Beauty and the Beast (Bill Condon)

[TGM]

BEAUTY AND THE BEAST

Director: Bill Condon

imdb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2771200/?ref_=nv_sr_1)

[TGM]

So I don't necessarily think Beauty and the Beast was a bad movie per se. At least, it wasn't anywhere near as bad as the other live action remakes thus far. However, I also don't really have a single kind word to say about it, either, so...

One of the things that stood out most to me is just how insincere this movie felt. It features a pretty diverse cast, and yet it almost comes across as if it's diverse solely for the sake of being diverse, and not actually diverse in a way that feels genuine and organic. It sorta reminded me of that conversation we had on here a while back (I forget which thread), where Irish was pointing out this false bravado in purposefully diversifying films just to say that they did so, even if it doesn't actually fit the film in question for whatever reason. That's the feeling I got throughout here, and it just felt like the cinematic equivalent of patting yourself on the back, and came across as borderline masturbatory, which really left a sour taste in my mouth.

That said, they did indeed go all the way with making LeFou gay, and I gotta say, it totally served the character, and was one of the few new things this movie did that actually worked out really well.

As for Gaston, Luke Evans was fine, though there came a point in his song that just didn't ring the least bit true with him in this role, when we get to the part where he's singing about how many dozens of eggs he ate to become as big as he is. Except, Luke Evans honestly isn't all that big a dude. Hell, he doesn't even look the least bit bigger than any of his lackeys. They shoulda either changed the lyric, cast someone else, or have him really buff up for the role. But other than that snafu, he was fine, I felt.

Speaking of the songs, I dunno, but I couldn't help but feel they all felt like cheap knockoffs, like a cover band performing classic tunes and adding just a hint of their own flare to it, but not enough to warrant a full release. Like, these versions will never match the originals, and they all just sound a bit off. But in addition to all of the classics from the original, there are a couple of obligatory "we want a Best Original Song Oscar" songs, one of which is sorta meh, though the other, sung by the Beast, is actually pretty decent, and probably the best song in the film. That all said, I did find it curious how, despite this film's increased runtime and inclusion of new songs, "Human Again" still somehow didn't make the cut even in this version of the movie.

There's also a lot of very weird editing decisions all throughout. Like, right from the beginning, when they show the movie's title, it's like it just sorta appears, then very abruptly goes away, like they just really placed absolutely no emphasis on it at all and just wanted to rush right into the movie. I know that's a small thing, but it stood out in a way that doesn't in most films, and I just found it instantly jarring, and that's a feeling that would continue with a number of this movie's editing choices.

Like, a number of scenes end with an awkward fade to black, as if they didn't really know a smooth way to transition to the next scene. And then their choice of final shot is especially bizarre. We see a shot where Belle and the Beast (in human form) are dancing with one another, surrounded by others who are also dancing. But then we abruptly cut away to the human forms of the Wardrobe and the Piano, as they finish singing their song, then just as abruptly cut to credits. I know, again, not a big thing, but something that still stood out as especially odd and jarring.

And speaking of odd, I have no idea how this film looks and feels as cheap as it does, especially with Disney behind it. There's no way the budget was that low. And yet, this whole movie looks cheap as hell. The sets all look like cheap movie sets, and none of them look the least bit real or lived in at all. And the effects all just feel real lazy. We already were well acquainted with Mrs. Potts' painted on face from the trailers, but I didn't realize just how lazy Lumiere's design was, too. For the majority of the movie, he's literally just a tiny golden man, with legs and everything. This, despite the fact that, when he briefly becomes a full candle at the end, he looks nothing like that design throughout. Did they just not want to animate him hopping around? I dunno, but it was just very odd, and again, really jarring.

And when all of the transformations back to their human forms does happen, my god is it done in the cheapest way imaginable. Hell, most of them happen off camera, as we cut to reaction shots of people witnessing the transformations happening off screen. Others, we'll see them in their inanimate object state, then as the camera begins to pan upwards, they're just suddenly human. Like, fucking wow, you couldn't afford to actually animate any of the transformations, or even do like they did in the original and have them, like, "whoosh" back into their human form? So lazy, and so cheap, you'd hardly know this was supposed to be a big budget movie.

And Gaston's death similarly feels muted here. When he battled the Beast in the original, it felt like a scene straight out of the fiery pits of hell itself. But here, he just sorta falls and dies, just something that kinda happens, like, "oops", and then he's gone. Blink and you missed it. Again, what the hell? It's like they put as little effort into it as is humanly possible.

But otherwise, outside of a handful of added scenes and those aforementioned new songs, this is indeed about 90% a shot for shot remake of the original. Which isn't bad, necessarily, though I did find myself oftentimes just wishing I were watching that movie instead. They did include a handful of minor touches that do address a couple of small nitpicks that have been pointed out over the years from the original though, such as when Belle asks the Beast to stand up so she can help him back to the castle after the wolves attack him. So small little touches like that I liked throughout.

One more thing that I noticed here was just how creepy the love story between Belle and the Beast actually feels, a feeling, mind you, that I never really got while watching the original. And I dunno if it's because that movie was a cartoon, and had a more fairy tale feel to it that worked more appropriately in that format or what, but here, yeah, all those arguments about Stockholm syndrome really stood out here in a way that never felt like a big deal in the animated version. I dunno, maybe it's because this was live action, just I constantly found myself asking, how creepy as hell would a similar story like this be if the Beast were just a human holding her captive and trying to woo her all the while. We don't ever really think that while watching the movie though, because it is what it is. But man, something about the way this version plays out just got my mind wandering there, and it gave me the creeps.

But anyways, all in all, like I said before, though I don't really have anything nice to say about it, it's still technically not awful. I'd still probably say that this is the "best" of these live action Disney remakes, though that's both not really saying much, and yet says absolutely everything. Really, this little experiment of Disney's just really isn't working at all. Because thus far, all of these movies have sucked, and I'd really like it if they would just stop now before they fuck up any more than they already have. Just, please, stop.

[Henry Gale]

I have endless thoughts on this that I hope to go through later, but bottom line, the original is maybe the first favourite movie I ever had in my mind and I still hold it very dearly to this day, so I braced for the worst while still anticipating this for a long time, and there was a bunch of it I definitely did not like, but overall I still found it steering into the lane of somehow being a very emotional experience for me more often than not, even if the scenes that weirdly really hit me the hardest in the best way often preceded and followed ones I had serious issues with.

Oddly my big (happy) takeaway with is that it's just a lovely tribute production to one of the better movies I've had the pleasure of having in my life, and being okay with seeing it celebrated in such a lavish way. It in no way replaces or tarnishes anything, so in a way that's a feat. Its story also goes a few different places I've wished the original did at times, but then it also invents new ideas it could have easily done without. It's like a band covering someone else's classic album in its entirely, but deciding to also add new songs and lyrics here and there, all while having some of the original members playing and writing with them as well.

It's an odd thing, maybe not even a very good thing, but I certainly did not hate it.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I thought Cinderella and The Jungle Book were... I dunno, decent? Fine? Unobjectionable? I think the Marvel method of just-enough is seeping into everything Disney does, from Beauty and the Beast to the new Star Wars films. Call it the Great Cinematic Hamburgering.

[TGM]

Honestly, if it weren't for The Jungle Book's identity crisis of not being able to decide if it wants to be a musical or not, I'd probably be fine with it, and think it's the best of the lot. But alas, that element just absolutely bugs the shit out of me, and sorta ruins the whole thing for me, which is a shame, because otherwise, it's definitely the most impressive visually (those effects are fucking flawless).

If we're including Malecifent, I still probably appreciate it the most for being the only one to actually attempt something of a different take from its source material, but it still doesn't entirely work, sadly.

I thought Cinderella was a miserable experience, though. :p

[Dead & Messed Up]

Honestly, if it weren't for The Jungle Book's identity crisis of not being able to decide if it wants to be a musical or not, I'd probably be fine with it, and think it's the best of the lot. But alas, that element just absolutely bugs the shit out of me, and sorta ruins the whole thing for me, which is a shame, because otherwise, it's definitely the most impressive visually (those effects are fucking flawless).

Oh, yeah, the film's effects are jaw-dropping. That's funny you bring up "identity crisis," 'cause I spent most of the movie looking forward to the bittersweet ending where Mowgli would return to men and leave the jungle behind, which was one of the highlights of the original film. And I have no earthly idea why they ditched that (I'd have to rewatch to see if the film builds up to that subversion in any meaningful way).

I'd agree about the musical element, but that wasn't as crucial an issue for me, maybe because the promo material had already adjusted expectations.

Either way, I've been leery of this remake for a good long while now. One thing they really highlight is how much more expressive hand-drawn animation is than photorealism.

[Watashi]

It's a shame so few people saw Pete's Dragon. That film is magic. Give all the Disney remakes to David Lowery.

[TGM]

If we're counting Pete's Dragon (I wasn't cause, while a remake, it's not a remake of one of their animated films) then yeah, that one is by far the best, and really the only actual good one of the lot.

[transmogrifier]

I thought Cinderella and The Jungle Book were... I dunno, decent? Fine? Unobjectionable? I think the Marvel method of just-enough is seeping into everything Disney does, from Beauty and the Beast to the new Star Wars films. Call it the Great Cinematic Hamburgering.

That's because there is absolutely no artistic impulse behind the making of any of these films; no film-maker who has passionately advocated a unique take on a timeless tale. It's a studio head running a rule over old properties trying to refresh the brand for monetary gain and then hiring a bunch of work-for-hire journeymen behind the camera looking to either (a) get another paycheck and/or (b) get enough cred to be hired for bigger budgets (and bigger pay days) further down the line.

Credit to Marvel for trying to harness a couple of more unique directorial talents (Black, Waititi, Gunn), but even they are enslaved by the turgid, clumsy, utterly inconsequential "larger picture".

AND: These films are embraced by the critical community, more or less. You look at RT, most of these films are comfortably in the red, with critics accepting technical competence, geekdom-massaging callbacks and sneak previews, and/or blatant pandering nostalgia.

[Dukefrukem]

This was perfect.

[Dukefrukem]

I cried at the end.

Not sure I could ever see Lion King in theaters. I'll be a mess. This is what's missing with Disney original takes. Tragedy. There are zero stakes in new Disney IPs. Writers need to a grow a pair. The ending to this is a god damn nightmare. They couldn't just end it like the fucking cartoon. They had to basically kill all the characters by completing the transformation into the objects. I lost it when the dog flopped over.

PS- i bought both the original and this soundtrack after the movie. LOVED Emma Watson int this.

[TGM]

That's because there is absolutely no artistic impulse behind the making of any of these films; no film-maker who has passionately advocated a unique take on a timeless tale. It's a studio head running a rule over old properties trying to refresh the brand for monetary gain and then hiring a bunch of work-for-hire journeymen behind the camera looking to either (a) get another paycheck and/or (b) get enough cred to be hired for bigger budgets (and bigger pay days) further down the line.

Credit to Marvel for trying to harness a couple of more unique directorial talents (Black, Waititi, Gunn), but even they are enslaved by the turgid, clumsy, utterly inconsequential "larger picture".

AND: These films are embraced by the critical community, more or less. You look at RT, most of these films are comfortably in the red, with critics accepting technical competence, geekdom-massaging callbacks and sneak previews, and/or blatant pandering nostalgia.

Yes, exactly this. Describes these movies to a T.

[Dead & Messed Up]

That's because there is absolutely no artistic impulse behind the making of any of these films; no film-maker who has passionately advocated a unique take on a timeless tale. It's a studio head running a rule over old properties trying to refresh the brand for monetary gain and then hiring a bunch of work-for-hire journeymen behind the camera looking to either (a) get another paycheck and/or (b) get enough cred to be hired for bigger budgets (and bigger pay days) further down the line.

Credit to Marvel for trying to harness a couple of more unique directorial talents (Black, Waititi, Gunn), but even they are enslaved by the turgid, clumsy, utterly inconsequential "larger picture".

AND: These films are embraced by the critical community, more or less. You look at RT, most of these films are comfortably in the red, with critics accepting technical competence, geekdom-massaging callbacks and sneak previews, and/or blatant pandering nostalgia.

Do you want rep? This is how you get rep.

[Dukefrukem]

You get rep for stating things we already knew?

1+1=2

[Dead & Messed Up]

You get rep for stating things we already knew?

1+1=2

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dukefrukem again."

[transmogrifier]

You get rep for stating things we already knew?

1+1=2

Now, now.... jealousy will get you nowhere. I'll chuck you a couple of rep points and you go get yourself something nice.

[Dukefrukem]

I did have one negative thing to say about this movie.

They removed my favorite line from the opening song:

"Marie! The baguettes! Hurry up." I prefer a line by line remake. There! I just invented a new Hollywood trend.

[Sycophant]

That's because there is absolutely no artistic impulse behind the making of any of these films; no film-maker who has passionately advocated a unique take on a timeless tale. It's a studio head running a rule over old properties trying to refresh the brand for monetary gain and then hiring a bunch of work-for-hire journeymen behind the camera looking to either (a) get another paycheck and/or (b) get enough cred to be hired for bigger budgets (and bigger pay days) further down the line.

It's pretty clear that the M.O. of Disney (and others, but mostly Disney) is brand extension above all else. Competently made and carefully managed. Star Wars. Marvel. Disney Animated Canon. Pirates, they hope. The future looks awful tedious.

[Mal]

I almost hated this entirely... but... Gaston. He worked for me instantly and Luke Evans looked like he was enjoying the shit out of his role. Beast/Dan Stevens was also good as far as defining Beast in this film version. But otherwise this felt ugly, half-assed and bad bad bad. Emma Watson had no business playing Belle. She has two emotions - concerned and almost-but-not-really-a-smile look. The new songs, new story bits were garbage. Be Our Guest was terrible and I don't want to hear Emma Thompson sing again.

Did I mention this was just utterly fug to look at? Kids will love this but they deserve better.

[Peng]

Sometimes the widespread 'corporate ruining filmz and the critics/we're doing nothing about it!!!' mindset gets a bit much, but I admit I had brief thoughts along that line during this, before I remember that Cinderella is the same kind of remake and I quite liked that one. Kenneth Branagh might be the key, as he remakes the general storyline and, most importantly, the feelings that the original animated film inspires with a few updates, without slavishly using it almost as storyboard.

This film has some good updates as well -- Belle a fuller, more assertive character; her relationship with the Beast a bit more fleshed out; Gaston even more deliciously cartoonish than his animated counterpart, thanks to Luke Evans having a hoot; the servants feeling more like real characters, including their surprisngly affecting tranformation moment at the climax (almost Toy Story 3-ish in its 'mutual-acceptance-in-face-of-impending-doom' effectiveness, actually); etc. But otherwise following the original almost beat-by-beat without its own cinematic or visual imagination creates a weird, distracting disconnect, like watching a diluted version or a supplemental feature. And Condon directs this more like some stage adaptation which really makes the animation-based visual set-pieces feel lumbering and a bit dull at times (I liked "Be Our Guest" though, and especially *whisper* liked this version of the song better than the original).

Now that I think about it, the key dresses in this and Cinderella provide a good summary in contrasting execution enough: Lily James' is different than the animation's but invokes the same wonder (maybe even more spectacular), while Watson's feels wholly like a diluted, blander version. And a diluted, almost step-by-step version of a film really has no business being half an hour longer. 5.5/10

[Peng]

They couldn't just end it like the fucking cartoon. They had to basically kill all the characters by completing the transformation into the objects. I lost it when the dog flopped over.


I loved this part! What's going on with Belle and Beast is executed same-old-same-old, but this change really caught me off guard, and is probably the emotional high point of the film (making the climax work better for me than it would have otherwise), as I maybe like them as characters better than the original version too (not sure if it's the voice works or execution). Really reminds me of how Baz Luhrmann has Juliet wake up just before Romeo dies, a really effective and (blasphemy?) better change as well.

[Dukefrukem]

I loved this part! What's going on with Belle and Beast is executed same-old-same-old, but this change really caught me off guard, and is probably the emotional high point of the film (making the climax work better for me than it would have otherwise), as I maybe like them as characters better than the original version too (not sure if it's the voice works or execution). Really reminds me of how Baz Luhrmann has Juliet wake up just before Romeo dies, a really effective and (blasphemy?) better change as well.

Oh absolutely. If my post suggested I hated it my bad. I basically meant it as a rant to how emotional I was during that scene.

[TGM]

So where most times after watching a new movie, assuming it stays with me at all, I'll find myself reliving various scenes from it over and over in my head days after the fact. But in Beauty and the Beast's case, this is the odd example where recently watching the new movie has had me reliving various scenes from the original in my head over and over, while the new one goes all but completely forgotten. Honestly, the only thing this new version has accomplished is giving me a much greater appreciation for the original than I already had.

[Spinal]

The future looks awful tedious.

$170 million over the weekend. Sigh.

[Dukefrukem]

$170 million over the weekend. Sigh.

I dont know why you guys are upset that these movies exist. There's plenty of room for other things.

[TGM]

I dont know why you guys are upset that these movies exist. There's plenty of room for other things.

It's just disheartening, especially when you consider that it's likely an entire generation will look at these inferior films as the definitive versions, as it'll be the ones that they grew up with. And, well, like Zac Efron said above, they deserve better than this shit that Disney's been churning out. Because there's a reason they used to just re-release the old classics over and over in theaters way back when, because those movies actually hold up, even revisiting them several decades later. But these new films? Yeah, they're pretty much dead on arrival, for all the reasons pointed out by trans, and only serve to highlight just how good the originals actually were.

[Henry Gale]

It's just disheartening, especially when you consider that it's likely an entire generation will look at these inferior films as the definitive versions, as it'll be the ones that they grew up with. And, well, like Zac Efron said above, they deserve better than this shit that Disney's been churning out. Because there's a reason they used to just re-release the old classics over and over in theaters way back when, because those movies actually hold up, even revisiting them several decades later. But these new films? Yeah, they're pretty much dead on arrival, for all the reasons pointed out by trans, and only serve to highlight just how good the originals actually were.

Sure. I don't disagree with most of that, but I also don't feel like that sort of frustration over it going to make it stop. At this point all that can happen is either they get better or they don't.

To me I'd oddly see it as it being similarly selfish and weird for them to just sit on the rights to these versions of the stories and never explore new possibilities with them, similar to them keeping things "in the vault" in decades past, even when (like with Condon's film here) they very much stick to the original template. But I'm someone who also always feels like more of something (or, in this case, more versions of something) is always a weird and wonderful thing, even in cases of clear inferiority or expectedly diminished returns.

We live in a time where everything is now accessible all the time, everything is meshing together to become one collective noise, ads are art (https://youtu.be/VDinoNRC49c) and art is advertising (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0lWbY_Hwcg), kids now see everything whether they should or not and probably have a tougher time holding the same sorts of value in traditional forms of entertainment as a result. So finding ways to make things stand out and have any sort of quality controlled zeitgeist-harnessing ― especially regarding works from the past ― to become big cultural and film-going staples for future generations will only become harder without having new iterations of something to bring it sharply back into the consciousness and reignite conversation and celebration of it. Whether or not that new thing is any good or lets people actually revisit its origins is beside the point, because the consideration wouldn't have happened anyway.

I have young cousins and friends my own age who had never wanted to see the original Star Wars trilogy until The Force Awakens approached. The masses probably didn't know what Tron really was other than some of its blue neon imagery before Kosinski's movie brought it back in a new way. And most people I know have still not seen any of the original Mad Max movies, but dammit if they don't love Fury Road.

It's not a perfect example, but after years of people seemingly partaking in no dialogue about The Matrix other than how much they didn't like sequels ad nauseum over the years, the news of a potential reboot / prequel suddenly shifted the tone entirely to posts and articles of people coming out the woodwork to express how much they cherished that universe (once they usually vented their dismay over the potential new Wachowskis-less film). But I'm someone who also always feels like more of something (or, in this case, more versions of something) is always a weird and wonderful thing, even when there are cases of clear inferiority or expectedly diminished returns.

And hey, I always liked but never fully loved Disney's original Cinderella in my single-digit years, and now I find myself weirdly in awe of Branagh's version. It clearly wasn't made with me in mind, but it hit me in a beautifully unexpected way in my adulthood. Plus Disney still re-released Beauty and Lion King in 3D this decade and that's probably the last time they could justify putting it back in wide-release theatres for kids to enjoy them with that sort of big, family-day-out experience.

No one is replacing movies, and it's not like Disney can ignore the fact that people want to see them (as Beauty just opened with the 7th biggest weekend of all time). I'm not sure why they would go against their best interests just because they feel people like us might not want or need them. If every generation of filmmakers respected the sanctity of certain films considered classics, we wouldn't have endless other things we cherish. The best stories are the ones worth re-telling, and the ones most remembered are the ones told the most.

That teleportation book was stoopid as hell doe..

[Irish]

There's plenty of room for other things.

Where?

If you're talking theatrical, there isn't any room at the multiplex, because a movie is either in 3,000 theaters across the country or it's nowhere. If you're not talking theatrical, it doesn't matter, really, because room for everybody means nobody gets noticed. (VOD is a wasteland of poor discovery.)

Every time some shit blockbuster does well -- and more and more I'm convinced these movies do as well because of lack of choice at the multiplex -- every time, it means the bar drops just a little bit more and the bar has been dropping for 30+ years.

More blockbusters means less variety at the theater, because only the biggest films will play there. There no room for things like "The Wailing," (36 theaters in the US) or "Elle" (209 theaters) or even "Everybody Wants Some" (454 theaters) and "Moonrise Kingdom" (924).

Less variety means a dead art form and a dying culture.


But I'm someone who also always feels like more of something (or, in this case, more versions of something) is always a weird and wonderful thing, even when there are cases of clear inferiority or expectedly diminished returns.

This is a strange way of looking at anything, much less something that aspires to be art, even commercial 'art.'

[Dukefrukem]

You guys are making me depressed. Hating this movie is like listening to the liberal media today. And comparing it to Everybody Wants Some is fake news.

[Peng]

Unironical "liberal media" and misused "fake news" within the same post, lol.

[transmogrifier]

You guys are making me depressed. Hating this movie is like listening to the liberal media today. And comparing it to Everybody Wants Some is fake news.

I've re-read this post about 10 times, and it gets weirder every time.

[Melville]

You guys are making me depressed. Hating this movie is like listening to the liberal media today. And comparing it to Everybody Wants Some is fake news.
This may be the most confusing post I've ever read on match cut.

[Dukefrukem]

What's so confusing about it?

The Liberal Media makes everything depressing. Everything is bad. Everything is wrong.

Comparing Everybody Wants Some, The Wailing, Elle to a huge movie like this is apples to oranges.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I figured it was a cheeky use of "fake news," the way Trump now uses it for pretty much anything he doesn't like.

[Dukefrukem]

Of course it was.

[Henry Gale]

This is a strange way of looking at anything, much less something that aspires to be art, even commercial 'art.'

Well, I mean in the sense that I simultaneously feel a keen interest as well as a detachment of it being largely out of my hands as to what things get made anyway, other than for the tickets I buy and whatever other forms of wallet-voting or conversation I want to conduct about the thing at hand. There is a certain justice that should be upheld in storytelling and media as much as any aspect of society, but let's go back a few decades to certain movies with gullies of things like questionable-to-outright-terrible sexual and racials issues littered through "beloved" works that we can't pretend didn't exist that have and still can only improve over time the more we're conscious of them. Hell, let's just do an even sub-par Breakfast at Tiffany's remake without a Mickey Rooney fiasco in it just so we can properly point out to onward generations the original issue there.

But I do also always enjoy the ironic and wild nature of culture as it goes through various cycles. Like when there were those 4 or 5 years that everyone complained about everything being vampire-related.. I just sat back in confusion going, "Who cares? The time is now for everyone to get their vampire ideas made. Some will be shit, some will be great, and then it'll move on." and now we're post-Twilight and True Blood, and managed to get things like two stellar cinematic versions of Lindqvist's Let the Right One In we can hold onto.

I love looking at things as kitsch in the moment, and then loving if/when anyone else follows that thinking later. Wild things are being made constantly, you can choose to focus and vocalize your interest in what you do like or complain about what you don't. I'm probably watching it all anyway.

But in the cases of these Disney remakes, superhero movies, and even things like The Matrix, we're dealing with fables. Both modern and of the past. The strongest stories have always been the ones that are retold throughout generations. Film is only a century or so old, so we're now at the point where it might be overwhelming and even disheartening to see the turnaround on certain remaking happen so quickly, but again, where we are now as a mono-culture, it's the nature of the beast to cut through the noise with familiarity of certain titles, and hope in that hole broken in the wall you can sneak in completely original stuff in behind it.

To me, films don't function literature or music where the original source (especially when they're already adapted works themselves) is the text and the sacrasant thing to republish instead of re-work. Cinema (especially mainstream) and television is theatre, it's a production, it's a time capsule, it's a living snapshot of an interpretation of a moment through a story, and then if over time it endures and is well-thought of enough, hopefully the right people find a way to do it again. Maybe they'll even find ways to improve here and there, if not fully.

Example: This movie. Things like the Beast's song here are great, much of the design is stunning. Another new song is a bit of a clunker, some of the look of the characters are really garish to me. The overall production is a lesser work. I'm also glad it exists.

[Irish]

There is a certain justice that should be upheld in storytelling and media as much as any aspect of society, but let's go back a few decades to certain movies with gullies of things like questionable-to-outright-terrible sexual and racials issues littered through "beloved" works that we can't pretend didn't exist that have and still can only improve over time the more we're conscious of them. Hell, let's just do an even sub-par Breakfast at Tiffany's remake without a Mickey Rooney fiasco in it just so we can properly point out to onward generations the original issue there.

Jesus, what? You can't be serious. That's a horrifying idea. (And who gets to play censor?)

(Reduced to its logical conclusion, this is the same sort of thinking that makes Facebook blur the tits off an image of "Venus de Milo," or inspires the removal of Huck Finn from libraries.)


But I do also always enjoy the ironic and wild nature of culture as it goes through various cycles. Like when there were those 4 or 5 years that everyone complained about everything being vampire-related.. I just sat back in confusion going, "Who cares? The time is now for everyone to get their vampire ideas made. Some will be shit, some will be great, and then it'll move on." and now we're post-Twilight and True Blood, and managed to get things like two stellar cinematic versions of Lindqvist's Let the Right One In we can hold onto.

I'm with you in spirit, but this ain't that.

I mean, all those vampire movies didn't cost $200 million apiece and come attached with $100 million ad budgets, and they didn't swamp the larger culture for a decade. In other words: There's a huge difference between a flavor-of-the-month like "Twilight" or Pottermania and the deleterious effect of blockbuster culture over time.

These stories aren't fables. They are intellectual property. They aren't being retold over and over again because they resonate across time and culture. They aren't being retold because some auteur had a personal, burning desire to CGI Beast onto the big screen, or tell more stories about Neo and Morpheus. They're being re-told for a buck. I would have zero problem with that if they didn't elbow everything else out of the frame.

I do love it when somebody shows up with a different angle, like John Carpenter did with "The Thing" or Cronenberg did with "The Fly." Likewise, things like "Wicked" and "Maleficient," etc. Because regardless of quality, at least there's an idea there and a fresh thought at the start.

But remaking "Beauty and the Beast" and tacking on a couple of new songs and a few extra shots is not the same thing.

PS: "Let the Right One In" is being remade as a TV show, by the showrunner of MTV's "Teen Wolf." Still think reboot culture is cool? ;)

[Skitch]

I hear both sides. I would put out there though, there are like a dozen film versions of Beauty and the Beast.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I hear both sides. I would put out there though, there are like a dozen film versions of Beauty and the Beast.

Yeah, it's hard to object to this remake on any sort of principle (I mean, how dare Disney bother in 1991 when Cocteau's version was the definitive version?!) - it's more an issue with this specific version looking like a cynical retread meant to reinforce Disney's version of the story as the definitive one. Honestly, this Disney live-action remake business plays like a response to the box-office success of the non-Disney version of Snow White with Charlize. Like Disney realized, "If we let other people create successful versions of these unlicensable stories, people might associate those stories with a company that isn't us, and fuck that right out the window."

[Watashi]

I can't wait until Disney remakes Peter Pan with Joe Wright.

[Irish]

there are like a dozen film versions of Beauty and the Beast.

Yes, but they weren't all musicals involving singing tea cups. This is more a direct remake of "Disney's Beauty and the Beast" and less another version of "La Belle et la Bête."

The closest analog I can think of is Gus Van Sant's "Psycho." Remember that one? Audiences and critics turned on it immediately, partially because it was a redo of a classic and partially because nobody except Van Sant saw the point in a shot-for-shot remake of a widely known film.

Twenty years later, that model has become corporate strategy and audiences seem to love it.

[Henry Gale]

Jesus, what? You can't be serious. That's a horrifying idea. (And who gets to play censor?)

(Reduced to its logical conclusion, this is the same sort of thinking that makes Facebook blur the tits off an image of "Venus de Milo," or inspires the removal of Huck Finn from libraries.)

Wait.. I thought I was clear but I should clarify I meant revising problematic aspects with new productions of stories rather than editing them out of the older versions.

Film-wise, I am very against Lucas-ing. Blade Runner-ing I am mostly fine with as all versions remain available.

[Skitch]

Blade Runner-ing I am mostly fine with as all versions remain available.

Good point. And if you have to go Alexander-ing, just throw it in the trash.

[Irish]

Wait.. I thought I was clear but I should clarify I meant revising problematic aspects with new productions of stories rather than editing them out of the older versions.

Film-wise, I am very against Lucas-ing. Blade Runner-ing I am mostly fine with as all versions remain available.

You were clear. You suggested excising aspects from "Breakfast at Tiffany's" with a new, socially conscious version. (Nevermind that "Tiffany's" is a story about a gay (?) man who is half in love with a call girl. People will always find one aspect of that or another problematic, even after you judiciously kick Mickey Rooney out of the picture.)

This reminds me of an essay Ray Bradbury once attached as an author's note to the end of "Fahrenheit 451." It seems people were always writing him with "suggestions" on how to "improve" his work -- but really, they wanted to take a fat, black marker and cross out whole sections. The essay was a polite and creative way to tell them all to go to hell.

So yeah. Still a gross idea.

[Ivan Drago]

Come on, guys. What's the point of arguing? We all know Beastly is the definitive adaptation of this classic fairy tale.

[Henry Gale]

You were clear. You suggested excising aspects from "Breakfast at Tiffany's" with a new, socially conscious version. (Nevermind that "Tiffany's" is a story about a gay (?) man who is half in love with a call girl. People will always find one aspect of that or another problematic, even after you judiciously kick Mickey Rooney out of the picture.)

["Is this the moment where I realize I've actually never seen it?", he thought to himself.]


This reminds me of an essay Ray Bradbury once attached as an author's note to the end of "Fahrenheit 451." It seems people were always writing him with "suggestions" on how to "improve" his work -- but really, they wanted to take a fat, black marker and cross out whole sections. The essay was a polite and creative way to tell them all to go to hell.

So yeah. Still a gross idea.

Of course. He is the author, he has every right to control and preservation of the vision he created. Again, no one is removing or replacing the original text.

Shūsaku Endō wrote Silence in 1966, Masahiro Shinoda directed the film of it in 1971, and then Scorsese did the same last year (45 years later). The last of these will surely be the one most in the public consciousness, but without it, would we even be thinking about the other two? And is four and a half decades with a director of a certain caliber the thing that validates it having a perceived moratorium being lifted from it? Or did people not cherish the original enough to care?

Any successive versions of the same story should be seen as totally valid too, and though opinions can exist as to whether or not it should exist, in the end, it should then be judged as a work in and of itself at that point, not with some inherent generalization that because it's been done that it's already worthless. We have very recent instances of remakes like the recent RoboCop, Total Recall and Carrie ones, where even three to five years later it's safe to say no one is talking about or thinking about them, and the power of the originals endure. Should original ideas have been made with that same money as their budget? Absolutely, but that's a whole other conversation as to why studios would rather make one $120 million movie than six $20 million ones these days. It's a go big or [audiences] stay home in their minds.

But what's wrong with a kid having this version of B&TB this past weekend and have it be the one that brings them immense joy and gives them a love for the material similar to how I did with the objectively superior 1991 one? There's no ensuring that at home they would've been as enraptured by Disney's original at some point, or if their parents would've ever shown it to them, but as a big cultural moment and movie-going event, they likely went. I don't remember the first time I most movies I watched at home as a kid, but I can tell you exactly where I saw and how I felt when I saw movies in the theatre as a kid, because it was almost always a more memorable and impactful experience.

My only real pet peeve is now Googling "Beauty and the Beast" and having the new one take precedence on the right side as its assumed result.


Come on, guys. What's the point of arguing? We all know Beastly is the definitive adaptation of this classic fairy tale.

Nah bro, gotta be on that CW tip. Looks at this hideous beast. Much to suffer.

http://static.tvtome.com/images/genie_images/news_hub/uploaded/TimSpotnews30036/B&B%20beauty_beast_s1_a_story.jp g

[Ivan Drago]

Nah bro, gotta be on that CW tip. Looks at this hideous beast. Much to suffer.

http://static.tvtome.com/images/genie_images/news_hub/uploaded/TimSpotnews30036/B&B%20beauty_beast_s1_a_story.jp g

Child, please.

http://cdn-static.denofgeek.com/sites/denofgeek/files/styles/main_wide/public/title_real_1.jpg?itok=TaXGKGPn

[Henry Gale]

Always thought it was a bold move for them to not give Perlman any make-up.






If too mean, my excuse is I am very tired and loopy. Those last few posts getting out of my brain were a miracle.

[Sycophant]

I'm enjoying this conversation, and far more sympathetic to Irish's side than anything else I'm seeing here.

As I see it, what is to bemoan here is not the mere fact of remakes or even reboots. For my part, I hardly think that something "being done before" is disqualifying. I'm fascinated by adaptations and remakes (which are, effectively, adaptions that don't move between media) and believe a lot of great art has been created from creative interpretations of existing works. What I object to with the New Disney Strategy is the sense of excessive corporate planning, projects designed to, above all else, extend brand life and consumption.
It's why I find Henry_Gale's comparison to Endo's novel weak. For Scorsese, adapting Silence was a decades-held passion project that was forever in search of the right timing, the right players, and the right funding. He fervently desired to bring it to the screen because he read the novel and wanted to bring his vision of it to life. Beauty and the Beast happened because executives decided that they needed to fill a release slot and, after Maleficient, Cinderella, and the Jungle Book, it was Beauty and the Beast's time in the Animated Canon Remake Project. It was typed into the release schedule and a team was assembled to make it happen. In a few ways, this is the prestige version of the much-derided direct-to-video mill DisneyToon Studios was functioning as through the 90s and early 2000s, though I actually think that some of those cheap sequel projects had a bit more ingenuity and vision to them than the new live-action remakes.

Endo's novel (well-remembered today among Japanese readers as well as anyone outside Japan who studies modern Japanese literature or is interested in canonical works on faith in world literature), Shinoda's film (hardly seen outside of or inside of Japan, with Endo as a credited co-writer on the screenplay), and Scorsese's film all will continue to exist, even if Scrosese's will be more prominently remembered (or not, no one saw it). The same, of course, is true of both versions of Disney's Beauty and the Beast. But the beholdenness to the 1991 animated film as original, with the reason for its being seemingly just to "honor," "renew," and "capitalize on" the original is terribly uncompelling.

I can't valorize more consumption of the Beauty and the Beast in whtever form as anything like an unqualified net good. I understand the economic rationale for Disney's move to produce these. What I bemoan is that it's working so goddamn well. That audiences want to see it this much. This ties into the death of middle-tier studio movies, to be sure.

(please forgive the awkwardness of this post--I recognize I had a few more things I wanted to say to wrap it up, but I've been writing something else all day and my brain is shot)

[Skitch]

Well said.

[Henry Gale]

Sycophant, at this point I feel like you perfectly distilled my thoughts in a clearer way, bridging the gap between what I thought and also what I agreed with Irish on. A lot of my more wandering thoughts were probably the result of similar brain-shotted-ness from the mild sleep deprivation I was going through between big tasks, using those posts as a nice break from working on them. Silence was probably not the best example, it was just the first one that came to mind of a recent well-thought-of film that at the end of the day is still a remake, passion project situation or not. Obviously there's usually much more inherent inspiration and integrity to a project that a filmmaker brings to a big studio rather than the other way around, but I guess at the end of the day I don't think the simple act of the corporation coming to artists should always be looked at as a categorically negative scenario. Transparently for-hire gigs aside, I'm sure many big films we loved in our lifetime have been the result of general meetings with executives pitching things to directors and having them latch onto something they wanted to do.

This day-and-age of what I'd largely call "release-date chess" filmmaking for studios is not the world I think anyone -- both filmmaker or film-goer -- got into it the business for, but at the very end of the day, it's the unfortunate fact that it is ultimately that business like you said, and at a time where it's in more jeopardy in its current form than ever. When there's that opportunity for Disney to release an expensive Beauty and the Beast in March and have it become the biggest family (as in, not PG-13) opening of all time, why wouldn't they take that? (And if audiences genuinely love it too -- which, anecdotally, with my all-over-the-place but ultimately positive feelings on the movie aside, have seemingly become the most against-it of everyone I know, including friends and family who hadn't been to the theatre to see anything else in ages -- then it's hard to find only monetary cynicism in it.

It's the same reason Pixar basically had no choice but to make Cars 2 and now Cars 3 after the original film's merchandising posted $8 billion in sales by 2011. They were already working on them at the time, but the three films that followed Cars were still Ratatouille, WALL-E and Up, all brilliant, and likely in anyone else's hands among the most un-producable big-budget family film concept pitches imaginable. But they had that Cars money.

So maybe I might be naive with that Pixar example in hoping that with this Beauty and the Beast success they'll instantly find a new confidence to go bolder again and risk the losses on things of the Tron, John Carter, Tomorrowland and Lone Ranger variety (and actual original ideas) again, and even if they don't, they should obviously just commit to re-doing their classics with a bit more verve and singular identity (Pete's Dragon, basically), but at the end of the day, Disney was never going to make The Lobster or even big successes like La La Land or Logan for us. With Touchstone sadly only making up to 3 movies a year (and exactly one in 2016, Derek Cianfrance's financially disappointing The Light Between Oceans), they are firmly in the family business now, and they are going to stay on that target and nail it every time to their liking. Even if, like Merida in Brave, they're taking the same shot so precisely that they're cutting through arrows already on there.

I do hope they just add new targets.

[[ETM]]

My review: "Oh God WHY?!"

[transmogrifier]

;569115']My review: "Oh God WHY?!"

Boxofficemojo.com has the answer that you seek.

[amberlita]

Boxofficemojo.com has the answer that you seek.

Holy Jesus

[Grouchy]

This conversation always gets stumped on the question of what the fuck is a remake, really. Is Drive an original movie? I love it, it's a brilliant fucking film, but it's still an adaptation of one of the oldest concepts in cinema. It's Shane for future generations that haven't seen Shane and most likely never will. I think what Irish (and a lot of people, including me) is rebelling against is not the remaking of stories, which is not only a commercial but also a creative outlet that's as old as time, but the fact that this Disney remake opens in EVERY THEATER NEAR YOU while people who want to do something more heartfelt, something more akin to what we understand as cinema, strive to get a few screens. It's an angry cry against aggressive capitalism, not the appropriation of old concepts for new works. We have to take this conversation away from the theoretical and into the practical side of things. It's not a crime against humanity that this Beauty and the Beast remake/reboot/adaptation exists. What's wrong is that, because of the rampant greed of movie studios and their business dealings with cinemas, Martin Scorsese has to go to Netflix (essentially a TV channel) to get funds for an original crime movie with Robert De Niro and Al Pacino.

[Peng]

I see Martin Scorsese's move (and what happens to Silence) more as a victim of awards season/obsession myself. He needed time to do and edit Silence, but the studio really wanted it for awards season, and so it became all a last minute thing in term of marketing and screeners; the film fit inconveniently into both commercial prospect and awards prospect, and ended up being successful at neither. Thus the hesitation on financing his next film and the move to Netflix.

Mostly more on Henry Gale side on this thing.

[[ETM]]

Boxofficemojo.com has the answer that you seek.
My question was more directed at myself. Should have resisted more.

[Ivan Drago]

When I saw this today, I didn't expect to think to myself, "This would look cooler if Joel Schumacher directed it," and "The Power Rangers movie spent more time on its emotional moments than this," but I did. The sets look and feel artificial, the actors are good but going through the motions, as if their only direction was to watch the cartoon and replicate the feelings of each character. Not to mention the film itself doesn't spend any time on the emotional beats of the story; We never feel any terror from Belle when we see the Beast for the first time with her, nor do we feel the emotional weight of her situation when she's left alone in her cell after seeing her father for the last time. The wonder and stakes of the original cartoon are nowhere to be found here save for a couple musical numbers and the climax, and while the added development of Belle and the Beast's relationship is welcome, their respective backstories feel tacked on. Dan Stevens' singing voice was a pleasant surprise and the visual effects are cool, but for most of this film's runtime, I was trying to comprehend why this needed to exist.

[[ETM]]

Precisely. The movie never lingers on any important beats because we're supposed to know them already, so why bother? Better cram in another song and dance number with Gaston in there. I can't remember dreading the rest of a film while watching quite as much. I was like "oh god, we're still gonna have to sit through the castle fight..." about a third of the movie in.

[transmogrifier]

Emma Watson is a totally blank in the center of this; it is hard to buy into a carbon copy like this when the human factor is unable to draw you into the emotional stakes (and there is something kind of off-putting about seeing a callow Dan Stevens emerge at the end after becoming used to the Beast's gruff physicality). It exists, and hits its marks, and basically tries its hardest to preserve the original, but its stiff and plastic at heart, and the choreography of the songs is quite poor.

[Dukefrukem]

I find it odd how detached emotionally Match Cut has been with this movie, whilst clamoring over how emotional Logan was.

[[ETM]]

Hard to be emotional about something this... artificial.

[TGM]

I find it odd how detached emotionally Match Cut has been with this movie, whilst clamoring over how emotional Logan was.

Logan felt genuine. That movie had a real heart and soul to it. You could feel the passion for that film on the screen from everyone involved, from the filmmaking, to the performances. And even the original BatB had that same feel, where the emotion felt genuine, and earned, and you could see the real passion for the project on the screen. This, however, felt anything but genuine. It's an assembly line product, lacking in any real emotion or passion of any sort. [ETM] used the word artificial, and that feels the most apt word to desribe such a lazy, cheap, awkward, and ugly movie as this.

[Dukefrukem]

Logan felt genuine. That movie had a real heart and soul to it. You could feel the passion for that film on the screen from everyone involved, from the filmmaking, to the performances. And even the original BatB had that same feel, where the emotion felt genuine, and earned, and you could see the real passion for the project on the screen. This, however, felt anything but genuine. It's an assembly line product, lacking in any real emotion or passion of any sort. [ETM] used the word artificial, and that feels the most apt word to desribe such a lazy, cheap, awkward, and ugly movie as this.

You keep using this word genuine, like, Beauty in the Beast was somehow schlock. It was a shot for shot live action remake. We knew this before viewing the movie and it does everything beautifully. How would a shot for shot remake in your eyes be genuine, or is it even possible in your eyes?

Logan, to me, was more awkward and lazy. The only thing Fox didn't do with Logan was make it a spectacle. That takes less effort to do based on their track record. They came across this model by pure accident and people want to throw all the credit in the world at them.

No. You will not get credit for an accident Fox.

[transmogrifier]

How would a shot for shot remake in your eyes be genuine, or is it even possible in your eyes?

(a) Have better leads.
(b) Have better choreography.
(c) Try to do something new with the material that resonates with the audience 26 years on.

I don't know how on Earth you can claim Logan is lazier - Beauty and the Beast Reloaded is the very definition of putting in the minimum amount of effort in order to not sully the brand. I know that you seem to have an emotional investment in the original that no-one else here seems to have, but c'mon. You're taking crazy pills.

[Dukefrukem]

(a) Have better leads.
(b) Have better choreography.
(c) Try to do something new with the material that resonates with the audience 26 years on.

I don't know how on Earth you can claim Logan is lazier - Beauty and the Beast Reloaded is the very definition of putting in the minimum amount of effort in order to not sully the brand. I know that you seem to have an emotional investment in the original that no-one else here seems to have, but c'mon. You're taking crazy pills.

(a) You know what, you're right. Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone in these characters would be better.
(b) However there was way more effort put into this, than say La La Land.
(c) The material was perfect. No need to change anything.

[transmogrifier]

.
(c) The material was perfect. No need to change anything.

Then why remake it at all from an artistic point of view? Make no mistake, this was a cynical money grab, and it has worked brilliantly on that front.

Would you be so happy to see a shot-for-shot remake of Inception 10 years down the line?

[Skitch]

(b) However there was way more effort put into this, than say La La Land.


Shots fired!



Would you be so happy to see a shot-for-shot remake of Inception 10 years down the line?

*ducks and runs*

[TGM]

You keep using this word genuine, like, Beauty in the Beast was somehow schlock. It was a shot for shot live action remake. We knew this before viewing the movie and it does everything beautifully.

Except it's not done beautifully. It's a shot for shot remake that doesn't even understand the shots that it's remaking, or the emotions there within. It's more like a charade in that regard, they got all of the beats, but it's a hollow performance that missed out on all of the heart and soul of the original, by not understanding what made that one work.


How would a shot for shot remake in your eyes be genuine, or is it even possible in your eyes?

I'm not saying it's impossible, but ideally, if all you're remaking is a shot for shot film, then already from the get-go you're probably on the wrong track. Though there are exceptions. Let Me In is in many ways a shot-for-shot remake (with liberties here and there), and that one was an effective remake by changing things in such a way that not only compliment the source, but actually add to the overall emotion of the story. You get a different experience watching the two versions, but still an enriching one either way, for different reasons, despite them both being relatively similar to one another.

It felt like there was a reason for the new version to exist beyond "cash grab", a new vision that honored the original, but still had a new artistic point of view from which to approach the story, and as such it stands on its own artistically from the original.

And that's the big difference, because the new BatB most certainly does not. It's one of the most transparent movies that have ever existed in this regard, it doesn't have anything new to say, no new expression to share with the world in order to justify its existence alongside the original. Here, for all the reasons that have been outlined throughout this thread, you get nothing. The execution is blundered left, right, and center, leaving only a bizarre, empty feeling watching it, as it stumbles along from scene to awkward scene. At least, that was the case for me, so I can only speak for myself.


Logan, to me, was more awkward and lazy. The only thing Fox didn't do with Logan was make it a spectacle. That takes less effort to do based on their track record. They came across this model by pure accident and people want to throw all the credit in the world at them.

No. You will not get credit for an accident Fox.

What was awkward and lazy about Logan?


(b) However there was way more effort put into this, than say La La Land.

Please. This movie had the bare minimum of effort...

[Ivan Drago]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to TGM again.

[[ETM]]

The execution is blundered left, right, and center, leaving only a bizarre, empty feeling watching it, as it stumbles along from scene to awkward scene. At least, that was the case for me, so I can only speak for myself.

No, my g/f and I at the very least can co-sign your post word for word.

[Dukefrukem]

Except it's not done beautifully. It's a shot for shot remake that doesn't even understand the shots that it's remaking, or the emotions there within. It's more like a charade in that regard, they got all of the beats, but it's a hollow performance that missed out on all of the heart and soul of the original, by not understanding what made that one work.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but ideally, if all you're remaking is a shot for shot film, then already from the get-go you're probably on the wrong track. Though there are exceptions. Let Me In is in many ways a shot-for-shot remake (with liberties here and there), and that one was an effective remake by changing things in such a way that not only compliment the source, but actually add to the overall emotion of the story. You get a different experience watching the two versions, but still an enriching one either way, for different reasons, despite them both being relatively similar to one another.

It felt like there was a reason for the new version to exist beyond "cash grab", a new vision that honored the original, but still had a new artistic point of view from which to approach the story, and as such it stands on its own artistically from the original.

And that's the big difference, because the new BatB most certainly does not. It's one of the most transparent movies that have ever existed in this regard, it doesn't have anything new to say, no new expression to share with the world in order to justify its existence alongside the original. Here, for all the reasons that have been outlined throughout this thread, you get nothing. The execution is blundered left, right, and center, leaving only a bizarre, empty feeling watching it, as it stumbles along from scene to awkward scene. At least, that was the case for me, so I can only speak for myself.



What was awkward and lazy about Logan?



Please. This movie had the bare minimum of effort...

I mean, you just compared a shot for shot remake of a foreign film to Hollywood film. This is a completely different medium. You would think the latter that would be more interesting no? Basically don't agree with anything you've posted here. You're arguments against BatB should remain in every other shot for shot remake you've ever seen (doesn't have anything new to say, no expression to share, only exists for a cash grab etc etc). I don't agree that Let Me In is soooooo radically different that it tells a completely different emotion. It doesn't. So stop that now.

By your logic, you should never enjoy Let Me In or any other foreign to Hollywood adaptation. If that's how you feel fine. But don't be disingenuous.

To answer your second question- Logan is NOT a fun movie to watch. It's bleek, depressing, unenjoyably, un-rewatchable. There's no payoff. I dont want my comicbook movies to be like this. Deadpool was funny and fun and still rated R. Logan is like the Road with Wolverine. It's lazy because they dumbed down the source material into a chase movie with a very very simple plot. Who knew that was all you need to do to satisfy fans? (remove most of the source material) But that was the way they could keep the budget low, in an R-rated format.

[Dukefrukem]

Then why remake it at all from an artistic point of view? Make no mistake, this was a cynical money grab, and it has worked brilliantly on that front.

Would you be so happy to see a shot-for-shot remake of Inception 10 years down the line?

The Lion King is in my top 20 movies of all time, and I'm looking forward to seeing it again in 2018.

[Mr. McGibblets]

How many shot-for-shot remakes are there? It's not very common.

[Dukefrukem]

It's more common in horror.
Off the top of my head:

Oldboy
Let Me In
The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
The Ring
The Grudge
Shutter
Dark Water
Didn't Alfred Hitchcock remake one of his own movies?

BTW, we are getting a Ghost in the Shell live action movie. No one here BETTER enjoy that.

Akira is also starting to take shape.

[TGM]

I mean, you just compared a shot for shot remake of a foreign film to Hollywood film. This is a completely different medium. You would think the latter that would be more interesting no? Basically don't agree with anything you've posted here. You're arguments against BatB should remain in every other shot for shot remake you've ever seen (doesn't have anything new to say, no expression to share, only exists for a cash grab etc etc). I don't agree that Let Me In is soooooo radically different that it tells a completely different emotion. It doesn't. So stop that now.

Bro, what? I honestly don't understand your rationale behind a single thing you said here. Why is it not fair to compare a remake from a foreign film to an American film? How are they different mediums? And how do the two versions in the example I provided not evoke different emotions? Have you seen the two versions? The differences that exist between the two are, in fact, pretty radical from one another, and as such have evoked radically different emotional responses, not just from me, but from most people who have shared their thoughts on the two films, from what I've seen.

Also, have you never heard of the phrase "exception to the rule"? Because those, too, very much exist, and I merely provided an example as such, based on your request. Why are you being so belligerently antagonistic about my response? A movie isn't allowed to make me feel a certain way just because another example of a set of movies didn't evoke the same sorts of reactions? How the fuck can you even begin to rationalize that?

As for the argument that my opinions on BatB should also apply to other remakes, it honestly doesn't even feel like you're even reading my posts. My issues with the movie have more to do with its execution than anything else. I didn't think it was well executed, and went fully in depth on those thoughts on the very first post in this thread. All of those thoughts pertain solely to BatB, and don't apply to any other movie but BatB. So, again, why should my thoughts on this being a poor remake apply to other movies that are shot-for-shot remakes?


By your logic, you should never enjoy Let Me In or any other foreign to Hollywood adaptation. If that's how you feel fine. But don't be disingenuous.

Again, what? I'm not being disingenuous. Quite the opposite, in fact. Most times I do feel that these sorts of remakes are unnecessary, and usually mention so as such. But on the rare occasion when the remake works, I acknowledge that as well. You asked me to provide an example of it, and I did. I'm sorry if you don't like my response, but I assure, it is not a disingenuous one.


To answer your second question- Logan is NOT a fun movie to watch. It's bleek, depressing, unenjoyably, un-rewatchable. There's no payoff. I dont want my comicbook movies to be like this. Deadpool was funny and fun and still rated R. Logan is like the Road with Wolverine. It's lazy because they dumbed down the source material into a chase movie with a very very simple plot. Who knew that was all you need to do to satisfy fans? (remove most of the source material) But that was the way they could keep the budget low, in an R-rated format.

I mean, if that's how you feel about the movie, fair, but I 100% disagree with your assessment of the film. I'm not gonna defend it here, as I've gone in length on my thoughts in the Logan thread, but yeah, again, not really seeing this, nor do I really see why you've dragged this movie into the discussion, other than to lament that the forum has all latched onto an almost universally liked movie and didn't think too kindly of the polarizing movie in question, which you just happened to like.

It's okay to like movies that other people don't. I like shitloads of movies that lots of people don't. There's nothing wrong with that. But don't go accusing others of not being genuine with their thoughts just because they don't line up with yours. That's pretty disappointing to read, because I've been nothing but honest with you.

[Dukefrukem]

Bro, what? I honestly don't understand your rationale behind a single thing you said here. Why is it not fair to compare a remake from a foreign film to an American film? How are they different mediums? And how do the two versions in the example I provided not evoke different emotions? Have you seen the two versions? The differences that exist between the two are, in fact, pretty radical from one another, and as such have evoked radically different emotional responses, not just from me, but from most people who have shared their thoughts on the two films, from what I've seen.

Also, have you never heard of the phrase "exception to the rule"? Because those, too, very much exist, and I merely provided an example as such, based on your request. Why are you being so belligerently antagonistic about my response? A movie isn't allowed to make me feel a certain way just because another example of a set of movies didn't evoke the same sorts of reactions? How the fuck can you even begin to rationalize that?

As for the argument that my opinions on BatB should also apply to other remakes, it honestly doesn't even feel like you're even reading my posts. My issues with the movie have more to do with its execution than anything else. I didn't think it was well executed, and went fully in depth on those thoughts on the very first post in this thread. All of those thoughts pertain solely to BatB, and don't apply to any other movie but BatB. So, again, why should my thoughts on this being a poor remake apply to other movies that are shot-for-shot remakes?



Again, what? I'm not being disingenuous. Quite the opposite, in fact. Most times I do feel that these sorts of remakes are unnecessary, and usually mention so as such. But on the rare occasion when the remake works, I acknowledge that as well. You asked me to provide an example of it, and I did. I'm sorry if you don't like my response, but I assure, it is not a disingenuous one.



I mean, if that's how you feel about the movie, fair, but I 100% disagree with your assessment of the film. I'm not gonna defend it here, as I've gone in length on my thoughts in the Logan thread, but yeah, again, not really seeing this, nor do I really see why you've dragged this movie into the discussion, other than to lament that the forum has all latched onto an almost universally liked movie and didn't think too kindly of the polarizing movie in question, which you just happened to like.

It's okay to like movies that other people don't. I like shitloads of movies that lots of people don't. There's nothing wrong with that. But don't go accusing others of not being genuine with their thoughts just because they don't line up with yours. That's pretty disappointing to read, because I've been nothing but honest with you.

You misunderstand me from the get go here. I said THIS Beauty and the Beast movie is a completely different medium than the 1991 Cartoon. So I'll re-ask: You would think THIS adaptation would be more interesting than saaaaaaay: Let Me In / Let the Right one In. (and of course I've seen both movies. I wouldn't be using it as part of my argument if I didn't).

I don't buy your "exception to the rule" which is why I'm challenging it. It was a Hollywood remake for a cash grab. It ended the same way. The scenes were setup the same. Same plot. No genius retelling of anything. Hire a cheap director to make us a couple of bucks. If it turns out good, it's a win win for everyone.

So I assume you want to take back the "antagonistic" response line. Because I'm not being anything that resembles that.

It's weird when one claims things about a movie, and talks about an exception of the rule even though that movie is setup the exact same way. "Oh well there's an exception to the rule because I like that movie". That's how it feels from my perspective. I'm trying to dissect your post and understand if this is what you're doing. Because it sounds like it.

Speaking of your criticisms, I re-read your post and here's a summary of all the things you didn't like with the execution.

Diverse cast for "sake of being diverse" (weird criticism)
Luke Evans isn't big enough to play Gaston
Songs were not as good as La La Land
Movie title appears abruptly (weird criticism)
There are scenes that fade to black (weird criticism)
Scenes looked like cheap movie sets (but not cheaper than La La Land)
Transformation back into Human wasn't cool enough
Cartoon Beauty & and the Beast relationship wasn't as creepy
Final point: technically not awful (i agree!)

[Sycophant]

It seems as the years go by, we're increasingly just arguing about corporate strategy. The specific experiences of movies themselves are irrelevant. Shut Match Cut down. We're done here.

JK.

But people's tastes and opinions and reactions to films cannot be punched into a mathematical formula for predictable outcomes. F'real.

[Irish]

It seems as the years go by, we're increasingly just arguing about corporate strategy. The specific experiences of movies themselves are irrelevant.

That's true. I'm not sure whether the problem is us or the movies themselves.

I mean, what personal reaction can one have to modern blockbusters outside their entertainment value? They purposely don't truck in deep emotion. It's like asking somebody to offer an artistic appraisal of a Vegas stage act or the Rockettes. Well, the show was fun or it wasn't. If it was, cool. If it wasn't, it doesn't matter because there's something else playing tomorrow night that might be.


But people's tastes and opinions and reactions to films cannot be punched into a mathematical formula for predictable outcomes. F'real.

That's true too.

I find the recent back and forth interesting.

TGM approached the movie like it was, more or less, any other movie and doesn't realize that Duke has a personal bond with these Disney properties. (Duke has seen "Lion King" on Broadway multiple times, IIRC. Which likely means that he has traveled for it. You're never gonna convince anybody with that much love that the object of their affection sucks.)

Meanwhile, Duke is using personal love as some sort of qualifier. Everybody does this; it's tough to suss out what's "good" by any critical framework and what connects with you personally on a deeper level.

[Dukefrukem]

Irish the MC shrink!

[Dukefrukem]

Irish is 100% correct by the way. I've taken a step back right now and realized there is some kind of bond I have with these films. It even happened in Moana a little bit. It's something about combining passionate music with the characters that gets to me. Each character has a specific obstacle and story arch. I love that about Disney in general, but Lion King and BatB i have the strongest attachments.

[Irish]

Irish the MC shrink!

lol, now there's a truly scary thought :D

[Spinal]

I mean, what personal reaction can one have to modern blockbusters outside their entertainment value? They purposely don't truck in deep emotion. It's like asking somebody to offer an artistic appraisal of a Vegas stage act or the Rockettes. Well, the show was fun or it wasn't. If it was, cool. If it wasn't, it doesn't matter because there's something else playing tomorrow night that might be.


I thought about this comment when I saw this headline:

Robert Rodriguez to direct movie based on Uglydoll toys (http://www.avclub.com/article/robert-rodriguez-direct-movie-based-uglydoll-toys-252851?utm_content=Main&utm_campaign=SF&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing)

Not that Rodriguez has ever really been about deep emotion, but still, it feels relevant to this discussion.

[TGM]

Irish is 100% correct by the way. I've taken a step back right now and realized there is some kind of bond I have with these films. It even happened in Moana a little bit. It's something about combining passionate music with the characters that gets to me. Each character has a specific obstacle and story arch. I love that about Disney in general, but Lion King and BatB i have the strongest attachments.

Well hell, with the way this thread has developed, I don't know if it's even appropriate to respond to your last post to me and continue our discussion, or to just call it quits. (Thanks, Dr. Irish ;) )

If you're still interested, I can respond after I get home. But if not, that's cool. Anyways, I apologize for any misunderstanding, or if I became a bit heated as well. I can appreciate being passionate about a film or series to such a degree, and can understand your frustration with seeing it receive a relatively negative reaction. Different strokes for different folks and all, but again, that's cool. After all, hell, you pointed out a couple of movies I loved, and I similarly became annoyed at their negative reception here, so I can relate, lol. :p

[transmogrifier]

After all, hell, you pointed out a couple of movies I loved, and I similarly became annoyed at their negative reception here, so I can relate, lol. :p

I'm the opposite; I don't really care if people don't like movies I do. But I can't help but snipe when I don't like a movie that everyone else seems to love. :)

[Peng]

It seems as the years go by, we're increasingly just arguing about corporate strategy. The specific experiences of movies themselves are irrelevant. Shut Match Cut down. We're done here.

JK.

But people's tastes and opinions and reactions to films cannot be punched into a mathematical formula for predictable outcomes. F'real.

I love this comment. I mean I don't agree with Duke about this film at all but films perceived as 'corporate products' are getting to a point where it's nearing a one-size-fit-all opinion/review, which I am a bit troubled by.

[Dukefrukem]

Well hell, with the way this thread has developed, I don't know if it's even appropriate to respond to your last post to me and continue our discussion, or to just call it quits. (Thanks, Dr. Irish ;) )

If you're still interested, I can respond after I get home. But if not, that's cool. Anyways, I apologize for any misunderstanding, or if I became a bit heated as well. I can appreciate being passionate about a film or series to such a degree, and can understand your frustration with seeing it receive a relatively negative reaction. Different strokes for different folks and all, but again, that's cool. After all, hell, you pointed out a couple of movies I loved, and I similarly became annoyed at their negative reception here, so I can relate, lol. :p

It's all good TGM. No need to apologize. I clearly have some strong biased opinions here. Can't wait until the discussions of Favreau's Lion King starts.

[megladon8]

I have to admit that the "diverse for the sake of being diverse" criticism is a bit of a head scratcher.

[Irish]

I thought about this comment when I saw this headline:

Robert Rodriguez to direct movie based on Uglydoll toys (http://www.avclub.com/article/robert-rodriguez-direct-movie-based-uglydoll-toys-252851?utm_content=Main&utm_campaign=SF&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing)

Not that Rodriguez has ever really been about deep emotion, but still, it feels relevant to this discussion.

Heh. Yeah. That's ... something else, that is. (OTOH, it's not entirely dissimilar to any other tentpole (read: all of them) that gets put into play because of merchandizing opportunities. To put it another way: If Laika Studios announced that project, nobody here would have a problem with it.)

I'll blame Kael -- and no doubt regret this later -- but in addition to obvious targets I was also thinking about movies that were generally well received -- "The Lego Movie," "Mad Max: Fury Road," and "John Wick." All of them entertaining, all of them successful (however we might want to measure that) -- and all of them totally empty.

Because, man, I can't get her 1981 review of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" out of my head, the one that starts with a long screed about how corporate conglomerates and Hollywood money-men are changing the movie business for the worse. She takes "Raiders" apart piece by piece and no matter how much I enjoy that movie, I find myself agreeing with everything she said. (She also does something similar, and just as brutal, to "Star Wars" and "The Road Warrior.")

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1981/06/15/whipped

It struck me that you could take her same measure and apply it to a lot of these movies we talk about, and sometimes praise. Films that are more thoughtless, frantic entertainments with big audience appeal and little else.

[Spinal]

I'll blame Kael -- and no doubt regret this later -- but in addition to obvious targets I was also thinking about movies that were generally well received -- "The Lego Movie," "Mad Max: Fury Road," and "John Wick." All of them entertaining, all of them successful (however we might want to measure that) -- and all of them totally empty.

I went back to see what I said after seeing Fury Road because I had the same feeling at the time, even though I rated it highly:


This was extremely impressive as a stunts/visual effects/design showcase. However, it was not so impressive as a narrative/thematic exploration. There's copious creativity in the action sequences. You've got to love villains that not only beat the drums of war, but supplement those drums with full-on electric guitar. And Miller does a great job of piling on the chase sequence surprises. However, the film held absolutely zero emotional resonance for me. I knew next to nothing about the protagonists, had little context for the chase sequence and overall, felt like the whole thing was a bit shallow. Rango was a deeper, richer film using this same basic premise of the overlord controlling the water supply and was every bit as thrilling.

[Spinal]

Someone much more eloquent than me (I think it was Ariel Dorfman) said that the tragedy of Fantasia is that children will forever associate the Disney images with the music and not be able to have their own experience of the music divorced from that. I find myself feeling similarly about how Disney has begun to not just tell stories, but to assert authority and ownership over them by remaking them with the same design elements largely, marketing the hell out of them and imprinting them on our minds. Many of these stories are our most basic fairy tales, the ways in which humans have crafted lessons about morality for years. So when one giant entity makes more off of a remake in 3 days than the entire budget of the National Endowment of the Arts (currently under threat of termination), then the question of a particular film’s quality becomes mostly irrelevant to me. I saw The Jungle Book. I though it was pretty good. But the increased monopoly on storytelling at the expense of diverse voices is highly troubling. Diverse casting is welcome. And oh my gosh, didn’t we all hear a lot about how progressive that ‘gay moment’ is? But it’s really hard to see this direction as a positive one for artistic expression.

[Irish]

Ok, S., that's the post I shoulda repped. Great stuff. Largely agree.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Someone much more eloquent than me (I think it was Ariel Dorfman) said that the tragedy of Fantasia is that children will forever associate the Disney images with the music and not be able to have their own experience of the music divorced from that. I find myself feeling similarly about how Disney has begun to not just tell stories, but to assert authority and ownership over them by remaking them with the same design elements largely, marketing the hell out of them and imprinting them on our minds. Many of these stories are our most basic fairy tales, the ways in which humans have crafted lessons about morality for years. So when one giant entity makes more off of a remake in 3 days than the entire budget of the National Endowment of the Arts (currently under threat of termination), then the question of a particular film’s quality becomes mostly irrelevant to me. I saw The Jungle Book. I though it was pretty good. But the increased monopoly on storytelling at the expense of diverse voices is highly troubling. Diverse casting is welcome. And oh my gosh, didn’t we all hear a lot about how progressive that ‘gay moment’ is? But it’s really hard to see this direction as a positive one for artistic expression.

That line on Fantasia has bummed me out recently. I've heard it twice recently, and the one animated film I've always felt a real kinship and love for was Fantasia. It gave a boost to my love of subjects like space, evolution, dinosaurs, mythology, the macabre, and classical music at a young age. The dilemma makes sense (like a less obscene version of hearing your favorite rock tracks in fan-made Naruto music videos on YouTube - that shit is horrifying), but I have to think that if kids have sufficient imagination, they'll be able to reconsider new context for the music as they grow older. I'm not still thinking of topless centaurs when I hear the Pastoral Symphony.

For me, the difference is that Fantasia never felt cynical - like a project made first and foremost to clamp down on public licenses and declare, "Mine now." It felt like a project sincerely invigorated by the possibilities of its concept.

[Spinal]

Yes! Good points and I agree with your distinction.

[transmogrifier]

I went back to see what I said after seeing Fury Road because I had the same feeling at the time, even though I rated it highly

If I had to choose a movie as the most overrated of all time, Fury Road may well be it.

[Peng]

I'm sorry, but this discussion really depresses me, especially all the claims of films being "empty" or "shallow". By all your metric, the film not being labeled so would have to be many Oscar-type films that put their "importance" and talking points and such up front and proper, and that cinema is mostly judged as message delivery. The Lego Movie and Fury Road, especially, have messages. Agree or not agree with them, think they are integrated well or not, it clearly has ones that I feel to not feel them there (and many other films that are not being regarded as 'high-brow') is being too influenced by their labels, genres, possibly obnoxious fans, the films' supposedly negative influence/effects on *gasp* Real Cinema, them being from Big Bad Evil Studios, and/or many outside factors rather than the films themselves. I know we can't discuss films without taking in their place in the industry, but lately, and especially in this thread, it feels like those last three factors have completely overtaken the actual films.

[transmogrifier]

Seriously, pick any film ever made, and you can identify a message in it. The discussion about shallowness or emptiness is not negated by simply saying a message exists - it is the particulars of that message and how it interacts with with the other elements of the film that dictates whether there is any substance to the film outside of its surface pleasures. Of course, often the surface pleasures are more than enough (Hot Rod ftw!) but should something like Fury Road not grab you in that department to the extent that it did others, then it is natural to look at what else it has to offer - or not, as the case may be. I don't think it has anything to do with external influences at all, or the idea that we are biased against certain types of cinema, or their role in the industry.

[TGM]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw_QBtlryIs

[TGM]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpUx9DnQUkA

[Dukefrukem]

One minute and 40 seconds in and Im out.