Frozen Closes on Broadway – What Next for Disney Theatrical?

The COVID-19 Pandemic has caused the worlds of film and theatre to grind to a near-total standstill. Of the various fairy-tale related entertainments mentioned in the Fairy Tale Fanboy 2020 preview, several have been delayed to later in the year (the live-action Mulan) moved to 2021 (Raya and The Last Dragon) or cancelled entirely (The UK Premiere of Rogers & Hammerstein’s Cinderella in Manchester). Out of all the sectors of the arts and entertainment, theatre is probably the worst affected by the COVID-19 Crisis for a variety of reasons. Major theatres have a reputation for being cramped and crowded, the high running costs of plays and musicals mean it is financially impossible to perform to a reduced capacity, and actors are arguably in even greater danger of contracting the disease than audience members. With Broadway theatres left closed for months as a result, several major productions were bound to shut down permanently and yesterday, Disney Theatrical head producer Thomas Schumacher announced that the Broadway production of Frozen would not return when Broadway reopened. The production, based on Disney’s 2013 hit of the same name, had been playing at the St James Theatre for two years, completing 825 performances and 26 previews by the time it closed. Frozen adapted the story of Anna and Elsa for the stage, with the classic songs from the film (Including 'For The First Time In Forever' and 'Let It Go') joined by new songs such as 'Monster' and 'What Do You Know About Love?'. Though it was probably not Disney Theatrical’s strongest production, the news that Frozen was closing still feels like a devastating blow. It is the first major Broadway musical to close permanently because of the COVID-19 pandemic (Beetlejuice was forced to shut three months earlier than planned, but its closure had been announced months before lockdown) highlighting how precarious the theatre industry truly is. With all theatre producers having to tighten their belts, Schumacher has decided to focus on preserving the long-running Broadway adaptations of The Lion King and Aladdin, ensuring that those two will be able to survive months (and possibly years) of instability for New York’s major theatres.

From a financial perspective, the decision to close Frozen is probably the correct one. To tell the truth, Frozen would have probably announced its closure by the end of the year, even if Broadway was operating normally. Of the three Disney productions on Broadway, it was the lowest earner by some distance, and its long-term prospects were looking fragile for months. Despite being a big hit in its first year, the mixed reviews and underwhelming performance during the 2018 awards season (it only received three Tony nominations in a very weak year) took their toll on Frozen, and it was falling to earnings as low as $800,000 – a huge problem for a family blockbuster based on a relatively recent hit movie. The production recently made several updates (including more colourful staging and a new song called “I Can’t Lose You”) to bring it in line with the better-received touring adaptation, but it is unlikely those would have raised interest enough to draw casual audiences. The musical relied heavily on the summer tourism to generate most of its profits, but the recent confirmation that Broadway theatres would be closed until at least September (and probably later) meant that this major period was lost. Ultimately, Broadway is a business, and decisions are governed by what will make the most money and lose the least. In this context, it is no surprise that Schumacher chose to cancel Frozen, which was unlikely to recover from the losses caused by lockdown.

However, it still feels crushingly unfair. The new cast (including Ciara Renee as Elsa and McKenzie Kurtz as Anna) had been in their roles for only three weeks when lockdown begun, and they have been told that they are unable to return to their roles because of a disaster entirely outside their control. Ryan McCarthan, who had just taken over in the thankless role of Prince Hans, recently hosted the online screening of last year’s Disney On Broadway concert, and dismissing him after his hard work there feels like an extra cruel insult. In addition, Frozen’s status as the only female-led Disney adaptation on Broadway (in contrast to the very masculine worlds of The Lion King and Aladdin) means that cutting it so quickly feels a little regressive in an age where theatre is striving for greater diversity and representation. The closure also feels insulting for the Frozen fandom, which is famously passionate and loyal. Elsa and Anna are icons for many (such as those struggling with mental health issues) and these fans deserve respect and recognition. It would be good if Disney Theatrical and the Frozen Broadway team provided these fans with a parting gift, such as a reunion concert for the lost cast or a filmed version of the production for streaming.

Cancelling its run on Broadway does not mean the end for Frozen on stage.  The touring production may be currently suspended, but it will certainly resume when things get better for theatres. No longer having to compete with the Broadway version gives the touring production to enjoy the advantage of being the “definitive” version of the Frozen musical, and we should not rule out the possibility that the newer Frozen Broadway cast members will join it on future stops. International productions in Germany, Australia and Japan are opening in the next year, but the main attraction for Frozen fans will probably be the West End production, which will open in the prestigious Theatre Royal Drury Lane. In fact, it is likely that Schumacher closed Frozen on Broadway in order to focus on these productions, as he announced that the early closure would allow the sets and costumes to be used elsewhere. In the longer term, the closure of Frozen means that it could be opened up for regional and amateur productions, joining the abridged versions Frozen Jr and Frozen Kids in the MTI Shows stable. The Little Mermaid and Tarzan were even less successful than Frozen but have proven popular in licensing. Combined, the touring, international and licensed versions of Frozen will make more money for Disney Theatrical than the Broadway production ever could.

With Frozen’s run on Broadway now over, discussions will turn to which productions come next for Disney. The St James Theatre is not owned by Disney, so the owners will not necessarily replace Frozen with a Disney production. However, Schumacher has revealed that several other Disney Theatrical projects are in the pipeline. At the moment, we aren’t sure which of these (If any) will make it all the way to New York, but they will certainly provide more entertainment for Disney fans.


Hercules

During summer 2019, Disney teamed up with Public Works NY to stage an adaptation of their 1997 animated film Hercules at the open-air Delacorte Theatre in Central Park. The production blended Disney pizazz with community theatre charm, with several Broadway big names in the lead roles (Jelani Aladdin as Hercules, Roger Bart as Hades, James Monroe Iglehart as Phil) and dozens of ordinary New Yorkers in the supporting cast. The production proved a huge success and was one of Disney Theatrical’s most acclaimed musicals in years. It is therefore no surprise that Disney Theatrical have confirmed plans for an expanded two-act version.

Alan Menken and David Zippel are returning to write for this production – having added five extra songs for the Delacorte Theatre production, they could expand the soundtrack further and make it even stronger. Robert Horn, who wrote the Tony-Award winning book to the musical Tootsie, has been added to the writing team. This is a good appointment – Horn’s witty script was one of the most acclaimed aspects of Tootsie (“I live in an apartment so small I count the litter box as a guest bathroom. My phone no longer recognizes my face ID unless I’m crying.”) and he is perfectly suited to the task of bringing one of Disney’s most comedic films to a wider audience. Lear DeBessonet, who directed the original production, will return to direct the new one, hopefully allowing Disney to maintain the balance between professional spectacle and amateur charm which made the Delacorte Theatre run so successful.


Beauty and the Beast

Opening on Broadway in 1994, Beauty and the Beast was the first Disney Theatrical production and ran for an impressive 13 years. The 2017 live-action adaptation renewed interest in the story, and it will now become the second Disney Theatrical musical (after Mary Poppins) to enjoy a major revival production. The original creative team (screenwriter Linda Woolverton, composers Alan Menken and Tim Rice) will return, but we don’t know whether they will make any changes. Will they stick to the romantic approach of the original Broadway production, adopt the more lavish style of the live-action version, or do something different with the “Tale as old as Time”?. The production will premiere at a major “overseas” venue before returning to America, and it could demonstrate that the stage version of Beauty and the Beast can be considered an iconic musical in its own right.


Aida

Something of a cult favourite, Aida is the only major Disney theatrical musical not based on a pre-existing Disney film. Adapted from the Verdi opera of the same name, it allowed Disney Theatrical to take a darker and more dramatic approach, winning four Tony Awards and running for a solid four years. After several touring and regional productions, it is no surprise that Disney Theatrical want to create a major new take on Aida. David Henry Hwang, who co-wrote the original book, has revised the script to consider new research about the lives of ancient Egyptian rulers. The original plan was that this version would premiere in New Jersey’s Paper Mill Theatre in January 2021 and tour the USA, but Disney Theatrical have postponed it, and are instead planning to stage the production in Germany.


The Princess Bride

An adaptation of this classic 1987 film has been in development for a while, but it is closer to Broadway than ever, with David Yazbeck (Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, Tootsie) writing the songs and Bob Martin (The Prom) co-writing the script. A workshop for The Princess Bride was due to take place this spring but has presumably been delayed. However, we can still expect it to reach the stage soon – iconic characters like Princess Buttercup, Inigo Montoya and Vizzini are perfectly suited to the world of theatre…


The Jungle Book

Given the enduring popularity of the 1967 animated film and the Rudyard Kipling novel it is based on, it is no surprise Disney are interested in bringing The Jungle Book to the stage. They sponsored a 2013 stage adaptation in Chicago, directed by Mary Zimmerman and choreographed by Christopher Gatelli (Newsies)  With Hadestown legend Andre De Shields in the cast, the production was well-received and played in Boston, but did not go any further. However, after the 2016 live-action adaptation proved a success, Disney are going to take a second shot at bringing The Jungle Book to the stage. Gatelli is returning to direct this new version, with Rajiv Joseph writing the script. The iconic Sherman Brothers songs (Including “The Bear Necessities”) will remain, with Richard Sherman adding new ones.


Bedknobs and Broomsticks

Disney's 1971 film Bedknobs and Broomsticks followed the same winning formula as Mary Poppins seven years earlier (right down to the Sherman Brothers songs and featuring David Tomlinson as one of the main protagonists) but has a family-friendly charm of its own and deserves to find a wider audience. Blending magic, fantasy and wartime adventure, it can easily be updated for modern sensibilities without losing its classic feel.  A musical adaptation of Bedknobs and Broomsticks was meant to premiere in Chicago in 2019, but the production was cancelled after director Rachel Rockwell suddenly died. However, the project will now premiere in Britain, with Candice Edmunds and Jamie Harrison directing it.


Night At The Museum

Acquired by Disney in their purchase of 20^th Century Fox, 2006 family film Night At The Museum is an odd choice for a theatrical production, but could work pretty well. With an all-star cast headed by Ben Stiller, Night At The Museum did not quite live up to the promise of its fascinating concept (Items in a museum come to life when the doors are closed) but it spawned two sequels and retains a fanbase. Disney legend Alan Menken (also working on Beauty and the Beast, Hercules and the live-action The Little Mermaid) announced this project a few months ago, but no other members of the creative team have been revealed. This project is still pretty far away, but the idea of bringing a museum to life on stage is full of promise, and it would be great if Disney Theatrical go through with this adaptation.

Disney Theatrical - The Advantages and Disadvantages of Adapting Disney for the Stage

On October 1^st, Frozen: The Musical, the stage adaptation of Disney’s 2013 megahit Frozen, concludes its seven-week tryout at Denver’s Buell Theatre. After this, the cast and crew will begin preparing for the move to Broadway’s prestigious St. James Theatre. Performances there will begin on February 22nd, with the play officially opening four weeks later. Anna and Elsa’s stage debut is the latest in a long line of projects from Disney Theatrical Productions Limited (known as Disney Theatrical for short), the flagship division of the Disney Theatrical Group. Established in 1993, they are responsible for turning the likes of Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King and Aladdin into acclaimed and long-running stage musicals. Frozen is Disney’s highest-grossing animated film, and is just as popular and prominent today as it was when it was released almost four years ago. Thus, it goes without saying that Frozen: The Musical will enjoy a long and successful run on Broadway. However, if Disney Theatrical want it to become as iconic as the original film, there is still considerable work to do.

A couple of weeks ago, critics representing America’s most prominent newspapers and magazines were allowed to see Frozen: The Musical in Denver and publish their reviews. Variety provided near-total praise, even speculating that the play might be better than the movie, but other reviewers were quick to point out flaws in the highly-anticipated musical. The Denver Post accused it of being “derivative” and sending mixed messages, whilst The New York Times claimed that Anna had been reduced to “a more conventional Disney girl” and wondered if there was too much focus on Elsa’s emotional turmoil. The harshest criticism came from The Chicago Tribune, who claimed that Anna and Elsa’s relationship (which should be the heart and soul of any retelling of Frozen) was underdeveloped and called the show “cautious and emotionally underwhelming”. In spite of these important complaints, these early reviews for Frozen: The Musical have generally been positive, with the acting and singing mostly acclaimed across the board, and enthusiastic praise for a number of special effects. However, there is too much at stake for the production to merely be a long-running success. If the aim is for Frozen: The Musical to emulate The Lion King and become a great theatrical phenomenon for decades to come, the relatively mixed reviews for the Denver tryout probably represent a bit of a disappointment for Disney Theatrical’s president, Thomas Schumacher.

That said, Frozen: The Musical is as critic-proof as any play can be. Audiences seem to be reacting to it with great enthusiasm, coming dressed as their favourite characters and singing along to ‘Let It Go’. Their support for the production means that the changes made between Denver and Broadway are likely to be relatively minor. However, even if you think that the critics are being excessively harsh at this early stage, they are not to be ignored. After all, they have exactly the same desire as the general public and the creatives at Disney Theatrical – they want to enjoy the best stage version of Frozen possible. If the issues they raise regarding the story and the portrayal of Anna and Elsa remain unfixed when the play starts its official run on Broadway, they could affect its reputation and undermine its financial prospects in the long-term.* Furthermore, underwhelming reviews on Broadway could undermine the Frozen brand as a whole, which would have a negative impact on the forthcoming Frozen 2. Thus, the comments of the critics in Denver are worth taking into account if Disney Theatrical want an adaptation of Frozen which endures even after the excitement of the Frozen fandom cools down and it has to be judged primarily on its own merits.

The pressure surrounding Frozen: The Musical is so intense that even early reviews which would be welcomed for any other production can create anxiety for Disney. These vastly increased expectations prove that bringing a Disney film to life on stage is not an easy task. For every The Lion King (still going strong almost 20 years after it arrived on Broadway), there’s a relative critical and commercial disappointment like the stage adaptations of Tarzan and The Little Mermaid. There are a number of things which need to be taken into account when discussing the work of Disney Theatrical, as their strategy has advantages and disadvantages. First of all, the issues with translating an animated film to stage can make it harder to maintain the wonder and excitement associated with the original movie. However, the plays can take unique and creative approaches which make them truly distinct from Disney’s cinematic output. They can get upstaged by Disney’s live-action remakes, which can deliver a greater spectacle and contribute far more to the Disney Corporation’s Quarter earnings, but reach a wide audience through regional and amateur productions, engaging and inspiring theatregoers all over the globe. Overall, Disney Theatrical’s work is generally minor compared to Disney’s films and TV shows, but the influence of theatre and the ability to do something new with much-loved stories and characters make their endeavours worthwhile.

Constraints of the Stage

Disney Theatrical spend substantial sums of money on bringing Disney films to life on stage. Frozen: The Musical is reported to have a budget of between $25 million and $30 million. This doesn’t seem like much (It is only a fraction of the $150 million budget of the original animated movie), but it makes Frozen: The Musical one of the most expensive Broadway musicals of all time. Given the popularity of the original movies and the need to provide audiences with a unique and spectacular experience, Disney Theatrical are willing to spend considerably more than other theatrical producers. However, this focus on blockbusters is a high-risk strategy. Disney Theatrical’s greatest flop, Tarzan, was performed on Broadway for 14 months. This would be a fairly good run for a smaller musical, but as Tarzan cost up to $16 million to make, it did not last long enough to recoup its budget. In order to be considered a financial success, Disney’s stage musicals have to bring audiences in for years. This means that they have to appeal on their own terms, and be more than just an entertaining night out for fans of the original films. The financial pressures affecting Disney Theatrical are exacerbated by the fact that, for all the talent working behind the scenes, and the plethora of cutting-edge resources they use, there are some things which are very difficult to accomplish on stage.

The most important quality in the world of theatre is ‘suspension of disbelief’ – audiences are willing to accept almost anything they see as long as the effects are impressive enough and do not distract from the story or characters. However, Disney films contain a number of unique aspects which are hard to portray outside of animation and if it is too difficult and expensive to bring them to life on stage, they can be cut. Action sequences are often removed in the theatrical adaptations, and prominent animal characters (such as Abu the monkey from Aladdin and Tantor the elephant from Tarzan) can sometimes be edited out as well. In the case of The Little Mermaid, a key element of the plot (Ursula’s attempt to hypnotise Eric into marrying her) was removed relatively late in development and replaced with a storyline involving a singing contest. Done well, these changes can easily be overlooked by the fandom, but if the new additions are inferior to the old material, it can encourage the perception that the stage version cannot capture the magic of the film.  Another limitation affecting theatrical adaptations of Disney films is the fact that many of them are epic narratives, and it can be difficult to portray these properly on stage. This is not a problem with a story like Beauty and the Beast, which is predominantly set inside the Beast’s castle, but it has a far greater effect on Frozen, which relies on a quest-based storyline. Anna spends a substantial amount of the story travelling from her kingdom to Elsa’s ice castle on the North Mountain and back again, but her long journey needs to be depicted on a single stage with only a few moving elements. The size and scope of Disney movies is one of their main selling points, but their focus on adventure and discovery is not always compatible with a form which primarily requires more static characters and a narrative focused on a few key locations.

The one Disney Theatrical musical which was most affected by the constraints of theatre was The Little Mermaid. On paper, bringing an underwater kingdom to life on a stage should not be difficult – after all, the Hans Christian Andersen story which inspired Disney’s film has been adapted into numerous ballets and operas. However, these smaller productions have the freedom to adopt a more minimalist approach, whilst The Little Mermaid had to focus on spectacle to justify the $16.6 million budget. As a result, the diverse range of sea creatures from the movie were depicted using rather garish and over-the-top costumes (“heelie” shoes were infamously used to stimulate swimming), which ultimately felt unconvincing. The problems caused by the need to translate Ariel’s story to stage were most apparent at the climax. The original film ended with an epic sea battle, in which the Ursula turns into a giant and tries to finish off Ariel and Eric. As such a scene would be impossible to depict effectively in theatre, even in a grand production like this, it was replaced with one where Ariel has to save King Triton from Ursula by destroying her magical shell. Though this new conclusion solves a major problem with the climax of the original by focusing on Ariel’s character growth and making her the one to defeat Ursula, it lacks the danger and excitement of the film. This is crucial, as higher stakes would mean that Ariel’s decisions would carry a greater weight and make the happy ending all the more satisfying. Ultimately, adapting a Disney film to the stage is harder than many people think, as the limits of theatre mean that the fantasy offered by cinema has to be toned down, which can easily result in a play which lacks the excitement and entertainment value of the source material.

The Advantages of Theatre

However, whilst there are difficulties with translating a big story to a relatively tiny stage, the more confined and intimate nature of theatre has some vital advantages, as it forces Disney Theatrical to focus on the story and the characters inhabiting it. As a result, the songs which are central to most Disney films assume an even greater level of importance, because they advance the plot and develop the characters in a lively and memorable way. Disney Theatrical musicals add a wide array of extra songs to the original ones used in the film. Whilst Frozen had around 8 songs (including reprises), Frozen: The Musical currently features 25, although a couple of minor numbers might be cut by the time it gets to Broadway. Most of the songs added when translating Disney films to stage are written especially for the new version, but the updated song list can also include numbers which were intended for the original movie but cut during the production process. Generally, the sheer volume of new songs means that they have a tendency to fade from memory when taken outside the context of the play, but several (including Human Again from Beauty and the Beast, Shadowlands from The Lion King, If Only from The Little Mermaid and Proud of Your Boy from Aladdin) have stood out to become fan favourites in their own right. The stage versions also make changes to the story which can inspire future retellings in different mediums. In the stage version of Beauty and the Beast, the curse on the castle is gradually causing the castle staff to lose their humanity and become increasingly like the objects they have been transformed into. If Belle doesn’t admit her love for the Beast in time, than the castle staff will be turned into inanimate antiques permanently. This addition to the story was so effective that it was also used in the recent live-action remake. Done well, changes made by the stage versions can add depth to the characters and increase tension, allowing the story to be compelling in its own right.

However, no Disney production has turned the limits of the stage into strengths quite as effectively as The Lion King. With its giant cast populated entirely by animals (consisting of both the anthropomorphised main characters and large crowds of entirely lifelike animal “extras”), The Lion King seemed like a far more unusual choice for Broadway than Beauty and the Beast. However, Disney Theatrical made the inspired decision to hire Julie Taymor to direct the project. Drawing on Asian theatrical techniques and puppetry designs, Taymor came up with creative and expressive visuals which were entirely unique to the theatrical environment. The costumes used in The Lion King (referred to as “double events”) provide detailed likenesses of the animals whilst fully showing off the faces and bodies of the human actors playing them. This allows audiences to appreciate both the beauty and authenticity of the animal designs and the skill of the actors, dancers and puppeteers bringing the numerous species to life. Furthermore, imaginative and striking physical effects are used to depict the spectacular African settings of the movie, with ribbons standing in for water and dancers with elaborate headdresses being used to represent growing grass. As theatre gains most of its distinctive atmosphere from the interaction between actors and the audience, showing the humans who were bringing the Savannahs and Jungles to life made it easier for Taymor to directly engage theatregoers in the production. However, as amazing as the visuals are, they do not distract from The Lion King’s timeless coming-of-age story. The powerful themes and messages of the original film remain fully intact, whilst many of its weaknesses are rectified. Notably, the lack of representation for female characters is addressed by changing the gender of Rafiki and giving the lionesses Nala and Sarabi a much more prominent role. With her version of The Lion King, Julie Taymor took a story which many believed could only be told through animation, and turned it into a spectacular and unique theatrical production which quickly became a phenomenon. This gave Disney Theatrical a greater degree of credibility, as they had produced a play which managed to be far more than a mere retelling of a well-known tale.

Aside from the artistic merits of theatre, another reason for the “highbrow” reputation of the medium is the time and effort needed to see it. Theatre tickets are much more expensive than cinema tickets, and cinemas vastly outnumber theatres. Furthermore, there are numerous opportunities to see a film without having to leave the house, but theatre generally lacks the same reach, as plays are always best when seen in person. However, the difficulties accessing theatre can sometimes allow Disney Theatrical to ‘select’ their audience and make more adult plays. Whilst their films have to appeal primarily to children, the older average age of theatre audiences gives them the freedom to create productions which are darker and take more risks. This is most apparent with Aida, which premiered on Broadway in 2000 and enjoyed a healthy four-year run. Based on the iconic Verdi opera of the same name, it is one of the few Disney Theatrical productions not adapted from an existing Disney film. During the 1990s, Disney attempted to create an animated adaptation of Aida, but this fell through for a variety of reasons, with one of the most significant being the fact that the source material, dealing with the doomed romance between the Egyptian captain Ramades and Nubian princess-turned-slave Aida, was too dark for younger audiences. A particularly notable aspect of the opera is the ending, where Ramades is buried alive for treason and Aida chooses to join him in the tomb and die with him. If Disney had retained this ending for an animated film, it would have upset the younger viewers interested in pretty animation and catchy songs, but if they had dropped it, they would have alienated those who did not want to see a classic story get “Disneyfied” too much. As the stage version was able to focus on pleasing a more mature audience, it was able to retain the tragic conclusion of the opera, although it added a reincarnation-themed epilogue to make it a bit more upbeat. None of Disney’s feature-length films have ended with the permanent death of the primary protagonists, so the decision to make a play which finished with this happening was a great way of proving that Disney Theatrical’s work is more adult-orientated and mature than the Disney films are allowed to be.

Stage Musicals Vs. Live-Action

Adapting a Disney film for stage is not the only way to translate it to a new medium. Over the last few years, Disney have placed increased emphasis on making live-action adaptations of their beloved animated films. With the recent live-action remake of Beauty and the Beast, Disney’s live-action and theatrical work has begun to overlap, and there are about to be more instances of films which were already adapted into plays becoming live-action films. The live-action remakes of Aladdin and The Lion King are due in a couple of years, and a live-action adaptation of The Little Mermaid is also in the pipeline. Comparing the stage and live-action versions of Beauty and the Beast highlights the similarities and differences between the two forms. Both adaptations extend the original 90-minute film into an extravagant spectacle lasting over two hours, adding even more songs and providing extra material to further develop the characters. Although the stage musical features far more new songs (It added 14 new songs, compared to the three new songs created for the live-action film) the live-action version possesses a number of more significant advantages. It can make use of vaster and more extravagant sets, and incorporate CGI to bring the characters to life and pull off special effects which are completely impossible in the world of theatre. This encourages more spectacular action sequences and fantastical moments of magic, but also allows for a greater degree of realism. CGI and motion-capture can be used to depict animals in impressively lifelike fashion, whilst elaborate sets and soundstages can make bustling villages and marvellous ballrooms feel completely authentic. It’s far easier to immerse yourself in such a grand world, and this enhances the epic escapism which Disney aim to provide in almost all their works.

However, for a giant corporation like Disney, the biggest advantage with live-action films is the fact that they are far more profitable. The Lion King is the highest-grossing musical of all time, earning $1.37 billion in America alone (as of 2016), but it has taken 19 years to gain this amount of money. In contrast, the live-action remake of Beauty and the Beast gained $1.26 billion worldwide inside a mere 17 weeks. The greater number of cinemas showing the same product all throughout the day means that films can make a large amount of money in a far shorter period of time, meaning that they are a more lucrative prospect. The live-action remakes have frequently been subject to criticism from those who regard them as unnecessary and a sign of Disney’s creative bankruptcy, but there are valid artistic reasons for adapting the animated films into live-action, just as there are for adapting them into theatre. Live-action versions of Disney properties have many of the same advantages as stage versions, but also have a few additional ones. Combined with their higher profile, this means that they can easily overshadow Disney’s theatrical work.

Productions Outside Broadway

In spite of the higher profile of Disney’s live-action remakes, the financial value of projects from Disney Theatrical is often underestimated. So far, when discussing the relative success and failure of Disney’s stage musicals, this article has focused on their popularity on Broadway. However, this fails to take into account the importance of international markets. Major productions of The Lion King has been performed in over 100 cities in 19 countries. The productions based in Broadway, The West End, Hamburg and Tokyo are ‘flagship’ versions, housed in a single theatre continuously since their premiere. For those unable or unwilling to travel to these theatrical hubs, there are national and international tours which take the play to a wide variety of locations for a short run. The numerous productions being performed at any one time all bring a consistent stream of revenue, which can generate billions of dollars for Disney Theatrical over the long haul. On the occasions when a production fails to connect with audiences in a certain territory (The Korean version of The Lion King only lasted a year) the greater success of the other versions ensures that these disappointments have a minimal impact. Even stage musicals which underwhelmed on Broadway can gain a new lease of life through international productions. After Tarzan closed on Broadway, Disney Theatrical quickly retooled it for productions in Germany and The Netherlands. Most importantly, the “physical world” of the show was expanded, with sets which went beyond the stage and into the auditorium, and a number of scenes were added in which acrobatic and aerial stunts were performed over the heads of the audience. There were also a handful of minor changes to the story, with the romance between Tarzan and Jane becoming increasingly prominent. This improved version ran for two years in The Netherlands, and gained audiences of 1.6 million there (equivalent to one-tenth of the population), but its success in Germany was even more remarkable. It premiered in Hamburg in 2008, making $224 million there during a five-year run, and has been a hit at theatres throughout that country ever since, proving that the length of a Broadway run is no longer the only way of assessing the popularity of a major stage musical. Tarzan had initially provided Disney Theatrical with significant losses, but the decision to change it for the Netherlands and Germany turned out to be a very wise idea. It allowed a stage musical which had failed to impress American critics and theatregoers during its Broadway run to become a unique spectacle and gain the attention of an enthusiastic new audience.

The international productions mentioned above are all made by professionals. However, one of the main advantages of theatre is how easy it is to involve the general public in the art form. In contrast to the expensive equipment required for making live-action films, and the extraordinarily difficult and time-consuming processes behind animated movies, it is possible to create a great play with just a script, a stage and a few props. Non-commercial or “amateur” productions are put on for fun rather than profit in schools, small towns, and other places which want to provide an evening of enjoyable, family-friendly entertainment in spite of their incredibly limited budget and resources. Musicals are the sort of appealing, well-known plays which attract audiences to these performances, but you need a license in order to perform them without violating copyright law. In order to aid non-commercial theatre groups who would like to perform versions of their musicals, the Disney Theatrical Group have created a division called Disney Theatrical Licensing. They open up most of the Disney Theatrical plays for licensing, and provide theatre groups with the materials (including scripts and songbooks) necessary to bring their productions to life. In addition to licensing former Broadway musicals such as Beauty and the Beast, Aida and The Little Mermaid, Disney Theatrical Licensing distributes licenses to perform stage plays specifically created for regional and non-commercial theatre, including The Hunchback of Notre Dame, which is far closer to Victor Hugo’s iconic gothic tragedy than Disney’s 1996 animated film was allowed to be. Disney Theatrical Licensing have also established a range of ‘Disney Junior’ plays to be performed by younger children participating in school plays and youth theatre groups. At approximately half the length of an average Broadway musical, the ‘Disney Junior’ plays include abridged versions of Disney Theatrical’s Broadway productions (e.g. Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, The Lion King) as well as stage adaptations of films (including Peter Pan and Mulan) which have yet to be turned into full-length theatrical musicals. By giving children the opportunity to play their favourite characters and sing their favourite songs, ‘Disney Junior’ productions can inspire them to take a lasting interest in theatre whilst also giving them a new level of appreciation for the films they know and love. The smaller, simpler, licensed productions may seem relatively trivial, but they have sometimes had a major impact on Disney Theatrical. The stage version of Aladdin was originally intended to be exclusively for licensing, with a “pilot” production in Seattle to promote it. However, the Seattle production proved so popular that further national and international productions were quickly greenlit. Aladdin eventually arrived on Broadway in 2014, almost 3 years after the Seattle production started. Although it had changed significantly during its long journey to Broadway, the original “pilot” show had encouraged Disney to realise that a stage adaptation of Aladdin had the potential to become a major theatrical success. Newsies, based on a widely forgotten live-action Disney film from 1992, was also upgraded from licensing-only to Broadway on the strength of a limited run in New Jersey. Given the obscurity of the original film in comparison to the likes of Aladdin, the fact that Newsies managed to make it to Broadway at all demonstrates how seemingly minor regional productions intended to promote Disney Theatrical Licensing can build the positive word-of-mouth which leads to a major hit for the Disney Theatrical Group as a whole.

Conclusion

Disney’s motivations for translating their films to stage are both artistic and financial in nature. The producers, writers and directors behind the Disney Theatrical plays are excited by the challenge of moving the big blockbuster films into a smaller and more intimate medium without sacrificing the spectacle and sense of wonder central to the original movies. The stage versions of Disney films aim to emphasise elements of the source material that remain impressive in any medium, such as the universally compelling stories, the memorable characters, and the catchy songs, but even the popularity of the source material cannot guarantee complete success. Meanwhile, Disney’s recent live-action remakes use cutting-edge CGI, beautiful locations and energetic action sequences to provide a greater level of adventure and excitement, highlighting the limitations of the stage. However, the success of distinctive and high-quality productions such as The Lion King justifies Disney’s decision to expand into theatre. With The Lion King, Disney Theatrical gave audiences a must-see spectacle which took full advantage of theatre’s focus on physical effects and abstract imagery, and won over those concerned that Disney’s plays would be too conventional and commercialised. Disney Theatrical also have the creative freedom to produce darker, more adult plays such as Aida and The Hunchback of Notre Dame, demonstrating that they are committed to providing something more than the upbeat and optimistic family entertainment which has traditionally defined the Disney brand. Overall, Disney Theatrical are able to distinguish themselves from Disney’s filmmaking divisions and provide plays which can tell familiar stories in a new and creative way, providing something for Disney fans, theatregoers and more casual audiences.  

Due to the size and status of The Walt Disney Company, financial concerns also exert a major influence on their handling of stage musicals. Although they are relatively cheap to make compared to their films, and can provide enormous profits in the long run, these productions need to be sold out for many months in order to justify the time and money spent on bringing them to life, and cannot provide the rapid return on investment of the animated and live-action films. However, Disney Theatrical generate a far greater amount of revenue for The Walt Disney Company than people realise, especially when you take into account the numerous productions of their musicals occurring all over the globe. These run for months or even years on end, with some equalling and occasionally surpassing the success of the Broadway originals. Disney Theatrical also make money by licensing their plays for regional and non-commercial theatre, and their willingness to create new plays exclusively for this small-scale category of theatre can sometimes lead to the unexpected creation of a new hit such as Newsies or Aladdin. Ultimately, Disney Theatrical have consistently proved that it is possible to turn animated movies into popular and well-received stage musicals, and Frozen: The Musical will undoubtedly provide yet another success for them when it arrives on Broadway.

(*Note – I would like to address concerns that this article is being too pessimistic about Frozen: The Musical. After all, it is guaranteed to have a long run on Broadway, and there is a strong possibility that it will equal or surpass Beauty and the Beast’s 13-year stay there – an impressive achievement by any standards. It is also certain to do well internationally, and will probably gain even more money through licensing and 'Disney Junior' productions further down the line. However, many theatre analysts are going to compare its performance to that of The Lion King, just as cinema analysts compared the box-office takes of Big Hero 6 and Moana to the money raised by Frozen. In spite of the vast sums of money raised by Big Hero 6 and Moana, some considered them financial disappointments for not emulating the success of Frozen. Similar unrealistically high expectations could be used to portray Frozen: The Musical as a relative failure for Disney Theatrical if it fails to match the records set by The Lion King. After all, Frozen managed to earn more than the original version of The Lion King at cinemas.  This is incredibly unfair, but it’s one of the major risks faced when adapting such a popular property into a blockbuster play.)

Beauty and the Beast Review

(NOTE: This Review Contains Some Minor Spoilers, So Be Careful...)

Who Made Beauty and the Beast?

Beauty and the Beast is a live-action remake of Disney’s 1991 animated film of the same name, which was in turn based on the famous fairy tale, first published by in 1740. This version is directed by Bill Condon, and the screenplay is written by Stephen Chbosky and Evan Spiliotopoulos, (based on Linda Woolverton's screenplay for the original)

What’s It About?

Beauty and the Beast is about Belle (played by Emma Watson), whose love of reading makes her an outcast in the French village of Villeneuve. When her father, Maurice (played by Kevin Kline) gets lost in the woods, he stumbles upon the castle of the Beast (played by Dan Stevens) a prince who was cursed by an enchantress for his selfish behaviour. When the Beast imprisons Maurice, Belle volunteers to take her father’s place in the decaying castle, which is inhabited by the Beast and a team of servants who has been turned into enchanted objects by the curse, including Lumiere the Candelabra (voiced by Ewan McGregor), Cogsworth the Clock (voiced by Ian McKellen) and Mrs. Potts the Teapot (voiced by Emma Thompson). Over time, Belle finds out that the Beast is not as unpleasant as he initially seemed, and begins to develop a closer relationship with him. However, the narcissistic hunter Gaston (played by Luke Evans) wants Belle for himself, and is willing to use increasingly nefarious means to get her hand in marriage. Furthermore, if the Beast cannot get Belle to admit her love for him, he and his staff will remain in their cursed forms forever.

My Review

As a remake of one of the most beloved animated films of all time, the new live-action version of Beauty and the Beast has been under considerable pressure to measure up to the high standards set by the original. Many people have argued that turning Beauty and the Beast into a live-action film is unnecessary, but the story of Belle and the Beast has been adapted for many forms of entertainment since its release, including video games and comic books. With its increased length and extra musical numbers, this live-action remake of Beauty and the Beast is closest to the stage version which ran on Broadway for 13 years. Adapting Beauty and the Beast into live-action provides a set of interesting advantages and challenges, and it is fun to see the cast and crew behind the movie deal with these. For the most part, Beauty and the Beast translates well to live-action, ensuring this version is enjoyable to watch.

The main difference between the original film and the remake is apparent in the first few seconds. The opening narration explaining how the Beast and his staff got cursed has been transformed into a full prologue which gives us our first look at these characters. In place of images on a stained-glass window, we get a scene showing off a cast of dozens dancing in an opulent ballroom, before the enchantress reveals herself in a burst of special effects. This scene makes it clear that the live-action remake is going to emphasise scale and spectacle, and this approach is sustained throughout Beauty and the Beast – every cent of the movie’s $160 million dollar budget seems to have been spent on making it look as magnificent as possible. The visuals are the strongest aspect of the movie by some distance. The large cast makes the bustling town of Villeneuve and the Beast’s giant castle seem impressively authentic, the sets are spectacular, and the special effects are generally pretty impressive. Whilst the new looks for Cogsworth, Lumiere and the other enchanted objects in the castle staff seem a bit creepy at times, the interactions between these CGI characters and people like Belle feel almost completely natural.

Beauty and the Beast starts pretty slowly. Though the first hour or so of the movie does a good job of highlighting Belle’s status as a misfit, but it takes a while to set up the story, the Beast is a bit underdeveloped early on, and in spite of the great visuals and songs, it’s hard to connect with the characters.  However, the film is much stronger in the second half. Belle’s interactions with the Beast are particularly enjoyable, as they realise that they have a number of common interests, and it becomes clear that the two have plenty of chemistry. A climactic fight between the Enchanted Objects and an angry mob sent by Gaston to storm the Beast’s castle is wonderfully over the top, and, although the climax is a bit overlong, the closing scenes are very sweet. Although the story of Beauty and the Beast is one we all know by heart, there are enough interesting elements in this version to make it feel engaging and satisfying in its own right.

In addition to affecting the look and feel of the film, the transition from animation to live-action has also had a considerable impact on the portrayal of some of the characters, with some who were portrayed in a cartoonish fashion in the original being given greater depth. Maurice, initially a ridiculous oddball in the original, is a much more serious figure here, whilst Gaston’s henchman LeFou (played by Josh Gad) is transformed from a clownish victim of slapstick injuries to an initially loyal assistant who becomes increasingly uncomfortable with Gaston’s actions as the story progresses. Gaston is also portrayed in a much more realistic manner, as we see more of his ability to lie and manipulate others, and his failure to obtain his goals causes him to succumb to his violent instincts. Although Gaston still gets some funny moments, the comedic aspects of his character are downplayed compared to the original film. However, after Frozen, having a handsome and seemingly heroic individual who turns out to be a self-serving scumbag is no longer a novelty. Thus, with his macho nature toned down, this incarnation of Gaston is not quite as memorable as he was in the original film. Overall, the medium of live-action prevents the characters from being as expressive as they were in the animated version, but they have enough personality to prevent this from being too much of a problem.

All the classic songs from the original Beauty and the Beast are retained in this version, and they are generally used well. “Belle” benefits from the increased scale of this adaptation (which amplifies the energy and activity of the song), and “Be Our Guest” is great fun– It’s not every day you see cutlery and feather dusters put on a grand musical number. That said, there are instances where the use of songs from the original film can be a liability. For example, the cartoonish excesses of Gaston’s eponymous song clash with the more realistic portrayal of the character in this version, and Emma Thompson’s rendition of “Beauty and the Beast” lacks the power of Angela Lansbury’s original. However, Howard Ashman’s lyrics and Alan Menken’s score are always excellent to listen to, and it’s a pleasure to hear these great songs sung by famous actors. In addition to the six songs from the original movie, there are three new ones, “How Does a Moment Last Forever?”, “Days in the Sun“, and “For Evermore“. All of these are emotional ballads, with “For Evermore” proving to be the strongest, as Dan Stevens captures the power of the lyrics.

In addition to the new songs, the live-action remake has several new elements, which make the movie about 40 minutes longer than the original. Some of these are totally superfluous, such as the new character Cadenza (an enchanted harpsichord voiced by Stanley Tucci) and unnecessary revelations about Mrs. Potts (who has a husband who lives in Villeneuve) and the Beast (whose initial nature was due to the influence of his tyrannical father). There is also a magical book which can transport Belle and the Beast to any time and place they wish to visit (leading to a scene where Beast learns about Belle’s past). This is an interesting idea, but belongs in another movie where it would have a larger role and get used in a more satisfying fashion. However, a couple of changes which add to the fairy tale feel of the story are more effective. The enchantress who cursed the Beast has a much larger role in the story, and the scene where Maurice comes across the Beast’s castle is changed to make it closer to the original 18th century version of Beauty and the Beast. These two twists increase the mystery of the story instead of removing it. Sometimes, less is more, and that lesson even applies to lavish live-action remakes of Disney classics…

One of the advantages of doing Beauty and the Beast in live-action is the all-star cast. Emma Watson is a strong and lively Belle, never feeling like a damsel-in-distress. Her status as an intelligent misfit makes her an appealing and relatable protagonist. Dan Stevens capably handles the Beast’s changes in personality, as he evolves from an intimidating monster to a likeable love interest with a dry sense of humour. Luke Evans is effective as a more menacing incarnation of Gaston. Josh Gad gets some funny lines as LeFou, but his eventual redemption something of a foregone conclusion –Gad is too likeable to play a straightforward villain. Kevin Kline is a real standout as Maurice, the character who has been most improved from his incarnation in the animated film, and his relationship with Belle makes a refreshing change from the strict father/rebellious daughter dynamic traditionally associated with Disney. The Enchanted Objects are all likeable characters, but it’s a bit distracting to hear the likes of Ewan McGregor and Stanley Tucci put on a French accent. The singing is mostly strong. Although Emma Watson sounds a little auto-tuned at times, she generally conveys the emotion of all her songs very well. Taking their musical theatre backgrounds into account, it’s no surprise that Luke Evans, Josh Gad, Audra McDonald and Kevin Kline are good singers, but Dan Steven’s deep and rich singing voice is a pleasant surprise. The film manages to make good use of its strong cast, as they are playing interesting characters and having fun doing so.

Verdict

We all knew that the live-action version Beauty and the Beast would not be as brilliant as the original. It’s a little too big and elaborate for its own good, and often lacks the charm of the animated version. However, it’s still interesting to see this classic story told in a new medium, and there are enough worthwhile moments to ensure that it stands out. Taken on its own terms, the remake of Beauty and the Beast is a fun movie with spectacular visuals, great songs and memorable characters. If you have to choose one version of Disney’s Beauty and the Beast to watch, watch the original instead of this one. However, if you don’t mind seeing the same story told in a new way, or just want an enjoyable musical to provide 2 hours of escapism, then this remake of Beauty and the Beast is definitely worth watching.

If You Liked This, See:

Beauty and the Beast (1991) – For all the additions made by the live-action remake, Disney’s original version of Beauty and the Beast is still the best. It has the same great characters and same great songs as the remake, but its warmth and simplicity ensure that it still holds up as a must-see.

Cinderella (2015) – Out of all the live-action remakes which Disney have released in recent years, Cinderella is the closest to Beauty and the Beast, with its predominantly British cast and its lavish scenery. It provides an excellent example of the distinctive formula used by Disney’s live-action remakes, as it is faithful to the 1950 version of Cinderella whilst adding its own special touches.

La Belle Et La Bete – Jean Cocteau’s version of Beauty and the Beast from 1946 is one of the definitive non-Disney fairy-tale films, and its black-and-white cinematography continues to enthral viewers today. Disney’s live-action remake of Beauty and the Beast even features a homage to this version by showing living hands holding lamps at the entrance to the Beast’s castle.

                                              

Beauty and the Beast - Articles and Interviews

Almost 2 years after it started filming, Disney's live-action remake of Beauty and the Beast was finally released in cinemas this week. By the very high standards which Disney have set for themselves, its Rotten Tomatoes score of 71% Fresh is a bit of a disappointment (The original Beauty and the Beast has a Rotten Tomatoes score of 93% Fresh), but it has made an impressive $63.78 million on its opening day in the USA alone, demonstrating that it is yet another major hit for Disney...

Due to the iconic status of the original (the first animated film to be nominated for Best Picture) and the all-star cast (led by Emma Watson and Dan Stevens), this version of Beauty and the Beast has arrived in a blaze of publicity. In this blog post, I will provide a set of 28 articles about the live-action remake, which range from interviews with the cast and crew to discussions of the original movie's legacy and the some of the controversies surrounding this retelling.

The Legacy of the Original 

Inevitably, the publicity surrounding the remake has led to increased focus on the original animated version from 1991. These articles provide information on how it was made and how it became one of Disney's best-loved films. They demonstrate that the remake is under a lot of pressure to live up to the high standards set by the original Beauty and the Beast...

Beauty and the Beast: Angela Lansbury On Film's Legacy, Live-Action Reboot - Whilst many people are incredibly excited about the prospect of a live-action remake of Beauty and the Beast, others have argued that the enduring popularity of the original makes a new version unnecessary. Among those who have expressed the latter view is Angela Lansbury, the iconic actress who voiced talking teapot Mrs. Potts in the original film. In an interview last year to mark the 25th anniversary of the animated version, she claimed that  "I don’t quite know why they’re doing it. I can’t understand what they’re going to do with it that will be better than what we’ve already done". Lansbury also talks about what it was like to be involved in the 1991 film, and its popularity amongst children. Her comments highlight how hard it will be for the remake to emulate the quality of the "extraordinary and special" original.

Beauty and the Beast: The Tales Behind the Tunes - The live-action remake of Beauty and the Beast will feature all six of the songs from the original, including "Belle", "Be Our Guest" and the Oscar-winning title song. In this article, Alan Menken, who composed these songs, provides some information on how they were made, with some interesting tales about how he sent the wrong demo of "Beauty and the Beast" to Angela Lansbury, and how lyricist Howard Ashman was reluctant to hand over a version of "Belle" to Disney execs in the belief that they would not accept a "seven-minute opening number".

How One Gay Man's Battle With AIDS Shaped Disney's‘Beauty and the Beast’ - In an interview with the LGBTQ+ magazine Attitude, Bill Condon, the openly gay director of the live-action remake, discusses how Howard Ashman's battle with HIV/AIDS (he died of the disease in March 1991) shaped the original film and its portrayal of the Beast . He also mentions how the macho villain Gaston was based on people who Ashman referred to as "trade" (i.e. masculine and primarily straight males secretly involved in relationships with gay man). If there is one person who did more than anyone else to bring Beauty and the Beast to life, it is Howard Ashman, so it's great to see him get recognised for his contributions to Disney history.

How We Made Beauty and the Beast - In this article from The Guardian, Linda Woolverton, who wrote the screenplay for the original Beauty and the Beast, and Alan Menken discuss their experiences working on the original.Woolverton explains how she tried to make Belle a strong feminist role model, in spite of resistance from some Disney execs, whilst Menken provides some fascinating anecdotes about working with the legendary Howard Ashman.

Original Belle Gives Thumbs-Up to Emma Watson in 'Beauty and the Beast'  - Although Angela Lansbury has been sceptical about the live-action remake, Paige O'Hara, who voiced Belle in the original movie, has been more enthusiastic. In September last year, O'Hara took part in a USA Today interview with Robby Benson (who voiced the Beast) and Richard White (who voiced Gaston), where she endorsed the casting of Emma Watson as Belle. In addition, she stated that "there's always going to be room in history for both of these versions". 

This Beauty and the Beast Art Show Is, Well, Beautiful - The Californian art gallery Gallery Nucleus has a history of providing Disney-themed exhibitions. To coincide with the release of Beauty and the Beast, they are putting on an exhibition consisting of 40 artworks themed around the the movie, which runs until the start of April. Some of these pieces are shown in this Gizmodo article, and they are very impressive, capturing the magic and wonder of the story which inspired them.

The Stars 

One of the major selling points of the live-action version of Beauty and the Beast is the all-star cast, including Emma Watson (the Harry Potter series), Dan Stevens (Downton Abbey), Luke Evans (Fast and Furious 7), Josh Gad (Frozen), Ewan McGregor (Moulin Rouge!), Sir Ian McKellen (The Lord of the Rings Trilogy), Emma Thompson (Saving Mr. Banks) and Kevin Kline (A Fish Called Wanda). These actors, in particular the lead trio of Watson, Stevens and Evans, have provided plenty of interviews to promote the film and get their fans to see it...

Beauty and the Beast: 5 Juicy Behind-the-Scenes Secrets from the Cast - In a talk with Vanity Fair to coincide with the movie's premiere, the four main stars of Beauty and the Beast (Emma Watson, Dan Stevens, Luke Evans and Josh Gad) provide some interesting secrets from behind the scenes. Emma Watson and Josh Gad discuss the movie's timely messages about being yourself and not judging a book by its cover, whilst Stevens talks about wearing stilts to play the Beast, and Evans reveals how he prepared for his role as Gaston.

Beauty and the Beast: Emma Watson Addresses Questions Over Beast Relationship - Famous for playing the brainy Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter films, Emma Watson, who plays Belle, is probably the person who has featured the most in the remake's publicity campaign. Here, she responds to the common claim that Belle suffers from "Stockholm Syndrome" when she falls in love with the Beast. "Watson argues that, in this version, Belle "keeps that freedom of thought" throughout, and her relationship with the Beast is based on the gradual realisation that they "bring out the best" in each other. She regards Belle's relationship with the Beast, which is more realistic than the traditional Disney romance, as one of the movie's major selling points.

'Citizen Kane' Inspired Dan Stevens for 'Beauty and the Beast' - The Beast is played by Dan Stevens, star of the hit TV shows Downton Abbey and Legion. In this Times of India article, he points out that the film will show more of the Beast's life before he got cursed, and talks about watching a wide range of movies, including Wreck-It Ralph and Citizen Kane, in order to get inspiration for his role. 

Emma Watson On Why Beauty And The Beast’s Belle ‘breaks the mould’ of Disney princesses - Here is another article featuring Emma Watson, as she explains why Belle is not your typical Disney princess. She points out that Belle was the first Disney princess created by a woman (Linda Woolverton), and highlights her desire to challenge the status quo and seek out something greater. 

Emma Watson Reveals the Deeper Message in 'Beauty and the Beast' - Like Hermione Granger, one of Belle's defining traits is her love of reading. According to Emma Watson, this will be an integral aspect of the live-action remake, as Belle's "passion for books" is one of the most important things that she has in common with the Beast. She notes that books "have the ability to change your life and your outlook", and points out that up to 80 million girls around the world are prohibited from going to school based on their gender. Watson is a very passionate advocate of women's rights (she recently distributing free copies of feminist books on the London Underground), and she hopes that Beauty and the Beast will inspire further interest in the issue of Women's Education, thus encouraging demands for greater equality. 

How Dan Stevens Went From Disney Prince to Comic Book Legend - Five years after he quit Downton Abbey, Dan Stevens has returned to prominence with his roles in Beauty and the Beast and the superhero TV show Legion. Although this article from Backstage predominantly focuses on Legion, Stevens discusses working with Emma Watson, and talks about some of the special effects used to bring the Beast to life.

Luke Evans On Becoming Gaston For 'Beauty And The Beast' - The third lead in Beauty and the Beast is the Welsh actor Luke Evans, who plays the movie's egocentric and self-aggrandizing villain, Gaston. In this interview with Harper's Bazaar, Evans talks about what it was like playing Gaston, his experiences working with Josh Gad, (who plays Gaston's sidekick LeFou), and the risk of being typecast as overly macho antagonists.

Luke Evans Explains the Backstory for His Gaston in ‘Beauty and the Beast’ - One of the things which will mark this version of Beauty and the Beast out from the original is the increased focus on backstory, with flashbacks depicting Belle's childhood and explaining why the Beast was cursed. Even Gaston is getting a backstory, with Luke Evans explaining that his celebrity status within Belle's village is based on his past as a war hero. He also points out that what makes Gaston such an unnerving villain is his realistic nature, as he is "an arrogant, narcissistic, bigoted, chauvinistic, self-absorbed man" willing to resort to violence when he doesn't get his way. (Does this remind you of anyone?)

Stanley Tucci: Beauty And The Beast Challenges Views on Race as Well as Gender - Aside from the three leads, the supporting cast of Beauty and the Beast have plenty to say about the film as well. The Oscar-nominated actor Stanley Tucci plays Maestro Cadenza, a character specially created for this remake. He praises the fact that there are two interracial couples in the Beast's staff (Cadenza and Madame Garderobe, and Lumiere and Plumette), and expresses his hope that this will normalise interracial relationships, which are still relatively rare in the USA. 

Behind the Scenes

For all the media focus on the actors, the people working behind the scenes are arguably even more important. They range from reasonably well-known figures such as director Bill Condon (Dreamgirls) and composer Alan Menken (Aladdin), to various set designers and special effects experts who gave the live-action remake its distinctive look.

Alan Menken and the Musical Legacy of Beauty and the Beast - Here is another interview of Alan Menken, this one provided by Den of Geek. In it, Menken reveals that he updated the score in order to the add a greater "sense of reality" to the live-action remake, conveying the feel of the movie's setting (France in the mid-18th century). He also looks at the differences between the live-action remake and the stage version of Beauty and the Beast (which ran on Broadway for 13 years) and mentions that almost all the cast members (with the exception of the two leads- Emma Watson and Dan Stevens) have experience performing in musicals.

‘Beauty and the Beast’: Disney’s $300 Million Gamble -  In this article, The New York Times provide a look at the risks involved in remaking Beauty and the Beast in live-action. They examine some of the changes made by the new version, including a controversial new look for Mrs. Potts, and the innovations used in an attempt to update a story which many fans know "chapter and verse".

Bill Condon on Beauty and the Beast, His Musical Influences, and Lindsay Lohan’s Plan for The Little Mermaid - This article from Vulture features Beauty and the Beast's director, Bill Condon, talking about how he transferred the tale into live action, the influence of Jean Cocteau's 1946 film La Belle et La Bete, and the "overblown" controversy surrounding LeFou's "gay moment". He also gets to give his opinion on Lindsay Lohan's request that he should direct a live-action remake of Disney's The Little Mermaid in which she gets to play Ariel.

Exclusive: Celine Dion Opens Up About Singing New Song for 'Beauty and the Beast' 26 Years After the Original - In 1991, the iconic diva Celine Dion participated in the original Beauty and the Beast, singing a version of the eponymous song over the end credits. In the live-action remake, she will return to sing a new song called "How Does A Moment Last Forever?". Talking to Entertainment Tonight, she reveals how much she loved the original movie, and why she chose to sign up for the latest version.

How Long Has The Prince Been Cursed In The New Beauty And The Beast? Dan Stevens And Bill Condon Weigh In - The live-action adaptation of Beauty and the Beast is about 40 minutes longer than the animated version, which gives the film extra time to explore the issues which the original didn't have the time to examine. A couple of notable question left by the animated version are: how old the Beast was when he was cursed, and how long has he been in his current monstrous form? Dan Stevens and Bill Condon attempt to provide CinemaBlend with the answers, but their comments are pretty vague, with Condon claiming that the amount of time the Beast was bewitched is something which should be left for the fans to speculate.

Making the Magic of Beauty and the Beast Real - In this promotional article published in The Daily Telegraph, we get a sense of how much effort went into making this version of Beauty and the Beast look as epic as possible. 27 massive physical sets were constructed at Shepperton Studios, and director Bill Condon and cinematographer Tobias Schliessler used the latest technology in order to highlight how incredible these locations are. There is also information on how advanced motion-capture was used in order to bring the Beast to life, with Dan Stevens having to shoot scenes twice in order to capture his body movement and facial expressions in as much detail as possible.

Pittsburgh Native Chbosky Puts His Spin On 'Beauty and the Beast' - Stephen Chobsky, who previously wrote the screenplay for (and directed) Emma Watson's 2012 movie The Perks of Being a Wallflower, co-wrote the screenplay for the live-action version of Beauty and the Beast with Evan Spiliotopoulos. In this interview with Pittsburgh news website Trib Live, he explains that "I just wanted to write a fairytale for my daughter". He also explains how he tried to update Linda Woolverton's script for the animated film by adding "new characters and relationships", and discusses the creation of a new song for the movie called "For Evermore", written by the iconic lyricist Sir Tim Rice.

See the Concept Art that Brought the Beautiful Scenery of Beauty and the Beast to Life - A lot of effort went into creating the locations featured in the live-action remake, in order to give them a distinct and epic feel. Here, OhMyDisney show off some of the spectacular concept art used to bring a number important settings to life, including Belle's home and the Beast's library...

Take A Look Inside the Creation of the Ballroom for Beauty and the Beast - One of the central locations in the live-action remake is the Beast's ballroom. OhMyDisney have provided a number of snapshots which show just how spectacular this location is, even when it falls into a state of disrepair after the Beast gets cursed...

Controversies 

For all the excitement surrounding Beauty and the Beast, there have been a couple of controversies surrounding the project. Most notably, Bill Condon stated that LeFou would have the first ever "exclusively gay moment" in a Disney film, leading to a depressing homophobic backlash. Another notable incident involved a lesson plan which attacked the original film's portrayal of Belle. Both were blown way out of proportion, but highlight the fact that Beauty and the Beast's giant fan-base includes some very vocal and reactionary viewers.

Disney's Beauty and the Beast Remake Shouldn't Have A Tokenistic Gay Romance – the Main Characters Should Be Gay -  Not all the criticism of the decision to make LeFou gay has been homophobic in nature. In fact, many commentators have expressed disappointment that "Disney's first gay character" is merely a "slimy, sycophantic villain's sidekick". This editorial in The Independent argues that, in honour of Howard Ashman's battle with HIV/AIDS, Beauty and the Beast should go much further in representing the LGBTQ+ community, with a gay Beast and a male Beauty. Although there are some flaws with this argument (for example, there is a reference to the animated version of Beauty and the Beast as "the original Beauty and the Beast story", which ignores the fact that the first published version of the tale came roughly 250 years earlier), it is certainly true that LGBTQ+ narratives should be allowed greater prominence after centuries of being excluded from mainstream society. In addition, given that it is traditionally regarded as a hetrosexual love story, it would be interesting to see a version of Beauty and the Beast centered around a gay couple.

Does Disney’s ‘Beauty And The Beast’ Glamorize Domestic Violence? - In November, around the time that the first full trailer for the live-action remake was released, there was some controversy in the UK press about a lesson plan written by a teacher which suggested that the film condoned domestic abuse, due to the Beast's initial harsh treatment of Belle. Here, Hollywood.Com point out the reasons why this claim is incorrect (For starters, the villainous Gaston is a much more extreme example of a domestic abuser than the ultimately kindhearted Beast), but their article concludes by sensibly stating "it’s just a Disney movie, and everyone is really reading too much into it."

Everyone Is Making the Same Joke About the Backlash to the Gay Character in "Beauty and the Beast" - Although LeFou's "gay moment" is apparently completely innocuous, it has led to some cinemas refusing to show the live-action version of Beauty and the Beast, and the film receiving a 16+ (adults only) rating in Russia. Many commentators on Twitter have made fun of this overreaction, and this article from Seventeen collects a number of tweets, including one from the YouTube personality Tyler Oakley, which argue that it's ridiculous to get worked up about a "blink and you'll miss it" moment involving a side character whilst overlooking the fact that Beauty and the Beast is a film "about a girl who falls in love with a buffalo". The allegations that Beauty and the Beast promotes bestiality are ludicrous for a number of reasons, but then so are the claims that LeFou's subplot represents a form of "gay propaganda"... 

Pupils Taught Disney Fairy Tales Promote Sexism and Domestic Violence in Online Lesson Plan - In contrast to Hollywood.com, some British commentators were less polite about the allegations that Beauty and the Beast was excusing domestic abuse. One Conservative politician called the lesson plan making this allegation "politically correct claptrap" and accused it of "brainwashing" children, whilst the head of the right-wing pressure group Campaign for Real Education described it as "an ignorant, insidious and covert attack on family values and on the ancient wisdom of fairy tales." Claims that criticism of Disney movies represents a threat to society are pretty extreme, but they highlight the way in which films like Beauty and the Beast have become the definition of wholesome, family-friendly entertainment.

Summary 

All the articles above highlight the fact that it will be incredibly difficult for the live-action remake of Beauty and the Beast to become as iconic as the original movie, and it will be very hard to expand the story whilst pleasing a fanbase who can become incredibly hostile to trivial changes and criticisms. However, the interviews and articles about the making of the new version also demonstrate that the people involved in bringing this version to life have put an immense amount of effort into ensuring that this retelling will be worth seeing. Even if it cannot match the original, the live-action remake of Beauty and the Beast will probably still be a spectacular and entertaining movie which all the family can enjoy.