Post by legorebootedcp on Mar 28, 2017 14:54:43 GMT
Okay, I don't know if I should be doing this, but I felt like discussing the new Beauty and the beast live-action remake even though it's been out for 3 weeks. Have you guys seen it yet? I'll give the movie an 8.5/10, though it's possible that anytime soon, I'll give it a high score, which is 9. The 3D effects were amazing, especially during the Be Our Guest scene! It's really amazing in IMAX (and the fact that it occupies the whole screen makes it look better), though the first song is quite painful to the ears. xD Sadly, another movie is now taking over all (or most) IMAX theaters, so there's no chance left you can see this in IMAX. While the movie remained quite true to the 1991 animated version, there were certain plot points added, and the twist at the ending really chnaged the whole story. Still a nice movie though.
I would say it was okay. Maybe a 6/10. It didn't have the same charm as the animated one, which was really the main reason I liked it. So yeah, wasn't too crazy about it and don't get why it's so popular:S.
~l)~/\/~/-\~ The tie between real life and legos is imagination .
I haven't seen it yet, but I must say it doesn't look as good as the other live-action remakes they've done. I've been listening to the songs, for one thing, and I really don't think Emma Watson is a good choice for Belle. She looks a lot like her, which is why I thought she was perfect at first, but she's not. I don't like the way they changed Belle's character from this kind, selfless, brave girl to a rebellious, sarcastic, annoyed teenager. I don't like it at all. In my opinion, when she was singing "Belle", she showed NO. Emotion. At all.
She's just like "There must be more than this provincial life."
"Yeah. There must be more."
"But I don't really care to see it."
But anyway, it still looks like a good movie and I'm still going to watch it. And who knows? After I watch it I might take back all this stuff I said, so don't think I'm hating it or anything.
Just watched it yesterday. I actually thought it was better than the animated version. The extra plot points add more background context to the characters and made the overall story more complete.
I would say it was okay. Maybe a 6/10. It didn't have the same charm as the animated one, which was really the main reason I liked it. So yeah, wasn't too crazy about it and don't get why it's so popular:S.
I respect your opinion about it. The reason why it's very popular right now is probably because 1. the star-studded cast, 2. the fact that it's a Disney live-action remake, 3. it's based on a classic and favorite animated film. Here in my country, it's more popular than you think. Its opening weekend box office results bet the first Avengers' and Iron Man 3's opening weekend. As you can see, because of most Disney films' quality, they are popular here.
I haven't seen it yet, but I must say it doesn't look as good as the other live-action remakes they've done. I've been listening to the songs, for one thing, and I really don't think Emma Watson is a good choice for Belle. She looks a lot like her, which is why I thought she was perfect at first, but she's not. I don't like the way they changed Belle's character from this kind, selfless, brave girl to a rebellious, sarcastic, annoyed teenager. I don't like it at all. In my opinion, when she was singing "Belle", she showed NO. Emotion. At all.
She's just like "There must be more than this provincial life."
"Yeah. There must be more."
"But I don't really care to see it."
But anyway, it still looks like a good movie and I'm still going to watch it. And who knows? After I watch it I might take back all this stuff I said, so don't think I'm hating it or anything.
Emma Watson is just an okay choice for me as Belle imo. When she was first announced to play Belle, I didn't understand all the hate towards her. I thought of giving her a chance. After seeing the movie, I thought she was just okay. Nowhere near the "not good nor bad" level. That's a little problem I had with her singing. I liked how they did the original songs and I also like the new songs, but a small problem I had with some of the songs is Emma Watson's singing showing no emotion.
In the new song Day In The Sun, part of the lyrics were, "I can't go back into my childhood", and they can already make me cry (even though I didn't tear up xP). However, what could've made that part better is if she really sang it with emotion and not just hearing the tune.
I don't know how she is rebellious, sarcastic, and annoyed at all. It's clear that she doesn't want to marry Gaston (same with the 1991 animated version), so I thought she played her part there fine. As for rebellious, I can't see how either, nor can I see her being sarcastic.
It's actually a good movie imo. Not as bad as the "haters" (not neccesarily the haters themselves tho) say. Or maybe it's just me.
Just watched it yesterday. I actually thought it was better than the animated version. The extra plot points add more background context to the characters and made the overall story more complete.
Glad you liked it too. For me, it's hard to compare it to the animated version (but it will still always be better, period). The extra plot points are actually the biggest problems I had with the movie, honestly.
{JAMMERS! -those guys who watched the movie- ONLY!} Agathe wasn't necessary at all. All she did in the movie was save Maurice and reverse the curse (unless you count what she did as the enchantress and old woman at the start). In fact, it changed the story (from my point of view, at least). I also hated the fact that the curse was slightly different from the original one because that also changed the story. In the 1991 animated version, the curse was that if the last petal falls, the prince will remain a beast forever and the servants will be furniture forever. As showed at the ending, the servants were only sad because of the Beast's death and that their bodies are furniture forever. However, it's different in 2017 version. The Beast is literally a beast forever! It's hard to explain, but it's not only his body that will become a beast body forever. He is literally a beast. Again, it's hard to explain, so it might confuse you. And what happened to the furniture in the 2017 version? They "no longer exist" and are real furniture forever; they are non-living.
Post by legorebootedcp on Apr 3, 2017 10:55:55 GMT
So apparently, Beauty and the Beast is the second highest-grossing film of all time in my country, meaning it topped The Avengers and Civil War! Iron Man 3 is actually the highest-grossing film of all time in my country though (I know, quite stupid), and basing on Beauty and the Beast's box office numbers, it's about to beat it this week. Just wait 'till Infinity War comes out...
Just watched it yesterday. I actually thought it was better than the animated version. The extra plot points add more background context to the characters and made the overall story more complete.
Glad you liked it too. For me, it's hard to compare it to the animated version (but it will still always be better, period). The extra plot points are actually the biggest problems I had with the movie, honestly.
{JAMMERS! -those guys who watched the movie- ONLY!} Agathe wasn't necessary at all. All she did in the movie was save Maurice and reverse the curse (unless you count what she did as the enchantress and old woman at the start). In fact, it changed the story (from my point of view, at least). I also hated the fact that the curse was slightly different from the original one because that also changed the story. In the 1991 animated version, the curse was that if the last petal falls, the prince will remain a beast forever and the servants will be furniture forever. As showed at the ending, the servants were only sad because of the Beast's death and that their bodies are furniture forever. However, it's different in 2017 version. The Beast is literally a beast forever! It's hard to explain, but it's not only his body that will become a beast body forever. He is literally a beast. Again, it's hard to explain, so it might confuse you. And what happened to the furniture in the 2017 version? They "no longer exist" and are real furniture forever; they are non-living.
Ah, very interesting. I knew they were going to change a few things here and there, so I watched the new movie keeping that in mind.
{JAMMERS! -SPOILERS- ONLY!} I actually found Agathe (Agatha?) to become a better role in Beauty and the Beast than the animated one did. The animated one kinda made the old woman/enchantress look like some evil witch cursing people for their actions and then never coming back, but in the newer one, she was more of a "fairy-godmother"/god in a sense that she oversaw and planned every event in order to change the Prince's behavior starting by cursing him in the beginning.
I didn't find much differences in the curses between the new movie and the animated movie. Both curse's terms were that if the beast doesn't learn to love before the last petal falls, they will remain as a beast and furniture for all time. The major difference was that in the animated one, Belle says she loves Beast before the last petal falls, and therefore successfully fulfills the requirements to reverse the curse. In the new one, Belle says it after the last petal falls, and so the Beast remains a beast and the furniture becomes furniture and is therefore too late because it didn't fall within the time limit, but as I mentioned about Agatha being kinda "fairy-godmother" like, I think she saw that the beast did learn to love regardless of the curse's time limit, and so she manually reversed the curse. You might wonder what would then be the point of the last-petal-falling time limit if Agatha just let it slide, but if there was no time limit, Beast would still continue to be selfish and greedy and would have no reason or motivation to learn to love.
Glad you liked it too. For me, it's hard to compare it to the animated version (but it will still always be better, period). The extra plot points are actually the biggest problems I had with the movie, honestly.
{JAMMERS! -those guys who watched the movie- ONLY!} Agathe wasn't necessary at all. All she did in the movie was save Maurice and reverse the curse (unless you count what she did as the enchantress and old woman at the start). In fact, it changed the story (from my point of view, at least). I also hated the fact that the curse was slightly different from the original one because that also changed the story. In the 1991 animated version, the curse was that if the last petal falls, the prince will remain a beast forever and the servants will be furniture forever. As showed at the ending, the servants were only sad because of the Beast's death and that their bodies are furniture forever. However, it's different in 2017 version. The Beast is literally a beast forever! It's hard to explain, but it's not only his body that will become a beast body forever. He is literally a beast. Again, it's hard to explain, so it might confuse you. And what happened to the furniture in the 2017 version? They "no longer exist" and are real furniture forever; they are non-living.
Ah, very interesting. I knew they were going to change a few things here and there, so I watched the new movie keeping that in mind.
{JAMMERS! -SPOILERS- ONLY!} I actually found Agathe (Agatha?) to become a better role in Beauty and the Beast than the animated one did. The animated one kinda made the old woman/enchantress look like some evil witch cursing people for their actions and then never coming back, but in the newer one, she was more of a "fairy-godmother"/god in a sense that she oversaw and planned every event in order to change the Prince's behavior starting by cursing him in the beginning.
I didn't find much differences in the curses between the new movie and the animated movie. Both curse's terms were that if the beast doesn't learn to love before the last petal falls, they will remain as a beast and furniture for all time. The major difference was that in the animated one, Belle says she loves Beast before the last petal falls, and therefore successfully fulfills the requirements to reverse the curse. In the new one, Belle says it after the last petal falls, and so the Beast remains a beast and the furniture becomes furniture and is therefore too late because it didn't fall within the time limit, but as I mentioned about Agatha being kinda "fairy-godmother" like, I think she saw that the beast did learn to love regardless of the curse's time limit, and so she manually reversed the curse. You might wonder what would then be the point of the last-petal-falling time limit if Agatha just let it slide, but if there was no time limit, Beast would still continue to be selfish and greedy and would have no reason or motivation to learn to love.
I see your point and I now understand more about her inclusion. However, for some reason, it just felt wrong to me. I don't know why, but I just felt it wasn't needed even though there was more sense now. Maybe I'm just too used to the 1991 animated version.
I haven't seen it yet, but I must say it doesn't look as good as the other live-action remakes they've done. I've been listening to the songs, for one thing, and I really don't think Emma Watson is a good choice for Belle. She looks a lot like her, which is why I thought she was perfect at first, but she's not. I don't like the way they changed Belle's character from this kind, selfless, brave girl to a rebellious, sarcastic, annoyed teenager. I don't like it at all. In my opinion, when she was singing "Belle", she showed NO. Emotion. At all.
She's just like "There must be more than this provincial life."
"Yeah. There must be more."
"But I don't really care to see it."
But anyway, it still looks like a good movie and I'm still going to watch it. And who knows? After I watch it I might take back all this stuff I said, so don't think I'm hating it or anything.
Emma Watson is just an okay choice for me as Belle imo. When she was first announced to play Belle, I didn't understand all the hate towards her. I thought of giving her a chance. After seeing the movie, I thought she was just okay. Nowhere near the "not good nor bad" level. That's a little problem I had with her singing. I liked how they did the original songs and I also like the new songs, but a small problem I had with some of the songs is Emma Watson's singing showing no emotion.
In the new song Day In The Sun, part of the lyrics were, "I can't go back into my childhood", and they can already make me cry (even though I didn't tear up xP). However, what could've made that part better is if she really sang it with emotion and not just hearing the tune.
I don't know how she is rebellious, sarcastic, and annoyed at all. It's clear that she doesn't want to marry Gaston (same with the 1991 animated version), so I thought she played her part there fine. As for rebellious, I can't see how either, nor can I see her being sarcastic.
It's actually a good movie imo. Not as bad as the "haters" (not neccesarily the haters themselves tho) say. Or maybe it's just me.
Yeah, I agree about the songs. She really could've made them better if she sang them with emotion. The song "Belle", in the animated version, just seems so much more...lively. I love that sequence, it's just fun and lively, and I felt like that was lacking in the new version.
Like I said, I haven't actually seen the movie yet, but just going off of what I've seen in the trailers and clips, she seems that way. Like when the Beast asks her to dinner and she's trying to escape out the window. The original Belle didn't try to escape, she was willing to give up herself for her father's freedom. And I'm not saying it's a bad thing that she was trying to escape, I'm sure I would have done the same. But then she's like, "Are you insane? I told you no!" and all that, and I just think that was a little unnecessary and sarcastic.
{JAMMERS! -SPOILERS- ONLY!} I actually found Agathe (Agatha?) to become a better role in Beauty and the Beast than the animated one did. The animated one kinda made the old woman/enchantress look like some evil witch cursing people for their actions and then never coming back, but in the newer one, she was more of a "fairy-godmother"/god in a sense that she oversaw and planned every event in order to change the Prince's behavior starting by cursing him in the beginning.
I didn't find much differences in the curses between the new movie and the animated movie. Both curse's terms were that if the beast doesn't learn to love before the last petal falls, they will remain as a beast and furniture for all time. The major difference was that in the animated one, Belle says she loves Beast before the last petal falls, and therefore successfully fulfills the requirements to reverse the curse. In the new one, Belle says it after the last petal falls, and so the Beast remains a beast and the furniture becomes furniture and is therefore too late because it didn't fall within the time limit, but as I mentioned about Agatha being kinda "fairy-godmother" like, I think she saw that the beast did learn to love regardless of the curse's time limit, and so she manually reversed the curse. You might wonder what would then be the point of the last-petal-falling time limit if Agatha just let it slide, but if there was no time limit, Beast would still continue to be selfish and greedy and would have no reason or motivation to learn to love.
I see your point and I now understand more about her inclusion. However, for some reason, it just felt wrong to me. I don't know why, but I just felt it wasn't needed even though there was more sense now. Maybe I'm just too used to the 1991 animated version.
Definitely see where you're coming from. I guess the 1991 animated version was pretty good to start with, and the new one is on a different level that we probably aren't used to yet.
Emma Watson is just an okay choice for me as Belle imo. When she was first announced to play Belle, I didn't understand all the hate towards her. I thought of giving her a chance. After seeing the movie, I thought she was just okay. Nowhere near the "not good nor bad" level. That's a little problem I had with her singing. I liked how they did the original songs and I also like the new songs, but a small problem I had with some of the songs is Emma Watson's singing showing no emotion.
In the new song Day In The Sun, part of the lyrics were, "I can't go back into my childhood", and they can already make me cry (even though I didn't tear up xP). However, what could've made that part better is if she really sang it with emotion and not just hearing the tune.
I don't know how she is rebellious, sarcastic, and annoyed at all. It's clear that she doesn't want to marry Gaston (same with the 1991 animated version), so I thought she played her part there fine. As for rebellious, I can't see how either, nor can I see her being sarcastic.
It's actually a good movie imo. Not as bad as the "haters" (not neccesarily the haters themselves tho) say. Or maybe it's just me.
Yeah, I agree about the songs. She really could've made them better if she sang them with emotion. The song "Belle", in the animated version, just seems so much more...lively. I love that sequence, it's just fun and lively, and I felt like that was lacking in the new version.
Like I said, I haven't actually seen the movie yet, but just going off of what I've seen in the trailers and clips, she seems that way. Like when the Beast asks her to dinner and she's trying to escape out the window. The original Belle didn't try to escape, she was willing to give up herself for her father's freedom. And I'm not saying it's a bad thing that she was trying to escape, I'm sure I would have done the same. But then she's like, "Are you insane? I told you no!" and all that, and I just think that was a little unnecessary and sarcastic.
For me, the new version of Belle was lively only because of the choral singing (or whatever that's called xD), especially Luke Evan's singing (which is totally perfect and captures almost the exact same way the original Gaston sung).
I think that part was played for laughs. And that actually didn't change what she was meant to do. She decided to take her father's place so that he's safe (this isn't the exact meaning, but rather my wrong interpretation xP) back home. However, wouldn't it be better if she secretly came back with her father? Okay, maybe she should be loyal, but I guess that's why she tried to escape. And yeah, that scene didn't play well only for the reason that the iconic, "Then go ahead and STAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRVVVVVEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!"" line wasn't scary like it was in the 1991 animated version. Plus, Beast looked more like a goat to me at some point. xD
Yeah, I agree about the songs. She really could've made them better if she sang them with emotion. The song "Belle", in the animated version, just seems so much more...lively. I love that sequence, it's just fun and lively, and I felt like that was lacking in the new version.
Like I said, I haven't actually seen the movie yet, but just going off of what I've seen in the trailers and clips, she seems that way. Like when the Beast asks her to dinner and she's trying to escape out the window. The original Belle didn't try to escape, she was willing to give up herself for her father's freedom. And I'm not saying it's a bad thing that she was trying to escape, I'm sure I would have done the same. But then she's like, "Are you insane? I told you no!" and all that, and I just think that was a little unnecessary and sarcastic.
For me, the new version of Belle was lively only because of the choral singing (or whatever that's called xD), especially Luke Evan's singing (which is totally perfect and captures almost the exact same way the original Gaston sung).
I think that part was played for laughs. And that actually didn't change what she was meant to do. She decided to take her father's place so that he's safe (this isn't the exact meaning, but rather my wrong interpretation xP) back home. However, wouldn't it be better if she secretly came back with her father? Okay, maybe she should be loyal, but I guess that's why she tried to escape. And yeah, that scene didn't play well only for the reason that the iconic, "Then go ahead and STAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRVVVVVEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!"" line wasn't scary like it was in the 1991 animated version. Plus, Beast looked more like a goat to me at some point. xD
I think that's what made it lively in the original too. Yeah, he does sound a lot like Gaston. The only thing I had a problem with was in "Gaston", when he says "As a specimen, yes I'm intimidating," and he says it so calmly, just like "Meh, yeah, I'm intimidating, *shrug*" It was just weird.
I didn't think he even said that line. OMG I think the same thing, he really does look kind of like a goat. xD They made his horns too long, he looks demonic. That said, Dan Stevens does sound a lot like the Beast. Like, a LOT. It's pretty impressive considering I didn't have much faith in the characters at first.
For me, the new version of Belle was lively only because of the choral singing (or whatever that's called xD), especially Luke Evan's singing (which is totally perfect and captures almost the exact same way the original Gaston sung).
I think that part was played for laughs. And that actually didn't change what she was meant to do. She decided to take her father's place so that he's safe (this isn't the exact meaning, but rather my wrong interpretation xP) back home. However, wouldn't it be better if she secretly came back with her father? Okay, maybe she should be loyal, but I guess that's why she tried to escape. And yeah, that scene didn't play well only for the reason that the iconic, "Then go ahead and STAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRVVVVVEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!"" line wasn't scary like it was in the 1991 animated version. Plus, Beast looked more like a goat to me at some point. xD
I think that's what made it lively in the original too. Yeah, he does sound a lot like Gaston. The only thing I had a problem with was in "Gaston", when he says "As a specimen, yes I'm intimidating," and he says it so calmly, just like "Meh, yeah, I'm intimidating, *shrug*" It was just weird.
I didn't think he even said that line. OMG I think the same thing, he really does look kind of like a goat. xD They made his horns too long, he looks demonic. That said, Dan Stevens does sound a lot like the Beast. Like, a LOT. It's pretty impressive considering I didn't have much faith in the characters at first.
For me, I think that means he was calmed down given that he felt down.
He did say that line, but it was all like, "Then go ahead and starve!" rather than, "Then go ahead and STAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRVVVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!" He no longer looks demonic to me and rather, as we both think, a goat. xD Dan Stevens, when I first saw him, I thought was a wrong choice for Beast. But it turned out I was wrong. The way he sang a new song was perfect. You have to go see the movie what new song I'm talking about!
Have you guys seen it yet? I'll give the movie an 8.5/10, though it's possible that anytime soon, I'll give it a high score, which is 9. The 3D effects were amazing, especially during the Be Our Guest scene! It's really amazing in IMAX (and the fact that it occupies the whole screen makes it look better), though the first song is quite painful to the ears. xD Sadly, another movie is now taking over all (or most) IMAX theaters, so there's no chance left you can see this in IMAX. 
While the movie remained quite true to the 1991 animated version, there were certain plot points added, and the twist at the ending really chnaged the whole story. Still a nice movie though.
While the movie remained quite true to the 1991 animated version, there were certain plot points added, and the twist at the ending really chnaged the whole story. Still a nice movie though.
In my opinion, when she was singing "Belle", she showed NO. Emotion. At all. 
Iron Man 3 is actually the highest-grossing film of all time in my country though (I know, quite stupid), and basing on Beauty and the Beast's box office numbers, it's about to beat it this week. Just wait 'till Infinity War comes out...
OMG I think the same thing, he really does look kind of like a goat. xD They made his horns too long, he looks demonic. 