Which Disney film has the best or worst script?

[Disney Duster]

Disney Fan you and me are cool, I didn't think you were too harsh.

Netty, first, you seem to keep disregarding that I pointed out that Gaston sees that the Beast not only has feelings, but thought Belle had feelings for him too. He also sees that the Beast is not fighting at all. To attack this creature that he can tell is like a human and has feelings and thought Belle might have loved him and is sad and not fighting back at all after letting out both Maurice and Belle...is evil.

And he was going to murder a being who we (and he) realized was a human being inside, not in self defense at all, but going after him.

You can also tell in his expressions and the ways he says and does things. If he isn't pure evil, he did eventually do evil or very bad things, which would be called becoming evil or having that evilness inside him all that time.

His only glimpse of evil is his consultation with the Doctor, but its not built upon, and has no further relevance to the plot. It makes him the Diet coke of Evil in Disney animated films.

You said Maleficent was the Diet Coke of Evil! Which one wins the title? By the way, random but does your username have to do with Dr. Who?

Those stereotypical jerks you said he could be shows he was more common than many evil villains, and then he turned into a villain doing a murderous act (and locking Belle in her cellar), perhaps saying the common people or any one of us can become villains as well which does sound rather Oscar-worthy.

If you met Gaston in real life, would you trust him, would you be okay with him and his actions? Would you think what he did to Belle and the Beast were okay and call him a hero?

He's not evil or at the very least, not evil enough.

Well...maybe, but, I don't see why he has to be so evil. He served the story, he got us to feel very bad, and then very sad for the Beast, he gave us drama and we got all emotional.

As for you saying that the scene where he plots about Maurice is the only evil scene he has, couldn't I use your own kind of logic here to go against that, that he thinks Maurice actually is crazy and should be taken care of like he thinks the Beast is actually bad and really needs to be killed?

Most everyone can see that the Maurice being insane talk is a mask for trying to get Belle to marry him, and so, his Beast being a threat talk is also a mask for him to either get Belle to marry him, or what I really think and feel, that Gaston is so pissed off at this point, not getting what he wants for the first time and he's been trying to get it so long, the last straw being his handsomeness lost to this thing, he needs to simply take put his anger, if he can't have Belle, no one will and he will get revenge on this girl, also showing you don't freakin' mess with Gaston.

If that's reading a little much into it, I always felt even as a kid he might possibly be doing this to get back Belle but it's really to take his anger out, to kill off this thing that now bugs him immsensely.

I see him locking saying Belle is crazy and locking her up as him dismissing her as what he wants anymore, and being who he is I think it makes sense for him to go after the Beast to kill of this thing angering him, also a way of turning back to what he loved before he paid attention to Belle, hunting, to get something out of this, some kind of prize to show the whole village, the biggest baddest Beast's head on his wall...

And, you know, maybe that is still weak, and if it is, I will not argue against it, because I don't think Beauty and the Beast's as great as everyone says it is either! I think lots of Disney films were Oscar worthy before it!

I will still point out that Gaston is the one who actually says "If I didn't know any better I'd say you had feelings for this monster", meaning he does start thinking Belle really does love the Beast, and is jealous. Then he announces that she is crazy to the whole town, which says to me he really doesn't think that (or think much at all, lol) but doesn't want her anymore cause she called him a monster and finally showed she'll probably never be with him, so he'll lock her up and take out his anger and get revenge and just find a way to lock up or kill all the hurt.

As for the enchanted objects, indeed we do need a little bit of something to take away from the Beast, but not just the audience, Belle too. If Belle didn't have them she might have either killed herself or ran away much sooner and never tried at all before that. The objects are a key to Belle loving the Beast sooner.

As you know, they changed the kind Beast from the original story and Belle refusing to marry him into an angry Beast that she eventually grew to love before she left. The objects are necessary to help her with this angry Beast was well as help the two fall in love, and we should believe that they simply set the stage, they really fall in love on their own. Maybe that's not what happens when one of them suggested the library but the Beast still saved her and I think the rest was all their love.

Also they may have been transformed because they didn't so anything to stop the Beast from growing up spoiled, they may have helped make him that way, and they never stood up to him to stop him, but Belle did.

As for Lilo & Stitch, I have talked about it before but basically an empty creature programmed to be evil that changes to good, if you think of it like a robot being re-programmed to be good, is bad. Stitch needs to have a soul or heart like we believe all people (and all Disney characters!) to have, like all people really do have, and this soul decides to love because it is really good deep down even if it's body was programmed to be evil. And Lilo & Stitch should have had this. Did it? Did they show it well enough? If not, I hope it's not as empty as Stitch's blank slate body would be if that's really all he was.

[Goliath]

[...] or what I really think and feel, that Gaston is so pissed off at this point, not getting what he wants for the first time and he's been trying to get it so long, the last straw being his handsomeness lost to this thing, he needs to simply take put his anger, if he can't have Belle, no one will and he will get revenge on this girl, also showing you don't freakin' mess with Gaston.

Wow.

I think this is the first time we ever agree on anything. I've always felt the same way. And this happens in real life all the time. Think about it: how many times have you opened your newspaper to find some horrible story about somebody being murdered out of jealousy?

[2099net]

Netty, first, you seem to keep disregarding that I pointed out that Gaston sees that the Beast not only has feelings, but thought Belle had feelings for him too. He also sees that the Beast is not fighting at all. To attack this creature that he can tell is like a human and has feelings and thought Belle might have loved him and is sad and not fighting back at all after letting out both Maurice and Belle...is evil.

But I feel there's an element of people wanting to classify Gaston as "Evil" simply because you know, its a fairytale and all fairytales have evil in them.

Is Neidermeyer "evil" in Animal House? Is Stifler "evil" in American Pie? Is Harris "evil" in Police Academy?

Because Gaston shares more in common with those characters than The Queen in Snow White, Maleficent in Sleeping Beauty of Cruella De Ville in 101 Dalmatians etc.

He's mainly just a self-absorbed jerk, who bullies people, hunts and does other "manly" things. There's no huge character development or character arc.

And he was going to murder a being who we (and he) realized was a human being inside, not in self defense at all, but going after him.

I'm not sure he did realise that there was a human being inside. He realises the Beast isn't as dangerous as he believed before, but you know, people still shoot Deer for sport. Not all huntings about shooting dangerous killer bears or whatever.

You can also tell in his expressions and the ways he says and does things. If he isn't pure evil, he did eventually do evil or very bad things, which would be called becoming evil or having that evilness inside him all that time.

Yes, he does bad things. But good people can do bad things. I don't think doing bad things makes you evil. It's too simplistic a comparison.

His only glimpse of evil is his consultation with the Doctor, but its not built upon, and has no further relevance to the plot. It makes him the Diet coke of Evil in Disney animated films.

You said Maleficent was the Diet Coke of Evil! Which one wins the title? By the way, random but does your username have to do with Dr. Who?

Well, Maleficent deserves the title because she does big evil, but with little logic, reason, or foresight. Gaston deserves the title because his sins are minor and it could be argued he could be acting mostly in <strike>good</strike> reasoned faith - even if all his actions are tainted by his desire to be the centre of attention.

No, my name is from Marvel's 2099 range of comics.

Those stereotypical jerks you said he could be shows he was more common than many evil villains, and then he turned into a villain doing a murderous act (and locking Belle in her cellar), perhaps saying the common people or any one of us can become villains as well which does sound rather Oscar-worthy.

No, I don't buy that. Because as I said, he's not scripted as a well observed character. He's a stereotype (big man on campus jerk) who in most people's eyes becomes another stereotype (jealous lover who will kill to posses what he can't have). That's not Oscar worthy.

If you met Gaston in real life, would you trust him, would you be okay with him and his actions? Would you think what he did to Belle and the Beast were okay and call him a hero?

No I wouldn't trust him. But that doesn't make him evil. There's plenty of people I don't trust, but I wouldn't call them evil. Would I be okay with his actions. No.

Would a number of people?

Yes, I think a lot of people would if you look at them in the context of the narrative and environment he is in. What's different about what Gaston does to "protect" the village than what some people do today persecuting and tormenting known pedophiles for example?

I don't condone such mob actions, but they happen, and (at least) in the UK, some newspapers while not outright stating their support, don't fall over themselves to condemn such actions. Many people still believe in such vigilante justice.

There's no soldiers nearby. No police. Nobody to "protect" the village from the feared Beast. Gaston is a vigilante. He may or may not change his mind after encountering the Beast, but remember he's presented to us at the start of the film as being self-obsessed, close minded, and willing to ignore facts if they don't conform with his world-view (see how he ignores Belle's rejections). Are you saying now that the Gaston we saw at the start of the film "grew" into a more sophisticated Gaston by the end?

He's not evil or at the very least, not evil enough.

Well...maybe, but, I don't see why he has to be so evil. He served the story, he got us to feel very bad, and then very sad for the Beast, he gave us drama and we got all emotional.

As for you saying that the scene where he plots about Maurice is the only evil scene he has, couldn't I use your own kind of logic here to go against that, that he thinks Maurice actually is crazy and should be taken care of like he thinks the Beast is actually bad and really needs to be killed?

Yes, its possible if did think that. I've never really considered that because of the staging of the scene. I think its pretty obvious we're supposed to see it as "evil". But yes, its possible. I don't think his desire to hunt the Beast is presented as obviously "evil". If he accepts the Beast exists and he's a hunter, its an obvious (if unimaginative) solution to the problem. Kill it. And then remember when he does confront the Beast one-on-one, his mob have been driven off by furniture? Yes, some of it is about him, he most likely feels humiliated. But come on, furniture that attacks people? A big, giant, hairy, fanged beast? You're still going to want to put a stop to the madness and yes, still kill the Beast.

Most everyone can see that the Maurice being insane talk is a mask for trying to get Belle to marry him, and so, his Beast being a threat talk is also a mask for him to either get Belle to marry him, or what I really think and feel, that Gaston is so pissed off at this point, not getting what he wants for the first time and he's been trying to get it so long, the last straw being his handsomeness lost to this thing, he needs to simply take put his anger, if he can't have Belle, no one will and he will get revenge on this girl, also showing you don't freakin' mess with Gaston.

If that's reading a little much into it, I always felt even as a kid he might possibly be doing this to get back Belle but it's really to take his anger out, to kill off this thing that now bugs him immsensely.

I see him locking saying Belle is crazy and locking her up as him dismissing her as what he wants anymore, and being who he is I think it makes sense for him to go after the Beast to kill of this thing angering him, also a way of turning back to what he loved before he paid attention to Belle, hunting, to get something out of this, some kind of prize to show the whole village, the biggest baddest Beast's head on his wall...

I find it hard. On the face of it, if Belle becomes a problem because she constantly rejects him, why is he so keen to marry her still? Out of spite. Because you always want what you can't have? Possibly. But I think (and this comes down to the plotting scene again really) Gaston's not stupid. He's unimaginative and vain, but not stupid. I can't see him ever thinking Belle would marry him, especially if at that point he believes the Beast is "good" and a rival for her attentions.

Does he want to punish Belle. Probably. Kill the Beast so like him she can't have what she wants the most?

But I don't see that at that point in the film. Yes, its a fairytale, but I don't think that means we have to follow fairytale logic. Logically he's informed of a ferocious beast that Kidnapped an old man, held him hostage, swapped him for a beautiful young girl and then later the girl comes back to the village and says "you know, hes not that bad, and he has dancing crockery". Would you believe Belle unconditionally? Would you think she had been bewitched or brainwashed? Would you fear the Beast may come to the village looking for Belle? Would you still see the Beast as a threat?

Again, you say Philip is a hero because Maleficent was evil, but to Gaston who doesn't know the full facts, does the Beast still (at that point) sound evil?

I probably need to see the film again, but I can't see a logical reason why locking Belle's father away would bring Gaston closer to Belle or (as he wanted) bring Belle closer to him.

And, you know, maybe that is still weak, and if it is, I will not argue against it, because I don't think Beauty and the Beast's as great as everyone says it is either! I think lots of Disney films were Oscar worthy before it!

I will still point out that Gaston is the one who actually says "If I didn't know any better I'd say you had feelings for this monster", meaning he does start thinking Belle really does love the Beast, and is jealous. Then he announces that she is crazy to the whole town, which says to me he really doesn't think that (or think much at all, lol) but doesn't want her anymore cause she called him a monster and finally showed she'll probably never be with him, so he'll lock her up and take out his anger and get revenge and just find a way to lock up or kill all the hurt.

"If I didn't know any better..." suggests to me he's confident he's right and her feelings for the Beast are false, induced or simply (to him) so wrong, he can't even consider them being true. I think at that point when he's saying she is crazy, he does believe she is Bewitched/Brainwashed/Whatever.

Again, going back to the start of the film, doesn't he already think Belle's a little crazy? Simply because she does things other girls don't do, and ignores his advances. So why is it such a leap to assume when he announced to the village she's crazy, he's not telling what he thinks is the truth?

As for the enchanted objects, indeed we do need a little bit of something to take away from the Beast, but not just the audience, Belle too. If Belle didn't have them she might have either killed herself or ran away much sooner and never tried at all before that. The objects are a key to Belle loving the Beast sooner.

As you know, they changed the kind Beast from the original story and Belle refusing to marry him into an angry Beast that she eventually grew to love before she left. The objects are necessary to help her with this angry Beast was well as help the two fall in love, and we should believe that they simply set the stage, they really fall in love on their own. Maybe that's not what happens when one of them suggested the library but the Beast still saved her and I think the rest was all their love.

Also they may have been transformed because they didn't so anything to stop the Beast from growing up spoiled, they may have helped make him that way, and they never stood up to him to stop him, but Belle did.

But I still find something wrong with a children's film showing comical cartoony objects basically setting Belle up on dates with a character who has a possibility of being abusive. At the very least, they're scared of the Beast, even if he doesn't hurt them only shout and roar. How did they know the Beast wouldn't do the same to Belle? There's something unethical about the whole affair. Especially when the objects themselves stand to gain just as much from Belle and the Beast falling in love as the Beast (or Belle).

[DisneyFan09]

b]Disney Fan[/b] you and me are cool, I didn't think you were too harsh.

Cool. That's good.

[ajmrowland]

yes, Gasston is quite like the other jerks 2099net mentioned.

but did any of them try to murder somebody for diggin his chick?

[Disney Duster]

Goliath, we have agreed before, but you are so right, I even recently heard of a murder over a guy who had a girl the guy wanted.

Netty...

I honestly feel you keep ignoring that Gatson recognizes that the Beast has feelings, and that the Beast thought Belle had feelings for him. He was also sad and not fighting back.

It is possible he thought it was a show and the Beast really was a monster, but something tells me Gaston was merely hoping this, not really caring if the Beast was honestly sad or not.

There is a lot of indication that Gaston is using things like "she's crazy" or "he's a beast" to cover up what he is really doing, locking up or killing people just because he is angry and wants to.

You know, you really do need to watch the movie again or look up clips on Youtube because I Youtubed before I wrote my posts to check.

I do not know, but did any of those jocks in those movies try to kill anyone or lock up girls and old men?

Yes, he does bad things. But good people can do bad things. I don't think doing bad things makes you evil. It's too simplistic a comparison.

Well, I said evil or very bad things, but if he did try to kill the Beast after seeing he just had feelings and was sad and not fighting back, and Gaston was just jealous, yes they were evil things. Besides, sometimes it comes down to choosing to do bad all the time and never making up for it in the end that makes you a bad person because you chose to stick to the bad things.

You still did not decide who wins the Diet Coke of Evil title! It's like a pageant, "Here he or she comes, Mr. or Mrs. Diet Coke of Eviiiiilll!" I guess they can both be Diet Cokes but I wanna know who's moooore...

Your talk of Gaston's jerk stereotype turning into a villain stereotype reminds me of how I thought the Beast was just a bad guy becoming a good guy and everyone said that was supposed to make him deeper than other characters...but I am going to say maybe he is deeper or at least as good as the other Disney characters not better than them. I don't want to argue that one.

Pedophiles and keeping someone in your home against their will is still very different. Also you can set someone free, but you can't un-molest them.

I don't know how you think Gaston is a vigilante. If he was, he very suddenly turned. That indicates to me and most people he's really just covering up. He suddenly becomes "a vigilante", but really the whole time, it's been about getting what he wants, and he'll take out his anger or make people suffer to get it, or he'll just do that to get out his anger.

Gaston did not grow into a more sophisticated character by the end, but he did start to realize Belle would never want him (at least, I think, I feel pretty sure but the film doesn't clearly say it). He could still want Belle, but I really think he's just punishing her and getting his anger out, killing what hurts him.

Logically he's informed of a ferocious beast that Kidnapped an old man, held him hostage, swapped him for a beautiful young girl and then later the girl comes back to the village and says "you know, hes not that bad, and he has dancing crockery".

Well, Gaston is not a big logic user, he is more emotional. But you are not looking at the way he goes about things, the things he says, the way he says them, just like he probably started to notice the way Belle said things. Belle says that the Beast is her friend, then he suspects she might have feelings for him, meaning he paid attention to how she said what she said and how she acted.

You need to watch the movie (or clips) again and pay attention to how he does things, too!

I probably need to see the film again, but I can't see a logical reason why locking Belle's father away would bring Gaston closer to Belle or (as he wanted) bring Belle closer to him.

Right, by this point he is forcing her, he isn't thinking too logically, and yet he thinks it will force her to love him, that she'll just do it, she'll have to. A last resort. Maybe it's even more about just showing the village he got her by this point, with or without love.

He never thought Belle was crazy in the beginning. The girls said she was, but for all we know Gaston thought she was playing hard to get at first, she did say "I just don't deserve you" later, so he may have thought there was still a chance, but eventually he does see that she really won't be with him, saying he's a monster. At least, it seems very obvious to me he doesn't care about her anymore, just wanting to punish her and kill what angers him, but it could still be her, just highly doubtful.

As for what you said about the enchanted objects, I agree with so much of that, I didn't even realize how bad it was. However, they may think back on how they knew the Prince as a boy, and even how they know the Prince transformed, and knew he wouldn't do anything really bad, or they just wonder if he will, like he'll change and get that angry, or they may worry about a chair accidentally hitting them or a wayward claw.

In fact, they may only be scared because of his new more dangerous body. He may always have thrown such tantrums (thus why he became a beast), but now it's in a much scarier body.

Or they may have thought (or known) he would never hit a frail human, especially a thin girl, especially one that he needed to free him.

Also, they were trying to tell him, don't abuse her, be nice, be kind, control your temper, they were trying to make him suitable for her.

But...that's all I got!

[Animalia]

Best: Beauty and the Beast/Aladdin
Worst: Chicken Little, Home on the Range, Brother Bear

[Goliath]

I find it hard. On the face of it, if Belle becomes a problem because she constantly rejects him, why is he so keen to marry her still? Out of spite. Because you always want what you can't have? Possibly. But I think (and this comes down to the plotting scene again really) Gaston's not stupid. He's unimaginative and vain, but not stupid. I can't see him ever thinking Belle would marry him, especially if at that point he believes the Beast is "good" and a rival for her attentions.

Does he want to punish Belle. Probably. Kill the Beast so like him she can't have what she wants the most?

But I don't see that at that point in the film.

That's irrelevant. What you're doing now is just arguing for the sake of arguing. Your arguments about why Gaston isn't evil have already been disproved, with examples from the film itself nonetheless! Now you just don't want to acknowledge that Gaston is indeed an evil character. And it shows in your motivations, which get slimmer line by line.

Gaston doesn't have a big story arc? Who cares? You don't have to have a big story to be evil. Most Disney villains don't have a big story arc, like Cruelle de Vill, or Madam Medusa, or Prince John, or Malificent. Are they less evil because of this?

From the beginning of the movie, Gaston is being portrayed as a man who's looking for a trophy wife. He doesn't care about Belle's interests or wishes. He wants her for her looks. That's how vain he is. So when he goes after the Beast, does he really do that to protect Belle or because he believes he has to save the village? Just after he had Maurice committed and Belle locked up? Of course not. But I'm repeating myself. This has already been discussed.

You ask why Gaston would still want Belle after she rejected him. Well, that's obvious from the kind of character he is: he is used to be getting his way, and rejection only makes him wanting her more. Because it has become a question of pride. That's completely consistent with his character. That's why he wants to kill the Beast: to get revenge. That's evil.

I don't care that it's a standard or clichéd fairy tale structure, or that we are "expected" to see Gaston as evil. All that doesn't automatically make him less evil, as you are suggesting. And I'm not sure why you keep mentioning the films' Oscar win, but a *lot* of mediocre films with 2-dimensional characters have won an Oscar.

(We're just having fun debating film, right? )

[blackcauldron85]

So, I'm working on a project, and I'm reading an interview with Pete Docter about Up, and he said this (5/26/09, aintitcool.com):

Capone: You do feel for Muntz on a certain level. You realize he might not have been so villainous if people had believe him.

PD: I always think about George Sanders who played Shere Khan [the tiger in THE JUNGLE BOOK]. One interviewer asked him what it was like playing all these villains, and he said, "Villains? I have never played a villain." Because he thinks of them in terms of, nobody in real life acts like villains. To them, what they do makes sense, and that's how we approached Muntz in this film.

It reminded me of what Netty's been saying in regards to Gaston.

[Disney Duster]

I just realized...by locking up Maurice and Belle...Gaston is doing exactly what the Beast did. The Beast becomes the human while Gaston becomes the monster...

[Rudy Matt]

Gaston does not want to hurt Belle, he wants to own her. Like a trophy.

Beast imprisons Belle, then gives her back her freedom. Gaston wants to put Belle into his own kind of cage. He has her father imprisoned so that she will sacrifice herself, which is the same choice she made at the beginning of the film.

Who knows, maybe if she married Gaston, if he saved her pack animals, she'd heal him, give him grief about his temper, as well as some reading lessons, she'd start to feel sorry for him, too.

The truth is that Gaston has trademark "evil" eyebrow expressions from his very first scene. There is no doubt that he is a sinister character because it is telegraphed to the back row in his first few moments on screen.

[2099net]

That's irrelevant. What you're doing now is just arguing for the sake of arguing. Your arguments about why Gaston isn't evil have already been disproved, with examples from the film itself nonetheless! Now you just don't want to acknowledge that Gaston is indeed an evil character. And it shows in your motivations, which get slimmer line by line.

When have I denied he's evil? I've said many times he's not evil or not villainous enough. And I still stand by my statements. Gaston is more of an antagonist than a villain. Most of his actions can be seen as pretty reasonable (apart from being a Jerk obviously). The only reason we see Gaston as being evil before the climax is because we're experiencing the story from Belle's point of view, and of course, Gaston's agenda is the opposite of Belle's.

I seem to remember there was a book written about the Witch in Snow White from her point of view and how did didn't see herself as Evil. Well, it would be much easier to write such a story about Gaston.

I still think that there's a tendency to label him as an evil villain because of the general expectation that such stories need villains. If you remember, this whole thread started because I said Gaston could have been presented as a much more complex and sympathetic character, which could have given the film a genuine emotional dilemma for Belle, and ultimately more drama should she have to choose between The beast or (nicer, handsomer, caring) Gaston.

Instead, we get another cartoony exaggerated stererotype to go with the cheap, national stererotyping of the enchanted objects. It's almost as if the artists and animated had to emphasise his villainous status visually, because as I say, he doesn't do much that is villainous plot-wise until the final quarter of the film.

Gaston doesn't have a big story arc? Who cares? You don't have to have a big story to be evil. Most Disney villains don't have a big story arc, like Cruelle de Vill, or Madam Medusa, or Prince John, or Malificent. Are they less evil because of this?

The arc is not about Gaston being evil or not. It's about how once again an Oscar Nominated picture resorts to stereotypes for its storytelling. It's all about the nomination, not the character's evilness as such. If I accept what you and Disney Duster say, we have a character who goes from stereotype 1 (Self-Obsessed Jock) to stereotype 2 (Destroy what he can't have in jealous rage) with very little in-between.

Look Beauty and the Beast is a sound and enjoyable film. It does what it does very well. When watching it (especially for the first time) its easy - very easy - to ignore or not notice its flaws, because you're swept up in the film's beauty.

But, you know, Anchorman is the same. Its a film which does what it sets out to do with perfection. It's almost infinitely quotable, has a huge, rabid following (I won't say Cult, because its too mainstream) and to this days there's constant demands for another. Yet I doubt anyone here would say Anchorman was worthy of being nominated for an Best Picture Oscar.

From the beginning of the movie, Gaston is being portrayed as a man who's looking for a trophy wife. He doesn't care about Belle's interests or wishes. He wants her for her looks. That's how vain he is. So when he goes after the Beast, does he really do that to protect Belle or because he believes he has to save the village? Just after he had Maurice committed and Belle locked up? Of course not. But I'm repeating myself. This has already been discussed.

I don't think he does want her for her looks. The women he has are more voluminous and sexy. See saying he wants her for her looks is ignoring the character we a presented with at the start of the film. He could easily have a trophy wife from any of his hang-oners. More likely he wants her because he can't have her.

As for protecting the village. Yes. That doesn't mean its the only reason though. This is discussed more later by me, but he's a hunter. He would claim the spot-light of a successful kill.

Locking Belle up is obviously because she wants to stop him. That would work for the jealous angle, the hunt angle or the protect the villagers angle.

You ask why Gaston would still want Belle after she rejected him. Well, that's obvious from the kind of character he is: he is used to be getting his way, and rejection only makes him wanting her more. Because it has become a question of pride. That's completely consistent with his character. That's why he wants to kill the Beast: to get revenge. That's evil.

Don't forget Gaston manages to build up and lead a lynch mob. While not impossible, most people's jealous rages aren't shared - few crimes of passion are committed with accomplices. Gaston manages to get the entirety of the village behind him.

If you believe the only reason Gaston would want to kill the Beast is because of jealousy, then you have to admit, he's pretty clever to have plotted in secret to have Belle's father put away and used his "charisma" to work the villages up to do most of his own dirty work. While I know such people aren't known for their logic, logically its unfeasible that such a person would believe his actions would lead to any form of mutual romance.

I'm not saying jealousy didn't play a part in his actions, but I don't think that they were the entirety of his actions. And I certainly don't think he ever believes he and Belle will find any common ground after he kills the Beast. A more likely reason would be to deny Belle the Beast, than to gain himself Belle.

You point out evidence from the start of the film regarding Gaston's character. Well, allow me to point out again the evidence that Gaston is a hunter. Regardless of Belle - even if Belle never existed and he discovered the existence of the Beast - a keen hunter would want to kill the Beast simply because it exists. No? Just like even now people hunt endangered species for the thrill of doing so, Gaston would view the Beast as the ultimate hunt. A unique thrill and challenge for him, to boast about for years to come while showing off the skin. He would probably stir up the villagers in the same way too. That's who he is too, that's how he's been presented at the start of the film too.

Nothing is absolute. To say he only wants to kill the Beast out of jealousy is simplistic. To say he only wants to kill the Beast because he's a hunter is simplistic. To say he only wants to protect the villagers/gain an even higher standing with them is simplistic. To say its a combination of all seems more likely. Why must his motivations be simply single-minded?

Because that's how things are in such stories?

My issue is, the cartoony elements of Gaston can easily make him out to be more one-dimensional than he should be. I find it interesting that Rudy Matt mentions the "evil eyebrow expressions" in his response.

Because as I pointed out before, for the time the film is set, the location the film is set etc. Most of Gaston's actions, until the very end of the movie, are not unreasonable. Were the Beast a bear, nobody here would have major problems with a somewhat self-obsessed villager wanting to kill it. You may not like him as a character because he was written as a jerk. But you would most likely see his point of view.

Am I arguing for the sake of arguing? No, I don't believe I am. Am I playing some sort of Devil's advocate. Yes. The whole nature of "evil" is based on people's perceptions, sympathies and culture.

I'm not saying Gaston isn't "evil", I never have. But he's certainly not as evil some people peg-him right from the start. He does a bad thing at the end, most likely for the wrong reasons, and gets his comeuppance. But I don't think his character at the end of the film is the same as at the start. People peg him as evil at the start simply because of the film siding with Belle from the very beginning, and expectations about the story.

I wonder, how would you describe the morals of the Enchantress who curses the Beast and his Staff? How would you describe the morals of the enchanted objects playing matchmaker with the Beast and Belle? Are they all automatically "good"? I would say, to some extent our readings of these characters are also clouded by expectation and tradition.

Just because its a fairytale doesn't mean those moral issues couldn't have been explored. Push a little further and almost every character could be said to have their own agenda.

And yet, we're left with short-hand stereotypes: The Enchantress is "good" because she's really pretty not a hag, and the prince learns his lesson (regardless of years of misery for not only the beast, but his 'innocent' staff too); the objects are "good" because they're funny and Belle and the Beast fall in love (regardless of the fact the Beast still has temper issues when we first see him). Gaston is "evil", right from the start because he's vain and a bully.

I don't care that it's a standard or clichéd fairy tale structure, or that we are "expected" to see Gaston as evil. All that doesn't automatically make him less evil, as you are suggesting. And I'm not sure why you keep mentioning the films' Oscar win, but a *lot* of mediocre films with 2-dimensional characters have won an Oscar.

Of course the nomination is relevant, because the topic is discussing the script. That's the title of the thread. Of course there's been a lot of mediocre films which have won Oscars (Titanic and Gladiator being, IMO, major mistakes that have only made the Academy look foolish). But two (or more) wrongs don't make a right. We should expect more from Academy Award nominated films. We should expect them to make us question what they present us with.

(We're just having fun debating film, right? )

I'm enjoying this thread more so than any other for the past few months.

[blackcauldron85]

As I've said before, you make really good points, but I just wanted to point out:

I don't think he does want her for her looks.

Gaston sings:

Here in town there's only she, who's as beautiful as me

[Miss Jo]

Gaston sings:

Here in town there's only she, who's as beautiful as me

Yeah, and he also says, "She's the most beautiful girl in town, and that makes her the best."

Wow. Shallow much?

[Goliath]

[...] Gaston is more of an antagonist than a villain. Most of his actions can be seen as pretty reasonable (apart from being a Jerk obviously). The only reason we see Gaston as being evil before the climax is because we're experiencing the story from Belle's point of view, and of course, Gaston's agenda is the opposite of Belle's. [...]

I still think that there's a tendency to label him as an evil villain because of the general expectation that such stories need villains.

You've repeated this already a few times. But it also has been debunked a few times. You're right that this kind of story *needs* a villain and we, as an audience, expect a villain. I'm not denying that. But that doesn't make Gaston any less of a villain. Just because we expect him to be a villain, doesn't mean he, *therefore*, automatically isn't a villain. That's flawed reasoning.

The arc is not about Gaston being evil or not. It's about how once again an Oscar Nominated picture resorts to stereotypes for its storytelling. It's all about the nomination, not the character's evilness as such.

I think this is a weird kind of reasoning. Just because a character is one-dimensional, a film can't be nominated for, or receiving, an Academy Award? Or, to reverse it (like you do): just because the film won an Oscar, we need to slam the character of Gaston?

If I accept what you and Disney Duster say, we have a character who goes from stereotype 1 (Self-Obsessed Jock) to stereotype 2 (Destroy what he can't have in jealous rage) with very little in-between.

How are that two seperate stereotypes? It's *one* character: the fact that he wants to destroy what he can't have in a jealous rage is very fitting behaviour for a self-obsessed jock.

I don't think he does want her for her looks. The women he has are more voluminous and sexy. See saying he wants her for her looks is ignoring the character we a presented with at the start of the film. He could easily have a trophy wife from any of his hang-oners. More likely he wants her because he can't have her.

That's also a possibilty. But you forget how Belle is presented from the movie's beginning: she's portrayed as "the most beautiful girl in town. That makes her the best." And this is not something only Gaston says. The whole village is singing about her beauty. It's not a coincidence that the blonde bimbos all look alike. It underscores how Belle stands out. And that's why Gaston wants her.

As for protecting the village. Yes. That doesn't mean its the only reason though. This is discussed more later by me, but he's a hunter. He would claim the spot-light of a successful kill.

But he ultimately wants to kill the Beast because he's jealous. He only heads for his castle after he sees Belle really loves him. And after the Beast lets him live, Gaston knows the Beast isn't dangerous, but wants to kill him anyway. Again: out of jealousy and anger.

Locking Belle up is obviously because she wants to stop him. That would work for the jealous angle, the hunt angle or the protect the villagers angle.

Yes, if you're watching this with your pre-fixed obsession about 'Gaston must be a deeper character'. If you're looking at it in an objective manner (just watching what's on screen), you'll see that his locking up Belle logically follows from the fact that he wanted to have Maurice committed to blackmail Belle into marrying him. So, again, his motive is jealousy. You will see this once you stop thinking that "Gaston should have been this-or-that..."

Don't forget Gaston manages to build up and lead a lynch mob. While not impossible, most people's jealous rages aren't shared - few crimes of passion are committed with accomplices. Gaston manages to get the entirety of the village behind him.

How does that diminish his motive of jealousy? He obviously thought he couldn't handle the Beast alone. That's why he needed help, and why he manipulated the mob into going with him. I find it to be very akin to reality, where political leaders hide their real motivations for going to war and manipulate the people into thinking it's for some moral cause. "If you're not with us, you're against us" sounds like a foreshadowing of the Bush-administration.

If you believe the only reason Gaston would want to kill the Beast is because of jealousy, then you have to admit, he's pretty clever to have plotted in secret to have Belle's father put away and used his "charisma" to work the villages up to do most of his own dirty work. While I know such people aren't known for their logic, logically its unfeasible that such a person would believe his actions would lead to any form of mutual romance.

By the time Gaston plotted to have Maurice committed, he didn't know the Beast actually existed. He thought Maurice was just a fool, who made the story up. He only learned about the Beast's existence much later, when he saw him in 'the magic mirror. And as the song 'Gaston' shows, most of the villagers were already admiring him, so it was easy to manipulate them.

I'm not saying jealousy didn't play a part in his actions, but I don't think that they were the entirety of his actions.

That's because that's what you *want* to believe. You have thought up a better script for the film; one in which Gaston is a nicer guy, and that's what you're projecting upon the film, prompting you to see things that aren't in the movie.

And I certainly don't think he ever believes he and Belle will find any common ground after he kills the Beast. A more likely reason would be to deny Belle the Beast, than to gain himself Belle.

That's exactly what Disney Duster and me have been saying. At that point in the film, he *knows* he will never get Belle. So why not kill the Beast as well? It's the 'if I can't have her, nobody can'-attitude that you see so often in real life.

You point out evidence from the start of the film regarding Gaston's character. Well, allow me to point out again the evidence that Gaston is a hunter. Regardless of Belle - even if Belle never existed and he discovered the existence of the Beast - a keen hunter would want to kill the Beast simply because it exists. No?

Yes, but that doesn't have anything to do with the actual movie. Because Belle *is* there, so there's no 'regardless of Belle'. His attitude towards Belle is what thrives him in this movie. You can't simply erase her and come up with an alternative story, because... that's not the film.

Nothing is absolute. To say he only wants to kill the Beast out of jealousy is simplistic.

No, that's what comes out of the film's script.

Why must his motivations be simply single-minded?

I don't know. Ask the writers. They made it single-minded. Basically, with this question you're once again conforming you're not looking at this issue in a neutral way, but with your own vision of what Gaston *should* have been like.

And yet, we're left with short-hand stereotypes: The Enchantress is "good" because she's really pretty not a hag, and the prince learns his lesson (regardless of years of misery for not only the beast, but his 'innocent' staff too); the objects are "good" because they're funny and Belle and the Beast fall in love (regardless of the fact the Beast still has temper issues when we first see him). Gaston is "evil", right from the start because he's vain and a bully.

But this is the case with almost every Disney film. It always has a villain, a hero, a damsel in distress, a funny sidekick etc. These are the basic elements of a Disney film. It's just because it won an Oscar thatyou suddenly find fault with it.

Of course the nomination is relevant, because the topic is discussing the script.

No, it's not relevant. It's highly irrelevant. To discuss scripts, we don't have to include which films won or were nominated for an Oscar. An Oscar in itself means nothing. An Oscar doesn't automatically mean a film's script is good --or bad. It's just a moot point.

[Rudy Matt]

Correct, and because of the method of the writing in Walt's films (storyboards), no animated feature made under Walt ever received a nomination for screenwriting. In fact, no animated film from Disney has ever received a writing nomination, while PIXAR is on some kind of tear.

For me, that's what sealed the fate of Beauty and the Beast at the Oscars in 1991. No writing awards. Looking at the history of the Oscars, although not so much lately, the screenwriting award and the Best Picture award went, many times, hand-in-hand. Same thing with editing. If a film has been nominated for best picture, but hasn't also earned an nomination for writing, that film is a dark horse to win the producers award (Best Picture). Was Mary Poppins nominated for screenplay? I'll have to check...

Yuppers - Mary Poppins received a writing nod. I think that's the only writing nomination from the Academy that Walt ever received.

[MagicMirror]

Correct, and because of the method of the writing in Walt's films (storyboards), no animated feature made under Walt ever received a nomination for screenwriting. In fact, no animated film from Disney has ever received a writing nomination, while PIXAR is on some kind of tear.

There was, a while ago, a bit of a debate on whether scripts were used in animation before 'One Hundred and One Dalmatians' (which had both script and storyboards by Bill Peet). Michael Barrier more or less settled the matter with a few actual examples of scripts, which may not be identical in format to live-action scripts but which were, for all intents and purposes, the same. The source of the misunderstanding may be Walt's statement that 'we don't write scripts, we draw them' in the TV show - though it's true that from about the mid 1930s storyboards were used fairly regularly alongside the scripts and gradually grew in importance.

[DisneyFan09]

If if it's only out of pity for Nani (which I don't believe), that means he has developed feelings of affection for her. If he didn't, he wouldn't have felt any pity at all. So either way, he became to see Nani and Lilo as people he cared about; as family.

Okay, you have a point there. However, that doesn't change my opinion about the screenplay, which is, in my opinion, extremly muddled and poorly structured. That doesn't mean that I hate "Lilo & Stitch", but if it weren't for the screenplay, I would enjoy the film more.

[DisneyFan09]

I don't know about the best, but the worst would have to be The Aristocats. First of all, the 'journey back home' storyline, with the episodic structure and the brief encounters with secondary characters who disappears afterwards, is a direct copy of The Jungle Book. Second, there's far too much filler material, far too much slapstick that isn't needed. It's distracting and it takes away time from any character development the real main characters *could* have had.

The only plot hole, in my opinion, is the fact that Duchess seem to be certain about Thomas O'Malley not being accepted by her owner. She's confirming that she can't be with Thomas when she's gonna arrive home Madame. In a superficial way, it makes sense, since Thomas was a streetcat and he would suppose that such a wealthy woman as Madame wouldn't adopt a streetcat, but honestly; If Duchess really knew Madame so well (since she was a good person after all), she shouldn't have been so certain that Madame would reject Thomas so quickly (the film also skips in that scene, too, since right after the climax Thomas is inside the house).

I do agree that some of the slapstick wasn't needed - as the sequences with the dogs and the one with the drunk goose. However, I did enjoy these scenes because I thought they were fun.

[DisneyFan09]

The only time Gaston is villainous is when we see him plotting with the Doctor to have Belle's father committed. It's a shame we didn't see more of this side to him in the film

Agreed. In fact, the Doctor is more moody and effective as a villain than Gaston. Funny enough, the voice actor of the Doctor (Tony Jay) voiced one of Disney's best and most complex villains, Claude Frollo in "Hunchback".