beauty_and_the_beast_2017_better_prores.mov 02-Jan-2018 04:02 47.8G
If you liked the 1991 animation, give the 2017 version another watch with an eye for the performances and added emotional beats—you might find it more rewarding than you remember. index of beauty and the beast 2017 better
In the 2017 version, the Beast (Dan Stevens) is... charming? Almost immediately, he is making quips, singing songs, and acting like a standard romantic hero. The CGI design also works against the character; his eyes are too human, and his features are too refined. He looks like a hairy man with horns, rather than a true monster. beauty_and_the_beast_2017_better_prores
The 2017 CGI versions opted for baroque, photorealistic designs that often looked stiff, cold, and lacked readable emotions. 3. Pacing and Atmosphere Almost immediately, he is making quips, singing songs,
The final shot is not the ballroom restored to glory. It's the two of them on the frozen balcony. Belle in her blue cloak. The Beast—the Prince of Thorns, as a title card calls him—looking out over a forest that will never see spring. And then, for the first time in the entire film, he smiles.
While the 2017 live-action remake is often debated against the 1991 animated original, it introduced several "features" that some fans and critics argue make it a or more complete version of the story:
Then, slowly, impossibly, the Beast’s fur begins to recede. But not into a man. Into something else. His snout flattens. His claws retract. His eyes—those sad, intelligent eyes—become human. But his body stays beastly. He becomes a chimera: the face of the prince, the body of the wolf-bear-creature.