>all the same music >virtually identical script >only

You forgot the black people

a movie no one wanted starring a actress no one likes added with things most people find repulsive

You are realizing this now?

>>80666970
>>80666970
But not all the Disney movies and cartoon shorts have been rebooted yet, OP.

>an adaptation is similar to the source material
>this is bad
>yet he probably complains about GiST not being too similar to the source material

>>80666970
>‘Beauty and the Beast’ will have the biggest opening for a PG-rated film and pass ‘Batman v Superman’ for the all-time March record


I feel sorry for DC

>>80667247

More like:
>no one asked for either contrived bullshit remake
>we get them anyways
>they somehow manage to fuck it all up
>neither come close to their predecessors

Gotta love the CGI cashgrab explosionfest-era we're living in. 10 more years of this shit and there won't be a Hollywood.
>I do my part to pirate/seed even if it's something I don't like and you should too

>>80669628
>>I do my part to pirate/seed even if it's something I don't like and you should too
What's not to like?

>>80669648

Pleb confirmed.
>/reddit/

File: 18e.jpg (114KB, 623x457px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 623x457px

>>80666970

I watched the 1991 beauty and the beast like 3 days before seeing the live action adaptation and honestly the new one is worse in every single possible way. I realize this isn't a hot take btw just saying.

>>80667063
>a movie no one wanted
box office collections prove otherwise

>>80666970
And is making tons of money, so there no push to make something new.

>>80666970
>all the same music
Done by different performers.

>virtually identical script
Performed by different actors, and this time in real life and not as a full cartoon.

This movie is an adaption of the animated movie of the same name. It never pretended to be an all new movie. It's hard to say people didn't want this, especially after the reaction (and money) audiences have given it.

>>80669895
>>80669911

>but its making gobs of dosh that means people wanted it

No, it means there was literally nothing else ppl could take kids too and that many parents are desperate and pleb as fuck to entertain their spawn. Congratulations.

>all the same music
>virtually identical script

And a $170 million domestic opening weekend ($350 million worldwide). That is the largest opening ever for a Disney branded film (not Marvel or star wars).

>>80667063
>a movie no one wanted
Wrong. Facebook alone is proof people wanted this, given how full it is of clickbait articles like "Disney princesses re-imagined as hand purses."

You didn't want this, and I don't want it, but we're in a minority here. The vast majority wanted this, and we're definitely going to get more of it in the future, so buckle up, buckaroo.

Disney is a cancer to cinema. Star shit, Cape shit and now live action remakes of animated movies from the past. Try to tell me they aren't.

This has NOTHING to do with their political agenda's.

>only change is a gay character
You mean the character who dances with a guy in a dress for a split second? Yeah, groundbreaking and brave stuff. You now realize the huge commotion before release that made people think this was going to have a revolutionary character in it was just manufactured buzz for the movie, which plays it completely safe.

Also Hollywood isn't dead, but it's close to it. Disney is dead, or dead of ideas at least. They're just milking the shit out of name recognition at the moment through all of these unnecessary remakes. What they seem to be too stupid to realize is that going after the quick buck is ruining their long game, because their animated classics are timeless and still sell merchandise, but by imprinting a live action version into modern kid's heads, they're overwriting the animated ones. That kid won't want to watch the cartoon version if there's a REAL version, and in 20 years these bastardizations are all the kids of today are going to remember. And Disney fairy tales will be a faint memory caused by a company that destroyed its own legacy.

File: Spiderman+derail+_40cdaf98d38244f7520291ae467f3580.jpg (10KB, 262x193px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 262x193px

>>80669878
The fire rises

>>80666970
Nostalgia pandering "with a twist" makes the big box office bucks, takes less effort than an original production, and has huge merchandising opportunities. Disney has no incentive to stop. They're gonna do this with every single popular Disney movie. Aladdin, Mulan, Little Mermaid, Lion King, etc. And those remakes will get sequels, and those sequels will get sequels, and those sequels will get prequels, and those prequels will get remakes, and those remakes will get reboots.

>>80669975
>Performed by different actors, and this time in real life and not as a full cartoon.

kek half the shit on screen in any given moment is computer generated, it pretty much is a cartoon

>>80666970
Except there's new music, so shut up.

>>80670025
>No, it means there was literally nothing else ppl could take kids too and that many parents are desperate and pleb as fuck to entertain their spawn

This simply isn't true. Zootopia was the "must see kids movie" this time last year and it opened with only $70 million. The $170 million it brought in this weekend did not come from kids.

This film drew in the nostalgic soccer moms the way star wars brought in the dads. Women were seeing it in large groups of friends/co-workers.

>>80670066
>Disney is a cancer to cinema
>not the people paying money to see their movies

I agree with what you are saying about Disney but you can't really blame them. They are making money. It's no different then blaming McDonalds for making people fat or cigarettes for giving people cancer or whatever. As long as people continue to throw money at them there's no reason for them to stop

File: IMG_8793.png (198KB, 337x380px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 337x380px

>>80667063

File: fwb_little-mermaid_20160208.jpg (55KB, 950x340px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 950x340px

How lewd will this scene be in the live action remake?

>>80670375
Sadly, I don't think people are going to stop.

>>80667063
>most people find repulsive

Not really, no. At least in America. The tides have changed.

>>80670504
She's 16, so not very.

>>80670505
Oh I'm 100% they will never stop and Disney knows that. That's why they will never stop either.

>>80670624

Actress will be 23+

>>80670025
but muh kong

>>80670342

>Nostalgiac soccer moms

Do you know what year this movie came out?

>>80670504

Disney isn't ready to dedicate the level of CGI needed to make this shit happen.

That or she's spending ten minutes in the water

>>80666970
>only change is gay character
1. Not actually a change, they just said he was gay this time.
2. The only change is that it's live action.

>>80671545
>Do you know what year this movie came out?

Yes and the girls who saw it as children are now in their 30s and 40s. That is the typical age for soccer moms.

"Soccer moms" are a 30+ phenomena for the most part as they are mothers with 12 year old kids involved in too many after-school activities. They are not young mothers.

>>80666970
This movie is going to/has made mad bank. When I went to the theater there was a line out the door for the showing in 30 minutes, and people were dressed up. I dunno if it'll make Star Wars money, but it's going to make a fuckload.

>>80667010
I fucking hated this forced shit so much.

File: 18774062523_63d0ea20a1_ozwzzzha.jpg (863KB, 1174x1600px) Image search: [Google]

863KB, 1174x1600px

>>80670052
I wanted this. I even bought the dolls.

File: top openings of all time.jpg (240KB, 663x859px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 663x859px

>>80673184
>I dunno if it'll make Star Wars money, but it's going to make a fuckload.

It looks like it will surpass rogue one and the prequels but not TFA.

It is another Disney entry in the billion dollar club.

I heard they got rid of "Human Again", which is a fantastic song. Is that true?

>>80673428
They replaced it with Days in the Sun, kinda similar but instead of looking forward to being human they sing about how horrible it is to be un-alive.

>>80666970
I think it added a little more nuance to the original, but ruined Gaston.

>>80670538

>Not really, no. At least in America. The tides have changed.

This is delusion.

The fact that you've made having an opinion socially unsafe doesn't mean it's still prevalent. Humans naturally find sexual deviancy repulsive.

There's a reason fag-marriage had to be passed by non-democratic means.

>>80670025
whats the difference

women are overgrown children anyway, this movie is for both

>pay some $50M to shills to dupe $100M from casuals

genius

>>80666970
>Blatant Lucifer/Satan Symbolism: The Movie

>>80674297
>sexual deviancy

Two dudes hold hands for a literal second. I dont think you know what sex is desu.

>>80670538
Sure thing madame President I'm sure society will either advance in the direction you want or become completely static
I'm sure newer generations won't challenge your ideas
I'm sure that the desperate attempts to silence opposition online projects security and not fear
I'm sure people attack when they won and aren't at discount of losing anything

>>80666970
>all the same music
Completely new songs.

>virtually identical script
Nope.

>only change is a gay character
Double nope.

It's like you haven't even seen this film. Of course you haven't, where am I after all.

>>80667010
A somepoint, I was thinking I was in a cotton plantation in Alabama. That was forced as fuck.

>>80667063
>movie no one wanted
lol maybe 10 years ago but after the success of Cinderella? Delusional.

>actress no one likes
Yeah, maybe pathetic manchildren who can't stand it when an actor gets political in a way they don't like.

>things most people find repulsive
most people being /pol/ here.

>>80666970
This movie is BLATANTLY Satanic. She loves and marries the Beast in name and visage.

>>80675067
>>80675067
Not really.

File: song-of-the-south-poster.jpg (57KB, 600x474px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 600x474px

>>80674943

"Song of the south" live action film when???

For such a big movie. I felt the rating could have been a little higher and the story more matured. Afterall, only adults watched it.

File: beauty-and-the-beast-feather-duster.jpg (52KB, 888x456px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 888x456px

>>80666970
>only change is a gay character

YOU WOT M8?

>>80666970
>Is Hollywood dead?
you're only realizing this now?!

>prince is a dick
>even his servants get cursed

The movie relies on nostalgia, yet it does a horrible job at adapting the animated movie. Emma Watson was a horrible cast. Scenes outside of Gaston were meh and boring. None of the actors looked like they enjoyed it.

This is what I expected from a live action Disney musical: https://youtu.be/q7Z8IdVwK5Y

Instead we got a snore fest.

>>80666970

La Fou was always a fag.

>>80666970

Is there a reason that they don't re-release movies? Before they had VHS, movies were getting shown in theaters all the time and on television too. That's actually why they traditionally put the copyright year in roman numerals, to make it harder for people to quickly tell when a movie was made.

Now that movies are hyper-available, and digital projection cuts out a whole lot of the distribution costs, it seems like we'd see more re-releases, like they did with the new Star Wars movies. I'm not interested in seeing any of the shit they've got playing, but if they were showing Jaws, Chinatown, The Matrix, or such I'd probably go. I mean, instead of rebooting the Matrix, just re-release it. You probably won't make as much money, but it'll cost nothing compared to making a new one, and you'll make some money.

Why re-hash Beauty and the Beast instead of just showing it again? Movies used to only make money from theatrical exhibition, but now so much of movies' profitability is in DVD/BluRay sales, and the time between the cinema and home viewing is getting smaller and smaller. Why not accept that the cinema is more of an alternative to watching at home rather than a necessary means to watch a particular movie. A theater owner would probably make more money showing The Godfather for a weekend or so than they would a lot of new movies.

>>80675067

>Be our guest
>In Hell

Seems legit

>>80675489

Continuing on with this,

When my mother was growing up, the only ways to watch a movie were in the theater or on a television broadcast. She ended up seeing a lot of Westerns when she was home sick, and they'd bring back Gone With the Wind to the theater every year. It wasn't until she was a married adult that you could watch movies at home on VHS, and still for a while they were priced at like $80 each so you really wouldn't own something unless you absolutely fucking loved it or were rich.

When I was growing up, you could rent and buy movies, sure, but the lag between the theater and the video store was long. If you didn't see something in the theater, you were going to be waiting for over a year before you got a chance, and even then it would cost about $100 to buy so you'd end up renting. And then, after a few months of that, you'd finally be able to buy it for $20 and wouldn't have to keep renting it if you wanted to watch it over and over again.

Now, instead of a year and a half between the cinema and being able to buy it, it's dramatically shorter. First Network TV Broadcast is hardly an event, and if you don't feel like paying to watch something at the movies, you can just wait six months or so and watch it at home. It's like cinema and home viewing are almost merged together.

So yeah, why not re-release movies? The local theater here shows It's a Wonderful Life every year (probably because it's public domain), and it sells out. I'm not sure if movie theaters can survive in competition with home viewing if they're restricted only to new movies. They could probably do well for themselves with a blend of old and new.

File: 20170105_C6145_PHOTO_EN_850045.jpg (607KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

607KB, 1200x1200px

>>80675489
>but if they were showing Jaws, Chinatown, The Matrix, or such I'd probably go

Does your theater not do this already?

Mine does a "flashback film festival" every few months with different themes. You got to see all the classics on the big screen, along with some newer 90s films. It really is different seeing them on the full sized theater screen and sound system.

Often these come aroun when a movie gets digitally restored, like when they made that cleaned up 4k copy of Das Boot my local theater showed it for one night only. Looked gorgeous.

The last flashback festival had Pulp fiction, Fight Club, Blade Runner, Princess Bride, Heat and Blood Simple. Plus some fun ones thrown in like 5th element, etc.

One night only for each film sadly, so you have to be paying attention or you get the app to notify you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afzmwAKUppU

>>80676069

Hm, no they don't. That's exactly what I'm talking about, though. Hopefully it catches on!

>>80666970
Nope. The only people upset about this are basement dwelling neckbeards on /tv/.

>>80675456
This! 1000x this!

All the people who are bootyblasted by Gaston's little man servant being gay in the new release obviously have not watched the original recently. He fawned over the G-man more then the three blond frillies combined.

nostalgiafags will try and tell you this isn't a good movie. ignore them.

>>80669911
IS it though? They spent over 300 million on this remake.

>>80674297
you are a degenerate please kys so society can advance

>>80666970
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6qDPCh33fg
no, hollywood is gay

File: 1473042584209.jpg (18KB, 480x471px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 480x471px

>>80670504
The mermaid will be symbolism for genderfluid ariel and her struggle discovering her sexuality

File: Almond.jpg (12KB, 640x335px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 640x335px

>nobody's posted the Armond White review

It was absolutely savage

>>80667010

There were probably more Black people in this film than there were in the whole of France at that time.

>>80666970
Yes. Been dead.

>>80677417
So you noticed.

I didn't have a problem with the forced LGBTQ-SJWism, which includes the cross dressing and the hinted homoeroticism
I didn't have a problem with the BLACKS being shoehorned in at every corner and the constant derpy love triumph's evil motif that is classic to all Disney flicks

I am probably getting soft in my old age
What did make me feel bad however was trying to view the movie through the eyes of a half-intelligent nonWHITE.. they had to see the agenda being forced and for those of whom who realize that blacks only make up 12% of the population they can draw their own conclusions when 50% of the movie is non-white interracial relationship

>they niggerized the feather duster
Now I mad

>>80676660
160 million dollar budget
170 million in sales in first weekend
182 million overseas already

That deadpool type profits.

>>80670132

Why can't disney go back and un-rape the old animated movies? The lore/stories they ripped from were normally far more violent and teaching. Like fucking mermaids are monsters that are meant to lure a sailor to their death because they think too much via their dick. The morals of some disney animated movies promote being a complete historical revisionist and often go into the 'steal, be an asshole and, you'll get the girl/princess + bonus rewards of status/money/power'.

File: King of _tv_.jpg (19KB, 300x279px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 300x279px

>The new Beauty and the Beast subjects family filmgoers to left-wing propaganda.

>The classic 1946 French version of Beauty and the Beast (La Belle et la Bête) featured an opening epigraph that explained the concept behind director Jean Cocteau’s live-action fairy tale: “Children believe what we tell them. They have complete faith in us.” That faith gets compromised in the new live-action musical Beauty and the Beast. Its attempt to sneakily indoctrinate children (and adults) into Disney Corporation banality recasts the nature of parent-child (and Hollywood-consumer) relations so that that bond is subsumed in state-sponsored political correctness. This new version — with its feminist Belle (Emma Watson), a crude, chauvinist-male Beast (Dan Stevens), and a “diverse” underclass of servants and objects-come-to-life (performed by Josh Gad, Audra McDonald, Emma Thompson, Ewan McGregor) — is a fairy tale that confuses liberal social engineering with “magic.”

>Viewers — particularly parents — who cannot discern the difference between entertainment and propaganda may have already been duped by Disney’s long-standing entertainment hegemony. It’s a mistake to think that such propaganda is innocent storytelling. This Millennial Beauty and the Beast becomes grim progressive silliness when it erases basic gender distinctions and politicizes the background and experience of the commoner Belle and the aristocratic Beast. It’s a blockbuster touting specious lessons in Occupy logic and “tolerance.”

File: Darkmond.jpg (13KB, 250x375px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 250x375px

>>80682130
>Cocteau’s sumptuous post-WWII lesson was ideal. He provided cultural continuity between the narrative simplicity of the original 18th-century fairy tale and the moral sophistication of the 20th century. The still-unparalleled credit sequence, rarely discussed by critics, ranks as probably the most ingenious narrative introduction in movie history: Cocteau and his lead actors, Jean Marais (La Bête) and Josette Day (La Belle), appear as themselves in a school classroom–movie set. The maestro writes the film’s title and the stars’ names on a chalkboard. The actors, their backs to the camera, approach the board and erase their own names — acknowledging their participation in a cinematic conceit. They playfully indicate the magical erasure of reality by fantastic whim in the cinematic storytelling that is to come.

>Disney’s versions of the tale are not nearly as sophisticated as Cocteau’s. Starting with the awful (yet popular) 1991 animated musical Beauty and the Beast, Disney turned magic into shrill obviousness. Its banality proved more crowd-pleasing than Cocteau’s once-popular surrealistic adaptation. The current version, clunkily directed by Bill Condon (who ruined both Dreamgirls and the Twilight vampire-romance series) prides itself on PC Broadway inanity and cynicism. Condon choreographs the cartoon’s songs, carrying on the movie-musical ineptitude of Disney’s Into the Woods. It’s “modern” to a fault. This unbeautiful Beauty and the Beast (full of special-effects as annoying as the cartoon version’s fake splendor) can only distinguish itself by being as oppositional as a Broadway show. Belle’s sexual politics and an unnecessary gay subplot involving the villain Gaston (Luke Evans) and LeFou (Gad’s servant character) are part of Disney’s effort to replace traditional notions about love, family, community, and sex with fashionable ideology about gendered love.

File: nigger faggot is disappointed.jpg (36KB, 362x362px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 362x362px

>>80682164
>Watson’s Belle is not a love-starved innocent but a feminist standard-bearer (like a less strident Anna Kendrick, lacking only a college student’s iPad). Her warbling of Alan Menken’s dreadful songs — as with the movie’s overall use of singing, animated fantasy, and dancing to express heightened emotion — ultimately demeans what should be irresistible and universal about the fairy tale’s expression of romantic longing. (The title song and the hebephrenic “Be Our Guest” rank with Hollywood’s most foul anthems.) And Stevens, made into a ram-horned Beast under a wicked spell, is too obvious. He lacks the mystery, the sensual growl, and sexual threat of Marais’s furry, misunderstood predator. Such video-game-style caricatures of this literalized fantasy reveal Disney’s execrable habit of re-engineering popular aesthetics. Its goal is to create a generation of political camp-followers, nonthinkers, and future Broadway tourists — in short, miseducated consumers.

>The speciously “evolved” sexual and social attitudes of this updated fairy tale flatten and coarsen the Beauty and the Beast myth that Cocteau (a gay, polymath genius) made exquisite. When Cocteau encouraged his audience to suspend disbelief, he invited them to participate in romantic danger and wishful bliss. The Disney approach is childish, and it is not justified by political trendiness (such as Gad’s oafish gay-baiting, which repeats his eunuch-like snowman Orlof in Frozen).

Just saw it with my gf
The CGI code monkeys put more soul into it than anyone else. It was dull, boring and unnecessary
My gf and all the other girls in the theater loved it though

File: gay negro critic.jpg (65KB, 416x625px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 416x625px

>>80682218
>At this point in our evolved sexual standards, it is appropriate — in fact, necessary — to judge Disney’s version by other filmmakers’ sensual daring and moral instruction. It is important to hold better films as the standard: Catherine Breillat’s updated adult erotic fairy-tale Bluebeard and Neil Jordan’s The Company of Wolves, the 1985 semiotic analysis of Red Riding Hood.

>Cocteau’s wondrous Beauty and the Beast gave the world Marais’s wolf-like wounded romantic hero and Day’s graceful Belle. The entire film’s aura of enchantment reign superlatively. Moviegoers who don’t know Cocteau’s version — and anyone who takes children to this new swill — merely capitulate to Disney propaganda. They cheat themselves while Disney corrupts the faith of future generations.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445866/disney-beauty-beast-faithless-pc-propaganda