MovieChat Forums > Beauty and the Beast (2017) Discussion > Would anyone ever prefer this over the o...

Would anyone ever prefer this over the original?

posted 8 years ago by sONOMArEturns (1274)
21 replies | jump to latest

The movie isn't terrible, but it's basically the original but sucked dry of creativity. If the original didn't exist and this was the only movie we had, I'd just be saying "wow, I wished a better version of this exact movie existed" and thankfully we live in a world where a FAR better version exists.

This movie was pretty awful IMO. Not completely unredeemable or unwatchable, but quite bad. Everything that this film did was done far better in the original, and everything that was added or extended upon wasn't necessary at all. The chemistry between Belle and The Beast was far more believable in the original, where here most of The Beast's dialog is given to Lumiere and Cogsworth until the 3rd act. And then suddenly they walk in the snow after nothing but hostility and Belle is like "oh wow, I think I might be falling for him" and it isn't believable at all. The emotion is rushed or simply isn't there at all. That scene at the end with the antiques dying was fucking horrifying, and not in a good way, and it goes on and on and on and on. But to make it even more infuriating and pointless, they all become people 15 seconds later. And what was the point at all with the teleporting book? It shows up once and then never again. That might've been the most pointless thing I've ever seen in a movie.

The direction on the musical numbers was slow and lacked that "pop" a musical needs to be interesting, the camera set up was bland and shot with no creativity (watch Gaston's death in both versions back to back and tell me which one was shot more interesting), the cinematography was cold and bleak. The CGI was pretty bad, especially on the Beast's face (I heard it was originally shot with practical makeup effects and the producers decided to cover it up with CGI; whoever made that decision should be fired ASAP). Hiring an allstar cast do the voices was pointless because the voices could've been done by anyone else, and even Emma Watson was badly miscast in this, which was a huge shocker because I thought she'd be perfect on paper. The only people I thought worked well were Gaston and Le Fou.

[–] babadook (51) 8 years ago

I think the original will continue to be adored while this one will fade away.

[–] tinycatpenis (132) 8 years ago

The only reason I'd watch this is to see what all the fuss was about the 'gay scene' with Josh gad. The ORIGINAL does still hold up though, even today.

[–] CountJohn (602) 8 years ago

Agree. I see no reason to watch this one again when we still have the 91 original.

[–] CoriSCapnSkip (2332) 8 years ago

Maybe. Gotta think about it some more.

[–] lisafordeay (140) 8 years ago

I loved the live action one so much I ended up seeing it twice already. I love the original one too but honestly I think the live action one is better. Just me I guess.

[–] lovemovies (89) 8 years ago

Compared with the original this is a garbage.

[–] CraigJamesReview (1750) 8 years ago

Yeah, I honestly was expecting a lot more out of this one, especially when it came to the CGI. I mean Jungle Book last year really made that work but here the faces of every character just seemed so hollow and stiff. It's a big disappointment, but there were some plot holes that I did like the way they filled in and that new song Evermore and actually very good.

I'm trying to go for an engaging, funny youtube channel so, if you have the time, take a look. Hope you enjoy what you see. Thanks in advance. Review of the film here- https://youtu.be/AD4MjlFtI4k

[–] moonphase9 (7) 8 years ago

There were things I liked in this version, but I prefer the old one.

I like the changes of weather between the Castle and the Village; the explanation of why no one in the village remembered the Prince; and the age of the Prince when he was turned.

I liked the bit with the objects turning inanimate. Their story is pretty sad, I thought so in the animation as well as this. It made the whole thing more powerful because it wasn't just Beast who was doomed, but all of them.

The relationship was rushed, but so was the one in the animation. Both of them sort of come out of nowhere.

I didn't mind the magic book because in some of the different fairytale re-tellings of Beauty and the Beast magical objects seem to just exist in the castle. This one was used to add a bit of backstory, so I was happy with it.

I agree Watson was pretty bad and, like yourself, I initially was glad she took on the role. I thought she'd be perfect. She looked the part but the acting was pretty plain.

I think the film was badly directed. It seemed a bit messy and a bit rushed and I don' think the actors were given much help in their roles.

[–] veronicadiall (4) 8 years ago

You have to be kidding.

There was so much more in this film than the 1991 version (yes keeping in mind that it is a childrens' film). The theme of the 1991 version was essentially about seeing past who people are to their inside and a romance where the pretty girl tames the rich bad boy.

Whereas the scope of this film was richer and broader. Whether that be Belle's status as a misfit, the theme of pressing through no matter how hard things may be, the ability to change, the ability to see past superficialties to who people are inside, growing up and casting off safety, the love of family, how we can be affected by people and shaped by our relationships with them. What makes us human, friendship and loyalty in adversity and what makes people monsters.

I still like the 1991 version, but I found that this film had much, much more depth. It's actually the most emotionally satisfying films I've seen in years. I was actually close to tears in many scenes.

Frankly I find your complaints to be shallow and superficial.

[–] babadook (51) 8 years ago

All of the themes you mentioned were already present in the 1991 version. Maybe it's your complaints that are shallow and superficial.

[–] veronicadiall (4) 8 years ago

I made NO complaints.

[–] Stratego (30738) 8 years ago

You complained about someone's opinion. Go figure...

[–] sONOMArEturns (1274) 8 years ago

I'm glad at least someone found something out of this mediocre remake, but all of the elements you listed above were featured in the original. I fail to understand how ANYONE could find the "scope" of this film to be richer and broader than the original. Belle being an outcast was handled infinitely better in the 1991 film, instead it being a cheesy high school play version with melodramatic directing and writing in the 2017 version. And I'm not sure how characters who hated each other in the last scene suddenly loving each other is smarter and more believable than a gradual growth in character development over a realistic period of time, as seen in the original.

Judging by your vocabulary and your responses to other people, I'm guessing you're a very angry person. Writing and directing are two of the most important elements of a film, and your film does poorly on both elements, then your film will suffer. If you find my complaints on poor writing and directing to be shallow and superficial, then you simply cannot critique film.

[–] Stratego (30738) 8 years ago

No way in hell.

[–] Strannger (2007) 8 years ago

I fail to see if it does. It will be cool the first time and grow old over repeated viewings.

[–] lisafordeay (140) 8 years ago

Honestly I love the remake of Beauty & The Beast. It was brilliant. Love the new songs,loved Emma Watson.Dan Stevens and co,the story was very good and I seen the film twice already. Cannot wait to get it on DVD in july.

A triumph