HOME | DD

SonOfBatmanDamian In reply to Moon-Shadow-1985 [2017-06-07 12:21:09 +0000 UTC]

True.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Moon-Shadow-1985 In reply to SonOfBatmanDamian [2017-06-07 17:13:53 +0000 UTC]

The plot was shoddy. 

And Why Do I Think This?  Well...: 
* They said that they would address things/goofs from the original (like Gaston falling into mud, when there's no mud to be seen around Belle's cottage), but, instead of doing that to any real degree of satisfaction, they just created whole new ones; for example: 
* Why was the prince selfish in the first place?  Because, after his loving mother died, he was left defenceless against a cruel father (what happened to the King (why wasn't He cursed?) wasn't revealed).  Why wasn't the cruel king punished, too? 
** Why did the Enchantress warn the king against his treatment of his son, and then punish the son; where's the justice!?
* Belle's father, Maurice, isn't an aspiring-inventor; he's a music box maker and something of an emotional cripple (like Moana's father ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moana_(2… ), who are suppressive of their respective daughters, trying to keep them in the village/on the island, respectively.  Granted, they both (Maurice and Tui) emotionally traumatised (Maurice by his wife's death from plague back in Paris, and convinced that the countryside is safer; and Tui by the death of his best friend when they tried sailing past the reef that separates a lagoon from the open ocean), but their essentially making demands of their daughters without, really, giving a good reason as to why. 
* While Maurice isn't the inventor, Belle is shown, early in the story, to have knack for building 'labour-saving devices' (donkey/horse-powered washing machine/barrel), which then doesn't get mentioned again in the story (so, what was the point).  In material/interviews released in anticipation for the release, E. Watson's practically bragging how they'd taken Maurice's disposition for inventing and had given to Belle under the pretence and superficial impression of 'empowering her'.  Belle's being taken more-&-more away from the educated, genteel-raised girl/young woman from the original fairytale . 
** I also don't like that they're taking Belle further and further away from the extensively-educated and accomplished genteel young lady from the original fairytale; these days, they just seem to throw around the description "feisty young woman" around, 'till it loses all meaning, like a broken record.
* Can one, who'd seen the 1991 film, actually see an egotistical narcissist, the likes of Gaston, consenting to join the army from the bottom dregs and take orders from others...  ...More likely, I think, that he'd just stole a uniform and lied about his exploits... 
** "There was originally talk of a sequel, where Gaston had a younger brother, named "Avenant" (named as a nod to Belle's unwanted suitor from French poet and filmmaker, Jean Cocteau's, 1946 adaptation of "Beauty and the Beast"), who would seek revenge for his brother's demise (and establish himself as superior to Gaston (their late-father's favourite), and finally stepping out of his shadow, once and for all); this idea was, instead, recycled for the "The Little Mermaid" sequel, "The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea", with Morgana, sister to the late Ursula, claiming to be seeking revenge for Ursula's death, but really wanted to succeed where Ursula (their mother's favourite daughter), had failed." 
** While Gaston, the firstborn son inherits the family tavern, 'Avenant' a/the younger son could have gone off to seek his fortunes and joined the army as a grunt; that is more believable, and has precedents; janeausten.wikia.com/wiki/Colo… & www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/ppd… .  Younger sons either went into the clergy, law, or the army.  This would have made for a good/decent idea for a sequel for the 1991 film, if Gaston had a younger brother (or brothers (it could have been called "Beauty and the Beasts"); I mentioned in a conversation, here ( morloth88.deviantart.com/art/W… ), with Morloth88 ( morloth88.deviantart.com/ ) and Darkwater-Lady ( darkwater-lady.deviantart.com/ ), see what you think, and, please, let me know what your thoughts are about it). 
* While the film brings back the sub-plot of Belle asking a father for a rose, and then the Beast imprisoning Maurice for taking a rose without permission, and then gives Belle the chance to take her father's place, the Beast then become dismissive of Belle because she's "the daughter of a Thief" (but when she refuses to have dinner with him, he throws a temper tantrum and declares "if she doesn't eat with me, then she doesn't eat at all", conveniently forgetting that he'd initially dismissed Belle as a dining partner in the first place).  It's like they tried to slam plotline from the original fairytale and the original film together and just expected it to work. 

The whole way that the Belle and the Prince/Beast felt more forced, like they were set-up all along.  It just doesn't feel right.  Maybe, years from now, they'll do another remake, and, maybe, this time, they'll get it Right. 

What do you think? 

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

SonOfBatmanDamian In reply to Moon-Shadow-1985 [2017-06-09 10:16:59 +0000 UTC]

I think... The 1991 version wasn't better than the 2017 live-action one.
It was the book, written in about 1740.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Moon-Shadow-1985 In reply to SonOfBatmanDamian [2017-06-09 15:22:09 +0000 UTC]

So, you're talking about Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve's original version, rather then the revised versions by Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont in 1756, and Andrew Lang's in 1889? 

When did this go from being about which film adaptation was better (the animated one was Better), to about the original book (which was based off of the myth of Cupid and Psyche ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cupid_an… ))? 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SonOfBatmanDamian In reply to Moon-Shadow-1985 [2017-06-10 07:00:11 +0000 UTC]

First of all, both films was based on that story.
Secondly, if Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve did not write it... Do you think any other versions would be written?
And Lastly, if there wasn't any books about this story... Do you think any film adaptation would ever be made?   

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Moon-Shadow-1985 In reply to SonOfBatmanDamian [2017-06-10 17:05:50 +0000 UTC]

She just re-imagined "Cupid and Psyche"; in thje story, Eros/Cupid is referred to as "a monster/beast/dragon that even the gods feared" by a oracle, because they were not immune to his arrows (see "Apollo and Daphne" ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_a… ) for the best example of why). 

The plot line for the 2017 was weak; why let the king raise the prince to be that way, and then punish the prince?  Why not punish the king earlier, and making him as an example as what not to turn out like, pre-empt the prince's behaviour BEFORE he could end-up that selfish? 

In Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve (and, technically also in Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont's 1756 and Andrew Lang's 1889 revisions) the king had passed away before the prince was even born, and his mother was forced to do battle with a neighbouring king, who was trying to invade the realm of an infant king ruled by a woman, seeing it as a easy takeover, and so, as she was needed to lead the army against the invasion, the queen had entrusted the then-infant prince to care and governess-ship to a fairy, who, when hardly had the prince become a teenager, tried to take him as her lover (like in the myth of "Venus and Adonis" ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adonis )) and wanted him to marry her; when he and his mother turned down her 'generous offer', she cursed the prince to become a beast. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Cybornejo In reply to Moon-Shadow-1985 [2017-06-09 01:59:28 +0000 UTC]

hory crab .. pls so long to this

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Moon-Shadow-1985 In reply to Cybornejo [2017-06-09 15:22:55 +0000 UTC]

Sorry, but I'd had a while to think about it. 

Any observations about the film of your own? 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0