Which Disney film has the best or worst script?

[2099net]

[...] Gaston is more of an antagonist than a villain. Most of his actions can be seen as pretty reasonable (apart from being a Jerk obviously). The only reason we see Gaston as being evil before the climax is because we're experiencing the story from Belle's point of view, and of course, Gaston's agenda is the opposite of Belle's. [...]

I still think that there's a tendency to label him as an evil villain because of the general expectation that such stories need villains.

You've repeated this already a few times. But it also has been debunked a few times. You're right that this kind of story *needs* a villain and we, as an audience, expect a villain. I'm not denying that. But that doesn't make Gaston any less of a villain. Just because we expect him to be a villain, doesn't mean he, *therefore*, automatically isn't a villain. That's flawed reasoning.

But is Gaston a villain? It seems that most of his evil is reactionary, where as most "villains" (in fairy-tales and other media) tend to be more plotting and pro-actionary. I've never disputed Gaston is evil, all I've said is I don't think he's evil enough.

The arc is not about Gaston being evil or not. It's about how once again an Oscar Nominated picture resorts to stereotypes for its storytelling. It's all about the nomination, not the character's evilness as such.

I think this is a weird kind of reasoning. Just because a character is one-dimensional, a film can't be nominated for, or receiving, an Academy Award? Or, to reverse it (like you do): just because the film won an Oscar, we need to slam the character of Gaston?

No, but I can slam the character of Gaston for being 2D regardless of if the film was Oscar nominated or not. And its not just Gaston, as I've said many times the film is filled with stereotypes. The national stereotypes of the enchanted objects are borderline offensive! (If not for being UN-PC, then for being such common cliches)

If I accept what you and Disney Duster say, we have a character who goes from stereotype 1 (Self-Obsessed Jock) to stereotype 2 (Destroy what he can't have in jealous rage) with very little in-between.

How are that two seperate stereotypes? It's *one* character: the fact that he wants to destroy what he can't have in a jealous rage is very fitting behaviour for a self-obsessed jock.

Well, you perhaps have a point there, but I would say that they're still two stereotypes, because they're narrative/action stereotypes. While it's true such actions may be logical for the character, they are without a doubt common "acts" of such stories.

I don't think he does want her for her looks. The women he has are more voluminous and sexy. See saying he wants her for her looks is ignoring the character we a presented with at the start of the film. He could easily have a trophy wife from any of his hang-oners. More likely he wants her because he can't have her.

That's also a possibilty. But you forget how Belle is presented from the movie's beginning: she's portrayed as "the most beautiful girl in town. That makes her the best." And this is not something only Gaston says. The whole village is singing about her beauty. It's not a coincidence that the blonde bimbos all look alike. It underscores how Belle stands out. And that's why Gaston wants her.

Well, the same song goes to such pains to point out bell is strange, a funny girl, peculiar, odd and perhaps more somewhat derogatory descriptions too. I think "trophy wife" can be ruled out and we can both agree he's attracted to what he can't have.

As for protecting the village. Yes. That doesn't mean its the only reason though. This is discussed more later by me, but he's a hunter. He would claim the spot-light of a successful kill.

But he ultimately wants to kill the Beast because he's jealous. He only heads for his castle after he sees Belle really loves him. And after the Beast lets him live, Gaston knows the Beast isn't dangerous, but wants to kill him anyway. Again: out of jealousy and anger.

Locking Belle up is obviously because she wants to stop him. That would work for the jealous angle, the hunt angle or the protect the villagers angle.

Yes, if you're watching this with your pre-fixed obsession about 'Gaston must be a deeper character'. If you're looking at it in an objective manner (just watching what's on screen), you'll see that his locking up Belle logically follows from the fact that he wanted to have Maurice committed to blackmail Belle into marrying him. So, again, his motive is jealousy. You will see this once you stop thinking that "Gaston should have been this-or-that..."

Don't forget Gaston manages to build up and lead a lynch mob. While not impossible, most people's jealous rages aren't shared - few crimes of passion are committed with accomplices. Gaston manages to get the entirety of the village behind him.

How does that diminish his motive of jealousy? He obviously thought he couldn't handle the Beast alone. That's why he needed help, and why he manipulated the mob into going with him. I find it to be very akin to reality, where political leaders hide their real motivations for going to war and manipulate the people into thinking it's for some moral cause. "If you're not with us, you're against us" sounds like a foreshadowing of the Bush-administration.

If you believe the only reason Gaston would want to kill the Beast is because of jealousy, then you have to admit, he's pretty clever to have plotted in secret to have Belle's father put away and used his "charisma" to work the villages up to do most of his own dirty work. While I know such people aren't known for their logic, logically its unfeasible that such a person would believe his actions would lead to any form of mutual romance.

By the time Gaston plotted to have Maurice committed, he didn't know the Beast actually existed. He thought Maurice was just a fool, who made the story up. He only learned about the Beast's existence much later, when he saw him in 'the magic mirror. And as the song 'Gaston' shows, most of the villagers were already admiring him, so it was easy to manipulate them.

I'm not saying jealousy didn't play a part in his actions, but I don't think that they were the entirety of his actions.

That's because that's what you *want* to believe. You have thought up a better script for the film; one in which Gaston is a nicer guy, and that's what you're projecting upon the film, prompting you to see things that aren't in the movie.

And I certainly don't think he ever believes he and Belle will find any common ground after he kills the Beast. A more likely reason would be to deny Belle the Beast, than to gain himself Belle.

That's exactly what Disney Duster and me have been saying. At that point in the film, he *knows* he will never get Belle. So why not kill the Beast as well? It's the 'if I can't have her, nobody can'-attitude that you see so often in real life.

But, Gaston's actions still don't add-up, nor follow any logical scheme. And before you say anything we are talking about the script here.

He attempts to lock up Belle's father to "blackmail" Belle into marrying him. Yet, Belle's not been in the village for months(summer turns to winter?). That mean, he has to believe her father's story (or some of it) and be willing to "rescue" Belle, or else, why would he even think she would appear in the village ever again? He's willing to pay to have her father locked-up, so he must believe she will return to the village somehow. So at that point, be it stated or not, he must be willing to kill the Beast - at least confront the Beast - where jealous rage isn't his only motivation.

(He does plot to have her father committed while Belle is still in the castle? That's the only reason Belle leaves the castle isn't it? To help her father? I really must watch the film again at some point).

You point out evidence from the start of the film regarding Gaston's character. Well, allow me to point out again the evidence that Gaston is a hunter. Regardless of Belle - even if Belle never existed and he discovered the existence of the Beast - a keen hunter would want to kill the Beast simply because it exists. No?

Yes, but that doesn't have anything to do with the actual movie. Because Belle *is* there, so there's no 'regardless of Belle'. His attitude towards Belle is what thrives him in this movie. You can't simply erase her and come up with an alternative story, because... that's not the film.

Its not an alternative story. It's stuff that's in the film and (presumably) placed in the opening to tell us about Gaston. It does have something to do with the movie, because ultimately - whatever his final motivations for attempting to kill the Beast - it informs us of his character and history and foreshadows his future. You now seem to be arguing Gaston is more 2D than I'm crediting him with being.

Nothing is absolute. To say he only wants to kill the Beast out of jealousy is simplistic.

No, that's what comes out of the film's script.

Why must his motivations be simply single-minded?

I don't know. Ask the writers. They made it single-minded. Basically, with this question you're once again conforming you're not looking at this issue in a neutral way, but with your own vision of what Gaston *should* have been like.

But I'm not sure it is in the script. When Gaston riles up the villagers, he doesn't seem jealous. His comments about Belle being crazy and his disbelief that she could have feelings for the Beast seem genuine. Again, it comes down to his belief in himself blinding him to the fact Belle could love the Beast. He only seems to go into a jealous rage at the film's climax - and that could be attributed to another humiliation in addition to jealousy towards Belle/Beast. Again, that could be seen to be more reactionary than proactionary.

And yet, we're left with short-hand stereotypes: The Enchantress is "good" because she's really pretty not a hag, and the prince learns his lesson (regardless of years of misery for not only the beast, but his 'innocent' staff too); the objects are "good" because they're funny and Belle and the Beast fall in love (regardless of the fact the Beast still has temper issues when we first see him). Gaston is "evil", right from the start because he's vain and a bully.

But this is the case with almost every Disney film. It always has a villain, a hero, a damsel in distress, a funny sidekick etc. These are the basic elements of a Disney film. It's just because it won an Oscar thatyou suddenly find fault with it.

If you look at my posting history, I've long had problems with Beauty and the Beast, its not sudden at all. And yes, I have issues with other Disney "formulaic" films and Pixar "formulatic" films too. Remember how I have often championed the 2000's films for at least trying something different, even if they're not 100% successful?

Just because its a "tradition" for Disney doesn't mean its right, nor does it mean it's a good script. Stick to tradition and you help to stifle innovation. It also leads to sloppyness.

Look at the Enchantress. Why did they bother to say she revealed herself to be beautiful, and not keep her as an old hag. Surely, from a moral point of view, it would have more impact if she remained ugly? Isn't there something wrong about the Prince only realising his mistake by revealing her to be beautiful?

The only reason is because is uses our learned perceptions - of Disney films, fairy tales in general and in fact, the media in general - to make us view the curse as not an evil curse, but a "good" curse. Despite the fact it totally ruins a group of people's lives for 10 years. A little harsh wouldn't you say for basically "saying 'no' to strangers"? If the enchantress had remained an ugly hag - even though we never say her animated - people may have viewed the curse in a different light when watching the film. I dare say many would find it somewhat creepy curse had she remained a hag. It's certainly no better than Sleeping Beauty's sleeping enchantment (and yes, I am aware that the fairies mitigated the impact of a death curse in that case, but the sleeping was still seen as being "evil")

We have a situation where hundreds (? Are all the dancing crockery etc. enchanted staff being punished for the Prince's actions? Are they all responsible for how their employer (and by the apparent lack of King and Queen, ruler acts?) Admittedly they don't all have faces, but all the rows of feather dusters do.) and the script glosses over the ethical and moral implications simply by presenting us another "stereotype" in the prologue. It seeks to introduce new element to the story, but it doesn't consider the implications do doing so. I would say it sweeps them under the rug, but at no point does anyone at all even question the logic or ethics of any dubious actions throughout the film (of the nature of the curse, of the Beast wanting to imprison Belle's father in the first place, of the enchanted staff matchmaking etc.) We are, simply put, just supposed to accept them.

Of course the nomination is relevant, because the topic is discussing the script.

No, it's not relevant. It's highly irrelevant. To discuss scripts, we don't have to include which films won or were nominated for an Oscar. An Oscar in itself means nothing. An Oscar doesn't automatically mean a film's script is good --or bad. It's just a moot point.

[/quote]

Well, I think most people here would expect a Best Picture nomination/winner to have a good script, if not an exceptional script. You, know, as Lasseter always says "Story is King".

[Disney Duster]

Gaston does not think logically! He is more emotional! He does come up with some planning, but even that is not the best plan in the world, either. When Belle calls him a monster and he riles up the villagers to go after him, it is all emotional, not thinking logically at all. There is only the slimmest chance he is thinking killing the Beast will get Belle back, and even that is a stupid plan, so still not very logical. And like we have been saying, he probably doesn't want Belle anymore, but to kill what made him so jealous and angry and hurt him and his pride.

Gaston does still want her as a trophy wife. Gaston does not want to think Belle as crazy like her father, in fact be is probably oblivious to that and all the other townspeople's sayings and singing. He doesn't care what they think (unless it's about him). He still says Belle is what he wants because she's most beautiful. The bimbos are sexier, but Belle could be said to be more beautiful. Beauty's in the eye of the beholder.

Gaston did not think Maurice was really telling the truth, he was shocked when he saw the Beast. He told Lefou to wait till Belle and her father got home. You actually did point what I think is another flaw in the film. Belle is missing for a long time and no one asks where she really is if she's not in the Beast's castle, though maybe it's not a flaw, just seen as something extraneous. In any case Gaston's a little dim and may not care where Belle is, just want her back as soon as possible.

Gaston is masking his true intentions, and only the townspeople believe it. It can be seen as what the film is about, masks. Covering your inside. Gaston is bad inside but looks good outside.

This is also done by some other villains, like Frollo, perhaps Lady Tremaine, even the Queen presents Snow White with an apple that looks like a tasty gift but is really poison.

Gaston may not be as simple as just doing things out of jealousy, per say, he wants to make his hurt go away, he wants to kill the beast that hurt his pride. It can also be his return to hunting which he had before Belle and would give him a pick me up, when he has inklings from Belle that he is "gentle and kind", then sees he is sad and has human emotions, feelings for Belle and he thought Belle had feelings for him, he sees he is not an ordinary monster, but more human like.

The discussion of hunting makes me think of Bambi. Was that film's message that to kill deer is evil? I could see Walt simply making the audience question that, or say hunting for sport and being careless and destructive to nature is bad.

I thought most people actually didn't think Gaston was evil from the beginning. A lot of people have said they think he becomes the villain, and they see it as development. I myself have the view that I think everyone does, no one is born evil, but you choose to be good or evil later in life.

Gaston may not be the most evil villain ever, but he doesn't need to be. He does what the story calls for.

But on that note, I think he was evil because it is a fairy tale. It's hard to explain, but say there was a character in a Disney fairy tale that you didn't see much of, but the narrator told you he was evil. It wouldn't matter what we thought, they *are* evil. I realized I do not know if the filmakers intended Gaston to be evil, but I think so. For now, because it's a fairy tale, yes he is. I don't think it's just cause it's "supposed" to be a fairy tale, I'm saying it's because it is one and the filmakers probably intended him to be evil. His red costume and the way they animated him and directed him to be voiced are other signs you should read, but are choosing to ignore.

And I don't care how many times you say that's not a good reason. Because that means that all that time you thought Gaston may have had good intentions, he didn't. It means if you "wonder" if he was good, well, that doesn't matter, he wasn't.

Plus, it is very clear to me and most people that he sees the Beast is very human like, and has not killed anyone, and is not attacking Gaston, and yet Gaston tries to kill him. It's murder, not self defense, just murder. Evil.

Watch clips online or something to really see what you think of him after that.

Finally, even if he wasn't a villain or evil which he still clearly is to me and probably what the filmakers intended, he doesn't need to be. The original story had no villain, and Gaston simply was bad and died of his own actions. Making him more evil or more of a villain would not have made the script better, would it have?

As for the enchantress, her becoming beautiful should not be what convinces a person to listen to her, but beuaty may be the only thing the vain Prince would respond to. I do admit that having her actually be old and ugly and just show off her powerful magic and wisdom may possibly have been a better choice and taught the Prince more, but I still see a reason for her to be beautiful for the Prince at that time.

[blackcauldron85]

As for the enchantress, her becoming beautiful should not be what convinces a person to listen to her, but beuaty may be the only thing the vain Prince would respond to. I do admit that having her actually be old and ugly and just show off her powerful magic and wisdom may possibly have been a better choice and taught the Prince more, but I still see a reason for her to be beautiful for the Prince at that time.

I kind of have a thought, so hopefully I can write it out!

The enchantress was ugly, but then the Beast saw that she was beautiful and begged for her forgiveness. But with Belle, she was always beautiful, and the Beast had to earn her love...

I'm at work and shouldn't be on UD, haha, so that's all for now with that thought, but I think that there's something there (no pun intended... ).

[SmartAleck25]

This thread is making my head spin.

Anyways, I've always considered Gaston villainous, but never really felt that he was really that horrible of a person. And about Gaston being a nice person to create more drama, it'd be interesting, but feel kinda out of place in a rated G movie.