DVDizzy Forum

Posted: **Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:24 am**

Flanger-Hanger wrote:
-The villain. The whole concept of the movie was to make a villain who would appear to be the hero and the hero appeared to be the villain. They failed miserably with this concept. Gaston in design and personalty is an oafish, and unappealing buffoon is is painfully clear to the audience even at first glance to be an unlikable individual and not someone we can expect to do good. The went for cheap laughs instead of providing a character who could have seriously been a contender for Belle's emotions and could have added a wonderful sub-plot to the film, but instead we get an unlikeable, unfunny non threatening bad guy who fails on his own to provide any reasonable conflict for the film. The film praises itself for being "clever" with this approach but we still get a fairy tale archetype who is one dimensional and isn't even that cool compared to earlier Disney bad guys.

While I don't agree with everything, I've always felt this way about Gaston. I know I've said it somewhere before (perhaps even in this thread), but I really don't understand why so many people have called Gaston "groundbreaking," when he is clearly the villain from the start! You want a groundbreaking villain? Look at Frollo, with his religious intensity and "lust." Or at Silver in TP, who verges between a vain treasure hunter and a father figure for Jim.

I also hated that they didn't give Beast a name. I mean, he's only one of the main characters! But, then, they named "the Beauty" Belle, so maybe they wanted to keep him as "the Beast." Still, they should've had her say his human name at least once he'd transformed back. Or maybe give him a name that means "Beast" or "selfish one" or something.

Posted: **Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:23 pm**

I think they actually forgot to give him a name. It's joked about in the DVD commentary, at least.

Also, no I come to think about it, Gaston isn't really that groundbreaking. I think they consider him "groundbreaking" because all the previous villains were unusually dressed women and/or very ugly. He might have actually been one of Disney's better-looking villains at the time.

Truly, I nominate Frollo for the award of "Groundbreaking Villain". His emotions were truly a conflict, and a well-known one at that(Human nature vs. Religion).

Posted: **Fri Feb 13, 2009 7:25 pm**

Here's my old ramble on the BatB villains from a Polls and Games thread of Aarons from way back.

Anyways the Beast could have been considered a villain before the events of BATB by the towns/village people, but now throughout the movie he's slowly redeeming himself by learning to be a good guy again, by learning to love, and be caring, gentle and patient. Gaston on the other hand was trying to win Belle's hand ONLY because of her looks as he sings in Belle " Here in town there's only she, who is as beautiful as me, so I"m going to woo and marry Belle" he was doing it for all the wrong reasons, and on top of that he blackmailed her into marrying him by throwing her dad in the Looney Bin, than he tried to eliminate the compitition. So Gaston is the main villain of the movie, and Beast like I said was a villain most likely but has now redeemed himself through his actions.

Posted: **Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:02 am**

ajmrowland wrote: Truly, I nominate Frollo for the award of "Groundbreaking Villain". His emotions were truly a conflict, and a well-known one at that(Human nature vs. Religion).

True, but the only problem I have with Frollo is that he's animated too much as a villain, if you get my point. Some not so subtle winks and evil smirks, to remind everyone he's a villain. If some of that was changed, he would be an even more interesting (and better) villain.

Posted: **Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:52 am**

KubrickFan wrote:True, but the only problem I have with Frollo is that he's animated too much as a villain, if you get my point. Some not so subtle winks and evil smirks, to remind everyone he's a villain. If some of that was changed, he would be an even more interesting (and better) villain.

Good point, his "evilness" seems a bit over the top at times. It may be entertaining but it just feels like another dumbed-down-for-the-kids move.

An interesting comparison would be the portrayal of the character in the 1939 film. (which is all around much better)

Posted: **Thu Mar 05, 2009 6:06 pm**

I LOVE Beauty and the Beast soooooo much. My sister said I'm just like Belle cause I LOVE to read.

I'm not sure what I think of a 3D version, but I'd love to see the movie in the theater again.

Oh, and it DESERVED the Academy Award for Best Picture.

Posted: **Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:27 pm**

Mmmmno... "BATB" is a great film, but "Silence of the Lambs" is an excellent one. The Academy made the right choice.

Posted: **Fri Mar 06, 2009 5:47 am**

jediliz wrote:I LOVE Beauty and the Beast soooooo much. My sister said I'm just like Belle cause I LOVE to read.

I'm not sure what I think of a 3D version, but I'd love to see the movie in the theater again.

Oh, and it DESERVED the Academy Award for Best Picture.

Why? It DESERVED to have the entire town sequence re-animated from scratch, that's what it DESERVED. Parts of Beauty and the Beast look like a Saturday morning cartoon series or an episode of Ducktales. I'm still waiting for this movie to be fixed. Until then, anyone who tries to compare it to Walt's classics and argue that it is superior is going to get a strong argument.

Posted: **Fri Mar 06, 2009 7:07 am**

SpringHeelJack wrote:Mmmmno... "BATB" is a great film, but "Silence of the Lambs" is an excellent one. The Academy made the right choice.

Nothing beats the "I've never seen SotL but Beauty deserved to win" comments. OK, Sandy from Tampa, would you like to tell us your informed opinions on JFK, Bugsy and Prince of Tides?

Posted: **Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:32 am**

Flanger-Hanger wrote:
SpringHeelJack wrote:Mmmmno... "BATB" is a great film, but "Silence of the Lambs" is an excellent one. The Academy made the right choice.
Nothing beats the "I've never seen SotL but Beauty deserved to win" comments. OK, Sandy from Tampa, would you like to tell us your informed opinions on JFK, Bugsy and Prince of Tides?

Well, Wall-E deserved to be at least nominated. Does that mean I never seen Slumdog Millionaire? Not that it's a bad movie, but it's too unfortunate that the animated films are constantly getting shunned when it comes to awards. Makes me wanna go up to the Academy and (physically)beat some sense into them.

Posted: **Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:40 am**

Rudy Matt wrote: Parts of Beauty and the Beast look like a Saturday morning cartoon series or an episode of Ducktales. I'm still waiting for this movie to be fixed. Until then, anyone who tries to compare it to Walt's classics and argue that it is superior is going to get a strong argument.

You are absolutely right. But you know what?
It only looks like this on the DVD version.
The OTV (on laserdisc for example) is an extaordinary, stunning viewing experience and after seeing that one you wouldn't dare to compare it to a "Saturday morning cartoon series or an episode of Ducktales".
But agreed, it does look like this on DVD.
I'm glad you finally see it. And it's not about the character design, it's other things that make something look like a classic or a cheap sequel.
Even if they "fix" some designs, it will still look like that.

The OTV can perfectly be compared to Walt's classics.
The DVD version is miles, miles and miles away from that and looks like a saturday morning cartoon. They have NOTHING to do with eachother.

Posted: **Sat Mar 07, 2009 2:04 am**

Marky, the colours don't affect how characters are drawn off-model!

When you'll get the Lilo and Stitch 2 disc DVD, you'll see even Andreas Deja states Beauty and the Beast had at least 3 different Belles she was so often drawn off-model!

Posted: **Sat Mar 07, 2009 6:35 am**

I know Belle is off-model sometimes.
But a character design doesn't make it look like a saturday morning sequel all of a sudden.
In all those off-model scenes in the OTV of BATB the film still looks like a classic.
On the dvd the whole film looks like a saturday morning cartoon, even the scenes where she is on model.

It's about the classic look versus the saturday morning cartoon look.
A really realistic look versus a cartoony look.
The Little Mermaid OTV versus the Little Mermaid tv series.
Not about character design or just colours.

No-one ever mentioned a thing about the design of the people in the village 15 years ago because the OTV version looked much more realistic in general. Of course this is more noticeable and prominent if you change the film into this cartoony thing, like the DVD version.

Posted: **Sat Mar 07, 2009 7:20 am**

2099net wrote:Marky, the colours don't affect how characters are drawn off-model!

When you'll get the Lilo and Stitch 2 disc DVD, you'll see even Andreas Deja states Beauty and the Beast had at least 3 different Belles she was so often drawn off-model!

Or the use of recycled animation, disappearing background characters, continuity errors in the backgrounds, etc. Beauty is far from perfect in terms of animation. Colours have nothing to do with it, the film suffered from too many cooks in the kitchen with not enough time to prepare a proper meal.

Posted: **Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:48 am**

I actually agree with Marky. There are many places where the characters are off-model, but I never thought the film looked "cartoony" until I watched the DVD (and I have similar feelings with most animated films on DVD).

And I don't think the fact that B&tB's animation isn't as great as the old classics means it is instantly inferior to them. I don't think I've seen a modern Disney film yet with animation as consistently beautiful as in the old days, but the majority of my favorites still come from the 90s. Story and characters stick with me more than animation as it is. Though, really, my favorite list is almost split between the old and the new anyway.

As for the Academy Award, I personally agree that SotL was more deserving, but not everyone's going to have the same preferences. But because I think most award shows are biased crap anyway...does their opinion even matter?

Posted: **Sat Mar 07, 2009 4:53 pm**

Disney's Divinity wrote:I actually agree with Marky. There are many places where the characters are off-model, but I never thought the film looked "cartoony" until I watched the DVD (and I have similar feelings with most animated films on DVD).

I guess the whole point of the CAPS system was to make the films look cartoony. Yeah, forget being efficient and using contemporary technology on films that are quite modern, let's just make them look like something straight from the saturday morning lineup.

I might add that most cartoons that are made today still look inferior to BatB, and that keeps me watching the movie as is.

Diney's Divinity wrote:And I don't think the fact that B&tB's animation isn't as great as the old classics means it is instantly inferior to them. I don't think I've seen a modern Disney film yet with animation as consistently beautiful as in the old days, but the majority of my favorites still come from the 90s. Story and characters stick with me more than animation as it is. Though, really, my favorite list is almost split between the old and the new anyway.

Yeah, same here. I personally care more for Belle than I do for Snow White.

Disney's Divinity wrote:As for the Academy Award, I personally agree that SotL was more deserving, but not everyone's going to have the same preferences. But because I think most award shows are biased crap anyway...does their opinion even matter?

It's not the film that was nominated that makes me mad at the Academy, it's the principle of an animated film being nominated for the biggest award ever and that the Academy hasn't wised up since, and in fact has dumbed itself down that really irks me.

Posted: **Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:05 pm**

There used to be this clip available where you can see the changed animation of Cogsworth.

Does anyone know where I can find that one?

Posted: **Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:15 pm**

Oh, I already found it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZzxxBZUD-o

I don't understand this. And looking at it, I notice even more how "saturday morning cartoony" the imax version looks in general!!

And where are the details in his design?
Where are the backgrounds?
Where is his shadow?

Posted: **Sun Mar 08, 2009 2:21 pm**

Marky_198 wrote:Oh, I already found it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZzxxBZUD-o

I don't understand this. And looking at it, I notice even more how "saturday morning cartoony" the imax version looks in general!!

And where are the details in his design?
Where are the backgrounds?
Where is his shadow?

It isn't unnecessary, the filmmakers wanted to change it. So, it looks different from the earlier version. And that also means there may be no shadow. It's not that difficult.

Posted: **Sun Mar 08, 2009 2:30 pm**

KubrickFan wrote:It isn't unnecessary, the filmmakers wanted to change it.

There's been plenty I've wanted to change about films I've done. But once it's done, it's done. The same rule should apply to animated films.

But it's sort of a double-edged sword because it does work in some cases. For example, I was all about the new animation in The Little Mermaid: Return to the Sea but that's because it made it better. There was no need to change Cogsworth's animation.

DVDizzy Forum

Beauty and the Beast Discussion