting is quite poor in this film as in you get distracted by her forcing herself to react rather than being natural. The strongest two female actresses are the two of the least known of the cast: Audra McDonald (Madame Gaderobe) actually having the singing talent and Gugu Mbatha-Raw (Plummette) being the closest to the original. Gaderobe's voice however in this wasn't as great as in the animated version at all.

The strongest of the male actors remains Luke Evan's protrayal of Gaston. He did that role fantastically. Out of the voice male actors, the only two who didn't annoy me or took me out of the film were Sir Ian McKellan (Cogsworth) and Stanley Tucci (Maestro Cadenza). Josh Gad didn't do a good job in this at all nor did the guy who did the vocal for the Beast. Ewan McGregor's faux french accent wasn't good at all.

Going back to the gay controversy, Beauty and The Beast was worked on by Howard Ashman despite him just wanting to work on Aladdin. Little did people realize he had HIV until after work began on the film which makes sense why they choose Beauty and The Beast. Back in the time the film was made, people were dying of HIV and people were horrified. They were the beast who were misunderstood, angry, upset by life who all they really wanted and need was someone to be there with them. So as much as I hate unnecessary shoe horning things for political agendas (human rights unfortunately still remains a political agenda), it made sense to add some gay aspects to honor him. Its also probably why they shoed in Aladdin into be our guest as that was the last project he worked on and his pet project.

As for the new songs, they lack the heart that the original had. Not as strong in my opinion as they don't move me and after three viewings I don't remember any of them.

TDLR: The 1994 version truly is the tale that's old as time and all time classic. This version will go way of all the other Beauty and the Beast films, remembered by many but not as much loved.