DVDizzy Forum

I really don't care about extras for the Blu Ray release. I just want prestine video/audio.

they BETTER get a new transfer for little mermaid as well *shudders at the awful transfer*

I just want prestine video/audio.

Although i do care alot about the extras (i hope they put a little more effort into them next time e.g Snow White PE DVD was fantastic!!!!), i do agree with prestine Video/Audio!
i hope they restore the original colour scheme that gave the movie an artisitc look (make Belle's hair dark brown again instead of red! return Beast's dinner jacket to navy/indigo)

Answer me this...
why do so many people hate this movie? i dont get it i am not going to rave about how amazingly brillaint it is (even though it is ) i would just like to know, from all you haters out there why you don't like it?

Beast_enchantment wrote:Answer me this...
why do so many people hate this movie? i dont get it i am not going to rave about how amazingly brillaint it is (even though it is ) i would just like to know, from all you haters out there why you don't like it?

Hate it? I LOVE IT! As if my sig didn't giva ya any answers either. lol

Beast_enchantment wrote:Answer me this...
why do so many people hate this movie? i dont get it i am not going to rave about how amazingly brillaint it is (even though it is ) i would just like to know, from all you haters out there why you don't like it?

Hate it? I LOVE IT! As if my avatar didn't giva ya any answers either. lol

Super Aurora wrote:Hate it? I LOVE IT! As if my avatar didn't giva ya any answers either. lol

yeah, i can see that lol! very cool btw i just know alot of people who hate it and was just wondering why? can you understand why people hate it? i know i don't! lol

Beauty and the Beast is a pleasent movie. Very nice. A lot of happy-ness, light hearted content.

But, there's nothing actually special about it. And it certainly lacks a great deal of Disney magic.

Lazario wrote:Beauty and the Beast is a pleasent movie. Very nice. A lot of happy-ness, light hearted content.

But, there's nothing actually special about it. And it certainly lacks a great deal of Disney magic.

lack disney magic? what about that beautiful opening shot of the castle, or the inovative use of stanied glass to tell the story, or the wonderful music that captivates like no other, or the exquisite animation, or that extraodinary ballroom sequence or the spellbinding transformation scene. no disney magic? it probably has the most disney magic than any other disney movie. what about it's complex love sotry that isnt your typical "boy meets girl, girl falls in love with boy" that other disney movies embody. it's uniqueness gives it it's magic!

sorry if that sounded harsh, lol, just getting my point across, lovey

but to give you credit, i can understand what you mean. maybe with younger children this movie isnt as eventful as Aladdin or Lion King or Little Mermaid. and certain aspects of it can be a little too scary for younger children. i remember that i was terrified of some of the beast scenes, but i loved the movie so much i endured my fears each and every time i put it on.
the movie is alot more mature than others and i think that's why alot of adults love it - not to say that adults dont like any other disney movie!
thats probably why it was cosidered best picture worthy, i think older people saw it as a more adult movie.
that being said, it is still my ultimate favourite disney movie that appeals to children and adults and that is full of disney magic

Beast_enchantment wrote:sorry if that sounded harsh, lol, just getting my point across, lovey

You tried your best, I'm sure.
But I'm going to be harsh. So, I'll just say sorry ahead of time.

Beast_enchantment wrote:lack disney magic? what about that beautiful opening shot of the castle

The one with the little waterfall and the daylight and the little birds? At the very start of the movie, before the narrating fairy tale story? I thought that was a joke when I saw it. It was very off-putting. Almost completely opposite of what the movie was directly after that opening narration. I don't know what effect the filmmakers were going for, but now that I consult my dictionary (dot com), I can safely say that "magical" opening shot of the castle can be accurately described as: saccharine. Excessively sentimental or sickly sweet. Like vomit, only presented wrapped in pretty paper. It didn't feel legit. Was just an illusion.

Beast_enchantment wrote:the inovative use of stanied glass to tell the story

I did notice it seemed original or unique. But if it was truly innovative, that has nothing to do with the film itself. That's historical context. It was perhaps ahead of the curve, but even that isolated at the opening of the film wasn't special enough to elevate the film any higher than it already is in my opinion.

Beast_enchantment wrote:the wonderful music that captivates like no other

It's well made. But not necessarily magical. If it actually captivated anyone, it's because people changed their standards for the movie. Or had little else to compare it to. You're mistaking something with an overly cloying pleasent quality for special or magical. It's also overly simplistic, I'll have you know. And I don't believe anything magnificent, any important work of art has that quality. Not even Walt Disney's older and I feel inferior animated films are as stupidly simple as Beauty and the Beast. Bambi had a truly terrifying and legendary villain, for instance. Snow White had a score that captured a great amount of darkness and mystery (heady stuff indeed), which was in direct contrast to the sweetness of "Whistle While You Work" or the silliness of "Bluddle Uddle Um Dum" (if I have that title correct) and the yodelling song. In fact, and I shiver down deep when I say this... even The Lion King comes out looking better compared to Beauty, because it had a real (disgusting) sense of humor (though I didn't respond to it) completely separate from the gorgeous color, animation, and even though I hate the songs (all but "Be Prepared"), the winning musical numbers. These films all had a complexity that Beauty was apparently completely incapable of. The only animated classic (pre-1996) that makes Beauty look good is Fox and the Hound.

Beast_enchantment wrote:the exquisite animation

Again, Beauty is a much simpler film than you are giving it credit for. All of Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Pocahontas, and Lion King were more colorful, spellbinding, stylish, lavish, gorgeous, you name it than Beauty. Beauty is a weak film, whether you consider it on its own, or compared to other (pre-1996) Disney films (other than Fox).

Beast_enchantment wrote:that extraodinary ballroom sequence

All that sequence achieved was a sense that the area where the scene took place in was bigger in scope than traditional animation could have presented it. It was computer trickery. It was pleasent, yes. But not magical.

Beast_enchantment wrote:the spellbinding transformation scene.

What were you paying attention to by the time that sequence came up? The animation? Did you completely ignore the story? First of all, at this point in the movie, the film establishes that true love is not as important as appearences. They felt they needed to change the Beast so the superficial audience would say, "look- he looks like she does. Now they can live and love the traditional way."

Beast_enchantment wrote:no disney magic? it probably has the most disney magic than any other disney movie.

That statement has absolutely 0% of truth to it. As for how much % of craziness it has to it... I'll let a licensed psychologist take it from there.

Beast_enchantment wrote:what about it's complex love story that isnt your typical "boy meets girl, girl falls in love with boy" that other disney movies embody. it's uniqueness gives it it's magic!

There's nothing complex about the story. How the hell could you say that? He kidnaps her father, she says "kidnap me instead!," the talking furniture says "give him a chance," he screams at her so she runs away, he runs after her and saves her life because he needs to become human again (but of course, you'll say that condition played no part in his decision when we all know it did), she is grateful that he saved her life, and any hope for complexity is thrown right out the window. This is a completely stupid and manipulative movie that basically takes all of Belle's choices away from her. She was a free-thinking person who suddenly became a one-dimensional, emotional sap. She was an individual who became a slave and the movie just puts some emotional garbage and then some action scenes and suddenly you think it's an effective, magical love story? Who taught you how to interpret a story?

Beast_enchantment wrote:but to give you credit, i can understand what you mean. maybe with younger children this movie isnt as eventful as Aladdin or Lion King or Little Mermaid. and certain aspects of it can be a little too scary for younger children. i remember that i was terrified of some of the beast scenes, but i loved the movie so much i endured my fears each and every time i put it on.

I don't have any theories about what is or isn't too scary for a child to view. I was about 12 or 13 when I went to see Jumanji in theaters and you might not believe this, but the film was eviscerated by critics. And do you know the number 1 reason why that was? Because they said it was too intense and scary for children. Were they right? Did you ever hear 1 report about kids who couldn't take it? Kids loved it. They ate it up with a spoon. Couldn't get enough of it. I would know, it's one of maybe 7 very successful movies I actually saw in a movie theater (except for Disney's Jungle Book and Bambi - but they were re-releases, you know - I don't count them because I saw them in the 80s or early 90s). Children of all ages went and a good time was had by all. Same thing with Kindergarten Cop. And that one had blood and multiple, huge gun blasts.

Theories are that kids like danger with their movies, cartoons, fairy tales. It makes them more exciting.

The biggest problem with Beauty and the Beast is what it implies. And regardless of whether people took that to heart or not, the film is still bad for those implications. It's true that the Beast is a cross between a raving lunatic (which you might see in someone who has gone through a kind of trauma- since you see his deformity causes him pain and anger) and an abusive domestic partner (she's stuck with him, very much the way wives are often stuck in an abusive marriage or relationship: for one reason or another, they can't just pack up and leave- leaving in the case of this movie as well is not easy for her). It's not necessarily that this situation is too scary for viewers. But it's very wrong and hugely flawed. And to pretend that that's not what is going on is ridiculous. Because look at the movie - he is abusive to her. No question about that. She has no idea what's going to happen to her, but just because the music is light, we're supposed to think- "oh, she's not in any real danger." That is manipulative of the movie. And very wrong. They can't make light of a situation like this- it's nothing to make light of.

Beast_enchantment wrote:the movie is alot more mature than others

Mature is exactly the opposite of what this movie is.

Beast_enchantment wrote:alot of adults love it - not to say that adults dont like any other disney movie!

That has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Which is I think proof that you're way off track here.

Beast_enchantment wrote:i think older people saw it as a more adult movie.

Well, there are certainly a lot of very screwed up adults in the world. I can't think of anyone even on this board who would disagree with me about that. Whether you're an adult or a child, you can't ignore the situational value of what goes on in this movie. The movie carries on like it doesn't even care.

Wow, Lazarie, what the heck are you talking about? I haven't met too many people who've ranked Fox & the Hound among their favorite Disney films. When you elude to Bambi's greatness is because man is the villain I have to ask you, is your love/hate of a Disney film rooted in the film's content or your political views? To dismiss Beauty for being sweet like vomit just reads to me you don't like sentimental films. Many of your gripes with Beauty sound like you're reading too much into it than is there or you were a victim of spousal abuse yourself or a child of it. I've never heard anyone try to claim that Beauty is about an abusive relationship, although Jerry Falwell said it was about beastiality and rape. Do you want to be a Jerry Falwell?

I would Disagree that Little Mermaid is more complex than Beauty though. I love both films but Beauty has always felt like it had more going on than Mermaid and a higher production value.

As for your attack on the Beast being a human, that goes back to the source material itself. You can't fault Disney for that. But I'd like to know how you'd have had them work it out with Belle and the Beast forever remaining as they were? There were complaints in the early 90's from the opposite side of the aisle. There were people up in arms that she fell in love with an animal because she didn't know he was really a man. While I think that's silly I think your way would have had many people up in arms and would have been adopted in recent years as a pro-gay-marriage movie. Why not just leave it as it was told and not try to inject politics into it?

I disagree that Belle had no choices. She chose to save her father by trading places with him. That takes courage. How does that make her a sap? You're the only person who probably has ever called Belle stupid. I think Ariel was much more of an airhead than Belle. Ariel's choices were always based on impulsive, emotional selfishness and what she wanted so she got burned. Belle's choices were always to save others.

You're living proof of your final statement. There are a lot of screwed up people in this world but to imply that they are the fans of this film is outrageous. You just sound like someone with an axe to grind and peeing in the cornflakes of Beauty and the Beast fans seemsto be your way of expressing it. Even though your points are wrong we still welcome you here. But get counciling, Lazarie, you need serious help if you really see this film the way you claim you do.

Neither beast_enchantment nor Lazario deserved what they got! To the defense of my fellow forumers!

For the record, I don't particularly like Beauty and the Beast, nor do I hate it. I'd say I'm rather apathetic towards it, which actually is saying something, because I usually love any of the European princess films.

I think "Disney magic" is too subjective for anyone to say what it really is. But if beast_enchantment got the magical feeling and Lazario did not, it's only Lazario's loss. That opening shot is a pretty picture that I do not find saccahrine. If you compare it to the opening animated segments of Enchanted you would see how those are saccharine (which they are supposed to be) and the zoom in to the beast's castle surrounded by a peaceful forest of animals at peace is considerably less sweet, and it even serves the film. It shows that the castle and it's location used to be a happy, and if animals drinking or chirping is sweet then yes, sweet place before the spell, which turned it overly dark and gloomy in contrast to what was perhaps overly perfect, but not vomit-inducing. It's not like the deer is smiling at the birds or anything like that.

Lazario wrote:Not even Walt Disney's older and I feel inferior animated films are as stupidly simple as Beauty and the Beast.

Just for clarification, are you saying the earliest films, Snow White to Bambi, are inferior to...the Disney renaissance films?

If it didn't do it for you, oh well, but the music captivated beast_enchantment like no other, so there's definately something there not in other scores to do that, and I doubt he'd lower his musical standards just for the other elements of the film since the music is so integral to this film, which is an animated musical. But when you say Bambi and Snow White are more complex because they have darker or more "bad" elements, it doesn't fly with me because the music in the opening and the West Wing is mysteriously ominous and combines romantic and eerie feelings (and even sounds similar to the Queen at her mirror, but even more complicated in that I find it darker as well as also giving off a feeling I would describe as "crying", a mix of doom and hope), while the villagers' song on their way to destroy the Beast reveals how their weak fear turns into strong murderus intentions. It can be argued that Snow White or Bambi are more terrifying, but don't ignore that the music in Beauty and the Beast sounds dark in the right places and even possibly terrifying when it comes to the Beast or the wolves.

After fearing you could do it to me sometime, I relaize you can change your opinion and nothing you say in one post is how you think forever, but I thought this was so funny considering what you said here:

Lazario wrote:If you watch all the classics again, it's really just Bambi and Snow White that are unbearably sappy at times.

From long ago in this thread

As for the animation, it doesn't have the best at times and many have noticed an off model problem, but it dazzles and sweeps enough to say it's exquisite overall and it was more complex than quite a few features with its blended in shadows and lighting effects as well as rouge for Belle's cheeks. If you're talking about actual movement, I can't pay attention and remember every feature's well enough, but there's definately lots of movement I would call exquisite in the film, especially with the bounding Beast and ballroom dancing and magical transformation.

As for the ballroom scene, you said yourself it was computer trickery and you must agree that magic and trickery are associated. However they pulled off the magic trick, it doesn't matter, only the effect, which was wonderful for beast_enchantment and many others, but not you. There's animation in that ballroom, too, and that is an even harder trick, to get the animation to precisely follow the camera movements, with all the zooming and different angles. And that's extraordinary.

The Beast's transformation is a story point, and the Beast's transformation scene is something different. That scene is great. The music is a subtle replaying of "here's where she meets Prince Charming" and the idea of magic raining from the sky goes well with the idea that Belle's tears of love for the Beast cause the magic/is the magic. I's also just beautiful, thrilling animation, even in the reaction from Belle and the Prince's reactions with hers after he's transformed. So beast_enchantment can definately say it's Disney magic, your talk of the story point of the Beast's transformation was rather off track.

As for the Beast being handsome, there's too much to debate about than I care to say here. What about about the knowledge that people usually end up with people who look like them or are equally attractive to them? It's only personally that I feel the best solution would be to make the Prince look different from her and of average looks, so the happy ending just comes from him being back to his former self and Belle getting to act on her desires because she won't be commiting bestiality. So I suppose I agree with your complaints there.

Beast_enchantment wrote:
no disney magic? it probably has the most disney magic than any other disney movie.

Lazario wrote:That statement has absolutely 0% of truth to it. As for how much % of craziness it has to it... I'll let a licensed psychologist take it from there.

All beast_enchantment stated was that Beauty and the Beast probably has the most Disney magic than any other Disney movie, and you can't say that is untruthful because it was not stated as a fact, Disney magic in itself is a subjective term with multiple possible meanings, and it used the word "probably". Your comment was also cruel, and taste in films doesn't have anything to do with being crazy or warrant a need for a psychologist, unless someone tried to link liking films about psychos and murders to actually becoming a psycho or murderer...I'm teasing you.

As for the complexity of the love story, I suppose Lazario and I agree on that one, but for different reasons I think. Belle: "I want a prince! Ah, scary and mean beast! Oh, wait, he's a nice, gentle beast. Oh great he's actually a nice, gentle prince!" is not that different from the other princesses who, simply put, met men who they discovered were nice and gentle from the start. In fact, all the princesses ran from their princes as did Belle. Snow White and Aurora did it upon just meeting their prince, but when they sang or in other ways proved they were nice and gentle already, they fell in love. Belle pretty much just took a lot longer...I mean, if you didn't notice, the Beast partly shows his kindness in his care for the birds. Kind of like Snow White's Prince already did with the doves.

Lazario, I didn't know you had to get specifically taught how to interpret story. Did you get taught directly from anyone, or did you learn yourself like I bet beast_echantment and most people did?

I agree with Lazario that scariness doesn't take away from the magic or specialness that is in the film and can actually add to it, if that's what Lazario thought. I also agree that if Beauty and the Beast does end up subliminally telling children they can stay in an abusive relationship to turn the abuser into someone who is nice to them, then it does having something bad to it's credit and parents should talk to their children about it or show a film that sends a message of not standing to be treated so badly and leaving people who hurt you.

Lazario wrote:Because look at the movie - he is abusive to her. No question about that. She has no idea what's going to happen to her, but just because the music is light, we're supposed to think- "oh, she's not in any real danger."

I recall the music always being dark when the Beast is angry or abusing Belle. It's light when he turns out to be kind.

Lazario wrote:Mature is exactly the opposite of what this movie is.

Care to provide reasons? Maturity can have multiple meanings. For one, it's immature to be abusive to another person. But then it's mature to represent such a thing for an audience to view and think about.

Beast_enchantment wrote:
alot of adults love it - not to say that adults dont like any other disney movie![/quote]

Lazario wrote:That has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Which is I think proof that you're way off track here.

How was that off track? He was giving a positive reason a movie is good (or evidence that a movie could be good). It had everything to do with his post about why the movie is good. If a lot of people like it, it's at least one indication something might be good.

Now I turn to UncleEd.

UncleEd wrote:I haven't met too many people who've ranked Fox & the Hound among their favorite Disney films.

You are wrong. Lazario doesn't rank the Fox and the Hound among his favorite Disney films.

Lazario wrote:The only animated classic (pre-1996) that makes Beauty look good is Fox and the Hound.

He thinks Beauty and the Beast is so bad, even the Fox and the Hound, which he highly dislikes, is better. In fact, I've know for a while now that Lazario doesn't like the movie at all. Here's one example where he ranks it last out of all the animated classics back in 2006 [url=http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... c&start=20]here[/url or this other thread where he says he doesn't like the film for making light of hunting for sport among many other criticsms [url=http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... c&start=80]here. Scroll down, and look for it, of course.

UncleEd wrote:To dismiss Beauty for being sweet like vomit just reads to me you don't like sentimental films. Many of your gripes with Beauty sound like you're reading too much into it than is there or you were a victim of spousal abuse yourself or a child of it. I've never heard anyone try to claim that Beauty is about an abusive relationship, although Jerry Falwell said it was about beastiality and rape. Do you want to be a Jerry Falwell?

I also read that Lazario likes the sentiment in Disney films, just not when he finds it to be saccharine. I will let Lazario provide it himself if he wishes, but there was a video where multiple people discussed how it looks like Belle is in an abusive relationship and girls are interviewed to reveal they would be okay with a real girl who was like Belle staying with the Beast and staying sweet and kind to him to try to make him change his abusive ways.

UncleEd wrote:As for your attack on the Beast being a human, that goes back to the source material itself. You can't fault Disney for that.

Lazario wrote:First of all, at this point in the movie, the film establishes that true love is not as important as appearences. They felt they needed to change the Beast so the superficial audience would say, "look- he looks like she does. Now they can live and love the traditional way."

Lazario does not specifically say he has a problem with the Beast being human. If he did, he could say that the Beast as he is is entirely able to have romance and sex with Belle as he is a sentient being with human emotions that can make and has made human connections with Belle. Obviously he is different from the dog or wolves in the film, and perhaps that is one reason why they put those other beasts in there. But I believe Lazario was talking about how the Beast changed to a handsome man who is beautiful like Belle, which is more superficial.

UncleEd wrote:While I think that's silly I think your way would have had many people up in arms and would have been adopted in recent years as a pro-gay-marriage movie. Why not just leave it as it was told and not try to inject politics into it?

WHAT?! How could it be a pro-gay-marriage movie? I didn't get any political hints from Lazario saying the Beast shouldn't have changed-OMFGosh you had better not be suggesting it has something to do with saying a PERSON marrying a PERSON (of the same sex) is the same as a PERSON marrying an ANIMAL. I capitalized the things being married to show how different those things are.

UncleEd wrote:I disagree that Belle had no choices. She chose to save her father by trading places with him. That takes courage. How does that make her a sap? You're the only person who probably has ever called Belle stupid. I think Ariel was much more of an airhead than Belle. Ariel's choices were always based on impulsive, emotional selfishness and what she wanted so she got burned. Belle's choices were always to save others.

Okay you have some sorting out to do. Here's what Lazario actually said:

Lazario wrote:This is a completely stupid and manipulative movie that basically takes all of Belle's choices away from her. She was a free-thinking person who suddenly became a one-dimensional, emotional sap. She was an individual who became a slave and the movie just puts some emotional garbage and then some action scenes and suddenly you think it's an effective, magical love story?

Lazario says the movie is stupid, not Belle. He also said Belle's choices were taken away from her, meaning she had to have choices before that to be taken away from her. And she did, as you said. But then she has to stay in the castle and eat with the Beast or miss dinner and she has to give up her old life. I guess you could say she chose to lose her choices, but if you think about it, that is kind of stupid, although brave and stupid are often associated. Both Ariel and Belle made dumb deals with scary people.

UncleEd wrote:You're living proof of your final statement. There are a lot of screwed up people in this world but to imply that they are the fans of this film is outrageous. You just sound like someone with an axe to grind and peeing in the cornflakes of Beauty and the Beast fans seemsto be your way of expressing it. Even though your points are wrong we still welcome you here. But get counciling, Lazarie, you need serious help if you really see this film the way you claim you do.

That was uncalled for! I was going to tell Lazario I did't like him implying screwed up people like Beauty and the Beast because that could hurt beast_enchantment, but let it go because he cleared it up since it was about the very bad screwed up messages of the film. You, on the other hand, more than implied to Lazario that he was screwed up just because he sees something very bad that you would possibly see if you only looked in the film. Do you really want to just ignore the bad possibilities of a film? Do you really want to let your daughter think she should live with someone like the Beast if he's like how the Beast was before he turned nice? You also can't say his points are wrong, these posts have almost completely been opinion and different ways of seeing things. Opinion is not wrong. Something wrong would be you messing up what Lazario actually said.

And after all that I say...I hope we can all get along...

I have to disagree with some of the posters. The Beauty and the Beast was a gorgeous film, certainly not without it's magic. I thought that it was actually more scary than Snow White and Bambi, in many ways. There were many unique elements in Beauty and the Beast, things that set it apart from any other disney film.

I fail to see how Belle and Beasts' relationship would corrupt children into thinking that they should put up with an abusive person in their life. As for the plot, Beast changing back into a human was a part of the original fairy tale and the moral of the film: to not judge a book by it's cover.

Lazario said he hates most disney films yet likes Fox & the Hound. That ranks it among his favorites in my book.

" there was a video where multiple peopel discussed how it looks like Belle is in an abusive relationship and girls are interviewed to reveal they would be okay with a real girl who was like Belle staying with the Beast and staying sweet and kind to him to try to make him change his abusive ways."


And the purpose of this video would be to attack an ancient fable adapted by Disney because Disney is the big, bad, evil, traditional 'the man' and needs to go down. I've seen people do things like that all the time for just that reason. Such attacks are unfounded, unmerited and simply meant to tarnish the reputation of Disney or one of their beloved films. It's just like that guy and his Hilter Disney play. He has admitted openly he has an agenda to bring Walt Disney's name down just because he hates Walt and what he stood for. It doesn't matter if his accusations are rooted in fact. He could care less. It's the same thing here.

"Lazario does not specifically say he has a problem with the Beast being human. "

Are we reading the same guy's post? He most certainly did. He said that it went against the theme of the story. That would indicate he has a problem with it, now wouldn't it?

"But I believe Lazario was talking about how the Beast changed to a handsome man who is beautiful like Belle, which is more superficial. "

That's not what he said. He said he had a problem with him becoming human. Not that he was handsome and was the prince all that handsome? I've heard plenty of women say he was not.

"WHAT?! How could it be a pro-gay-marriage movie? I didn't get any political hints from Lazario saying the Beast shouldn't have changed-OMFGosh you had better not be suggesting it has something to do with saying a PERSON marrying a PERSON (of the same sex) is the same as a PERSON marrying an ANIMAL. I capitalized the things being married to show how different those things are.

I didn't suggest it at all. Lazario's problem with the beast not remaining a beast whiffs of that. And what if I do have a problem with same sex marriage? I've never said so either way but my point is a Disney film is hardly the venue for such a matter to be taken up in...even though Thomas Schumacher nutoriously tried to inject his kooky beliefs into these later films so he could warp the minds of a generation to believe as he did.

"I capitalized the things being married to show how different those things are. "

And some would say they're just as bad. You can't inject your morality on others.

"I guess you could say she chose to lose her choices, but if you think about it, that is kind of stupid, although brave and stupid are often associated"

And your point is? Belle didn't just go along with the Beast's every whim. She butted heads with him until after he rescued her from the wolves. Then he was a nicer guy after that and she gave him a chance. How is that abusive if she was butting heads when he was a jerk?

".Both Ariel and Belle made dumb deals with scary people. "

Just like Bill Clinton.

"That was uncalled for! I was going to tell Lazario I did't like him implying screwed up people like Beauty and the Beast because that could hurt beast_enchantment, but let it go because he cleared it up since it was about the very bad screwed up messages of the film."

See, you agree with Lazario so you circle the wagons around his idiotic statements because you agree with them. If you don't like Beauty and the Beast then DON'T watch it or shelter your children from it. You need not attack or mock those of us who see it for what it is. You guys are walking through life with blinders on if all you can see are screwed up things in wholesome, worthwhile projects.

"You, on the other hand, more than implied to Lazario that he was screwed up just because he sees something very bad that you would possibly see if you only looked in the film."

I actually just watched the film yesterday. It's harmless.

"Do you really want to just ignore the bad possibilities of a film?"

I do when they're not there.

"Do you really want to let your daughter think she should live with someone like the Beast if he's like how the Beast was before he turned nice?"

If your daughter bases her moralaity on what she saw in a film, a fairy tale at that, then there is something seriously wrong with your parenting skills. But I'm sure that's why young people today do whatever they want with no consequences.

"You also can't say his points are wrong, these posts have almost completely been opinion and different ways of seeing things. Opinion is not wrong. Something wrong would be you messing up what Lazario actually said."

How can I change what he said when he said it? And sure I can say he's wrong. Lazario (and you) are wrong. Both very, very wrong. It's people like you who say Porky Pig mocks fat people who talk funny or Mister Magoo mocks the blind. Sometimes a duck (Gasp! without pants) is just a duck. It's because of people like you that Song of the South is held hostage in the Disney vault.

"And after all that I say...I hope we can all get along..."

Who's not getting along? You don't have to agree with someone to be civil to them. Unless you have some strange need that we all agree with your warped view of Beauty and the Beast. See, I Love Bambi ever disagrees with you. Are you going to tell them they're wrong too?

your comments were very much out of order, Lazario, UncleEd's too for stooping to your level. Just because i express an opinion that disagrees with yours does not automatically mean you must attack it. Beauty and the Beast just happens to be my favourite disney movie and from what i've read it obviously isn't yours. i respect your choices and preferences, kindly respect mine.

I've enjoyed reading all your comments, and it's great to hear different points of view in this matter.

A lot of people have already said things I agree with, but to summarize my point of view, Beauty and the Beast is definitely in my Top 10 Animated Classics. It's a movie that contrasts darkness and happiness well, has interesting and well-developed characters, great animation, wonderful and spell-binding music (both score and songs), good voice acting (in both English and Finnish at the very least) and a fascinating and thrilling storyline.

I'd like to comment on something Lazario wrote, though, because I found his point of view on a certain subject matter quite interesting:

Lazario wrote:

Beast_enchantment wrote:the wonderful music that captivates like no other

It's well made. But not necessarily magical. If it actually captivated anyone, it's because people changed their standards for the movie. Or had little else to compare it to. You're mistaking something with an overly cloying pleasent quality for special or magical. It's also overly simplistic, I'll have you know. And I don't believe anything magnificent, any important work of art has that quality.

I'm intrigued by your comment on the quality of music in Beauty and the Beast, and it's interesting to hear opinions that differ from the norm (after all, the music, particularly the score, of BatB is hailed by professional, structural music critics as one of the very best scores of Menken, which is a big deal because these critics often diss Disney scores in principle, so it's interesting to hear the opinion of someone who disagrees with them). As for my opinion, I feel that the music (and by music I mean both songs and score) of Beauty and the Beast is certainly magical at places. A very good example of the music's magical qualities is the climactic "Transformation" cue which binds many important leitmotifs together and has a busy underscore as a pivotal scene takes place on screen.

I wonder why you'd feel that the music of BatB has an overly pleasant quality. True, many songs of the film can be considered cheerful in tune (except for "The Mob Song" which I feel has a somewhat darker quality in it), and even the score gets happy at times like when Maurice rides to the marketplace. After all, pretty much every score for a Disney Animated Classic has pleasant qualities simply because of the very fact that the scores accompany a DAC which is automatically assumed to be somewhat kiddy when compared to 'true' film scores, and people expect certain amount of silly mickey-mousing from these scores anyway. However, there are darker cues in BatB as well such as in the ominous West Wing sequence, and there are also thrilling, dramatic sequences such as when the wolves attack and of course the Beast vs. Gaston battle in the tower.

I can partly see why you'd say the music of BatB is simplistic, especially if you compare it to Menken's later scores such as The Hunchback of Notre Dame as he slowly started using more and more complex orchestration while he matured as a composer. However, BatB as a score is leaps and bounds ahead of a score like TLM and is more lush in orchestration and the way how various leitmotifs are interwoven together to a more dramatic effect. Some of the BatB music may sound simplistic, but there are actually quite a few themes and motifs at work underneath as various instruments often play the different themes in counterpoint and are more often busy than lazy in the way how much they affect the underscore itself. So, I wouldn't say that BatB's score is simplistic at all at least as far as structural analysis of the score goes. If you want to hear a score that really is simplistic in pretty much every way possible both as a listening experience as well as from a structural standpoint, just take a look at the first Pirates of the Caribbean score.

To give a classic example of scores that are quite complex in structure and yet sound deceptively simple, just check the scores of the maestro E.W. Korngold. His scores for classics such as The Sea Hawk and The Adventures of Robin Hood often sound rather simple at first listen, but when one looks at what's really going beneath all the activity (e.g. by comparing the notes), one realizes how complex writing they have which ties into the multiple leitmotifs that are constantly playing in counterpoint against one another as various characters, objects and locations come and go and interact. And although both of these scores have silly moments, they definitely are dramatic when required and support the films' narratives in creating the sense of awe, dread and heroicism. They, just like Menken's BatB score, also help tell the story in the way they use leitmotifs as a musical narrative.

I'd love to hear more about your opinion in this matter, because it's always refreshing to hear differing opinions, especially about Disney music (particularly the scores) which is often neglected as a subject matter in critical studies of Disney Animated Classics.

I fail to see how anything I said was out of line. I did not name call or attack. I just used Lazario's own statements against him. If there is a problem with that then he shouldn't have said them.

I also point to the wikipedia page for Beauty that cites all the awards recognitions, and rankinks on best of lists this film got. How can that be explained if the film is mediocre? I'd say that's proof positive you're wrong with your kookish view of what this film is really about. Also remember a WOMAN wrote this script. Why would Linda Woolvelton write a take on a story that says "Stick with abusive men. You can change them." Sigh...

Beast_enchantment wrote:Just because i express an opinion that disagrees with yours does not automatically mean you must attack it.

That's not what this is about. It's about what makes us see what we see.

Beast_enchantment wrote:Your comments were very much out of order, Lazario

No, they weren't. In fact, I think we were talking about some serious subjects and you obviously can't handle them. So, I guess I see why you liked the movie now.

UncleEd wrote:Lazarie

My screenname is Lazario. You can read, can't you?

UncleEd wrote:When you elude to Bambi's greatness

I did not say Bambi was great. If you were paying attention, you'd see that I said Bambi was more complex than Beauty.

UncleEd wrote:To dismiss Beauty for being sweet like vomit just reads to me you don't like sentimental films.

I have no problem with sentimental films - if they have more to them than just the sentiment.

UncleEd wrote:Many of your gripes with Beauty sound like you're reading too much into it

No, I'm not. The movie is about a woman who was kidnapped by a man who was abusive to her. You can ignore that all you want, but that doesn't mean I'm reading "too much into it." The filmmakers clearly didn't know what they were doing.

UncleEd wrote:I would Disagree that Little Mermaid is more complex than Beauty though. I love both films but Beauty has always felt like it had more going on than Mermaid and a higher production value.

My point is that anything is more complex than Beauty (other than Fox and the Hound). Which is true, Little Mermaid included.

UncleEd wrote:As for your attack on the Beast being a human, that goes back to the source material itself. You can't fault Disney for that.

I fault the movie for doing what it did. I don't feel films have to be loyal to books / original stories. If that's what you're suggesting.

UncleEd wrote:I disagree that Belle had no choices. She chose to save her father by trading places with him. That takes courage. How does that make her a sap?

You weren't paying attention. I didn't say that. I said she ignored the Beast's abuse just because he saved her life, her not knowing of course that he needed her to become human again. She also ignored the fact that her not knowing what happened to her father caused her pain, and in fact, became completely giddy and giggly when she suddenly decided she was curious and wanted to go traipsing all over the castle. Real people don't exactly turn on and off like that, like a light switch. She was only concerned for her father when the plot needed her to go- "oh, my father, he could be in trouble." That is manipulative and, yeah it makes her a sap. It's disrespectful to the character.

UncleEd wrote:You're the only person who probably has ever called Belle stupid.

She might not have been, if the movie had stuck to the way they established her. But they cheated, and treated her like a stupid person. If you bought it, that's your business.

UncleEd wrote:I think Ariel was much more of an airhead than Belle. Ariel's choices were always based on impulsive, emotional selfishness, and what she wanted so she got burned. Belle's choices were always to save others.

Well isn't this a funny turn of events, you think I'm attacking Disney for the way they made Belle foolish. But here you go, attacking them for Ariel. I'm only faulting the Beauty and the Beast filmmakers. I think The Little Mermaid worked.

Disney Duster wrote:I think "Disney magic" is too subjective for anyone to say what it really is. But if beast_enchantment got the magical feeling and Lazario did not, it's only Lazario's loss.

I can accept that. But, I have carefully examined Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Lion King, and Pocahontas. Carefully. I found a traditional sense of Disney magic in all of them, except Beauty. I've seen the movie enough times to know what's up. Perhaps some people here can get away with saying it works on its own merit. But that is pretty far-fetched. Since we're talking about a Disney product. And we know that they usually have a very high standard of animation and story quality. That many of their stories have power and integrity.

Disney Duster wrote:That opening shot is a pretty picture that I do not find saccahrine. If you compare it to the opening animated segments of Enchanted you would see how those are saccharine (which they supposed to be) and the zoom in to the beast's castle surrounded by a peaceful forest of animals at peace is considerably less sweet, and it even serves the film. It shows that the castle and it's location used to be a happy, and if animals drinking or chirping is sweet then yes, sweet place before the spell, which tuned it overly dark and gloomy in contrast to what was perhaps overly perfect, but not vomit-inducing. It's not like the deer is smiling at the birds or anything like that.

Well, that's a good point. But, I'm leaving Enchanted out of this. You can say you have a better point of reference, but I'm keeping it simple. I'm pretty sure that's how the filmmakers expected us to take it.

Disney Duster wrote:Just for clarification, are you saying the earliest films, Snow White to Bambi, are inferior to...the Disney renaissance films?

No. Only the ones I mentioned by name. No "to" about it. I think everyone who's been paying attention to me knows I consider The Lion King, Bambi, Beauty and the Beast, Fox and the Hound, and The Aristocats to be the weakest Disney animated feature films. Snow White is better than those 5 films, but the character of Snow White is hysterically ridiculous and offensively stupid. So, I'm obliged to mention the movie in a discussion of flawed Disney films. I think people are completely within their right to consider Snow White a bad film solely on the basis of how foolish or moronic Snow White was.

Disney Duster wrote:If it didn't do it for you, oh well, but the music captivated beast_enchantment like no other, so there's definately something there not in other scores to do that, and I doubt he'd lower his musical standards just for the other elements of the film since the music is so integral to this film, which is an animated musical.

Hey, I already had this one wrapped up - people like it because it's pleasent. You have to admit, I already called that one. And look at how many other terrible movies and tv shows people like just because they're nice. We all know this. It's just some people can't make the connection with themselves - that sometimes nice isn't good enough to make a good movie.

Disney Duster wrote:But when you say Bambi and Snow White are more complex because they have darker or more "bad" elements, it doesn't fly with me

I don't think you understood me. I'm saying they did it in a much more professional way. They really wanted to give life to a different element. They gave more power to their darkness so that the danger had power. In Beauty, the Beast who is actually good at heart is dangerous himself and the music can hardly tell what to do. Which is why they do everything at the same time. You say yourself that one moment is scored as mysterious but ominous at the same time, eerie but romantic at the same time. They don't know how to conduct a scene. Whereas the Snow White composer(s) surely did. And it's a better, more complex film for it. Plus, there was the fact that the music was taking Belle's character and her sorrow (or the sorrow a normal woman would be feeling) for granted.

Disney Duster wrote:the villagers' song on their way to destroy the Beast reveals how their weak fear turns into strong murderous intentions.

Oh, don't even get me started on the Villagers' "Kill the Beast" song. I tried to avoid any mention of that in my first post back there to keep from bulldozing anyone. Let's just finish that off before we get there with - even people here have agreed with me. It's a terrifically weak and bad moment for the movie. I don't remember who, but I've brought it up myself at least twice. I remember getting resounding agreement.

Disney Duster wrote:I realize you can change your opinion and nothing you say in one post is how you think forever, but I thought this was so funny considering what you said here:

Lazario wrote:If you watch all the classics again, it's really just Bambi and Snow White that are unbearably sappy at times.

From long ago in this thread

I stick by that statement. There's no moment during Beauty and the Beast that makes me feel it's unbearably sappy. It's still a ridiculous movie. But the gag here is how people take it seriously and can't see through it.

Disney Duster wrote:As for the ballroom scene, you said yourself it was computer trickery and you must agree that magic and trickery are associated.

No, I don't have to. Because a trick is an illusion. You see it with your eyes. You perceive it. Magic is a feeling that sweeps over you. But it's undeniable. I consider true Disney magic to be something that everyone can respond to. And like I meant to say when I brought up movies like Bambi and though I forgot to do it before, The Aristocats - other weak Disney features have magical moments. I'll never accept Beauty as a magical film. Because it didn't work on me. And I'm saying every single one of Disney's feature-length animated films from 1937 to 1995 had moments with magic in them that worked on me. All but this film and Fox and the Hound. So I really don't think it's escaped me as simply as you're suggesting it did.

Disney Duster wrote:So beast_enchantment can definately say it's Disney magic, your talk of the story point of the Beast's transformation was rather off track.

Please tell me how it was off track.

Disney Duster wrote:So I suppose I agree with your complaints there.

And my complains have total merit. The film is about seeing good in someone beneath their surface. The film then says, "now we have a fish and a bird - where do they build a home?" So it changes them because it feels that's how the audience will respond to it. You see? That is a great insult to audiences. How exactly was anything I said about the scene off track?

Disney Duster wrote:Beast_enchantment wrote:
no disney magic? it probably has the most disney magic than any other disney movie.

Lazario wrote:That statement has absolutely 0% of truth to it. As for how much % of craziness it has to it... I'll let a licensed psychologist take it from there.

All beast_enchantment stated was that Beauty and the Beast probably has the most Disney magic than any other Disney movie, and you can't say that is untruthful because it was not stated as a fact

I agree. But I'm trying to ensure that that statement never is considered as fact.

Disney Duster wrote:Your comment was also cruel

That's truly flattering. But you misunderstand me. I can never be cruel. Because I'm loyal to what is true. And I never lead anyone on. I don't attack the person, only the part of that person who would say what they say that I know is wrong. I wish I could be cruel, because then I could never be hurt or upset. It's something everyone wants, but most people are incapable of achieving. Me included. Therefore, I'm not cruel. Nor is anything I say.

Disney Duster wrote:I also agree that if Beauty and the Beast does end up subliminally telling children they can stay in an abusive relationship to turn the abuser into someone who is nice to them, then it does having something bad to it's credit and parents should talk to their children about it or show a film that sends a message of not standing to be treated so badly and leaving people who hurt you.

I wouldn't say it's subliminal. I didn't pick it up subliminally - I think the damn thing shoves it right in your face.

Disney Duster wrote:I recall the music always being dark when the Beast is angry or abusing Belle. It's light when he turns out to be kind.

The first time. But, you will notice that he keeps treating her badly, and the talking furniture just cracked a one-liner, ignoring how Belle was being treated as did the filmmakers. Sometimes, the music is being insensitive of Belle's treatment - which was my point all along. But other times, it was the talking furniture. For instance, the very first scene where Belle becomes a slave - Lumiere makes a joke about it. That's what I was talking about when I said this was a situation that it's not appropriate to make light of. And I was right. And I think it's hard for most rational people to mistake that. So, now you also know why I insist there is a right and wrong way to interpret a story.

Disney Duster wrote:Care to provide reasons? Maturity can have multiple meanings.

Okay, now you are just being silly. With you, "everything" can have multiple meanings. I agree with you about magic having many meanings. Because it's true. But now you're just throwing anything out at the wall and hoping it will stick. It is not mature of a film to have a free-thinking, independent woman suddenly become giddy and giggly just for plot convenience. Which is exactly what happens when Belle leaves her room and suddenly becomes a bubble headed girl, again for the movie's convenience. "We have this great musical number planned, so... how do we do it...? OH! Wait! I know, we'll make Belle not sad and heart-broken anymore, but curious and giggly! That'll get her in the dining room and then into The West Wing!" There was nothing mature about the way the movie had the villagers just follow Gaston like they had no brains because... it worked in a movie musical number! That's why I also insist that people are ignoring the movie's flaws just because it's pleasent. They ignore a bad scene all because the music is so catchy.

Disney Duster wrote:But then it's mature to represent such a thing for an audience to view and think about.

Good point. But did you notice that the audience didn't have to choose sides? What was there for them to think about? The movie didn't present it in a mature way. It was a brainless and poorly made series of sequences where the Beast was doing the wrong thing, but the music was light and Lumiere and Cogsworth would say- "be romantic. Control your temper." That doesn't change the situation. And everyone here defending the movie is ignoring the situation.

Disney Duster wrote:Beast_enchantment wrote:
alot of adults love it - not to say that adults dont like any other disney movie!

Lazario wrote:That has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Which is I think proof that you're way off track here.

How was that off track?

I'll tell you exactly why it was off track - he told me adults don't dislike Disney movies. That is an entirely different discussion. Therefore, off track. Every single person on this message board has weighed in on the "too old to like Disney" discussion. Being an adult has nothing to do with this. Even as a teenager, I was smart and mature enough to see this movie was full of it. So, there's more proof that being an adult has nothing to do with this. Therefore... off track.

Disney Duster wrote:He thinks Beauty and the Beast is so bad, even the Fox and the Hound, which he highly dislikes, is better.

Actually that's not what I said. I said there's only one movie that makes Beauty and the Beast look better - Fox and the Hound. Therefore, I'm saying, Fox and the Hound is the only other 1937-1995 feature-length animated Disney film that is less magical than Beauty and the Beast.

Disney Duster wrote:

UncleEd wrote:While I think that's silly I think your way would have had many people up in arms and would have been adopted in recent years as a pro-gay-marriage movie. Why not just leave it as it was told and not try to inject politics into it?

WHAT?! How could it be a pro-gay-marriage movie? I didn't get any political hints from Lazario saying the Beast shouldn't have changed-OMFGosh you had better not be suggesting it has something to do with saying a PERSON marrying a PERSON (of the same sex) is the same as a PERSON marrying an ANIMAL. I capitalized the things being married to show how different those things are.

Thank you! I had the same reaction. I usually crucify a person for being so outlandish... but I decided there were better people (cooler heads) for that job.

Kossage wrote:has interesting and well-developed characters

So, since you think you understand the movie and it's characters - there is something that has perplexed me for some time. Maybe you can help me with it:

How do you explain Belle's completely irrational turns of character? How do you explain her ability, what in real-time would be less than 1 hour after her family has been destroyed and she is now a slave of what she perceives to be a monstrous animal... how she is suddenly childishly curious, (practically) skipping around going, "ooh! This is interesting. Oooh! You can talk. Oh, my! Oh, dear." If you think the movie's characters are well-developed, can you please explain what development brought on this turn of events?

It just seemed like bad filmmaking to me. What was I thinking?


As for what you were saying about the music of the film, I guess you would say I interpret music in a very different way than most people. To me, I can never ignore the situational value of the scenes the music plays in. And I can't ignore the film overall. To me, leitmotifs will never make up for what a film lacks in all the other areas.

Though, I've already noted on many occasions that Beauty and the Beast has the "Gaston" song. And that's the one thing it has that makes the film even a little bit special. Because it's a funny damn song. It's almost a hilarious bit of perversity. It certainly achieves a brilliance in it's satirical commentary on over the top male machismo and chauvenistic pride.

As for the rest of it, again - I still say what I said before. And I stick by it. People are mistaking something pleasent for something rich and depthful/deep.

Lazario wrote:No, they weren't. In fact, I think we were talking about some serious subjects and you obviously can't handle them. So, I guess I see why you liked the movie now.

serious subjects? what, you using this thread as a blatant excuse to bash, not only the movie but one of it's fans? there's nothing serious about insults, it's childish, Lazario.

Lazario wrote:No, I'm not. The movie is about a woman who was kidnapped by a man who was abusive to her. You can ignore that all you want, but that doesn't mean I'm reading "too much into it." The filmmakers clearly didn't know what they were doing.

speaks the person who adores Sleeping Beauty - a movie that is a visual wonder but a shambles in the narrative department, something BatB seems to balance out successfully. I think "I'll let a licensed psychologist take it from there."

Beast_enchantment wrote:serious subjects? what, you using this thread as a blatant excuse to bash, not only the movie but one of it's fans? there's nothing serious about insults, it's childish, Lazario.

Beast, you obviously don't get it. So, stop trying. You're embarrassing yourself. You got into a discussion that you could tell was about serious subjects and you chose to whittle down the entire thing to, "oh you insulted me. Ow! ooh..." I don't insult people - only what they say. Maybe some day, you'll understand. Grow up. We're not children. We don't have to like everything the other says.

Well... I know I'm not a child.

Beast_enchantment wrote:speaks the person who adores Sleeping Beauty - a movie that is a visual wonder but a shambles in the narrative department, something BatB seems to balance out successfully.

Ah, touche. Well, not really.

Sleeping Beauty is one of Walt Disney's most unrelentingly gorgeous films. And has so much magic, it makes the entire team on Beauty and the Beast and all of its little fans quiver in their boots. I hardly think you're qualified to be making comparisons between the two.

This discussion looks like fun.
Ah well, my $0.02. Beauty & the Beast had a monumental "something" to it -- what the something was I'm not sure -- and thus earned itself many fans. I find it overrated, but that doesn't mean I dislike it. I love the stained glass windows, especially the one at the end, and certainly found them unique.