![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
day off, I'm gonna sew! (with bonus movie skewering)
Orrrrrrr maybe not. A little bit? I may stay up late and try and get as near to my daily goal as I can though.
I went to see Beauty and the Beast this afternoon, and I had all good intentions of coming home and sewing after that...but then I had FEELINGS that had to be expressed, which meant two hours of outraged online chatting with friends instead of sewing! Heh.
I actually liked it a lot more, overall, than I thought I was going to. Probably helped that I didn't have very high expectations, but hey. The additional songs/plot points didn't make me want to pull my hair out, and while I think they would have done better to follow the animated movie less slavishly, that actually didn't bother me too much either. Yes, there were silly plot holes, but whatever, it's a fairy-tale, I'm pretty forgiving there.
And the sets and costumes as a whole were just lovely! I can't lie, I'll probably grab the DVD just so I can rewatch the opening party scene (ALL the saques! glorious) and the ones with the villagers (indienne prints everywhere! silly caps! silly hair!); I thought the costumes were a really good mix of historically-inspired while still being fantastic. And the Prince got some lovely 18thc suits when he was human. So, really, there was a lot more that I liked than I didn't...but what I didn't like I felt very strongly about! And I need to complain about it online, so.
At this point I know it's been jawed over pretty extensively and I have nothing new to contribute to the discussion, but...BELLE'S COSTUMES UGH SO MUCH UGH WHYYYYYYY. The blue dress could have been less terrible with a few adjustments - why are your pockets on the outside, stop fucking hoiking your skirt up when it's barely mid-calf length in the first place, and I am going set those ugly-ass bloomers on fire. For a start. (No wonder the villagers think you're "funny", Belle, your underwear's on display half the time.) Also, there IS practical footwear out there that isn't hideous. I promise there is. Just a thought. (Who found those espadrilles? They should be set on fire as well.)
The yellow dress? Well, I can say one nice thing about the yellow dress: the fabric had a nice hand that did look pretty and flowy and fluttery while they were dancing. Nice thing out of the way: dude, that dress sucks. If it were a cosplayer's reinterpretation of a modernized, 21st century Belle dress, sure, I could roll with that, and even say it's a pretty dress! (Although, glitter paint? Raising an eyebrow over here.) In a movie that I'm sure had approximately a kajillion dollars spent on it? Disappointing. When it wasn't in motion, it just looked flat and boring. There are SO many fabulous 18thc styles that could have been adapted, but noooooo, David's Bridal all the way. Lily James' Cinderella dress really looked like it belonged in a fairy-tale. This? Nope. It's even disappointing compared to the animated one...and that's not even a real dress.
AND THEN SHE HAD TO GO RIDING BACK TO TOWN IN IT. IN HER CHIFFON BALLGOWN. ON A HORSE. ON A LEATHER SADDLE. Guys, I don't think I've been on a horse since I was fifteen, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't work super well. (Yeah, I know I was just talking about suspension of disbelief. Magic books that transport you across France are A-ok, but slippery ballgown on horseback is too much, apparently.) I guess it was just so she could rip off her gown and go back to the castle in her underwear...? Which, by the WAY, ain't no way that lumpy-ass bodice fit under the yellow gown. *side-eye* The yellow gown was hardly fitted skin-tight, but...no. NO. I thought we were trying to get away from the heroine-running-around-in-her-underwear trope? *snark* Oh, well, I guess if it's ugly underwear...
AND THAT FUCKING EAR WIRE THING WHAAAAAAT. Ugly necklace, too.
I don't actually know who was responsible for Belle's horrid wardrobe; I've heard rumors and theories about Emma having (too much) control over her wardrobe, and that "dumbing down" the costumes make them easier to market. Either or both make sense, and at the end of the day I don't really care. Whoever did it really did the movie a disservice; her wardrobe sticks out like a sore thumb.
I also have gripes about the Beast CGI in general - again, you spent a kajillion dollars and the best you could come up with was that?? I'll cheerfully cop to being an old fart and preferring a mix of practical effects with just enough CG tweaking to do the stuff you literally can't do in real life. Hello, that was a giant part of what made LOTR so fantastic! (Not The Hobbit. We do not talk about The Hobbit.) Yeah, Dan Stevens in a lion suit would have looked stupid too, but I KNOW there could have been more of a compromise there. For some reason, the way he walked as the Beast was what really took me out of it. (Yes, that's weird, I know.) Legs with haunches rather than forward-facing knees walk differently, and they didn't get it quite right. (And yes, you assholes, I know you could have got it right doing a mix of motion-capture and CG, exhibit A being Mr Tumnus the Faun in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe! Again, more than ten years ago.) Or call up the people who did the work on Bill Nighy as creepy octopus-face Davy Jones in whatever Pirates of the Caribbean that was! That was all computer, but you could still see the actor there.
AND one more thing! (Of course there's one more thing.) If I can hear your auto-tuning you're using it way too damn heavily! I pretty much expect everything to be auto-tuned these days in movie-musical-types of things, but come on. At least try and be subtle about it. Did somebody fall asleep at the controls when they were "fixing up" Emma's vocals and accidentally slide the bar alllllll the way up? None of these people are Broadway stars (with the obvious exception of Queen Audra! whom I bow before), these people weren't cast solely due to their singing talents, could we please try to let them sound a little more natural? If Emma Watson's actually tone-deaf and can't string three notes together and that's why she ended up sounding like freaking HAL...don't cast her in a musical! (I have no idea whether Emma Watson can carry a tune, actually. I'm betting she can, and the Hollywood perfection machine just steamrollered it.) As a highly unprofessional singer (just occasional choir member! but I love music so I get an opinion!) I'd rather have heard some flaws than ye olde Auto-Tune.
I think that is all my feels! Now, let me go listen to the original soundtrack. ;)
Also, I can't lie, I want to do an historical version of the yellow dress now, haha! I've always loved the idea of Disney princess adapted to be historically accurate, though I know it's hardly an original idea at this point! Someday...
I went to see Beauty and the Beast this afternoon, and I had all good intentions of coming home and sewing after that...but then I had FEELINGS that had to be expressed, which meant two hours of outraged online chatting with friends instead of sewing! Heh.
I actually liked it a lot more, overall, than I thought I was going to. Probably helped that I didn't have very high expectations, but hey. The additional songs/plot points didn't make me want to pull my hair out, and while I think they would have done better to follow the animated movie less slavishly, that actually didn't bother me too much either. Yes, there were silly plot holes, but whatever, it's a fairy-tale, I'm pretty forgiving there.
And the sets and costumes as a whole were just lovely! I can't lie, I'll probably grab the DVD just so I can rewatch the opening party scene (ALL the saques! glorious) and the ones with the villagers (indienne prints everywhere! silly caps! silly hair!); I thought the costumes were a really good mix of historically-inspired while still being fantastic. And the Prince got some lovely 18thc suits when he was human. So, really, there was a lot more that I liked than I didn't...but what I didn't like I felt very strongly about! And I need to complain about it online, so.
At this point I know it's been jawed over pretty extensively and I have nothing new to contribute to the discussion, but...BELLE'S COSTUMES UGH SO MUCH UGH WHYYYYYYY. The blue dress could have been less terrible with a few adjustments - why are your pockets on the outside, stop fucking hoiking your skirt up when it's barely mid-calf length in the first place, and I am going set those ugly-ass bloomers on fire. For a start. (No wonder the villagers think you're "funny", Belle, your underwear's on display half the time.) Also, there IS practical footwear out there that isn't hideous. I promise there is. Just a thought. (Who found those espadrilles? They should be set on fire as well.)
The yellow dress? Well, I can say one nice thing about the yellow dress: the fabric had a nice hand that did look pretty and flowy and fluttery while they were dancing. Nice thing out of the way: dude, that dress sucks. If it were a cosplayer's reinterpretation of a modernized, 21st century Belle dress, sure, I could roll with that, and even say it's a pretty dress! (Although, glitter paint? Raising an eyebrow over here.) In a movie that I'm sure had approximately a kajillion dollars spent on it? Disappointing. When it wasn't in motion, it just looked flat and boring. There are SO many fabulous 18thc styles that could have been adapted, but noooooo, David's Bridal all the way. Lily James' Cinderella dress really looked like it belonged in a fairy-tale. This? Nope. It's even disappointing compared to the animated one...and that's not even a real dress.
AND THEN SHE HAD TO GO RIDING BACK TO TOWN IN IT. IN HER CHIFFON BALLGOWN. ON A HORSE. ON A LEATHER SADDLE. Guys, I don't think I've been on a horse since I was fifteen, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't work super well. (Yeah, I know I was just talking about suspension of disbelief. Magic books that transport you across France are A-ok, but slippery ballgown on horseback is too much, apparently.) I guess it was just so she could rip off her gown and go back to the castle in her underwear...? Which, by the WAY, ain't no way that lumpy-ass bodice fit under the yellow gown. *side-eye* The yellow gown was hardly fitted skin-tight, but...no. NO. I thought we were trying to get away from the heroine-running-around-in-her-underwear trope? *snark* Oh, well, I guess if it's ugly underwear...
AND THAT FUCKING EAR WIRE THING WHAAAAAAT. Ugly necklace, too.
I don't actually know who was responsible for Belle's horrid wardrobe; I've heard rumors and theories about Emma having (too much) control over her wardrobe, and that "dumbing down" the costumes make them easier to market. Either or both make sense, and at the end of the day I don't really care. Whoever did it really did the movie a disservice; her wardrobe sticks out like a sore thumb.
I also have gripes about the Beast CGI in general - again, you spent a kajillion dollars and the best you could come up with was that?? I'll cheerfully cop to being an old fart and preferring a mix of practical effects with just enough CG tweaking to do the stuff you literally can't do in real life. Hello, that was a giant part of what made LOTR so fantastic! (Not The Hobbit. We do not talk about The Hobbit.) Yeah, Dan Stevens in a lion suit would have looked stupid too, but I KNOW there could have been more of a compromise there. For some reason, the way he walked as the Beast was what really took me out of it. (Yes, that's weird, I know.) Legs with haunches rather than forward-facing knees walk differently, and they didn't get it quite right. (And yes, you assholes, I know you could have got it right doing a mix of motion-capture and CG, exhibit A being Mr Tumnus the Faun in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe! Again, more than ten years ago.) Or call up the people who did the work on Bill Nighy as creepy octopus-face Davy Jones in whatever Pirates of the Caribbean that was! That was all computer, but you could still see the actor there.
AND one more thing! (Of course there's one more thing.) If I can hear your auto-tuning you're using it way too damn heavily! I pretty much expect everything to be auto-tuned these days in movie-musical-types of things, but come on. At least try and be subtle about it. Did somebody fall asleep at the controls when they were "fixing up" Emma's vocals and accidentally slide the bar alllllll the way up? None of these people are Broadway stars (with the obvious exception of Queen Audra! whom I bow before), these people weren't cast solely due to their singing talents, could we please try to let them sound a little more natural? If Emma Watson's actually tone-deaf and can't string three notes together and that's why she ended up sounding like freaking HAL...don't cast her in a musical! (I have no idea whether Emma Watson can carry a tune, actually. I'm betting she can, and the Hollywood perfection machine just steamrollered it.) As a highly unprofessional singer (just occasional choir member! but I love music so I get an opinion!) I'd rather have heard some flaws than ye olde Auto-Tune.
I think that is all my feels! Now, let me go listen to the original soundtrack. ;)
Also, I can't lie, I want to do an historical version of the yellow dress now, haha! I've always loved the idea of Disney princess adapted to be historically accurate, though I know it's hardly an original idea at this point! Someday...
no subject
no subject