DVDizzy Forum

There's a new spot out, with new footage!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxSSH6IFVRc[/youtube]

Love it!!!!

Much ado about nothing re:Emma's singing. Anyone who expected this film to be different than any other live-action film musical in Hollywood these days--where everyone is chosen based on their acting ability and autotuned to death--were/are wasting their time. Audra McDonald is the only one I would have expected much from vocally. (Maybe the guy who plays Gaston has experience I don't know about; what'shisnamewhoplayedOlaf can sing, but Lefou doesn't really have much to do).

Emma sounds pretty but bland. Paige O'Hara's voice isn't the best honestly but she is very expressive and acts while she sings. Emma is just singing the song without much passion or emotion. But it's what was expected. I am interested to hear "Belle Reprise" because that is her big moment musically. I can't wait to hear Audra she's gonna blow everyone outta the water. And Luke Evans does have singing/theater experience. Here he is singing "Delilah" and he sounds pretty Gaston-ish:

https://youtu.be/XZOkWV9POcs

"What's your name?" "That's a brush."

LOL!!!! Great new footage! I'm relatively excited! Only two more months guys!!!

Mooky wrote:

taei wrote:To be completely honest, I think 2 things will end ruining this movie, Emma Watson and the director.

I don't understand why Disney didn't just hire someone else to do her singing voice if they desperately wanted to keep Emma Watson.

That's because she wasn't hired because of her amazing acting/singing chops but because of her activism and built-in fanbase. I think she's just wrong for the role, not only there is too much baggage from her Harry Potter days but she just doesn't feel like Belle to me nor do I think she's that good of an actress to pull it off. My choice would have been Natalie Portman (only nine years older than Watson -- but probably like 30 in Hollywood years) or they should have gone with an unknown. But then, I'm not okay with this movie being made at all, so...

Agreed completely, though I highly doubt Portman would sign on for something like this. Frankly they didn't need a big name for the role because this is going to break the box office regardless. Even Cinderella did well financially without a huge name as the star.

Emma is a mediocre talent and just seems bland and wretched in the role, and maybe it's her Harry Potter past but she just reads too "British" for Belle. Maybe I'll like her in the full film, but so far I am NOT impressed

I keep listening to that short recording of Emma singing Something There. I think her voice is adequate. I would have never expected her to sound like Paige O'Hara or Susan Egan. But considering she doesn't do much singing in her movies, I think she did a pretty terrific job. Like so many have said, I'm really looking forward to hearing her sing Belle (reprise), because that's such an iconic and musically-powerful moment.

I'm also dying to hear Emma Thompson singing Beauty and the Beast. No one could ever replace Angela Lansbury, but I'm a big fan of Emma Thompson, and I'm really curious to hear what she'll do to the song.

There's another new spot out, with a lot of new scenes:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iS-2M_dn0Q[/youtube]

I'm still not a fan of the CGI of the Beast Looks fake in my opinion, especially when he's talking..

I didn't like his CGI at first but now I think it can work. I like his new line "Thanks for not leaving me to get eaten by wolves." Still not sure how this will turn out, though.

A lot about this film reeks of the unnecessary. Disappointingly, Dan Stevens seems to have been completely hidden under CGI and heavy voice effects. Emma Watson is a name actress, but is no patch on Paige O'Hara, or Susan Egan, for that matter. They chose not to incorporate the Broadway musical's songs, many of which are quite lovely. The costumes knock it out of the park, except for Belle's dress which somehow manages to be more lackluster than Lily James' too blue Cinderella ball gown-- I don't understand why they would go to such pains to design everything so accurate to period, down to the bizarre Mrs. Potts design, and then give Belle a gown even less appropriate than the 1991 original.

Don't get me wrong, me and every other millennial will be watching this movie in theaters, further encouraging Disney to raid through the vault to exploit our cravings for nostalgia. "Cinderella," after all was pretty well done, and the recent "The Jungle Book" is the best adaptation of Kipling's novel, period. Thus, I'll have no one but myself to blame when the first teasers for "The Lion King" have me face palming.

UmbrellaFish wrote:Disappointingly, Dan Stevens seems to have been completely hidden under CGI and heavy voice effects.

Yes, I agree, that is a disappointment. The design of the Beast is really the only thing I've been disappointed by so far.

Here's the first glimpse Disney Store Belle doll:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BO8YopYhF62 ... ndthebeast
What do you guys think? I think she looks kinda... manly

Oh my GOD I am crying from laughter That is Disney's take on Frankenstein's monster. Even Emma's doll is a disaster.

It looks like she's a bald alien wearing a cheap ill fitting wig.

I have to say, that doll DOES look terrible. The hairline... the jawline... and why does it look like she isn't wearing makeup? Also adding the the manliness...
Actually, that's something else that I think is an issue in the ballroom scene: it looks like Emma Watson isn't wearing makeup and didn't do her hair. Which, combined with the lackluster dress, created a disappointing overall look. Isn't the point of the scene that they are sort of playing dress up? Getting all gussied up for an evening with one another?

Sigh.

That doll is freaking terrible. So are the Hasbro ones. As terrible as this live-action Disney Belle's dress itself. I don't mind Emma not getting to gussied up because it's all about the inside and falling in love instead of looking beautiful on the outside, but at least make the dress as great as the original's and period-fitting like the rest of the costumes.

UmbrellaFish wrote:A lot about this film reeks of the unnecessary. Disappointingly, Dan Stevens seems to have been completely hidden under CGI and heavy voice effects. Emma Watson is a name actress, but is no patch on Paige O'Hara, or Susan Egan, for that matter. They chose not to incorporate the Broadway musical's songs, many of which are quite lovely. The costumes knock it out of the park, except for Belle's dress which somehow manages to be more lackluster than Lily James' too blue Cinderella ball gown-- I don't understand why they would go to such pains to design everything so accurate to period, down to the bizarre Mrs. Potts design, and then give Belle a gown even less appropriate than the 1991 original.

Don't get me wrong, me and every other millennial will be watching this movie in theaters, further encouraging Disney to raid through the vault to exploit our cravings for nostalgia. "Cinderella," after all was pretty well done, and the recent "The Jungle Book" is the best adaptation of Kipling's novel, period. Thus, I'll have no one but myself to blame when the first teasers for "The Lion King" have me face palming.

Yes so much to basically all you said! Except I love the live-action Disney "Cinderella" and Cinderella's live-action Disney dress so much and didn't think it was too blue and I feel that film was the best version of Cinderella, period.

New poster!

Love it. Thankfully I care about the poster being gorgeous more than miscellaneous merchandise I would never have bought anyway.

Disney's Divinity wrote:Love it. Thankfully I care about the poster being gorgeous more than miscellaneous merchandise I would never have bought anyway.

Very true

Gorgeous poster!!

That Belle doll is going to haunt me in my nightmares...

Also, what is up with Emma's jaw in the poster. Is that a photoshop mistake or is it really that high...?

PatrickvD wrote:That Belle doll is going to haunt me in my nightmares...

Also, what is up with Emma's jaw in the poster. Is that a photoshop mistake or is it really that high...?

That's the lighting, if you look closely you'll see a white 'stripe' beneath her chin.