Beauty and the Beast

So I just found out Emma Watson was cast to star in a live action adaptation of Beauty And The Beast.....are they just gonna remaking the entire Disney Princess canon into live action films?!?

edited 26th Jan '15 6:01:21 PM by nightwyrm_zero

Not sure how I feel about this.

Unless the Live-Action adaptation sticks a bit closer to the source material, comparisons to the Disney movie will be a constant thing.

Let's not even get into other Live-Action adaptations such as the 1946 movie directed by Jean Cocteau, or the very recent French-German film starring Vincent Cassel and Léa Seydoux (the latter keeps the spirit of the story, but deviates quite a bit from the source), which was very popular in France and in Japan.

On top of all this, I don't see Emma Watson as being capable for the role.

edited 26th Jan '15 6:35:18 PM by Quag15

Isn't Disney filming this one as well, just like with Cinderella?

It's still kind of lazy, however. Can't all those resources be better served on adapting another story that hasn't had its own chance yet?

I hope Robert Patterson would be the Beast.

Who would make a perfect Gaston for the live action extravaganza?

And Disney are actually running out on generic fairy tale adaptations. But surely the new fairy tale adaptations are used FOR ONLY THEIR ANIMATED CANON.

And secondly, they'll probably churn out live action adaptations like this. Why? Because teenagers grew up with the original animated versions, and they'll love seeing a much truer (or darker) version of their childhood fairy tale films they saw as little kids.

"Replace the musical numbers with dramatized scenes." That's the motto for live action Disney film adaptations.

edited 26th Jan '15 6:43:19 PM by machop

Henry Cavill.

Perfect! Cause nobody can look hunkier than a Superman like Gasto- I MEAN, Henry Cavil.

I am not a fan of the live adaptations they made so far and I downright hated Maleficent. But if they really have to, she is a good pick for the role.

Emma Watson is at least socially savvy enough that she probably won't work with a script that tries to play into the often perceived Unfortunate Implications of the story.

And feminist enough to ensure that Belle stays the strong character she is.

I'm guessing this means that they're going to make her a bookworm again.

Well, there are worse things to get typecasted at.

Yeah, like 'quirky, but totally hot', which is probably what they will be going for.

edited 27th Jan '15 9:17:39 AM by Quag15

Belle wasn't originally a bookworm but Disney's so famous and then Once Upon a Time did it so I'm guessing they're going to do it again.

So how many adaptations does this make?

A lot of them.

Belle was always a bookworm. That is normally the fitting word for someone who walks over the street with her nose in a book.

She's going to be a bookworm. Regardless of whether or not she was in the original, this IS going to be based off the Disney version, because it's Disney that's making it.

edited 27th Jan '15 10:21:17 AM by TobiasDrake

In the original fairy tale her sisters wanted fancy things from their father but she just wanted a rose. I guess that would be too boring of a character to use now.

Ah, now I get it...but the movie is not based on the original tale, it is based on the Disney movie. There won't be any change. I honestly don't see much of a point to redo somthing which is already nearly perfect, but I guess they will try to add more of a built up for the love story?

Will all the servants be CGI furniture now?

I sense something terrifying.

You know, I actually would like to see them trying the sisters this time around. They don't have to be especially bad people, but they still couldn't understand Belle regardless, perhaps give them the Bimbettes' role in how they swoon over Gaston and wish he'd be after them instead.

Hugh Jackman for Gaston, I'll accept no one else.

The Cinderella remake looks like it'll be doing a bit of Adaptation Expansion while still being faithful to the original, so maybe they'll take that route with Beauty & the Beast if Cinderella is a success.

If Disney really insists on doing live-action remakes of the Animated Canon, I think The Hunchback Of Notre Dame would benefit well from live-action, but that might be a discussion for another thread.

Hunchback is a weird case. It's a phenomenal movie...as long as the gargoyles don't show up, and the music (aside from the gargoyle song) is amazing. Isn't there a play adaptation of that written by Alan Menken that fixes a bunch of the flaws?

I think the biggest problem with Hunchback is that the english title of the book is actually a mistranslation. The book is named after Notre Dame, not after the Hunchback, and Notre dame is the "main character" so to speak, while the Hunchback is just one of multiple figures who are somehow connected to Notre Dame. Therefore the movie forced the Hunchback in scenes in which he actually didn't fit at all, plus, it skipped the fact that the Hunchback is actually a very grey character, hardly the wide eyes innocent Disney created.