Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-02-2017, 11:10 AM
Rocketeer Rocketeer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 7,017
Disney Beauty & the Beast live-action

I've been seeing trailers for the upcoming remake of Beauty and the Beast in live-action. To me, it looks absolutely pointless; the animated version was just about a perfect movie; I'm not sure that remaking it with uncanny-valley live-action versions of the Beast, Lumiere, etc, and drab-looking sets is a good idea.

In fact, let me go further: I'm sure it's a bad idea. I just shake my head sadly when I see the trailers.

PS: I'm also reminded of my dad's Law of Advertising: "Quality and amount of advertising are inversely proportional". Been seeing the trailer for B&B a lot.
  #2  
Old 03-02-2017, 11:14 AM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 8,840
Quoting myself from a different thread earlier today:

So far, it seems like the remake is so scene-for-scene, momemt-for-moment similar to the original that the whole thing is profoundly, incredibly pointless to make.


ETA: But it is still going to make a shit-ton of money.

Last edited by Darren Garrison; 03-02-2017 at 11:15 AM.
  #3  
Old 03-02-2017, 11:15 AM
Inner Stickler's Avatar
Inner Stickler Inner Stickler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 14,658
Well, if I recall correctly, the live-action remake of Cinderella raked in beacoup bucks so they're probably mostly trying to cash in on what they see audiences liking.

I like Emma Watson, so I'll probably see it. I'm not at the moment sold on Lumiere or Cogsworth. They feel a bit small and creepy compared to their animated counterparts.

Last edited by Inner Stickler; 03-02-2017 at 11:15 AM.
  #4  
Old 03-02-2017, 11:38 AM
DCnDC's Avatar
DCnDC DCnDC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Dueling Grounds
Posts: 11,310
It's Disney. At some point in the 80s they realized they can just keep selling the same crap over and over forever, and people will continue to just throw piles of money at them and thank them for it.
  #5  
Old 03-02-2017, 11:41 AM
Shoeless's Avatar
Shoeless Shoeless is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Sunflower State
Posts: 6,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Quoting myself from a different thread earlier today:

So far, it seems like the remake is so scene-for-scene, momemt-for-moment similar to the original that the whole thing is profoundly, incredibly pointless to make.


ETA: But it is still going to make a shit-ton of money.
Was it directed by Gus Van Sant?
  #6  
Old 03-02-2017, 11:41 AM
Sir T-Cups Sir T-Cups is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 8,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Quoting myself from a different thread earlier today:

So far, it seems like the remake is so scene-for-scene, momemt-for-moment similar to the original that the whole thing is profoundly, incredibly pointless to make.


ETA: But it is still going to make a shit-ton of money.
This is exactly right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inner Stickler View Post
Well, if I recall correctly, the live-action remake of Cinderella raked in beacoup bucks so they're probably mostly trying to cash in on what they see audiences liking.
Remember how Cinderella came out? Then the Jungle Book did, now it's Beauty and the Beast? This is Disney's newest thing. They're doing it for all their older movies. Lion King was just announced a little while ago and they've put out casting feelers for Little Mermaid.

I also want to say I've heard Aladdin is coming too, but I could be making that up. The first two are rock-solid though.
  #7  
Old 03-02-2017, 11:51 AM
salinqmind salinqmind is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Liverpool NY USA
Posts: 9,893
I daresay if there are literally dozens of Batmans, Supermans, Avengers, Friday the 13ths, and Halloweens - why NOT something pretty for young girls to go see? I'm an 'old' girl, and I would like to see it. (and Jungle Book, and Aladdin, and Peter Pan, and whatever. I love Disney.)
  #8  
Old 03-02-2017, 11:59 AM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 18,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Quoting myself from a different thread earlier today:

So far, it seems like the remake is so scene-for-scene, momemt-for-moment similar to the original that the whole thing is profoundly, incredibly pointless to make.
From what I read, Belle is more "independent" and "powerful" in this version, including making her some sort of tinkerer/inventor. Emma Watson was talking about how she was now a 21st century role-model for girls. So I'm guessing they added some new scenes to reflect her modern woman status.

Disney princess movies aren't really my thing so I'm agnostic on the changes (although I'm cognizant enough to my wife's hints that we'll be going to see this) and I don't recall the original well enough to know what's changed and what hasn't. News I've seen of the changes are largely in the form of criticism from Disney purists and/or "Political correctness is ruining all that's dear" complainers.
  #9  
Old 03-02-2017, 12:04 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 8,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by salinqmind View Post
I daresay if there are literally dozens of Batmans, Supermans, Avengers, Friday the 13ths, and Halloweens - why NOT something pretty for young girls to go see? I'm an 'old' girl, and I would like to see it. (and Jungle Book, and Aladdin, and Peter Pan, and whatever. I love Disney.)
Yes, but those are all different movies. This is the same movie except with meat on the screen instead of drawings.
  #10  
Old 03-02-2017, 12:17 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 20,619
Eh, I'm with Salinqmind on this one. The "original" is one of my top-10 movies, but that doesn't mean variations on the same theme shouldn't exist.

And if you are not a fan of superhero movies, it is hard to accept that "these aren't the same movie" when, hell, it's the same people playing the same characters doing the same thing film after film after film after film. Might not be the same movie, but there is a certain repetitive nature to them that makes the films blend together to the casual or non fan.
  #11  
Old 03-02-2017, 12:18 PM
Mama Zappa Mama Zappa is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir T-Cups View Post
...Lion King was just announced a little while ago and they've put out casting feelers for Little Mermaid.

I also want to say I've heard Aladdin is coming too, but I could be making that up. The first two are rock-solid though.
Well, Aladdin has already made it to Broadway. My daughter and I were there a couple years back and got to see Lion King, and we saw the signs for Aladdin but it was sold out. No clue whether it's still playing though.

Last edited by Mama Zappa; 03-02-2017 at 12:18 PM.
  #12  
Old 03-02-2017, 12:19 PM
muldoonthief's Avatar
muldoonthief muldoonthief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 10,502
Two of my teenage daughters are counting the days until this comes out. I had to preorder tickets for opening weekend a month ahead of time because they were already selling out. And they've seen the animated one multiple times, and are aware this is a live action remake. They don't care. I think they're the target audience, not the OP.
  #13  
Old 03-02-2017, 12:23 PM
Quimby Quimby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: NJ
Posts: 8,036
I agree with the OP. There is a lot of excitement for this movie and I'm probably being a curmudgeon but I don't get it. How is it not just selling the same movie twice?

Last edited by Quimby; 03-02-2017 at 12:24 PM.
  #14  
Old 03-02-2017, 12:41 PM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 18,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Yes, but those are all different movies. This is the same movie except with meat on the screen instead of drawings.
I don't think that two minutes of tiny clips is very telling. Even less so when the guy who put it together admits to cheating and using shots that look similar but are from different scenes and half the shots he does show aren't identical. I mean, the vain guy looks in a mirror in both movies? Wowzers.

On the other hand, of course iconic scenes are going to be basically real life/CG reenactments of the animated ones because that's precisely what people are paying to see.
  #15  
Old 03-02-2017, 12:47 PM
Dewey Finn Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 26,702
I believe some of the songs in this film are newly written, so it's not exactly the same thing.
  #16  
Old 03-02-2017, 12:47 PM
Just Asking Questions Just Asking Questions is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 6,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quimby View Post
I agree with the OP. There is a lot of excitement for this movie and I'm probably being a curmudgeon but I don't get it. How is it not just selling the same movie twice?
Well, there's Thunderball, and there's Never Say Never Again.

Oh wait, that sucked.

how about the TV show Time After Time? The trailers for that use lines that are exact quotes from the (totally awesome!) movie.

I agree in spirit with the OP, but I would consider giving the new movie a chance. If it brings something new to the story, then it's OK to remake.
  #17  
Old 03-02-2017, 01:17 PM
MrAtoz MrAtoz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mama Zappa View Post
Well, Aladdin has already made it to Broadway. My daughter and I were there a couple years back and got to see Lion King, and we saw the signs for Aladdin but it was sold out. No clue whether it's still playing though.
For that matter, Beauty and the Beast has a Broadway version too (it's the tenth longest-running show on Broadway). The stage version made some changes to the story and added some new songs. I'm wondering if the new film will incorporate any of those changes, will introduce new changes of its own, or will try to largely duplicate what the animated film already did.

I agree with those who say give it a chance before deciding against it.
  #18  
Old 03-02-2017, 01:26 PM
MovieMogul MovieMogul is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 15,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
I believe some of the songs in this film are newly written, so it's not exactly the same thing.
They added new songs to the stage version that followed the cartoon film so it may just be from there.

This trend is not very encouraging because neither the recent Cinderella nor Jungle Book were as good as the earlier Disney animated versions and there's already a live action version of this story which is among the greatest fantasy films ever made. It does strike me as not just unnecessary but incredibly mercenary and whatever charm the 1991 version had was in part because it took advantage of the dynamism of imagery that animation allows. Grounding it in the VFX world of the photo-realistic will lose some of that magic, I suspect. Then again, the incessant green screen of JB bored me and it just won the Oscar, so what do I know?
  #19  
Old 03-02-2017, 01:27 PM
Derleth Derleth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 20,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
And if you are not a fan of superhero movies, it is hard to accept that "these aren't the same movie" when, hell, it's the same people playing the same characters doing the same thing film after film after film after film. Might not be the same movie, but there is a certain repetitive nature to them that makes the films blend together to the casual or non fan.
Well, you can say that about Westerns or Dramas or any other genre: They all have tropes, stock roles that get filled, stock situations that get played out, film after film, time after time. It's hard for the non-fan to keep the Dramas straight, too.
  #20  
Old 03-02-2017, 01:37 PM
Declan Declan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Barrie , Ontario
Posts: 5,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quimby View Post
I agree with the OP. There is a lot of excitement for this movie and I'm probably being a curmudgeon but I don't get it. How is it not just selling the same movie twice?
I have never seen B&B, I was never the target demographic for a pure princess movie, but I have seen different adaptations on the concept , from Beastly to the more recent television show lucifer. But I can see how putting a real life Belle and upgrading her wardrobe and new music, would generate some excitement in teenage girls, at the time when story book romances are their world, regardless if its the exact same story.
  #21  
Old 03-02-2017, 01:44 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 8,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Declan View Post
from Beastly to the more recent television show lucifer.
IMO it is reeeeeally stretching it to call Lucifer an adaptation of the Beauty and the Beast concept. If you want to pick a TV series, you could go with Beauty and the Beast or Beauty and the Beast.

Last edited by Darren Garrison; 03-02-2017 at 01:45 PM.
  #22  
Old 03-02-2017, 01:48 PM
NDP's Avatar
NDP NDP is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: PNW USA
Posts: 8,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir T-Cups
I also want to say I've heard Aladdin is coming too, but I could be making that up. The first two are rock-solid though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mama Zappa View Post
Well, Aladdin has already made it to Broadway. My daughter and I were there a couple years back and got to see Lion King, and we saw the signs for Aladdin but it was sold out. No clue whether it's still playing though.
I may have read somewhere that Disney will probably not do a live-action remake of Aladdin because Robin Williams' Genie was such a big part of the animated version. No actor wants to be put in the unenviable position of having to top or equal Robin Williams and they can't reuse Williams' vocal track for a CGI genie because he forbid anyone from using it after his death.
__________________
Can also be seen at:

Last FM Library Thing
  #23  
Old 03-02-2017, 02:01 PM
Dewey Finn Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 26,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieMogul View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
I believe some of the songs in this film are newly written, so it's not exactly the same thing.
They added new songs to the stage version that followed the cartoon film so it may just be from there.
According to this article, in addition to songs from the animated movie, there will be three new songs and none from the Broadway production.

And that Disney is doing this should be a surprise to no one. They are absolute masters at exploiting a property in any and every which way possible.

Last edited by Dewey Finn; 03-02-2017 at 02:02 PM.
  #24  
Old 03-02-2017, 02:09 PM
Just Asking Questions Just Asking Questions is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 6,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post

And that Disney is doing this should be a surprise to no one. They are absolute masters at exploiting a property in any and every which way possible.
Yes, but they do a good job of it.

They may have bought Star Wars for making money, but Rogue One is a very good movie. No reason Live Action B&tB can't be good. It might not be, but then again, it might.
  #25  
Old 03-02-2017, 02:14 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 8,840
You'll know that they are scraping the bottom of the barrel when they make the live-action How the Emperor Got His Groove Back.
  #26  
Old 03-02-2017, 02:25 PM
Dewey Finn Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 26,702
I'm imagining a live-action Winnie-the-Pooh movie, except it would be a little different. It would be about a mental health support group run by (Dr.) Christopher Robin whose patients who wear costumes to help them cope with their illnesses. There is a manic man in a tiger costume, another who is clinically depressed and in a donkey suit and a developmentally challenged man in a bear suit.
  #27  
Old 03-02-2017, 02:32 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 8,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
I'm imagining a live-action Winnie-the-Pooh movie, except it would be a little different. It would be about a mental health support group run by (Dr.) Christopher Robin whose patients who wear costumes to help them cope with their illnesses. There is a manic man in a tiger costume, another who is clinically depressed and in a donkey suit and a developmentally challenged man in a bear suit.
They could cast Charlie Sheen in the lead and call it Grrr Management.

Actually, that reminds me of a 1966 BBC live-action Alice in Wonderland, where they didn't even bother trying to make the animals look like animals.
  #28  
Old 03-02-2017, 02:34 PM
Quimby Quimby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: NJ
Posts: 8,036
FWIW I get doing a stage play version (and I actually saw Beauty and the Beast on Broadway many years ago) since that is a vastly different medium.
  #29  
Old 03-03-2017, 09:16 AM
Sir T-Cups Sir T-Cups is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 8,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by NDP View Post
I may have read somewhere that Disney will probably not do a live-action remake of Aladdin because Robin Williams' Genie was such a big part of the animated version. No actor wants to be put in the unenviable position of having to top or equal Robin Williams and they can't reuse Williams' vocal track for a CGI genie because he forbid anyone from using it after his death.
This is the exact reason why I backtracked a bit when I mentioned I'd heard the rumors. I can't imagine Disney would want to tread on those waters, nor should they.

I don't have a cite for it other than it's what I heard on a podcast, but this movie is pretty controversial in the behind-the-scenes world because this movie took Emma Watson away from the Harry Potter universe and it's preventing her from coming back because of her love of the director (who Universal is trying to convince to come back in order to get her for the "Fantastic Beasts" movies). It's a fascinating dynamic.
  #30  
Old 03-03-2017, 10:58 AM
txjim txjim is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
You'll know that they are scraping the bottom of the barrel when they make the live-action How the Emperor Got His Groove Back.
After reading the Star Wars reference above, I read this as How The Empire Got It's Groove Back. THAT would be an awesome movie.
  #31  
Old 03-03-2017, 11:20 AM
Richard John Marcej Richard John Marcej is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
You'll know that they are scraping the bottom of the barrel when they make the live-action How the Emperor Got His Groove Back.
No, you'll know they're scraping the bottom of the barrel when they make the live-action Home on the Range.
  #32  
Old 03-03-2017, 11:22 AM
Chisquirrel Chisquirrel is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir T-Cups View Post
I don't have a cite for it other than it's what I heard on a podcast, but this movie is pretty controversial in the behind-the-scenes world because this movie took Emma Watson away from the Harry Potter universe and it's preventing her from coming back because of her love of the director (who Universal is trying to convince to come back in order to get her for the "Fantastic Beasts" movies). It's a fascinating dynamic.
I'm curious about this one - isn't Fantastic Beasts set decades before Harry Potter?
SPOILER:
Grindelwald, the main villain in the first movie, was defeated by Dumbledore in the 40's, and Fantastic Beasts was long before that.
Where would an adult Hermione fit?

Last edited by Chronos; 03-03-2017 at 11:12 PM.
  #33  
Old 03-03-2017, 11:34 AM
Uncle Jocko Uncle Jocko is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: THE Eastern IA Metropolis
Posts: 1,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
According to this article, in addition to songs from the animated movie, there will be three new songs and none from the Broadway production.
That's good, because I recently saw a production of the stage musical and all the songs written for the stage version suuuuuuuuucked. Especially in comparison to the wonderful songs from the original.

This is absolutely recycling by Disney, but if they want to make it, and people are willing to buy tickets, well, isn't that the American way? It's at least different in that it's live-action compared to the original animation, so it's got that going for it. Which may be nice or not, who knows.
  #34  
Old 03-03-2017, 11:53 AM
muldoonthief's Avatar
muldoonthief muldoonthief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 10,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir T-Cups View Post
This is the exact reason why I backtracked a bit when I mentioned I'd heard the rumors. I can't imagine Disney would want to tread on those waters, nor should they.

I don't have a cite for it other than it's what I heard on a podcast, but this movie is pretty controversial in the behind-the-scenes world because this movie took Emma Watson away from the Harry Potter universe and it's preventing her from coming back because of her love of the director (who Universal is trying to convince to come back in order to get her for the "Fantastic Beasts" movies). It's a fascinating dynamic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
I'm curious about this one - isn't Fantastic Beasts set decades before Harry Potter?
SPOILER:
Grindelwald, the main villain in the first movie, was defeated by Dumbledore in the 40's, and Fantastic Beasts was long before that.
Where would an adult Hermione fit?
Yeah, that makes no sense at all. Fantastic Beasts was set in the 1920s. The 5 movie series is supposed to culminate in the final Dumbledore/Grindelwald battle in 1945. At best, they'd want Radcliffe, Watson & Grint for cameos.

Plus, Fantastic Beasts was directed by David Yates, who also directed Harry Potter 5, 6, 7, 8, and is slated to direct the rest of the Fantastic Beasts series. The director of Beauty and the Beast is Bill Condon, who has never worked with Emma Watson before. So I have no idea what "love of the director" you're talking about.

Last edited by Chronos; 03-03-2017 at 11:12 PM. Reason: Added spoiler tags
  #35  
Old 03-03-2017, 12:35 PM
Sir T-Cups Sir T-Cups is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 8,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
I'm curious about this one - isn't Fantastic Beasts set decades before Harry Potter?
SPOILER:
Grindelwald, the main villain in the first movie, was defeated by Dumbledore in the 40's, and Fantastic Beasts was long before that.
Where would an adult Hermione fit?
Yes, I misspoke. IIRC, Universal wants to hire BATB's director for one of the (allegedly 4 remaining) Fantastic Beasts movies in the hopes that if he's in the good graces of Universal, Emma will come back.

But even more valuable than her appearance in future movies is her availability for the expansion of the theme park. She was all well and good in the beginning when the original "World of" opened at Universal. In between that and when Diagon Alley opened, she was off with the director for Beauty and the Beast and didn't want to come back. In the Escape from Gringotts ride, the only time you see her is when she is far away, and they faked her voice (HORRIBLY) for both that ride and the train. Rupert came back for his lines, I want to say Daniel did too, but Emma was a nogo.

HP isn't going to die anytime soon, and Universal is planning on making it even bigger (rumors of the Ministry coming to town are rampant), plus they'd love her to come to the celebration days and all the marketing stuff. Universal feels if they can ink that director, she'll foll

Last edited by Chronos; 03-04-2017 at 08:27 AM. Reason: Added spoiler tags
  #36  
Old 03-03-2017, 01:05 PM
muldoonthief's Avatar
muldoonthief muldoonthief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 10,502
But Universal doesn't make the HP or Fantastic Beasts movies - Warner Brothers does. Universal has the theme park rights only to the HP properties. If Condon directs one of the FB movies, that doesn't involve Universal at all.

Emma Watson has no reason whatsoever to do promotional stuff for the Universal theme parks. She doesn't need the money, and has apparently been working at distinguishing herself from the Hermione character.
  #37  
Old 03-03-2017, 01:26 PM
Chisquirrel Chisquirrel is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,182
Four more Fantastic Beasts? Best news I've gotten all week.

The clarification makes a lot more sense. I don't know if their hope/dream/plan/wistful imaginings will pan out, though.

Back on topic, I'm a little excited about this, in a guilty pleasure way. It helps that the local community theater is doing Beauty and the Beast this summer and I've decided to get back into it.
  #38  
Old 03-03-2017, 01:36 PM
muldoonthief's Avatar
muldoonthief muldoonthief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 10,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
The clarification makes a lot more sense. I don't know if their hope/dream/plan/wistful imaginings will pan out, though.
No, it really doesn't, for the reasons I stated above. Universal doesn't own the movies, they own the theme parks. Plus, the final HP movie came out in 2011, and there were ( and still are ) no plans to make another Harry Potter movie, as opposed to movies in the HP universe, for which Radcliffe & Watson are superfluous, so WB has no need to lure Watson back. Plus, the Diagon Alley expansion opened in 2014, and Beauty & Beast didn't start filming until 2015, so this whole description of Watson "off with the new director" before Diagon Alley opened doesn't fit the timeline of actual events.
  #39  
Old 03-03-2017, 02:22 PM
edwards_beard edwards_beard is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 951
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
I'm curious about this one - isn't Fantastic Beasts set decades before Harry Potter?
SPOILER:
Grindelwald, the main villain in the first movie, was defeated by Dumbledore in the 40's, and Fantastic Beasts was long before that.
Where would an adult Hermione fit?
Thanks for giving away the ending to a different movie that is still in theaters.
  #40  
Old 03-03-2017, 02:24 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 16,071
A theater in Alabama has said it won't be showing the new Beauty and the Beast because one of the characters is gay.
  #41  
Old 03-03-2017, 02:43 PM
Chisquirrel Chisquirrel is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by edwards_beard View Post
Thanks for giving away the ending to a different movie that is still in theaters.
Whooooooops. I apologize. That one completely slipped my mind, and I even had to look it up - it's apparently still in the 7th run theater around here.
  #42  
Old 03-03-2017, 03:29 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,649
I think the next live action Disney movie is Mulan. Beauty and the Beast came out in 1991 - more than 25 years ago. I think it's a cool way to make it fresh for newer audiences.
  #43  
Old 03-03-2017, 11:14 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 80,009
[Moderating]

I'm not sure how big a spoiler it was, since I knew it even without having seen the movie, or really even having followed it. But I've boxed it up anyway.
  #44  
Old 03-04-2017, 01:16 AM
Trancephalic Trancephalic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by NDP View Post
I may have read somewhere that Disney will probably not do a live-action remake of Aladdin because Robin Williams' Genie was such a big part of the animated version. No actor wants to be put in the unenviable position of having to top or equal Robin Williams and they can't reuse Williams' vocal track for a CGI genie because he forbid anyone from using it after his death.
Dan Castellaneta's been doing it since the mid-ninties.
  #45  
Old 03-04-2017, 12:28 PM
muldoonthief's Avatar
muldoonthief muldoonthief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 10,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trancephalic View Post
Dan Castellaneta's been doing it since the mid-ninties.
But only for TV, direct to video, and video games, not major movie releases. Which is utterly standard for animated movies - when they extend the property to other markets, they get cheaper actors to replace the well known actors from the original. If they had done a movie sequel, they would have hired Williams again.
  #46  
Old 03-04-2017, 02:20 PM
aldiboronti aldiboronti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Troynovant
Posts: 8,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
A theater in Alabama has said it won't be showing the new Beauty and the Beast because one of the characters is gay.
Yes, I've just read that here.

Quote:
A drive-in theater in northeast Alabama said it will not show Disney's Beauty and the Beast because it features a homosexual character.

The Henagar Drive-In Theatre in DeKalb County posted on its Facebook page on Thursday night.

"If we cannot take our 11-year-old granddaughter and 8-year-old grandson to see a movie, we have no business watching it," the theater posted on its Facebook page. "If I can't sit through a movie with God or Jesus sitting by me then we have no business showing it."
He has God or Jesus with him when he goes to the movies? I'd hate to be the guy sitting behind God. "Hey, asshole, move your damn head, I can't see a thing!". Flash of lightning, smell of crispy flesh, God gets back to his popcorn.
  #47  
Old 03-04-2017, 03:08 PM
Mahaloth Mahaloth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 地球
Posts: 28,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
A theater in Alabama has said it won't be showing the new Beauty and the Beast because one of the characters is gay.
I guess he'll show another screening of Fifty Shades Darker instead.

#familyvalues
  #48  
Old 03-04-2017, 05:14 PM
Fretful Porpentine Fretful Porpentine is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Bohemia. A seacoast.
Posts: 6,368
Isn't "God or Jesus" redundant
  #49  
Old 03-04-2017, 07:26 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 16,071
Quote:
He has God or Jesus with him when he goes to the movies? I'd hate to be the guy sitting behind God. "Hey, asshole, move your damn head, I can't see a thing!". Flash of lightning, smell of crispy flesh, God gets back to his popcorn.
"Hey, shut off that damn halo, would you?"
  #50  
Old 03-06-2017, 06:03 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 8,840
There is a BBC review, and it is beastly.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017