This sure derailed quickly.

Starwars was awful, but I really enjoyed Beauty and the Beast. It sure wasn't *because* of the female lead though, more *despite* the female lead...

My crazy theory is that the movies were marketed well. Regardless of their leads or whatever. My 2 cents~

Very little compared to most of the rest of the world. Its overblown here because people who make money on being a "victim" makes it seem worse than it is. Just like a few years ago when crime was down like 60%, yet the media coverage of crimes went up like 600%. Its mostly about money and staying relevant. 

There still are problems, but compared to other places where sexism is part of the law, its overblown here.

I think you'll find there's a high coorelation with quality of movie and box office sales. Not all the time, but more often than not, a mainstream movie that reviews well does well in the box office.

No kidding...

Well, the critical consensus is that the live-action is a fresh retelling that faithfully honours its source material.  A good chunk of the positive reviews mention how similar it is to the cartoon, and at least 1/4th of the negative reviews complained that it was too similar.  

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/beauty_and_the_beast_2017/#contentReviews

The live-action and animated versions are almost identical, as far as the story and musical score is concerned (though the live-action has more songs).  The deviations mostly serve to fill in a few blanks left unanswered in the animated version, contextualize characters' personalities/motivations, and also adds a couple characters (though not all of the dinnerware made it into the live-action).  Gaston is no longer built like a Metal Gear, for better or for worse.

Basically, it comes down to how you feel about CGI or Emma Watson's acting/singing, because the differences will probably go unnoticed if you're unaware of them or haven't seen the cartoon in a while.  If you watch any given scene on YouTube, that should be an adequate litmus test if the visuals work for you or not.

Ad hoc, the Thread. The OP seems to be also responding to a strawman that "female leads in movies is a bad thing" when most are concerned about whether the movie is good or bad.

I wish I were you.

Well, this thread went about as well as expected.

OT: I'm baffled by movie income via box office all the time. Personally, I haven't been in a cinema since 2012 and the trend around here seems to be going sharply downwards, too. Some 3 years ago, the only cinema in town was shut down because of low viewership. Interesting to see that the trend in the USA is different.

I think it depends a lot what the whole experience has to offer - and what is there to see. In a way you could think that there was a decade with nothing worth watching (sans some Disney cartoons), but now that there have been interesting films, people are returning to cinemas. Also as the economics start to go up, people have more disposable income. And last, but not least, the "Netflix generation kids" are growing up, to whom video on demand is nothing new, and who seek movie experiences from the cinema - just like their their parents, the "video rental generation kids" did when they were young.

I think I'm blinded by my love for the animated one. I think Emma Watson was terrible and pretty much everything hinged on her. Plus there's some added stuff that just isn't well written and seems shoehorned in.

My wife loves it though. Take my opinion with a grain of salt. It's on Netflix now if you want to check it out.