Beauty and the Beast

You might be referring to Watson saying she wouldn't wear a corset with it? Or just that it was made by Dior.

Just got out of the film. Overall, I loved it and it really wasn't afraid to hit some pretty dark moments. Beast gets shot 3 or 4 times by Gaston and has stare of death on screen. Also, Belle's mother dies of plague on screen. So, yeah, pretty dark.

I'll give the run down on the Le Fou bits.

He's mostly the same early on. Its pretty clear they're coding him as gay though and the whole 'Some days, he wants to be Gaston. Other days, he wants to kiss him' is a pretty apt description. He outright tells the Bimbettes (who have virtually no role at all) that they don't have a chance.

Mid film is where he changes more. Gaston leaves Maurice tied up for the wolves after 'Gaston' and Le Fou gets really uncomfortable with it. Maurice later shows up again and Gaston calls Le Fou as witness that he didn't leave Maurice tied up. They linger on Le Fou and his discomfort at the choice, but Gaston twists him into saying he didn't tie Maurice up. Also, after 'Gaston' ends, Gaston asks how Le Fou doesn't have a woman and he claims that women describe him as 'clingy'.

Le Fou is still uncomfortable when Mob Song comes around and his verse of Mob Song has him describe Gaston as a monster. When they arrive at the castle, Gaston uses Le Fou as a human shield against the object's attacks. Then the piano jumps on Le Fou and crushes him (while playing the Death March). Le Fou asks for Gaston to help him, who then refuses.

Then the Wardrobe attacks three unnamed goons of Gaston's and dresses them in big froofy dresses. Two run off in terror, while another just kind of smiles and the wardrobe encourages him to just go. And he skips down the stairs clearly happy with how he now looks.

Le Fou then saves Mrs. Potts from falling and says that he and Gaston are having a rough patch and apart. Mrs. Potts then says 'He doesn't deserve you'. This is so gay. Lastly, at the end of the film during the Belle and Beast's Ball, Le Fou is dancing with a woman. They change partners and Le Fou ends up with the man who liked the dress he was wearing earlier (not wearing a dress right now) and they share a surprised look, but rather suggestive that there is an instant connection. I couldn't find them in the far shots after that though so idk if I missed them. EVERYONE in my theater cheered when Le Fou started dancing with the guy.

Over all, I really liked it. It was a solid adaptation that expanded a lot of elements from the original movie. There are a few Adaptational Plot Holes here and there: The Portal Book doesn't get much explanation to its rules, and they don't explain how Maurice got back to the village if Philiepe is still at the Castle.

To expand on the Portal Book problem, I thought it was a cruel gift that the Beast could go anywhere he wanted, but not actually 'be' apart of 'there'. So it would effectively be an illusion or you just couldn't change anything. But after Mob Song, Belle shows she still has the Rose Rattle from the abandoned apartment, so that throws that out the window. I also didn't notice him carrying any book so I wasn't sure how they got back to the Castle either: hence why I thought it was some level of an illusion. If she could change things, I then wondered why she couldn't have used the book to get to and fro the village quickly with Maurice in-danger.

But I still loved it a lot.

It was a good movie. I liked it a lot. It felt like it dragged on after a while, but that's normal for me in movie theaters anyway. I would definitely recommend it to others who liked the animated one. And even people who never saw it. This one totally blows that one out of the water.

That bit with the Wardrobe sounds completely hilarious, to be honest.

As for the plot holes, eh, let's face it, the animated movie also was full of them.

edited 17th Mar '17 4:45:30 PM by NapoleonDeCheese

I saw the movie and I do say that I enjoy it as Adaptation Expansion of the original animated film, the same way that Peter Jackson's King Kong was for the original 1933 version (coincidentally, they revolve around Beauty And The Beast theme).

In regards to the Stockholm Syndrome, I think the problem is (and will likely never go away) that the original story demands Beauty to relinquish her freedom to the Beast in order to save her father, and ends up falling in love him as the story progresses. The captive aspect will always be an inherit problem with this tale, no matter how much they try to make it clear that it's not Stockholm Syndrome. It is, after all, originally a tale of Arranged Marriage.

With that said, I feel this negative argument is overblown with misplaced social justice agenda. I'm willing to bet you can any social shortcoming with any classical Disney animated movie if you look hard enough, even if some of them are necessary to tell the story. Heck, I already seen it with people arguing against Rey Skywalker because of the whole genetics vs adopted debate.

I feel its a less worthy criticism here. Their falling in love is developed multiple times during the film rather than placed in montages behind the side characters. Belle, also, consistently has agency through the entire film and even has just as much a hand in the finale against Gaston as Beast does. And that's something that always bugged me in the original and the musical: Beast and Gaston have never met so their confrontation only means something to Belle, who arguably has no part in their confrontation at all.

I really loved the film. Like I had to physically restrain myself from squeezing in the theatre XD. Yeah, most of it is probably nostalgia, buy even so, I really liked the new stuff too, especially the fleshing out of Gaston and Le Fou and the added stuff between Belle and the Beast.

As for the Stockholm Syndrome accusations...yeah, clearly people need to read up on what it actually means and entails. Belle bitching out the Beast on multiple occasions and trying yo leave plus actually leaving twice doesn't really match Stockholm Syndrome. But again, bias. The movies YMMV page did bring up that the staff having a stronger interest in breaking the spell may make them come off a tad gaslighty to some people, which I totally get, but I do feel that was balanced a little with the staff blaming themselves for not stepping in to help Beast before his father turned him into a douche and ultimately accepting the curse.

edited 18th Mar '17 2:59:56 PM by Sisi

Loves the film, disappointed that there wasn't a way to twists things into Belle getting her adventure. I think this is an excellent direction to take the adaption and hopes whoever directs it will take other Disney animatedverse for a spin,

I do get the staff not telling her about how to break the curse though. I mean, how would you react if someone told you "Hey, the entire castle is under a curse that will effectively kill us in a couple weeks unless you fall in love with that guy over there"? It would basically prevent "true love" from occurring because you'd feel so guilty about not falling in love right away. Also, if you failed, you'd feel it was all your fault and I think the servants wanted to avoid that.

I saw it over the weekend and was surprised that I thought it was better than the original. I like that they cleared up a lot of the original plot holes, like why nobody in the village remembers the castle, or how old the Prince was supposed to be. Also that the curse has the castle in perpetual winter while the world outside goes on like normal makes sense, from a magical-curse perspective.

They even made changes to small things so that they make more sense, like how in the original Belle is always "borrowing" books from a bookshop, and the bookseller gives one to her. Here the books were only part of a small collection owned by the village priest, which contrasts with Beast's huge library. It did show that the Priest did not approve of the Mob Song.

Also that they made it clear that Beast was highly educated and literary, which makes sense both from a character perspective and showed that he and Belle actually had common interests. Of course, he was a French Prince. Naturally he would have an education.

I did find it odd that a small provincial French village would have such a high level of racial diversity, but that can be chalked up to Disney's artistic license.

Just saw the movie. As is often the case I had to watch it in Spanish due to family commitments, but oh well, I will watch the English version later. And anyway the Latino voice cast did a great job as usual, including with the songs.

As for the movie itself, it was pretty much as I expected. Didn't like the character redesigns much but I knew that coming in. As for the "gay controversy" the stuff there was so subtle its not even worth discussing. In fact I was more annoyed by the choice of using "French Court" tropes -things like powder wigs- it was like "wow we are so realistic." What does that matter in a fairy tale? Speaking of which, why did Belle's father hide the fact that her mother died from The Plague from her? I bet she was FAR from the only case at the time. Did he think she could not deal with that? Maybe as a child but as an adult? Its kind of demeaning.

Also, man they stretched that "everyone is doomed now" moment as much as they could, eh? As if ANYBODY was fooled by it.

But these are just peeves. Overall the movie was a wonderful experience; of all the Disney fairy tale movies this is the one that made the most sense to remake in Live Action.

I'm pretty sure that him not telling Belle about her mother wasn't because she couldn't handle it, but because he couldn't handle it. He couldn't bear to tell her because it broke his heart to leave. The movie makes it clear that he's still deeply in love with his wife, even though she's been dead for possibly decades now.

edited 22nd Mar '17 8:25:15 PM by Zendervai

Its also pretty clear that Maurice is constantly trying to protect her and treat her as his little girl still. That also means emotionally protecting her. As stated above, he also probably is still having a hard time moving on from his wife's death if the fact that she's been painted into his music boxes over 20 years later in the exact same pose. Add on Belle's constant desire for the rose in the painting every year, he's on a cycle of repeating himself over and over again.

Not that I blame him but he becomes a tragic figure.

Never been too big of a fan of comments like 'As though anyone is fooled that they won't succeed. Should we have pretended the Beast was never in danger at all? To some extent, the trope of 'Plot Armor' and 'They'd never do it' are always in effect in every narrative. Obviously Harry Potter will survive because we know there are three more movies after this. Duh, the couple are going to work out their third act misunderstanding! The mystery will be solved because the film has a light adventure tone! Yeah, they pull a 'Everyone is doomed' moment, but it'd be awkward if they didn't because its what the narrative calls for.

edited 23rd Mar '17 2:45:13 PM by InkDagger

It was not so much that the audience knew the ending than the fact everyone was "shown to die." It kind of cheapened the climax in my opinion. Seriously, we got shot after shot after shot of it enough already! But that's just me.

The m0vie blog's review.

Regarding the Latin American dub, while it was neat to see new roles for Francisco Colmenero and Moises Palacios, it's kinda sad they didn't do the same for Arturo Mercado and Diana Santos, the original Beast and Belle.

edited 23rd Mar '17 6:50:23 PM by NapoleonDeCheese

Saw the film, essentially the impression I got from the trailers proved absolutely true. We are dealing with a remake of one of the most expertly written, confidently directed and stunningly animated films of all time. The production design does their best but the script is cluttered with too many additional things (very little is changed, but plenty is added) and the direction is lacking in nearly every respect. It's not as bad as Maleficent (as they at least stick to the same structure as the original film) but I got a similar impression with how small it feels while trying to imitate classic, grandiose scenes.

The cast does try their best, I can't say that anyone individually is weak. They each have their moments, but no one really shines. One problem is that Belle HAS to be a starry-eyed dreamer, that's the entire purpose of the song "Belle." Emma Watson plays her as a sly and knowing girl who sizes up Gaston instantly, in comparison to the original where she is oblivious to his intentions until he makes it clear. I also couldn't help noticing while singing about the baker in "Belle" that she takes a loaf of bread from the baker and didn't pay for it (edit: nevermind, rewatched the clip on youtube and she puts a coin in a jar as she takes it).

A number of times the effort to recreate the original makes no sense. After Gaston proposes to her she runs off to a nearby hillside to sing the Belle Reprise. In the original film she lives in a cottage outside the main village and the hillside is simply her backyard, it was an epic ballad as she expresses her desires with Dramatic Wind and she is approaching The Sound of Music pleading to the unknown horizon. In this film she lives within the village, so she starts the song, runs way to the hillside and turns back to sing towards the village while standing still.

I will admit "Kill the Beast" was handled fairly well, I think in part because it's the closest to the original. I especially liked the extra lyrics about Le Fou worrying that another beast has emerged. After that "Beauty and the Beast" was handled alright, although I miss the brilliant moment when Belle lays her head on his chest and everyone's reaction to that.

It does have its amusing moments, which I guess will appeal to the families seeing the film. But it doesn't do anything really new or interesting with the material.

edited 23rd Mar '17 9:50:39 PM by KJMackley

I never got the impression Animated Belle was oblivious to Gaston's intentions, he was extremely obvious about them, just that she humored him as best as she could without giving in, because it was just as obvious he wouldn't understand. Probably thought he'd just end up growing bored and moving on.

Now, she was oblivious to how evil he could get, yes, but I daresaying the audience, going fresh at it in 1991 in the pre-Internet spoilers era, didn't really imagine it either. All in all it was probably reasonable in and out of universe just to be expecting for a mere annoying jock, even if the later reveal still made full sense. Which is why Gaston's character worked so well.

We also have to recognize that Gaston is also a deconstruction of some of the tropes Disney had previously established which was a lot more interesting back when deconstructing tropes and playing bait and switch wasn't as common as it is now.

Indeed, but it's not as if Gaston being a villain was a surprise. The guy is introduced under a shadow of darkness while killing animals, and we all know how much Disney Princesses love animals.

The only surprise is how much of an asshole he turned out to be. It can be a bit easy to miss the critique/exploration of the "prince charming" archetype from their earlier films your first time around, at least probably back then anyways.

The bait and switch with original Gaston is in how the movie initially leads us to think he's more of a goofy side character, there to be a one-character show of how badly the village clashes with Belle and what she wants out of life. In another movie, you might think he would be phased out halfway through, or like King Triton would disappear for a big chunk of the movie and then show up at the end to step aside as Belle gets what she wants.

But as the movie goes on and the Beast becomes a better and better person, the twist with Gaston comes with him showing more and more nasty shades to his personality. It first becomes clear that there's actively going to be a clash at some point, but then soon the reveals make it clear that Gaston isn't just someone Belle and Beast have to outdo and prove wrong, but an outright villain they have to defeat.

That progression is part of what makes Gaston one of my favorite villains, the way he sneaks into the plot as a fool and grows into a monster.

In this one, it's more obvious that he's going to be a major character and a problem earlier on. I'd say the big difference between the two is that no matter what, animated Gaston is being himself the whole way through: when he's being boorish and ignorant and foolish, he's being genuine. When he thinks Belle is going to fall for him, he's also being genuine - he doesn't actually realize that there's nothing to him but surface and that Belle won't ever fall for the real him.

Meanwhile, live action Gaston is very clearly, very obviously putting on an act from the first time he talks to Belle. There's a mask there that strains and slips over the course of the movie, to almost creepy Stepford Smiler levels, until it finally breaks completely when Maurice pisses him off. We see earlier on that there are malevolent shades to his personality that he's hiding from everyone, but which a smart enough person isn't fool by. Animated Gaston isn't hiding anything, he just is what he is. Whereas live action Gaston is a lot smarter, and crueler, than he appears. When he goes after Beast in the end, animated Gaston feels like he's snapped and is throwing a tantrum over his bruised ego, whereas live action Gaston simply looks like he's finally showing who is really is.

A good contrast is in how Belle responds them: animated Gaston tries to be charming but has no idea how to do so because he's so arrogant and oblivious, so Belle just kind of humors him until he humiliates himself. Live action Gaston is putting on an act and comes of as charming, but Belle sees through him and simply shuts him down - but he doesn't get humiliated, as he's being a faker rather than oblivious.

edited 24th Mar '17 10:17:43 PM by KnownUnknown

Certainly not arguing that, Gaston is the first time Disney had a conventionally attractive villain, at least one that remained attractive throughout (the Queen of Snow White used magic to turn herself into a hag, Ursula used magic to make herself beautiful and eventually reverted, Maleficent always had a demonic look and turned herself into a dragon). Part of the cleverness of the original movie was how Gaston started the film the epitome of manliness and became more animalistic in the climax, while the Beast was very feral looking in the beginning and became more regal and human-like by the climax, all without changing their core appearance.

Belle isn't oblivious in the sense of being naive or stupid, but in the sense that she has a very romanticized view of the world, wants to see life as a fairy tale and is rather easily distracted. She's aware she doesn't fit in with the town people and mentioned to her father that Gaston was vain, as well as braced herself when Gaston showed up at her door. But the entire "Belle" song has her unaware of almost everything going on, and even in the proposal scene she seems genuinely confused over what he was talking about (in part due to Gaston's obtuse way of proposing).

edited 24th Mar '17 10:24:18 PM by KJMackley

So i just watched the movie.

Damn, was it good. I think it's all around less expertly made than the Jungle Book movie last year but holy cow I'm loving it far more.

I particularly appreciate just how much more humanized the furnitures were. Even though it was a typical Disney Death, the scene where they "permanently" turn into furniture was a massive Tear Jerker to me.

Also, Emma Watson as Belle. Holy shit. For first part of the movie minute i had hard time focusing just because how gorgeous she was. A Beauty, all right. XD

I just saw the movie myself. I won't go into meticulous detail, but I really liked it. I think it might be my favorite of the Disney live-makes. (Or at least high on my list anyway.)

I like how they made things that happened in the original movie make more sense, how they fleshed out characters like LeFou, and most of the songs (old and new) were terrific. Can't wait to see it again.

edited 25th Mar '17 8:42:52 PM by kablammin45

Already posted in the Deadpool thread, but why not:

God, the movie's rendition was much better than the original animation's version, in my opinion.