Beauty and the Beast (Live-Action)

[Disney Duster]

And he really can't sing that well. And definately not as well as the Beast needs to be in this version based on the musical with more songs and higher notes for the Beast.

I was being facetious when I posted the "Dreamgirls" clip.

Oh, I didn't get that.

But given that he had accepted the role of Rapunzel's Prince in Into the Woods, (before dropping out to film Nightcrawler), that must mean that he either *has* the vocal ability to sing in a musical, or that like Chris Pine, he was willing to go through the training to *gain* that ability.

"Agony" is nowhere near as high as he needs for songs such as "If I Can't Love Her".

Plus, he sings kind of nice here:

He does.

Nowhere in my post did I say that the rose itself is a minor detail. I was talking about how long the rose would bloom as the minor detail. The Beast will no doubt have a deadline upon which he has to learn to love and gain their love, but the cinematic story does not (in my opinion) need such a specific and minor detail spoon-fed into the audience during Act 1. Setting the story towards the end of that deadline is detail enough. I don't expect (and certainly don't want) the screenplay to get bogged down with little nods to Disney-fanatic-esque speculations of "Is he 11 when he's cursed, and thus, he only has 10 years until he turns 21?" or "Does the rose bloom for 21 years, which means he's a beast that long? So how old is he?". These kind of details are ancillary information that would be beneficial to know in general (that's what fan canon is for), but not a necessity to include when trying to create a two-hour movie set during the final days (weeks?) of this curse; it's certainly not the most important thing within the core of the story anyway. A lesson about love is better learnt through a traditional idiom of "don't judge a book by its cover" rather than "An Enchanted Rose will give you either 10 or 21 years to find true love depending on who you ask."

Actually such information is very important. An 11 year old kid can't fall in romantic love, so how would any of the story work? Unless the enchantress means any kind of love, which I could buy. But the details matter, as I demonstrated.

[Escapay]

But the details matter, as I demonstrated.

No, you didn't.

You want details? Here's details:

The rose she had offered was truly an enchanted rose, which would bloom until his 21st year.

That's the only detail we get in the film and musical about the deadline for the rose. Everything else is stupid fan speculation about what "his 21st year" means. Is he 11 with 10 years to find love? Or is he 11 with 21 years to find love? Maybe he's already 21, and has 21 more years to find love? Why are we meant to care about a detail like that? We're told he has a deadline, "his 21st year," and that's enough to keep us interested. The story takes place as we near the end of it, why should we waste time establishing the why-fors of his curse and his age when all that matters in the story that will be told is how he's running out of time, just as he meets the girl who will ultimately be the one to break the spell. I'm not interested in a movie about Beast at whatever-age moping around the castle for oh-so-many years, simply to justify some vague notion of how old he really was, and how old he will be by the curse's end.

This back-and-forth discussion is veering very far away from my original intent in posting in this thread, which was simply to support the notion of Jake Gyllenhaal being cast as the Beast. I think he is a talented actor, would love to learn if he can sing in the register and intensity that the role requires, and don't find him too old for the part. Even if he were too old, I expect that ensuring he could perform the role at all would be a more important issue to the filmmakers than adhering to one criterion in their casting of the character based on a single, dubious line in the animated/Broadway prologue.

Sheesh.

Albert

[Disney Duster]

I disagree.

It certainly matters how old the prince is. He is supposed to be of an appropriate age to fall in love with a young girl/woman.

Everything else, I have explained already.

[Disney's Divinity]

I think he is a talented actor, would love to learn if he can sing in the register and intensity that the role requires, and don't find him too old for the part. Even if he were too old, I expect that ensuring he could perform the role at all would be a more important issue to the filmmakers than adhering to one criterion in their casting of the character based on a single, dubious line in the animated/Broadway prologue.

Albert

Honestly, age doesn't mean much when talking about actors. They're living lives of affluence and botox; they don't look their real ages anyway. Jake Gyllenhaal in his mid 30's could probably pull off mid to late 20's without any trouble if it was necessary. Not to mention how much the makeup and costume would disguise (or 3D?).

I was thinking earlier when UmbrellaFish was talking about Judi Dench as a possible Mrs. Potts (at least I think so, I can't remember any other cast confirmations) that I would love if they just brought in Angela Lansbury here. She was old enough for the part then, and definitely is now. I can't imagine anyone else singing "Beauty and the Beast" quite the same. But I do like Judi Dench, too. It's a shame Jerry Orbach passed a few years ago. Lumiere seems like he'd be the hardest to cast; whoever's playing him on the Broadway recording sounded awful to me, if I'm being honest.

[Escapay]

I think he is a talented actor, would love to learn if he can sing in the register and intensity that the role requires, and don't find him too old for the part. Even if he were too old, I expect that ensuring he could perform the role at all would be a more important issue to the filmmakers than adhering to one criterion in their casting of the character based on a single, dubious line in the animated/Broadway prologue.

Albert

Honestly, age doesn't mean much when talking about actors. They're living lives of affluence and botox; they don't look their real ages anyway. Jake Gyllenhaal in his mid 30's could probably pull off mid to late 20's without any trouble if it was necessary. Not to mention how much the makeup and costume would disguise (or 3D?).

I complete agree, which is why I find it baffling that anyone would think him too old for the part at all. And it's more than likely a given that whoever is cast as the Beast, we won't be seeing his natural face for the majority of the film anyway.

For what it's worth, the ages of Belle and Beast from well-known, non-Disney versions:

La Belle et la Bête (2014):
Beast - Vincent Cassel (48)
Belle - Léa Seydoux (25)

"Beauty and the Beast" (2012-Present):
Vincent - Jay Ryan (31 at show's debut)
Catherine - Kristin Kreuk (30 at show's debut)

Beastly (2011):
Kyle - Alex Pettyfer (21)
Lindy - Vanessa Hudgens (23)

"Beauty and the Beast" (1987-1990):
Vincent - Ron Perlman (37 at show's debut)
Catherine - Linda Hamilton (31 at show's debut)

Beauty and the Beast (1987):
Beast - John Savage (38)
Belle - Rebecca De Mornay (28)

"Faerie Tale Theatre: Beauty and the Beast" (1984):
Beast - Klaus Kinski (58)
Beauty - Susan Sarandon (38)

Beauty and the Beast (1976):
Beast - George C. Scott (49)
Belle - Trish Van Devere (33)

Beauty and the Beast (1962):
Eduardo - Mark Damon (29)
Althea - Joyce Taylor (30)

La Belle et la Bête (1946):
Beast - Jean Marais (33)
Belle - Josette Day (32)

Of course, I'm still baffled by the notion that my preference of Gyllenhaal in the role led to a ridiculously-circuitous debate about how old the Prince would be when he got cursed. The story already dictates that Beast won't discover love until he meets Belle at whatever age he is towards the end of the curse, so why is it so vital that the audience know what age he's cursed, what age he'll be when the curse is lifted, or how much time has passed?

I was thinking earlier when UmbrellaFish was talking about Judi Dench as a possible Mrs. Potts (at least I think so, I can't remember any other cast confirmations) that I would love if they just brought in Angela Lansbury here. She was old enough for the part then, and definitely is now. I can't imagine anyone else singing "Beauty and the Beast" quite the same. But I do like Judi Dench, too. It's a shame Jerry Orbach passed a few years ago. Lumiere seems like he'd be the hardest to cast; whoever's playing him on the Broadway recording sounded awful to me, if I'm being honest.

I definitely would prefer Lansbury to Dench in the role, especially as she's still quite active. (I'm going to see her in Blithe Spirit when it performs in D.C. in March!)

Barring Lansbury, if Joan Plowright hadn't retired from acting last year, I would have loved seeing her in the role.

Albert

[Disney Duster]

I can't believe the Fairy Tale Theatre version had a 58 old prince. I must admit, when I saw that version, that one was okay.

But, the footage and images I saw of Gyllenhaal lately made him look like an old man and too creepy for a young woman, or if Belle is 17, then especially for her at that age.

Age and the curse specifics really matter. Is 11 really the right age for the enchantress to judge a person to need to be taught a lesson? Should he be 15 or 18 or 21, when he is more of an adult and more developed and we can think he's old enough for someone to judge what kind of person he really is? And the rose blooms for 6 or 7 or 10 years until he is 21 or 25 or 31? And then, even though it shouldn't matter how old someone is to love someone else (well, barring anyone under 17), it can't be too creepy to have certain ages with each other. And I just think Gyllenhaal, as I have seen him lately, would look way too creepy with Watson.

The story already dictates that Beast won't discover love until he meets Belle at whatever age he is towards the end of the curse

No it doesn't! The curse never said that he would only find love towards the end of it!

[Escapay]

Age and the curse specifics really matter. Is 11 really the right age for the enchantress to judge a person to need to be taught a lesson? Should he be 15 or 18 or 21, when he is more of an adult and more developed and we can think he's old enough for someone to judge what kind of person he really is? And the rose blooms for 6 or 7 or 10 years until he is 21 or 25 or 31?

You are *still* missing my point. I've said it thrice already, must I say it again?

Beauty and the Beast, the movie, is set within a specific timeframe, namely the final days/weeks before the "his 21st year" deadline. As that is the story that is being presented, any "story" before or after this is ancillary information. It's not necessary to know, and does not (in my opinion) take away any understanding of what the story is that *is* being presented.

Thus, while details like "the age of the Prince when he's cursed" and "how long the curse has been enacted" may better help an audience who has no idea what they're watching, I do not view them as necessary. Why should they be? The prologue lets us know all we need to know. I'm not going to the theatre to see a prequel called The Prince Gets Cursed And Mopes In His Castle For (Insert Number) Years. I'm going to the theatre to see Beauty and the Beast.

The story already dictates that Beast won't discover love until he meets Belle at whatever age he is towards the end of the curse

No it doesn't! The curse never said that he would only find love towards the end of it!

We are talking about a live-action remake of a Broadway play based on an animated film that came out 23 years, 2 months, and 11 days ago. It's pretty set in stone how this story will play out. Just because the curse doesn't "say" anything about when he'll find love doesn't mean I don't know when to expect it.

I already know what will happen. The movie's existed long enough. I already know that by the time that the audience joins this story-already-in-progress, the Beast will have already been a Beast long enough to have generally accepted he will not find love. I already know that he'll make Maurice his prisoner. I already know that Belle will offer to trade places. I already know that The Enchanted Rose has already begun to wilt. I already know that he'll let her go. I already know that she'll come back. I already know that he'll transform back into a human adult male.

So why do I need to know how old he was when he was cursed? Why do I need to know how many years he was cursed? Why do I need to speculate on whether he was 11 years old or 16 or 37 or 4? What good does it do me when watching Beauty and the Beast to know every little thing about the "Beast before Beast" life? Why do I need to know any more than what the prologue so succinctly and eloquently told me?

Once upon a time, in a faraway land, a young Prince lived in a shining castle. Although he had everything his heart desired, he Prince was spoiled, selfish, and unkind. But then, one winter's night, an old beggar-woman came to the castle, and offered him a single rose in return for shelter from the bitter cold. Repulsed by her haggard appearance, the Prince sneered at the gift and turned the old woman away, but she warned him not to be deceived by appearances, for beauty is found within. And when he dismissed her again, the old woman's ugliness melted away to reveal a beautiful Enchantress. The Prince tried to apologize, but it was too late, for she had seen that there was no love in his heart. And as punishment, she transformed him into a hideous Beast, and placed a powerful spell on the castle, and all who lived there. Ashamed of his monstrous form, the Beast concealed himself inside his castle, with a magic mirror as his only window to the outside world. The rose she had offered was truly an enchanted rose, which would bloom until his 21st year. If he could learn to love another, and earn her love in return, by the time the last petal fell, then the spell would be broken. If not, he would be doomed to remain a beast for all time. As the years passed, he fell into despair, and lost all hope. For who could ever learn to love a Beast?

That's all the detail I need.

I can see why you would want to have all these extra details; I know you like having more "story" to invest within. And that's not a bad thing, it helps someone to better appreciate the fictional world that's been created. But for the love of Howard Ashman, when will you understand that I'm thinking about this from a filmmaking perspective? A movie has a much more limited time to craft a story that an audience can follow without bogging them down with every little detail just for the sake of having those details. The story that they want to tell is that of Beauty meeting the Beast and the two of them learning to love each other. Anything regarding events before or after this main story is expendable, and yes, that includes how old he was when he was cursed. If they show it, so be it, but I don't see why it's a necessity when the prologue that exists has already done it right.

Albert

[Disney Duster]

I've already explained why the details matter. They could even be slipped in the prologue. "But then, one winter's night, when the prince had turned 18...", and, "...the rose would bloom until his 25th birthday" and "seven years we've been rusting". Or, they could work out the details and not even tell the audience, but they would be worked out for quality's sake. Like the fact Belle is decided to be 17 (if she really is).

But details still matter. Background information, if done right, and in the right dose, improves films instead of hinders them.

[Disney's Divinity]

I guess I can see both sides, since it wouldn't be hard to slip 5 or so words about his age in there. That said, if they are following the musical (and, by extension, the film), I don't think it will be a big deal if they don't make those details clear either. Since the film re-starts in medias res with "Belle," we know he'll have been alive for at least 21 years by the end, which is old enough to be an adult and fall in love. I don't think it really matters if he was cursed at 11 years old. If he was spoiled enough and had been given enough power to leave an old beggar woman out in the freezing cold at 11 years old, most people would not disagree that he deserves to be punished. And even if that meant he is almost twice Belle's age, who cares?

[Disney Duster]

I would be okay with the original, too, as long as the filmakers decided he was really 11 when cursed and was 21 when the rose began to wilt. And 21 is not much older than 17, so I'm ok with that, too. An 11 year old couldn't fall in love, but just a few years and he'd be 14 and ready to fall in love, and those 3 years before so could be intended punishment from the enchantress. Just need an actor who looks, acts, and can sing the 21 year old part, which I don't think is Gyllenhaal.

[Hogi Bear]

I'm just going to chime in with my thoughts on the matter.

Based off the movie, I was under the impression that no one in the castle aged or that time had slowed. One thing to support this is Chip being so young and why did it take so long for Maurice to get home. In the song Be Our Guest it is stated that they have been rusting for 10 years, however this number may have been one that Lumiere just pulled out of the air, which is also true in regards to the rusting (He's singing in the moment). It also seems that Belle has never heard of a castle being near by and could easily be a forgotten piece of history. The prologue also says that if the curse is not broken, he would remain a beast for all time.

I haven't seen the stage production, so I can't comment on that.

It'll be interesting to see how they handle it anyway.

[Prince Edward]

I really would not want the Beast to be played by an actor who looks like he is 21 years old. I would much rather prefer it if someone handsome and charming in their 30's (like Chris Hemsworth) played the part, instead of some 21 year old pretty boy. The Beast should be older then Belle, he should be masculine (but at the same time tender) and in human form he should be a handsome MAN and not a sweet, young looking "boy".

I think the casting of Emma Watson was unfortunate, not only because she is not a great actress in my eyes - but because she looks to young. She looks like the cute girl next door (who is always moping and looking unhappy), not like a beautiful mature woman. Belle looks like one of the oldest and most mature of the Disney princesses in my eyes, just like Pocahontas, Cinderella and Aurora. The casting of Elle Fanning as Aurora in Maleficent was also unfortunate in my opinion, because she looks like she is 13 years old - while the Aurora in the classic looks like she is 25 years old, and should have been played by a beautiful, more adult looking woman.

Another thing about the plot and timeframe of the original classic that does not make sense, is the painting of the Prince that the Beast destroys in the beginning of the movie and that Belle discovers later. That is NOT the painting of an 11 year old boy, but of a mature man - it looks like prince Adam as we see him in his human form at the end of the movie. How could he have been painted as a grown up man, if he had been a Beast for many years?

[DisneyFan09]

The casting of Elle Fanning as Aurora in Maleficent was also unfortunate in my opinion, because she looks like she is 13 years old - while the Aurora in the classic looks like she is 25 years old, and should have been played by a beautiful, more adult looking woman.

Well said.

Elle Fanning looks wasn't her only flaw, she lacks charisma and screen presence.

[Disney Duster]

The ages of everyone freezing in time could also work. Have the prince get cursed at 21 or around that, and the curse lasts 10 years, right when Belle discovers the castle.

The prince in the movie looks 21 to me, not 30. I wouldn't mind someone who looks like they are in their late 20's. I think Emma Watson looks old enough to be the Belle from the film.

[Hogi Bear]

You know another interesting way to look at it too, is at the point that 10 years is stated. Now, if we say 10 years is true at the time of the singing of Be Our Guest. We then have Belle go into the West Wing and see our Enchanted Rose, which has quite a few petals. So provided that all the petals don't fall off in a short period, close to end of the curse, it would indicate that the curse is only part way through. This would however mean that the castle is in a time bubble or caught in an alternative dimension, so that time in relation to the castle and the village/rest of the World may not be linked. The curse could have been activated many years ago and someone entering the Bubble reconnects it to the World and so 11 years (time left for the curse) is not 11 years in the real World.

For example, this curse could have been cast 30 years. Our castle then is detached from our time and 10 years pass in castle time. We then have Maurice come into the castle, which could reconnect it to the World and change its time relation. Time then apears to go faster in castle time in comparison to World time.

One thing to support this is Chip being so young and why did it take so long for Maurice to get home

PS Just realised too, that I meant Maurice traveling to the castle not the village. Which doesn't make as much sense to my argument.

[Sotiris]

Disney Offers Ryan Gosling “Beauty And The Beast"
http://www.tracking-board.com/tb-exclus ... the-beast/

[Disney Duster]

I haven't seen Ryan Gosling's acting enough to know if he'd be a good choice, but to me he's partially a bad choice because he doesn't look the part to me.

You know another interesting way to look at it too, is at the point that 10 years is stated. Now, if we say 10 years is true at the time of the singing of Be Our Guest. We then have Belle go into the West Wing and see our Enchanted Rose, which has quite a few petals. So provided that all the petals don't fall off in a short period, close to end of the curse, it would indicate that the curse is only part way through. This would however mean that the castle is in a time bubble or caught in an alternative dimension, so that time in relation to the castle and the village/rest of the World may not be linked. The curse could have been activated many years ago and someone entering the Bubble reconnects it to the World and so 11 years (time left for the curse) is not 11 years in the real World.

For example, this curse could have been cast 30 years. Our castle then is detached from our time and 10 years pass in castle time. We then have Maurice come into the castle, which could reconnect it to the World and change its time relation. Time then apears to go faster in castle time in comparison to World time.

I think it would be more like this - the curse lasts 10 real years, but everyone stays the same age during the curse.

Too keep the original prologues "21st year" line, and keep the prince looking the same as he did in that picture and at an age when it would be suitable for him to be judged as what kind of person he is, and be of age to fall in love, the curse could be said to last 21 years. So 21 real years the curse lasts, but the prince stays 21 all those 21 years. The only problem is in "Be Our Guest" they say "ten years" instead of "21 years". Hence, while perhaps not the best age, 11 years old might be when the prince has to get cursed, and he ages to 21. They'll just have to make the prince look 11 in the ripped portrait of him in his bedroom.

By the way, Hogi Bear, your avatar creeps me out so much. For a long time. Why did you superimpose a bug over a beautiful Disney drawn image from Brother Bear?

[Hogi Bear]

But at the 10 year mark the rose is still quite full (i haven't busted out the disc to check how full though). We don't know how much time actually passes after Be Our Guest and an extra 11 years does seem a stretch, but if the castle is stuck in some type of dimension or whatever, that could explain that. The seasons do seem to pass quite quickly around the castle and no one in the village seems to be aware that they are missing. At the end of the day though, I think many of these things are things people (Disney) missed or just smudged during creation. In the commentary (or/and making of) they admitted themselves that they didn't know where Maurice was and he could be visiting the pyramids on the way back.

By the way, Hogi Bear, your avatar creeps me out so much. For a long time. Why did you superimpose a bug over a beautiful Disney drawn image from Brother Bear?

I guess I decided to be a bit different. It's a New Zealand insect called the Weta (if you are interested in knowing), also used by Weta Digital. Sorry, I guess I never really thought about how people may react to it. I'll fish out the original Brother Bear image, it's here somewhere, unless I find something else.

[DisneyFan09]

Ryan Gosling as the Beast isn't a unusual choice, considering that I can imagine him to be beastly and isn't classically handsome. But the latter issue is unfortunate though, for shallow reasons (sorry, but I couldn't help it).

[disneyprincess11]

Hmmm....Ryan isn't bad of a singer and actually has what it takes to hit the notes for the Beast. Ok, I approve.