Beauty and the Beast opens to record weekend

[Maineiak]

So...I thought malificent was good...because it was a different story idea.

Cinderella was a yawn

Jungle book was the typical Hollywood cgi fest...not notable.

Now the reviews of this are "average"...fair?


Here's where ima going...they have NINETEEN of these slated?!?

How is this anything but a bad plan at cheap bucks and cheapening the brand?
How?

This is cheapquels part 2...is it not?
Help me out here?

WSJ did not give the new BatB movie a good review either.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

In Lady in Black and Horns I don't recall every thinking Harry Potter instead of Daniel Radcliffe, though to be fair it could be the lack of glasses. Never saw twilight so I can't comment there. I would use Brad Pitt as an example of an actor who has been great in rolls, Fight Club, Inglorious B*stards, Meet Joe Black, World War Z...I could keep going.

There's quite a few other actors I could name as well. I just think for such an iconic roll in a very set place and time Emma Watson's rendition of Belle doesn't fit. But this is all opinion and I should probably stop harping on the subject so we can get back to the news.

I have no doubt that there are many actors. All I was doing was pointing out something. I guess the point I was making is hooplah over Emma Watson=Hermione and how she acts when there are plenty of other actors that are just like her. I highly doubt many people would like to be compared for years and years to a roll they played. Daniel Radcliffe is still very much Harry to a lot of people though (totally understand that for you it wasn't that way though).

As to the iconic roles yeah I agree...but really moreso in non-animated roles. It's hard to criticize (at least to me) how a live person plays a role that was animated to begin with. If it's live roles then yeah it's easier. For example Kevin Bacon is iconic to me for Footloose and for that reason I had no interest and still have no interest in seeing the one that came out in 2011. But I can watch Maleficent for example and enjoy it because while the character itself could be considered iconic to me it's different as I didn't have an actual actor to go off of for comparison to other one.

We're both just sharing our opinions on this though so no right nor wrong answer

 

[lockedoutlogic]

WSJ did not give the new BatB movie a good review either.

Well...I usually don't take my entertainment advice from greedy, bloodsucking hacks...but if your saying reviews have been very average...that is what I have seen as well.

We didn't buy advance tickets to run out and see it...it just didn't seem to warrant that.

 

[rteetz]

So...I thought malificent was good...because it was a different story idea.

Cinderella was a yawn

Jungle book was the typical Hollywood cgi fest...not notable.

Now the reviews of this are "average"...fair?


Here's where ima going...they have NINETEEN of these slated?!?

How is this anything but a bad plan at cheap bucks and cheapening the brand?
How?

This is cheapquels part 2...is it not?
Help me out here?

Why would they stop when it opened to $170 million this weekend?

 

[rteetz]

WSJ did not give the new BatB movie a good review either.

It has been mixed but a positive mix. Rotten Tomatoes has it above 50%.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Why would they stop when it opened to $170 million this weekend?

They wouldn't...of course...

But it is short term, slash and burn brand erosion...just like the park pricing since 2006...

I wish I were wrong...but that probability this time is very low

 

[rteetz]

They wouldn't...of course...

But it is short term, slash and burn brand erosion...just like the park pricing since 2006...

I wish I were wrong...but that probability this time is very low

I mean I am with you that remakes shouldn't be making this much and shouldn't be Disney's focus but all of Hollywood is doing remakes.

 

[OhioStateBuckeye]

I mean I am with you that remakes shouldn't be making this much and shouldn't be Disney's focus but all of Hollywood is doing remakes.

I think a remake isn't necessarily a bad thing if the creator believes that something new can be brought to the table.

Let's take Jungle Book, for instance. I thought this was a really good remake (though I realize that is my personal opinion and others can and will think differently).

The original Disney's Jungle Book was a cartoon. This newer version really took CGI animals to a whole new level and layered that seamlessly with an actual human actor. The story was also changed significantly.

If we contrast that with the newly released Beauty and the Beast...I don't think anything of any great significance was changed or added to the original. Which in my eyes makes Beauty and the Beast nothing but a cash grab (this is in contrast to the movies that are made to be cash grabs but actually bring something new and interesting to the table).

It is a sad fact that these remakes will continue to make a lot of money. Most of us want to relive good moments in our lives. Whether that moment is growing up while watching Beauty and the Beast, or wanting to re-watch something our children loved. I don't really fault Disney for doing the live action remakes, they do need to make money. But I hope this doesn't make them neglect or reject original ideas and stories.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I mean I am with you that remakes shouldn't be making this much and shouldn't be Disney's focus but all of Hollywood is doing remakes.

To that point...most of Hollywood is consolidating/in trouble and has been for years...

The bucket brigade around here always "SWEARS" that it can't happen to the magic peddlers, does it not?

Wouldn't a bit of a rejection/backlash be a good thing for Disney in the longterm?

 

[rteetz]

Wouldn't a bit of a rejection/backlash be a good thing for Disney in the longterm?

I don't see that happening though.

 

[OhioStateBuckeye]

And by the way, I decided today that Disney needs to make a live action remake of 'Home on the Range'. The new quality they can bring to the table is the fact that they could make the movie good.

 

[Dentam]

I saw Beauty and the Beast today and liked it. Did I love it? No... I think these live action remakes just aren't really my thing though since I didn't really like the Cinderella one and haven't even bothered to see the Jungle Book. I didn't really like the style of this movie overall - just seemed a bit overdone to me but maybe that's because I'm not a fan of that Marie Antoinette style as someone else mentioned. I also thought that they should have given Emma Watson some speech lessons and yes, her singing had too much autotune. I also didn't like the new songs that were added. But this is coming from someone who counts the animated version as my favorite Disney movie.

Anyway, it's not one I'll see again in theaters - unlike Rogue One, which blew me away and I ended up seeing it four times in the theater.

On ROL - we saw it last month and would agree - it was just meh for us. Nothing really memorable.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I saw Beauty and the Beast today and liked it. Did I love it? No... I think these live action remakes just aren't really my thing though since I didn't really like the Cinderella one and haven't even bothered to see the Jungle Book. I didn't really like the style of this movie overall - just seemed a bit overdone to me but maybe that's because I'm not a fan of that Marie Antoinette style as someone else mentioned. I also thought that they should have given Emma Watson some speech lessons and yes, her singing had too much autotune. I also didn't like the new songs that were added. But this is coming from someone who counts the animated version as my favorite Disney movie.

Anyway, it's not one I'll see again in theaters - unlike Rogue One, which blew me away and I ended up seeing it four times in the theater.

On ROL - we saw it last month and would agree - it was just meh for us. Nothing really memorable.

...my sword is yours

 

[danikoski]

I really enjoyed the Jungle Book remake, but I never was a fan of the animated version. I very much enjoyed Maleficent, but thought Cinderella was okay.
I haven't seen BatB yet, but will, probably this next weekend.
I have my apprehensions about the Mary Poppins sequel, but because it is a sequel, I will give it a chance.

 

[skier_pete]

Here's where ima going...they have NINETEEN of these slated?!?

How is this anything but a bad plan at cheap bucks and cheapening the brand?
How?

This is cheapquels part 2...is it not?
Help me out here?

$370 million worldwide opening weekend. Estimates say $1 billion+ is likely

They may be "cheap bucks" but these aren't going away.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

I think a remake isn't necessarily a bad thing if the creator believes that something new can be brought to the table.

Let's take Jungle Book, for instance. I thought this was a really good remake (though I realize that is my personal opinion and others can and will think differently).

The original Disney's Jungle Book was a cartoon. This newer version really took CGI animals to a whole new level and layered that seamlessly with an actual human actor. The story was also changed significantly.

If we contrast that with the newly released Beauty and the Beast...I don't think anything of any great significance was changed or added to the original. Which in my eyes makes Beauty and the Beast nothing but a cash grab (this is in contrast to the movies that are made to be cash grabs but actually bring something new and interesting to the table).

It is a sad fact that these remakes will continue to make a lot of money. Most of us want to relive good moments in our lives. Whether that moment is growing up while watching Beauty and the Beast, or wanting to re-watch something our children loved. I don't really fault Disney for doing the live action remakes, they do need to make money. But I hope this doesn't make them neglect or reject original ideas and stories.

The only counter argument I can make is we went to a birthday party over the weekend where they rented out a theater for a screening a BatB and it was about 30 8 year old girls and their families and they all loved it and loved having a shared experience around seeing something The were familiar with but seeing this version for the first time all together

So I think there can be some value in these Re-makes ... I just wish there weren't so many and that some original movies were getting more love (but can't fault Disney when this remake will make like 5 times what tomorrowland made)

 

[mikepizzo]

I don't have a problem with remakes per say but its the number of them. Disney should focus on quality not quantity. There are 20 more in the works. I prefer the new twist kind of films like Maleficent.

Out of all the remakes, Maleficent was probably the worst from a critical perspective. They tried to tie in an origin story that didn't need to be tied. They tried to change the mythos of the original. If any of their remakes were offensive to THEIR own IP it's that one. But with that being said...it made $758+ million worldwide.

And to your point, there are 20 (I thought 19 but we can round up) remakes in the works. We have no idea how many are going to be an exact copy (pretty much like Cinderella) and how many are going to add something (hopefully positive) like The Jungle Book.

For all we know, all 20 of them will have the little twists you prefer.

In my opinion if the movie is good, then who cares if it's a remake?

A Fistful of Dollars, The Thing, The Fly, 12 Monkeys, The Departed...all of them are excellent films and all of them are remakes.

I just think it's a lot easier for people to write off a movie they haven't even seen yet, just because it's a remake. I mean, don't get me wrong, some remakes are terrible, but that's due to execution.

 

[rteetz]

Out of all the remakes, Maleficent was probably the worst from a critical perspective. They tried to tie in an origin story that didn't need to be tied. They tried to change the mythos of the original. If any of their remakes were offensive to THEIR own IP it's that one. But with that being said...it made $758+ million worldwide.

And to your point, there are 20 (I thought 19 but we can round up) remakes in the works. We have no idea how many are going to be an exact copy (pretty much like Cinderella) and how many are going to add something (hopefully positive) like The Jungle Book.

For all we know, all 20 of them will have the little twists you prefer.

In my opinion if the movie is good, then who cares if it's a remake?

A Fistful of Dollars, The Thing, The Fly, 12 Monkeys, The Departed...all of them are excellent films and all of them are remakes.

I just think it's a lot easier for people to write off a movie they haven't even seen yet, just because it's a remake. I mean, don't get me wrong, some remakes are terrible, but that's due to execution.

I for one haven't written it off yet. I just feel Disney should look to work on new animated features like Frozen and Moana both very good films and prove that originality still works. I have liked most of the animated remakes with Jungle Book probably my number one.

 

[skier_pete]

And to your point, there are 20 (I thought 19 but we can round up) remakes in the works. We have no idea how many are going to be an exact copy (pretty much like Cinderella) and how many are going to add something (hopefully positive) like The Jungle Book.

The news earlier today from the Mulan director that it wasn't going to be a musical, but straight-up action film peaks my curiosity about that one. But I would mostly think it would be more fun to throw a twist in the plots of these movies, I seriously doubt Disney is going to let that happen. Even though Jungle Book as you say, had a lot added to it to make it for the better, it was still essentially the same story with many of the same scenes, but it was changed enough that it didn't FEEL like the same story. I would hope that is the case with some of these. I also hope Disney doesn't completely give up on original ideas. They haven't had a lot of success with those lately though outside of animation. (at least the animation studio keeps coming up with new stories.)

 

[TheMaxRebo]

I for one haven't written it off yet. I just feel Disney should look to work on new animated features like Frozen and Moana both very good films and prove that originality still works. I have liked most of the animated remakes with Jungle Book probably my number one.

I was thinking about that - how I am ok with some remakes but the vast majority should be new movies ... but if you think of the Disney Animation, plus Pixar, plus Star Wars, plus Marvel - there are a lot of non-remakes coming out of Disney Studios if you think most broadly. Even if there is 1 remake a year there are going to be 5-7 non-remakes, right?