Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: C19fan

This is very much front loaded. I took my daughters (15 and 20) to this movie. The reason they wanted to go so much was the actress (Emma Watson) and the much hyped singers (Ariana Grande and John Legend). And of course they liked the original cartoon version. The theater had start times every half hour with a student discount. So the high school and college kids get in for $5. At my theater, the first showing at 7 pm was 90% full. And the lobby was pretty full for a Thursday when the movie was over so, the other showings must have had some audience.

The girls liked this more than I did. This version is very PC. In the original version, Belle was bored of her little town and wanted some adventure. In this version, she is a snob and the townspeople are literally illiterate. They make that point several times. There are only two types of people in this movie. Black and white. And they are proud to put black people all over, especially in the “smart roles” like librarian. And of course there are many mixed couples. Though its hyped, there is a gay character. But you really don’t understand that he is gay until the end. And even that is a “funny” brief one second clip.

The point of this movie is, that small town means small minds. They actually say it. Belle is a snob who rejects everyone in the town because they can’t read. The town stops her from teaching a small girl to read. But the town is not just illiterate they are evil too. In this version, Gaston ties up Belles father and leaves him to be eaten by the wolves.

Outside of the millennial star power this movie is simply not as good as the original. The PC additions to the script are obnoxious. It’s clear that the writers who adapted this are globalists. They think very little of the working class. It’s odd that there are now three races black, white, and gay. But the prince in the end looks very Nordic. You can’t disappoint those young girls who have come to see their Disney princess get a really good looking prince.

I was also annoyed by several close shots that looked like a hotel sales photo. You could not see how big something was. You were always seeing a small section of the scene. Also there was a lot of playing with the focus. Things you were not supposed to see where out of focus. Forcing you to look only at the important item in a scene. And some scenes had a drone camera experience that literally made me nauseous. You were flying around like you were a drone in the scene. I assume this was all part of the 3D experience going on in the theater next door. I hate when they ruin the regular version of a movie to support the 3D version.

The ethics here are disturbing. Disney always has a bit of a problem with ethics. They are way too concerned with whatever is PC at the time. To see a more ethical account of a similar theme, see Shrek. The movie pokes fun at Disney all over the place. But the important moral point comes at the end of Shrek, when the two main characters prefer to remain ogres and choose not to turn into a beautiful prince and princess as in a Disney movie.


27 posted on 03/17/2017 8:37:51 AM PDT by poinq
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: poinq
Belle was always a snob who rejected everyone in the village for not meeting her standards, even in the 1991 version. Or do I have to remind you that the opening song literally had Belle dismissing the town as being full of "little people" or yelling twice in the song "There must be more than this provincial life!" (emphasis mine). And the town being illiterate and evil was also in the 1991 film as well, or at least, it's pretty clearly implied that they didn't exactly support Belle's literacy (namely, during the same opening song, the lyrics make it very clear that one of the reasons why they considered Belle an outcast was because she "had her nose stuck in a book", and don't get me started with Gaston's objection to Belle reading. As far as the villagers being evil, I might as well point out that in the original film, we get the Gaston reprise shortly after Gaston kicks Maurice out of the tavern where he comes up with the plan to try and have Maurice locked up in the nuthouse as blackmail to ensure Belle's marriage, a plan, BTW, he actually manages to publicly divulge key details of during that reprise, with the villagers actually cheering him on. If anything, from what I gather, the villagers were NICER in this than in the 1991 film, as aside from that frankly unnecessary and stupid reprise being cut, the villagers actually show hesitance with the plan when Gaston tries to convince them to lock up Maurice).

With all of that said, I do fully agree with you, it's just a PC remake that tries to push a left-wing agenda even further than the original 1991 film (I will still maintain, however, that Emma Watson, despite being feminist, is practically a moderate compared to Linda Woolverton, the lady who wrote the 1991 Beauty and the Beast film and is more than a little responsible for that movie's feminist agenda being in the forefront.).

So far as Shrek, I'm pretty sure that Fiona was actually BORN human and the Ogre form was the result of a curse, so technically, only Shrek actually remained an ogre.
28 posted on 03/17/2017 10:48:06 AM PDT by otness_e
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson