Beauty and the Beast Discussion

[nomad2010]

Another thing on the lines of weird things like the dog.

Why dont we see the large dresser turned back into a human? We see the maid/featherduster afterwards.

Also the piece missing out of chip since he is chipped, what piece of his human body did he lose when he got chipped?

[Mooky]

Also the piece missing out of chip since he is chipped, what piece of his human body did he lose when he got chipped?

A tooth. You can see he's missing one.

[steve]

maybe Walt wanted to make a B&B movie after watching the french version.

It is also mentioned on the BATB PE DVD (look at those abbreviations!) that Walt tried to adapt the story into a feature repeatedly but never achieved a version he was happy with. Some historian on the DVD supposed it was because the studio was intimidated by the film the above photo is from, as it was so successful and was the Beauty and the Beast movie at the time (much like Disney's version is today!).

[Ariel'sprince]

In the original fairy tale,the Beauty met the prince (Beast) in her dreams and he tried to hint her that he's the Beast but she doesn't understand (She didn't even had that in mind until the end of the story).
Did Belle was going to had those dreams in the movie?.

[supertalies]

Actually, it was the Enchantress who came into her dreams!
And I don't know if she was supposed to dream that, but what I heard somewhere is that Walt thought his version was boring, because there were only 2 characters!
My friend told me that.

[gregmasciola]

When Chip bubbles up the tea, Mrs. Potts scolds him, but THEN Mrs. Potts says "That's a brave thing you did". I always thought she was still talking to Chip, saying his bubbling was brave when in fact she was talking to Belle, of course.

I was afraid I was the only one who thought that she was talking to Chip when I was a kid.

[Ariel'sprince]

No,it was the prince,he told that "Look isn't what inside" but she never realized it was the Beast until he turns into a prince (And in the night before she left the castle for a while to visit her family the prince cried in her dream because she's about to leave).
I think I saw once a concept art of Belle and Adam dancing on a cloud (Like Aurora did with Phillip and there were supposed to be scenes like that in Snow White and Cinderella),could it be that?.

[steve]

Supertalies' is the version of the story I've heard. But it's an old story with many versions and iterations, so you're probably both right.

[Disney Duster]

I think I saw once a concept art of Belle and Adam dancing on a cloud (Like Aurora did with Phillip and there were supposed to be scenes like that in Snow White and Cinderella),could it be that?.

A concept art from Walt's version or the version that was made?

I finally figured out what’s wrong with the Beast becoming a handsome prince at the end of the treasured classic. Belle and the Beast get really close and nice, but they might not be in romantic or true love until after he transforms. As Escapay said, he thinks they had a great friendship until she realized she loved him when he was going to die. It makes sense, I mean, the only romantic thing between them the audience would tolerate was dancing and holding hands, but even this could be seen as something close friends do, as close friends dance at prom when they don’t have the date they really wanted. But mainstream audiences wouldn’t be okay seeing a pretty human kiss a monstrous animal. It’s like beautiful belle loves unbeautiful beast as a friend, and no more. And there’s the problem. Plenty of pretty girls have been friends with guys they find unattractive or nerdy, and those poor guys like the girls they’re friends with, and they tell the girls they like them and then the girls say, “I love you, but not like that.” Or, as it was put better in Faerie Tale Theater’s The Little Mermaid, “I love you, but I’m not in love with you.” The fact that Belle says she loves the beast at the end and then the spell is broken because of it means Belle doesn’t have to kiss him or touch him sexually until he’s hot. And in fact, as soon as he’s sexy, she gives him a sexual kiss. So the message is you can love ugly people, but you won’t pleasure them. A few movies after, the message of The Hunchback of Notre Dame was still that you can love anyone and be friendly to them, but the hot people get the hot people and misshapen Quasimodo is left being single and only friends with the villagers. And if you think Shrek moved past the Disney films it was mocking, notice Fiona needs to transform to fit with the ogre and to fit with the audiences expectations that ugly stays with ugly and hot with hot. Or ugly people won’t get sex from pretty people without paying for the favor.

Of course, it’s possible that Belle could have meant she was in love with the beast, and would have had sexual relations with him had he lived and stayed a beast. In which case, this is probably what Netty meant when he said everything in the movie is made easy and wrapped up nicely. The audiences doesn’t have to know what nasty unconventional controversial things Belle might have done, they can think what they want. They don’t have to think about the fact that saying you love someone in that way but not giving them what they consider highest form of pleasure is a very cruel thing.

And this is why I am happy to say I have been called cute by many and I love someone who many people don’t find attractive and I know he’s not what is conventionally thought of as attractive but I find him the cutest, most beautiful boy in the world and have never felt I loved someone so much in my life. So there, Beauty and the Beast.

[2099net]

Of course, it’s possible that Belle could have meant she was in love with the beast, and would have had sexual relations with him had he lived and stayed a beast. In which case, this is probably what Netty meant when he said everything in the movie is made easy and wrapped up nicely.

No, I wasn't thinking about sex. Probably one of the few times I wasn't. (Hey, I'm a man. Aren't we supposed to think about sex every six seconds?)

What I mean is everything is convenient, and with little conflict.

Belle has nothing to keep her in her village apart from her father. So when she has the choice of her or her father being held prisoner, dramatically it isn't that big a deal. True, Belle did want to see the world, but she ends up in a magical castle. Hardly a distant second to her original ambitions and aspirations is it?

And this ties in with Gaston too - Gaston is from the moment he is introduced an arrogant buffoon who's obviously just there for people to hate. If there was even a hint, just a little hint, of a connection between Gaston and Belle imagine how better the film would be. Belle would sacrifice something more meaningful for her father as she would of had to give up on her potential lover. Also Gaston would have real reason to hate the Beast. Belle would probably have to make a decision to support one of the other at the big dramatic showdown climax. As it is, everything happens as we expect it to, because we are

a] Familiar with how fairytales tend to workout, even if we are ignorant of this specific one
b] Know Gaston has no hope of ever winning Belle's heart

There's other reasons the film is all so neat and easy. We actually see little attempt by the Beast to win over Belle. None of the enchanted staff debate the ethics of their matchmaking. After all, who's to say Belle was "the one" in the first place, and secondly, the staff know the Prince/Beast has a temper. Could any of you set up a blind date for one of your friends with somebody you knew was prone to violent temper tantrums? The film makes an effort of showing us the tantrums, and the fact the staff can fear the beast, but then, conveniently expect us to ignore all that when it suits the story to be "romantic".

Finally the curse itself makes no sense at all if you think about it. The Prince/Beast has no parents. The fact the staff were also punished makes the fairy seem overtly cruel. In fact, the fact that there was a very real possibility the Prince would remain a beast for ever (and his staff as objects) means that the fairy herself needs a morality lesson more than the Prince ever did!

[Disney's Divinity]

^

I agree with you about the simplicity of Gaston. I've heard so many times about how Gaston is such a groundbreaking villain because he "changes." But he never really changes at all. He is greedy, murderous, jealous and possessive at the very beginning of the film. Just because he wasn't getting "harmless crackpots" committed then doesn't make it a far cry from something he would do. As far as the staff go, I think the spell was intended to affect them because the Beast basically "represented" them. Or maybe they were punished for allowing the Beast's cruelty and not overthrowing him? But I understand how someone could question that part of the Enchantress' intention.


Disney Duster, I think you're complaints are much better suited to Hunchback than B&tB. B&tB barely refers to the physical dimension of love at all; the Beast is only as ugly as he is 'on the inside.' Just because Belle would not have had sex with him, that certainly does not make her cruel--who could? First of all, you do not have to "consummate" the relationship to be in love. Sex is after the fact, love is what sparks the interest. Secondly, I'm pretty sure the only intention of B&tB was to say that because of the Beast's cruelty, which was clear to anyone who saw/met him (which is the significance of his form as a "Beast" in the first place), he could never be loved as long as he could not love. Once he learned to be a good person and see the good in others, and another satisfactorily saw that he wasn't cruel any longer, he would be a "good" person. "Good" here seems to equal beautiful in the same way that it equals light and not dark. Nobody, not even the ugly, would like to see a movie that tells them that, even if the Beast were a good person, he could never be anything but ugly to the world. It would be as bad as if Pinocchio could never become a real boy, despite his attempts to be stop telling lies.

And, to be fair to Hunchback, Esmeralda was never in love with Quasimodo to begin with. She was in love with Phoebus. Not because he was "better looking"; she simply met him before she met Quasimodo. He saved her life and the gypsies throughout the movie, so it's not as if she loved him out of vanity. Quasimodo was, to a point, obsessed with her. Not because he loved her as a human being, only because she was the first one who had ever showed him any kindness/affection. Hence the reason he refers to her as an "angel." You cannot truly love someone unless you see, and accept, their imperfections. The end of the film sets the tone for the rest of Quasimodo's life, as the villagers learn to look beyond his face. It's meant to be implied that he's been accepted and that, eventually, he will find love or other reasons to live (which the sequel seems to focus on, even if poorly).

[Disney Duster]

Netty, I was saying that this sex thing was just another example of how the film was easy and didn't think about things, as you had said.

By the way, it's possible the servants were the Prince's caretakers once his parents died. If so, they would be considered responsible for how he acted, and so they were cursed for how he acted. And if his parents were merely away, they were still in charge of him for that time. And then his parents came back...and then left again. For good.

Disney's Divinity, I don't get what you meant by the film doesn't refer to the physical dimension of love. At least you acknowledged their is a physical dimension to love. But with everyone talking about the prettiness of Belle, who's name means Beauty, and Gaston wanting to marry her because they are both so beautiful (hmm, then at the end Belle and the prince are both so beautiful), and the Prince being vain, and then as a Beast saying Belle could never live him because she's so beautiful and he's a monster...yea. Oh wait, did you mean by the physical dimension of love - sex? The very French kiss Belle and the prince share is one of the most basic forms of sex, and suggests they will be having it. They aren't going to show any characters going all the way.

The Beast is only as ugly as he is on the inside? Thinking that the Beast's physical beauty is a metaphor for inner beauty doesn't quite work when Gaston is beautiful on the outside but ugly on the inside. It could have been seen more as a metaphor if the Beast became beautiful little by little as he became kinder and more loving little by little, and then when Gaston gets more evil he somehow looks uglier.

However, the Beast's monstrous appearence could be a metaphor for the ugly appearences of a people in real life, who you learn to love even though they are ugly.

You see that's the whole backwardsness of the tale. If the Beast is not suitable for romance not because he's ugly but because he's a different species, then Belle shouldn't love him like she loves a human. But she can and does. He's an animal but not an animal. If you love someone on the inside, because you have a deep human connection, you should give them pleasure, right? Well, the Beast still has the parts that are necessary for those acts. And if the Beast told Belle that he used to be human, that would give her even more reason to have sex with him. But if the Beast is really an unf*ckable animal, then Belle shouldn't love him romantically at all! Only as a dear friend.

And so, if she only loves him as a friend, then he becomes a hot human who she kisses sexually and gets married to and then consumates the marriage...that's a little weird, didn't she just love him as a friend when he was a beast? Suddenly he's hot and human and suddenly she loves him romantically?!

The fact that the narrator says "He must love another and earn her love in return" implies romantic love. Escapay thinks they start as friends but then she loves him romantically when he's about to die.

And that's part of why the film wraps things up nice and easy so you don't have to think about a controversial implication. Belle only gives the prince sexual closeness when he's a hot human. Why didn't she kiss the Beast on the mouth while he was on the ground, to kiss him goodbye, if she really loved him in that way?

In the film, good does not equal beautiful like it equals light and dark, as Gaston proves, and the prince was a beautiful man which partly made him care so little for others in the first place.

If people who thought they were ugly saw the Beast stay as he was and Belle loved him and gave him physical love at the end, maybe it would make them feel good because they would see how beautiful that is.

Of course, if the Beast felt he needed to be beautiful or his old self even after Belle loved him and gave him pleasure or married him, and he was transformed to be human after that, alright. But like I said, the film doesn't show us this by not letting Belle give him physical love until he's human and hot.

The film is fine as long as people stop claiming it's a good film to show people loving each other romantically for what's on the inside. You may not think it now, but for sexual beings, romantic love and sex are so very close together. If you don't want to have sex ever and you love someone and you don't have sex, that's different from wanting to have sex but for some strange reason you don't give it to the person you romantically love. Ugly peopel want sexual pleasure, too. If you love them, how about you fulfill this desire for them? How about you make them happy? How about you give yourself to them? And that is why to not is cruel, and Belle would have been cruel had the movie not conveniently timed everything. I love you romantically...but I won't kiss you, yuck! Oh wait you're hot now? Oh yay, lots of tongue!

As for Quasimodo, okay. But perhaps Disney planned the film that way so they could get away with once again only letting the hot go with the hot.

[Siren]

Being Beast has an obvious human mind. In "Something There", Belle says her feelings for him are "new and alarming". She is in love with his mind, perhaps his eyes too, but looks, he is an animal. I also wonder if she suspected Beast wasn't what he looked like. She knew the castle was full of enchanted objects, obviously there was magic going on there. So perhaps she suspected the Beast was also enchanted. If the Beast couldn't talk, but was still nice to her, I doubt she would feel romantically in love. But with him having the mind to speak and the emotions to convey, it changes thing dramatically. Its like waking up one day and your dog looks at you and starts talking to you like a human does.

Which begs the question, if animals could indeed talk like people do, be sentient creatures like us...could humans then fall romantically in love with animals and vice versa. Granted beastility is a real thing, but its a one sided love. The animals can't convey like people how they feel or if that is something they want. If that is all they are raised to know, that's all they know. Where as Beast can convey his love in words, gesture, and emotion.

And physically speaking, Beast and Belle likely couldn't have sex. Its gonna get more graphic here, but Beast is likely "too big" for her and would hurt her unintentionally. Also, Belle likely wants to have children in the future, she couldn't have that with Beast. If he lived, but never turned back into a human, I suspect Belle would have loved him, but eventually one of them would have broken it off. Much as Goliath/Elisa in Gargoyles. Which brings an interesting point...Goliath/Elisa's relationship pretty much mirrors Beast/Belle if Beast stayed an animal for the rest of his life. It would be true love, but a struggle all the same. Sex wouldn't be an option. And children would never come from the relationship even if they did have sex.

[Disney's Divinity]

However, the Beast's monstrous appearence could be a metaphor for the ugly appearences of a people in real life, who you learn to love even though they are ugly.

How you perceive the object of the Enchantress' spell is really the crux of this argument, so we might as well just agree to disagree.

Much of what Siren says, from a physical/biological standpoint, does make sense as well, but that's not entirely how I feel about it. The film never says that Belle doesn't love the Beast romantically, but she oppresses her feelings until he's on his deathbed. People live like this all the time--they don't realize they're in love until the other person is gone. Up til that point, she most likely didn't believe she was 'in love,' she only sympathized with the Beast's predicament. She offered him company and friendship, things he most likely wouldn't have if she hadn't come along. And, honestly, if you were in the same position as Belle, noone would honestly consider having sex with the Beast. Whereas, say, Ariel could still look the same species as Eric head-up, the Beast could never convey emotion the way a human does. This could not possibly be a metaphor for human ugliness, because he is a 'Beast.' A beast cannot love, he simply lives on primal desire. When he learns to love Belle as a human and not a sex object, and Belle recognizes the humanity concealed by the form of a beast, his humanity is restored. Humans and beasts are not meant to coexist (in a romantic/marital way), so it could not possibly be related to a regular human's ugliness. This, of course, relies on the viewer accepting that humanity is or can be above the primal desires that animals are driven by.

And, yes, when I was referring to the physical dimension of love, I was referring to sex. That seems to be the basis of your entire problem with the film, so that's why I brought it up in the first place.

[Disney Duster]

The animals can't convey like people how they feel or if that is something they want. If that is all they are raised to know, that's all they know. Where as Beast can convey his love in words, gesture, and emotion.

This confused me...do you think animals could be raised to convey how they feel in words and gestures and emotion...?

As for whether they could or couldn't, Belle could go on top, and with her being so in control and the one who helps him, that would fit. As for kids, all I was saying was that Belle should give the Beast some forms of sex, some sexual gratification, because he has needs and she loves her and she loves him. It could be various unpregnating variations. And of course, they would probably devise some sort of protection, which may not work and they may end up having really wrong babies they may consider killing and they have to live through it, but when you have needs, you have needs. It depends on how much they want it, but if they're supposed to be "normal" people aside from enchantment and their unique personalities and interests...as in they like to eat food and breath...

Which brings me to Disney's Divinity. If they did intend for Belle not to realize she loved the Beast, and there's very good evidence of this, that's alright. That makes the movie pretty OK.

What I was trying to say was that the movie is not a good film to show loving someone no matter what they look like! For pretty much all the reasons I, and you, and now Siren discussed.

You see, I'm pretty sure even the filmakers wanted people to think of the story as one about loving someone for what's beyond their appearence, something that audiences could apply to their own real lives. But with everything we've talked about, they can't unless they really meet an enchanted beast.

On here, there was someone who said the film made him feel better because he used to think he was ugly. And now we are pointing out...when you really think about it...this film doesn't do that...when really looking at it, that is.

And, honestly, if you were in the same position as Belle, noone would honestly consider having sex with the Beast. Whereas, say, Ariel could still look the same species as Eric head-up, the Beast could never convey emotion the way a human does.

First off, the Beast does already convey emotion the way a human does. And it's especially easy with his humanoid eyes, though I believe animals can have big blue eyes...?

Secondly, though you talked about it first, if I were not Belle herself, but merely in her position, I just might consider having sex with the Beast if he was the only one I ever loved that way, that much. At first I would probably think, "Oh, he's a Beast, I love him but he can't be the one for me!" and then I would think, "But then...who would be the right one for him?" And I like big hairy guys and his eyes are really nice, so I just might try it...and be happy. Then of course it may not work, but I would at least try it. I mean, maybe. Hypothetically. I think so.

And why not give him a kiss? Like I said before, I'm talking about any form of sex. Belle gave him a hot French kiss when he was a hot human, not anytime before.

And the way the movie is setup, she may not have given him a kiss as a Beast because she didn't realize or want to realize she loved him that way yet...in which case, it works for the movie but then the movie still is not a good film for people who think they are ugly and want love in all it's dimensions. They want to feel a person care for them physically, too.

It's not that the movie says you can't love and give love to someone you don't like for their appearence. It just doesn't really show you can very well. If that's what it wanted to do, it doesn't do it in a good way.

OH AND I FORGOT to say that she could have kissed him (sexually, i.e. romantically, lovingly) as a goodbye, though I already did say that, I'm reminding you. It would not be icky or gross because she didn't know he was dead, no one knows, and wouldn't you want to kiss the one you love just before you won't be able to because they might die? I don't think he was dead. Definately not yet. And it wouldn't have ruined the moment. It would have been beautiful finally sealing the fact that she loved him, showing him she loved him, in fact it could have helped give him more reason to live and hit home the point more to him and the audience.

[Ariel'sprince]

Hmm,Disney Duster,I"m not sure Belle was thinking "Oh,how lovely will it be to make sex with a beast!",If he wasn't a prince,and I think she needed to have some time to think if she really want to have sex with him because... he's not a human,or maybe you take it a bit too seriously,I don't think we supposed to wondering if she wants sex with him.
Well,Adam became a human because that what he really is,Fiona is really an ogre (And from what I heard there's a deleted scenes proving this,she was never a human princess,she was always an ogre and her human form is a disguise,I guess that's also why I prefer her as an ogre) so same for Prince Adam,not because he should be pretty or something (And I think he looks prettier as a beast,thought in House Of Mouse for exmaple he looks better).
Esmeralda on the other hand only cares about look so she was with Phoebus.
There are any cliparts of Prince Adams? or only as a beast?.

[Beast_enchantment]

Can't wait for this on blu-ray! I do hope they release it with excellent picture quality along the lines of the original and not that hurrendous dvd transfer that completely took away the depth and beauty of the film. That transfer should be burnt!

btw do you think the new releases of the PEs will come with brand new special features or just the same ones?

[Prince Edward]

Can't wait for this on blu-ray! I do hope they release it with excellent picture quality along the lines of the original and not that hurrendous dvd transfer that completely took away the depth and beauty of the film. That transfer should be burnt!

btw do you think the new releases of the PEs will come with brand new special features or just the same ones?

Signed! Allthough I would have liked it if Disney released both the original transfer/movie and the new one that we got on DVD when it comes to Blu-ray.

I am hoping that they will keep much of the bonusmaterial we got on the DVD, and add much more. Disney must have hours and hours of material; "documentaries" about the film that were shown on TV when the movie came out, footage from the recordings of the music and the dialogue, trailers and promotional material, etc, etc. And Disney could make new features by interviewing people that worked on the film. This goes for all the upcoming Disney Blu-ray-releases. With so much space on the Blu-ray Disc (and a lot more in the future with Super Blu-ray and other better formats), why not make use of all the storage space?

[Beast_enchantment]

Signed! Allthough I would have liked it if Disney released both the original transfer/movie and the new one that we got on DVD when it comes to Blu-ray.

I am hoping that they will keep much of the bonusmaterial we got on the DVD, and add much more. Disney must have hours and hours of material; "documentaries" about the film that were shown on TV when the movie came out, footage from the recordings of the music and the dialogue, trailers and promotional material, etc, etc. And Disney could make new features by interviewing people that worked on the film. This goes for all the upcoming Disney Blu-ray-releases. With so much space on the Blu-ray Disc (and a lot more in the future with Super Blu-ray and other better formats), why not make use of all the storage space?

Agreed! That all sounds really really good!! I would really like to see clips from the academy awards where they performed 'Belle' and 'Be Our Guest' - both performances were excellent. Also, how about a featurette on fairytales and how Disney transfered them to the big screen. And a featurette on the work-in-progress version that was screened to the public. Much more on promotional material, like you said would be great. And mybe a new game! And a blu-ray exclusive - watch the entire movie with a picture-in-picture documentary on the making of each scene in the movie (although that might be asking too much of Diseny, lol)

[Prince Edward]

Signed! Allthough I would have liked it if Disney released both the original transfer/movie and the new one that we got on DVD when it comes to Blu-ray.

I am hoping that they will keep much of the bonusmaterial we got on the DVD, and add much more. Disney must have hours and hours of material; "documentaries" about the film that were shown on TV when the movie came out, footage from the recordings of the music and the dialogue, trailers and promotional material, etc, etc. And Disney could make new features by interviewing people that worked on the film. This goes for all the upcoming Disney Blu-ray-releases. With so much space on the Blu-ray Disc (and a lot more in the future with Super Blu-ray and other better formats), why not make use of all the storage space?

Agreed! That all sounds really really good!! I would really like to see clips from the academy awards where they performed 'Belle' and 'Be Our Guest' - both performances were excellent. Also, how about a featurette on fairytales and how Disney transfered them to the big screen. And a featurette on the work-in-progress version that was screened to the public. Much more on promotional material, like you said would be great. And mybe a new game! And a blu-ray exclusive - watch the entire movie with a picture-in-picture documentary on the making of each scene in the movie (although that might be asking too much of Diseny, lol)

Oh, I love your ideas! The Oscar-performances (and Alan Menken's acceptance speach), a featurette on fairytales and Disney, work in progress-related material, promotional material, etc; I love it! Hehe, and that picture-in-picture documentary sounds wonderful - let's set you up with a job at Disney