Twice?
I want to see the Beauty and the Baphomet version.
Considering she’s French, I don’t suppose it matters which “wrong” accent they used. 
The thing I liked is the new movie is slightly less Stockholm Syndrome-y. The scenes of Belle and Beast talking about books made for a plausible basis for a relationship. They at least had something in common and could talk about stuff! Belle is set up perfectly. She’s an intellectual so she’s looking for a guy who is well educated and actually reads.
Making Beast well educated was a good change too. It didn’t make sense that a rich kid wouldn’t be able to read. Also it makes for a better match with Belle.
I also liked that just before Beast lets Belle go, she brings up the fact that… um you know freedom. So at least she acknowledges the reality, even if she can have a good evening under prison circumstances.
I saw it last night and generally liked it. It was a visual feast although the first dinner table scene was way overdone. They went way past gorgeous imagery to almost seizure-inducing - and it didn’t look to me like Belle got anything to eat although they implied that she did.
She didn’t, not even a dab of the grey stuff (it’s delicious!).
Hmmm, where to begin -
Regarding the “why do they need to remake this?” argument, I think that has been covered for the most part. But I will add that in live Theatre, remakes and revivals are commonplace, even without reinterpretation. So, why the whinging about it with movies? I say we should have more of them! Why not let a modern director do their take on a classic? As for Disney, you KNOW they aren’t going to stray from formula, so why the whinging about that?
All in all, I really enjoyed it and felt is was a very well put together, and acted, work of cinema. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a number of Oscar nominations - certainly it will get them for costumes, makeup, technical ones, music & song. It’ll be interesting to see where it all ends up. I found myself saying to myself “nice” many times with the shot work and cinematography.
Icarus:
Because a movie, once filmed, can be re-played in its original, preserved form forever, whereas live theater has to be performed by live actors in real time and real space, all of which are limited resources?
/snip
It struck me that Beast even looked surprised, as if he hadn’t even thought of that. I would have liked him to counter it more quickly, only to realize later, when talking to the group, what he’d done and why, concluding it with his goodbye in “Evermore”. In both films, he’s been very impulsive, and the whole “thoughtful regard” just seemed dissonant to me. I don’t konw how exactly to get from the dance to finding out Maurice is in trouble - but then, I’m not a writer for Disney.
True dat, but that doesn’t preclude making the same movie again.
For a comparison of ephemeral vs. permanent - We are comfortable with “covers” of songs performed by different artists, even though the originals are still available.
Don’t like concerts, eh? 
John T:
I love them, and likewise, I have no issue with movies being remade as live theater productions.
Also, I have no inherent problem with cover versions of songs or remakes of movies, as long as something is different about it - and in the case of songs, a different voice can certainly make all the difference in the sound.
But sometimes, a re-make just seems like an exercise in lack of creativity. Which is strange to say about Disney, which has continued to put out quality animated films on an annual basis, but perhaps that’s what makes their recent run of re-makes seem out of character for them, and like a soulless cash grab.
My two favorite moments in the animated version were missing from the live-action version:
-
When Belle sees her father in the magic handmirror, and sees that he’s in terrible trouble. In the animated version, the anguish that the Beast expressed was palpable, and the background music backed him up on it. He looks at the wilting rose, and realizes that if he lets her go, it’s over, time will run out and he will be cursed to stay a beast forever – and yet, he has to let her go. In the live action version? It was like he just shrugged his shaggy shoulders and said, “You must go to him. Ho hum.”
-
At the very end, in the animated version, the camera zooms back from the small party in the ballroom, and as the chorus sings the closing bars of the title song, the scene turns into a stained glass window with the rose triumphant over all. The stained glass motif was reduced to one window in the background in the live action version, and you couldn’t even see a rose in it.
Wow.
I’m shocked. Totally shocked. Why?
I loved this movie. I saw it with my wife and two kids yesterday. Anyway, wow. I expected to think “Hey, they did a good job. Really nice.” Instead, I absolutely think they did a fanstastic job. I’m surprised the reviews aren’t more like 90-95% positive on Rotten Tomatoes. This was a home run adaptation for me.
I liked the new songs, which I did not expect at all. I think “Evermore” sung by the guy from Legion was absolutely excellent. Day in the Sun was great, too.
I think the additions to the story were also really good.
I’m so happy to have a movie that surprises me by surpassing my expectations. It happens, but not as often as we would all like. I loved it.
Time for a little revival of this thread. I saw it today mostly for nostalgia. I had been planning to see it before it was no longer showing in theaters. I have to give it a 9 out of 10. I loved the songx, they were sad but good songs that fit well with the scenes. I see lots of live theater plays, and while some I don’t really enjoy performance wise, if it contains good songs and music, then I am hooked. Same with movies and commercials.
Before going into it my only worry was that it would be a campy remake, to my relief it was not the case. I had anticipated that I would like, simply because I was a fan of the story going back to my childhood in the 1990s. I saw the original animation, also I had two animation books, one a larger book with nice illustrations and another came with a tape.
As a poster pointed in the first page of the thread, the clock and candelabra seemed larger in the original movie. This was my initial thought also, but a check on Google Images shows that the animation characters are roughly the same size. However Lefou was much larger in the movie, whereas he was practically a dwarf in the animation version. I don’t remember him being as prominent in the original “Beauty and the Beast”, but my memory of that small detail may be way off. The changes however slight, made the story stronger. Both Belle and her father were cast as more stronger characters than before. The fight scene could have been more exciting, Beast and Gaston could have thrown a few punches and kicks at each other. Here it seemed Gaston only shot at Beast from a few feet away, very little contact, much less than the animation movie. Originally Gaston stabs Beast in the back as he embraces Belle, then Beast turns and roars in pain, scaring Gaston who loses his balance and falls from the cliff to his death.
Originally Beast was wearing a cape, but those are minor changes that don’t hurt the story.
I liked how they remade Beauty and the Beast, introducing the story to newer generations and also taking some of us down memory lane.
The scenes were beautiful and shots well done. Only issue I had was some slight mishaps that made no sense. For example during the first dinner scene, Belle actually didn’t eat anything and they offer a gray glob of dessert.
Anyways I loved it and felt my money spent was well worth it.
I saw it a few weeks back. I’d forgotten about this thread - and now I’m popping in to say “meh”.
Not that it wasn’t a perfectly good movie: it was well made, well acted, the couple of new songs were good… it just wasn’t the out-of-the-ballpark beautiful new thing that the original animated movie was.
It just struck me as, well, unnecessary.
It’s nice to see Emma Watson getting a variety of roles - there may yet come a day when someone looks at her and says “Oh yeah, I guess she did play Hermione” instead of “Ooooh, Hermione is in a new movie!!”. She’s even a competent* singer!
*Too often, a Big Name is put into a singing role for which s/he is anywhere from barely tolerable (Betty Grable, numerous) to bad (Betty Hutton), to outright awful (Marlene Dietrich in Destry Rides Again.