|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2017 21:38:05 GMT
The only names The Jungle Book had were voice actors. And I'm not saying it's not a good idea for Disney to have SOME names in their cast but they didn't need a name for Belle, especially not one as bad for the part as Emma.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2017 21:39:19 GMT
lol I know it was their voices but they were in it and the film was sold heavily on their names. its wrong to say jungle book didn't have a name cast
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2017 21:42:25 GMT
I didn't say it didn't have a name cast, I said it didn't have a name for its main character. Belle is the main character in BATB, therefore she didn't need to be a name to sell the film either.
|
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Jan 1, 2017 22:05:07 GMT
Sometimes you need some encouragement to eat a preheated soup. I beg your pardon? Personally, I think Beauty and the Beast is a much bigger name and draw than Emma Watson, but apparently I'm the only one. I agree. However, as someone else said the Harry Potter market is huge and a lot of the fans will convince themselves she's the best actress ever whether she is or not. I hope she proves us all wrong and that clip is just a blip. I've just never really been convinced by her acting. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2017 22:08:39 GMT
To me, her acting ranges from awful to passable. Her singing can't be good if it needed all the autotune. I don't think I've ever heard it so blatantly in a movie musical as in that clip. Even her looks - don't get me wrong, she's pretty - but the lyrics describe Belle as having looks that 'have got no parallel'. Emma Watson is the antithesis of that to me. She's girl-next-door pretty, not turning heads on the street pretty. Just awful casting.
|
|
345 posts
|
Post by johartuk on Jan 1, 2017 22:09:36 GMT
She's hardly going to sound Broadway quality or to the quality of the original is she? That's not the point. The point is that I don't believe a word she sings because it's too inadequate. That just won't do. Edit: There are solutions for this in film, voice over, sung thoughts, dubbing, casting, etc etc. As long a it's believable. This is not. I agree. This is supposed to be a moment where Belle is realising that her relationship with the Beast is changing. It's supposed to be a happy (if slightly tentative) moment. Emma just isn't conveying that in her voice, which also seems too thin. She can carry a tune, but I'd expect more from a Disney film. They're synonymous with great vocals - even getting singers in (many of them Broadway people) to do the singing for the characters, while Hollywood 'names' supply the speaking voices. The one exception I can think of being Tom Hulce, who was both the speaking and singing voices of Quasimodo in Hunchback, and managed to convey the emotion in his vocals wonderfully. Emma sounds thin and reedy. It's sad that they didn't either get someone else to be Belle's singing voice (there are plenty of musical theatre performers who'd be up to the task) or just get a different actress with a better singing voice (again, there are plenty of musical theatre performers, including Sam Barks, who has previous film musical experience). I don't think they needed Emma Watson to get bums on seats - Cinderella was a hit without a big name in the title role. There are enough other roles in Beauty & The Beast that could be (and have been) filled by 'names'. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2017 22:35:41 GMT
the first thing an average cinema goer will ask is who are the leads, or if they are familiar with the original who are beast at belle. neither dan Stevens or luke Evans are big names. Dont forget that a whole younger generation may not have seen the original. Many kids arnt interested sadly in 2d animation.
Emma will help bridge the gap. I'm not a massive fan of hers but I think she is probablythe best hollywood type of name they could have gone for. The actress from twilight was mooted at one stage
Obviously the lead of the Jungle Book couldn't be a name, he is a 10 year old Indian boy. Hollywood isnt exactly overflowing with famous actors that fit that description. but they made damn sure the rest of the cast were big names
|
|
7,052 posts
|
Post by Jon on Jan 1, 2017 22:42:52 GMT
I get the feeling this will be bigger than The Jungle Book and Alice in Wonderland.
|
|
4,171 posts
|
Post by anthony40 on Jan 1, 2017 22:53:11 GMT
I get the feeling this will be bigger than The Jungle Book and Alice in Wonderland. I tend to agree with you. Even in terms of film promotion. |
|
7,052 posts
|
Post by Jon on Jan 1, 2017 23:32:30 GMT
I get the feeling this will be bigger than The Jungle Book and Alice in Wonderland. I tend to agree with you. Even in terms of film promotion. Some think it'll be the third biggest film of the year behind Star Wars and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 which I'm inclined to agree. If Zootropolis to get to $1bn and Jungle Book got close to it then BATB will get there. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2017 6:13:51 GMT
the first thing an average cinema goer will ask is who are the leads For most films they might, but this is Disney. The studio is almost a lead in itself: people talk about the latest Disney film the way they might use the name of a lead when referring to other films. Given the studio's reputation they're just about at the point where their promotion could be a simple "New Disney film. Coming on [date]" and the film would cover its costs. I'd bet that right now there are people who are looking forward to the next few Disney films without even knowing what they are yet. ("Wait. Cars 3? Never mind. It's not proper Disney anyway.") |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2017 6:22:49 GMT
I can easily see it being in the Top 5 grossing films of the year, the only thing standing in the way of the Top 3 will be the amount of superhero films coming out but it will slot into the Top 5 easily. I mean, look at the Top 10 of 2016 (Rogue One and Fantastic Beasts still rising, Rogue One will undoubtably become the highest grossing of 2016 and Beasts should take over Deadpool before finishing off):
Captain America: Civil War ($1,153,304,495)
Finding Dory ($1,027,771,569)
Zootopia ($1,023,784,195)
The Jungle Book ($966,550,600)
The Secret Life of Pets ($875,457,937)
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice ($873,260,194)
Deadpool ($783,112,979)
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them ($772,540,251)
Suicide Squad ($745,600,054)
Rogue One ($706,054,705)
You basically have to be an Disney film, animated film, superhero film or fantasy film in order to make the Top 10, and as this slots in as the Disney big Disney film of the year, it will have no trouble finding its way on the list somewhere. I'd hazard a guess it will gross in the $900,000,000-$1 billion range. I don't think it will hit the $1 billion mark, but it won't be a far off.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2017 8:18:22 GMT
the first thing an average cinema goer will ask is who are the leads, or if they are familiar with the original who are beast at belle. neither dan Stevens or luke Evans are big names. Dont forget that a whole younger generation may not have seen the original. Many kids arnt interested sadly in 2d animation. Emma will help bridge the gap. I'm not a massive fan of hers but I think she is probablythe best hollywood type of name they could have gone for. The actress from twilight was mooted at one stage Obviously the lead of the Jungle Book couldn't be a name, he is a 10 year old Indian boy. Hollywood isnt exactly overflowing with famous actors that fit that description. but they made damn sure the rest of the cast were big names I don't think they need to rely on kids for box office here, if they're going for Emma then they're clearly seeking out people in their early/mid 20s who were small children when Beauty and the Beast premiered and older children when Harry Potter did. Even if they were relying on kids, they would have had an excellent box office even if Belle was an unknown, there's no disputing that. Kids don't care about names. Did they know anyone who voiced the characters in Frozen? Zootopia? Doubtful. I have a feeling they're going to have to sacrifice good reviews for box office. Or at least the movie itself might get good reviews, but I feel like Emma is going to get heavily, heavily criticised. Every single one of her line readings in the trailer is bad. Alicia Vikander, Leighton Meester or even Phillipa Soo would have been much better choices. |
|
4,369 posts
|
Post by Michael on Jan 2, 2017 8:28:30 GMT
Alicia Vikander, Leighton Meester or even Phillipa Soo would have been much better choices. Anna Kendrick. Just sayin'... |
|
19,659 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jan 2, 2017 8:55:34 GMT
Emma Watson? Who? Aaaah. Harry Potter. Ok. Never seen one. That's one cash cow I've happily avoided contributing to.
So she will stand or fall purely on her performance as Belle. Judging by that clip, the only way is up! As for her physical attributes, from the Google pics I think she would look prettier if she smiled more. Belle is a fun joyous character, not the type to curl up the corner of her lip as an xcuse for a smile. That's the problem with a lot of these kids, too self conscious.
|
|
366 posts
|
Post by Paul on Jan 2, 2017 13:10:41 GMT
Alicia Vikander, Leighton Meester or even Phillipa Soo would have been much better choices. Anna Kendrick. Just sayin'... Anna would definitely be the better singer but I think Emma suits the role better. |
|
716 posts
|
Post by indis on Jan 7, 2017 21:32:51 GMT
Harriet Jones as Belle instead of "just" the Queen - would be fab - she got the looks and the voice!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2017 22:02:29 GMT
the first thing an average cinema goer will ask is who are the leads For most films they might, but this is Disney. The studio is almost a lead in itself: people talk about the latest Disney film the way they might use the name of a lead when referring to other films. Given the studio's reputation they're just about at the point where their promotion could be a simple "New Disney film. Coming on [date]" and the film would cover its costs. I'd bet that right now there are people who are looking forward to the next few Disney films without even knowing what they are yet. ("Wait. Cars 3? Never mind. It's not proper Disney anyway.") if that were the case Petes Dragon wouldnt have flopped (sadly as its a good movie) or plenty of their animated movies before frozen and a lesser extent Tangled. Disney has its fans sure, but they have some big flops under their name too (away from the star wars and marvel brand e.g. John Carpenters and Lone Ranger) They need to hedge their bets, like all movie studios. I didn't mean kids were reliant on names, that's more the adult audience. just that every disney live action remake has cast big names. The generation who grew up on harry potter won't necessarily know BATB, they were the best part of a decade apart. She will bring in a large part of the HP fanbase. the names listed may have been great, but no one would know who they are. Not Anna Kendrick though, Belle shouldn't have permanent resting bitch face. Casting a name helps generate buzz, you only have to look at the discussion this movie is already getting and a large part of that is about Emma. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2017 22:18:38 GMT
For most films they might, but this is Disney. The studio is almost a lead in itself: people talk about the latest Disney film the way they might use the name of a lead when referring to other films. Given the studio's reputation they're just about at the point where their promotion could be a simple "New Disney film. Coming on [date]" and the film would cover its costs. I'd bet that right now there are people who are looking forward to the next few Disney films without even knowing what they are yet. ("Wait. Cars 3? Never mind. It's not proper Disney anyway.") The generation who grew up on harry potter won't necessarily know BATB, they were the best part of a decade apart. She will bring in a large part of the HP fanbase. the names listed may have been great, but no one would know who they are. Not Anna Kendrick though, Belle shouldn't have permanent resting bitch face. Casting a name helps generate buzz, you only have to look at the discussion this movie is already getting and a large part of that is about Emma. No the generation who grew up on Harry Potter are exactly the same generation as BATB. Yes they're a decade apart but BATB is for younger children and Harry Potter is ideally for 10+. I'm part of the generation myself so I would know. My earliest memories are of the 90s Disney films and I definitely loved the first Harry Potter film too although my interest in that quickly faded, but I'm not much of a fantasy person anyway. People would know the names that have been listed. They include Oscar winners and nominees... I don't think anyone is denying that Emma will bring in more people but to deny that Beauty and the Beast would have succeeded fine without her anyway is silly. It absolutely would have. A lot of the attention surrounding her in the role is due to the fact that many think she is miscast. |
|
448 posts
|
Post by ShoesForRent on Jan 9, 2017 9:17:34 GMT
This was shown at the Golden Globes yesteday
I won't comment and just leave it here... suffice to say I won't be rushing to see this in a theatre, sadly.
|
|
1,013 posts
|
Post by talkstageytome on Jan 9, 2017 9:24:31 GMT
I wasn't sold on this anyway but the autotune pitch correction is so distracting.. like... season 3 of Glee distracting   Don't love these live action remakes anyway so wasn't planning on seeing this, but now I'll deffo be staying away. Of course, perhaps it won't be so bad when the film is actually released? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2017 10:03:00 GMT
Oh Emma, please decide if you're going to sing in an English accent or that not-quite-American accent that most pop songs are sung in, because flipping between the two is... distracting.
|
|
364 posts
|
Post by dazzerlump on Jan 9, 2017 10:19:56 GMT
wow, just seen the new trailer and that autotune is really obvious!
|
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on Jan 9, 2017 10:22:39 GMT
blah..I'm honestly not a fan of contemporary movie musicals. Musicals on film simply don't work for me as musicals on stage. I'm also massively turned off by excessive CGI, and this looks like a CGI circus. I would imagine that Emma is probably the only actual human being appearing scene after scene ones she makes it the Beasts's castle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2017 11:48:28 GMT
Ugh, just awful.
|
|
Don't love these live action remakes anyway so wasn't planning on seeing this, but now I'll deffo be staying away. Of course, perhaps it won't be so bad when the film is actually released?
