Why do YOU love Beauty and the Beast?

[stitchje1981]

I wouldn't go that far!!! I think it's mediocre in some aspects and certainly overrated, but a bad movie......no way!!! Have Disney ever made a totally bad animated film? I don't think so [though Chicken Little came close!!].

The worst films, from my opinion, are The Wild and Dinosaur ( when it comes to storytelling, it's completely BOOOORING)

And when it comes to sequels: Atlantis 2: Milo's Return, Cinderella 2: dreams come true and Tarzan & Jane ( the animation is SO BAD)

@Goliath: I agree with you when you say that The Aristocats is a bad movie ( it's finishing result animation SUCKS so much, but the story is good)) But The Fox And The Hound NO WAY man!!!

[Lazario]

I wouldn't go that far!!! I think it's mediocre in some aspects and certainly overrated, but a bad movie......no way!!! Have Disney ever made a totally bad animated film? I don't think so [though Chicken Little came close!!].

The Aristocats and The Fox and the Hound come to mind...

Well, you certainly picked about my least favorite: Fox. Great to agree there. When re-watching Aristocats, I realize it's unfortunately redundant of Dalmatians and Jungle Book... But it is vastly more sophisticated than Robin Hood (which is a lot more fun and lively) and Fox. I can see why some people give the edge to it rather than Robin Hood. Even then, I can't quite call Fox totally bad. REAL close, though.

I agree with Wilby however, everyone. Beauty and the Beast is a legitimately bad movie. But we must remember there are different levels of badness. This is at the top level, which means it's highly mediocre and poorly thought up. Not yet brainrot stuff. But worthy of some scorn because of its' sickening popularity. I think people who are so attached to this movie are too entrenched in the period from wence it came. Too dazzled by the brightness of the Disney Comeback Era to see that these characters are not interesting, the story is so poorly constructed - it's insulting, and that it gets by on loud sound effects and mushy, spineless blobs of sentimentality. It's all greasy chicken skin and no meat. Nothing inside. No substance. The viewers brought their own substance. And their delusions are the real point of interest here. The only thing worth recognizing (they should be studied).

[Mr. Yagoobian]

The viewers brought their own substance.

Well, yes.

There are many different schools of criticism. One angle is that a piece of work---poem, painting, film---has no objective meaning, value, or significance on its own. Without reader/viewer response, a piece essentially exists in a vacuum; it is in the act of being read/seen/heard that meaning is created, and what the audience brings to the table is half of the equation. There may be similarities and points of comparison between different viewers' interpretations, but one's experience is unique and one's response is one's own. I like the film mostly because I think it's the best musical score the studio's produced outside of <i>Mary Poppins</i>, but the real reason the film has value for me is all about the character of the Beast: how his shame is the source of his ugliness and why he believes himself to be unlovable, and hiw that shame and frustration is translated in a very specifically masculine way into violence and destructive behavior. (Similarly, the oft-maligned <i>Cars</i> works for me because it's a story about a superficial jerk whose success is hollow until he begins to open up to a world of real relationships beyond himself and his selfishness.) That kind of stuff is very real; delusions have nothing to do with it.

[Lazario]

the real reason the film has value for me is all about the character of the Beast: how his shame is the source of his ugliness and why he believes himself to be unlovable, and hiw that shame and frustration is translated in a very specifically masculine way into violence and destructive behavior. (Similarly, the oft-maligned <i>Cars</i> works for me because it's a story about a superficial jerk whose success is hollow until he begins to open up to a world of real relationships beyond himself and his selfishness.) That kind of stuff is very real; delusions have nothing to do with it.

Um... Beast's ugliness has nothing to do with shame. He was not turned into a Beast by The Old Woman / Mystical Fairy Princess for being ashamed of her appearence- it's because he was vain and he was disgusted by her. He was a petty twit. And as I said before, he didn't learn any lesson because of his experience. You seem to believe (are deluded into thinking) that he was immediately humbled by the experience and that his behavior from the time we see him as the Beast is dictated by how sad he is that he made a mistake. That would be saying that he is repentant or sorry. But he isn't!! He's angry that he's been robbed of his looks and takes it out on others. He starts out the movie as the same jerk he was when the Mystical Fairy Princess (type thing / being, whatever they called her) cast the spell on him. Shame? I wouldn't call it that at all. He was ugly on the inside before he became The Beast and being The Beast only made him angry / violent. How does something like shame ever come into play? Even after he starts being cruel to Belle?? He doesn't feel for her situation at all. He just sits with the servants-as-furniture and whines about how he can use her to get his looks back. It's only a significant chunk of time later that he starts to repay her for her kindness. And by then, the movie's already been so manipulative that it's a joke. Oh- NOW it starts playing fair? By then, I don't care. I never cared about either one of these characters. The movie would have had to start from the time when she went to the Castle to rescue her father or much later.

But I'll give this to you- impressive starter to that reply. Of course, you're backing the wrong horse with this bad film. And I don't think your reasoning works. But you started out with a very valid point... About film as a medium. Nothing to do with this film, necessarily.

[pap64]

If you don't mind my blunt honesty, Lazario, but I don't like how in your criticism of the film you claim that people that love the film are delusional and are too enchanted by the "colors" and such to notice otherwise.

I LOVE the movie, but as I have said earlier in the thread, I can see its flaws, and will agree that the movie got overwhelmingly popular to the point where people make this film to be perfectly flawless, which the film isn't. But obviously there's a lot to like about the movie. I'm not asking you to LOVE the movie, especially if you don't finding of value in it, but at the very least try to criticize the film without the need to judge or label anyone that truly does see something wonderful in the movie.

The value of a movie (and any artistic product) lies in the mind of the beholder. What that means is that what may be very profound and beautiful for something might not be for another, and might find another set of feelings in the process. We might judge a movie based on its technical merits, but we will never be able to judge and even understand why people like something. So quickly labeling them will not work.

Again, sorry for my blunt honesty, I am one to accept criticism on the stuff I love (otherwise I wouldn't be watching Channel Awesome stuff ). I just don't like generalizations.

[rodis]

Combined with the total lack of subtlety involving Gaston's character and the rushed looking animation it's why I feel the film does not deserve the status it has.

When you say "rushed", you mean character animation, right? Because IMO the backgrounds in BATB are some of the best and are consistently good throughout the film.

[Flanger-Hanger]

When you say "rushed", you mean character animation, right? Because IMO the backgrounds in BATB are some of the best and are consistently good throughout the film.

I would have used the word "backgrounds" if I were talking about them.

[Disney Duster]

Yagaboon, Lazario, et al.

The value of a movie (and any artistic product) lies in the mind of the beholder.

There is the objective value and the subjective value. Things are good or bad, but people can also see them as/decide if they are good or bad. The two can live simultaneously, humans are complex creatures, of course!

[Super Aurora]

If you don't mind my blunt honesty, Lazario, but I don't like how in your criticism of the film you claim that people that love the film are delusional and are too enchanted by the "colors" and such to notice otherwise.

Which is hilariously ironic and funny if you read his rant over my viewpoint about SB.

[RIPJoeRanft]

The music is what gets me everytime.

The film starts off almost immediately with "Belle", which is a fun, busy song that tells so much of the story right off the bat in a wonderful, easy-to-digest fashion. Then we get treated to "Gaston", which is also upbeat - and a blast, with some of the funniest lyrics and animations in Disney's vault. And as far as I'm concerned, "Be Our Guest" is one of the best songs ever put on film. The effortlessly charming Lumière and the eternally nervous Cogsworth make a dynamic duo and play off of each other nicely in this impossibly catchy number. Its overall execution is as close to perfect as they could have hoped for. "Something There" and "Beauty and the Beast" amplify the romantic elements of the blooming relationship - both are classic tunes in the true Disney fashion. Angela Lansbury's singing of "Beauty and the Beast" is certainly less tacky than if they used the Celine Dion version. Lansbury's voice is familiar and trusting, and she belts it with a conviction and sweetness that make us even more invested in the pairing.

"The Mob Song" sounds straight off Broadway, really strong and menacing vocal performances here, and they effectively cement Gaston as a legitimate vicious villain and not the laughable nuiscene to Belle that he was earlier. Even "Human Again" is the rare worthy, if overlong, addition made in 2002 - it doesn't necessarily add much to the film, but it's certainly not out of place and is a pleasant enough addition.

So overall, I'd say music, but the character animation is outstanding as well, particularly The Beast and Gaston.

[Mr. Yagoobian]

Um... Beast's ugliness has nothing to do with shame. He was not turned into a Beast by The Old Woman / Mystical Fairy Princess for being ashamed of her appearence- it's because he was vain and he was disgusted by her. He was a petty twit. And as I said before, he didn't learn any lesson because of his experience. You seem to believe (are deluded into thinking) that he was immediately humbled by the experience and that his behavior from the time we see him as the Beast is dictated by how sad he is that he made a mistake. That would be saying that he is repentant or sorry. But he isn't!! He's angry that he's been robbed of his looks and takes it out on others. He starts out the movie as the same jerk he was when the Mystical Fairy Princess (type thing / being, whatever they called her) cast the spell on him. Shame? I wouldn't call it that at all. He was ugly on the inside before he became The Beast and being The Beast only made him angry / violent. How does something like shame ever come into play? Even after he starts being cruel to Belle?? He doesn't feel for her situation at all. He just sits with the servants-as-furniture and whines about how he can use her to get his looks back. It's only a significant chunk of time later that he starts to repay her for her kindness. And by then, the movie's already been so manipulative that it's a joke. Oh- NOW it starts playing fair? By then, I don't care. I never cared about either one of these characters. The movie would have had to start from the time when she went to the Castle to rescue her father or much later.

But I'll give this to you- impressive starter to that reply. Of course, you're backing the wrong horse with this bad film. And I don't think your reasoning works. But you started out with a very valid point... About film as a medium. Nothing to do with this film, necessarily.

So someone who's arrogant enough to insist on deriding a dissenting opinion as delusional looks at the Beast and sees only a petty twit. Color me surprised.

[Goliath]

The viewers brought their own substance.

Well, yes.

There are many different schools of criticism. One angle is that a piece of work---poem, painting, film---has no objective meaning, value, or significance on its own. Without reader/viewer response, a piece essentially exists in a vacuum; it is in the act of being read/seen/heard that meaning is created, and what the audience brings to the table is half of the equation. There may be similarities and points of comparison between different viewers' interpretations, but one's experience is unique and one's response is one's own.

Very true. I've named John Fiske here some times, but Kevin Glynn and others have written about this extensively, too. Fiske disagrees with the theory that mass audiences consume the products that are offered to them without thought. Fiske rejects the notion of "the audience" which assumes an uncritical mass. He instead suggests "audiences" with various social backgrounds and identities enabling them to receive texts differently. This is what we see on UD on a daily basis. How else could we disagree so passionately about the same film? Without receiver, a message cannot exist. If it's not picked up and interpreted, it's just there, without any meaning.

[Patrick]

Um... Beast's ugliness has nothing to do with shame. He was not turned into a Beast by The Old Woman / Mystical Fairy Princess for being ashamed of her appearence- it's because he was vain and he was disgusted by her. He was a petty twit. And as I said before, he didn't learn any lesson because of his experience. You seem to believe (are deluded into thinking) that he was immediately humbled by the experience and that his behavior from the time we see him as the Beast is dictated by how sad he is that he made a mistake. That would be saying that he is repentant or sorry. But he isn't!! He's angry that he's been robbed of his looks and takes it out on others. He starts out the movie as the same jerk he was when the Mystical Fairy Princess (type thing / being, whatever they called her) cast the spell on him. Shame? I wouldn't call it that at all. He was ugly on the inside before he became The Beast and being The Beast only made him angry / violent. How does something like shame ever come into play? Even after he starts being cruel to Belle?? He doesn't feel for her situation at all. He just sits with the servants-as-furniture and whines about how he can use her to get his looks back. It's only a significant chunk of time later that he starts to repay her for her kindness. And by then, the movie's already been so manipulative that it's a joke. Oh- NOW it starts playing fair? By then, I don't care. I never cared about either one of these characters. The movie would have had to start from the time when she went to the Castle to rescue her father or much later.

But I'll give this to you- impressive starter to that reply. Of course, you're backing the wrong horse with this bad film. And I don't think your reasoning works. But you started out with a very valid point... About film as a medium. Nothing to do with this film, necessarily.

You're making assumptions on information we're never given, though. We have only a clouded view as to how the Beast treated his servants, but there are glimpses of casual interactions with them throughout the movie, all of which are generally kind and humorous. Yes, he lashes out, but he was never given a chance to grow up. You have to keep in mind that he has the mentality of a spoiled ten year old.

When the Beast is finally shown on screen, all we see is an angry character with a faint perception of reality. Yes he may still be selfish and yes he may still be angry, but realistically so. For ten years, the Beast sulked and pitied himself without any contact to a normally functioning society. He was never given the chance to mature as a person because he was consistently waited on and babied.

I think you have unrealistic expectations for his character... He forgot how to read, he never learned how to treat people, he was distant from any type of community, he had no parents and essentially everything he valued (his looks) was taken from him. Given that he was a child when this all happened, it's unfair to believe he could work through this traumatic (from his perspective) experience. Enter Belle. After ten years of solitude, he's forced to question everything he's ever believed in and thought proper. You say that he only wanted Belle to break the spell, but I disagree. The Beast imprisoned her father without any intention other than fulfilling his skewed idea of justice. When Belle comes to save him, I'm sure the idea of breaking the spell went through his mind, but I'm also sure that it was beat out by the thought of actually having a friend and interacting with someone new. If anything, the servants are pushing Beast to use her, not the other way around.

As the movie progresses and the Beast becomes softer because of Belle's presence, we're shown that there always was kindness within. Listen, I'm under no impression that BatB is a perfect film, but it seems as if you've taken you initial reaction to the film and twisted it into something that was never intended. The whole point of the story is for the Beast to learn that vanity does not dictate true love and the witch at the beginning knew the only way for him to learn this lesson was to have his looks taken away. Why would you expect him to understand this when he's had no chance to live through it? Get into the Beast's head and really try to sympathize with his situation before you judge his character. I think all of his anger, hate, selfishness and vanity is completely justified given the life he's lead.

[Disney's Divinity]

You say that he only wanted Belle to break the spell, but I disagree. The Beast imprisoned her father without any intention other than fulfilling his skewed idea of justice. When Belle comes to save him, I'm sure the idea of breaking the spell went through his mind, but I'm also sure that it was beat out by the thought of actually having a friend and interacting with someone new. If anything, the servants are pushing Beast to use her, not the other way around.

This.

Of course, his intitial reaction was likely to use Belle either to break the spell (which he also thinks is impossible from his watching her through the mirror--"who could ever love a beast?" as he thinks, because he is vain and can't understand why anyone would) or for interaction (which is more plausible than him having conversations with an old man, who is too old for him to relate to on a personal level). However, he does show sympathy to her after he comes back from getting rid of Maurice. "I never got to say goodbye." His face shows there is empathy inside him, but it's coated by selfishness--a selfishness exacerbated by a forced isolation from the outside world (because he was a prince, and then a beast) and indulgence by servants.

I agree that there is an initial manipulative reaction in Beast's relationship with Belle, but it changes as the film goes along as Beast actually feels emotion for the first time--emotions he wouldn't have felt all his life, even pre-Beast, considering he was at the top of the social ladder without siblings or parents. Interaction with a human being alone changed the Beast, and I always thought that was fairly obvious throughout the movie, done in by all the cliches. (Of course, there were Lumiere, et al, but they were not his equals or even his own age; they were either below him or too "parental" to relate to). As Patrick said, it's the servants who seem most concerned with manipulating Belle into marriage to the Beast, likely out of their own motivation to become "Human Again" (the reason I love that song). Around the middle of the film, Beast comes across like a lovestruck child because, honestly, that's what he appears to be on the inside. He never experienced a maturation.

That's the reason I love the character. He's one of the few they've had that falls into such a grey area. There's that simultaneous sense that, "Yes, he deserves to be punished," but also sympathy that, "No, he hasn't had it easy--his environment taught him it was okay to be that way." Also, the Enchantress: there's no inclination that she was a force of "good" in the movie. In fact, she comes across more as a self-concerned witch really. The scrapped intro. they had for the movie kind of showed that she was not exactly a benign force in the film. Which kind of adds to that, "Is it fair that he's to be trapped as a beast when he grew up that way?" The movie implies he was a rather young child when he was cursed, so I'm not sure.

You know, this made me notice that several of the "Fab Four" films seem concerned with dismantling that "selfish" label. People seem so easily to classify someone as selfish because of their age or their surface behavior without considering what it's like to live/grow up in their position (Ariel, Beast/Belle, Aladdin/Jasmine, Simba).

[Disney Duster]

Without receiver, a message cannot exist. If it's not picked up and interpreted, it's just there, without any meaning.

No, it exists. You are also "right" in the possible theory of what you are saying, but, that's one theory. It exists. If a tree falls in the woods and no one's around to hear it, does it make a noise? The answer is yes.

And did you also mean this?:

I love BatB because it dared to mock itself right in the opening number 'Bonjour (Belle)'. At the end of the song, you can see how everybody in the village stops with what they were doing to stand there around, just singing. You can see how Gaston is surprised by this. And then at the end, when Belle looks back, they feel they got caught and start to move around again. The characters *know* they're only actors in a play and therefore it doesn't matter that they're under-developed one-dimensional beings.

Or are you being kind of...metaphoric/ironic? Like do you literally mean "they know they are actors in a play"?

I recently re-watched the opening, and when the townspeople are singing, I see it very much as them finding the girl so peculiar, they are making a big fuss about it. A ver loud, big, grouped fuss, as can actually happen, without singing in keys and notes, of course. And Gaston can certainly be noticing this, as Belle finally does turning to look at them. Belle's oddness is a big thing to this odd town, so they get big and loud talking about her, stirred up by her.

[Lazario]

You're making assumptions on information we're never given, though.

No, I'm choosing to read what the film is serving us in a way different than people who choose to see The Beast as a tragic figure.

We can only judge a film based on what it gives us. You're telling me you found elements which inclined you to believe the Beast had true depth. I'm actually saying that the film didn't give us enough to even tolerate the scenes of his outbursts and attitude. We do, for sure, know one thing about the opening: he had an inflated idea of his own worth- since the price for his unkindness (and the story did tell us it was because he found her to be ugly / unattractive) was to be robbed of his looks. Which was his undoing. And for as much depth as Beast might have... He still devotes his early scenes in the castle neglecting Belle as a person and seeing her only as a way to get what he wants. I think you're saying you were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and tolerated him through this because you knew he would be later revealed as good underneath it all. I'm - on the other hand - judging the film based on what it's giving us. Following it only as it leads us along. And with that in mind, there are serious bumps in the road here.

Yes, he lashes out, but he was never given a chance to grow up. You have to keep in mind that he has the mentality of a spoiled ten year old.

Oh, that's true. In certain sequences. When it's convenient for the plot to want this man to act like a boy. Although, if anything, he was more of a teenager. Who has his own idea of what he wants to be and only agrees to get his hair cut or put on fancy clothes begrudgingly and making sure to say they're not cool. But I still don't see why we should care about anything that happens in the meantime. Belle and Beast are uninteresting characters. And whatever important things might have been developed for them don't come through in the scenes as they play out. I would never say they don't have the necessary pieces...That is, pieces necessary in a For-the-Masses family-film depiction of a dramatic romance. And if he never had a chance to change his ways... How do you explain how each of his confidants say all the right things. He has all he needs to become a more sensitive, caring, less spoiled person without forcing the story to make us sit through cliched scenes of: "He Must Rescue, Risk His Life, and Make Sacrifices for Her in Order to Realize His True Self." If all that nonsense were vital to changing him... He didn't need the host of friends giving him advice, did he? But he never learned a thing by their examples. To me, that says he had the chances but he wouldn't stop indulging in his: "I've been cheated! I've been robbed" b.s.

The movie is manipulating the viewers.

For ten years, the Beast sulked and pitied himself without any contact to a normally functioning society. He was never given the chance to mature as a person because he was consistently waited on and babied.

If that part of the story is worth taking stock in, then why did the servants never come to their senses? Either because- he was abusive and neglectful to them (in accordance with his character), or because they are only Plot Devices. Not real characters. Of course, both of those could be true.

he never learned how to treat people

That's a good point. But, if that's true- than exactly how are the (very) few archs the movie gives him going to erase all the bad behavior? You have to eat up the movie's A Spoonful of Love Makes All the Bad Go Away mentality for the scenes you're talking about to work. And, yes, in a way that is very much like a person holding our nose so we can't smell what we're being fed and having something rammed down our throats. I think you're stretching to make the depth you found in the characters apply to the film.

Given that he was a child when this all happened

HUH?

I'm not saying you're wrong - but I do not remember a single instance in that fairy tale opening where it's mentioned that The Prince was a child. Do children typically answer the doors for Kings and Queens? (He was a Prince, right?) I'm sorry- but I would buy maybe 15-16 at youngest. That's not a child in my book. That's a young man.

(Okay, just got back from searching on Google and now I have even more contempt for the film than I did before- they drew the Prince in the opening to look like he was 20! Can't they do anything right? They're so deep into their own manipulations, they don't want us to think he was a child.)

Enter Belle. After ten years of solitude, he's forced to question everything he's ever believed in and thought proper. You say that he only wanted Belle to break the spell, but I disagree. The Beast imprisoned her father without any intention other than fulfilling his skewed idea of justice. When Belle comes to save him, I'm sure the idea of breaking the spell went through his mind, but I'm also sure that it was beat out by the thought of actually having a friend and interacting with someone new. If anything, the servants are pushing Beast to use her, not the other way around.

Man, you do realize you're not helping the movie at all, don't you? The more complex you try and get, the more I see how sick this movie is. Anyway, I did not mean to give you the wrong impression: I was implicating the servants every last bit as much as I was Beast. And no, a few shrugging heads with "aw, what a shame; that's too bad" expressions on their faces for what she's feeling do not make up for any of this in my eyes.

He wanted her for a friend? If you mean- attractive female companion... Sure; why not? Deep down, Disney never pretended that romance and breeding happen without sex. They just hushed the details. But at best, you're just telling me the cliches I already know about. Not excusing them in any way.

As the movie progresses and the Beast becomes softer because of Belle's presence, we're shown that there always was kindness within. Listen, I'm under no impression that BatB is a perfect film, but it seems as if you've taken you initial reaction to the film and twisted it into something that was never intended.

Not at all. I simply chose to judge the film by its' merits and not by intentions. It intended to be a fair amount of what you're saying. But it failed. We both picked up on things the other did not. But I contest that I saw the film for what it actually achieved.

Why would you expect him to understand this when he's had no chance to live through it?

I don't. I expect the film to execute the story of these characters in a way that doesn't insult my intelligence.

Like I say- Disney played this film for sentimentality and not truth.

If you don't mind my blunt honesty, Lazario, but I don't like how in your criticism of the film you claim that people that love the film are delusional and are too enchanted by the "colors" and such to notice otherwise.

I didn't mean to keep on the delusional track - people did what the movie wanted them to do. What Disney wanted them to do: buy the movie's crap. Believe that it actually was a nuanced, rich character study. So, in that sense, they were only as delusional as the movie was. You're right. But I was right when I said the film has no substance and the viewers put it in themselves. And unlike Yagaboon said, this is not true in the case of all films. At least not, since I brought it up, in the case of my argument: which is that this film didn't try to be better than the most general, basic cliche it could be. I'm talking about lazy filmmaking and ridiculous, unsubtle emotional manipulation techniques that the movie employs because they don't care about character development. They care about getting reactions. So they just slapped together a few key pieces of a story (conflict and sappiness) and then didn't bother to think it any further.

You're right though that I shouldn't talk about other people that way. So, I'll talk about myself: I am smart enough to pick up on when I'm being hosed (when it's fake, all an act) by a movie. Disney's Beauty and the Beast is a hoser. And I refuse to swallow its' load.

So someone who's arrogant enough to insist on deriding a dissenting opinion as delusional looks at the Beast and sees only a petty twit. Color me surprised.

Don't take the word "delusional" so literally. I say the same thing about people who like squash.

Seriously though, if you're going to defend a film like this, you should have a better argument. No offense. I don't consider one or two CLICHED expressions of "maybe I made a mistake, but I'm too proud" (or; petty) "to say I'm sorry" the groundwork for all this amazing character depth you think is going on in this movie. That's not shame; that's cliche. I can invent that, myself, 15 minutes ahead of the scene it's featured in. I don't typically praise films where I know I'm doing all the work. The best thing I have to say about something like that? "Guilty pleasure." And I think other people should feel guilty about openly admitting this is a pleasure of theirs.

[DisneyAnimation88]

[quote="Lazario"]We both picked up on things the other did not. But I contest that I saw the film for what it actually achieved.[/quote]

Could it simply be that some people liked the film because they thought it was good? Not everyone likes to analyse the films they see and might prefer to take it at face value. You've made a lot of interesting points but people shouldn't feel guilty for liking Beauty and the Beast when so many people obviously do.

[Lazario]

Could it simply be that some people liked the film because they thought it was good? Not everyone likes to analyse the films they see and might prefer to take it at face value.

Yes.

You've made a lot of interesting points but people shouldn't feel guilty for liking Beauty and the Beast when so many people obviously do.

That's the exact reason why I believe they should feel guilty. I'm not saying they should be angry and tear themselves up inside (they won't anyway). But no one stops to think that maybe it was so popular because it was too damn easy. Stupid. That it didn't require intelligence to like. And that that in fact was kind of insulting...

I shouldn't say things like that, though; you're probably right. Even if this was a smarter movie, I still thought most everything about it was bland or had a warm-milky (diluted with warm water) / tryptophan-ing effect. But then... I haven't seen the new DVD colors.

[Disney Duster]

The Beast is tragic simply because of his situation, and because he caused it. It seems he was either the oldest looking 11 year old boy we've ever seen, or the rose petals fell on his 21st year as a Beast, not his 21st birthday.

He is tragic because he did something foolish and who knows how he got that way, and he's being punished in one of the worst ways we could imagine for it. It's a deep pain and a deep sadnesss, made extra hard because he knows he caused it himself, while also thinking he doesn't deserve it, and I would agree, that's all hard, not easy. Maybe it's not as deep as other people were thinking he was, but this alone is still a depth. Also, his learning to love , and being caught between using Belle and actually loving her, instead of love that comes easy. Other than that, the way he does his character, and who he is. It's still depth. Is it as much as everyone seemed to make it out to be, maybe not, but it's still something.

Glen Keane actually admitted he was attracted to Belle physically from the get-go, and the Beast admits he thought about using her to break the spell, but he also said "She'll never love me", and eventually it becomes about real love.

There's nothing wrong with someone or something not so depthful becoming more depthful, which may actually be what you were arguing, that it or certain characters weren't depthful enough in the beginning.

You can't really say the film has no substance or depth. What would happen if you applied all you said to every Disney film? Would all of them become quilty pleasures?

What mainly matters, as with any film, is that what was created, made people feel things. Intent matters.

Yes, there's problems with this film and perhaps what some people think of it when analyzing it, but it doesn't stop the fact that it was crafted in a way that made people feel certain things which were intended, and when it comes right down to it, that's the aim of almost all of film. And so Beauty and the Beast succeeds and deserves love and respect in this regard.

I like the film because of the feelings it gave me, most of all. I think I probably would have a good ole time eating dinner with the characters, and I would really like to explore that Prince's castle...or the Prince. And I don't feel guilty about any of this, no matter what you say. In the end it's really about, did the film satisfy you? Did you have a good time, or a time you wanted, with this film?

Remember, we're talking about the love of a film here, not whether it's good or not, objectively.

[Goliath]

Without receiver, a message cannot exist. If it's not picked up and interpreted, it's just there, without any meaning.

No, it exists. You are also "right" in the possible theory of what you are saying, but, that's one theory. It exists. If a tree falls in the woods and no one's around to hear it, does it make a noise? The answer is yes.

I didn't say the movie isn't there or doesn't exist. It does exist, but it has no meaning without an audience to watch it. The makers can have meanings implemented in it, but without an audience to decipher that, the meaning will never be revealed.

And did you also mean this?:

I love BatB because it dared to mock itself right in the opening number 'Bonjour (Belle)'. At the end of the song, you can see how everybody in the village stops with what they were doing to stand there around, just singing. You can see how Gaston is surprised by this. And then at the end, when Belle looks back, they feel they got caught and start to move around again. The characters *know* they're only actors in a play and therefore it doesn't matter that they're under-developed one-dimensional beings.

Or are you being kind of...metaphoric/ironic? Like do you literally mean "they know they are actors in a play"?

I recently re-watched the opening, and when the townspeople are singing, I see it very much as them finding the girl so peculiar, they are making a big fuss about it. A ver loud, big, grouped fuss, as can actually happen, without singing in keys and notes, of course. And Gaston can certainly be noticing this, as Belle finally does turning to look at them. Belle's oddness is a big thing to this odd town, so they get big and loud talking about her, stirred up by her.

I do believe the characters are actors in a play and they at least seem to be aware of that. It's one thing to have a big crowd of people burst out into a song spontaneously. That happens in Disney movies all the time. But it was always a natural part of the film, and the characters were not behaving like something odd or unusual was going on (which is what bursting out in song would be). In Beauty and the Beast, after Gaston has sung he's gonna make Belle his wife, the surrounding villagers who have been watching him, suddenly get in fron of them and look directly into the camera and start singing again. Gaston is clearly surprised at this. The villagers, from that point on, don't go about their daily lives just singing, but actually stand still to perform their song. Only when Belle looks back, they resume their activities.