Lindsay Ellis: That Time Disney Remade Beauty and the Beast
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
Indeed. Again, potential was there for some of these ideas of extending the movie, but man do a lot of them stumble.
ITT: Nobody watches the video and either complains about the movie or complains about this video existing which criticizes the movie.
I don't think making a more tighter backstory is inherently a bad thing. It's salient to point out that it undercuts the emotional core, though. I have no intention of watching the live action version but I imagine it won't make me like the original any more. I could never by the characterization of Belle and the beast, nor his redemption, and though Shrek was a better take on the trope as a subversion.
This song is a perfect example of why they should have just dubbed the singing instead of autotuning the actors - the Josh Groban version is far better and he should have just been the Beast's singing voice throughout the film. Even if they pitched him down to sound more beastly, you wouldn't be able to tell that it was a different voice. The character would just be a great singer and nobody would notice the difference.
Granted I haven't seen the live action but how in the process in trying to "fix" mistakes you end up making changes that misses the point like shit with Beast just being charming British asshole because Tom Huddleston and Benedict Cumberbatch are hot and ended up making him less complex and asshole with the dumb rose addition
At least jungle book was good
At least jungle book was good
Watched the video, does raise some decent points but I really don't think anybody involved in the production of this film genuinely gave a shit about YouTube nitpickers whine about. More than likely they added all this superfluous nonsensical detail (like a reason as to why everyone else in the castle got turned into objects) because that was their idea of beefing up the film's "complexity".
The flashback via book was all kinds of idiotic and I agree with Lindsay in that it was clearly added just as a way to pad out the runtime of the film (and I think add another song? I don't remember if there was a song in this scene).
She did point out some details I didn't notice, like Lefou paying the bar patrons to sing along with him. I do agree Gaston's and the village's portrayal in the original Disney film was better: the dynamic really didn't need more than "Gaston is the ultra charming strongman that this tiny provincial village admires because they're simple folk even though he's kind of a fucking nutjob".
I didn't find the film as offensively terrible as Lindsay did. It was obviously a cashgrab and little more than "what would BatB look like in live action?" with some dumb changes to try to make it more "mature", but as a package I think the worst I can call this movie is "boring" and "manufactured for money". Which, given the spectrum of Hollywood, isn't really out of the ordinary.
The flashback via book was all kinds of idiotic and I agree with Lindsay in that it was clearly added just as a way to pad out the runtime of the film (and I think add another song? I don't remember if there was a song in this scene).
She did point out some details I didn't notice, like Lefou paying the bar patrons to sing along with him. I do agree Gaston's and the village's portrayal in the original Disney film was better: the dynamic really didn't need more than "Gaston is the ultra charming strongman that this tiny provincial village admires because they're simple folk even though he's kind of a fucking nutjob".
I didn't find the film as offensively terrible as Lindsay did. It was obviously a cashgrab and little more than "what would BatB look like in live action?" with some dumb changes to try to make it more "mature", but as a package I think the worst I can call this movie is "boring" and "manufactured for money". Which, given the spectrum of Hollywood, isn't really out of the ordinary.
Honestly, after Lindsay said she hated it, I was expecting a bit more of a scathing takedown, like she did for Bright or Rent.
I think the worst aspect by far was adding the ticking countdown for the people in the castle, since as she points out, that puts a serious external influence on Belle and the Beast's relationship. At that point, their main motive should just be saving all the people in the castle, which ruins the entire idea of them coming to love each other.
I think the worst aspect by far was adding the ticking countdown for the people in the castle, since as she points out, that puts a serious external influence on Belle and the Beast's relationship. At that point, their main motive should just be saving all the people in the castle, which ruins the entire idea of them coming to love each other.
Love Lindsay, always on point. Disney's live action Beauty and the Beast was pretty damn bad. I watched a live action French take on the story that was marginally better.
She's talked about this before, but Disney's recent love of meta commentary on their own work is quite interesting, and pretty funny honestly, not just in that it makes for good jokes, but also that they can get away with it. I wonder how exactly poking fun at their own work fit in with the brand integrity they try to uphold? I assume its that by making those jokes themselves, they disarm the joke, or they're displaying how they've matured and moved past the old stuff; Disney pushed the true love stuff, and now they're making fun of it, like everyone else does does. That makes me think on the implication of someone being a fan of all Disney works; how do you reconcile liking the old Disney movies and the new ones that subvert the old ones? What other companies and series do this kind of meta commentary?
why comment then? she tackles your complaint in the video that you refuse to watch
The 2015 Cinderella is legitimately good, in my opinion. I like it more than the animated film. And not because it tries to "fix" the original in any notable way, which it generally doesn't, beyond more characterization for the leads and their romance.
I don't think that's an issue. You can love movies while still acknowledging that certain elements may be dated or otherwise unrealistic in a way that we probably wouldn't reproduce in a new movie made today.
The old movies are fairy tales and do not have to explain themselves. The artists behind those works do not owe anything to cynics who think they are beyond the material. You can still make true love stories. You can still make princess stories. The only thing stopping them is sheer redundancy and lack of innovation.
I think many of those reaches at the meta are cynical and perhaps even display an insecurity in the movie itself. It's a lot like having an opinion. If you don't have an original thought you can at least tear someone else's down. A movie with a weaksauce romantic relationship might make fun of Romeo and Juliet for example.
If I ever have a kid they will be disliked for their criticism of entertainment by their peers even more than I am. I'm talking about "explain all the reasons why James Cameron's Avatar sucks at age 6" level shit here.
People can keep saying they don't want these live-action remakes but they keep going to see them.
i watched it on a whim expecting a unique spin. a somewhat mature and darker slant but nothing crazy removed from the animated film. but no they pretty much stenographed the entire animated move to live action... i understand why they did it but, damn that was a waste of 90 mins or however long
granted i haven't seen cinderella or jungle book, went in blind, didn't know that was the direction they were taking with these things
granted i haven't seen cinderella or jungle book, went in blind, didn't know that was the direction they were taking with these things
Yeah here's a link to buy it...
https://www.amazon.com/Beauty-Beast-DVD-Blu-ray-Packaging/dp/B003KTN0U0
It's hard too find companies that have lived as long as disney to compare. Warner Bros. comes to mind with Lego Batman Movie as a comparison. It's also surprisngly long how disney has been doing it.
Aladdin? 1992, 26 years ago.
I'm waiting until they get to Twist Villain next, they've been pulling that one off since Frozen.
Love it.
Btw, I thought Jungle Book and Maleficent were pretty good reimaginings that at least added to their source material. But the nostalgia factor isn't as strong as it is for the golden age classics. Lion King will probably be quite slavish.
I didn't much like it because....why? I mean it largely told the exact same story as the animated movie, and making it live action COULD have been great but so much of it was CGI that didn't have to be CGI and the story felt largely the same. The beast I felt that he should especially have not been CGI, let Dan Stevens show through more and play the actual physical part in the movie. He could have easily been done with practical effects, prosthetics/make-up, etc.
It felt like just an easy by-the-numbers remake that they knew they could release into theaters and make money on. They had no meaningful story to tell that was new/different from the animated movie and they lazily used CGI over things that could have been done with live action instead, which kind of defeated the point of making it a "live action" movie in the first place imo.
Enchanted was a far better movie because it was live action and had a purpose behind that with its storyline.
It felt like just an easy by-the-numbers remake that they knew they could release into theaters and make money on. They had no meaningful story to tell that was new/different from the animated movie and they lazily used CGI over things that could have been done with live action instead, which kind of defeated the point of making it a "live action" movie in the first place imo.
Enchanted was a far better movie because it was live action and had a purpose behind that with its storyline.
This is also why it baffles me why they're calling the Lion King "live action".
It's going to be an inferior remake of the original but with 3d animation.
I agree about the meta commentary, but it's more that Disney itself is doing it to its own movies, and we can see that it's pretty successful for them. The company that really pushed the true love stories are the ones subverting them; for your example, it'd be like Shakespeare writing a play that directly makes fun of Romeo and Juliet. Of course, different people made the old and new movies, but it is still the same brand. That's what's interesting to me, as well as how someone who really loved those old stories can also really love the new ones, and how that's not the exception, but likely the majority of the old fans who watched the new stuff.
The fact that at some point in the next few decades, Disney will release a movie that makes fun of Disney's current trend of twist villains is just kind of amazing to me.
Yeah, I REALLY don't know how on earth Lion King will be live action. I mean are they going to insert some new characters that are human into the story and have people play them in the movie? Otherwise all the main characters are animals and they'll just CGI them, so that isn't live action at all.
What's the point of this reply? I have no interest in buying it. I also can't even order from Amazon.COM.
I'll wait and watch it on Netflix, or on TV someday. Or borrow it from the library.
So I've watched her video now. She has a lot of great points, and I can agree that there are a lot of problems with the film the stem from Disney's apparent reliance on meta-commentary in their newer films. That being said, having only seen the movie once I didn't feel these issues were intrusive enough to harm my viewing experience. It was just an average, entertaining flick for me. The criticism is valid and warranted though, and I'm sure I'd probably eventually reach a lot of the same criticisms on repeat viewings.
I didn't like the film, while my best friend did. We both agreed the main leads were lesser while the supporting cast was improved, and our enjoyment depended on which set of characters we enjoyed spending time in the movie with more. I preferred Belle and Beast and he preferred Luminaire, Cogsworth, Mrs. Potts, etc.
For me it's even funner as when I was a kid watching the original version, I actually thought the beast was a woman when he turned back into a woman.
Broke my heart as I had a huge crush on Belle at the time.
The Beast definitely has a copy of The Game somewhere up in that expansive library
#thanksihateit
Her point about all the transformed servants trying to stop Belle as she escapes is also hilarious. Its absolutely creepy. Escape the MURDERHOUSE being chased by trinkets.
#thanksihateit
Her point about all the transformed servants trying to stop Belle as she escapes is also hilarious. Its absolutely creepy. Escape the MURDERHOUSE being chased by trinkets.
Last edited:
Having seen the animated movie hundreds of times since I was a child, I thought the live action was pretty good. I did watch it dubbed in my native language though. Since I've seen the animation so many times, I know every song and wanted to sing along. I wasn't disappointed.
I think another actress would be better though. Maybe some unknown who actually sings and could use the movie to jumpstart her career.
I think another actress would be better though. Maybe some unknown who actually sings and could use the movie to jumpstart her career.
"Thanks, I hate it."
Now I haven't seen the movie, but my interest beyond the initial teaser waned immediately under the suspicions I had that she confirmed- it suffered from superfluousness.
From a logical standpoint, the ballroom scene did it for me. It is beautiful and memorable specifically because it's animated-- the technical aspects, hand-drawn craftsmanship, the sweeping camera movement, and the musical performance coalesce to make the ballroom scene tear-inducing despite its narrative simplicity.
In live action, there's nothing impressive to having two real people ballroom dance. What the fuck is the medium actually doing for the scene? "They're going to have to add something to make it comparatively meaningful," I thought, but what the hell can you add to such a simple scene? Nothing.
So none of her critiques surprise me, and in listening to it on the way to work some parts made me groan. A backstory about her mom? But y tho? Indeed, that's the lingering question with them trying to adapt the renaissance films. "But y tho?"
Cue me now being deathly afraid for The Lion King.
Now I haven't seen the movie, but my interest beyond the initial teaser waned immediately under the suspicions I had that she confirmed- it suffered from superfluousness.
From a logical standpoint, the ballroom scene did it for me. It is beautiful and memorable specifically because it's animated-- the technical aspects, hand-drawn craftsmanship, the sweeping camera movement, and the musical performance coalesce to make the ballroom scene tear-inducing despite its narrative simplicity.
In live action, there's nothing impressive to having two real people ballroom dance. What the fuck is the medium actually doing for the scene? "They're going to have to add something to make it comparatively meaningful," I thought, but what the hell can you add to such a simple scene? Nothing.
So none of her critiques surprise me, and in listening to it on the way to work some parts made me groan. A backstory about her mom? But y tho? Indeed, that's the lingering question with them trying to adapt the renaissance films. "But y tho?"
Cue me now being deathly afraid for The Lion King.
Eh, it's not like a lot of these questions stemmed from YouTube. I remember as a kid asking what happened to Mr. Potts or Belle's mom were. The difference was being able to shrug and move on, whereas I think the Internet, with its emphasis on hyperbole has given way to a lot of "Where's Belle's mom? Worst movie ever 1/10 *CinemaSins ding*"-type needless cynicism and hot takes that's defined nerd culture over the last decade or so. Disney and other corporations absolutely pay attention to those kinds of things, especially since a lot of the creative types behind these remakes and reimaginings grew up with them.
Lindsay brings up in the video the directors of the original movie talking on the DVD commentary about similar complaints (like explaining that not every enchanted object was a person), so clearly some of this did resonate with Disney, and that was well before YouTube.
If they take cues from the Broadway musical (by making it more authentically African) it could be something worthwhile.
Hot take but the fact that they're cutting Be Prepared is actually something I could be okay with - I'd prefer the music to be drawn more from the Lebo M/Hans Zimmer pool than Elton John's pop music that by and large has nothing to do with Africa.
You're not really wrong. It would be like filming a live-action version of the FFVIII ballroom dance. I remember being SPELLBOUND by the original sequence because of how groundbreaking it was at the time, how it was carefully and expertly animated by 3D artists honing their craft to a degree no other studio was doing at the time.
If it was just a live-action reshoot of this scene, there'd be almost no magic there because the very medium it was created in enhances the presentation.
Basically this. I thought it was fine. Was it necessary? No, but it wasn't bad.
Welcome to film discussion in the 2010s!
God I hate cinemasins so fucking much
Here's a high-quality version from her co-editor:
https://twitter.com/chachch_changes/status/1023292855845101569
I didn't watch this because I didn't want to support Disney's queerbaiting, and it seems I have made a good decision. Her tangent on how the film language in this is so much less expressive than the animated movie was really good.
I'm going to guess besides money is that kids are used to "better graphics". That and they're remaking a bunch of movies and BatB happened to be one of them.
Youngins don't understand the craft of 2D anymore!
Great review, although I'm disappointed Lindsay didn't talk about the new songs a bit since she's a big musical fan.
I still contend they should have used "If I Can't Love Her" from the Broadway musical
Better song and it actually goes somewhere instead of the Beast just brooding.
I still contend they should have used "If I Can't Love Her" from the Broadway musical
Better song and it actually goes somewhere instead of the Beast just brooding.
Much of the video is spot on, but I disagree with her that the only people who questioned things like "Why are the servants cursed, too?" and "Does every magical item represent an entrapped human" are questions that people only ask in bad faith. Or that people who ask these questions somehow don't like the original animated movie otherwise. They are questions that Disney didn't have to answer in the new ones, but I don't see the inherent harm in answering these questions so long as they don't do so in a way that's detrimental to the film.
In the new one, Belle talking to the hair brush is a quick and amusing moment that doesn't feel expository the way many other elements of the story does. Showing the movement of the characters start to grow mechanical was also a nice touch that she only begrudgingly wants to give credit to, too. And while I agree that the film has too many unnecessary plot elements, I disagree that every single plot element - no matter how minor - needs a payoff. Having the townsperson at the start of the film criticize Belle for teaching a girl to read is stupid. Have some payoff at the end in order to wrap up that thread would be even more conspicuous and pedantic.
But yeah, she astutely points out the causes for why the Beast in the new one isn't as charming or as endearing as he was in the original. She also rightly points out ways in which the emotional story is much less arresting in the new one. Again, it's a pretty good essay over all. I mostly just disagree with her that the film partially exists as a means of kowtowing to bad faith arguments by CinemaSins-type people.
In the new one, Belle talking to the hair brush is a quick and amusing moment that doesn't feel expository the way many other elements of the story does. Showing the movement of the characters start to grow mechanical was also a nice touch that she only begrudgingly wants to give credit to, too. And while I agree that the film has too many unnecessary plot elements, I disagree that every single plot element - no matter how minor - needs a payoff. Having the townsperson at the start of the film criticize Belle for teaching a girl to read is stupid. Have some payoff at the end in order to wrap up that thread would be even more conspicuous and pedantic.
But yeah, she astutely points out the causes for why the Beast in the new one isn't as charming or as endearing as he was in the original. She also rightly points out ways in which the emotional story is much less arresting in the new one. Again, it's a pretty good essay over all. I mostly just disagree with her that the film partially exists as a means of kowtowing to bad faith arguments by CinemaSins-type people.
Last edited: