Well, of course, that's the point. John Silver changes. The environment and his interactions with Jim change him. How many other scripts have such ideas in them? Treasure Planet has proper, logical and thought-out arcs for most of the characters. Most Disney films only have arcs for the heroes/heroines.
That's true. I've never thought about it before you mentioned it. Although the film don't have the most memorable characters, it does have a intention/purpose for almost everyone of them (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). But I like this movie, though.
But its the objects which are the main problem. They're not good characters. They get a free pass because they're voiced and animated so well. But look at them for what they really are: national stereotypes. They're shortcuts to great characters. 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.
Agreed. But there comes the problem with the famous Disney-formula; Including components to both kids and adults. 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).
Ironically, I never found the enchanted objects particularly funny as a kid, but strangely enough I liked the Gargoyles as a kid (probably because they were a tad more cartoonier). But it proves that they did what they were supposed to do; Entertain the audience. Now they're just devastating the film, although "Hunchback" is, in my opinion, still one of the strongest releases from Disney.
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.
Or it would be more refreshing if Gaston was a stronger antagonist in general. A egoistic, shallow jerk isn't good enough antagonist to a Beast. I do have the feeling that deep down he might felt a affection for Belle, but his shallow, sexist nature didn't allow him to do the rational thing.
But Belle being torn between Gaston and the Beast wouldn't be such a bad idea. 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.
As for Ratcliffe and Clayton, I don't find them weak at all. I'm pretty sure Ratcliffe is closer than you may think to the sort of pompus, pen-pushing people who, through privilidged family ties were placed in such positions.
I was talking in behalf of those who has critized Ratcliffe and Clayton. But speaking for myself, I do have mixed feelings about Ratcliffe. He does have a villanious nature and does want to kill the Indians because of the gold, but does have some moments where he doesn't come off as threatning as a villain should be.
As for Clayton, he's evil and realistic in his evil. Not everybody has to have schemes to take over kingdoms or kill their step-children to be evil.
That's true, but I think many people think consider Clayton as a too stereotypical, shallow and conventional villain; No debt, no hidden past, ect. The main problem with "Tarzan" is the fact that the script has much going on (now that we're talking about scripts), telling the whole life-story of Tarzan in just 90 minutes or so. To quote a reviewer; The conflict between Tarzan, Kerchak and Sabor is enough for a whole movie, but it's fades quickly for a second plot (and to be true to the Disney formula); Tarzan's meeting humans for the first time and getting torn between them and his ape family, which would be enough for a second act itself. Although the plot of Clayton capturing the ape family does add some thrills and excitement, it becomes too conventional and typical Disney-fare and that's another reason that many consider Clayton as a weak villain. Sabor was a good antagonist, though, although a savage, non-talking leopard shouldn't be considered as evil.
I don't really see those as major problems, although I always thought it was silly the staff were punished as well as the Prince. I'm sure you can find such matters with most fairytales, but a little thought could have prevented these issues.
I don't consider those as major problems either, but they came up in my mind when we were mentioning plot holes/script problems. Yes, it was unfair that the servants should be punished as well.
I like you, though. You seem to have a mind of your own. And you come with good statements as well.
omg, u make me cry more than i have since watching twilight saga eclipse. 
). pochanotas also has the best script as it is great and john smith is hotter than joe jonas. 
If you want a serious answer, here we go...
