571 posts
|
Post by westendwendy on Apr 2, 2017 1:45:55 GMT
Well I finally saw the film Beauty and the Beast tonight - note to Hollywood; GET ACTORS THAT CAN SING OR BRING BACK DUBBING! A good film and I enjoyed it, but thingy Watson was really miscast. I also don't understand why they needed all the new songs when the stage show is amazing as it is. A fun live version, but too much CGI, pacing issues, the story is a bit flawed (why would she within days not have a care in the world and be friends with someone who has captured her?) and I missed some of the original songs. Nice ending though. Samantha Barks should have been Belle. A sweet 7/10
|
|
1,995 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Apr 2, 2017 12:35:14 GMT
Well I finally saw the film Beauty and the Beast tonight - note to Hollywood; GET ACTORS THAT CAN SING OR BRING BACK DUBBING! A good film and I enjoyed it, but thingy Watson was really miscast. I also don't understand why they needed all the new songs when the stage show is amazing as it is. A fun live version, but too much CGI, pacing issues, the story is a bit flawed (why would she within days not have a care in the world and be friends with someone who has captured her?) and I missed some of the original songs. Nice ending though. Samantha Barks should have been Belle. A sweet 7/10 Agree on all counts! |
|
1,995 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Apr 2, 2017 12:37:22 GMT
I quite liked the change from the bookseller giving Belle a book from his shop to the village priest lending Belle a book from his personal collection. It always seemed a bit weird in the animated film how this man has a bookshop if literally everyone in the village thinks Belle is peculiar for reading! I'm not touching "young, sassy gay guy"... Oh was it the Village priest? I really did not get that scene. It was always a beautiful heartwarming moment of 2 people understanding eachother, probably because people think he is silly too and he was older and probably wiser. I have no idea what they were trying to convey there. Was he genuine? Because he gives her a book. But he does it with a very weird attitude. Or is it just very poor acting? I was confused. It was definitely not a heartwarming moment anymore. Good point. I thought the acting was awful to be honest. The whole character just clanged terribly (for other reasons too, but I have to remind myself it's a Disney fairy tale and not trying to be historically accurate) - but it all added to the total failure of the scene. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2017 19:06:44 GMT
I finally got around to seeing this today. A visual feast, certainly, and they did a great job with the animation, but a certain passion was lacking from Emma Watson's performance. I didn't find myself especially troubled by the thinness of her voice, but that may be because my expectations were already neutral.
What did bother me was the 3D. Whoever did that needs to have a word with Walt Disney Animation Studios, who have been exploring the artistic potential of stereography without resorting to throwing things at the audience right from the start. In this film there were far too many things flying out of the screen or swirling around just in front of my nose. Also, shallow depth of field doesn't work with 3D, and any defocused foreground objects just turn into a blurry mess. (WDAS render their CGI films twice: once with shallow depth of field for 2D and again with the camera stopped down for 3D. They obviously can't film twice with live action, but they do need to bear the 3D in mind and not keep filming through something that's just in front of the lens.)
|
|
396 posts
|
Post by djp on Apr 3, 2017 0:15:53 GMT
I finally got around to seeing this today. A visual feast, certainly, and they did a great job with the animation, but a certain passion was lacking from Emma Watson's performance. I didn't find myself especially troubled by the thinness of her voice, but that may be because my expectations were already neutral. What did bother me was the 3D. Whoever did that needs to have a word with Walt Disney Animation Studios, who have been exploring the artistic potential of stereography without resorting to throwing things at the audience right from the start. In this film there were far too many things flying out of the screen or swirling around just in front of my nose. Also, shallow depth of field doesn't work with 3D, and any defocused foreground objects just turn into a blurry mess. (WDAS render their CGI films twice: once with shallow depth of field for 2D and again with the camera stopped down for 3D. They obviously can't film twice with live action, but they do need to bear the 3D in mind and not keep filming through something that's just in front of the lens.) Belle doesn't do passion - the character now does reluctant, slow, cerebral, realisation. It seems to work - the audience are getting out hankies, and its made $880 million so far. The 3D is interesting, it felt a bit flat and unnecessary in the local vue, but in the big Empire Leicester Square imax, it really works. I also liked Miss Watson's singing there too - she's got a far more interesting tone than a lot of people in the WE do, on a really good sound system. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 13:00:38 GMT
Having made $876,259,842 thus far, the film is now the 48th Higest Grossing Film of all time and it is only gonna get higher!  |
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Apr 3, 2017 13:26:49 GMT
Highest grossing doesn't say much. 50 years ago the world population in numbers was half of what it is now. It's growing in rapid pace, so in 100 years it's very well possible that bad films make this amount too, just because the amount of people has doubled. It's all perspective. Also, 60 years ago people paid 1 dollar for a cinema ticket. Now they pay 15. So we should divide it by 15 to make a correct comparison with a film of, for example, that time.
Is it a financial success? Sure, but it has to do with the brand that BATB already is/was. People would see it out of curiosity, even with a bad leading lady.
Also, while this film is reasonably good, it has an inadequate leading lady which I think is not a success. That's how I like to give worth to films.
If her scenes and songs were better, like, really good, I would definitely visit the cinema again. Now I don't and rather wait for the dvd with the French dub.
So basically, that amount of money you mention would be at least $15,- higher if it was better. Just because of me alone.
|
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Apr 3, 2017 15:37:48 GMT
The film will probably make a billion dollars at the box office - only a couple of films a year manage yet, and they are usually comic book adaptations. It's a huge hit - and that doesn't happen when the general public walk out of a film thinking that the lead was inadequate. Very well-known properties can and do sink like a stone at the box office if the early audiences don't enjoy it. BatB has held strong, and continues to do excellent business.
Like I said before, we are not the target market for this film. The target market finds it utterly delightful and enjoys Emma Watson as Belle.
she's going to get a serious career boost from the success of this film.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 15:44:27 GMT
The target market finds it utterly delightful and enjoys Emma Watson as Belle. she's going to get a serious career boost from the success of this film. That's true. And there are plenty of big names who pull in the crowds but are pretty mediocre actors. |
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Apr 3, 2017 16:20:19 GMT
Hopefully someone will dub it when it comes out on DVD.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 16:35:40 GMT
The film will probably make a billion dollars at the box office - only a couple of films a year manage yet, and they are usually comic book adaptations. It's a huge hit - and that doesn't happen when the general public walk out of a film thinking that the lead was inadequate. Very well-known properties can and do sink like a stone at the box office if the early audiences don't enjoy it. BatB has held strong, and continues to do excellent business. Like I said before, we are not the target market for this film. The target market finds it utterly delightful and enjoys Emma Watson as Belle. she's going to get a serious career boost from the success of this film. What? Disney films are almost always incredibly financially successful, this isn't a rarity for them: www.theguardian.com/film/2016/dec/20/walt-disney-sets-7bn-box-office-record-2016-star-wars-rogue-onePeople wont know their opinion of the lead in a movie until they go and see it and therefore have already contributed to the box office. Early audiences (those invited to press screenings and special previews) were very mixed on the movie but it was never going to have an effect because it's Beauty and the Beast. It's a known name. It was the first animated movie to get nominated for Best Picture. It's Disney. It has famous songs, famous characters. It's a kids film, which always tend to do well. Not to mention, people can enjoy a movie whilst thinking the lead performance was bad. There's the other performances, the direction, the technical aspects, the script, the songs etc. etc. etc. I thought Emma gave one of the worst performances I've seen in years but I'd still give the movie 3* and wouldn't be overly averse to watching it again. I'd love to know who is the target market if not someone like me, who grew up watching Beauty and the Beast, was just under Emma Watson's age when the Harry Potter films came out and who loves musicals. I'd say people born in the 90s are easily the target market for this, after children of course, whose opinions on acting I don't think will be valued anytime soon. I don't see her getting a major career boost from a movie that she got mixed reviews for (some outright pans) that would have been financially successful with or without her. Just wait until The Circle comes out in a couple of months and let's see how well that does for her. |
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Apr 3, 2017 20:17:59 GMT
The film will probably make a billion dollars at the box office - only a couple of films a year manage yet, and they are usually comic book adaptations. It's a huge hit - and that doesn't happen when the general public walk out of a film thinking that the lead was inadequate. Very well-known properties can and do sink like a stone at the box office if the early audiences don't enjoy it. BatB has held strong, and continues to do excellent business. Like I said before, we are not the target market for this film. The target market finds it utterly delightful and enjoys Emma Watson as Belle. she's going to get a serious career boost from the success of this film. What? Disney films are almost always incredibly financially successful, this isn't a rarity for them: www.theguardian.com/film/2016/dec/20/walt-disney-sets-7bn-box-office-record-2016-star-wars-rogue-oneDisney own Star Wars and Marvel Studios. The vast majority of their really big Box Office successes are from those IPs, and Pixar - which they also bought. So the 2 or 3 films a year that make it into the billion dollar club have ultimately been Disney-owned. That doesn't make BatB not a remarkable success. The target audience is not dedicated musical theatre fans who are comparing the film to the stage version and the original soundtrack. That is far too niche a market. It's the general public who vaguely recall watching the original as kids and now have kids of their own, who want to share their enjoyment of it. Yes, that's going to be a less critical and MT-educated audience than anyone here. There's a reason why this thread is so much more heavily critical of the film than the general reaction to it. People actually applauded at the end of the film when I saw it in my local cinema. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 20:19:40 GMT
Disney own Star Wars and Marvel Studios. The vast majority of their really big Box Office successes are from those IPs, and Pixar - which they also bought. So the 2 or 3 films a year that make it into the billion dollar club have ultimately been Disney-owned. That doesn't make BatB not a remarkable success. But like it says in that article Finding Dory and Zootopia both made over a billion last year, both family friendly movies. And The Jungle Book was just under. None of these movies got that money because of who was starring in it and neither did Beauty and the Beast. These movies would always have been super successful. |
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Apr 3, 2017 20:34:54 GMT
Disney own Star Wars and Marvel Studios. The vast majority of their really big Box Office successes are from those IPs, and Pixar - which they also bought. So the 2 or 3 films a year that make it into the billion dollar club have ultimately been Disney-owned. That doesn't make BatB not a remarkable success. But like it says in that article Finding Dory and Zootopia both made over a billion last year, both family friendly movies. And The Jungle Book was just under. None of these movies got that money because of who was starring in it and neither did Beauty and the Beast. These movies would always have been super successful. If stars are not important, why'd they bother getting the starry voice casts? Just look at the Jungle Book cast! And how come Moana didn't make a billion? Far superior singing from the lead actress in that. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 21:00:26 GMT
But like it says in that article Finding Dory and Zootopia both made over a billion last year, both family friendly movies. And The Jungle Book was just under. None of these movies got that money because of who was starring in it and neither did Beauty and the Beast. These movies would always have been super successful. If stars are not important, why'd they bother getting the starry voice casts? Just look at the Jungle Book cast! And how come Moana didn't make a billion? Far superior singing from the lead actress in that. I can't answer that for you. They didn't used to get starry voice casts and the movies still made a ton of money. Most people have no idea who is voicing the characters until they see the credits. Maybe something to do with those actors being able go on the promo tour and be the face of the movie. Moana had very poor marketing internationally and also was released in December despite being a very Summery movie. It had nothing to do with the level of fame involved. After all, they had The Rock playing Maui, Nicole Scherzinger playing Moana's mum and Lin-Manuel Miranda as a composer. Idina Menzel was a nobody to non-theatre people before Frozen and that didn't stop Frozen from becoming a major success. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 21:17:42 GMT
Moana had very poor marketing internationally and also was released in December despite being a very Summery movie. It had nothing to do with the level of fame involved. After all, they had The Rock playing Maui and Lin-Manuel Miranda as the composer. Idina Menzel was a nobody to non-theatre people before Frozen and that didn't stop Frozen from becoming a major success. I'd have thought people would want to see a summery movie in winter. Putting it cynically, I think part of Moana's problem was a premature trust in audiences not being morons. Less cynically, with Tangled and Frozen Disney made a deliberate decision to downplay the princess-on-a-musical-adventure aspect of the films, choosing titles that distanced the film from its female protagonist for most of the world because they correctly believed that audiences would tend to dismiss a film out of hand if there was too much of a feel of Yet Another Animated Disney Princess about it. To a certain extent the success of earlier films has changed perceptions and with Moana they've been able to name the film after nothing but its female protagonist and get away with it, but I think there is still a certain preconception that a Disney film about a girl isn't going to be worth watching and the film may have suffered for that. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 21:35:00 GMT
Moana had very poor marketing internationally and also was released in December despite being a very Summery movie. It had nothing to do with the level of fame involved. After all, they had The Rock playing Maui and Lin-Manuel Miranda as the composer. Idina Menzel was a nobody to non-theatre people before Frozen and that didn't stop Frozen from becoming a major success. I'd have thought people would want to see a summery movie in winter. Putting it cynically, I think part of Moana's problem was a premature trust in audiences not being morons. Less cynically, with Tangled and Frozen Disney made a deliberate decision to downplay the princess-on-a-musical-adventure aspect of the films, choosing titles that distanced the film from its female protagonist for most of the world because they correctly believed that audiences would tend to dismiss a film out of hand if there was too much of a feel of Yet Another Animated Disney Princess about it. To a certain extent the success of earlier films has changed perceptions and with Moana they've been able to name the film after nothing but its female protagonist and get away with it, but I think there is still a certain preconception that a Disney film about a girl isn't going to be worth watching and the film may have suffered for that. I understand the logic of wanting to see a Summery movie in Winter, but in reality, most people like to do Christmassy things. They like the red cups in Starbucks, they like playing Christmas music and they like taking their kids to see a movie like Frozen. I do agree with your point about the name. Unfortunately we still live in a world where girls and women are expected to enjoy movies about men and women equally, but boys and men are expected to avoid movies with a female protagonist. |
|
7,052 posts
|
Post by Jon on Apr 3, 2017 21:56:59 GMT
Moana made over $600m WW, it was still a huge success, most studios would kill to have a film gross that amount. Moana's other issue was that unlike Frozen, it had family competition in the form of Sing which came out in December in the US.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2017 5:08:29 GMT
One thing resulting from the casting that did amuse me was that when Josh Gad appeared a woman in the row behind me whispered to her daughter "That's Olaf".
|
|
4,778 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Mark on Apr 5, 2017 18:18:06 GMT
I finally got round to seeing it.
Not really going to critique it, but at face value I adored it. Its exactly what I expected from a live action Beauty and the Beast so I'm very happy. Particularly loved Evermore.
|
|
2,676 posts
|
Post by viserys on Apr 9, 2017 5:40:40 GMT
I finally got around to seeing this yesterday - I wasn't even keen on seeing this as the animated movie had been my least favorite of the bunch that came out in the early 90s and I didn't like the stage version at all. It was more about spending an evening with a friend and this being the only movie right now to be of interest at all. I consciously picked the 2D version since 3D gives me a headache.
This said, expectations were super low, so I was pleasantly surprised. I thought it was lovely overall. For the first time the enchanted objects didn't annoy me and it was so much fun to watch them transform into all these well-known actors in the end. Dan Stevens was a pleasant surprise singing-wise and overall. I admit I never liked Emma Watson and to me it wasn't even her flat singing that bugged me. She just doesn't seem to exude any kind of warmth and kindness, in reality as much as here as Belle. Even if Belle is meant to be a somewhat intellectual type, I found her distanced and unlikeable. But this aside I thought the movie had great production values and I can see why it's become such a huge success. So many of the kids in the cinema yesterday weren't even born when the animated movie came out and admittedly today's CGI/animation possibility are just on an entirely different level.
As for Moana which was discussed earlier: I had been very much looking forward to it as I went on a "once in a lifetime" holiday to the South Pacific a few years ago and love the area and the culture. But after the initial 10 minutes or so on the island (which had me wallow in holiday memories) the film soon became flat as a pancake and very predictable. Maui and Moana were sort of fun, but still you knew exactly how the adventure would unfold. While I still don't get the incredible hype around Frozen, at least that movie did keep me guessing. I also saw a lesser-known animated movie called Kubo on a flight recently, which was absolutely wonderful and left me to blubber in the end. Moana just suffered from a very lame book and a lack of supporting characters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2017 5:45:21 GMT
Ooh I can't disagree more with Moana. I rewatched it now it's out on blu-ray and cried even more than the first time. I think it's super beautiful and a million times more genuine than Frozen. Predictable sure, but I honestly don't watch children's films for the surprises.
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by indis on Apr 9, 2017 8:44:11 GMT
never seen Moana, but i think Frozen is a bit overrated, don't know why it is soooooo hyped, i thought it was one of the more boring ones out
of the Disney films, i very much prefer Rapunzel, Tarzan or Mulan to it
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2017 9:23:32 GMT
Ooh I can't disagree more with Moana. I rewatched it now it's out on blu-ray and cried even more than the first time. I think it's super beautiful and a million times more genuine than Frozen. Predictable sure, but I honestly don't watch children's films for the surprises. Disney movies, especially the good ones, are not just 'childrens' films. As Disney himself said when he made Snow White and also why so many adults will watch them to this day. Moana was visually beautiful and at times moving but i expected so much more of a plot for an adventure film and the music was average. Also, like Frozen, it lacked a decent villain |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2017 13:14:52 GMT
I mean...children are still who they're made for. If children stopped existing they'd stop making the films. I'm only talking about my personal expectations of them. And I disagree about the music, probably the most consistent Disney soundtrack since the 90s. I don't think it's any surprise that the soundtrack is the highest charting they've ever had, other than The Lion King and Frozen, both of which did far better at the box office. I'm coming from the perspective of someone who thought my days of enjoying animated films were over (other than distinctly grown up films like Anomalisa) as I didn't enjoy Tangled, Frozen or Zootopia. So Moana really took me by surprise. It really felt like it came straight out of the 90s, just with better animation.
But this is off topic now!
|
|
