Was she a good a Belle?
Was she a good a Belle?
Other urls found in this thread:
No, she already waxed her beautiful hairy arms by then.
She's used to getting pounded by beasts so yes
No.
What would Belle look like if this movie was made in 2022?
Better casting than Emily blunt as Mary Poppins
Neither can sing to be fair. Though Blunt trying to get close to soprano level voice Julie Andrews is impossible.
>Anglo troll woman to play a Gaul beauty
Retarded. She literally isn't pretty enough. Belle was slender and delicate. Watson is manish .
She'd be great as the belle of my balls if you know what I mean
I love Julie Andrews so much it hurts. Why wasn't I born a rich Hollywood Jew 50 years ago, anons?
Looks like my sister
What weirdo doesn't love Julie Andrews.
Julie Andrews always seemed to me like a woman who likes to take charge in the bedroom and make you do everything she wants and slaps you and calls you a bad boy if you complain.
no
>cannot sing
>not pretty enough
>engl*sh
>and damage Belle's character and the costumes to shoehorn her shitty feminist agenda
she a cute
Goddess.
Well she almost certainly wasn't. She's famous for being a prude, she only had sex a few times and stopped after her first child.
She needs to apologize
theactors back then were more accomplished than today.
could sing, could dance, could act, were good looking and with charisma.
why are they so mediocre today ?
no
At least Naomi Scott can sing, somewhat.
and she is cute.
better than watson.
Both of them were miscast.
Emily Blunt was better casting, but she was too old for the role.
The movie confused arabs for indians, felt like a Bollywood version of Aladdin. So she fit in that sense. Also this
At least she's hot.
Naomi a CUTE.