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.
[QUOTE=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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, you’ll know they’re scraping the bottom of the barrel when they make the live-action Home on the Range.
I’m curious about this one - isn’t Fantastic Beasts set decades before Harry Potter? 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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for giving away the ending to a different movie that is still in theaters.
A theater in Alabama has said it won’t be showing the new Beauty and the Beast because one of the characters is gay.