DVDizzy Forum

disneyprincess11 wrote:

DisneyFan09 wrote:Watson as Belle is not the worst choice. Not the most original, but neither the worst. I like her.

Yeah, Belle could be cast better like Emmy Rossum or Sam Barks, but Emma will be excellent!

Samantha Barks would have been my first choice for Belle but she isn't too well known. Emma Watson is a good choice though. I'm interested to see who they cast as the Beast and Gaston.

Will they get someone younger to match her in age ? Always imagined Beast to be older than Belle.

I think this is a neat idea, if only because they will presumably film the stage musical's original songs, but at the same time, I think... Why? The amount of special effects that will be necessary practically qualifies it to be an animated film. And a CGI Judi Dench as Mrs. Potts will be a pale comparison to the original.

Nevertheless, it goes without saying this will make buckets and buckets of moola.

Emmy Rossum or Natalie Portman would have been much better! Watson seem so young and girlish/girl next door to me, Belle should have been played by a more mature looking woman. But oh well, I hope she will do fine. At least they did not go with Kristen Stewart, and the casting seem better than the casting of Aurora in "Maleficent".

I do hope they go all the way and include all the songs from the Broadway musical, and that they try to be as faithful to the classic movie as possible when it comes to costumes, sets etc. Hopefully Alan Menken can write a new song or 3 and get an Academy Award (nomination)!

Hm, I wonder who will play the Beast... I hope we will see some more scenes with the Beast as human (prince Adam) then we got to see in the original movie. Especially if they pick a hot actor to play the part;) I could picture Chris Hemsworth in the part!

I love the idea of Jake Gylenhaal as the Beast. He almost had Ewan McGregors role in Moulin Rouge, and he was almost in Into the Woods, so we know he can sing. But I also think he looks very much the part and it'd be nice for there to be a bit of an age difference.

Prince Edward wrote: Hm, I wonder who will play the Beast... I hope we will see some more scenes with the Beast as human (prince Adam) then we got to see in the original movie. Especially if they pick a hot actor to play the part;) I could picture Chris Hemsworth in the part!

I can see Chris Hemsworth, too.

His younger brother Liam Hemsworth would also fit the part; )

Atlantica wrote:Will they get someone younger to match her in age ? Always imagined Beast to be older than Belle.

Beast is older than Belle. He's twenty-one, while Belle (according to the making off-books) is seventeen.

DisneyFan09 wrote:

Atlantica wrote:Will they get someone younger to match her in age ? Always imagined Beast to be older than Belle.

Beast is older than Belle. He's twenty-one, while Belle (according to the making off-books) is seventeen.

I have always pictured Belle as 18, I have read about it several places.

Anyway, Belle, Aurora (although she is supposed to be 16!), Jasmine, Pocahontas and Cinderella all look very mature and perhaps beyond their years. More like women in their 20s then teenage girls. On the other hand, Snow White, Ariel (16 years old as stated in the movie!), Rapunzel and Anna looks younger.

Prince Edward wrote:I have always pictured Belle as 18, I have read about it several places.

Really? According to the making off books, she's seventeen, though she looks older. But I'm not trying to flamebait or reject your statement.

Anyway, Belle, Aurora (although she is supposed to be 16!), Jasmine, Pocahontas and Cinderella all look very mature and perhaps beyond their years. More like women in their 20s then teenage girls. On the other hand, Snow White, Ariel (16 years old as stated in the movie!), Rapunzel and Anna looks younger.

Pocahontas is supposed to be eighteen. I don't know how old Jasmine is, but she certainly can't be younger than sixteen.

DisneyFan09 wrote:

Prince Edward wrote:I have always pictured Belle as 18, I have read about it several places.

Really? According to the making off books, she's seventeen, though she looks older. But I'm not trying to flamebait or reject your statement.

Anyway, Belle, Aurora (although she is supposed to be 16!), Jasmine, Pocahontas and Cinderella all look very mature and perhaps beyond their years. More like women in their 20s then teenage girls. On the other hand, Snow White, Ariel (16 years old as stated in the movie!), Rapunzel and Anna looks younger.

Pocahontas is supposed to be eighteen. I don't know how old Jasmine is, but she certainly can't be younger than sixteen.

No, no. Not a problem at all!; ) If the making off-book states that she is supposed to be 17, then the other sources I have read are likely wrong on the subject.

I read somewhere that Jasmine is 15 which makes Jafar's lusting after her even more horrifying.

Chris Hemsworth actually popped into my head as someone to cast for the Beast.

nomad2010 wrote:I love the idea of Jake Gylenhaal as the Beast. He almost had Ewan McGregors role in Moulin Rouge, and he was almost in Into the Woods, so we know he can sing.

Yes, he definitely can sing

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuqr22c990s[/youtube]

I fully support Gyllenhaal in the role. Plus, I'm sure the ten-year age difference between him (34) and Watson (24) wouldn't really be obvious behind the (assumed) fur prosthetics. It's just a matter of ensuring that by the transformation's end, the audience will have already accepted the two of them together as characters, so human-Beast wouldn't need to be such a shock regarding his age. I'm sure they'll also work a way around the Enchanted Rose blooming until the Beast's 21st year in the live-action version. They could easily say it's just 21 years until the rose begins to wilt, rather than Beast being 21. But I'd rather they focus on good storytelling rather than waste time on an admittedly minor detail.

Besides, many of Audrey Hepburn's leading men were years older than her with the audience still loving the pairings, so ten years between Gyllenhaal and Watson is nothing, really.

Albert

I think Jake Gyllenhaal is waaaay too old for this film. He used to look like a handsome prince. Now he looks like an old man. 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.

And even minor details like the rose are important in great storytelling!

I hope we find out what the Beast's real name is in this film!

But it's great that Emma Watson will be Belle! Thank goodness!

But then, that asks a lot of questions!

Does it mean she just wanted to do any Beauty and the Beast, and didn't care who made it, Disney or Del Toro?

And what will become of Del Toro's version?

Guillermo del Toro's "Beauty and the Beast" seems like it's not happening (although that's frequently a problem with his projects, as del Toro seems to announce a million movies that ultimately never get made). But I've read that he gave Watson his blessing to make the Disney movie, when his version fell through.

From what I understand Watson was asked for both movies. She eventually chose to do the Del Toro version. When that movie was scrapped/delayed Del Toro basically released her from his movie and gave her his blessing to accept Disney's offer (she was still their first choice and they hadn't cast a Belle yet).

I could be wrong though!

Prince Edward wrote:No, no. Not a problem at all!; ) If the making off-book states that she is supposed to be 17, then the other sources I have read are likely wrong on the subject.

OK, I'm glad that we clarified that issue

Thanks for the info on Del Toro, guys.

I always thought Belle was 18, too. I had read so. I can't believe she's 17.

I would love Chris Hemsworth as Prince Adam...if he could sing. His brother doesn't look as much the part as him.

Emma Watson is a really good choice for Belle. Can't wait to hear more casting news.

Disney Duster wrote: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. 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. Plus, he sings kind of nice here:

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

Disney Duster wrote:And even minor details like the rose are important in great storytelling!

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."

Albert