DisneyJedi wrote:Sorry, but I have to call a big fat BS about that.
That's nice and all, but what does that comment and that 'funny' picture
mean? Great that you disagree with me, but maybe I would take you a bit more seriously had you provided some counter-arguments.
slave2moonlight wrote:And a complaint about the relationship aspect? Seriously? It's among the few Disney animated films where the relationship actually gets time to build. It's not just "love at first sight" like in other Disney fairy tales (granted, they are better about that now with stuff like Tangled and Princess and the Frog, but Beast is up there with those).
Gets time to build... what?
Let's recap for a moment: Belle is being held prisoner by a beast for no other reason than that her father trespassed --which he only did to get away from the wolves, to save his life. So the Beast treats both Belle and her father very harshly, which is exactly the reason why he got cursed in the first place. Then he verbally abuses Belle and threatens to let her starve when she won't join her captor for dinner. She flees the castle to try to get away from this beast. He pursues her in order to get her back (thinking she is his property). He has to save her life, otherwise his possession will be damaged by the wolves. When Belle finally has the chance to escape, she doesn't, but instead takes the Beast back to the castle. Why?! Up until that point all he had been was unreasonable, frightening, abusive, threatening etc. Then *one* song goes by and suddenly they're in love?! Belle is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome --and even if that's not the case, there is not a convincing build-up. A montage in a 2-minute song does not suffice. It substitutes easily digested symbolism for real character and relationship development. This yammering that BatB is really mature and adult when it comes to the relationship-aspect, is laughable.
If you want to see a Disney-film where a relationship gets the time to build, watch
The Rescuers. At first, Bernard and Bianca are just co-workers, though Bernard notices how attractive Bianca is and diplomat Bianca seems to be the only one to sense that janitor Bernard has more in him than everybody else thinks. Then they become friends during their trip and slowly, they develop a bond and become a couple, although never as explicit and mushy as they're in the sequel or the way other Disney-couples are.
Chernabog_Rocks wrote:The same can be applied to Little Mermaid. The animation isn't always top notch, I have heard people say Ariel was off-model at times. Supporting characters like Ariel's sisters are just slightly tweaked versions of each other.
You have some good points here, but still, there's a big difference. Yes, Ariel's sisters are not very original, but at least they (and other supporting characters like Eric's crew, the merpeople, guests at the wedding etc.) were animated well. There was no cringe-worthy animation like that BatB scene where Gaston sings: "Watch me making Belle my wife" and then all the townspeople start to sing in front of him. That was f-ugly as hell and there are more instances of it, in the song 'Gaston'; in the 'Mob Song', really all crowd scenes. As for Ariel being off-model: that's right. Generally, there are three Ariels: the adult, gorgeous Ariel ('Part of your World'), the somewhat chubby teenager (discovering Eric's statue in her cavern) and an in-between version (entering Usulla's cavern). Yet, though she looks different, she never looks ridiculously ugly like Belle did in more than a few shots.
Chernabog_Rocks wrote:We get about just as much relationship screentime as Belle and Beast do. As an aside, like Doug said in his review we don't know how much time has passed in BatB. It could be days, weeks or months. Considering we went from what looked like early/late fall to winter.
So Maurice was lost in the woods for months? You won't find plotholes that gigantic in TLM.
Chernabog_Rocks wrote:Now compare that to LM which we know was over the course of 5 days or so. At least 3 where the two leads are actually together.
The difference is that BatB is about the relationship between Belle and Beast and TLM is not about Ariel's relationship with Eric. That's the key difference. TLM is about Ariel's emotional struggle to come loose from her over-protective and prejudiced father and lead her own life in another world than her own. Eric only arrives on the scene once it's already established what kind of personality Ariel has and what she wants from life. And even after Eric arrived, it never becomes his story because that's not what the film wants it to be. It's supposed to be all about Ariel, whereas BatB presents itself as a film about a developing relationship between two opposite individuals who initially feel no love for each other but slowly warm up to each other. TLM follows the 'love at first sight' formula and succeeds tremenduously in it; while BatB claims to aim much higher with an 'adult' relationship but fails miserably.
Chernabog_Rocks wrote:As for the leading lady being bland, again, in his review Doug pointed out Belle's motive and what she wants. The difference between her and Ariel is that Ariel puts everyone around her through hell, doesn't do anything to earn it and still gets what she wanted.
Then, pray tell, *what* were Belle's goals and motives? She wanted to get out of her village? She wanted to be somewhere else? How vague can you get? It sounds very interesting and independent and mature and all, but it doesn't
mean anything. At least Ariel is clear: she wants to live as a human in the human world and, later, she wants to be with the man she's in love with. From the start of the film, Ariel is constantly busy with trying to get closer to the human world, with her searching ships, collecting human objects and visiting Scuttle to learn more about the other world. Ultimately, she does everything she can to become a human. Sure, she makes mistakes and does the wrong things, but she actually takes action; she takes matter into her own hands. In contrast, what does Belle do? Nothing. She just sits there. She reads books. She is locked in a castle and falls down on a bad and starts crying. And then, when she finally has the guts to flee, she goes back to the castle with her abusive captor. And continues to just 'being there'. That's all she ever does. Ariel is a thousand times a more interesting character than Belle.
Chernabog_Rocks wrote:[...] So...just because she's depressed with where she lives that means she should be allowed a free pass? I'm sorry but I find that rather silly. If you want something in life you generally need to earn it. You don't go around making stupid choices putting yourself (and your home) at risk just for things to conveniently work out in the end for you. If I was depressed with where I live and always yearned to live somewhere else does this mean I can do anything I want, including putting myself in a stupid, dangerous situation just to get what I want and not earn it?
Obviously, you've never been young. You've never gone through puberty. You've never been a teenager. You obviously were born a rational adult. You never made mistakes and you always made the right decisions. And obviously, you're perfect and never act on emotions or yearnings. That's the only explanation I can find for your rather silly criticism of Ariel and TLM. Otherwise, how could you so blatantly ignore Triton's prejudices and lack of trying to understand his daughter, or his outburst of blind rage when he destroyed his daughter's dearest possesions? Ariel took a risk, but she suffered the consequences, didn't she? I dunno, but having your father turned into a sock puppet and almost getting killed by a giant sea wicth seems to be a reasonable 'punishment' to me. What other ending did you think would have been fitting? Having Ariel return under the sea where she will be unhappy for the rest of her life? The ending, with Triton turning Ariel human and Ariel hugging her father, really shows how they both have grown and have gotten to understand each other. You don't find such character development in BatB.
I meant to say that she was right in that there are in fact good humans (Eric, Carlotta, Grimsby), as opposed to Triton claiming that they were all dangerous and barbaric. Perhaps the same could be said for the inhabitants of the underwater world when there are creatures like Ursula lurking about . . . just that there is no stereotype basically; being human isn't automatically bad, as being merfolk (or whatever Ursula is) isn't automatically good. 
