Hire a below average looking rat-faced female who is only popular because pedophiles can't get over her in a movie that...

>Hire a below average looking rat-faced female who is only popular because pedophiles can't get over her in a movie that came out over a decade ago to play one of the best looking Disney princesses

For what purpose?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=IETG9vuHf58
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauty_and_the_Beast
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>harry potter came out over a decade ago
Where does the time go

Shes cute desu :)

I have never gottten the hype over Emma Watson and believe me I have tried. She’s just plain ugly to me.

Emily Browning literally looks like Belle. She even has the lips.

Actually, better question is:
>Make a live-action version of a movie set in France
>Get fuckloads of British actors

I thought Beauty and the Beast was set during 1700's France, not during that period when Britain controlled two-thirds of it.

>Emma Watson
>Below average looking
What? She's a 9/10 easy.

Nigga, on what planet is this a 9/10?

I like her, but I can see how the jawline might be a bit off-putting but I still like her.

And a dark part of me thinks were there ever a live action F/SN, I wouldn'y mind seeing her play Saber.

Though I'm sure there's better British or Welsh actresses to play the part. I mean Saber's supposed to look like she';s stuck as a teenager from the effects of Avalon if I recall.

rat-faced? i always thought of her acting as debatable, but never her looks

She is a disgusting, smug child.
Also please don't be racist.

>colossal tennis ball cheekbones

for billion dollars.

>bookworm farm girl
>best looking
It's a cartoon, you don't see the flaws. Gaston only wanted her because she didn't want him.

Wait, some people think she's ugly?
Well damn.

Celebrities are held to higher beauty standards by a lot of people.

Disney's copyright is expiring. They extended it as much as they could through lobbying at congress. Like Lifetime of copyright owner plus 50 more years. Basically most stuff like Star Wars will be free from copyright at like 2049

Anyways they don't think they can extend it any longer without seeeming really fishy. They already used their flimsy reasons for other extensions. So Disney is creating exact live action replica of their animated versions to keep the iconic likeness of their characters through copyright trademark.

That's why you saw the Cinderella remake, jungle book etc and soon Mulan.

But these stories are all in the public domain anyway.

Actually come to think of it I think beauty and the beast was an idea disney had.

Yeah, isn't there are another Jungle Book movie coming out some time?

>But these stories are all in the public domain anyway.

But you can copyright certain interpretations.

Like, Sherlock Holmes is public domain. But Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes movies are copyright to WB.

>mommie wowee come look i Sup Forumsposted on another board i'm a big guy now

Emma Watson is gorgeous tho

But she can't act for shit so still a terrible decision

>rat-faced
Anna Kendrick is ratfu; find another term to insult that juggle slag.

Better question. Why does this shit movie exist?
What new insight does it contribute (like remakes should do) other than making Gaston more of a moustache-twirling villain and Belle more of a generic action girl?
How is it any better than Psycho remake?

>I have never gottten the hype over Emma Watson and believe me I have tried. She’s just plain ugly to me.

Thank you someone said it. Bitch also has the body of a fucking teenage bloke. So attractive she is not. And after her HeForShe feminist stunt you would think at least her male fanbase would diminish, but nah the fucking losers still pussy beg this harpy.

Also I have to admit I hated Emma Watson as Hermione in Harry Potter, she was just so obnoxious with her "I am more superior than you" demeanor and fun fact, that's not how she was in the books:

youtube.com/watch?v=IETG9vuHf58

Pfft no wonder she was so annoying in the movies. Anyway, hope Emma Watson's fame dies very soon. Then again I don't think that will stop her being annoying, after all Sup Forums still worships and spams that attention whore Tara Strong.

They remade american psycho?

No, they did something worse. They remade Hitchcock's Psycho. The movie that manages both be almost a shot for shot remake and still miss the point of original.

>rat-faced
That’s not the bitch from Star Wars 7

>and still miss the point of original.
I think it broke van sant to make a 2 hour long movie where he couldn't shoehorn twinks into it

> sharp knees would not hit it
like you're even in the running
and I use the term 'running' loosely

She fit the actual character more rather than how she looked. Belle was supposed to be a bookish girl.

I wouldn't say she looks below average by any means because I don't share this board's stupidly high standars, but she certainly doesn't fit the Belle type.

I'm guessing the casting choice went something like
>who likes bookish girls?
>errr... bookish girls?
>alright, who do bookish girls like?
>Harry Potter?
>brilliant!

Hollywood always does that. Baguette erasure never forget.

Although to be fair France does the same thing all the time. I'm still mad that the Asterix in Britain movie was full of French actors delivering their worst possible English impressions. How hard can it be to get some vaguely recognizable british actors? It's not like anybody watched that movie to see Cathrine Deneuve as the queen of England.

Face is way too large, and she's posing at an angle that's supposed to negate that.

No, they just gave it a bizarre sequel starring Mila Kunis.

She's literally called "beautiful".

Are you fucking serious?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauty_and_the_Beast

They weren't even close to the first ones to put it on screen.