If this movie is longer than the animated version but tells the story in the same way as the animated version why would I want to watch this version? If you can't tell the story in 90-95 minutes then it's not worth it. I would rather watch the animated Disney version or the Jean Cocteau 1946 version tbh.
Beauty and the Beast (2017)
Posts: 4794
Joined:
January 2012
And yet you just alluded to De Palma's Scarface being a "classic"...?Batfan175 wrote:If this movie is longer than the animated version but tells the story in the same way as the animated version why would I want to watch this version? If you can't tell the story in 90-95 minutes then it's not worth it. I would rather watch the animated Disney version or the Jean Cocteau 1946 version tbh.
Posts: 4794
Joined:
January 2012
I am actually quite open to the idea that Scarface is not a classic if you present compelling arguments as to why you think that's the case. I'm more interested in the discussion than actually "being right" about something. It's been a while since I've seen the film.ArmandFancypants wrote:And yet you just alluded to De Palma's Scarface being a "classic"...?Batfan175 wrote:If this movie is longer than the animated version but tells the story in the same way as the animated version why would I want to watch this version? If you can't tell the story in 90-95 minutes then it's not worth it. I would rather watch the animated Disney version or the Jean Cocteau 1946 version tbh.
I think, in general, remaking good films like the Disney animated Beauty and the Beast is pointless because to many people there is no way that the remake can surpass the original in terms of quality and I respect 2D animation as an art form that is quite beautiful. I'd rather they remade bad films with a good idea at the centre because that'd actually be trying to make something work that for some reason or another did not work the first time around. I like 'The Black Cauldron' for instance but I won't try to say that it's some flawless masterpiece so there is actually room for improvement and reinterpretation there. But the only reason why this remake here seems to exist is because Disney would rather remake all their good films in live action in the hopes that they'll make more money that way rather than because they have compelling story to tell. The compelling story has been told in the original 2D animated film and unless they radically change how the story goes in this version, I don't see the point to do a remake other than to cash in on something that has a built-in audience. This is about risk aversion, as Disney hates to take risks, even though they can afford to take them.
The point is that De Palma's film is itself a remake that greatly extrapolates the runtime to little/no added value.Batfan175 wrote:I am actually quite open to the idea that Scarface is not a classic if you present compelling arguments as to why you think that's the case. I'm more interested in the discussion than actually "being right" about something. It's been a while since I've seen the film.ArmandFancypants wrote:And yet you just alluded to De Palma's Scarface being a "classic"...?Batfan175 wrote:If this movie is longer than the animated version but tells the story in the same way as the animated version why would I want to watch this version? If you can't tell the story in 90-95 minutes then it's not worth it. I would rather watch the animated Disney version or the Jean Cocteau 1946 version tbh.
Meh, give me the Celine Dion and Josh Groban songs already.£
So beautiful. Chills.
Wow, Gad is a PERFECT LeFou.
Looks to be nailing it, good
Actually now that I think about it...when (mild spoilers)
This is getting mostly positive reviews.£