Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 05:46:20 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Beauty and the Beast

Started by Mr_Simnock, March 20, 2017, 12:01:00 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mr_Simnock

 Saw it on Saturday with the wife and various inlaws etc. I thought it was ok, entertaining, good songs and ok acting, greats sets, the others thought it was just amazing. It will make an absolute shit load of cash and hopefully bring Emma Watson more roles, I am a fan of hers so the more screen time the better personally. I have never liked most of the old animated classics and I'm actually warming to these modern remakes, I hope they continue in the same vein.

hewantstolurkatad

I don't really get Emma Watson, has she actually been good in anything or is she basically riding a wave on the basis of being the only one of the main three in Harry Potter who (1) can act at all at all, (2) is taking their career at all seriously and (3) isn't a bit weird looking? She's just kind of charmless, no?

This looks like the safest project under the sun, offensively safe.

Gwen Taylor on ITV

Quote from: hewantstolurkatad on March 20, 2017, 12:45:01 AM

This looks like the safest project under the sun, offensively safe.

There's meant to be a gay character in this apparently.  I don't know if they do anything gay per se, it might be like an Easter egg or something just for eagle eyed viewers.

Dex Sawash

Quote from: Gwen Taylor on ITV on March 20, 2017, 12:48:53 AM
There's meant to be a gay character in this apparently.  I don't know if they do anything gay per se, it might be like an Easter egg or something just for eagle eyed viewers.

You see the chamberpot suck off the lamp

SavageHedgehog

I watched the "original" for the first time in 15-20 years at the weekend. Whatever flaws it may have, not being live action or not having its anthropomorphic furniture rendered in creepy CGI sure as hell weren't among them. Beauty & the Beast is an archetypal fairy tale and there's nothing wrong with producing new versions (there was a new French version recently) but to more or less Gus Van Sant the animated film into live action seems pointless. Well, artistically pointless anyway. The Disney version was an adaptation designed for animation, that's the medium it worked in and honestly it's barely dated in 25 years.

The people I've talked to that are excited about this seem to feel it's as if a band they liked in the 90s did a reunion tour. I can't argue too much about something that's just going to make a lot of people happy, but I don't really get it.

Twit 2


popcorn

The soundtrack's already up on YouTube and Spotify and all that. I gave it a quick listen and I was astounded at the obviousness of the autotune. For example, check out "people" (0:37) and "sell" (0:56): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egQbaDRMxGI You wouldn't be allowed to play violin in the orchestra if you were even remotely shit at violin, but apparently the lead musician can just openly suck and that's fine. Funny old business.

Unrelated: I find the way Belle feeds an apple to a donkey in this clip very funny. She does it in the manner of Jason Bourne planting a hand grenade in a microwave.

Noodle Lizard

Quote from: hewantstolurkatad on March 20, 2017, 12:45:01 AM
I don't really get Emma Watson, has she actually been good in anything or is she basically riding a wave on the basis of being the only one of the main three in Harry Potter who (1) can act at all at all, (2) is taking their career at all seriously and (3) isn't a bit weird looking? She's just kind of charmless, no?

I'd argue Daniel Radcliffe is at least trying to do good stuff.  Emma Watson's not been in a good film, as far as I can tell (no, Perks Of Being A Wallflower wasn't good) and I think you could objectively prove that she's not a good actress.  She wouldn't make the lead in a school play if it weren't for Harry Potter casting her at the age of 10 or whatever when that kind of acting is forgivable, so I have no idea where the idea that she's good (let alone "amazingly talented") is coming from.  Judging from that clip popcorn posted, she's a shite singer an all.  Ironically enough given her Feminist Spokesperson status, I reckon a lot of this goodwill stems from the fact that a lot of people find her attractive.

As for this film, not at all arsed.  I'll catch it when it's on the streaming, maybe.  Surprisingly, I don't know anyone who's really loved it so far, so perhaps its star will fall quicker than expected.

P.S. From that clip, I don't think I've seen a period film with such high production value look so completely unconvincing.  I'm not exaggerating when I say I've seen school productions which transported me more into a certain era.

olliebean

SavageHedgehog is spot on, I reckon. The particular sort of animation required for this film (i.e., anthropomorphised furniture, clocks, candlesticks, teapots etc.) really doesn't suit photorealistic CGI rendering, at least not unless the intention is to make it look creepy and weird, which it clearly wasn't.

The Beast worked somewhat better, but as has been pointed out, looked way too pretty and not nearly beastly enough. In the animated film, IIRC, she starts to fall for him around when he reveals his intellectual vulnerability, i.e. that he can't read, and they bond through her teaching him. In this version, that plot point is gone, and the trigger point seems to be when he's all butch and manly when he saves her from the wolves, and a throwaway line after he's transformed reveals that she actually liked him being a bit more hairy, so it's far more a physical attraction than in the original version, which I found disappointing.

Still, on the whole I enjoyed it (albeit not as much as if they'd cast someone who could sing the role without the aid of autotune), but not a patch on the original.

Black_Bart

Surprised they haven't played up the inter-species aspect of this. After all he's a beast.

Shit Good Nose

Quote from: Noodle Lizard on March 22, 2017, 08:49:48 AM
I'd argue Daniel Radcliffe is at least trying to do good stuff.

I'd go further and say he's actually turning/turned into a pretty decent, and versatile, actor.  He's got good comic timing for comedy roles, he can play a convincing cunt, I totally buy him as a romantic lead, he can play low-rent scum and posh toff, he can do proper serious theatre.  Only thing I haven't seen him do yet is action hero.


As for the film, strikes me as a direct live action remake of the cartoon.  At least Jungle Book and Cinderella had some differences from their originals.

Jerzy Bondov

I was set against these stupid remakes until I saw Pete's Dragon. What a beautiful, refreshingly old-fashioned family film. I fell in love with it. Then again, the original Pete's Dragon is rubbish, while the original Beauty & the Beast is one of the greatest animated films ever made. Of course the Pete's Dragon remake made no money, and this is already raking in the pounds. Something has gone wrong when people are clamouring to see inferior versions of classic animations but with real people you recognise from other films in. That something is that fucking awful inexplicably popular Tim Burton Alice in Wonderland.

But this stupid trend brought us Pete's Dragon, so I forgive it. Pete's Dragon is fucking brilliant.

MojoJojo

If you love Pete's Dragon so much why don't you marry him?

Shit Good Nose

Quote from: Jerzy Bondov on March 22, 2017, 12:49:38 PM
I was set against these stupid remakes until I saw Pete's Dragon. What a beautiful, refreshingly old-fashioned family film. I fell in love with it. Then again, the original Pete's Dragon is rubbish, while the original Beauty & the Beast is one of the greatest animated films ever made. Of course the Pete's Dragon remake made no money, and this is already raking in the pounds. Something has gone wrong when people are clamouring to see inferior versions of classic animations but with real people you recognise from other films in. That something is that fucking awful inexplicably popular Tim Burton Alice in Wonderland.

But this stupid trend brought us Pete's Dragon, so I forgive it. Pete's Dragon is fucking brilliant.

I disagree that Pete's Dragon is fucking brilliant - I found it to be quite mediocre - but I will agree that the original is rubbish.  Goes on for fucking ever as well.

Jerzy Bondov

Quote from: MojoJojo on March 22, 2017, 03:06:10 PM
If you love Pete's Dragon so much why don't you marry him?
No way man he doesn't need to be tied down. He must fly free with his dragon family. You're as bad as Karl Urban in the film.
Spoiler alert
Although he mends his ways bless him
[close]

olliebean

Quote from: Shit Good Nose on March 22, 2017, 12:29:43 PMAs for the film, strikes me as a direct live action remake of the cartoon.  At least Jungle Book and Cinderella had some differences from their originals.

There are differences (it's 45 minutes longer, so there have to be) - a couple of new bits of plot that frankly feel as if they've been pasted into a story that didn't need them (although it might just be my familiarity with the cartoon that's making me feel like that), and three new songs, none of which are as good as the songs that were added for the stage version.

#16
Was Pete's Dragon related to Puff the Magic one?

Replies From View

Why do people who own dragons need to be called Pete every single time?

Wet Blanket

Quote from: hewantstolurkatad on March 20, 2017, 12:45:01 AM
I don't really get Emma Watson, has she actually been good in anything or is she basically riding a wave on the basis of being the only one of the main three in Harry Potter who (1) can act at all at all, (2) is taking their career at all seriously and (3) isn't a bit weird looking?

She is a bit weird looking, in that she looks a bit like Louise Mensch.

I reckon Radcliffe's the best actor out of the three (though hardly Marlon Brando). I find Watson's delivery a bit A-level drama student.

popcorn

Quote from: Wet Blanket on March 23, 2017, 03:49:03 PM
I find Watson's delivery a bit A-level drama student.

Completely. She's shite.

Custard

Took my mum to see this yesterday, as my parents came to stay for a couple days.

Erm, it was alright. Decent, even. But it's so close to the animated film, there's not really much to say about it

Emma Watson was better than I expected, but she just doesn't have that film-star presence and/or charisma. She's not baaaaaad, just competant, a very pretty lady, and quite likeable. Worked in this film, I'd say. The supporting cast were much better, mind

Thought the new songs were quite good, too. And didn't find the CGI half as annoying as others have

3 bags of alright popcorn


hewantstolurkatad

Quote from: Gwen Taylor on ITV on March 20, 2017, 12:48:53 AM
There's meant to be a gay character in this apparently.  I don't know if they do anything gay per se, it might be like an Easter egg or something just for eagle eyed viewers.
Basically a manufactured controversy from what I can gather, a camp dude does a wink or some shit and in an interview the director called it his coming out to the audience moment. Camp characters in animated films are nothing new, like. He more or less immediately backtracked.
Some of yer American and Russian conservatives got in a huge tizzy about it, but you're ultimately talking about a couple hundred tickets tbh.


Quote from: Noodle Lizard on March 22, 2017, 08:49:48 AM
I'd argue Daniel Radcliffe is at least trying to do good stuff.  Emma Watson's not been in a good film, as far as I can tell (no, Perks Of Being A Wallflower wasn't good) and I think you could objectively prove that she's not a good actress.  She wouldn't make the lead in a school play if it weren't for Harry Potter casting her at the age of 10 or whatever when that kind of acting is forgivable, so I have no idea where the idea that she's good (let alone "amazingly talented") is coming from.  Judging from that clip popcorn posted, she's a shite singer an all.  Ironically enough given her Feminist Spokesperson status, I reckon a lot of this goodwill stems from the fact that a lot of people find her attractive.
Yep, Radcliffe comes across as though he's trying to do stuff he'd genuinely like himself, so I guess it's unfair to say he isn't taking his career seriously, more that he's okay with the fact he really isn't likely to be an A-list type dude. He's honestly managed to distance himself a lot more convincingly from Potter than Watson, who still comes across as Hermione in everything.

I imagine Watson's primarily a box office draw to girls and young women, those weirdos who brag about reading Harry Potter once a year. I struggle to see where the money is in people who want to oogle her from her output so far. Her attractiveness is more a prerequisite to be in consideration to be an A-lister than something that'll keep her around.

Steven

I am incensed they have inserted a dirty gay character into this wonderful children's story of a woman committing pure beastiality.

popcorn

#23
Went to see this with the bloody girlfriend didn't I. Christ, what a sap I am. Bollocks it is, surprise surprise.

Transplanted from cartoon to psuedo-live action, the anthropomorphic servants struck me as uncanny, even faintly hellish. This man is condemned to have fire for hands forever. No fingers, no hands, just fire, eternally burning flames.



I mean, Belle drinks from a teacup that's also a talking child, for fuck's sake. And whereas in the animation they all turned back into humans that resembled their inanimate forms, instead of Mrs Potts the teapot turning into a portly jolly woman, in this she turns into Emma bloody Thompson.

The new songs are boring and all. Like this one Beast sings when Belle fucks off and he thinks he's doomed to be alone forever. It's about how depressed and fucked off he is, but it ends on a massive, triumphant note, waiting heeeere foooor eeeeeveeeer mooooooooooooore!! Was there a mix-up at the musical factory?

olliebean

Who wrote the new lyrics? Was it Tim Rice? I bet it was Tim Rice. In which case they were never going to be as good as Howard Ashman's, were they?

Anything where Tim Rice has written new stuff to be sung alongside stuff by a decent lyricist (The Wizard of Oz is another example), it's usually pretty easy to spot which is which.

Replies From View

Quote from: popcorn on May 07, 2017, 10:53:25 AM
The new songs are boring and all. Like this one Beast sings when Belle fucks off and he thinks he's doomed to be alone forever. It's about how depressed and fucked off he is, but it ends on a massive, triumphant note, waiting heeeere foooor eeeeeveeeer mooooooooooooore!! Was there a mix-up at the musical factory?



Quote from: Wet Blanket on March 23, 2017, 03:49:03 PM
She is a bit weird looking, in that she looks a bit like Louise Mensch.


Unfair to compare Watson to Manschin.