The live-action version of the Disney princess film, “Beauty and the Beast,” has smashed all Box Office Records over the first weekend, making $350 million worldwide, $170 million domestically. The remarkable success of the movie proves three things.
First, translating those old animated films to Live Action is working very well. Modern CGI and big budgets basically means that animation is all but unnecessary to bring the Disney version of the classic stories on the big screen.
Second, the post-Harry Potter career of Emma Watson, who plays the book-loving Belle who falls under the spell of the cursed Beast who turns out to have a beautiful soul, has been assured.
The same, alas, cannot be said about her wizarding world co-stars, Daniel Radcliff and Rupert Grint. The former has been consigned to some niche films and the latter to television. Of course, there is always the possibility of a movie version of “Harry Potter and the Cursed Child” to get the old band back together again.
Third, the so-called “gay moment,” Disney’s attempt at virtue signaling, did not spark any kind of boycott of appreciative size. The inclusion ran afoul of censors in a few countries outside the United States, however. In any case, look for Disney to do a lesbian princess movie, hopefully, one that is culturally appropriate. The Greek poet Sappho would be a great subject.
Of course, the inevitable media babbling about the theme of “Beauty and the Beast” being one of looking past appearances and being relevant for the times we live in has to be endured.
The animated version, which came out in the early 90s, was able to make a boatload of money as well without Donald Trump in the White House.
Disney is due to make money on live action versions of a host of its old animated films, with “Mulan” and “Aladdin” in the works. The former is apparently not going to be a musical, but rather a female-centric martial arts movie. “Snow White,” “The Little Mermaid,” and “The Lion King” are also on the list for the live action treatment.
