Beauty and the Beast Discussion

[Disney Duster]

Those are all very good points! And now I see what you mean.

Of course hand-drawn can still do anyhing. As you said, it is capable of that subtlety, it just may take more time and more care and attention. But there are still things hand-drawn can do CGI cannot (as well as some things CGI can do that hand-drawn cannot, regarding perfection mostly), though perhaps one of the biggest things that only hand-drawn can do is really more of a feeling that comes from the abilities of hand-drawn itself. This is why CGI cannot replace 2-D. You get things from both mediums that you can only get within those mediums. The non-wobbling movement is the biggest thing I can think of for CGI, because someone could hand-draw and paint something as depthful looking as CGI, but it would wobble in the very next frame! Actually, that may not be the case, because you could hand-draw the basic parts of it, and then use a computer to keep all the shadows and details in place in the next frames...

I wish we could move this to a hand-drawn and CGI animation topic, and a few of the other posts in here...but I just didn't want to leave it at one little sentene of a post saying "Yea, you two are right about that thing!"

[Goliath]

Traditional hand-drawn animation brings much more subtelty with it than CGI-animation will ever achieve. CGI is basically too crude to do this. I haven't seen a realistically CGI-animated human character yet. And with this I mean a Cinderella or an Ariel --not the cartoony types like the Incredibles and even that guy from Up (who has an exaggerated design).

I don't mind two different styles (realistic and cartoony) in one film. I think it worked very well in Cinderella as well as in Peter Pan (the realistic Darling children and Captain Hook, Smee and the Indians). What I don't like, is when it looks too much like it has been rotoscoped. To a certain extent, some of the magic of animation was lost in later Walt-era films, because the humans were animated *too* realistic, so there wasn't much imaginative in it anymore. That's because they followed the reference material too closely. I think the animators handled that better in the so-called Renaissance films.

[ajmrowland]

Those are all very good points! And now I see what you mean.

Of course hand-drawn can still do anyhing. As you said, it is capable of that subtlety, it just may take more time and more care and attention. But there are still things hand-drawn can do CGI cannot (as well as some things CGI can do that hand-drawn cannot, regarding perfection mostly), though perhaps one of the biggest things that only hand-drawn can do is really more of a feeling that comes from the abilities of hand-drawn itself. This is why CGI cannot replace 2-D. You get things from both mediums that you can only get within those mediums. The non-wobbling movement is the biggest thing I can think of for CGI, because someone could hand-draw and paint something as depthful looking as CGI, but it would wobble in the very next frame! Actually, that may not be the case, because you could hand-draw the basic parts of it, and then use a computer to keep all the shadows and details in place in the next frames...

I wish we could move this to a hand-drawn and CGI animation topic, and a few of the other posts in here...but I just didn't want to leave it at one little sentene of a post saying "Yea, you two are right about that thing!"

Yes, exactly.

And I wont comment on Goliath's post. CGI is hardly that crude anymore.

[Disney's Divinity]

And I wont comment on Goliath's post. CGI is hardly that crude anymore.

I disagree. It's the main reason I can only enjoy 3D films when they have some kind of style to them. When they try to portray real humans, it never turns out right. I wonder why I haven't seen anything on the same level of videogames.

[yamiiguy]

I stopped thinking CGI was crude years ago, back with Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children and the like.

[Kyle]

The reason some of you think hand drawn animation is better for humans is that its primitive enough that your mind knows instantly that its just a drawing. Theres no way you'd mistake a hand drawn character for a real human. 3d introduces near infinite amount of complexity and potential for realism and therefore makes the flaws more pronounced. Which of course is known as uncanny valley. This is why you see designs like we see in the incredibles are much prefered over the likes of Final Fantasy. its less work for the animators, and easier for the viewer to be pulled in. Because as realistic as final fantasy looks, it just looks creepy. It tries too hard. Hand drawn stuff, being more primitive is less creepy by default.

Both mediums suffer when you try too hard to look realistic. They loose their charm. 3d more so, but it happens in 2d as well.

[Rudy Matt]

Both mediums suffer when you try too hard to look realistic. They loose their charm. 3d more so, but it happens in 2d as well.

If you want realism, shoot live action. You want caricature, you shoot animation. I would posit the notion that live action suffers when it tries to copy animation.

[Kyle]

Couldnt agree more. I know some people here will dissagree though.

[Goliath]

The reason some of you think hand drawn animation is better for humans is that its primitive enough that your mind knows instantly that its just a drawing.

No, that's not the reason. I have stated the reason.

[Disney's Divinity]

To Kyle: I think you might have misunderstood what I meant by the "video games" bit. I actually think games like Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts have some of the best 3D animation there's been--on a level I haven't seen in most 3D films, unfortunately. The Spirits Within film, however, wasn't there best moment though.

And I agree with wondering why anyone would want to do 3D when it simply copies both live-action and 2D animation. It has all the details of a live-action film, but it has to be stylized and exaggerated so that it doesn't look completely real in order to work (because it's extremely hard to make 3D look 100% real) like 2D. Why not watch 2D for the stylistic/exaggerated approach and live-action for the details?

To relate somewhat to B&tB here: I actually never thought that Belle had eyes that were exaggerated. Jasmine and Ariel's definitely were, although it would depend on shots with them, too (I really never thought Ariel's were that exaggerated--she looked quite a lot like several girls I've known who had similarly thin, small frames). But maybe it depends on which Belle you're talking about.

[KubrickFan]

Traditional hand-drawn animation brings much more subtelty with it than CGI-animation will ever achieve. CGI is basically too crude to do this. I haven't seen a realistically CGI-animated human character yet. And with this I mean a Cinderella or an Ariel --not the cartoony types like the Incredibles and even that guy from Up (who has an exaggerated design).

That's because there has been almost no realistic CG characters in animated movies. Pixar wants the humans to stay cartoony, so yeah, they wouldn't look realistic. I also think that the emotions shown by the characters in The Incredibles are greater than those shown by Ariel.

[ajmrowland]

And I wont comment on Goliath's post. CGI is hardly that crude anymore.

I disagree. It's the main reason I can only enjoy 3D films when they have some kind of style to them. When they try to portray real humans, it never turns out right. I wonder why I haven't seen anything on the same level of videogames.

Okay, well THAT I can agree with. I thought he was talking on an "Everything you can do" Duster level of things.

[Disney Duster]

Super Aurora, would you be okay with this thread removing the comic discussion and getting fixed, and you just post your scans when you are ready? It's just been a while now, and we still want to see them, too, but if we could fix this thread first, that'd be great.

Rudy Matt, Kyle, when have live-action films tried to be like animation? I'd like to know what that was like.

[Disney Duster]

Well moderators I guess it's now up to you to delete the things that don't have to do with this thread, I guess. The stuff about the comics and anything else you see fit. Please, but it's all up to you.

Now it's time for me to make a really big confession.

By the time I came to this forum, I new Beauty and the Beast was a big favorite Disney film of the general public, and was the only Disney film nominated for Best Picture. I liked it, but not particularly a lot. I had no dislike of it, though.

But at a forum, people talk about why the films they love are so great, and why they think they are better than other films, and also why some films aren't so great. And my favorite films were criticized and it seemed like Beauty and the Beast was hailed by everyone and it's Big Picture was being shoved in my face, sometimes even by Disney themselves (I was going to joke why don't they just rename it Beauty and the Best Picture Nomination?), it felt like it was the best ever and no other Disney film would ever measure up.

So I played the game I felt everybody else was playing, but took it too far. I looked for flaws and bad things in Beauty and the Beast. And I'm sorry, because I think some of the things could have hurt people's love and enjoyment of the film, and the things I said weren't even necessary.

Belle did not need to kiss the Beast. Oh, it would have been great, and I think it would make the film even better, but I know the story is about her realizing that she loves him a little late in the game, even perhaps denying her love because he is, well, an animal, but with a human soul. For the record, I think Belle and the Beast loved each other romantically by the time they were getting ready for dinner and dancing together. I just think that makes sense, friends don’t usually dress up and dance with each other unless they’re going to an event. I think she just had to take care of her father, and was doubtful about getting into a serious relationship with a beast. But she does call him her friend after that so maybe she really wasn’t clued in on her own love, or she was in denial, or she didn’t want everyone else to know she loved a beast.

Once again, I am sorry for any of those things I said that I took too far about Beauty and the Beast. Most of what I was doing, though, was pointing out how the film could be criticized just like the other Disney films. People criticized almost all the earlier Disney films' love stories. I wanted to show that Beauty and the Beast's could be criticized, too. The Beast is falling for a hot girl. In fact, he could have saved her from the wolves because she was hot and he needed her in order to be human again. Now, the open endedness of why he did it is kind of cool for the film, but I must admit the rest of the film shows us that he really is kind, and he really does love her for her, and all that matters is by the end they are good people who love each other for their good insides. We know this is what the filmmakers intended, as do the filmmakers of the earlier Disney romances, that get criticized, which is my point. And I really think they intended for him to save her out of kindness.

When you can find problems in a film that everybody thinks is so great, just like people found problems in yours, it does kind of make you feel better, but not much. It’s better just to talk about how great the films you like are, unless you really have problems with some films.

But I have to let out how I feel about the film and it's praises. First off, the new wave of animators and filmmakers at Disney didn't think much of "Snow White", as Ollie Johnston revealed in "The Disney Villain", and wanted to make something different and better. Now, if you want to work at Disney, I think you should want to make films just like what is considered the masterpiece of the studio and the template for all their films. I would think you would want to make films just like Walt Disney did.

Just think about this - the head people at Disney, and the people currently making their films, may not think the best Disney film ever made was made by Walt Disney. Just think about that, okay? I think it’s horrible and really wrong, you think what you want, I just want you to think on it. I’m not talking about them thinking their favorites aren’t made by Walt, but that the best ones aren’t made by Walt. Then why even work there…ugh, just think about it.

But I don't think they strayed too much away from what Walt Disney set as the way things should be done. No, the really big straying away happened to their films after Pixar, and now we have stuff like Tangled happening, but that's another topic...

Another thing is I heard they did all these new kinds of things for the film. After all, it was originally going to be more of a dark period drama. But I heard they also came in with an acting coach! Like 101 Dalmatians being the first Disney film to get a screenplay (I think), it's like Beauty and the Beast had an unfair advantage. They just put more into the production of the film and I think it's unfair they decided to do that to this film and not the others.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I wonder what it would be like to see all the Disney films lined up with equal attention and advantages. No always-Academy-Award-winning Alan Menken and big Broadway scores, no Eyvind Earle amazing meticulously detailed art taking over the whole project, no script, no acting coach, just the very same techniques and abilities they had when Snow White started, applied to all the Disney films. Then I would like to see how they all stack up to each other. It would be great if they all turned out to be equal. But with Beauty and the Beast, it almost seemed like they were particularly trying for an Oscar, and I just don’t know if that’s really what all the other films were trying to do. I do think they were trying more for more live-action-like stuff, though, and “The Disney Villain” revealed some people felt they were making it too live-action, not fantasy or another world, almost like live-action dressed up as animation.

And the story is a bit of an advantage, too. Beauty and the Beast was originally a novel written by a woman. Then another woman turned it into the simpler more well-known version the film is based on. But no other Disney fairy tale was first a novel that I know of. Also, the message of loving someone for who you are and what makes you happy in a relationship were in the original story. If it is this aspect that partly makes you love Beauty and the Beast and is partly why the film was nominated, it was there in the original story, though the filmmakers certainly tried to amplify it, too.

That does bring me to a problem I found with the film that also happens to be in the original story, too: In the original story, the fairy that transformed the prince into a beast said that Belle saw that kindness was greater than wit and beauty, so her reward was to get all three things, kindness, wit and beauty.

But doesn't that seem weird?! If you think about it, the original tale’s moral is this: You found something greater and better than beauty, and so your reward is…beauty.

WTF?! It's just that sometimes I do wonder why it's important for the Beast and objects to be human if they have all they need inside. I guess it's just because beauty is a great thing to appreciate, as well as having opposable thumbs and not so much hair, having an easier life, looking on the outside how you feel on the inside. But I am a big appreciator of beauty, and I must admit I love a lot of Disney films for their visual beauty.

Also, the beauty could be thought of as a perfect award that heaven gives you. Like on Earth you can be in love and happy but in Heaven you get everything and the greatest happiness and it's all perfect and beautiful. Actually the greatest happiness would come from just being with God. Physical beauty doesn't easily translate as a metaphor for being with God, maybe just being in Heaven...

Also, I realized that since the Beast transformed, Belle had to accept this new form, too. It really does keep with the message it’s the inside that counts in this way, that she has to love him even in his new physical form. I think Belle desired a handsome prince like in the books she read, then learned to love a Beast, and then had to learn again to love him as a handsome prince!

One last thing is sometimes I think the filmmakers were trying to criticize the past Disney fairy tales with this film, like with Gaston looking handsome and kind of like past Disney princes, color wise and a tiny bit design wise, and having him be vain and horrible on the inside, and Belle rejects him for inner goodness in a non-handsome guy. I just wonder if the fimakers were trying to be so much better than past Disney fairy tales and criticize them in general with this film at all, even with The Little Mermaid and Aladdin, too. It all goes along with the how wrong it is for a studio to criticize or say their newer work is better than the work of the dead guy who made the films the studio is supposed to keep making in his way. I guess they can say it on their own all they want, but it can't be reflected in the films, they can’t put it in their films.

That’s all just a theory of mine, anyway. And on that note, Beauty and the Beast calls back to Walt Disney's films, in fact it even calls back to the very first, in ways perhaps you never realized...

A young prince turned away an old woman who offered a red rose for shelter... Was there a young princess who accepted an old woman's red apple in return for help? Yes, Walt Disney had a young princess who saw past appearances and helped an unattractive, unappealing looking person. Not to mention the evil queen was a character who looked beautiful outside but was horrible inside, before Gaston came onto the scene.

But now let me talk about my love for Beauty and the Beast. Yes, love. I have thought about my fond memories of watching the film as a child, and I have decided I love it. It wasn’t a favorite of mine that got watched very often, but I still was enthralled when I watched that Black Diamond VHS. It gave me great feelings of magic, mystery, adventure, fun, and epicness. Now, as with almost all Disney films for me back then, I was most interested in the magic parts. So I most looked forward to the beginning with the enchantress and then was kinda bored until the end transformation! But I still loved Belle reading her storybook, singing in fields about adventure, Be Our Guest, exploring the castle, and probably more scenes. But I think I was bored with Gaston and what seemed like people just walking around, reading, and talking. Maybe it’s the whole “it’s about a girl and a monster have dinner together” thing, or maybe what’s going on really is something you more appreciate when you’re older or an adult! And maybe part of it was even that it had a mostly brown color scheme, that’s kinda boring. And maybe that puts more stock in the theory that they brightened up the colors to make the movie appeal more to kids!

As I grew older I guess I felt like it was a great movie and I liked it because it was a magical fairy tale but it wasn’t one of my favorites. But after all my bashing of it on the forum, a few things have happened. Well, for starters I started getting negative about almost any film, even my favorite, Cinderella. I started criticizing it and criticizing everything, and I was very unhappy. Then I learned to let go. I wanted to love my favorite film and all Disney films again (well, the good ones, none of the recent crap we’ve gotten that seem to have less effort or not be very Disney). I wanted to join in the love of Beauty and the Beast again because I remembered as a kid I did feel those great, deep, enchanted feelings.

Then my Dad took me to see Beauty and the Beast Jr. put on by the middle schoolers he taught. It was good for middle school, and it was very enjoyable since it was still the musical of Beauty and the Beast. But it had me clamoring for the real movie, as well as the full (and professionally done) musical. So I watched almost the whole Broadway musical online in pretty poor quality and not with the best cast but I was still so happy to see it. It was great, actually. A few songs should have been left out, but some songs and things they added made the tale even better, I thought, I even got really close to tears at Belle’s love for her dying Beast, and I don’t remember if I did before for the film. But I still think the original film is the best, and that means without human again. The side characters already take a little too much away from the main characters and the main story of romance, they don’t need a whole new song to themselves!

I actually hoped for a while to someday direct a live-action film of Beauty and the Beast, combining the original film and the musical, but I heard Alan Menken is already working on being part of a live-action film version of the musical! Well, someday I’d love to direct the musical at some theater.

Well, after all’s said and done, I hope you weren’t hurt before by what I said about Beauty and the Beast, and I hope you won’t be hurt if I still do get critical of it. I’ll just try to keep it to if I actually have problems with the film, and I will be gentle about what I say. Beauty and the Beast is a masterpiece, and maybe it’s not perfect in some ways, but I think it is perfect in some ways, too.

So now I'm very excited for and look foward to Beauty and the Beast coming to Blu-ray in its origina theatrical form, colors and ratio and all, in good quality instead of the compressed DVD, and even more than that I think, seeing it on the big screen again, in 3-D! I want to experience the magic and the greatness of this well-made, well-loved film in theaters again like when it first came out!

[yamiiguy]

Wow! I'm sweating just looking at that novella. And for the record I've only ever seen BATB once, it struck me as nothing special, just like TLM. I much prefer Aladdin, TLK, Pocahontas, Hercules, Mulan, HOND, Black Cauldron...Hmm...let's start again I like it better than the package films and Home on the Range.

[Disney's Divinity]

Where do the animators say they dislike Snow White in The Disney Villain? I hope I don't sound like I'm accusing you or anything, I just wondered where in that book it was, because it's been a while since I've read it and I don't remember them having said (aloud, anyway) that they dislike Snow White.

Still, I wouldn't be surprised. Although I haven't really examined B&tB that much, Mermaid seems to poke fun at Snow White quite heavily in ways. Not that I mind, SW's not one of my favorites either

But I think every generation mocks the past. Even in TP&TF I can see some subtle mocking of TLM (Charlotte and her father seem straight out of Mermaid, and Facilier-Ursula is much more concerned with LaBeuff and Charlotte than either Tiana or Naveen). I don't think it's meant disrespectfully, just, in a way, to learn from your mistakes. Ariel and Eric left a lot to be desired as a couple, and Snow White and her Prince are basically archetypes with no character at all. Tiana and Naveen, by comparison, seem more grounded and real. And when you're making a movie where love is a key point ('the kiss of true love' and all that), it's important that it feels real to the audience, I think.

I've actually had a similar experience with B&tB. It is a very good film, imo, but I've always been a bit bored with it. My favorite scenes have always been the ones with the servants (they seemed more sympathetic than the beast, because they were utterly screwed for no reason it seemed--and they were byfar more interesting than the dwarves, mice, or fairies, not that I don't like those characters; I guess the servants come off different because they had a storyline of their own, I guess), because the rest of the movie does come off hopelessly "live-action"-esque. I've always loved animation for being able to transcend the boundaries of reality, so I don't like to see it trying to make itself only a mimicry. Although it's not bad I suppose for animated films to do that sometimes, I just appreciate the more "magical" feeling better. Maybe this is the reason I've never been dearly attached to CGI--because it seems to mostly just imitate? It's nice to see the medium coming along and stretching out though.

Anyway, now I've wrote too much. But, yeah, B&tB is a good film that seems to have the entire forum against it these days. It used to be the one everyone loved, and I guess the reversal was rather expected. People have a tendency to hate what's popular over time (not that people don't have good reasons to dislike it; just saying some have a cult mindset). And, yes, some of its fans were obnoxious, but I do wish we could just recognize the good in this film without having to obsess over the bad. (But maybe I'm the pot calling the kettle black--though I have tried to be nicer to movies like Pocahontas)

[Flanger-Hanger]

Anyway, now I've wrote too much. But, yeah, B&tB is a good film that seems to have the entire forum against it these days. It used to be the one everyone loved, and I guess the reversal was rather expected. People have a tendency to hate what's popular over time (not that people don't have good reasons to dislike it; just saying some have a cult mindset). And, yes, some of its fans were obnoxious, but I do wish we could just recognize the good in this film without having to obsess over the bad. (But maybe I'm the pot calling the kettle black--though I have tried to be nicer to movies like Pocahontas)

I'd say my personal reversal in taste for BatB basically came from growing up, having a larger exposure to films in general and basically demanding more from "Best Picture" nominees. Of course once I found out Doctor Doolittle (1967) got nominated for Best Picture (out of bribery apparently) I lost some respect for the category as a whole.

BatB is nice and has one of my top 10 favorite Disney songs, but I do get sick of it getting considered "THE BEST" for questionable reasons like the basic nomination itself. It was historic, but that alone? I don't think so.

[ajmrowland]

Where do I start?

For one thing, Beauty and the Beast has a number of flaws, a couple of which are glaring. I mean, until the 21st year? hello, time warp!

And I think Gaston was not meant to criticize past Disney Princes as he was made to contrast them.

The Beast's transformation is symbollic. It had less to do with appearance than behavior. He was transformed in the beginning because of his attitude, and in the end because he changed and Belle was very willing to deal with his emotional flaws. Prince Adam being a beast was merely a physical manifestation of his own flawed behavior.

I actually like Snow White. it is a bit overrated, but an enjoyable movie that I like to watch from time to time. Hell, it's on disney channel, right now!

And one of my absolute most personal favorite Disney films of all time was actually made by Walt Disney: Pinocchio!

[Disney Duster]

Oh, and I totally forgot to defend Belle in her taking the abuse of the Beast and that saying to girls they should be kind and sweet to any abusive boyfriend and they will change. The film does not say that.

Belle actually runs away from the Beast the second time he yells at her and the first time he does it too her face and gets really scary and destructive. She runs away and would have kept going if he didn't save her and also become weak. In his weak state he couldn't do much to her, and she saw that he did something kind to her. So she gave him another chance, and he changed. If it weren't for the kind thing he did while she was leaving him, and his continuing that kindness and starting to change very soon, then she still would have left. Belle stayed a fairly feminist positive model for girls.

Yamiiguy, I think you like more actiony, adventure and comedy films than romance, and maybe fantasy, but you should like fantasy because that is what Disney is all about and what Walt Disney always made films about.

Divinity, they didn't say they didn't like Snow White, but they didn't think of muc of it, certainly not that it was the best and I'm guessing not even a masterpiece but I don't know. I don't have the book, I'd love if you looked it up, but I remember them saying it was "a nice little film" or something. They wanted to make something bigger and better and the Renaissance fims and all after certainly feel bigger...

I don't think it's okay for a company to mock the films of the dead guy who founded them, but I suppose none of that comes across in the films themselves without examining or knowing or finding out, I am just explaining why the film and the love for it makes me feel bad if this is the case.

I didn't like Tiana and Naveen's relationship I thought Tiana was kind of bossy to Naveen and he had to change and it felt like Naveen was not like that to her for her to change. I am not to sure they would be a real good couple. I think many other Disney relationships actually feel better than theirs, even the Walt fairy tale ones. Some of that may have to do with the fact that almost all the fairy tale ones, even Beauty and the Beast happened in a montage of sorts, so you never saw all that they did or knew exactly how long they were together, so you just felt they were falling in love and it was great. In the Princess and the Frog, we pretty much saw all they went through as far as love and their relationship.

Also, being more grounded and real is fine for a modern day twisted, less fairy-tale like version of a fairy tale, but the kind of classics Walt made were meant to have fairy tale versions of people, though he also wanted them to be like real flesh and blood at the same time. I guess what he did was mix the real with fairy tale and the later films added less fairy tale. But yes, the emotions and desires and personality should feel real in every film.

I liked what you said about animation I think a lot of that may be true and I agree with a lot.

Ajmrowland, I know the Beast's transformation is symbolic. And if him becoming beautiful and Belle being beautiful was a symbolic metaphor for their beautiful souls inside, okay, but Gaston's also beautiful and that is not a metaphor for his horrible soul. So I don't knwo if it works. I was just saying if the film is taken literally, the Beast didn't have to become human to be happy he had who he truly was and true love, though I could also see a point about being unhappy when you feel what you are on the inside does not match your outside.

I think Beauty and the Beast and Snow White are both masterpieces that show the best of Disney and both deserve Best Picture wins.

Actually Pinocchio and Beauty and the Beast are quite similar but that is another topic I want to discuss some other time...

[Kyle]

I know this was a while ago and off topic at this pont, but Ive only just now seen this, so I'll go ahead and respond.

Rudy Matt, Kyle, when have live-action films tried to be like animation? I'd like to know what that was like.

Look at any live action cartoon adaptation, Scooby, Flintstones, garfield, the list goes on.

But enough of that, as you were.