First Look At Beast, Non-Human Characters From Live-Action 'Beauty And The Beast'

November 3, 2016


This is the first look at Beast, Belle, Gaston, as well as some of the non-human characters (Cogsworth, Mrs. Potts, Lumière and Babette) from the live-action remake of Beauty And The Beast coming next year. So, what do you think? I like Beast's horns. I wish I had horns like that. But noooo, all I got was a dent in my head I have to cover with a hat. I tell people I got kicked by a donkey at a petting zoo when I was a kid but it was my fault because I poked him in the nuts with a stick. I thought they were fruit!

Keep going for a bunch more shots of Hermione living the dream.







  • David Bass

    I'm so glad she isn't in the upcoming Harry Potter prequel; Fantastic Beasts.
    total bitch.

  • TheQiwiMan

    The live-action remake exactly zero people were wanting.

    What a cancer.

  • Ernie

    You didn't want. Don't speak for everyone else. Because you can't know what everyone else wants.

  • TheQiwiMan

    Fair point. Allow me to amend my original comment.


    "The live-action remake exactly zero people were wanting, unless they are idiots who shove member-berries up their butts to the point where their brains stop functioning completely."



  • Who hurt you?

  • Jon

    Nice to see that they (so far) have not decided that live action means washed out colours.

  • Wiley

    What!? Emma Watson is Belle!? I don't think she works... too sharp.
    Luke Evans as Gaston?! Again, too sharp.
    Who cast (corrected) this? You could have done better.

  • Captain Matticus, LP Inc.

    Could have done better? And what have you done? You act like you're losing money on this.

  • Wiley

    What have I done? Maybe you should ask yourself what you were doing when you wrote that response.

    You act like my opinion has more weight than it does in this context.

  • Captain Matticus, LP Inc.

    If you (the general you, not specifically you) give your unsolicited opinion, then you believe it has weight. So when you (now specifically you) made your comments on the (in your opinion) poor casting choices without actually seeing how the actors perform their roles, I deemed it necessary to point out that:

    1) You've probably never cast anything before, so you really don't know what you're talking about.
    2) You haven't invested a single penny into this production, so your having an opinion is actually pretty funny.

    If, however, you like to give your unsolicited opinion while also acknowledging that your opinion in worthless, then you're doing the internet equivalent of speaking just in order to hear yourself talk. It's a sign of incompetence.

    You pretty much judged a book by its cover.

  • Wiley

    I have cast plenty of things. The role is not exclusive to movies on a budget. The creative eye is more than enough qualification to deem whether something is or is not well cast, and on top of that... the right of any viewer at any stage. Whether it was the whole book or just the cover. All we have is a cover, and that's all I've judged, obviously. So I'd assume the opinion to not be taken so seriously.

    I'm not even going to touch your strange disconnect about my involvement with the production cost of this film and being allowed to voice an opinion...

    And I never said my view was worthless, thanks, so you can scratch your incompetence. Its weight is certainly lacking in the level you've chosen to dig in here though.

  • Jon

    Just cast, it is an irregular verb so the past tense is the same.

    Agree though, not sure who I would have picked over Emma Watson but she does not quite seem to fit... That said, people have doubted other casting choices that have turned out to be good in the end.

  • Wiley

    Thanks on 'cast' correction. (No sarcasm)

  • GeneralDisorder

    Mrs. Potts sure is steamy! Alright. I'll watch.

  • TheDR

    She doesn't hold a candle to--

  • GeneralDisorder

    Holding candles is Lumier's job.

blog comments powered by Disqus
Previous Post
Next Post