This morning I was greeted by throngs of notifications about the great new exciting clip from the Beauty and the Beast live action film. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again- this movie could be amazing. I hope it is but honestly I’m kind of upset about it right now. I hated the images of Lumiere and Cogsworth- especially Lumiere where you can’t see his face and he’s all rugged looking instead of smooth. He’s a candlestick which limits his expression as it is. We don’t need anything obscuring that expression.
Anyway, so what I was presented with today is a clip from the table reading. I guess I was supposed to be excited like the table read for Star Wars: Force Awakens which had Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford and others coming back to Star Wars. Unfortunately this table read not only didn’t excite me, it kind of ticked me off.
Force Awakens had a reason to be made. A large majority of people didn’t like the prequels and felt Star Wars hadn’t been good for a long time. And despite some similarities to previous films Force Awakens was a continuation of the story not a remake. With this Beauty and the Beast I’ve long scratched my head at why this needs to exist? Why when it is already been perfectly executed do we need a remake of the film?
Disney just gave me their answer and it kind of makes me mad…
Bill Condon says “When something is so perfect why get near it? The answer is technology has caught up with the ideas that were introduced in that movie”.
Are you kidding me?
This is basically Disney saying that the 2D animation that made them great isn’t a fully realized version of their great ideas. That they were restricted and now technology has expanded they can finally do their ideas justice. You know what? Those ideas were done justice. I never watched Beauty and the Beast and thought ‘boy if only they had greater technology this could be executed better.”
The Jungle Book gave us a new version of the Kipling story and the technology worked for that version of the story. If Condon had said “we now have the technology to tell a new take on the ideas” that would have been one thing but for him to say that “technology has caught up with the ideas” it makes me really mad. It says to me Disney sees 2D animation as quaint and old fashioned and technology/CG as a better way to execute the ideas of the past! Urgh!!!
I can’t be the only person in the world that was annoyed by this comment? And the fact Disney would use that quote to sell this movie is really discouraging and shows a lack of respect for the great artistry done in the 1991 film. It was certainly a good enough execution of the ideas to get the first animated Best Picture nomination and it was good enough to entrance millions of viewers.
Howard Ashman wrote and worked on Beauty and the Beast literally on his death bed. It is a masterpiece and a labor of love in every way I can think of. It was good enough to make AFI’s Top 10 Romantic Movies of all times list. Good enough to be many people’s favorite animated film including current CG films.
But I’m glad technology has finally caught up with Disney’s ideas of the past….
The truth is there is not reason to remake a movie which is the best animated movie of the 20th century. None. Which is pretty much the thumb role for remakes: If you don’t have anything to add, don’t do it, especially not if the original already was as close to perfect as a movie can be. There are a few Disney movies on which you can do a new take, but Beauty and the Beast isn’t one of them…especially when you consider how few really good adaptations of the story actually exist. It has been done so many time, but I can count the ones which deserve respect on one hand.
I agree and I found that reason of technology catching up to the ideas to be very frustrating. I need to see the other good versions I’ve heard but I agree. Why remake it? Evidently for Disney they can finally fully execute their vision…Sigh
You’re absolutely right – it’s a pretty stupid thing to say. Especially considering that some things actually come off better animated compared to live-action or CG: I’m concerned about how convincing the Beast is going to look. Besides, technology’s hardly the most important consideration – when I watched the remake of Cinderella, I appreciated the special effects but I was far more focussed on how the story and the characters were handled.
I completely agree. Like he could have talked about the great cast or new approach they were taking. The new songs adding something (even though I hate the idea of new songs). But no he said technology has finally caught up with the ideas at Disney. I agree with you. I pretty much always prefer the animation in comparison with live action or CG aesthetic.
I think this film might be good but I ‘m more excited for the three marvel movies, 2 Pixar movies and Star Wars 8 next year. Wait, no Disney canon!😢😢😢😢😢😢😢
It just makes me upset that they justify it by saying the technology has caught up with their ideas. The 2D animation was great in the original and didn’t need any catching up. I’m with you though on excitement for next year but wish we were getting Gigantic but 2 Pixar movies, Star Wars 8. And the more I see from Thor Ragnarok the more excited I am for that. Yippee!
I am more excited for guardians of the galaxy vol 2. And when I read your tweet that Disney probably won’t make any more 2d films, a little bit of me cried
Me too.I’m so sad. It’s just the director of Thor and that clip of him explaining why he wasn’t in Civil War that got me excited about Thor Ragnorok.
Kyle also agrees with you here, lol, as do all of us.
The concept art of Mrs. Potts and Chip have made me almost turn off all hope for this film.
I didnt know that had been released. Grrrrrr