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.
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.
Wait....more songs? Hmmm. Yeah, that might be excessive. There was more than enough in the animated film already.
While there's a lot of truth in it that a lot of women don't allow it, the cases in the newspapers, where a rich and famous guy is being accused of sexual assault, should be taken with a grain of salt. As we know the newspapers are willing to pay a lot for stories like that, and a lot of people want their 15 minutes of fame and money to go with it.
So those women in Hollywood that already have their 15 minutes of fame and money are doing it for what? To help their careers? Accusing your producer of sexual harassment is usually a career ender (hence why they rarely come forth individually).
See, automatically you defaulted to the women are lying approach. A women says she is sexually assaulted and your first thought is she's lying. No wonder they wait so damn long to speak out when too many men dismiss them outright. And no wonder women want more equality. Right here you are giving them second tier status to men because you think they are lying for money and fame.
1. Yes, there are people who are willing to do that, no matter the reason. These Hollywood people seem to be very bad with money, apparently due to expensive lifestyle. Once you're past your prime, you're not getting any decent roles anyway, but being in all the talk shows can make you hefty amount of money.
2. You were just projecting yourself putting a second tier status to men - I never did put that status to anyone. I doubt the accusations, no matter who's accusing who. And without reviewing the evidence, it is impossible to say which one is lying, if the other side says he/she didn't do it. If you have a way to determine without evidence if someone's guilty or not, please let me know.
Last edited by bdbdbd - on 27 December 2017