I just saw it - I didn't like the story, it was completely nonsensical in a lot of places, and the songs were very simple - you can make up stuff like that anytime in your own head I think (and of course, they weren't even NEW - they just copied them from 1992) (I mean, of course, it IS a *children's* movie!)... - but the visuals!!! Oh My God. Now THAT is a different story. They've taken it the NEXT LEVEL. Absolutely BREATHTAKING. The entire thing. (The Beast was jerking a little in different places, but besides that....) STUNNING!

Anybody here see it??

Overkill.

Would love to go see that

I was also excited to watch this movie but it was not upto my satisfaction level.

EmmaMcG said:

I took my daughter to see it on Monday and we didn't like it. I thought it was boring and whereas it may not have been a terrible movie, I would never want to watch it again. And to say that it's a children's movie isn't a good enough defence. Toy Story, Aladdin, Up, The Jungle Book (animated version) and Monsters Inc are all children's movies but they're all good. In fact, they're classics which will be talked about for years to come. The live action Beauty and the Beast will be largely forgotten about come the summer. Disney need to quit with the remakes and get back to creating brand new stories. Looking at they're upcoming release schedule they've got live action remakes of Dumbo, The Little Mermaid and Aladdin still to come though. At least Pixar still do some original movies in between Toy Story sequels, I suppose.

Oh come on!! You didn't like even the "Be our guest" sequence??!!! I thought it was Absolutely AMAZING!!!

WHAT didn't you like, exactly.....? (both you and Bertha)....?

(was it the fact that this is Live action, as opposed to Animated??)

The tv series was better.

domainator2010 said:

I have not seen the Classic animated version, but I will check out the updated version when it hits PPV....and I agree 1000% that the Classic TV version was outstanding...I watched every episode back in the day...

EmmaMcG said:

but having said that, Robocop was on TV that night and she watched a bit of that before bed and she loved it.

Wow! Sounds like your girl is a soldier girl...!

...and out of curiosity, what is your opinion simply on the CGI??? Like, leaving the story aside....?

All you guys for that matter....

domainator2010 said:

domainator2010 said:

EmmaMcG said:

Disney need to quit with the remakes and get back to creating brand new stories. Looking at they're upcoming release schedule they've got live action remakes of Dumbo, The Little Mermaid and Aladdin still to come though. At least Pixar still do some original movies in between Toy Story sequels, I suppose.

Walt Disney Animation Studios are still doing original movies. The most recent, Moana came out in November. Ralph Breaks the Internet: Wreck-It Ralph 2 and Gigantic will follow in 2018. Considering this movie (B&tB) made $460 million domestically in one month I doubt the live action department has lost any of their ambition.

Chancellor said:

I have not seen the Classic animated version, but I will check out the updated version when it hits PPV....and I agree 1000% that the Classic TV version was outstanding...I watched every episode back in the day...

Are you talking about this show?

EmmaMcG said:

domainator2010 said:

...and out of curiosity, what is your opinion simply on the CGI??? Like, leaving the story aside....?

All you guys for that matter....

The CGI is actually pretty good but no less than I'd expect from a mega budget Disney production. I think with the technology and money available to major studios these days, it's pretty unforgivable for a movie to come out with bad special effects. Batman vs Superman (which I like) and Suicide Squad are two of the main offenders for bad CGI but aside from those, you don't see many big movies now with bad special effects. That side of the movie industry has moved on a lot. You only have to compare the CGI from The Force Awakens to Revenge of the Sith to see how much things have improved.

Would like a CGI movie of

EmmaMcG said:

domainator2010 said:

...and out of curiosity, what is your opinion simply on the CGI??? Like, leaving the story aside....?

All you guys for that matter....

The CGI is actually pretty good but no less than I'd expect from a mega budget Disney production. I think with the technology and money available to major studios these days, it's pretty unforgivable for a movie to come out with bad special effects. Batman vs Superman (which I like) and Suicide Squad are two of the main offenders for bad CGI but aside from those, you don't see many big movies now with bad special effects. That side of the movie industry has moved on a lot. You only have to compare the CGI from The Force Awakens to Revenge of the Sith to see how much things have improved.

The first Hulk movie CGI was horrible and considering the first Jurassic Park movie came out almost 10 years earlier, it should have been better. The only people who like that movie are Ang Lee fans who hate to admit he made a bad movie. Also The Mist was horrible in CGI, it looked like a movie from the Sfy-Fi channel instead of a theatrical release.

Hudson said:

kpowers said:

EmmaMcG said:

kpowers said:

The first Hulk movie CGI was horrible and considering the first Jurassic Park movie came out almost 10 years earlier, it should have been better. The only people who like that movie are Ang Lee fans who hate to admit he made a bad movie. Also The Mist was horrible in CGI, it looked like a movie from the Sfy-Fi channel instead of a theatrical release.

The Hulk felt very much like a rush job anyway. I'd put that in the same category as the Fantastic Four movies. Like I said, some things there just aren't excuses for. Is The Mist the one with Tom Welling or am I thinking about The Fog?

Tom Welling starred in the bad remake of The Fog. No real big names in the Mist (A Stephen King Novel)

EmmaMcG said:

You only have to compare the CGI from The Force Awakens to Revenge of the Sith to see how much things have improved.

I'm NOT a Star Wars fan at ALL - I think the whole thing is a huge bunch of BULLSHIT - but, I'm curious to know exactly what you meant when you said this....?

Did you read my note, btw?

EmmaMcG said:

domainator2010 said:

Wow! Sounds like your girl is a soldier girl...!

She's like me at that age. My friends would be watching the likes of Bambi and Beauty and the Beast and I'd be watching Schwarzenegger and Stallone movies. I had a weird childhood

You don't like, take a gun and run around shooting people late at night or something, do you?

domainator2010 said:

domainator2010 said:

EmmaMcG said:

domainator2010 said:

I'm NOT a Star Wars fan at ALL - I think the whole thing is a huge bunch of BULLSHIT - but, I'm curious to know exactly what you meant when you said this....?

Did you read my note, btw?

The CGI in the Star Wars prequels was pretty good for its time. Nothing groundbreaking but decent enough.

WOW! You're a Pretty Demanding Member of the Public, aren't you??!!

Have you heard of "ILM", and do you know that George Lucas owns it??

kpowers said:

Are you talking about this show?

Of course...Sarah Connor in the Flesh, only more girly, refined and double-dipped in Money...I think I'm Team Sarah but I give Catherine her strong rich-girl-props...

domainator2010 said:

Chancellor said:

kpowers said:

Of course...Sarah Connor in the Flesh, only more girly, refined and double-dipped in Money...I think I'm Team Sarah but I give Catherine her strong rich-girl-props...

Yeah loved that show too. The newer one they had on the CW was ok. I was hoping they would have some tie in or cameos by Ron Pearlman and Linda Hamilton but they didn't, what a missed opportunity for the fans

[Edited 4/24/17 9:49am]

kpowers said:

Yeah loved that show too. The newer one they had on the CW was ok. I was hoping they would have some tie in or cameos by Ron Pearlman and Linda Hamilton but they didn't, what a missed opportunity for the fans

I did not know about the newer one..I think the CW network is Garbage and polluted with D-listers.