Disney Movies and TV Shows Discussion

[rodiziorobs]

Thanks for the trailer, I hadn't seen it yet. The series looks like it will succeed on being reminiscent of the original without trying to be the original. I'm in.

Wait, only on cable? Crap. Maybe it will eventually make its way to Netflix...

[rodiziorobs]

Guess I'll double post...

I saw Beauty and the Beast over the weekend, and my earlier thoughts on it weren't unfounded. I feel since it is deliberately so similar that it practically begs to be compared to the 1991 cartoon which, overall, did it better. Where the new version differs, it shines, but where it mimics it generally falls flat.

Specific notes are in the spoiler below.

Anyway, the movie exceeded my expectations, and despite my grumbings I actually thought it was pretty good; I wouldn't mind seeing it again. The supporting cast is excellent, and the changes made overall are fitting. It does have its issues, though, most of which come from an unfavorable direct comparison to the cartoon and a miscast lead.

Pros: Stanley Tucci, countless widows, Days in the Sun, the delightful omission of Human Again, Maurice, best beast transformation, Mr. Potts.

Cons: Chekhov's music box, I've Grown Accustomed to her Only Facial Expression, Take a Ride on the Magic Book, It's All Been Done Before.

3.5/5.

 

The supporting cast is great--every one of them. The visual effects on the household items/characters is well done, in fact it's a bit of a let down when they change back into humans because they fit their characters better as animations.

In with that I'll include the castle itself. The effects of the castle crumbling as petals fall is a nice detail.

Like the castle staff, the villagers are great. Maurice in particular is terrific, and Gaston and LeFou absolutely own every single scene they are in. The changes to both characters I feel fit them well, and they were both acted superbly. Only the hag/enchantress is disappointing, but that's probably because she really doesn't have much to do.

As for the leads, eh...that's where the movie fails to shine, settling instead for being merely fine. Adequate. Unsurprisingly, a big part of that is the music.

The musical numbers performed wholly by side characters (Maurice's song at the beginning, the Gaston song, and new addition "Days in the Sun"--the best of the new ones--are all wonderful, well-realized, and enjoyable to watch.

However, the songs with the leads are less than great. The beast's new song, while done well, is written too much like a standard musical theater male lead remorse song that are a dime a dozen in musicals: the rhythm, the phrasing, the melody and accompaniment were way too cliche. It felt like watching the Secret Garden, which isn't a compliment. But again, it was perfectly adequate. Forgiveably, it's just one song, and the beast is generally just as good (or better) than in the cartoon, so I'll give him a pass. He acts well, the CGI on him works most of the time, and the beast transformation scene at the end is much better in live-action.

The real missed opportunity here is Emma Watson. The auto-tuning and obvious lip-synching on her singing is continuously distracting. It's a constant reminder that you've heard this all before, and better, like when a band on the radio covers a Beatles song: not necessarily bad, but far enough behind in performance you wonder if they should have even tried.

Also, my wife pointed out that it is obvious when she is reacting against people vs. CGI. When she interacts with other characters in costume (Gaston or Maurice or post-transformation beast, for example), she seems more genuine than while interacting with CGI environments or characters, where she seems flat and Frodo-esque. This is especially obvious during many the castle scenes with dinner, the library, and a lot of scenes with the beast. While there are some actors who can carry a scene really well with an imaginary environment they can't see, it seems she isn't one of them. I have thought for awhile that Emma Watson is a little overrated, and this does nothing to change my mind about that.

An interesting thought I had is that if this movie had been more arranged like a recorded stage play it might have been fantastic. I think I could have overlooked all of its flaws and fallen in love with a bold move like that. It would have been unique, and a great way to frame the whole story while still keeping the high production value. This thought occurred to me during the closing credits, which are arranged kind of like a playbill/curtain call. Alas.

Edited March 23, 2017 by rodiziorobs
Thwarted Spoiler Formatting

[Oky]

I saw the film too and my feelings towards it have not changed from before either as I still have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, it is a fairly well made film with a good cast, good effects, and great production design, but the fact that it is a remake of a virtually flawless film still makes it seem pointless and makes it hard not to compare the two, especially when most of the movie is remade shot-for-shot. I did like most of the changes they made as they do help fill in a few gaps in the story, but they don't really justify this remake. LeFou being gay actually made him a more complex and endearing character. In fact, him and Gaston might be my favorite part of the film. I actually disagree with you about Belle and Maurice. I really like Emma Watson and thought she did a fine job, while Maurice was pretty bland aside from one or two scenes compared to his quirky cartoon counterpart. Making him an artist/toy maker and having Belle be the inventor added nothing to her character and just made Maurice more boring. But yeah, the new songs were pretty forgettable and the dissonance between the CGI and live action was distracting at times, especially the digital effects on Beast's face and voice, which obviously affects the acting of anyone interacting with the CGI and breaks the immersion, just like in most movies that involve extensive CGI. In fact, the visuals were the worst part for me due to the Hollywood trend of sucking every ounce of color out of movies in an attempt to make them "more realistic and edgy", which is a big problem when the visuals are the biggest difference from the original. When compared to the cartoon, the movie looks very lifeless and and not enchanting at all. Some of the characters even looked kinda creepy. The fact that the projector in the theater that I saw it in seemed to be darker than it was supposed to be didn't help. Obviously a cartoon is going to have more color than a live action film, but seriously, just look at how drab some of these scenes look!

So yeah, when I want to watch Beauty and the Beast again, I will stick with the original. I only went to see this remake with my parents because the original is my mother's favorite Disney movie, and while I did enjoy it, I think it was mostly because of nostalgia for the superior original. I hate how Disney is treating their classic hand-drawn animation as an obsolete art form and is remaking everything in live action as if there was something wrong with the originals being hand-drawn. In my opinion, the hand-crafted animation only made them better. But despite all the boycotts and all our whining, the movie killed it at the box office, so there is no foreseeable end to these remakes.

[xboxtravis7992]

6 hours ago, rodiziorobs said:

The real missed opportunity here is Emma Watson. The auto-tuning and obvious lip-synching on her singing is continuously distracting. It's a constant reminder that you've heard this all before, and better, like when a band on the radio covers a Beatles song: not necessarily bad, but far enough behind in performance you wonder if they should have even tried.

Yes... That was one of the main issues of the film. Emma handled the acting well I thought. But the singing? Oh gosh the auto tune was painfully obvious. They should have not put so much effort into modifying her voice. I would rather have listened to a natural but sub par voice, than an unnatural computerized voice. 

As for the film, I agree with Oky that the feeling it left me was mixed. It was a well done movie, but... it just lacked the charm of the original. I liked some of the small character retcons that were made, but in the end they felt like supplemental information that could have been better suited for a theme park ride or a companion book (for example, the plot involving what happened to Belle's mother, or setting the film firmly in the early 1800's). The CGI definitely made it hard to connect to the side cast, with so many talented actors and performers (Ewan McGregor, Ian McKellin, Emma Thompson, Audra McDonald) it seemed their talent was wasted in the unexpressive lifeless stare of their character's CGI models (should it also be noted Ewan, Emma Thompson, and Audra all sang better than almost anybody else in the cast?)

Oddly enough, like rodiziorobs, my favorite parts of the story were with Gaston, LeFou, and Maurice! Gaston was more intimidating than his cartoon version, attempting to murder Maurice, firing shots at the Beast, and playing up the villain role rather well. The LeFou "controversy" was over-hyped in my opinion, and the changed character motivation gives a lot of explanation as to why he hangs around with Gaston so much. In fact with how the media played up the LeFou thing in the weeks before the film, I was surprised it was so subtle in the actual film. Maurice, was more subdued; and more understandable than his animated counterpart I thought. I just wish he had built some more out there inventions like his cartoon version did... since that music box looked a bit tame to his "Steam Machine of Death" from the original. 

But yeah... the Belle and Beast stuff felt old, tired, been there done that type of thing. I have seen the original film dozens of times, seen the live stage show, seen the characters in theme parks; etc. Belle and Beast has been done to death. Even the best acting moments from Watson and the guy who did Beast, weren't enough to overcome the staleness of most of their interactions (although I got to admit Beast's quip about "some of the books are in Greek" was actually memorable... Kind of the new moments I was hoping from them instead of more of the same...) 

2 hours ago, Oky said:

So yeah, when I want to watch Beauty and the Beast again, I will stick with the original. I only went to see this remake with my parents because the original is my mother's favorite Disney movie, and while I did enjoy it, I think it was mostly because of nostalgia for the superior original. I hate how Disney is treating their classic hand-drawn animation as an obsolete art form and is remaking everything in live action as if there was something wrong with the originals being hand-drawn. In my opinion, the hand-crafted animation only made them better. But despite all the boycotts and all our whining, the movie killed it at the box office, so there is no foreseeable end to these remakes.

And yeah, here is my big problem with all of this. At the end of the film I to am asking, "Why?" What did the remake achieve other than make quick cash? How could this in anyway be better than the animated original? How?? Its not that I mind that Disney is remaking some of their animated films into live action, what I mind is that their pipeline seems to be full of dozens of more films like this in only a few more years. Do we really need a live action version of the Lion King? Aladdin? Mulan? Hercules? The Little Mermaid? Snow White? Pinocchio? With the amount of CGI being thrown into the films, are they even live action at all? (Jungle Book being the most extreme example of that...) How much longer must this go on?

[Oky]

32 minutes ago, xboxtravis7992 said:

Its not that I mind that Disney is remaking some of their animated films into live action, what I mind is that their pipeline seems to be full of dozens of more films like this in only a few more years. Do we really need a live action version of the Lion King? Aladdin? Mulan? Hercules? The Little Mermaid? Snow White? Pinocchio? With the amount of CGI being thrown into the films, are they even live action at all? (Jungle Book being the most extreme example of that...) How much longer must this go on?

Yeah, I actually don't mind them remaking some of their older movies as they do feel a bit outdated and the animation is only as good as the budget at the time allowed it, especially movies like Dumbo that also had some offensive racial stereotypes, but anything from the Disney Renaissance does not need an update. The only remake of Mulan I'd be interested to see would be an R-rated martial arts movie version, but that's obviously not going to happen.

And yeah, with the amount of CGI in these movies, it's hard to even call them live action. I can't imagine a "live action" Lion King to be anything more than just another animated Lion King, but with more realistic rendering, in which case what's the point? Who cares if the lions look a bit more realistic? It just takes away all the charm and expressiveness of the characters.

Oh well, as long as they keep producing great animated films along with these remakes, I'll be alright. Speaking of which, we got our first trailer for Coco in front of this movie and it looks very good! It still feels thematically similar to The Book of Life, but seems to have a lot more of a Ratatouille vibe. That bridge looks friggin gorgeous!

 

[xboxtravis7992]

You know when you mentioned, "Old, outdated, and offensive stereotypes;" another Disney movie came to mind... You know, the one with the $75 million dollar ride in Critter Country that most people don't even know is based on a Disney movie... I bet Disney would never touch that film again though for a remake with a 20 foot long pole! 

Also speaking of remakes, if Disney ever does Who Framed Roger Rabbit again but with CGI cartoon figures that will break my Disney fan spirit completely! 

[rodiziorobs]

I agree completely with @Oky on the upcoming "live-action" Lion King. It's like how they touted the Jungle Book remake as live action and then showed that the only thing that actually went in front of a camera was Mowgli. I hadn't thought of it before you said it, but I think you're right about these remakes essentially being Disney's way of hanging their old classics out to dry as obsolete, which is sad. I like the innate expressiveness of hand-drawn, where "good" doesn't have to equate to "photorealistic." Not that Disney's recent offerings are bad, but rather than making cinema-as-art they seem all too content to make cinema-by-accountancy. It makes the works less endearing, less charming, and less risky. By definition, the movies aren't bad because they are calculated not to be; they are a finely polished version of adequate, but rarely daring or memorable (especially compared to their animated ancestors). They are perfectly fine, watchable, and may include some fantastic added details here and there, yet ultimately they feel somewhat rote and hollow.

But, like you said, when Disney can make All The Money, it won't stop. Heck, all of us who saw Beauty and the Beast opening weekend did our part to ensure that. Let's just hope that somewhere in the inevitable onslaught of "live action" cartoons we can find one or two that are truly magical while we enjoy all the rest of the good.

Edited March 24, 2017 by rodiziorobs
For clarity

[AyliffeMakit]

So Wreck-It Ralph 2 has a new name...

oh dear

oh dearie me

[npgcole]

"Ralph Breaks the Internet: Wreck-It Ralph 2"

Hmm. Meh, not nearly long enough of a title.

Oh, I just can't wait for Ralph to discover the wonderful world of memes.

Yeah, he'll be beggin' to go back.

[Oky]

So has anyone else watched Cars 3? I just got back from seeing it and it was actually very good. I'd even say it's the best one in the trilogy because I was invested in the characters a lot more than in the other two movies. While I wasn't a huge fan of the first movie, it was nice to see the franchise focus on Lightning and racing again. As an adult you can really relate to the struggle he is going through, and the new character Cruz Ramirez had a lot of heart too. She starts out kind of annoying, but the more her character gets developed, the more you start to like her. I found myself caring about the characters so much that I forgot that I was watching a movie about anthropomorphic cars and it actually made me want to pick up some of the Juniors sets. The story is pretty predictable, but it has a good message and a lot of heartfelt moments in it. I've seen a lot of bad reviews for this film, but anyone who says that it's the same as the first movie or that it's "feminist propaganda" completely missed the point of the movie. And if you really thought that they were going to kill off or severely injure Lightning, the highly popular main character of this series, based on the teaser trailer, you will be disappointed. It may not be among Pixar's best movies (it's still a Cars movie after all) but I definitely recommend you check it out. The preceding short "Lou" was great too.

Speaking of shorts, is anyone else disappointed that their next movie "Coco" will have a Frozen short attached to it? I don't hate Frozen and maybe we've just gotten spoiled with all the Pixar shorts, but this is breaking a long time tradition and just seems like a lazy cash grab from Disney. Hopefully this is just a one-time exception while they are getting their new experimental shorts division set up.

Also, what is your opinion of the new DuckTales intro? I love how it pays homage to the original Carl Barks comics and the remixed theme song isn't too bad either! Good luck trying to get it out of your head for the rest of the day.

 

[Forresto]

I just watched the live action Beauty and the Beast...I won't rail on it too much for those who did enjoy it but I have never left a movie more frustrated before. I didnt even have any expectations for what the movie should be, I just went in hoping to at the least be entertained for two hours, but all the additions to the story and the new songs just made the whole thing a jumbled mess. There was also waaaaaaay too much CGI that made me feel like the whole world they created was lifeless. As a massive fan of 18th century fashion, and having adored Cinderella's costumes, I was really disappointed by the costumes in this. Even on the nice clothing the fabrics felt fake and cheap. 

Edited June 25, 2017 by Forresto

[Robert8]

On 3/23/2017 at 2:28 PM, Oky said:

In fact, the visuals were the worst part for me due to the Hollywood trend of sucking every ounce of color out of movies in an attempt to make them "more realistic and edgy"

Ugh I hate that

The last part of the Harry Potter franchise was severely affected by this. Sometimes, I could barely what was going on

[Oky]

4 minutes ago, Robert8 said:

Ugh I hate that

The last part of the Harry Potter franchise was severely affected by this. Sometimes, I could barely what was going on

True, although I think that it actually worked in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt.2 as it served a purpose there. It showed how depressing and unpleasant Hogwarts had become under the control of Voldemort when compared to how bright and colorful it was in the first few movies. Also, most of the movie did take place at night, so it makes sense that it was so dark.

In Beauty and the Beast, it could have worked if they would have made the castle look dark and ominous in the beginning and then used more and more color as the relationship between Belle and the Beast developed, and then maybe desaturated it again during the climax, to set the mood and mirror the Beast's feelings. But instead they just make it look depressing all the way through so that you expect a Dementor to pop up at any moment.

[xboxtravis7992]

I know this isn't a theme park discussion, but anyone else a little shocked by Disney's announcement of more upcoming changes to the original Pirates of the Caribbean ride in the theme parks? Yes the wench auctioneer scene was never the most politically correct part of the ride; but it was also one of the most iconic ("We wants the red head!")... But to reset the scene completely and change it seems to be one of the dumbest decisions in theme parks I have seen Disney make recently. Its even stranger because the films made no attempts to be politically correct, with far more innuendo laced jokes in them than the original ride had when it opened! Seems a bit of a double standard to me for Disney to have a very PG-13 film series, while simultaneously changing the ride so much it is almost entering G rated territory... There is a part of me hoping Disney backtracks on this idea, or comes back 10 years after the change and restores it to its original set. If this change was only happening at the Paris or even the Florida versions I would not mind to much, but to think the Disneyland version is getting it too is frustrating. This is the last ride Walt Disney worked on personally before his death; with so many changes to it already at what point is it no longer the ride Walt had envisioned?

[Darkdragon]

5 minutes ago, xboxtravis7992 said:

This is the last ride Walt Disney worked on personally before his death; with so many changes to it already at what point is it no longer the ride Walt had envisioned?

It was my favorite ride at Disneyland. I went on it again after the movie changes started (2006) and was extremely disappointed in the many changes already. If I ever go back to the park, I don't think I'll be waiting in the 45+ minute line for that one again.

[Robert8]

I think there should be 2

The original one and a newest version based on the movies. 

That way, the page homage to Walt Disney's last work.

Pretty sure Disney can afford that

[TheBrickPal]

DuckTales reboot premiere was fantastic. I highly recommend it to fans of the original, or anyone just looking for a fun cartoon!

[Oky]

On 8/12/2017 at 0:17 PM, TheBrickPal said:

DuckTales reboot premiere was fantastic. I highly recommend it to fans of the original, or anyone just looking for a fun cartoon!

Agreed! The pacing had some issues and the show seems to be a bit more concerned with comedy and the family drama than the adventure (the fact that they skipped over an entire action sequence just for comedic effect was a bit jarring and disappointing), but it's definitely a very enjoyable new version of this classic. The fact that they name-dropped Cape Suzette, Spoonerville, and St. Canard within the first 3 mins alone made me happy. It gives me hope that Darkwing will indeed have a cameo at some point. The new personalities of the characters are great as they all have their flaws and strengths. I especially like that they made Donald the everyduck who just tries to provide for his nephews and doesn't like Scrooge just like in the comics. And that cliffhanger at the end was certainly intriguing!

[Digger of Bricks]

The first teaser for 2018's sequel to The Incredibles will be attached to Disney Pixar's Coco, premiering in theaters on Nov. 22.

Screen Rant - The Incredibles 2 Teaser Trailer to Premiere with Coco

It may give us our first idea of what to expect from the three tie-in Juniors sets for next year. 

[Digger of Bricks]

Here's the first teaser for Disney Pixar's Incredibles 2. It doesn't though give us much of a preview of what to expect from the upcoming Juniors sets next year, so we'll just have to wait a little longer for that. 

 

[Oky]

I actually love that this is a throwback to the classic Pixar teaser trailers which featured exclusive animation for the trailer and didn't give anything away about the actual film, even if this is not nearly as good as those classic teasers which were almost like a short film of their own. I hope they are bringing this tradition back. Too many trailers give too much away nowadays and having exclusive animation makes them that much more special.

So I guess we can now add heat vision and electricity to Jack-Jack's already vast list of powers which makes him even more OP than Superman. I'm guessing that he will eventually develop his own powers based on his personality like the other Supers and lose all the other powers as he grows up.

I'm excited to see what direction this film will take!

[xboxtravis7992]

It didn't give us much other than a crazy reminder at how much Pixar's skill and abilities have increased since the first film... Like seriously, they probably used the old CGI models for reference then built new ones up with new texturing. The wrinkles around Mr. Incredible's eyes being an example of what I mean.

[Oky]

15 hours ago, xboxtravis7992 said:

It didn't give us much other than a crazy reminder at how much Pixar's skill and abilities have increased since the first film... Like seriously, they probably used the old CGI models for reference then built new ones up with new texturing. The wrinkles around Mr. Incredible's eyes being an example of what I mean.

True, although I have mixed feelings about it. Sure, Pixar's photorealistic rendering nowadays looks impressive, but The Incredibles had a minimalistic stylized look about it which was highlighted by the highly stylized end credits. adding all these realistic details kind of undermines that (no pun intended). It looks a bit odd to me, but the character designs seem to be mostly the same though, so it might grow on me.

[legonerd54321]

On 11/18/2017 at 11:29 PM, xboxtravis7992 said:

It didn't give us much other than a crazy reminder at how much Pixar's skill and abilities have increased since the first film... Like seriously, they probably used the old CGI models for reference then built new ones up with new texturing. The wrinkles around Mr. Incredible's eyes being an example of what I mean.

Did you see his shirt??? IT HAS SHIRT FIBERS!

[PicnicBasketSam]

Coco opens in the United States today, but I'm not going to see it because of the 23-minute Frozen TV special (with FIVE songs, and mostly focused on Olaf, who I find quite obnoxious) that's packaged before it. Not only am I scared off by that alone, that also means I'm sitting in a theater for two and a half hours for a Pixar movie I'm not actually all that interested in despite the rave reviews, and that's not a time commitment I'm willing to make on a holiday weekend.

I'm probably watch it on DVD, unless I can be convinced that Coco's good enough to warrant sitting through that to watch.