I Hate the New Beauty and the Beast Live-Action Movie and Here Is Why
5:27 PM
Note: all opinions are based on the trailers Disney has released. The movie might be really different on screen than it is presented through the trailers.
When I was a kid Beauty and the Beast was my favorite Disney movie for a while. I loved Belle as a character; she was quirky and caring but also intelligent. I also fell in love with the gigantic library the Beast build in his castle and have always dreamt of owning one like it myself. When Disney announced that they were going to make a live-action adaption of the original Beauty & the Beast I was ecstatic! But unfortunately that quickly faded as I learned more and more facts about the movie. Today the "official final trailer" for the movie was released and I couldn't be more let down.
Honestly, I have so much hate for this movie already and it isn't even out yet. Where to start? I have three major problems with this movie: the CGI, the styling of the characters, and the casting.
the CGI
The CGI in this movie is overwhelming.... in a bad way. It is literally everywhere. In my opinion, it is pretty well done when it comes to Lumière (the candelabrum aka candleholder) and Cogsworth (the clock), although they look a bit different than their original 1991 counterparts, it overall looks pretty neat. The rest of the CGI in the movie looks a bit sloppy and uninspired, but nothing to actually hate on.
But then we get to the Beast and I am just utterly disappointed. Why o why did you make him CGI? My kind heart always thought that CGI was needed in movies to portray creepy creatures and monsters, but I have learned otherwise when I found the TV show "Face Off".
I discovered the TV show "Face Off" not that long ago, and ever since I have, I am let down by Hollywood not hiring these amazing artists for their movies. If you do not know what the show is about: Face Off is a competitive TV series (in the vein of America's Next Top Model and Masterchef) where the contestants are all special-effects make-up artists and they compete for a cash grand price or something. Anyways, it doesn't matter. Face Off has amazing special effect make-up artists that are incredibly good at their job. Case in point:
Images taken from syfy.com
Every week the contestants get an assignment and they have to put their creativity and imagination to the test to create their own fantasy characters and bring them to life through their special-effect make-up skills. The photos above should showcase their talents and it should bring some insight to my anger as to why they used CGI on the Beast.
If you think that bringing the beast to life with largely relying on special effects make-up is a bad thing, I suggest you to rethink your opinion just by watching the movie Pan's Labyrinth (2006). I am not going to explain myself any further on this point. But if it is done well... Just look at this:
(Source)
And apparently director Bill Condon was aware he was going to get backlash on his (over)usage of CGI as he commented on it:
"In a previous video spruiking the remake, director Bill Condon said today's advanced animation technology warranted a Beauty and the Beast remake.
"I was so excited to hear that Disney was thinking of doing a live action version of Beauty and the Beast," he said. "When something is so perfect why get near it? The answer is technology has caught up to the ideas that were introduced in that movie.""
He literally says "when something is so perfect why get near it?". Uhm... why touch the original movie if its "perfect". Why do you have to... sigh... nevermind. You know what, I can tell now why the movie is a disaster. Hint: it is definitely not the incredibly intelligent word wise director...
the Styling of the Characters
A shortcoming and huge disappointment (gosh, is there anything that doesn't disappoint me?), which I have found in all the Beauty and the Beast trailers, is that the characters are rather underwhelming; both in looks and personality. But here I will just focus on the appearance of the characters.
Let's start off with the beauty of the ball: Belle. I don't mind her "primary" blue dress that much. I guess it is just an animation-to-real-life translation, although I wish they would've made her apron white. Besides that her hair is almost always down in the trailers? That is not Belle's iconic hairstyle. Belle wears a low ponytail, with a blue ribbon, and sometimes hair strands get loose and she brushes them out of her face. What is this hairstyle Emma Watson is wearing? Where is the ribbon? That is NOT Belle's hairstyle. WHERE IS THE FREAKING RIBBON?????????
Most of the other dresses that are worn by Belle in the animation movie are very poorly translated to this live-action adaptation. In the above picture you see the scene of Belle entering the library in a white flower dress. Now this is what it looks like in the animation:
What... the... f.....AND WHERE IS HER RIBBON??? And what about the puff sleeves? What a travesty. Oh yeah, and then we get to... her ballgown. The beautiful yellow ballgown that I LOVED as a kid.
Yellow was my favorite color and I was so in awe when I saw it for the first time in the animation. It looked so elegant and the off-the-shoulder straps made it look so unique from all the other princess dresses...
And then you have this yellow abomination in the live-action adaption. You would think someone tore off yellow curtains from some kitschy motel room window and tried to recreate Belle's dress. Why does it have tank top straps?????????? If you wanted to make the dress different, by all means, but make it LEGENDARY!!!!! Why turn it into something so very underwhelming?? This is what it could've (and should've) been:
I am so, so disappointed.
And then the Beast... oh boy... I... I guess he looks okay? I mean... no you know what it is not okay. This does not look like the beast. Not even a little. It looks like they were creating the Beast in CGI and they decided halfway through that it looked "ok" and that they were done. WHERE ARE HIS GIGANTIC TUSKS (his canine teeth)??? Why does he still have a human nose????? Where are his big blue eyes????? Where is all his fluffy fur????
When I watched the animation as a kid I was kind of scared at first of the Beast but as I got to know him more he seemed really caring and actually kind of clumsy and less intimidating than he was at first. He reminded me of a big kid. The way that the Beast looks in this live-action adaption is rather lackluster and what makes me even more mad is that it was made with CGI. This means that they could've easily made the Beast however they wanted. They could add whatever they wanted. And they came up with... with... this??? This is all they could do???? Disney come on...
Ahh.. the clock (Cogsworth) and the candle (Lumière). I actually do not really hate the way they look, although in the animation Lumière has his face placed on the middle candle. This means that I mainly know Lumière as a candle, rather than a fancy candle holder. Whereas in the movie he is... just that... a talking fancy candle holder. But I guess this was the best they could do to make it fit in this entire live-action narrative so I will let this one slip. Or maybe I am just bias 'cause I am trying to find something positive in this whirlwind of disappointment.
But I won't let Mrs. Potts and Chip slip. No, no. Chip is ADORABLE. I found him to be an adorable little cup when I watched the animation and I expected the same in the live-action adaption. But instead I got something terrifying. Both Mrs. Potts and Chip look so lifeless and uninspired. In the animation they stand out cause of their colors. Mrs. Potts looks like a very warm and kind character, and Chip, as I already mentioned, looks like an adorable little cup. And in the movie... no... please... it looks like something from my nightmares. Sigh. I am just going to let the pictures speak for themselves.
First of all, casting Emma Watson as Belle... What the fudge were you thinking casting director? Oh, oh wait you mean... you mean that Belle is an intelligent, educated, stubborn, and outspoken nerdy Disney princess who seems to fight the patriarchy?
You mean the above right? And since Emma Watson is the "spokeswoman" for feminism and people are celebrating her "intelligence" and "beauty" left and right she MUST be perfect for this roll right?
NEWSFLASH, actors ACT!!!!!!!! Don't typecast. Stop it with the typecasting. A good actor can adapt and morph themselves into whatever character they want. They are chameleons in terms of looks and personality. And in that case you thought: "Oh, I don't want any actress to go through the horror of morphing herself into such an awfully difficult character as Belle so we will just make it easy and cast Emma Watson since her personality is so close to Belle's character." Sorry buddy but you got it wrong there. It might make sense on paper, but it doesn't transfer well to screen.
Emma Watson just does not match with the Belle that I know from the animation. For example, Belle is kind of quirky and I don't see Emma pulling that off. I am not hating on Emma Watson, I have no ill feelings against her and I loved her as Hermione in Harry Potter. But I just feel like she is not the right pick as Belle. Which makes me sad cause there are so many actresses who could've done such a better job at this. Emma Watson just seems too harsh and expressionless to play the part of Belle. It just doesn't fit her. Here are some actresses I think would've been a better fit:
Courtesy of Disney
Courtesy of Disney
Courtesy of Disney
What... the... f.....AND WHERE IS HER RIBBON??? And what about the puff sleeves? What a travesty. Oh yeah, and then we get to... her ballgown. The beautiful yellow ballgown that I LOVED as a kid.
(Source: Giphy)
Yellow was my favorite color and I was so in awe when I saw it for the first time in the animation. It looked so elegant and the off-the-shoulder straps made it look so unique from all the other princess dresses...
Courtesy of Disney
And then you have this yellow abomination in the live-action adaption. You would think someone tore off yellow curtains from some kitschy motel room window and tried to recreate Belle's dress. Why does it have tank top straps?????????? If you wanted to make the dress different, by all means, but make it LEGENDARY!!!!! Why turn it into something so very underwhelming?? This is what it could've (and should've) been:
(Source: Etsy)
I am so, so disappointed.
And then the Beast... oh boy... I... I guess he looks okay? I mean... no you know what it is not okay. This does not look like the beast. Not even a little. It looks like they were creating the Beast in CGI and they decided halfway through that it looked "ok" and that they were done. WHERE ARE HIS GIGANTIC TUSKS (his canine teeth)??? Why does he still have a human nose????? Where are his big blue eyes????? Where is all his fluffy fur????
Courtesy of Disney
When I watched the animation as a kid I was kind of scared at first of the Beast but as I got to know him more he seemed really caring and actually kind of clumsy and less intimidating than he was at first. He reminded me of a big kid. The way that the Beast looks in this live-action adaption is rather lackluster and what makes me even more mad is that it was made with CGI. This means that they could've easily made the Beast however they wanted. They could add whatever they wanted. And they came up with... with... this??? This is all they could do???? Disney come on...
Courtesy of Disney
Ahh.. the clock (Cogsworth) and the candle (Lumière). I actually do not really hate the way they look, although in the animation Lumière has his face placed on the middle candle. This means that I mainly know Lumière as a candle, rather than a fancy candle holder. Whereas in the movie he is... just that... a talking fancy candle holder. But I guess this was the best they could do to make it fit in this entire live-action narrative so I will let this one slip. Or maybe I am just bias 'cause I am trying to find something positive in this whirlwind of disappointment.
Courtesy of Disney
But I won't let Mrs. Potts and Chip slip. No, no. Chip is ADORABLE. I found him to be an adorable little cup when I watched the animation and I expected the same in the live-action adaption. But instead I got something terrifying. Both Mrs. Potts and Chip look so lifeless and uninspired. In the animation they stand out cause of their colors. Mrs. Potts looks like a very warm and kind character, and Chip, as I already mentioned, looks like an adorable little cup. And in the movie... no... please... it looks like something from my nightmares. Sigh. I am just going to let the pictures speak for themselves.
Courtesy of Disney
the Casting
The casting in this movie is HORRIBLE. Whoever is responsible for this please fire this person and let them work at McDonalds for the rest of their lives or something because they are obviously not cut out for their job.First of all, casting Emma Watson as Belle... What the fudge were you thinking casting director? Oh, oh wait you mean... you mean that Belle is an intelligent, educated, stubborn, and outspoken nerdy Disney princess who seems to fight the patriarchy?
"Belle is somewhat a free woman for her time and refuses to be mistreated, undermined, humiliated, demeaned, or controlled by anyone."
(Source)
You mean the above right? And since Emma Watson is the "spokeswoman" for feminism and people are celebrating her "intelligence" and "beauty" left and right she MUST be perfect for this roll right?
NEWSFLASH, actors ACT!!!!!!!! Don't typecast. Stop it with the typecasting. A good actor can adapt and morph themselves into whatever character they want. They are chameleons in terms of looks and personality. And in that case you thought: "Oh, I don't want any actress to go through the horror of morphing herself into such an awfully difficult character as Belle so we will just make it easy and cast Emma Watson since her personality is so close to Belle's character." Sorry buddy but you got it wrong there. It might make sense on paper, but it doesn't transfer well to screen.
Emma Watson just does not match with the Belle that I know from the animation. For example, Belle is kind of quirky and I don't see Emma pulling that off. I am not hating on Emma Watson, I have no ill feelings against her and I loved her as Hermione in Harry Potter. But I just feel like she is not the right pick as Belle. Which makes me sad cause there are so many actresses who could've done such a better job at this. Emma Watson just seems too harsh and expressionless to play the part of Belle. It just doesn't fit her. Here are some actresses I think would've been a better fit:
- Lily Collins
Courtesy of Relativity Media
- Natalie Portman
Courtesy of Lucasfilm Ltd.
- Anne Hathaway
- Daisy Ridley
Besides Belle there is one other actor they casted and... oh my... I can't believe I haven't even touched Gaston yet. This is... it feels like a joke to be honest.
Courtesy of Disney
What the fjoieajiogjei is this supposed to mean? What is this?? Gaston is described as:
"Appearance: Slender, handsome, extremely muscular, fair skin, double-chinned, hairy-chested, long black hair tied to a brief ponytail with a red band, thick eyebrows, blue eyes"
(Source)
Wh.. what? Where are these extreme muscles? This guy looks like he needs the gym, badly. Gaston was pretty intimidating, overwhelming, and annoying in the animation whereas this guy just seems downright annoying. I have found videos and photos of the men playing Gaston in the Disney parks and they are so well casted! Where was this casting team when this movie was announced? Disney needs to start setting the same ridiculous standards for their park castings as for their movie castings.(Source)
Unfortunately I know that it doesn't matter what I say on this subject since it wont change anything and the movie will make big bucks anyways. As the user alejandromolinac on IMDB pointed out:
"This will make money on nostalgia alone… The advertising plays on visuals and sounds you remember from the original…
The campaign for the Original Animated Classic stood on its own legs, no throwbacks to anything… The biggest star was the Bitch from The Manchurian Candidate…. I recommend this, though Sinatra doing Kung Fu is quite laughable...
Popular review sites and YouTube reviewers will prob be encouraged to give this positive reviews…
After a couple of weeks, all its flaws will be visible and this will not withstand to scrutiny…
Typical..."
There are probably more things in the trailers that annoyed me to no end, and I haven't even covered the bad acting yet, but I think I have covered the main things that annoyed me and pissed me off. It was nice getting it off my chest at least. Feel free to add any additional things in the comments.
I am still mad about the yellow ballgown though. Sigh.
5 comments
Finally watched Beauty and the Beast tonight. So disappointed and upset about the portrayal of a classic Disney movie. I am so mad as to google search about other people hating this adaption and feel a little better knowing that I am not alone!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt's like the movie went to kind of following the cartoon then not following it after from the middle to the end. The songs weren't as emotional as in the cartoon and the acting was terrible, I thought Emma would put more emotion but no, she's too boyish for the role. I only like lumeire's casting actually.
ReplyDeleteWhat really annoyed me was the long hair effeminate prince. I know that actor is handsome with short hair but he looked too feminine. And that blue bow in his hair. Ewwww. I agree Gaston was not what I was expecting, but he did grow on me with the second viewing. I was also not impressed with the trans/gay push in the film. Was that necessary?
ReplyDeletei haven't seen the movie myself yet. as i stated, i just based my entire opinion on the trailers that i've seen. the casting is horrendous and i will stick by it. and there was a trans/gay push in the film? that makes this entire thing even more ridiculous lol..
Delete