News D23 Expo 2022

D

dreday3

Well-Known Member
Sir_Cliff said:
I'm trying to decide whether I'm interested in this one. I'll be honest and say that I've only seen the Beauty & the Beast and (godawful) Dumbo remakes because they really don't appeal to me. But, they are a license to print money and seem to be instantly forgotten in favour of the original versions so I understand why they make them and don't really care as I don't have to see them.

The lead actress in this version looks good in the role to me, though, and is at least a singer. The casting of non-singers in Beauty & the Beast was one of the things that really grated on me about that film compared to the pure talent on the original soundtrack. Also interested to see what Alan Menken and Lin Manuel Miranda come up with. So, this is probably the first remake in a while I am kind of interested to see!
Click to expand...

Emma acted Belle like she acted Hermoine and it just didn't work. She had zero charm compared to animated Belle. But I thought the side characters were great. Loved Lumiere!
 
Sir_Cliff

Sir_Cliff

Well-Known Member
dreday3 said:
Emma acted Belle like she acted Hermoine and it just didn't work. She had zero charm compared to animated Belle. But I thought the side characters were great. Loved Lumiere!
Click to expand...
Two things that really stand out about the original Beauty & the Beast for me are the great songs and very tight editing that makes the film just flow effortlessly without a wasted moment. For me, the remake flubbed the songs by casting actors and then using whatever studio magic they could to make their singing passable and then creating an overly-long, bloated and kind of dull version of the original. I understand that the point of making the film was to make a lot of money (which it did), but as a viewer I couldn't see any reason to be interested in a worse version of Beauty & the Beast.
 
Sirwalterraleigh

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
dreday3 said:
Emma acted Belle like she acted Hermoine and it just didn't work. She had zero charm compared to animated Belle. But I thought the side characters were great. Loved Lumiere!
Click to expand...

Sir_Cliff said:
Two things that really stand out about the original Beauty & the Beast for me are the great songs and very tight editing that makes the film just flow effortlessly without a wasted moment. For me, the remake flubbed the songs by casting actors and then using whatever studio magic they could to make their singing passable and then creating an overly-long, bloated and kind of dull version of the original. I understand that the point of making the film was to make a lot of money (which it did), but as a viewer I couldn't see any reason to be interested in a worse version of Beauty & the Beast.
Click to expand...
Well…she never would have been cast if she WASNT hermione…

That’s why these movies look cynical - to me.

And they shoved Olaf in there too…

Now that I think about it…that might be the worst for me.
Aladdin is my favorite Disney animated (Mary poppins takes the overall crow)…and I thought the remake was word for word. It was embarrassing too for me.
 
DCLcruiser

DCLcruiser

Well-Known Member
UNCgolf said:
Original Figment was fine in the context of the ride, but I don't think he works without Dreamfinder. I've never really understood why people are desperate to keep him around if Dreamfinder isn't included.
Click to expand...
Because in 1992 (maybe 1988, but I can't remember), when I was 8, there was a friendly dragon at the futuristic theme park. My parents bought me a Figment plush-backpack, and the rest is history. Dreamfinder is the sidekick in reality. Like a person walking a dog, the dog is the star.
 
Californian Elitist

Californian Elitist

Well-Known Member
Sirwalterraleigh said:
No…you did. I hope unintentionally

That’s how it reads to the gallery.

Want to take a poll and find out what the observers think?
Click to expand...
No, I didn’t.

I mentioned what “can’t handle the seasoning” means. If I wanted to call someone racist, I’d use that exact word.

No, I don’t want to take a poll, but you’re welcome to. Create one.
 
D

dreday3

Well-Known Member
Californian Elitist said:
No, I didn’t.

I mentioned what “can’t handle the seasoning” means. If I wanted to call someone racist, I’d use that exact word.

No, I don’t want to take a poll, but you’re welcome to. Create one.
Click to expand...

I'll take you at your word! :)

I think we all read into things a lot more nowadays. Sometimes it's warranted, sometimes it's not.
 
BrianLo

BrianLo

Well-Known Member
Nonja said:
Is there going to be any way of watching the Marvel/Lucasfil later today? Like a livestream or something?
Same for the Parks pannel on Sunday.

Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

Unfortunately not for the footage. They’ll release presumably a trailer or teaser or two publically. Photos are allowed of slides, but not recordings for the video.

Theoretically it could leak in part but honestly the staff are militant and patrolling.

Absolutely do not expect a live stream from someone in the audience.

The parks panel though should be fully streamed tomorrow.
 
solidyne

solidyne

Well-Known Member
CaptainAmerica said:
This wasn't Celine Dion, Whitney Houston, or Mariah Carey. It was karaoke night at the sorority house. The runs didn't even follow the key of the song, they were acoustically random.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to "wish I could be" at the end of the trailer? It did, in fact, "follow the key."

The original melody is ^4 ^3 ^1 (down to) ^5. Her run goes instead up to ^5, which may throw off some listeners. She then falls down the tonic triad, which you might think conflicts with the implied dominant chord, but she is really embellishing a cadential 6/4 (or "tonic over ^5"). Then, to resolve, she pulls up to ^2, confirming the dominant.

So there may be some implied reharmonization [cadential 6/4 (I over ^5) instead of generic "sus" chord (IV over ^5)], but every pitch was securely "in the key." Not even any chromaticism.

Acoustically random? I don't know what that is.
 
UNCgolf

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
DCLcruiser said:
Because in 1992 (maybe 1988, but I can't remember), when I was 8, there was a friendly dragon at the futuristic theme park. My parents bought me a Figment plush-backpack, and the rest is history. Dreamfinder is the sidekick in reality. Like a person walking a dog, the dog is the star.
Click to expand...

I think you're making a different argument.

Figment was absolutely the star in terms of being the featured character that sold merchandise, but that's not what I meant. They could take the Figment design and turn it into a different character that looked the same, but the original childlike version needs Dreamfinder (or someone else) as a guide for the character to work well in a story context.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom