I would like the salt on BatB 2017 if you would like to share 👀
Okay but.... let's just be clear that it's GROSSLY unfair because I haven't seen the whole movie, just a scene here and there. I am genuinely not interested in it for reasons listed below.
First off, I'm biased against all Disney live-action remakes on principle because they rely slavishly on references and callbacks to push the nostalgia button. They are, generally, afraid to depart too much from the original, except in ways in which they transparently attempt to shoehorn in "woke" moments. The whole effort is incredibly cynical and inauthentic, and the biggest problem with all of this is that these are often timeless stories which have SO MUCH POTENTIAL and can be told in so many ways, so WHY would they adhere so closely to one adaptation??? Further, when the movies are THIS similar, the remake can't help but suffer by comparison because it actually relies on familiarity with the original for its appeal in the first place. It's completely derivative from the beginning.
My feelings about this apply to all of the Disney remakes so far (that I've seen) with only one exception, and that's Kenneth Branagh's Cinderella. The reason that one works is because it does what none of the rest of them do, and that's adapt the Cinderella fairy tale instead of the Cinderella Disney movie. Yes, there are a few references, but the movie clearly stands on its own as a Cinderella story. You might never have seen the 1940s animated Cinderella, but you could enjoy the 2015 version and not feel you were missing anything. Even the iconic songs are replaced with one simple lullaby. Branagh just went out there and made his own Cinderella movie and it's a modern classic, IMO.
So, back to BATB 2017. The 1991 animated film was nominated for Best Picture that year, the first animated film ever to be so honored, and it went on to be adapted for a very successful Broadway show. So already while the live-action version had a high bar to live up to, it also had a lot of great material to draw from in the stage show. But then for some reason.... it just copies the animated movie, song-for-song, sometimes shot-for-shot. And.... the shots in the original are lovely, but they are the way they are BECAUSE of the medium. The storyboard artists in the 80s and 90s (specifically Chris Sanders and Brenda Chapman) were mostly animators before they were film directors. They composed shots for 2D animation. Working with a live-action set is VERY different, and things don't translate exactly. Something that is a stunning graphic in 2D can look cheap on film.
One of the ways that this problem shows up is in Belle's iconic golden dress (AND YES IT'S GOLD NOT YELLOW DON'T @ ME). I know most Tumblr folks are younger than I am, so let me just tell you that when I saw this movie in theaters in 1991, the whole audience went "Oooooooooo...." when Belle appeared in her ballgown at the top of the stairs. Like a loud, audible sigh. I can hear it in my mind right now. That image left audiences breathless. Emma's dress? Yeah, not so much. I mean, firstly, again, the yellow of the animated film is cartoon shorthand for gold, especially since you can also see they animated a shine onto the gown. Not that I think the live-action gown should have been lamé or anything but you can see from Cinderella 2015 that it's possible to make a gown appear to shine and sparkle without looking cheap. Then there's the boring neckline and lack of sleeves. I mean.... it's a prom dress silhouette??? Nothing about this screams FAIRY TALE PRINCESS to me. And of course much has been written about Emma's fEmInIsT refusal to wear a corset. And yes, I think they went too far with Lily's corset in Cinderella and that was not cool, but the fact of the matter is that corsets are what give period gowns their distinctive shape. And corsets are implied in the silhouettes of the animated films these new movies are based off of. So without it, and lacking anything else to give it the WOW-factor of the original, this dress is just visually dull at what is supposed to be the most romantic moment of the movie. Fairy tale fail.
Then, Emma's voice. I'm sorry, I'm so sorry, but I'm not a musically-skilled person AT ALL and even I cringe at the obvious auto-tuning. Whyyyyyy? I mean, first off, why did they even have to have the songs in this movie? Cinderella already proved that's not necessary. Second, if they WERE going to put the songs in the movie, why not hire the most talented singers they could, or give them all plenty of voice-training before filming? Because they MIGHT have gotten away with Emma's singing if the rest of the cast had been on her level, but when you have Luke Evans out there just BRINGING THE HEAT, and when you remember what the original with Paige O'Hara sounds like, poor Emma can't help but suffer by comparison. And then to auto-tune her is to just make even more obvious that her performance wasn't up to the standard they felt they needed. It's just uncomfortable. Further, auto-tuning loses the imperfections that actually carry most of the ACTING in a vocal performance, so it actually flattens the emotion of the song. This of course defeats the whole purpose of a song in film, which is to express emotions so strong that dialogue is not enough.
I have some other quibbles but those get into parts of the film that I honestly haven't seen, so I'll abstain. But let's just say that my main problem with BATB 2017 is that it didn't attempt to be an original retelling of Beauty & The Beast, and that's a shame because I think that could have been amazing. I might be in the minority but I truly enjoy the 2014 French film with Lea Seydoux, if only for the aesthetic.
I've really given up on Disney at this point. Right now they are just a nostalgia factory that keeps repackaging the same thing over and over. To me, the magic is gone.
