Which Disney film has the best or worst script?

[Goliath]

How am I proving myself wrong? I'm just stating my opinion. Besides, "Lilo & Stitch" would've been better (screenplay-wise) if the storylines were more structured.

You contradicted yourself, because you said there wasn't enough structure in the script and too many thiongs where happening; and then you demonstrated -unwillingly- how these storylines all worked together.

It would be better if the Stitch for example didn't created all the chaos for Lilo's family and actually showed more tender moments between Lilo and Stitch. They don't have chemistry at all.

If they don't have any chemistry at all according to you, you haven't paid attention. If Stitch did as you suggest, there wouldn't be a film at all. Because that's exactly the whole point of the film: the change of Stitch.

You should be more careful with stating that other people's words are nonsense.

Nope.

Best: The Lion King
Worst: Home on the Range

The Lion King's script has a combination of the bible and Shakespear in it. Home on the Range has too many slapsticks in the script.

The Lion King is a total rip-off from the 1960's Japanese animated series Kimba the white lion. Everytime TLK's fans start talking about Skaespeare, I cringe.

[Super Aurora]

if you think Monstro was not intended to be more evil than your average whale, watch the movie again, watch that green-eyed whale again.

http://news.discovery.com/animals/giant ... ossil.html

There's your real life Monstro.

[DisneyFan09]

You contradicted yourself, because you said there wasn't enough structure in the script and too many thiongs where happening; and then you demonstrated -unwillingly- how these storylines all worked together.

Yeah, but the film would have worked better if some of the storylines were reduced; The plot had already some potential with Lilo and Nani trying to work out their family situation and adapting Stitch into the new family. The other storylines were distracting/devastating the mayor storyline.

If they don't have any chemistry at all according to you, you haven't paid attention. If Stitch did as you suggest, there wouldn't be a film at all. Because that's exactly the whole point of the film: the change of Stitch.

I've seen this film a couple of times, so I have paid enough attention, thankyou very much! Usually in films where friends/couple start out as enemies first, they have at least some chemistry. But Lilo and Stitch doesn't have any chemistry at all. And yes, the film is about Stitch changing for the better, but he doesn't care about Lilo until the very end. I will take a comparison; Beauty and the Beast (yeah, it is a love story, but however). Although they start out at enemies at first and it takes a while before they warm up to each other, the Beast changes immediatly when Belle thanks him for saving her life and that's in the middle of the film. Lilo does several things for Stitch and even then, he's just selfish (he's running to the house when Jumba and Pleakely are chasing him at the end). In the series, however, the duo has more chemistry. But that's my opinion.

You should be more careful with stating that other people's words are nonsense.

Nope.

What a jerk you are. This is a place for discussing, not to insult other users. And if you wanna discuss, do so in a constructive manner. Just because people have different opinions, doesn't make their opinion as nonsense.

[Lazario]

I don't know about the best, but the worst would have to be The Aristocats. First of all, the 'journey back home' storyline, with the episodic structure and the brief encounters with secondary characters who disappears afterwards, is a direct copy of The Jungle Book. Second, there's far too much filler material, far too much slapstick that isn't needed. It's distracting and it takes away time from any character development the real main characters *could* have had.

This is Disney- character development? Isn't that something they saved for the live-action films?

I don't know if you disapprove of slapstick in other classic Disney animated films, but the alligator chasing Hook scenes in Peter Pan cracked me up. Edgar and the field dogs reminds me a bit of that. I have to re-watch the movie when I finally get the DVD in a month or so, but I think post-Walt Disney has always considered the scene where Edgar dumps the kitten basket and thinks he's being chased by the police a truly iconic moment. And I think I remember the music score was really good... wait- was that Robin Hood? Which one has the horns going overtime? Horns and... cymbals? Ah, I forgot; YouTube! (I'll have to check tomorrow)

[Super Aurora]

Which one has the horns going overtime? Horns and... cymbals? Ah, I forgot; YouTube! (I'll have to check tomorrow)

In Aristocats, there was a Siamese cat used the cymbal as a Chinese rice hat(stereotype ftw) and the horns, there was one on Edgar's motorbike that often been hear when Edgar rode that bike.

[Escapay]

Yeah, but when it's a Disney film on a Disney board, then it's a sign of the Second Coming.

albert

Seriously, where do you get your material from

The voices that whisper inside my head, like everyone else.

Right?



RIGHT???



albert

[Tristy]

Hm. Which one had the worst script?

For my money it would be Brother Bear. I'm sorry. It's a beautiful looking movie, but here's the problem. It just doesn't know what movie it wants to be. At times it wants to be serious, at others it's trying to be a slapstick comedy and oh yeah! Those outtakes at the end make it even more pointless.

Black Cauldron was entertaining, but the script was relatively weak. Heck. It sounds like a five-year old would have written it. The Tim Burton Alice in Wonderland also suffered from this problem.

The best script? Hm. This is a difficult one to choose from. If I had to say the one that had the best written one was Aladdin. That was just a chock full of witty lines. But some runner-ups would have to be: Beauty and the Beast, Pinocchio, The Hunchback of Notre Dame (sans the Gargoyle dialogue), Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl, Sleeping Beauty, the original Alice in Wonderland and the Sword in the Stone.

[Tristy]

Hm. Which one had the worst script?

For my money it would be Brother Bear. I'm sorry. It's a beautiful looking movie, but here's the problem. It just doesn't know what movie it wants to be. At times it wants to be serious, at others it's trying to be a slapstick comedy and oh yeah! Those outtakes at the end make it even more pointless.

Black Cauldron was entertaining, but the script was relatively weak. Heck. It sounds like a five-year old would have written it. The Tim Burton Alice in Wonderland also suffered from this problem.

The best script? Hm. This is a difficult one to choose from. If I had to say the one that had the best written one was Aladdin. That was just a chock full of witty lines. But some runner-ups would have to be: Beauty and the Beast, Pinocchio, The Hunchback of Notre Dame (sans the Gargoyle dialogue), Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl, Sleeping Beauty, the original Alice in Wonderland and the Sword in the Stone.

[blackcauldron85]

Sorry, I didn't formulated myself right. I should rather write that I meant the language gap, which was solved by listening to the heart. Yes, it is a nice lesson, but a little unlogic.
I don't think there's anything wrong by the ending scene itself; It's indeed a powerful moment. But now we're talking from script-perspective, right? I think if they absolutely should have a unhappy ending, they could have a made it more plausible. Although the historical John Smith was send back to England after being wounded, he would more probably die on his voyage back (as he would in the film). And Pocahontas actually had the choice to go with him.

Ah, okay, yes, the language gap...definitely something that sticks out. It doesn't dampen the experience when I watch it, but it's noticable. a) Did John Smith get injured and sent to England on a boat? b) If so, he didn't die, right? So why would Disney make him die? And, I mean, if not for the sequel, we wouldn't know if he had died or not, really. Pocahontas' choice not to go with him was HUGELY noble, though. I mean, yes, she loved him, but they needed her to smooth out the transition between the 2 groups.

Maybe, but as a method of foreign language education, it's fairly crappy. I could listen to my heart all day long, that isn't going to teach me how to speak Spanish. I guess this only works for Native American tongues.

I had misunderstood what he had meant; I thought he just meant the concept of listening to your heart was stupid. But, as I said above, yes, that is something noticable about the film.

Gurgi is an annoying and unsympathetic funny animal

But he has no friends. Yes, I can see why he would be annoying, but he just wanted some companionship. He was lonely and excited for a friend. And, I mean, he risked his life for his friend.

I know some may say there's not enough time to flesh-out the characteristics of the three main objects (Ms Potts, Cogsworth and Lumiere) but if that's the case, why have them at all? What do they add to the story apart from humour? In fact, I find that they distract from the story, being as despite being obviously afraid of the Beast's rages, they have no moral doubts about basically "pimping" Belle out, with no concern for her safety - most likely motivated just as much for their own gain than for Belle's or the Beast's. I really think the story would be better without them - that way Belle's love for The Beast would unquestionably be her own feelings, untainted by others.

They keep Belle company...without the objects, she'd be even more miserable and lonely. And they give Beast advice. And Belle. I think that they're important to the plot...

I also have problems with Gaston - another stereotype. How much more refreshing would it be if Gaston wasn't a sexist, egotistical jerk and actually loved Belle, and genuinely attempted to rescue her. How would Belle react to the Beast if her love was torn between Gaston and The Beast? As it is, there's nothing to pull her away from The Beast.

Wow, the story would be kind of completely different. I mean, I haven't ever thought of that before. I think that if Belle loved Gaston, he would've accompanied her when she was looking for Maurice. Maybe he would've been the prisoner and let Maurice and Belle go! I mean, the love-triangle aspect would be intriguing...but a) if Gaston were a nice guy, who'd be the bad guy (they'd just have to make another character? Or would Monsieur D'Arque be the sole antagonist?)? or b) if Gaston was a bad guy and Belle loved him, that would make us think that Belle has horrible judgment in men...unless she loves the Beast and then we're rooting for her because she's found a great guy. Lots of possibilities with this idea.

although I used to find it a bit distracting that Jim and his mother were obviously the only humans in a planet with different creatures

Well, there's Jim's dad...and I mean, there were other humans, surely- we just didn't see them. We didn't see every inhabitant of Treasure Planet in the film! I'm sure the filmmakers thought that aliens with all different designs would be neater to watch than a bunch of humans. And I think they made a good call.

The filmmakers created the enchanted objects to light up the mood (as they did with the animals on "Pocahontas" and the Gargoyles in "Hunchback"), when they're actually distracting the (screen)time and development Belle and the Beast could eventually have. And as you point out, it seems as they want Belle to fall in love with the Beast for their own sake (although Chip appears to be the only one who genuinly cares for Belle).

As I mentioned, the enchanted objects give advice and provide companionship. I think that with Percy and Meeko, they kind of show an evolution, just like the people; so maybe it's redundant, but at first Percy and Meeko don't like each other, but then they're friends by the end of the movie... And the Gargoyles are much like the enchanted objects in B&tB, since they provide companionship and give advice to Quasimodo. I mean, Belle and Quasimodo would be completely alone (except for Beast and Frollo) without them!

That's one of the issues with "Pocahontas"; Kocoum wants to marry her, but she doesn't want to marry him (and it's no wonder, since he was so serious). Although he defintively had some affection for her, it would be more refreshing if she was torn between him and Smith (although she does feel torn between two guys in the sequel). The plot would be just as strong without the betrothal and if a random Indian attacked Smith, for example.

Interesting, interesting. I'm a sucker for love-triangles in film and books, so this thought excites me. I think that the Pocahontas-Kokoum-John Smith (haha, I just wrote "Pocahontas-Kokoum-Beast"...haha, that'd be interesting) triangle would make more sense/ be more intriguing than the Belle-Gaston-Beast love triangle. I think maybe because John Smith went to Pocahontas' home...I mean, Belle went to Beast's home...I mean, she thought she was happy with Kokoum (in this pretend version), and then she meets this outsider. Interesting stuff. Whereas Belle, I mean, you can go many ways with this, as stated above. I think what I'm meaning to say is that Pocahontas is free, she's in her home, whereas Belle would be trapped. Or if Gaston stayed, then Gaston would be trapped. Would you love whoever was keeping you captive? I mean, obviously that theme is pretty much explored in the film, and they learn to love each other... I guess I can't quite wrap my head around Belle loving Gaston. But if Pocahontas loved Kokoum- that's an interesting thought.

I also just realized, making Gaston a good person who loved Belle just like the Beast would completely lose the point the filmakers were trying to make: that people can seem good because they look good but really they may not be and you need to find a person who has real beauty and goodness inside.

That's a good point- I wasn't thinking about that. Unless Gaston was good and his jealousy of the Beast turned him into an evil guy...?

A shallow, egotistical jerk isn't a good enough antagonist to the Beast? What about a hunter, the natural enemy of a beast, or a cold-blooded jealous (attempted) murderer, of which he also is because the Beast is really a person

Gaston wasn't menacing enough. He wasn't threathning enough; Just shallow, egocentric and a sexist jerk. At least Gaston could be more sinister, have a more evil and greater presence and aura.

I think the fact that yes, Gaston is a hunter, shows that he has a violent side to him. I mean, I'm too nice to kill an animal, personally, but Gaston thinks nothing of it. And I mean, the rooftop scene- that shows that yes, Gaston is evil. He's menacing and threatening, and dangerous- he tried to kill the Beast! All for a girl! The Beast didn't do ANYTHING to him! That's very villainous. More so than Lady Tremaine, IMO. Not that she isn't a villain- of course she is, and surely Cinderella thought that she was the more horrible person to ever live. But comparing the two, Gaston and Lady Tremaine, Gaston is the more dangerous...at least as we can see from what's shown of them in the films.

Lilo does several things for Stitch and even then, he's just selfish (he's running to the house when Jumba and Pleakely are chasing him at the end).

In the context of the film, at least (not counting Stitch's TV show and sequels and backstory that came out after the film), from what we know, he's a fairly new experiment. He's not used to Earth or people. He's essentially a little kid dropped off and his life got flipped upside down. So it's kind of understandable how he acts. And he does turn around in the end.

At times it wants to be serious, at others it's trying to be a slapstick comedy and oh yeah! Those outtakes at the end make it even more pointless.

Those outtakes are HILARIOUS! I mean, are Pixar films any less poignant because they have outtakes at the end? No, thank you very much.

[Rudy Matt]

The outtakes are the only moments in the film that work.

[blackcauldron85]

The outtakes are the only moments in the film that work.

I disagree. "No Way Out" is one of the saddest Disney moments for me. I need a lot of Kleenex at that point... I mean, I love the film anyway, but, for me, it has one of the most emotional moments in the Disney animated canon. Really, more than one emotional moment. The end kind of kills me, too, but it's bittersweet.

[2099net]

I know some may say there's not enough time to flesh-out the characteristics of the three main objects (Ms Potts, Cogsworth and Lumiere) but if that's the case, why have them at all? What do they add to the story apart from humour? In fact, I find that they distract from the story, being as despite being obviously afraid of the Beast's rages, they have no moral doubts about basically "pimping" Belle out, with no concern for her safety - most likely motivated just as much for their own gain than for Belle's or the Beast's. I really think the story would be better without them - that way Belle's love for The Beast would unquestionably be her own feelings, untainted by others.

They keep Belle company...without the objects, she'd be even more miserable and lonely. And they give Beast advice. And Belle. I think that they're important to the plot...

But why does she need to have company? Isn't part of the point of her "sacrifice" that she gave up her life in the village in order to save her father from the Beast? It's already been shown that there's nothing really in the village to keep her there apart from her father. So doesn't having her make friends in the castle lessen her already some-what weak sacrifice?

The point is, the original story is harsh and judgmental. Like a lot of fairy-tales its somewhat dark and cruel in its overall tone and outlook. The enchanted objects don't really serve a purpose - they're just there to dilute the Beast's scaryness.

I also have problems with Gaston - another stereotype. How much more refreshing would it be if Gaston wasn't a sexist, egotistical jerk and actually loved Belle, and genuinely attempted to rescue her. How would Belle react to the Beast if her love was torn between Gaston and The Beast? As it is, there's nothing to pull her away from The Beast.

Wow, the story would be kind of completely different. I mean, I haven't ever thought of that before. I think that if Belle loved Gaston, he would've accompanied her when she was looking for Maurice. Maybe he would've been the prisoner and let Maurice and Belle go! I mean, the love-triangle aspect would be intriguing...but a) if Gaston were a nice guy, who'd be the bad guy (they'd just have to make another character? Or would Monsieur D'Arque be the sole antagonist?)? or b) if Gaston was a bad guy and Belle loved him, that would make us think that Belle has horrible judgment in men...unless she loves the Beast and then we're rooting for her because she's found a great guy. Lots of possibilities with this idea.

Well, that the point. If Gaston was a loving person, who saw Belle effectively kidnapped and held prisoner wouldn't he have proper motivation for hating the Beast?

What's Gaston's motivation? To show off? To claim another kill? That's all he does already. It doesn't add to his character at all. I'd rather he'd have tried to capture and display the Beast, at least that would add to his already somewhat one-dimensional character.

I'd like to see Gaston actually struggle with his decision to kill the Beast, especially when/if Belle pleads with him not to. A good man driven to contemplate bad things. Would it make him evil? No. Would it make him a real character? Yes.

I also just realized, making Gaston a good person who loved Belle just like the Beast would completely lose the point the filmakers were trying to make: that people can seem good because they look good but really they may not be and you need to find a person who has real beauty and goodness inside.

That's a good point- I wasn't thinking about that. Unless Gaston was good and his jealousy of the Beast turned him into an evil guy...?

A shallow, egotistical jerk isn't a good enough antagonist to the Beast? What about a hunter, the natural enemy of a beast, or a cold-blooded jealous (attempted) murderer, of which he also is because the Beast is really a person

Gaston wasn't menacing enough. He wasn't threathning enough; Just shallow, egocentric and a sexist jerk. At least Gaston could be more sinister, have a more evil and greater presence and aura.

I think the fact that yes, Gaston is a hunter, shows that he has a violent side to him. I mean, I'm too nice to kill an animal, personally, but Gaston thinks nothing of it. And I mean, the rooftop scene- that shows that yes, Gaston is evil. He's menacing and threatening, and dangerous- he tried to kill the Beast! All for a girl! The Beast didn't do ANYTHING to him! That's very villainous. More so than Lady Tremaine, IMO. Not that she isn't a villain- of course she is, and surely Cinderella thought that she was the more horrible person to ever live. But comparing the two, Gaston and Lady Tremaine, Gaston is the more dangerous...at least as we can see from what's shown of them in the films.

I don't see Gaston as a villain. He's a hunter? Does that make him a villain? If so, half of the rural US must be villains (or at least have villains in their families). And by all logic, if such a beast did exist, it could be seen as right and logical to hunt it down and kill it. It had, after all, kidnapped and imprisoned two people. Is Prince Phillip a villain because he killed Maleficent? Surely from Gaston's POV its more or less the same situation - even when Belle pleads for the Beast's life, she could be suffering from some form of Stockholm Syndrome!

He's only a villain because his agenda is at cross-purposes with Belle's, not because its demonstratively wrong. That and the fact that they take such trouble at the start of the film to portray him as such a jerk. If Gaston was a handsome, considerate character like Prince Phillip, would his actions towards the end of the film class him as a hero or villain or something in-between?

The only time Gaston is villainous is when we see him plotting with the Doctor to have Belle's father committed. It's a shame we didn't see more of this side to him in the film, because not only would it have enhanced his character, but it would have removed the need for the broad cartoony stereotypical character brush strokes we see at the start of the film. Plus, if all this plotting was hidden from Belle, who maybe did find him somewhat desirable, it would make us root for her to fall in love with The Beast more.

[Flanger-Hanger]

Live Action: Pollyanna

Animated: Probably One Hundred and One Dalmatians (even if no true "script" was written). I can't find fault with the dialogue or plot logic off the top of my head and it is genuinely funny.

[Disney Duster]

DisneyFan if Gaston was more evil, then it would be even more obvious that he was not fit for Belle or any woman at all. The point is that Gaston is supposed to seem like he good be just a macho guy at first, but then he becomes a real threat. If you don't think he was evil enough locking Belle up, saying such cuttingly hurtful things to the Beast, and then literally cutting into him with arrows or a knife, I think you are expecting all villains to be a certain way they can't all be because of their own individual stories and situations.

Maybe his voice actor could have sounded more evil? I dunno, I really can't think of anything more. He certainly made me fear for the Beast's life and hate him, made me think he was so evil, and I'd say that goes for everyone.

I don't think a good villain always mean being so, so, so evil. A villain just hasto do their job, like make you fear for the character's life, to provide drama.

Having a backstory can be great, yes, but, well, pretty much what I said before about it covers how it's not always necessary or a good thing and they shouldn't all have it or at least don't need it.

And I'm sorry, I thought you were saying Clayton was too simple, you didn't say anything to say how good he was, but if you think he was, yea, I wouldn't argue that he had to be anything more than he was, maybe get more jealous of Tarzan, maybe have this whole thing about animals just being animals that perhaps he always held his whole life, but now that I think about it that all sounds rather Gaston-y...

Amy, yay, I like what you said!

Netty, is it just me, or did you just flip-flop? You said Gaston was too one-dimensional evil, then you compared him to regular hunters and Prince Phillip and said he wasn't.

We can all tell Gaston was evil, he saw how the Beast was a sad, sentient being and he said "Did you think she would love you?" recognizing that the Beast had feelings and thought Belle had feelings for him. Also, the filmakers intended him to be evil, but all I pointed out shows they succeeded.

[2099net]

DisneyFan if Gaston was more evil, then it would be even more obvious that he was not fit for Belle or any woman at all. The point is that Gaston is supposed to seem like he good be just a macho guy at first, but then he becomes a real threat. If you don't think he was evil enough locking Belle up, saying such cuttingly hurtful things to the Beast, and then literally cutting into him with arrows or a knife, I think you are expecting all villains to be a certain way they can't all be because of their own individual stories and situations.

Maybe his voice actor could have sounded more evil? I dunno, I really can't think of anything more. He certainly made me fear for the Beast's life and hate him, made me think he was so evil, and I'd say that goes for everyone.

Er. Isn't it already obvious from the start he's not fit for Belle or any other woman? There's nothing sympathetic about him.

And no, as I repeat, he's not evil. All that comes from having an agenda different from Belles. As I say, look at it logically and his actions can make perfect sense. Just because ultimately he's motivated by self-interest and his own ego doesn't mean he's evil.

The Beast is a monster (literally, his form is a definition of monster, regardless of his soul). The Beast has threatened two people, and kidnapped them. One was released, but the other is still "hostage". In any other Disney story, he'd be a hero simply by toning down his ego.

His only glimpse of evil is his consultation with the Doctor, but its not built upon, and has no further relevance to the plot. It makes him the Diet coke of Evil in Disney animated films.

Netty, is it just me, or did you just flip-flop? You said Gaston was too one-dimensional evil, then you compared him to regular hunters and Prince Phillip and said he wasn't.

We can all tell Gaston was evil, he saw how the Beast was a sad, sentient being and he said "Did you think she would love you?" recognizing that the Beast had feelings and thought Belle had feelings for him. Also, the filmakers intended him to be evil, but all I pointed out shows they succeeded.

No, I don't think I said he was evil; just a stereotypical jerk. He's a character you could cut-and-paste into a modern day, cheap, lazy, unexceptional unfunny fraternity comedy and he wouldn't seem out of place. Does that seem like Oscar nominated material to you?

Everything he does is about HIM. Does it make him evil. No. And I personally don't think the film-makers succeeded in making him evil. He's not evil or at the very least, not evil enough.

[Lazario]

Which one has the horns going overtime? Horns and... cymbals? Ah, I forgot; YouTube! (I'll have to check tomorrow)

In Aristocats, there was a Siamese cat used the cymbal as a Chinese rice hat(stereotype ftw) and the horns, there was one on Edgar's motorbike that often been hear when Edgar rode that bike.

Actually, I meant in the score. During the suspenseful moment when Edgar is afraid he's going to get caught. When the police are after him.

I'll have to check...tomorrow now.

[DisneyFan09]

I disagree. "No Way Out" is one of the saddest Disney moments for me. I need a lot of Kleenex at that point... I mean, I love the film anyway, but, for me, it has one of the most emotional moments in the Disney animated canon. Really, more than one emotional moment. The end kind of kills me, too, but it's bittersweet.

I'm torn when it comes to "No Way Out". Like you said, it's an emotional and sad moment, accompained by the melancholic and beautiful song (perhaps the most beautiful sad song ever in a Disney movie). However, I still think the scene would be interesting if we could actually hear what Kenai exactly told Koda. The song seems like a forced element as well.

[Rudy Matt]

The outtakes are the only moments in the film that work.

I disagree. "No Way Out" is one of the saddest Disney moments for me. I need a lot of Kleenex at that point... I mean, I love the film anyway, but, for me, it has one of the most emotional moments in the Disney animated canon. Really, more than one emotional moment. The end kind of kills me, too, but it's bittersweet.

What's "No Way Out"? A chapter stop on the DVD? A cut from the CD? I don't speak 'BlackCauldron', so please - a little more explanation would be helpful.

[DisneyFan09]

And I'm sorry, I thought you were saying Clayton was too simple, you didn't say anything to say how good he was, but if you think he was, yea, I wouldn't argue that he had to be anything more than he was, maybe get more jealous of Tarzan, maybe have this whole thing about animals just being animals that perhaps he always held his whole life, but now that I think about it that all sounds rather Gaston-y...

It's okay. I apologize if I seemed hash. And you're right, I didn't said about how good he was. Although Clayton isn't my favorite villain, I don't despise his character either. He's doing his job as a gorilla hunter and is actually a bit likeable.

[blackcauldron85]

But why does she need to have company?

A story point that they had trouble with was that the second half of the story was just Beast and Belle having dinner, and every night, Beast would ask Belle to marry him (in the original fairy tale), and every night she would say no, and that went on and on and on. I mean, Disney struggled with what to do in the second act. If nothing else, her having company means more entertainment on screen...?

Isn't part of the point of her "sacrifice" that she gave up her life in the village in order to save her father from the Beast? It's already been shown that there's nothing really in the village to keep her there apart from her father.

Yes and yes.

So doesn't having her make friends in the castle lessen her already some-what weak sacrifice?

Well, I wouldn't call it a weak sacrifice. I mean, she is giving up her life to be in the castle. And, especially at first, she didn't know what it'd be like. She didn't know that there was a giant library, for example. So knowing that she'd never see her father again, or maybe even the world outside the castle- that's a pretty big sacrifice. It's hard for me to answer this, because without the enchanted objects, the whole story is changed. Their prodding and meddling and advice-giving and companionship is pretty vital to the story, IMO, and to Beast's and Belle's relationship. So, I mean, if Beast wanted her to be miserable, then maybe, sure, having her make friends in the castle lessen her sacrifice. But from the get-go, Beast didn't want Belle to be miserable. So, no, making friends in the castle is okay, in my book, at least. I mean, the poor girl surely went through some mental gymnastics: I'm held prisoner by a large furry animal, and I'm making conversation with kitchenware.

The enchanted objects don't really serve a purpose - they're just there to dilute the Beast's scaryness.

I guess we'll agree to disagree on this. I feel that the object, even if nothing else, coaxed Belle and Beast (especially coaxed Beast). Belle and Beast probably would have taken longer to get warmed up to each other without the objects...

If Gaston was a loving person, who saw Belle effectively kidnapped and held prisoner wouldn't he have proper motivation for hating the Beast?

Are you saying that in the film, Gaston doesn't have proper motivation for hating the Beast? I think that Gaston thought that the Beast was the reason that Belle wasn't loving him, so since he wanted Belle and didn't want competition, that was his motivation. Of course, if Gaston had really been in love with Belle and not just the idea of being with Belle, then yes, his motivation would have been stronger.

What's Gaston's motivation? To show off? To claim another kill? That's all he does already. It doesn't add to his character at all. I'd rather he'd have tried to capture and display the Beast, at least that would add to his already somewhat one-dimensional character.

His motivation was to win Belle. And if the only way to do that was to kill, then so be it. He probably didn't realize or didn't want to realize that killing the Beast wouldn't lead to him winning Belle; Belle would want nothing to do with him. Of course, again, if Belle had loved both the Beast and Gaston, it'd be different.

I'd like to see Gaston actually struggle with his decision to kill the Beast, especially when/if Belle pleads with him not to. A good man driven to contemplate bad things. Would it make him evil? No. Would it make him a real character? Yes.

But he wouldn't be Gaston. I mean, a Disney villain is supposed to be pure evil. Gaston didn't need to struggle with the decision- he's evil, and he'll stop at nothing to get what he wants. He might not be evil outside of wanting Belle, but when it comes to Belle, he wants her at all costs.

He's a hunter? Does that make him a villain?

No, not in and of itself. But he has no problem killing animals, so of course he has no problem killing Beast, who just so happens to be a human who loves Belle. If Beast had already transformed into a human before the battle, would Gaston still have no problems killing him? (I'm leaning towards no, but I could be wrong.)

Is Prince Phillip a villain because he killed Maleficent?

No, because Maleficent is evil. That was survival of the fittest- either Phillip kill Maleficient, or she'll kill him.

And by all logic, if such a beast did exist, it could be seen as right and logical to hunt it down and kill it...Surely from Gaston's POV its more or less the same situation - even when Belle pleads for the Beast's life, she could be suffering from some form of Stockholm Syndrome!

Interesting point. Well, I mean, if the beast wasn't hurting people, just keeping them...still, yeah, I'm sure there's be some pretty pissed off people who would want it dead. And as an animal, there isn't as much thought going into it as if it were a human. I mean, in the somewhat-recent news, there was a girl (or 2?) found who had been kidnapped and held for years and years, and their captures are still alive. So, if it were a person, just kidnapping people doesn't sentence a person to death, but an animal- who knows.

He's only a villain because his agenda is at cross-purposes with Belle's, not because its demonstratively wrong.

Okay, I can see what you're getting at.

That and the fact that they take such trouble at the start of the film to portray him as such a jerk.

Jerk = villain, at least in this story.

If Gaston was a handsome, considerate character like Prince Phillip, would his actions towards the end of the film class him as a hero or villain or something in-between?

Well, if he were so considerate, why would he want to kill Beast? Even if Belle did love Gaston, if her experience in the castle were the same as it was in the film, then she would have became friends with Beast, if not grow to be in love with him (like in the film). Would you want your significant other to want to hurt your friend? What if your significant other fell in love with someone else, but still loved you? Would you dual it out with the other person and whoever was left standing would get the girl? I mean, if he were so considerate, if he cared about Belle's feelings, he would have given up. And I'm one who sees fighting for what you want a huge, important thing, so I don't take giving up lightly, but if he really cared about her, he'd have walked away, knowing that at least she'd be happy with Beast, and that's what she wanted.

The only time Gaston is villainous is when we see him plotting with the Doctor to have Belle's father committed.

And when he's about to murder the Beast. Again, had the Beast transformed into his human self prior to the rooftop scene, would you see Gaston differently? Him trying to murder a human versus him trying to murder a human disguised as an animal? And, I mean, it depends on your definition of villain, but he wasn't getting in Belle's good graces by putting his muddy shoes on the furniture and talking about how many kids they'd have together. She didn't like him. I mean, he was harassing her! She could've got a restraining order on him in this day and age!

Whether you call that a creeper and not a villain, whatever, but he isn't the nicest guy. He only cares about getting what he wants.

It's a shame we didn't see more of this side to him in the film, because not only would it have enhanced his character, but it would have removed the need for the broad cartoony stereotypical character brush strokes we see at the start of the film. Plus, if all this plotting was hidden from Belle, who maybe did find him somewhat desirable, it would make us root for her to fall in love with The Beast more.

I don't disagree with this at all.

The point is that Gaston is supposed to seem like he good be just a macho guy at first, but then he becomes a real threat. If you don't think he was evil enough locking Belle up, saying such cuttingly hurtful things to the Beast, and then literally cutting into him with arrows or a knife, I think you are expecting all villains to be a certain way they can't all be because of their own individual stories and situations.

Good way of putting that. All villains aren't cookie cutter, and the "evil level" of some villains is different than that of other villains. And it's all in the eye of the beholder. Some people don't think that the Horned King was too much of a villainous villain, but, to me, he wanted to take over all of Prydain! With his deathless warriors! That's violent and not too pretty! Versus, as I mentioned earlier, Lady Tremaine- I like her as a villain, but if the only person she's mean to is Cinderella, she's less of a threat than someone like the Horned King. Of course, as I said, to Cinderella, she could be the most villainous person alive, but no one else coming in contact with Lady Tremaine might think that of her. Then you have Gaston, who has no problem using violence to get what he wants. At least for me, violence and the number of people (or animals) affected is a huge thing for me when it comes to villains. My three favorite villains are the Horned King, Ratigan, and Alemeda Slim (off the top of my head, anyway). And Alemeda Slim isn't menacing, just tricky. He's not out to murder people. I just like that he's a yodeling cowboy. But with Ratigan, he wants to take over, just like the Horned King. And I mean, you saw what happened to Bartholemew- Ratigan has no problem with murder.

A villain just hasto do their job, like make you fear for the character's life, to provide drama.

Yes, I agree- that goes with the fact that there are different levels of evil, so there are different levels of vilains' villany. Not necessarily in the eyes of the protaganist, but when you compare villains to each other, there is a difference.

Amy, yay, I like what you said!

Thanks! I generally like what you've said here, too! (I think...I know that I quoted you quite a bit above, haha.)

We can all tell Gaston was evil, he saw how the Beast was a sad, sentient being and he said "Did you think she would love you?" recognizing that the Beast had feelings and thought Belle had feelings for him.

Yes. He's heartless AND murderous. Smells like a villain to me.

Just because ultimately he's motivated by self-interest and his own ego doesn't mean he's evil.

Not to sound like a broken record, but he won't give up to the point of being murderous. He would not have had a problem with killing Beast, essentially a human. And, as DD said right in the quote above this, Gaston acknowledged that Beast had feelings, that he wasn't merely an animal. That even if Gaston didn't know that the Beast was/is a human, that he at least can recognize some human-like qualities in Beast. And knowing that, he still would have killed Beast. And really, as far as the actual film goes, not with the scenario that Belle loves Gaston, Belle still would've have loved him, and she'd probably hate him even more. I don't even think that Gaston wanted Belle; she represented a challenge for him. I mean, who knows, maybe once he got her, he wouldn't want her anymore and would find another pretty girl from another village. We don't know, but it's possible. Or maybe he did love her quirky self deep down. And if he did love her, he didn't care anything about her feelings, since he still would have killed Beast, regardless of anything Belle could say.

The Beast is a monster (literally, his form is a definition of monster, regardless of his soul). The Beast has threatened two people, and kidnapped them. One was released, but the other is still "hostage". In any other Disney story, he'd be a hero simply by toning down his ego.

Okay, I understand where you're coming from. The hostage thing isn't a very friendly gesture. And had Maurice been the captive the whole time, then who knows what would have happened to him. I mean, surely the objects didn't want any harm to be done to him ("Be Our Guest" was originally sung to him!), and I don't think that the Beast would have killed him. Maybe he wouldn't have cared if he died of starvation...which, of course, the objects wouldn't have allowed. So, the fact that Belle is a girl surely motivated the objects to be extra friendly and extra persuasive in order to break the spell. And I can see, in what I quoted from you above, what you were saying about Stockholm Syndrome:

Gaston: Belle, come back to the village!
Belle: No, I love him!
Gaston: He brainwashed you!

But Belle really did love him. And we know that Beast is essentially good, just spoiled. And it took Belle's love to unspoil him. Which is essentially the plot of the film.

regardless of his soul

But
can we disregard his soul so easily? We get to know him, and we know that he isn't evil. Maleficent- she's evil. Beast- no, just misunderstood and needs to grow up.

It makes him the Diet coke of Evil in Disney animated films.

Not all villains have murder on the brain...so, to me, that makes him at least the fully-caffeinated Orange Crush or something.

Everything he does is about HIM. Does it make him evil. No.

That's true- being selfish doesn't in and of itself equal villainy.

And I personally don't think the film-makers succeeded in making him evil. He's not evil or at the very least, not evil enough.

So murdering the one your potential girlfriend loves isn't evil to you? Murder = evil, yes, unless the one you want to murder is evil (like self-defence?). And, okay, this again plays into what you said earlier, about how, to Gaston, of course the Beast is evil, since he took Belle hostage! But WE know that he's not evil. In the story, no, to most people in the village, of course the Beast would be evil- he's taking villagers prisoner. But WE know that he's not evil. And Gaston wouldn't even listen to Belle.

Okay, your Stockholm Syndrome theory is making it hard for me to make this argument. But WE know. Belle knows. He's not evil. Gaston is.

However, I still think the scene would be interesting if we could actually hear what Kenai exactly told Koda.

I've always been curious as to how Kenai told Koda and exactly what and how much he said. Definitely. I do love the song, though, and maybe we as the audience don't need to know. That's a personal matter between Koda and Kenai. It's just important that we know that Kenai told him, and we know that it killed Koda inside.

What's "No Way Out"? A chapter stop on the DVD? A cut from the CD? I don't speak 'BlackCauldron', so please - a little more explanation would be helpful.

Um, I don't have my own language. It's a song from the film:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF9aBAM_aqs