All non-Nolan related film, tv, and streaming discussions.
Joined:
June 2010
Location: The White City
Allstar wrote:Crazy Eight wrote:This movie's framing in 2.40 doesn't make any sense. Like, it might be the most haphazard 2.40 crop I've ever seen in a blockbuster picture.
What did you think besides that?
he saw it in theaters
-Vader
Vader182 wrote:Allstar wrote:Crazy Eight wrote:This movie's framing in 2.40 doesn't make any sense. Like, it might be the most haphazard 2.40 crop I've ever seen in a blockbuster picture.
What did you think besides that?
he saw it in theaters
-Vader
okay? I'm still curious his thoughts...
Joined:
June 2009
Location: La La Land
It's journeyman directing which sorta sucks for a property like this. None of the set pieces are memorable. BUT I think the cast is pretty great and the additional music is killer. It's a pretty solid light feel good movie.
The crop to 2.40 did distract me a fuck ton though compared to my initial IMAX viewing in 1.90. Shots that felt normal feel super tight and off-putting and a shit load of shots seem ill-composed in 2.40. Limbs cut off with dead space in the upper part of the frame, frames feel claustrophobic that didn't in 1.90, that kinda thing. It's the first time something like this has actively distracted me since usually non-IMAX shot expanded sequences just have more dead space to fill the screen, not like, actual vital image information.
Don't think I'll ever watch this again. It's anaemic as fuck.
Last edited by
m4st4 on May 19th, 2017, 2:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Crazy Eight wrote:... and the additional music is killer.
Exactly. I'm baffled by the reactions.£
Joined:
January 2011
Location: Waiting for a train
m4st4 wrote:Don't think I'll ever watch this again. It's anaemic as fuck
What does that mean?
Means that, unlike Cinderella and, to a certain extent Jungle Book, it's just a lifeless copy of the events and scenes that occured in animated form. And even as a copy it's rarely on par. 'Join Me for Dinner' is the only sequence that was better imo. Not to mention the weakest link that is Emma Watson. I could go on but essentially - bloodless.
Joined:
June 2011
Location: The Ashes of Gotham
Funny you should mention the 'Join Me for Dinner' scene. It was at that point when I watched the Animated movie that I realised I actually identified with the Beast. He tries to make the effort to ask her to dinner, but after he is rejected, he chooses to be angry simply because he believes he is entitled to her company. I've never lashed out at anybody for rejecting my company, but it does make me angry deep-down because I feel like my effort has been wasted on. Surprisingly, I disagree with you that the scene was better than the animated version. In fact, I was disappointed in how it was executed because it didn't feel emotionally effective compared to the Disney version.
Whenever I hear the argument that the movie was just a "copy and paste" remake, it makes me wonder if anybody has seen Gus van Sant's Psycho where the only change was Norman jerking off to seeing Marion Crane naked through the peephole, a choice which completely contradicts Norman as a sexually repressed character. The 2017 version of B&TB does make the effort to fix, change or expand on elements ('Evermore' and The windmill scene... You can't tell me those two moments didn't add to the story) that weren't perfect in the original, yet decides to leave the more perfect scenes untouched.
Joined:
June 2010
Location: All-Hail Master Virgo, Censor of NolanFans
Well Gus Van Sant's Psycho has been panned for those reasons so ... dunno what your point is with that.
Joined:
June 2011
Location: The Ashes of Gotham
They weren't as contradictory as the changes that were made in this movie is what I'm saying. Removing stuff like the last petal falling on his 21st birthday element, thus also changing "10 years we've been rusting" (He turned into a beast when he was 11?) to "too long we've been rusting", covering up some plot holes.