Beauty and the Beast

Wasn't he in Annie?

nah that was a shaved Victor Garbo.

It doesn't matter, he is associated too easily to either Captain Picard or Professor X that most movie makers would consider him for the few roles which are available for actors in his age.

Didn't Stewart voice a book in the Pagemaster?

Also it would be cool if he voiced Jafar.

Not only have we confirmation that this is a musical (I blame Frozen), Alan Menken has returned to pen three new songs.

Kinda sad that "If I Can't Love Her" got cut. My brother's theatre school put on a production of Bat B a while back, and he sang that as Beast. I liked it.

They BETTER use the songs from the Musical. The Musical, ironic and odd as it sounds, put far more emphasis and development on Belle and Beast's relationship than the movie did and the songs reflect it.

agreed. I got to see it in San Francisco when my Da was playing for it, and it's lovely. I loved "home" and 'if I can't Love her"

Remember what I said back in January (at page 1 of the topic) discussion to be precise) how Disney's live action film adaptations are not focused on musical genres?

Well. I WAS WRONG. ;-; This one will break the tradition of what those films usually follow. And honestly, I don't know if Hermonie can hit a high, long ass note in this film.

Oh, and Anakin Skywalker's digitally remastered ghost Obi-Wan has now reincarnated into a French candle.

Oh, and I heard from the trustworthy Wikipedia that NO songs from the live musical will be in the film. NOT EVEN ONE. So, the only other songs besides the ones already done for the animated original, is the new ones made exclusive for this film. So...yeah.

edited 25th Jul '15 6:53:59 AM by machop

Maybe they'll do dubbing? Probably a long shot, but hey, it could be possible. A little worried if non-dubbing doesn't work for the best (*coughJavertcough*).

So...if the casting does indeed work out, then Hermione will be falling in love with Matthew Crawley while also being pursued by Bard, and her companions will be Elinor Dashwood, Gandalf, and Young Obi-Wan.

I love TV Tropes.

EDIT: Also, I have no idea who the guy playing Chip is. Anyone know him?

edited 25th Jul '15 6:22:00 AM by Coujagkin

I'll be really upset if they don't use any of the songs from the musical. The musical is, in almost every single way, superior to the film. Just simply because the character development is focused on so much more in those songs they added. Significantly more showing and not telling.

• Home establishes Belle's courage in the face of her new 'home' and sets up how that will end up improved by the end of the show
• How Long Must This Go On? has the Beaste himself tell the audience is backstory and just how AWFUL he feels about the entire thing and exactly how beaten he feels.
• If I Can't Love Her is the Beaste deciding to go after Belle and to, at the very least, try to make amends and do the right thing.
• Something There is better built into at this point since a lot of the character development has occured.
• A Change In Me is outright Belle's character development over the show and contrasts the early number of Belle (Reprise).

There's more structure with those numbers and, if you take them out... I'll be totally honest, as great of numbers as Gaston and Be Our Guest and etc are, they're completely superfluous to the story being told.

Angela Lansbury isn't in it? Boo!

On the other hand, I've also heard some people dislike the musical because it's too "in-your-face" with motivations. I don't really have a a problem with it because to me that's what a musical is supposed to do, but I can kind of understand why people don't like some of the songs because they aren't the most memorable from the musical in terms of lyrics and structure.

But I do see where you're getting at since there are a lot of things the musical can answer about character motivations, like Belle revealing that she's become grateful for the things around her rather than fretting over her lack of adventure, or the extent of the Beast's inner desperation and hopelessness. Hopefully the movie does so with its new songs, whatever they may be.

edited 26th Jul '15 9:08:06 AM by Coujagkin

I'm used to musicals, ESPECIALLY solo numbers, being very clear about character motivations. There's no reason for them to lie to themselves. Well, most of them anyway unless we're getting into some big plot twist but those are the exceptions.

This is going to be...interesting.

While I like If I Can't Love Her, It may be a tad bombastic for film.

We know Ewan can sing, and Emma Thompson recently pulled off a decent Mrs. Lovett so...we may be okay...

According to IMDB (and maybe someone posted this already), a kid is going to play The Young Prince.

You don't think...maybe...could it...?

edited 28th Jul '15 2:54:28 PM by Coujagkin

(cue age difference discussions)

Or... they might just be having the prologue section actually acted out?

I'm actually really interested in seeing how they will work that out. I mean, it's possible they may show a longer prologue about the prince's childhood and why he ended up being "selfish;" then show him as an adult and having the enchantress show up. But at the same time, I also think that it would be a cool twist if indeed the prince was cursed as a child.

For the record, IMDB does show that a king, queen, and enchantress (if sources are correct that her name is Agathe?) will be present.

Argh, the spoils! I'm actually pretty excited about this movie and the anticipation behind it, even though I don't know how I'll feel once I watch it.

edited 30th Jul '15 10:09:08 AM by Coujagkin

Film Theory was right. 0_0

Also, I forgot to mention this, NONE of the songs featured from the musical adaptation of the original film will be featured in the new film.

So, we'll have to put up with the same song and dance they fucking did in the original. Oh, and new 'movie adaptation exclusive' numbers are the only other musical numbers other than those to be featured in said new film.

So....does anyone feels like expressing their opinions on that now?

Lol my thoughts exactly.

But I would not surprised if they changed a lot of things about the prologue either so we get something totally different. And honestly I don't know how people would react to seeing a little kid Beast onscreen.

As for music: I'm not bothered by it that much—something I'd have to see for myself whether it works.

Oh, come on, the Film Theory guy was not the first person to make that observation about the prince's age. Heck, every single Film Theory video I've seen so far has just been parroting well-worn movie theories like they're some kind of shocking revelations. "Did you know... NEVILLE MIGHT ACTUALLY BE THE CHOSEN ONE?! DUN DUN DUUUUUUUUH! I MEAN, THAT WAS ALREADY MADE EXPLICTLY CLEAR IN THE BOOK, BUT HERE'S A VIDEO GIVING A DETAILED EXPLANATION ANYWAYS!"

I use Film/Game Theory more like compilations of evidence.

I initially thought that when I first watched them, but I also think that the evidence provided helps me see the theories in a much different light.

Personally, I'm actually for the Beast being cursed as an adult based on what we see in the film, but I can understand why the alternate could be true as well. The video just gives a possible take on that.

I don't see why it's so hard for people to grasp that the fairy was just being a butthole to a small child. That's kinda what fairies are traditionally like.

It's also probably why we use the word "Troll" to describe that sort of people on the internet.