Beauty and the Beast (Bill Condon)

[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]

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.