Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jay

Beauty and the Beast (2017 Live Action)

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

 

As far as Disney remakes go, I guess this one looks fine (at least not as awful as Maleficent, probably the worst offender so far, along with Alice In Wonderland, though that one had the excuse of depicting an otherworldy universe, I suppose...), but this is a movie where I can't help but wish they had filmed real environments and included the CG characters in them, like what they did with the opening sequence of Dinosaur. I mean, there are no environments in this movie that are really outlandish or anything, so why not film a real jungle and other locations like that? It'd probably save a lot of time and effort for the team and it would look more real. Plus it'd give them the opportunity to go out, see the real world instead of spending all their time in front of their computers!

The way I figure it, what you describe is something that they already did.

Have you ever watched the 1994 live-action version of The Jungle Book with music by Basil Poledouris?

I like that film quite a bit, even though it takes more than half a leaf out of Tarzan's book.

It doesn't actually have talking animals, but other than that it is pretty much as non-CGI as it gets.

 

So this time around, they went in 180 degrees the opposite direction.

I've got to give them kudos for giving that a shot and for succeeding as well as they did!

The film isn't 100% lifelike, but it's pretty darn close and, considering it does have talking animals, I think it was never quite meant to be lifelike.

 

Having watched the behind-the-scenes material, it was really surprising to me how much the director is NOT a big fan of computer graphics.

 

8 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

Of course, there are probably two main reasons they didn't do that. The first one is that it would probably be more expensive to do location shooting than to create virtual locations (though frankly, I'm not 100% sure of that). And the second reason (also most likely the main reason why there are so much more CG environments in movies nowadays): they simply wouldn't have as much control over the environment as they would if it was CG. "Hey, look, on a computer, you can do whatever you want with your environment: you can control the weather, you can control the sky, you can control the lighting... It's so much better, right?"

I can think of a third potential reason: They wanted to push the boundaries of what is possible with special effects.

But I very much doubt that computer graphics is cheaper than live action shoots. It is probably for the most part the "control" that you mention.

To do things that are either impossible as life-action or just really stupidly difficult.

 

CGI is stupidly difficult as well though. Especially to get it really lifelike. Hence "uncanny valley" and all that business.

These days I've got a job often involving "computer simulations" where the results really MUST be lifelike, because it is real stuff for real ships.

A lot of really clever people put in a lot of time and effort into that and still some of the seemingly simplest things prove to be too difficult to simulate correctly.

It'll take a long time to get computer graphics truly up to the point where "anyone can do it", "it is truly lifelike" and "it is really affordable".

They're sure giving it a good shot trying, though! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2017 at 5:13 AM, BloodBoal said:

Just look like any of their other live-action remakes of their old animated classics: lifeless, with a shitload of ugly CG all over the place, and without any passion behind it.

 

 

 

To be truthful, I do see some passion in this remake. Condon loves the different iterations of the tale, and there are nods to the Cocteau film as well as the original fairy tale (Belle's father picking a white rose).

 

But... it seems unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with matte paintings (which is what those hills are in the Beauty and the Beast clip, a digital matte painting).  Of all the things that make the movie look like a disaster to me, the background visuals aren't one.  Character visual effects on the other hand.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

I don't have a problem with matte paintings (which is what those hills are in the Beauty and the Beast clip, a digital matte painting).

 

The effect in the shot mentioned doesn't look like a matte painting to me, but a CG environment. Matte paintings generally look better than that, and are more often used as an extension of an existing environment, or for wide location shots, not the kind of shots shown here, where you have the camera moving around the character.

 

Anyway, looks awful either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man I just saw that doll...creepy.

 

I can see Emma Whatson in there....but the head so big and the forehead so long...it breaks the resemblance totally (making her bieber-like). I cant beliebe they would greenlight that. Cartoon princesses are big headed..but with true human you have the proportions better.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Stefancos said:

Movie visuals generally aren't photoshopped Alvar.

 

It's literally what Photoshop was originally invented for by the Knolls (first used on The Abyss).  But yeah I have no idea if it's still a commonly used tool in film visual effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well in those days, when it came to visual effects film was very much treated as a series of frames, each needing to be treated separately. In today's CGI infrastructure that is probably a completely outdated and ineffective way of working 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know after Independence Day: Resurgence, I swore I'd never see another movie again, and rightfully so. But I saw the preview at Disney's California Adventure and I liked it. They even had her dress on display, where I first noticed she has incredible boots. It seems like a lot of people are criticizing it. Emma Watson, the singing, the look of the characters etc. Maybe that's another reason I need to see it. I had no idea Obi-Wan was playing Lumiere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C2j9kgqUcAAIV8y.jpg

 

Disc: 1
  1. Overture (Alan Menken)
  2. Main Title: Prologue Pt. 1 (Alan Menken)
  3. Aria (Audra McDonald)
  4. Main Title: Prologue Pt. 2 (Alan Menken)
  5. Belle (Emma Watson, Luke Evans, Ensemble)
  6. How Does A Moment Last Forever (Music Box) (Kevin Kline)
  7. Belle (Reprise) (Emma Watson)
  8. Gaston (Josh Gad, Luke Evans, Ensemble)
  9. Be Our Guest (Emma Thompson, Ewan McGregor, Ian McKellen, Gugu Mbatha-Raw)
  10. Days In The Sun (Emma Thompson, Emma Watson, Ewan McGregor, Ian McKellen, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Audra McDonald, Adam Mitchell, Stanley Tucci, Clive Rowe)
  11. Something There (Emma Thompson, Emma Watson, Ewan McGregor, Ian McKellen, Dan Stevens, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Nathan Mack)
  12. How Does A Moment Last Forever (Montmartre) (Emma Watson)
  13. Beauty and the Beast (Emma Thompson)
  14. Evermore (Dan Stevens)
  15. The Mob Song (Emma Thompson, Josh Gad, Ewan McGregor, Ian McKellen, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Luke Evans, Ensemble, Stanley Tucci, Nathan Mack)
  16. Beauty and the Beast (Finale) (Audra McDonald, Ensemble, Emma Thompson)
  17. How Does A Moment Last Forever (Celine Dion)
  18. Beauty and the Beast (John Legend, Ariana Grande)
  19. Evermore (Josh Groban)

 

BONUS TRACKS
  20. Aria (Demo) (Alan Menken)
  21. How Does A Moment Last Forever (Music Box) (Demo) (Alan Menken)
  22. Days In The Sun (Demo) (Alan Menken)
  23. How Does A Moment Last Forever (Montmartre) (Demo) (Alan Menken)
  24. Evermore (Demo) (Alan Menken)

 

Disc: 2
  1. Main Title: Prologue (Alan Menken)
  2. Belle Meets Gaston (Alan Menken)
  3. Your Mother (Alan Menken)
  4. The Laverie (Alan Menken)
  5. Wolf Chase (Alan Menken)
  6. Entering the Castle (Alan Menken)
  7. A White Rose (Alan Menken)
  8. The Beast (Alan Menken)
  9. Meet the Staff (Alan Menken)
  10. Home (Extended Mix) (Alan Menken)
  11. Madame De Garderobe (Alan Menken)
  12. There's a Beast (Alan Menken)
  13. A Petal Drops (Alan Menken)
  14. A Bracing Cup of Tea (Alan Menken)
  15. The West Wing (Alan Menken)
  16. Wolves Attack Belle (Alan Menken)
  17. The Library (Alan Menken)
  18. Colonnade Chat (Alan Menken)
  19. The Plague (Alan Menken)
  20. Maurice Accuses Gaston (Alan Menken)

  21. Beast Takes a Bath (Alan Menken)
  22. The Dress (Alan Menken)
  23. You Must Go to Him (Alan Menken)
  24. Belle Stops the Wagon (Alan Menken)
  25. Castle Under Attack (Alan Menken)
  26. Turret Pursuit (Alan Menken)
  27. You Came Back (Alan Menken)
  28. Transformations (Alan Menken)

 

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MRS3N6M/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow, lots of music there :)

 

It's missing the complete animated soundtrack though....

 

 

Really disney should have released it as part of the Legacy Collection, now would be a good date for it...

 

Seriously...why so many films get deluxe expanded (and pricewise-cheap) soundtracks while Star Wars does not ... :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole movie is pointless, but at least we'll get Menkin working with these themes again, and a much more generous OST than the original. This alone makes the whole thing worthwhile.

 

Still annoyed they haven't released an expansion of the original score yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Damien F said:

The whole movie is pointless, but at least we'll get Menkin working with these themes again, and a much more generous OST than the original. This alone makes the whole thing worthwhile.

 

Yeah, that's the only thing that could be of interest to us film score fans: a few new interesting variations on the thematic material from the original.

 

But apart from that... Frankly, I think these Disney remakes are possibly the worst thing to have happened in the film industry in recent years. At least the "regular" remakes, while still keeping the rough outline of the original story, still have some new stuff to other: a completely different score by a new composer, new art design, etc. But with the Disney remakes, they seem to want to keep staying closer and closer to the original: "Let's reuse the same songs and themes! Let's make real-life versions of the costumes found in the animated film! And let's not try to make any major change to the story! Never try to be too creative, or it will backfire!". So what we're getting just look like a high-budget fan film replicating the original almost shot-by-shot. Where's the artistic interest in that? Plus, I fail to find what could be the interest for fans of the original. Is this what we're craving for now? Just to get cheap thrills by trying to relive the exact same experience we had with the original, going through the film and being all like: "Oh, I remember this from the original! And this! And this too! Oh, this was awesome..."? I need some sleep...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

 

Yeah, that's the only thing that could be of interest to us film score fans: a few new interesting variations on the thematic material from the original.

 

But apart from that... Frankly, I think these Disney remakes are possibly the worst thing to have happened in the film industry in recent years. At least the "regular" remakes, while still keeping the rough outline of the original story, still have some new stuff to other: a completely different score by a new composer, new art design, etc. But with the Disney remakes, they seem to want to keep staying closer and closer to the original: "Let's reuse the same songs and themes! Let's make real-life versions of the costumes found in the animated film! And let's not try to make any major change to the story! Never try to be too creative, or it will backfire!". So what we're getting just look like a high-budget fan film replicating the original almost shot-by-shot. Where's the artistic interest in that? Plus, I fail to find what could be the interest for fans of the original. Is this what we're craving for now? Just to get cheap thrills by trying to relive the exact same experience we had with the original, going through the film and being all like: "Oh, I remember this from the original! And this! And this too! Oh, this was awesome..."? I need some sleep...

 

 

I've had a similar argument with some friends and I was baffled how into this project they all were

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Damien F said:

The brief shot at  0:28 is very awkward.

 

There's something wrong with the clip. You actually saw her reaction in the preview I saw.

 

I think it looks good. Emma Watson is fabulous and so are her boots. I think this and Skull Island are going to slightly redeem Hollywood for me after the atrocious last decade and especially last year. Maybe the worst ever for movies? Well, at least it will get me to go to the movies again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24-2-2017 at 0:39 AM, BloodBoal said:

Frankly, I think these Disney remakes are possibly the worst thing to have happened in the film industry in recent years. At least the "regular" remakes, while still keeping the rough outline of the original story, still have some new stuff to other: a completely different score by a new composer, new art design, etc. But with the Disney remakes, they seem to want to keep staying closer and closer to the original: "Let's reuse the same songs and themes! Let's make real-life versions of the costumes found in the animated film! And let's not try to make any major change to the story! Never try to be too creative, or it will backfire!". So what we're getting just look like a high-budget fan film replicating the original almost shot-by-shot. Where's the artistic interest in that? Plus, I fail to find what could be the interest for fans of the original. Is this what we're craving for now? Just to get cheap thrills by trying to relive the exact same experience we had with the original, going through the film and being all like: "Oh, I remember this from the original! And this! And this too! Oh, this was awesome..."? I need some sleep...

That does not accurately describe The Jungle Book and Maleficent, does it?

Those two certainly put a new spin on things; though one of those more successfully than the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

 

True regarding Maleficent, not so much regarding The Jungle Book (they did try to make the world of that one feel a bit more menacing, like what they did with Kaa for example, but ultimately, it sticks quite closely to the animated film, keeping King Louie's song for example, which was unnecessary and ends up sticking out like a sore thumb and feeling like quite an embarrassing moment as a result). And my point is that with each new film, they stick closer and closer to the original: The Jungle Book maybe not be a 100% faithful recreation of the original film, but it's certainly closer to the original than Maleficent was with Sleeping Beauty.

 

That much is true.

I reckon they hit quite a sweet spot with The Jungle Book; it had a lot of familiar elements while still being pretty much its own unique thing.

That's hard to pull off and I'm still massively surprised they managed that as well as they did.

I had totally expected it to suck.

 

Though indeed the King Louie song could just as well have been left out.

They probably added it in the best way they could; but it's quite strange having it at all!

 

I hope the process you describe will not continue along the same path.

Some measure of familiarity can be a good thing, but with Beauty and the Beast they really seem to be going overboard.

Doesn't help that particular film or score never really tickled my fancy anyway....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...