I am weirdly bummed out that Beauty and the Beast is doing so well. Usually I wouldn't care, but I really dislike the live action remakes of Disney classics, and Jungle Book over a billion and this one on track to crush that, I am not going to be seeing the end of them for a very, very long time.
I guess I just wish they'd make more new things.
Also why on earth is that movie 2 hours and 5 minutes. Good god hollywood. Did all the editors leave town?
I mean... they ARE making a LOT of more new things. Moana and Zootopia both came out last year, and they were completely original IPs. It's not like they are just coasting on live action remakes or anything.
I am weirdly bummed out that Beauty and the Beast is doing so well. Usually I wouldn't care, but I really dislike the live action remakes of Disney classics, and Jungle Book over a billion and this one on track to crush that, I am not going to be seeing the end of them for a very, very long time.
I guess I just wish they'd make more new things.
Also why on earth is that movie 2 hours and 5 minutes. Good god hollywood. Did all the editors leave town?
I mean... they ARE making a LOT of more new things. Moana and Zootopia both came out last year, and they were completely original IPs. It's not like they are just coasting on live action remakes or anything.
If anything it's the fact that Disney has these sure fire money makers that lets them try as many new things as they do.
+2
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Jungle Book at least differed from the cartoon, which is what helped make it good.
From what I've seen, Beauty & the Beast is almost verbatim the cartoon. So it's just pretty lazy to just remake a well loved cartoon when they could try something else with Beauty & the Beast. A quasi sequel where Belle leaves Beast and falls in love with a new beast who's like, a werewolf, and he sparkles in the sun.
Jungle Book at least differed from the cartoon, which is what helped make it good.
From what I've seen, Beauty & the Beast is almost verbatim the cartoon. So it's just pretty lazy to just remake a well loved cartoon when they could try something else with Beauty & the Beast. A quasi sequel where Belle leaves Beast and falls in love with a new beast who's like, a werewolf, and he sparkles in the sun.
Soooo a Twilight sequel? (Or is that the joke? Never seen the movies, working off of word of mouth here.)
I am weirdly bummed out that Beauty and the Beast is doing so well. Usually I wouldn't care, but I really dislike the live action remakes of Disney classics, and Jungle Book over a billion and this one on track to crush that, I am not going to be seeing the end of them for a very, very long time.
I guess I just wish they'd make more new things.
Also why on earth is that movie 2 hours and 5 minutes. Good god hollywood. Did all the editors leave town?
I mean... they ARE making a LOT of more new things. Moana and Zootopia both came out last year, and they were completely original IPs. It's not like they are just coasting on live action remakes or anything.
I don't really count WDAS, I mean among everything else Walt Disney Pictures does. WDAS lives in their own little bubble under the mouse umbrella.
If I really look at the list there is more new things than I remember, but less than there used to be. But that's just the risk adverse nature of entertainment I suppose.
I imagine a decent amount of this reaction is because this time they're remaking things that were formative to me as a child, and not the things that were formative to my parents. What goes around.
Disney remakes "classic" stories. That's not all they do, but it is kind of their "thing."
Them becoming one of their own primary sources is new, and a bit weird, but I submit that a lot of the things that you, Knight, fondly remember were simply (to steal an old NBC tagline for their reruns) "new to YOU."
Disney remakes "classic" stories. That's not all they do, but it is kind of their "thing."
Them becoming one of their own primary sources is new, and a bit weird, but I submit that a lot of the things that you, Knight, fondly remember were simply (to steal an old NBC tagline for their reruns) "new to YOU."
I did just say that, yea. But they were new in that animated format as well, and Disney removes a lot of the more grim aspects many of those fairy tales had, so they were at least generally reinterpreting the stories.
In these cases they are mostly just "play that same song again"ing themselves to the tune of a billion dollars a go.
Kong was certainly better than the Peter Jackson attempt, but I wouldn't call it "the shit." I've read in this thread that it wasn't dumb, and for the most part, I agree. The major exception is the reason we're on the island in the first place.
There is a nice slo mo shot of all these helicopters heading to the island and I remember thinking I should count them, because it seemed like a lot. Flash forward a couple minutes and Kong is knocking them out of the sky. And I'm thinking, well at least they brought a dozen of these things. Nah, fuck that. Kong gets them all. ALL. Not like, 7 in 1 blow, either. We're talking about a prolonged fight. Nobody thinks to fly like, 1 or 2 out of gorilla paw range. It's really meant to lock the characters to the island and be exciting, and it is exciting, but it's pretty dumb.
Other than that, I've got no complaints. I didn't love it. I didn't hate it.
The live-action Beauty and the Beast looked creepy as fuck to me. There's something about talking household items that goes from cutesy to disturbing the minute it's live-action.
CGI Lumière is fucking nightmare fuel in those trailers.
I was 11 (was it really 25 years ago it came out? I feel so old) when the cartoon version came out, and like others in this thread, I don't really see the point in making a live action version that seems almost identical, but I've a daughter who is 4, and when she saw the advert for this film, she got very excited and told me she wanted to go and see it.
So I think ultimately in my case, this live action version isn't really for me, but instead is for my young daughter, who is starting to take interests in many things (at the moment, it seems to be all the things I have in my little hobby room). There's worse ways to spend a rainy afternoon.
PSN Fleety2009
+2
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
The live-action Beauty and the Beast looked creepy as fuck to me. There's something about talking household items that goes from cutesy to disturbing the minute it's live-action.
CGI Lumière is fucking nightmare fuel in those trailers.
*GIS*
*recoils*
Oh dear god...
0
Options
MalReynoldsThe Hunter S Thompson of incredibly mild medicinesRegistered Userregular
I was 11 (was it really 25 years ago it came out? I feel so old) when the cartoon version came out, and like others in this thread, I don't really see the point in making a live action version that seems almost identical, but I've a daughter who is 4, and when she saw the advert for this film, she got very excited and told me she wanted to go and see it.
So I think ultimately in my case, this live action version isn't really for me, but instead is for my young daughter, who is starting to take interests in many things (at the moment, it seems to be all the things I have in my little hobby room). There's worse ways to spend a rainy afternoon.
Also they added like, 40 minutes of supplemental story and changed a bunch of shit around.
It still hews incredibly close to the original, but there's enough there for someone who was familiar enough with the original to still get some value out of it.
"A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
The best line from Kong was the banter about the ants. I cracked up. "There's one... sounds like a bird, but it's a fucking ant."
yeah John C. Reilly was really good in general. He works well as the Puck character to take your mind off of horrendous disemboweling that you just saw a minute ago.
For that matter everyone was acting their asses off. John Goodman especially looking visibly terrified when Samuel L. Jackson was interrogating him.
It's always fun when a everyone in a cheesy action movie is taking it seriously.
+6
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
My favorite part of the Beauty & The Beast gay character controversy is that it's a movie that pretty openly suggests or supports bestiality, witchcraft, kidnapping, and patriarchal gender roles, starring one of the most openly-gay dudes in Hollywood, Luke Evans.
but hey
LeFou is kinda swishy
better not let the kiddos see that
+2
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I did really like how Mason in Kong isn't played as the franchise's traditional damsel, nor is she played as an ultra-badass. She's just a person, and everyone treats her like a person, and it's nice.
+3
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
edited March 2017
I did not know Owen Shaw was gay, or that a hollywood blockbuster actually didn't make Brie Larson super badass female trope.
My mind has been double blown as I chew Doublemint gum in a Doubletree hotel.
TexiKen on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
My favorite part of the Beauty & The Beast gay character controversy is that it's a movie that pretty openly suggests or supports bestiality, witchcraft, kidnapping, and patriarchal gender roles, starring one of the most openly-gay dudes in Hollywood, Luke Evans.
but hey
LeFou is kinda swishy
better not let the kiddos see that
Not having seen the new one. But LeFou in the first was played as a sycophant. He would be a 100% perfect example of the gaters who attack people and hold up some weird conception of manliness because they want to ride on the coattails of an ideal they can't achieve.
If Gad was good at bringing that out then that is almost certainly he is being attacked.
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
edited March 2017
Watched the Claude Rains Invisible Man today and was surprised to realize that he easily has the highest body count out of all the classic Universal Monsters. The Mummy, Dracula, the Wolf Man, Frankenstein, the Gill Man, they kill maybe a half dozen people in a movie, if that. I guess the Phantom of the Opera and the Hunchback of Notre Dame kill a bunch of people, but it's in the dozens at best.
The Invisible Man, meanwhile, racks up 120+ people in this movie. What's with all the C-list monsters being the most murderous?
Fakefaux on
+3
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
I did really like how Mason in Kong isn't played as the franchise's traditional damsel, nor is she played as an ultra-badass. She's just a person, and everyone treats her like a person, and it's nice.
How is the latest Kong from, like, racial perspective? Does it still have scary dark-skinned natives and stuff like the other Kongs?
No. It's actually got what's probably the most sensitive depiction of the natives of any Kong movie. They don't get to do much, but they're depicted with respect.
They're more East Asian/multiethnic. It doesn't really do anything with them, they're just... there. I think they wanted to avoid cutting them entirely but also to avoid the appearance of being racist. They're whisper thin, like the rest of the film's characters. edit- I suppose "whisper thin" is an accidental pun as they have no speaking parts.
Gvzbgul on
+1
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
They're more East Asian/multiethnic. It doesn't really do anything with them, they're just... there. I think they wanted to avoid cutting them entirely but also to avoid the appearance of being racist. They're whisper thin, like the rest of the film's characters. edit- I suppose "whisper thin" is an accidental pun as they have no speaking parts.
I wondered if the lack of dialogue was in part to avoid being offensive by having them speak pseudo-Vietnamese gobbledygook or something. Some South East Asian equivalent of the "oooga booga" dialogue of the natives from the original.
Posts
From what I've seen, Beauty & the Beast is almost verbatim the cartoon. So it's just pretty lazy to just remake a well loved cartoon when they could try something else with Beauty & the Beast. A quasi sequel where Belle leaves Beast and falls in love with a new beast who's like, a werewolf, and he sparkles in the sun.
Soooo a Twilight sequel? (Or is that the joke? Never seen the movies, working off of word of mouth here.)
I don't really count WDAS, I mean among everything else Walt Disney Pictures does. WDAS lives in their own little bubble under the mouse umbrella.
If I really look at the list there is more new things than I remember, but less than there used to be. But that's just the risk adverse nature of entertainment I suppose.
I imagine a decent amount of this reaction is because this time they're remaking things that were formative to me as a child, and not the things that were formative to my parents. What goes around.
I believe it's "brustle"
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Them becoming one of their own primary sources is new, and a bit weird, but I submit that a lot of the things that you, Knight, fondly remember were simply (to steal an old NBC tagline for their reruns) "new to YOU."
I did just say that, yea. But they were new in that animated format as well, and Disney removes a lot of the more grim aspects many of those fairy tales had, so they were at least generally reinterpreting the stories.
In these cases they are mostly just "play that same song again"ing themselves to the tune of a billion dollars a go.
You meant "eviscerate."
CGI Lumière is fucking nightmare fuel in those trailers.
So I think ultimately in my case, this live action version isn't really for me, but instead is for my young daughter, who is starting to take interests in many things (at the moment, it seems to be all the things I have in my little hobby room). There's worse ways to spend a rainy afternoon.
*GIS*
*recoils*
Oh dear god...
Also they added like, 40 minutes of supplemental story and changed a bunch of shit around.
It still hews incredibly close to the original, but there's enough there for someone who was familiar enough with the original to still get some value out of it.
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
yeah John C. Reilly was really good in general. He works well as the Puck character to take your mind off of horrendous disemboweling that you just saw a minute ago.
For that matter everyone was acting their asses off. John Goodman especially looking visibly terrified when Samuel L. Jackson was interrogating him.
It's always fun when a everyone in a cheesy action movie is taking it seriously.
but hey
LeFou is kinda swishy
better not let the kiddos see that
My mind has been double blown as I chew Doublemint gum in a Doubletree hotel.
that's at least 6 times blown
Not having seen the new one. But LeFou in the first was played as a sycophant. He would be a 100% perfect example of the gaters who attack people and hold up some weird conception of manliness because they want to ride on the coattails of an ideal they can't achieve.
If Gad was good at bringing that out then that is almost certainly he is being attacked.
If you watch it in 3D, is that 24 times mind blown?
that's not accounting for squares!
I have people that want to see it this weekend and based on what I am reading, I'm not sure I want to spend time and money on it.
The Invisible Man, meanwhile, racks up 120+ people in this movie. What's with all the C-list monsters being the most murderous?
The trailer was enough to make me nope out of it.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
hm ok I will see this hiddleston vehicle then
No. It's actually got what's probably the most sensitive depiction of the natives of any Kong movie. They don't get to do much, but they're depicted with respect.
I wondered if the lack of dialogue was in part to avoid being offensive by having them speak pseudo-Vietnamese gobbledygook or something. Some South East Asian equivalent of the "oooga booga" dialogue of the natives from the original.