The changes and additions are probably just to try and show that Belle is a "strong independent woman" who don't need no man. Pointless and dumb. Especially since, like you said, she was already a perfect character.
SirPoofyPants your not really a strong powerful woman if you have to tell everyone every five minutes. A strong person just is strong and doesn’t have to do anything to prove it. Shoving these messages just feels like the creators were too insecure and had little faith in the audience to enjoy any of their films. That’s why we have only gotten moana and frozen as new Disney princesses most recently.. growing up there were so many new amazing films and unique ideas or retelling of other stories in addition to everything else.
Making the new Belle "strong" was such a slap in the face for those of us who identify with the original. The agenda just indirectly told us we're weak and worthless.
@@LadyDragonbane Bell was strong on her own. She literally sacrificed herself to save her dad. She was a very well done character, a lot of people identified with Belle, and Belle was such a feminist icon! But then Emma Watson came in with partly toxic feminism and ruined the image of Belle.
Broadway Beast was even more adorable, if that's even possible. Unlike the live action movie, the stage play expanded on the characters instead of changing them.
Belle teaching that girl to read made no sense because girls in that social class (judging by the girl’s clothes) already knew how. They had books, pamphlets, and magazines for women and girls. Women reading in 1700s France wasn’t some revolutionary, empowered thing. They were expected to read and write for basic needs. Granted, not everyone in that time could read and write as well as Belle could, but they were taught the basics so they could function in life. Contrary to popular belief, that era wasn’t full of unenlightened people, like Hollywood wants us to believe.
To be fair we don't know the exact year Beauty and the Beast takes place in since Disney has never been 100% faithful to the original fairytale. (I think this one was written by Perrault?)
Papa Moomin I think that the Beauty and the Beast’s story was first written in a book by Jeanne Marie Leprince de Beaumont. She was a private French teacher to the family of rich British people (French was fancy at the time) and she used the story to teach the two little girls of the family the language
I recently worked in the regional archives of my town, and MY GOD, the level of schoolgoers in middle to lower income families during the end of the 18th and all of the 19th century was so surprisingly high!
Papa Moomin we actually KNOW the exact time period. If you watch the original movie there is a scene after the banquet song where the clock is taking her around and talk about the architecture of the castle. Based of the name of the style he say we can guess that they are in the renaissance. The movie is actually set in a different time period, as we can clearly guess from the attire of the guests at the ball in the beginning. That kind of puffy, over decorated dresses and the tall and eccentric hairstyles are from the rococò era. The era when Villeneuve write the book (or at least one of the more famous version).
I hate how Watson thought that Belle not insisting on cleaning the wounds, her forcing the light on the beast, and her tricking her father and shoving him was “feminist” and not “douche bag” and, yes, I AM pinning this all on Watson. She got cast before a writer was even attached and the writer so happened to her her friend who wrote perks of being a wallflower. I remember an interview saying that she chose the writer and it boggles my mind why would Disney give Emma that much control. They’ve had Hollywood legends that weren’t as finicky or controlling and yet...they caved for Watson??
Watson comes off as a diva to me. I don't think she's a particularly great actress, and I wish they had cast someone more fitting for this role because she neither looks or acts like the character. It eludes me how she became this popular.
Emma Watson doesn't have the character complexity of Belle. Belle can be strong yet loving, daydreaming yet wise, independent yet still feminine. Emma is just... this masculine tomboyish girl who thinks feminism is all about being like a man. She has no rather paradoxical characteristics that make her interesting. And she CANNOT act.
She can act, but that confident feminist side of her is seen in her role as Hermione in Harry Potter series, she took some of Ron's most importaint lines and was shown as a perfect to be a rolemodel to younger girls, while Hermione in books was not that emotionaly inteligent, a little anoying and a lot of people would roll their eyes when they see her. That might be directors' fault but she probably thought that that is how you should portray independence and strong personality since she grew up acting like that in HP movies
Spot-on analysis. Maybe I've just grown even more cynical over time, but all of those downgraded changes scream "agenda" to me. Why do people seem to think that being kind and nurturing is akin to being weak? If anything, it's the opposite. Wish I had something else to contribute to the conversation, but I think you summed it up quite well.
Agreed. Belle always stood up for herself but never in a way that was mean-spirited towards Beast, even if some might say he deserved it. And while she never mistreated him, she didn't come around to actively liking him until AFTER he stopped being a colossal jerk.
I remember when Beast got hurt saving Belle from wolves and she did her best to patch him up. When she was dabbing him with hot water, he yelled in her face but Belle was having none of it. Even though she is kind and nurturing, she’s not afraid to stand up for herself or others that she loves.
@@khfan4life365 Also true. She was assertive when she needed to be. Feminists can't seem to tell the difference between that and acting like a jerk, however.
I think the biggest (or at least most notable) issue was that Watson cannot do facial expressions. Every time a scene called for a certain expression, she had one that was completely off, if not the exact opposite. It's bad when a CG character called "Beast" looks more human than you do.
From the director of The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, folks. One thing the Twilight pentalogy is better-known for is its strong criticisms, but I’ll give the Twilight films this; when I go through them, it makes the movie ironically funny, meaning Twilight is actually so-bad-it’s-good (a Hilariocity, if you will). While with the B&tB remake, it’s very bad (not a massive step-up from Belle’s Magical World at all), and not in a good way. It’s just turning one of many’s favourite classics in cinema and bastardizing it so much that we may need Don Bluth to join forces with Disney (rather than make people think it is a Disney movie like with Thumbelina) be able to remake the film into its former glory.
Kieran Stark - i 100% agree with you except that i actually think Kristen suited the part as Bella because of the actual atmosphere of the movie being quite dull and not filled with intense emotions as B&TB had. just my opinion though, and you’re right about enjoying the twilight saga; it was actually entertaining
Kieran Stark - i 100% agree with you. with twilight, i just don’t see someone else playing Bella’s part other than Kristen, it just feels off. however with Belle, i could name so many underrated actors who would’ve slayed her part perfectly and taking the time to adapt her mannerisms and personality.
Kieran Stark - also i feel like Emma turned Belle into some tomboy that is independent and strong minded when Belle is a quite a quiet, polite and opinionated person. she had etiquette and grace when doing everything, she wasn’t like a feminist like the movie almost portrayed her to be.
Even though you actually like Twilight, it’s always perfectly understandable why not everyone is going to like (or even tolerate it). But hey, let’s all just be be lucky it’s... STILL A BETTER LOVE STORY (or in this case, pentalogy) THAN BAYFORMERS (except Transformers: Age of Extinction since while I do see why many people dislike it, I also see why some other people like Bobsheaux would even defend it. So, it is a guilty pleasure, while the rest of the Bayformers films, I proudly slammed the Mona Bohamad2 for defending from Bobsheaux, The Blockbuster Buster and AnIMat). With that said, my beef with Lindsay Ellis is that she made bashers of both pentalogies look more annoying, unsophisticated and cowardly than their praisers in essays like “Dear Stephanie Meyer” and “The Whole Play” series where she’s been telling people to stop praising the Fast and the Furious video so much because it would make them look like hypocrites since she acted like Michael Bay films and Twilight films are not much different from Fast & Furious yet they get all the hate yet people like the Fast & Furious series for SOME reasons (looks like she’s gonna have to watch The Cosmonaut Variety Hour, Bobsheaux and Cinematic Excrement before she continued insulting the series’ audience)! Heck, even Ice Age is a superior film pentalogy because at least it was strong in the 2000s even though it was a zombie franchise in the 2010s with A Mammothy Christmas, Continental Drift and especially Collision Course (mostly, if not completely, Ice Age is a franchise than got less and less better with every movie. Like, the original is great, The Meltdown is eh, Dawn of the Dinosaurs is the Age of Extinction of Blue Sky Studios, Continental Drift is very subpar and Collision Course is bleh!), whereas in the 2020s, if we really ask for more Ice Age, there could be a reboot that is more like the original; it pretends Continental Drift and Collision Course, my least fav Blue Sky films (as well as Rio 2 and Ferdinand, but if you don’t mind these movies, power to you.) has NEVER happened and only acts like Ice Age the stand-alone movie it could’ve been the whole time.
It's the cult of Hermione/Emma Watson. The perfecting a character to the point that all others pale compared to her. (The hp movies ruin Ron's character to make Hermione better.)
They didn’t just ruined Ron. They also ruined Harry and Ginny. The films spent too much time giving Harry and Hermione the sexual tension (that dance scene that never happen in the books) while forgetting to develop romantic feelings between Harry and his WIFE and somehow Harry Potter, the protagonist and titular character, has lower leadership and fighting skills than Hermione.
@@nont18411 Yeah, I feel like Ron being downgraded in the movies is a topic that has been talked to death. There are so many videos highlighting it. But nobody seems to talk about how Harry was also downgraded. His wit, leadership abilities, resourcefulness wasn't shown enough. Like, the dragon escape idea was credited to Hermione, even though it was Harry in the books. Figuring out how to save Sirius was also Harry's achievement which was again given to Hermione in the movies. Emma Watson feels that Hermione is both the head and the heart of the trio. When really I would say that Hermione is the mind, Ron the heart, and Harry is the soul of the trio. They balance each other out.
well, I thought the film was perfect (hp). but in beauty and the beast, the director failed I guess or maybe I watched the classic animation all the time, and how lively and prompt it was compared to the live one
Knowing Emma Watson's political ideology, assuming she had any say into the matter, I would say that they were trying to remove aspects of Bell's personality that were deemed too delicate or not assertive enough.These days no female protagonists can show any frail traits, or any character flaws whatever.
Exactly! Because a woman who had a unique personality in her village despite the fact that she had to pay the price of isolation by others, that she obviously rejected or talked back to men when she had to but also being polite when situation required and standing her ground against her entire village to talk about her loved ones was not "feminist enough" for her! It is so sad! Plus the lack of education! She rejected corsets because of her "feminism" without even bothering to see what a corset actually was! The movie was horrible in general but Belle's character was definitely one of the saddest changes for me!
@afootineachworld I think no one understands what feminism is nowadays. They use exactly the same phrases as women of early 20th century used, regardless of context! Right now their "feminism" is only about saying what a terrible world is when men "rule it" and by placing somen who fight in movies. Nowadays is not "feminist enough" unless the woman fights with a sword! There is no originality in movies anymore, not a variety of characters that might not be strong in body but strong in spirit etc. Also by picturing women always as victims even insults me and I am a woman. I believe I am capable for much more than...being a victim to men!
that statement is so stupid especially since Belle is definitely a good female role model and definitely a good feminist. You don't need to change her character to make her more "feminist"
The live action Beast and Belle has absolutely no chemistry ...it was painful to watch . The movie lacked romance and magic . When the feather duster became human was my favorite part because she was shunning.
I have almost always been a fan of 24 Frames of Nick except for when he made “Frozen 2 is Terrible, Stop Lying” with a “Hotel Transylvania films and Frozen 1 are the best, stop lying” beginning and said that Anna and Elsa has no chemistry with each other, but he never complained that Beauty and the Beast (late 2010s remake) characters like the titular “protagonists” Belle and Beast had much less chemistry. Granted, Frozen II does have its fair share of weaknesses, but compared to other movies of last year like Toy Story 4, Arctic Dogs, The Queen’s Corgi, Abominable, The Secret Life of Pets 2, Playmobil the Movie, Uglydolls, The Addams Family, The Lion King and Uglydolls, it looks like The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part (which means that The Lego Movie 2 is my favourite animation of one of my least favourite years of animation up to the ranks of 2013, though Spies in Disguise and How to Train Your Dragon 3, even though it feels more underwhelming than its hard-to-top-in-terms-of-high-quality predecessors, come close and are the only other ones I found to be great).
It’s sad when the sleeping wardrobe and the piano with no teeth have more chemistry and love in their relationship then the main two characters of Belle and the Beast
The live end death scene had no emotion because it lacked the buildup of belle falling in love.... watson took out all the reasons why Belle fell in love and basically fell in love with him because he was the big bad jock who treated her poorly
I liked the animated Belle for being naïve, romantic and feminine. Basically, she knew she was beautiful but she was also very kind and respectful to everyone, beast included. she never really felt abused like in the new movie- she couldn't relate to the beast, yet she loved him and adored him completely. in the live movie, they made it so that the beast and Belle can relate to each other, because both have this darkness in this lives, both lost their mothers, both feel hated and abused. I miss the old Belle who was so filled with wonder, who didnt have that dejection. she could give so much love because she was secure in herself. she was light and the beast had this brooding dark past. in the new movie, there is no such concept because Emma as Belle herself feels a bit like an odd beast in her town. so that whole concept of Belle saving the beast wasn't there. the movie aside, you have a most lovely princess like voice!
naive? NAIVE?? what an insult and utter oblivion you must have. she was literally the smartest girl in france. she read books all the time. she was innovative. she didnt fall for the "most handsome guy" in the town that every woman would die for, even when he was begging for her! she was anything but naive. dont ever say that again.
@@billievanderpol Lol, I think Mary Thomas meant the part of naive's definition that says "natural and unaffected, innocent," I think she's saying she was childlike, sincere, and sweet, I call that a compliment. You are right, Belle is very wise, and pairing that with her feminine sweetness described by MT as naivete makes for a great character.
Also, while Belle was kind and caring, she was also firm when she needed to be. She wasn’t afraid to stand up for herself and others. After the Belle number, Gaston and LeFou insult Maurice and Belle snaps at them for insulting her father. In the scene when she’s cleaning Beast’s wounds, she doesn’t let him walk all over her. When he roars and yells at her, she chides him for not controlling his temper. Later, we see that same strength when she yells at Gaston for insulting the Beast. Just because she’s not kicking ass and taking names doesn’t mean she’s not strong in her own way.
@@billievanderpol Smartest girl in France? You're ignorantly generalizing all bibliophiles. The animated version clearly shows that Belle loves reading fairytales or anything that sparks her imagination, fuels her desire for adventure, and enriches her inner world. She's an idealist and a daydreamer. It's time to stop this silly stereotype that every book lover is some scholarly "Hermione Granger" clone. And Mary Thomas is correct. Belle IS naive. She's a true innocent. This quality is extremely evident when she showed the townspeople the image of the Beast through the mirror. She's so gullible that she thinks that the crowd will be completely openminded about the whole thing. The last thing she imagined was for them freak out and to turn into a bloodthirsty mob. If that isn't a classic example naïveté, then I don't know what is.
And this is why KiteTales & Flex deserves much better than MonaBohamad2. Because while MonaBohamad2 slammed the Disney Renaissance films (ex: called them “pointless” and “popular because of haters”) in favour of their remakes, KiteTales & Flex acknowledges that even though she was gonna be as kind to the remake as possible for what a total cash-grab it is, it doesn’t change that she at least has a very passionate take on the original and acknowledged that it’s unarguably superior.
They were trying to make Belle more assertive in the remake, instead of displaying that quiet strength she had in the original. In the end, they wrecked the character. I HATED the Live Action Remake of this movie.
Another subtle difference that I noticed was the porridge/soup scene. In the original, Belle sees Beast gobbling down his food in a very primitive way. Belle is stunned, but thoughtfully tries to look the other way. Yet, Beast is able to discern Belle's surprise and tries to use a spoon without success. This failure made him very self-conscious and ashamed. So Belle, out of deep compassion and understanding, decides to tactfully find a middle ground by drinking from the bowl...but in a more refined way and the Beast successfully follows suit. In the remake, however, Belle watches Beast with this judgmental/condescending look on her face. She then raises her eyebrows at him, sighs disdainfully, picks up the bowl, and gives him this look that says, "Fine, I guess I'll have to sink to _your_ level and do it _your_ way because I'm _such_ a _good_ person." Animated Belle displayed profound emotional intelligence. She's aware how vulnerable Beast is at that moment and teaches him without humiliating him. She treats him with dignity and empathy. Also, the way they raised their bowls to acknowledge one another before eating was such a cute moment. Remake Belle, on the otherhand, was just so patronizing and sanctimonious. The whole scene lacks sincerity. That holier-than-thou expression on Emma Watson's face made me want to shove her face right into her tomato soup, to be brutally honest.
Isn't it weird that the animated characters in the original were so much better at non verbal acting than the live action? Total props to the animators of the original. Plus they wanted to actually tell a good story, not just please decades of silly nitpicking and make money.
2:08 I have the feeling that Emma felt like Belle having the beast reveal himself to her made Belle ToO pAsSiVe and her shoving the candle in his face made her more AcTivE and StRoNg
I Don't think the director's name is Emma...Oh right you thought just because Emma is a feminist she made every decision happen in this movie. Sorry but they have directors for a reason. You're forgetting that not every feminist makes things happen in a film whilst ACTING. Yes, Emma Watson is an actress. NOT the director
The funniest part about the patriarchy hating how Belle likes to teach little girls how to read is that the original freakin' novel was published in a magazine _for women._ They broke the historical timeline just to add a bad sjw moment X'D Freakin' Jane Austen was around during BnB's time period and you're telling me that the whole village is obsessed with how Belle is teaching kids to read?
also as someone whose country has and is still grappling with actual issues on education women in rural areas with heavy patriarchal influence, its infuriating to see First world movie productions making a mockery of the issue with their barely attempting to capture the nuance of women and education to begin with. In my country, we know if a girl wants to be educated in a rural society back in the day she won't be openly making engineering stuff and teaching servants to teach near community watering hole. The girls in such situation try to escape their community to cities or better villages and towns. Opposition against women education is far more pervasive and insidious than just bullying a woman by dirtying her laundry LMAO. Actual oppressed for education Belle wouldn't dare to read anything out in the open or show off her invention at all or try to pass it off via her dad . Her desire for seeing the world could have been turned into not just a dream but actual necessity to pursue her rights and passion. So when the Beast without any guile just gives her access to a Library she would see he is more than just a narrow minded provincial asshole which she has seen her whole life if not the most sweetest thing , i guess . There is noble qualities to him ( see there is a way to make fake sjw agenda into a sincere meta storyline if one thinks for 2 seconds which no one did i guess)
Also, judging by that girl’s clothes, she would have already known how to read. Contrary to what Hollywood wants you to believe, women reading in that time period wasn’t uncommon. Even the poorest girl learned how to read in some form to do daily functions, like cooking. Women were expected to read as much as men were because it prepared women for running a household and raising children.
The Beast surprising Belle with his library is one of the sweetest, thoughtful, and romantic moments I've seen. His reaction to her surprise and joy was so endearingly vulnerable.
For me the animated was a shorter film but said a lot more with its wonderful simplicity. That simplicity created an emotional complexity that you wanted more of but the live action had NONE of that. No chemistry no emotional buildup at all. I was so sad. Beast didn’t learn anything or earn his transformation in the live action. It was so devoid of heart and intention. BRING BACK THE MAGIC DISNEY PLEASE!! If you can’t do it right LEAVE MY CLASSICS ALONE! Cinderella was a wonderful reimagining because it wasn’t a senseless copy. This was
The worst change is the absolutely wooden performance of Belle’s “I want Adventure in the Great Wide Somewhwre” in the live action. LIKE WHAT WAS THAT? That was the most epic, heartfelt cry for something more in the animation. That is my favorite scene from the original and it is completely BUTchered in the live action. No epic run across a golden field with dandelion fuzz, no moving of the arms and gesturing to the wide world, no breeze carrying the dandelion seeds away. Just Emma Watson standing on a hill with no expression, no feeling, staring off at a black sky rather than a sunset.
They owe Paige O’Hara an apology for that alone. God, it was so bad. They should have just gotten Anne Hathaway, who can sing, rather than Emma Watson, who can’t.
It’s sad that tenderness is seen as weakness. It’s okay to be gentle and kind toward those you love. Belle may have been peppy and gentle, but she was no pushover, she always stood up for herself. Belle was proof that a woman with feminine traits could be a badass and it’s a shame so many people overlook it.
Omg I didn't know you could see into the future? That's so cool, tell me more all about the movie where LILY COLLINS definitely did a much better job 🤦♀️
You can blame Emma Watson for most of the jarring changes. She explained in interviews she told the producers how to "improve" upon Bell. Ultimately it was just a crappy attempt to mold her into a feminist ideal to further her SJW agenda. It's sad. First Ghost Busters, and now classic Disney films
Political ideology aside, it's insulting that someone can take the source material and assume they can do a better job. Like Kitetales ends with, how can you improve a perfect character?
I'm not at all fan of Emma Watson or her kind if feminism or her portrayal of Belle but like when you use the term 'sjw' in a derogatory way like, why is it bad to care about social justice?
Social justice tends to be about the identity of the group someone is in, rather than the individual themselves. "You" are not important. Your race/gender/sexual orientation/religion/ethnicity/etc. is what's important.
This just reinforces the fact that Emma Watson was a horrible choice for this role. She obviously didn't care for the original at all, and I guarantee you they only picked her because her role in Harry Potter made her well known. That's literally all she's really known for in any significant way.
Her ego is just way too big for her own good. Putting feminist propaganda in a beloved classic like Beauty and the beast to push her political stances is a real insult to many fans of this wonderful movie.
The reading scene sounds cringey. Likely political inspiration aside, I don't remember the villagers being hostile to Belle in the animated film. Why would she live there if they openly sabotage her work?
The room scene too! In the animated film, the Beast specifically gives Belle a room, rather than making her stay in the tower. It's a glimmer of his kindness right after he feels guilty (and shows it) about sending her father away. In the live action film, Lumiere is the one who gives her a bedroom and kindness, but Lumiere isn't the one learning any lessons here. It's the first gesture of "kindness" the Beast shows to Belle and they completely took it out.
For me, casting a Belle would have been so goddamn difficult. She is on another level. She walks, looks and talks with such grace and kindness, it’s unreal. Casting someone who could be so tender yet bold when needed would have been so hard but Emma Watson just wasn’t it. At all. She seems to cold to me, she doesn’t have any life or sweetness in her eyes.
I think a dancer or a Broadway comedian would have been better for the role to express grace in a human way. By the way, Lily James and Amy Adams were good when they played a Disney princess.
Did anyone else look at her first "escape plan" and think she's going to try and climb down a icy tower with ribbons of fabric, not even checking if it would hold her weight, at night and this is suppose to make her seem smarter?
Also, instead of holding her ground ready for any defensive maneuver in a better lit patch of the dungeon to know what she's going up against, she recklessly decided to stride face first into the dark only knowing that there's an inhuman figure almost twice her size. She's more brash, aggressive and makes her look even cockier than Gaston. Also also, in such a tense scene, she decides to take the initiative without considering that Beast might not appreciate someone that by attitude can come off as a threat of getting a potential burn with her torch and he could end her right then and there.
@@bassyboi581 The original Beast would've accidentally thrown her off the edge because of instinct and/or rage because she shoved fire in his face, but this is the "My condition is more of an inconvenience than something slowly destroying my humanity." Beast so he was more annoyed than threatening.
@@CoolG97 Truly, no justice on this world. But seriously though, they also could have done a lil scarier angle even though he's annoyed. He looks like me when my parents start telling embarrassing stories about me
@@bassyboi581 Well that would've made him intimidating and we can't have that because it might make him unlikable, so instead he's an even bigger douche than Gaston but not half as charming. (He and Watson!Belle deserve each-other.)
i love emma and i think she's an amazing actress, but yesssss i really want to see lily collins as belle cuz i always imagined her (lily) as belle in my mind
At first i thought you said Lily James and i was like NAWW! then when i realized you said lily collins i looked at an image of her and i was like YASSS! too bad shes not french tho :(
From how you explained it, it feels like they wanted to put politics into the story. Instead of exploring the fantastical and emotional side of it. Belle as an inventor, that feels awfully like pushing the women can also be engineers line. So that makes me think, if they had explored that further, they could have made a more geeky Belle than the one we know from the cartoon. Knee deep in elbow grease. More quality of life inventions based on a first design this being the rolling barrel or something else, also her search for more knowledge through reading. I don't know, I think that can also be made cute and attractive, and would have given us an alternate character for Belle. Now, I haven't seen the movie yet. Just my 2 cents from your description. :)
I haven't seen the live action one either (nor do I particularly want to), but your description of a geekier Belle sounds far more interesting. Give her some eyeglasses to complete the ensemble and I'd be wholly on board.
Alice M. I think you've kind of hit on the problem her Alice. The changes to Belle aren't bad, they just don't work here because that's essentially all they've changed and they only made the changes at the surface level. They shoehorned a new Belle into the old story, and weren't able to really fully flesh out the changes because she has to fit into all of the existing plot points.
I’d love the idea for geeky belle. It kind of makes sense since her father is so geeky too! Her father is an inventor too! It’ll make lots of really cute scenes with beast and belle too.
An alternative steampunk-ish Beauty and the Beast (not like the lunar Chronicles, no shade) would be so neat and work with how the staff are almost mechanical and all.. Only to wish
The biggest issue is I had was that Emma Watson's voice wasn't nearly as strong as the original. The softer ballads sound pleasant but Watson can't pull off those powerful moments that the music calls for. Though I will say I enjoyed Dan Stevens portrayal of the beast. I agree that the library scene was a bit of a thud but overall think Stevens brought a level of sarcastic charm to the beast that was similar original. Not to mention the beasts solo was my favorite song from the new movie. It was full of so much emotion and it make me cry. Also, dan Stevens is way hotter in human form than Adam from the animated movie...
These classic movies don’t need remakes. To me, this is Disney running out of ideas and rehashing the movies we love but taking out everything we loved about them.
spemka Yeah, Mona Bohamad2 is absolutely unlikeable because she is a hypocritical (she calls people haters for not liking Hollywood remakes, but I’m sure that would make HER the hater) cyberbully that thinks everything about her should be criticized.
It should be the director you hate, Emma is the actor and you have the director. Think of it like a dollhouse, Emma does what she's told to do based by the script. Emma doesn't decide I think I should teach this girl how to read. Or, I think I need to walk like I own the place.
I think there's a fine line between performance and a script. Let's admit it, even if Emma was to do the same things in the script profoundly she’d still get hate just because everyone assumes she's ever too much of a feminist, too much of a Hermione Granger, too popular they could've gave it to anyone
@@aurorthia8199 Nah, Emma had control over her expressions, poise, and portrayal of belle. I've read she even had control over the writer and the dress designer as well. People including me were elated at hearing that she'll be playing Belle since we expected she suits her, but after watching the movie, we were devastated and disappointed. Emma was just playing Emma in Belle's dress, she wasn't really Belle. So no, more people would've appreciated Belle if Emma portrayed her better.
I like how you were able to state the things that were bothering you, and to do it without attacking anyone. It sounds like a lot of your concerns are the same reasons that I haven't seen any of Disney's live-action remakes since they started the whole trend. I feel like the people at Disney (and most movie studios, for that matter) don't understand what made their classic movies so powerful and memorable in the first place. So instead of trying to recreate that feeling of wonder and light-hearted fantasy that the originals had, they try to ground these fairy tales in pessimistic realism. Among other things, this apparently means that characters have to be low-energy and nonchalant so that audiences don't see them as naive, serious and heartfelt moments need jokes to keep them from being awkward, and a woman has to be a tad bit aggressive and emotionally detached before she can be considered a strong female protagonist. You know, kind of like how some people think of reality. I want to say that I commend Disney for trying, but the truth is... I wish they hadn't. I wish they would let the classics stand on their own, leave them be, and try telling more new stories. Oh well.
LamanKnight you could just as easily have said that to Disney when they made the original film. Leave it alone and how dare you change anything. I don't think they've changed enough here, and that's the actual failing.
I despise this movie with all my heart 😔. The biggest disappointment out of the whole film to me was the dance sequence. In the cartoon it is set up to be a romantic date between belle and the beast and the build up to it was for the beast to confess his feelings. They had dinner, an intimate dance together, and relaxed afterwards under the stars. It was so romantic and just makes you feel all fuzzy inside. 💛 The live action however, it just includes the dance scene and that's it. There's no build up or anything that can lead to it naturally. It's just the through process, "well it was in the cartoon so it has to be in the live action too." It felt robotic and awkward between them and it even ended weirdly with them just stopping then walk outside stiffly to just stand and talk. Overall, such a let down 🙄.
Mona Bohamad2 *YOU* ARE ABOUT AS HORRIBLE AND NEGATIVE AS GINGER ROBERTS, 72.224.115.118 FROM LOVE INTEREST WIKI (WHICH HE GOT BANNED FOR FOR BEING A DISRESPECTER) AND MORE OF THE MODERN SONIC FANBASE!!!!!!!!!! EVERYBODY HATES YOU!!!!!!!!
And don't forget when Belle ask the Beast to dance and all his reactions, being so shy and nervous at her and then showing a smile when Belle hugs him♥️♥️. I really wanted to fall in love with this CGI Beast, but I couldn't, it has no feelings at all
Mona Bohamad2 By reputation, I mean it in two ways, “How the majority of people views you” and “the way you are”. And you can fee free to express opinions, you just have to take consideration why people like certain movies over others. You may like at least some live-action remakes, but that doesn’t mean they’re (objectively) underrated.
One of my biggest issues with the movie was that they explain the Beast's backstory pretty well in the beginning, but when it came time to explain how he got that way, they blamed everything on his dad...What?? they blamed the Pre-Beast attitude on his dad, (a character with no lines and little reference, but we know is bad because his portrait was ripped up and he took his son out of the room with his wife's corpse in it.) it couldn't have been that he got orphaned at a young age and the staff more or less spoiled him into his adult years so he never had to really mature. Wouldn't that make more sense with the line about how members of the staff felt that they shared blame for the curse. Other issues- 1.Emma Waston getting the role, Belle felt too much like Herimoine. 2.Timeline, it's always winter at the castle now, this whole story could happen over a the course of a week for all we know. 3.Gaston being more likable than Belle and that completely new character serving as his lackey that is like the original in name only (I also felt said character was missed cast.) 4.Implying that Belle was odd because she could read and not because she DID nothing but read. 5.Towns people seemingly being more mad about a girl be taught to read and not that Belle brought a Donkey into an area for washing clothes that probably isn't suppose to have farm animals in it.
And belle has a face that looks like very sweet and calming, but Emma have this sharp face like her feature pop a lot more (not saying its ugly) but its just doesnt fit the character. She looks aggressive while belle looks soft calm sweet you know?
There was no way a movie like this starring Emma Watson wasn't going to have feminist BS shoved into it. Not only is Emma a very wooden actress, she would demand or they would adjust the script on their own to modernize it as well as demonize the time in which the story is set. Nothing people with that ideology touches will be spared from it. It's better to stick with the classics, we'll never get movies like that again.
I agreed with you on the ‘adjust the script to modernize it’ however Emma cant direct a film, that's not her career. I think the directors are taking advantage of the fact she's a feminist in real life and putting it in their film, or my other view was that they were afraid to make belle seem quiet or weak so they adjusted the script and made Emma perform their version of ‘independent’ I honestly feel bad for Emma, all the backlash from the movie is falling on her. People are forgetting who is in control, she acts what she is given. But yeah I agree with you
I prefer live action movies that change the story instead of trying to make them "better" such as Maleficent and Alice in wonderland because its not the same story being told in a worse way its a different movie that can expand on the law from the original
For me, the most painful thing they took away from Belle was her breaking Beast’s curse. In the original, she says she loves him just before the last pedal falls. In the live action she doesn’t say it in time and the enchantress breaks the curse anyway... It takes away her main purpose and makes her love feel cheep or that it doesn’t matter. Sure, it was heartbreaking to watch the servants change into non-living objects but it takes away from the theme of the movie.
Great analysis. When I was a kid Belle was my most beloved princess because of her kindness, love for books and the fact that Beast’s appearance didn’t stopped her from falling in love with him. And this version...they did my girl dirty. That’s not Belle - that’s Emma Watson 🤦
I love your review and i honestly have tears forming in my eyes towards the end...you pointed out everything that is wrong with the "belle" in the remake. Belle is the most kind hearted princess and one of the strongest too, she is modest and compassionate and she knows how to handle people, the new "belle" is just condescending, they tried to improve her but failed miserably, the new " belle" is not charming at all. She lacks the softness and the kindness of the real belle.
It seems like an attempt at giving Belle a bit more agency but it amounts to it not being the same character. This is a problem with most of the characters in the film really. I especially hate the changes to the Beast.
John Garza which was a welcome change from for me. I see no reason to ever hope she would be exactly the same. If I wanted the same, I'd stick with the original. I really liked that they gave her more agency, but was left disappointed overall because the rest of the film is so similar that I see no reason to ever revisit this one again. The changes to Belle aren't enough for me to justify watching this version over the animated version next time I'm in the mood for BatB.
No matter how I used to love Emma Watson, her performance in this movie made me realized she's not that good of an actress or artist. She clearly did not research the character or the time period. *sigh
people should finally understand that being feminine and empathic doesn't exclude being strong and brave. also you can be a feminist and wear a skirt and pink blouse.
The scene that always bothered me was when the beast asks belle if she is happy with him. In the animated movie she says that she is but she misses her father. In the 2017 she says “can anyone be happy unless they’re free?” I took that’s as belle didn’t love the beast.
Emma Watson doesn't have the warmth, tenderness and sweetness of animated Belle. Animated Belle is strong, independent, educated, knows what she wants, makes her own choices, and doesn't allow anyone to bully her. As a woman I'm tired of this trope that a feminine, gentle, nurturing woman cannot be strong and brave and her own person at the same time. It is also ridiculous to present the villagers as hostile to women who read, when the original story is written by an 18th century woman. Actually, two 18th century women, and the intended audience were 18th century girls, who were taught to read. Besides, the CGI Beast lacks the charm and charisma of the Beast in the animated version. CGI is nearly expressionless. Well, so is Emma Watson in this role.
I agree 100% with your analysis. Personally, I think they removed the scene where Belle cared for Beast's wounds because of a ham-fisted overreaction. Women have always been associated as more caring and tender than men (whether that is true or false is another discussion); and so, with such a staunchly ''feminist'' take on Belle, we have to necessarily remove all preconceived notions of "femininity" and make her (quote) "strong" instead. This comes off as uncaring, as who (regardless of gender) would see a person bleeding (someone who just saved your life, mind you) and say "meh, he'll live"?!?
Huh? I don't recall that scene being removed. They had the scene in the live-action where Belle is tending his wounds and they get into their back and forth spat like they did in the cartoon.
Another moment I saw based on a clip I saw was the breakfast scene. 1991: The Beast slobbers away and Belle is put off by it. The Beast reconsiders and tries to eat with a spoon. After failing to do so - beast paws don’t allow for fine dexterity =] - Belle offers to drink from the bowl and the Beast follows in turn. That is a beautifully simple way to show the give and take between them and how their relationship deepened. (And there’s a nice payoff later where at the ballroom dinner … the Beast is indeed eating using silverware, showing how much effort *he* has made to improve himself.) 2017: Instead of that tender understanding, Emma reluctantly puts down her spoon and makes the gesture to drink from the bowl. Based on other clips, she comes off more like a school marm scolding a kid for not reciting his time tables correctly whilst interacting with the Beast. In fact, the Objects actually reveal the spell aside from what could end it. This comes off, to me, like she was doing what she was doing deliberately to help *them*, not the Beast. Really, it should be retitled: Emma Watson and the Enchanted Objects.
Beautifully said, and yes it’s incredible how that little scene in the original movie conveyed so much about their relationship and the importance of compromise and love. Your alternate movie title is spot on!
There's also the fact that she refused to wear a corset for the film even though it's just a historically accurate costume and had nothing to do with feminism
exactly. Corsets are just extended bras. They're not meant to be restrictive. In fact, it's supposed to help with a person's posture, as well as in assisting the person with the heaviness of the gown. I mean look at Emma, her posture was REALLY bad in the movie. I mean I would've respected Emma more if she just personally decided not to wear a corset, but the fact that she had to make a woke statement about it is just a reach.
When I first heard about the live action Beauty and The Beast I really wanted Emily Rossum to play Belle. She not only has the looks down pat but she also has a similar charm about her that just screams cartoon Belle.
Unpopular opinion: Emma Watson can’t, and never could act. People adore her and see her through rose tinted glasses because she was in one of the most beloved franchises of all time, and she’s stunningly beautiful.
I think they wanted to create a strong and independent character. Belle is indeed strong but her main personality threats are a soft heart and intelligence. By the way, my top three disney princesses are 1.Mulan 2.Belle 3.Merida
“Little town...Full of little people” “To this poor provincial town” “There must be more than this provincial life!” Belle never thought highly of her town and constantly made snide remarks when she was singing
Honestly I feel like Watson didn't portray Belle to act like Belle, but she portrayed Belle to act like her- she made Belle not as feminist, she made Belle more headstrong, etc.
isabella I understand the concern, but a lot of it was just an optical illusion. Big sleeves and a HUGE skirt make the already naturally small waist look smaller than it is. And as far as I know the actress wore the corset of her own free will.
Thank you!!! I can’t count the numerous arguments I’ve had with people who say Emma was the perfect Belle. To me, there was hardly any of Belle’s personality, kindness and gentleness at all. Another scene I always point out is the segway to the Belle (reprise). Gaston comes off as pretty understandable. He doesn’t push Belle. He’s concerned about her wellbeing once Maurice dies. She is so cold and rude and it literally comes out of nowhere, just so you think there’s a catalyst for Belle to start singing (if you can call it that) “Madame Gaston” etc. It upset me so much how badly Emma Watson was cast in the role. Beauty and the Beast is my favourite movie and musical theatre Dream role that I will finally be tackling once COVID ends. I wish they had kept to the musical libretto. It’s pretty much perfect, just like the original movie.
Belle in the animated movie was already strength and beauty herself. Sadly, the live action version tried to over emphasize it in the wrong sense,in my opinion.
I started crying as you were describing the scene in the animated movie where the Beast gifts Belle the library and then I started crying even more when you described the death scene, especially because I started to imagine the score to the movie when you mentioned it. It's gotta be like my favorite score in any animated movie. Not only are the live action remake films bad, but they're worse, they're insulting to me as an animation enthusiast. They're insulting to generations of animators whose lives work were these original films. I know new content doesn't delete the original, but I can't help but feel like when Disney's cranking out all these remakes, they're brushing the originals under the rug, and also as well, proving to the majority that animation is only for kids when we should be highlighting how animation is a medium that can be used to create a masterpiece. Beauty and the Beast was groundbreaking when it came out. It was the first animated film to be nominated for best picture at the Oscars, showing that the ideals of animated movies being lesser movies for kids were changing. Now adays, Disney's just spitting out these remakes because people who grew up with them are adults now and they'll make money on the nostalgia factor. But this also promotes the idea to society that "oh this is the adult one because it's not a carton". It even has a longer running time, but for what? Several pointless filler moments just to make the movie longer for older audiences. But getting back to the point, it's just not fair that this is the character people see when they think Belle now, and don't even get me started on Lion King. Luckily, Walt Disney Animation Studios, the studio that started it all, is giving us hope. Because of nostalgia factor again, WDAS released Ralph Breaks the Internet and then Frozen 2, which aren't their best, but I personally enjoy watching them, however, it worried me that WDAS released two sequels in a row when their first and only sequel created before these two was The Rescuers Down Under in 1990. But my point was, WDAS is giving me hope because of their future releases, they have good intentions and know what they're doing and they're upcoming film looks amazing. They were also on a huge hot streak with their original films in the 2010's, Tangled, Wreck-it-Ralph, Frozen, Big Hero 6, and then Zootopia and Moana, both in THE SAME FREAKING YEAR! and with their new wave of original films coming soon, they're gonna show future generations what Beauty and the Beast showed us.
Great review Kite. The more I hear about the live action version, the happier I am that I decided to pass on it. It was bad enough that they had to auto-tune Emma Watson, but the fact that they also flubbed up her character so much is just heartbreaking. I'm a life long fan of the original as well as the stage version. I had high hopes for the live action version, and it's heartbreaking to hear they didn't even seem to understand their own characters.
The thing about Emma Watson is that she makes every character HER, even if that means changing their personalities. Emma also has Belle completely wrong, this shows through the interviews when she kept saying Belle is like Hermione and Emma herself but not all bookworms are the same! Emma as a bookworm herself should know this, I, as a bookworm know this!! Belle is the opposite of Hermione, just because two characters likes books and are intelligent it doesn't mean they're similar. Now Hermione IS like Emma Watson, that's why she plays the character flawlessly, they're both logical and down-to-earth. While Belle is the opposite, she's lively, whimsical, daydreams alot, and has her head up on the clouds. Yes Belle can still be practical and logical at times but her passion for fantasy and otherworldly things such as fairytales and magic outshines that. Belle doesnt read science books or history books like Hermione probably does, she reads FICTION. Belle also has a huge passion for her books and also fantasy in general, she's a girl with a vibrant imagination which makes her stand out from the other princesses. In the live action, it seems like Emma's Belle doesnt really care for fairytales, which is one of Belle's favorite things. Emma's Belle prefers Shakespeare and serious romances. Another thing is that her personality is also completely changed. OG Belle being lively, cheery, dreamy, charming, bookish passionate while the Live Action one is serious, reserved, very hard headed and also has the "feminist twist" Emma believes that wearing a corset isn't a feminist move, and she orders Belle's dresses to be less extravagant and more flexible because in her view, Beautiful, Fashionable girls can't be equally as strong and intelligent. Emma got this completely wrong, being a feminist is about EMBRACING femininity and believing that feminism can be seen as strong. OG Belle has a beautiful wardrobe, her dresses are elegant and stylish, yet she can still be an independent, smart heroine. Besides Belle ISN'T defined by her intelligence, she's not the most intelligent princess. She's just more knowledgeable than some because of her love of reading and learning but she's still impulsive and naive. Now let's talk about how Emma's Belle treats everyone roughly. She treats the castle staff and the beast at first with harshness and sarcasm. "Why would I be startled? I'm talking to a candle" while OG Belle still shows genuine fear, sadness, despair and she's at the point of giving up yet she still treats the castle staff with warmth. She also genuinely cares for the beast, holding no grudge over him. She adores him and genuinely wants to help him ( according to the BATB marvel comics ) you can see this difference when he asks her "are you happy here with me?" OG Belle says "yes!" And Emma says "can anyone be happy if they aren't free??" I know this is a really long essay but I just can't stand it when people keep saying Emma is the "perfect" Belle when clearly the differences are so obvious. Belle is my ultimate favorite character because she's someone I can relate to so much, from her mannerisms, passions, personality, likes and even personal struggles. I dont like how they changed my favorite character's personality like this.
The main way that their relationship developed in the live action movie was through exposition. The servants telling her how great the Beast is. They are desperate to break the spell before it’s permanent so it seems insincere. Not to mention Belle and Beast are both are fighting the original story, not grasping what drew these characters together. In the animated version, it is very organic and emotional.
I ended up still really liking the live action beauty and the beast but what I really did miss was the library scene, the beast was so cute when he wanted to show it to her and it’s kinda the moment you start to love his character. His facial expressions are so adorable. The scene in the live action was fine but it just didn’t have the same charm. Also, I like Emma Watson as an actress (even tho I don’t like her politics) but when you watch the movie you are very aware you are watching emma Watson and not just Belle. That’s why it’s nice to use lesser know actresses like Lily James in Cinderella.
I'll never not be mad Emma Watson got cast; she couldn't even sing and she's a wooden actress and I hate the changes to Belle. I really dislike the live action remake, the changes were pointless and you've pointed all of them out so well. Also, who just shoves a lit candelabra into someone's face? Beast or not, LA!Belle could've set him on fire.
yes...watched it ,totally agree with you kite... what is Disney doing with the live action versions of their animated classics???..why?? wasting these lovely IP
Even worse abput the library scene; he only shows it / gives it to her bc he thinks shes dumb and uncultured for picking what he considers a cliche classic as her favorite, so sharing his collection with her can only help expand her dumb little world. It was so egotistical
Maybe I'm mistaken because I don't remember it properly, but I don't think Belle actually thanks the Beast for saving her in the 2017 version. A wolf attack isn't exactly the quick, painless, peaceful death we all hope to have. Belle can clearly see how badly injured the Beast is and imagine how much worse the wounds would be on her because she doesn't have the thick layer of hide/fur that the Beast does. If someone got badly injured saving you from a violent death, maybe it wouldn't be too much to ask for you to spend two seconds expressing gratitude??? 1991 Belle does. Beast has imprisoned her father, imprisoned her, tried forcing her to dine with him, flown into a rage and broken furniture rather than explaining calmly that the West Wing was in his personal quarters and he needed his space, and quarreled with her when she was just trying to help dress his wound so he'd feel better. In other words, Beast has been a royal pain in the neck, and Belle has every right not to like him in the slightest. However, for all he's done wrong in the space of the few hours they've known each other, he did just save her from a wolf attack, and Belle acknowledges as much. She doesn't say, "I hope your wounds infect!" or "It serves you right for being a bully all night!" She honestly realizes he did her a huge favor at great peril to himself, so she politely and sincerely thanks him for saving her life. It shows what kind of person she is. She's not entitled enough to think he simply had to do it or that it's not a big deal. By using courtesy, Belle is still trying to do the right thing...even though he's spent most of the evening messing up royally....and by tending his wounds, she's showing that she's trying to take responsibility for her own actions, i.e., she realizes she's partially to blame for the wolf attack (although she's not about to let the Beast shrug off his half of the blame!) More than that, she's showing that she's reciprocating the Beast's kindness. He was gracious enough to save her life; she's going to be gracious enough to return him to the castle and tend his wounds rather than leaving him to die in the forest. He did something selfless for her, so she's going to try to give him another chance and uphold her promise to remain at his castle. By thanking him for saving her, she's also showing that she hasn't given up hope that they can learn to speak to each other civilly, even though they've been quarreling all evening. So yes, Beast is caught off guard. Instead of pleading with him or recoiling in fear or having a shouting match, Belle has gently and sincerely spoken polite words to him. Gasp! Can this be...progress??? Hope that the two can hold conversation, i.e., take the first step to becoming friends? Finally, after Belle thanks the Beast for saving her, he says, "You're welcome." He's used to ordering his servants around, but here, he has heard and reciprocated courteous words. Gasp again! Is he actually attempting to be a gentleman??? But if he's starting to be kinder, maybe he and Belle will become friends....and if they become more than that, the spell might actually be broken after all. Ah, the faint stirrings of hope! 2017 Belle apparently can't be bothered. So what if he got badly injured saving her from wolves? Why bother to finish tending his wounds before infection sets in? That's totally not her problem! Why thank him? It's not like she forced him to come in the forest or anything. Why have a tender...or at least courteous...moment when you can both simply ignore each other after your most recent argument? Closure is so overrated! If Belle didn't want to finish cleaning the wounds, she could have asked, "Are you sure you'll be alright?" Then at least it would have been Beast's decision whether or not to accept further help, and Belle still would have been showing concern. Forgive me, but I also like 1991 Belle's line, "Now hold still! This might sting a little." "Now hold still!" is spoken in clear frustration. Yes, it hurts, but it's for his own good, so he needs to deal with it, or the injuries will only get worse. How does he not see that? And if he's going to complain, maybe he'd like to treat the wounds himself because he clearly doesn't appreciate her efforts! And does he honestly not realize if he'd stop fighting against it, the whole procedure would be over a lot sooner? Sheesh! Why is he always such a difficult grouch? But "This might sting a little" is spoken in a softer tone, indicating a level of sympathy. Yes, it does hurt, and it's not easy to keep still when having such deep wounds cleaned, and by the way, if he hadn't fought the wolves, those wounds would have been on her. Isn't it terrible that their constant bickering led to them both being in such great danger? Such a pity! What an eventful evening it's been for everyone, so how about if we just calm ourselves and finish up here, and tomorrow will hopefully be a better day, maybe a new start? It also goes back to Belle's words to the Beast. "Well, you should learn to control your temper!" She's pretty upset too at this point. But she manages to calm herself. "Well, you should learn to control your temper!" No, she's not backing down and cowering. She's had enough of that. It's about time someone told him to get a grip and show some maturity. "Now hold still!" Cue the moment of Belle realizing she should lead by example and control her own temper. Besides, continuing to shout isn't going to resolve anything. "This might sting a little." Sympathy, as well as Belle's determination to do her best to help the Beast, even when he's being a real migraine. She acknowledges his pain, but it's for his own good, and she refuses to give up trying to help until she's sure he'll be alright. "By the way, thank you for saving my life." Courtesy and sincere gratitude. See how we get this nice little flow to demonstrate the thoughts and emotions going through her mind? Sorry for the rant. I just never really warmed up to the 2017 version, and I feel like they messed up one of my favorite scenes. (The library scene is my absolute favorite because...well, if some dude gave me a castle library as a friendly gesture, I'd probably marry him on the spot. "Something There" is another favorite because it's such a sharp contrast. The Beast goes from being tough enough to fight an entire pack of wolves to being gentle enough to have a flock of birds sit on him and eat from his hands. He's not weak; he's purposely choosing to control his strength. No wonder Belle's starting to be impressed during this scene!)
The original belle was still kind and just loved to read. The townspeople thought she was a bit odd but that was it. Emma Watson goes around practically shouting in people's faces "I'm better than you", and they turn her into a strong feminist disdainful character. It wasn't a good portrayal of belle nor feminism, I really hated her in the live action movie.
I get what you mean, but Disney controls what Emma says, acts, does.. In this position think of yourself as Emma. You are aware this is a boost for your career, you know the story of beauty and the beast but realise Disney is making everything seem as if it needs independence. She gets all the backlash it saddens me.
The animated movie was a touching story about how an immature and selfish man learned to be kind and to love, and an intelligent, kind, and strong minded woman learned to love him in return. The live-action movie was Stockholm syndrome.
I read a lot of the changes were from Watson herself. She changed the dress, she made Belle be an inventor instead of her father, she wanted people to not like that her character read, and more. Watson pushed hard for that stuff thinking it would make Belle seem more of a feminist icon. So, in her mind woman have to be a certain way.
As a kid I connected with Ariel the most, because she disobeyed her parents to get what she wanted and I hated my parents. BUT I always loved Belle. To me she seemed older, like in her later 20's and possibly in her time seen as almost a spinster. But she was fine with that. She wasn't looking for a husband, she was looking for someone as smart as she was to talk to, to spend time with. To me she felt taller than most girls, on the less beautiful side (for a Disney girl) -- almost plain. But she had such a sweet and kind disposition that people couldn't help but be drawn to her. Emma Watson is a fine actress, but she's not Belle. She's too short, too skinny, and her face is too sharp. Belle never struck me as "skinny" she seemed to have full curves and a rounder face. She seemed almost motherly, or like a big sister. As for Emma's voice, they should have just dubbed her over if she was really so bad they had to use THAT MUCH autotune. I bet her voice wasn't even that bad but Disney had to over do it.
2:11 Oh, I love this shot. They agree and she immediately collapses to her knees. The way her cloak and the beast’s cloak move in this single shot is so dramatic.
