Beauty and the Beast Discussion

[Lazario]

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.

If it wasn't overrated, I would find more about it to like.
Which proves that it is overrated.


But since we're talking about what we "liked"... I liked the funny "Gaston" song. Pretty much separate from the film and its imagery, which again was disappointing. Except that the way he laid himself out on that chair reminded me of the decadence of Rocky Horror Picture Show (if you've seen it, you probably remember what shots I'm talking about). Which I'm sure the number was going for.

I also liked some of the "Be Your Guest" number. That one shot where Lumiere is talking about how the furniture is getting rusted and needs dusting (haha). Which of course was a bit done better in The Great Mouse Detective (during Ratigan's big musical number). And maybe one minute during the scene where Belle's father gets lost in the forest. When the horse was getting disturbed and spooked. It was a little interesting that they were in the imagination of a frightened horse. Though again... done before. In Sleeping Beauty (wide-eyed horse) and... oh, there's one more movie. But at this moment, it escapes me.

[Kossage]

Alright, I'll go through this step by step, so please bear with me.

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.

Well, it might sometimes feel that the music (particularly the score) of BatB is busy, or it "can hardly tell what to do" as you said, and there's a good reason for it. Menken himself explains somewhere (I think it was the TLM audio commentary, or then some interview, I can't remember which) that by the time he started working for Disney, he used a more Carl Stalling type of approach in scoring to emphasize elements as they happen on screen, which in turn makes the music rather frenetic or otherwise busy at times. Menken admitted that later on, after he had finished the frenetic scoring Aladdin, he learned to not detail everything that happens on screen and instead began composing in "broader strokes", so to speak, to emphasize general emotions and actions instead of every minute detail.

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.

I would argue that they know how to conduct a scene, because at least to me the music both supports the narrative as well as drives it onward, because it both foreshadows elements that are yet to come (by using various leitmotifs and their disguised variations etc.). I agree with you on the music in part taking Belle's feelings and characterization for granted, but this is always the downside of using a leitmotivic approach, because you're forced to tell the story with that approach while actions occur on screen, and thus you might overemphasize certain emotions (and because this is an animated film score, it might be even more blatant than in a non-animated film in order to drive the message home to the audience who expect such things from an animated film score in the first place).

However, I feel it is a bit unfair to compare Snow White and Beauty and the Beast as far as their music goes, because they were composed so far apart from one another time-wise that a lot of things in scoring films had changed by the time BatB was scored. Snow White has a clearer approach to its scoring of emotions because it followed the aesthetics of its time. And scoring a full-length animated feature was still something fresh as opposed to Menken's time when people were already exposed to multiple animated features and expected certain conventions in animated scoring.

Menken was thus facing a different situation, because he and Ashman wanted to bring broadway sensibilities to animated film scoring. Not only that, but modern film conventions were that one was supposed to emphasize dualities within narrative etc. in scoring (as maestro Jerry Goldsmith had already proven with his masterpiece score for Don Bluth's The Secret of NIMH), so that might've been one of the reasons why BatB's score seems kind of dualistic in nature as it tries to become 'grey' in introducing multiple emotions (both cheerful and dark) at the same time while still keeping up with the Disney approach to music. Snow White didn't have to worry about this as much and it instead followed a straighter, pastoral approach to scoring, which probably makes it somewhat more consistent as a listening experience than BatB.

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.

Although I have no real proof for what I'm going to say and thus I use only a gut feeling (because I don't know the intentions of the people who were behind the film), I assume film makers are to blame for this. I would argue that for the most part, if not entirely, the music is entirely appropriate for the scenes it accompanies, but I understand if you feel that it sometimes (or most times, as the case may be) is inappropriate. We can only speculate whether Menken and Ashman's original intentions were to make an even more dramatic score but the film makers objected to it in order to make it more digestible to the intended audience. Still, in general I feel that animated film scores, just as every other film score, are restricted by the vision of the directors who want a specific approach to be used. And considering how heavy and dark the subject matter is in this film (with all the scary parts with the angry Beast and wolves etc.), it was maybe felt necessary to make music soothe down the fears by introducing silly elements, and this was also translated into the film by having characters like Lumiere spit out comic one-liners etc.

has interesting and well-developed characters

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?

Well, it is of course obvious that we have some sloppy filmmaking here. But to think why exactly it is so, we can have many possible reasons for such. These reasons can be found both inside the narrative (that is, in the story of the film itself) as well as outside the narrative (the development of the film, the visions of the film makers etc). Thus the following comments will be of how I perceive the film, so in case someone wonders, this is not fact but simply speculation on my part because I don't know the original intentions of the film makers themselves:

1) I think the most important thing for this is the issue of time and money. As much as I would love to see Disney animated features being three-hour spectacles with rich storylines etc. it just isn't possible (unless Disney proves me wrong and brings in a mammoth spectacle in animated form). As we know, there are time restrictions because of budget, release date, audience etc. concerns, so the film can only be of certain length. Something has be cut to keep the film accessible to the audience (because not everyone wants to watch three-hour films like I do) and to keep the budget in check. So, the film makers trim the story to bare essentials and see what can be left out and what has to stay in to make sense. Maybe they felt that they didn't need to emphasize the traumatic aspects of Belle's journey that much and instead concentrated on other aspects, which in turn made the transition between Belle's emotions so abrupt in the finished film.

2) The story of BatB at this point is very dark and intense (at least for Disney standards of the time), so it sounds reasonable that the film makers felt that they needed to have some cheerful scene in order to soothe the minds of the kids who would be watching the film. We've seen this happen before such as when Snow White had a nightmarish experience in the woods as she escaped into it but then had cute animals come, goes to the dwarves' cottage despite not knowing whether the house is dangerous, and things turned very childish again. I feel both this scene from Snow White and the scene you explained from BatB can be connected that the film makers felt the need to have a more cheerful attitude to balance the darker aspects in order to not traumatize the kids.

3) As for the actual narrative, Belle was suffering from all those traumatic experiences, so maybe her natural curiosity just came into play in order to "shut off" her mind from the traumatic events and let her concentrate on more positive aspects in order to forget the terror she had experienced? It's a natural reaction for people under heavy stress, after all, so I don't think it would be out of the blue to have such an abrupt change of mind happen within the film, but once again this might be connected to the concerns explained in points 1 and 2 instead of being a valid narrative concern within the film itself.

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.

Thanks for explaining this. We all interpret music in different ways, so every point of view is valid as long as we back it up properly like you've done in this thread. I too can't ignore the situational value of scenes the music plays in, because I often connect music to certain scenes from a film (e.g. the music of Star Wars films). If I see what I think is a bad or so-so film (e.g. Cutthroat Island), I can still enjoy its score despite remembering the scenes it plays in. It won't make up to the flaws of the film, but as a score it can be a masterpiece or a really entertaining listening experience which just was unfortunately added to a not-so-good film. The other side of the coin is that I can enjoy a certain film (e.g. the first Pirates of the Caribbean film) but yet I can despise the score for various reasons, but the score doesn't make me respect the film less even though it might distract me from the film at times.

And worry not, because I understand that not everyone will like or hate the same score as I hate or love. To give some examples, I love certain scores which most professional critics despise. Case in point, I really like the score and songs of Hercules (albeit I admit they aren't Menken's best) whereas most critics blast the whole soundtrack into oblivion. I could point out multiple reasons why the score is worth hearing, but I also understand that it's not everyone's cup of tea and not everyone has the same tastes as I do. Similarly I can despise a popular score such as the first Pirates of the Caribbean score by Klaus Badelt & ghostwriters of Remote Control Studios because of so many reasons that I don't want to list them here, but yet that particular score became one of the best-selling soundtracks ever. So, I understand if you don't necessarily like the BatB score as much as many others do.

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.

I definitely agree with you on how "Gaston" is a marvellously satirical commentary, and it also helps the narrative by explaining more of Gaston's character (and particularly some of the darker aspects as later heard in the reprise), which in turn foreshadows later developments in the plot as well as the climactic showdown with the Beast.

[UncleEd]

"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"


There you go insulting people again...

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

Uh, nope. Go get a good old fashioned American name like Joe or Bob and you wouldn't have this problem.

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

You said Bambi had a better villain, man. Well, I think Bambi is greatly over rated so there.

"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. "

Oh, yes. I'm so sure than hundreds of Disney artists, writers, and legal, many of them women themselves, all missed that when it was so clear as dau that only you notice it.

Belle wasn't kidnapped. She took her father's place.

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

No it's not. Mermaid is much more simple in every way compared to Beauty. Oliver and Great Mouse Dectective even more so.

"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. "

What do you think I'm suggesting? Look, the story is Beauty and the Beast. If you have him stay a Beast or shebecomes a beasy then you have the Jay Ward version. He did both takes on that. The fairy tale is what it is. If you're too ignorant to get it's meaning then just don't read it. According to you we have millioins of abusive men and battered women in thiscountry because of this film and no one but you buys it.

"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. "

You obviously don't understand people, do you?

"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. "

Belle wasn't stupid.

"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. "

I'm not attacking Disney. I'm comparing 1 princess to another. I never said there was anything wrong with Ariel either. I just calls 'em likes I sees 'em.

"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."

There's no magic in Lion King or Pocahontas!!!

" 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. "

Beauty and the Beast is the greatest animated feature produced in modern times. Period.

"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. "

Translation: You gots me good and I knows it so I'm ignoring your points proven so I don't feel bad about myself.

"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. "

There's nothing wrong with Snow White. Sure her voice is annoying at times but that doesn't make her foolish. Only you would bash one of the best landmark films ever made. Who's to say that in 50 years Ariel and Jasmine won't be considered foolish by the people in that upcoming generation? Perception of films and stories by "those more enlightened" changes wiuth generations. People of the 30's didn't look at Snow White in the same way people did in the 90's. It's why Snow White is flat chested until the 90's publicity art.

"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. "

Um, no. People like the music because it's GREAT!!!

"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. I"

I don't know, according to you they did make the dark powerful enough for you to believe that th beast is an abusive spouse.

"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."

And that's why a group of his peers awarded that "hack" Alan Menken an Oscar for his score. Surely if your points were valid he would have lost.

" 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."

Um, Bob, I have a newsflash for you.....She's a CARTOON in a FAIRY TALE that's set to FILM, she's not a real woman.

"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."

Translation: You have bested me once again but watch me slip through your fingers faster than a greased Bill Clinton...

"It's still a ridiculous movie. But the gag here is how people take it seriously and can't see through it."

Oh, yes! And you're the only enlightened one...

"I'll never accept Beauty as a magical film. Because it didn't work on me."

Then don't. It's your loss.

" 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."

GASP!!! Even the mediocre ones????

"And my complains have total merit."

Hey, Bob. The word is complaints, not complains. See, you make typos too.

"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?"

But they were both birds, one was transformed into a fish. Still sounds like you're trying to play the "Love knows no boundaries, age, religion, gender, creed..." card and we all know that NEVER works in the real world.

"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. "

You mean like when you implied I couldn't read because I typoed your name once? You have no idea what is true. You live in your own little bubble where you find offensive fault with things that contain nothing wrong.

"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. "

Then why is it only you see it?

"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. "

You sure you weren't watching a Good Times knock off?

"For instance, the very first scene where Belle becomes a slave - Lumiere makes a joke about it."

How did he make a joke by suggesting the Beast take her into the castle?

"That's what I was talking about when I said this was a situation that it's not appropriate to make light of. "

Ha, Ha. Of course Lumiere makes light of everything. He's a candle! Ha!

"Okay, now you are just being silly"

And you're such a riot they should dress you up in a jester's outfit to prance for our amusement.

"But now you're just throwing anything out at the wall and hoping it will stick. "

And what would you say you're doing? Nothing has stuck yet, has it?

" It is not mature of a film to have a free-thinking, independent woman suddenly become giddy and giggly just for plot convenience."

Maybe Belle is a more traditional free-thinking, independent woman? You don't have to be a hairy-legged Femi Nazi to be a free-thinking, independent woman.

"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!""

No. The enchanted objects invited her to dinner behind the Beast's back. Belle was curious because she was in an enchanted castle she had only read about in myths and folklore. And if Belle is as smart enough to know she's in an enchanted castle I'm sure she's smart enough to know that the Beast has an enchantment of some sort on him. She also knows you can't let on you know or the spells will never be broken. Belle is a smart cookie and not as stupid as you think she is.

"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!"

They followed him because he stired up their fears. Not unlike the KKK in their hey day.Mob mentality is famous for doing stupid things without thinking. That's why they're called mobs. I see nothing wrong with the same done here.

"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."

No, you're angry they don't see it as this pro abuse propaganda you seem to think it is.'

"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."

There's no difference. We all know the Fish and bird argument Bob proposed is really an example to get a foot in the door for the other.

"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. "

They cruxified Christ. Lay into me, baby!!!

"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? "

I'd ay that's more like several hours. Maurice found his way back to the pub in the time. It's more than 1 hour. I'd say Belle left for the castle in the morning and made her deal by early afternoon. The Beast's dinner could have been as early as 3 and Belle might not have had her's until 9 or 10. It was dark when she left the castle after all.

"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."

I thought you never insult people?

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

Could have fooled me. You need a diaper change, a nap, and a time out.

"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."

Alrhough Sleeping Beauty looks great the story is weak. Even the animators and historians agree to this. It's a FLAWED film.

"If it wasn't overrated, I would find more about it to like. "

Which prove you have an axe to grind with it.

So what have we learned today, folks?

1.) Bob hates traditional things

2.) Bob finds fault with things that aren't there.

3.) Bob wants Beauty and the Beast to become a platform for pro gay marriage

Final score:

Ed - 10

Bob - -0

YOU LOSE!!!!!

[Lazario]

I think this is the first time in the history of my memberage of Ultimate Disney is which I'm actually going to avoid getting into an argument.

Ed, you aren't worth my time or effort. I have been here for over 2 and a half years and I have been challenged by bigger, better, and badder than you. But I'm still here.

You are a waste in every sense of the word.
Go play with yourself. I'm sitting this one out.



Kossage, I'll get to your message tomorrow.

[UncleEd]

"Ed, you aren't worth my time or effort. I have been here for over 2 and a half years and I have been challenged by bigger, better, and badder than you. But I'm still here.

You are a waste in every sense of the word.
Go play with yourself. I'm sitting this one o"

Translation:

Wow, Ed, you really mopped the floor with my ass through your superior knowledge. You really licked me. Now I'm going to go hide and lick my wounds.

[Beast_enchantment]

Wow, Ed, you really mopped the floor with my ass through your superior knowledge. You really licked me. Now I'm going to go hide and lick my wounds.

lol!
pretty accurate

[Lazario]

Translation:

Wow, Ed, you really mopped the floor with my ass through your superior knowledge. You really licked me. Now I'm going to go hide and lick my wounds.

You are so pathetic, I don't know where to begin. Nor does anyone in your real life, I imagine. Which is probably why you fight your battles on a message board.

If you had "mopped the floor" with anything, I most likely would not have said anything. And you don't see me hiding anywhere.

[UmbrellaFish]

Okay, why do I like/dislike BATB?


It's a classic fairytale. You gotta love that. The message it sends is a wonderful one, and I think Lazario does read a little too much it to it, but I agree with some of his opinions.
I also like the movie for the music and animation. When I watch the movie, I just feel warm. No other movie has that effect over me.

The reasons I dislike. I suppose there is nothing I could exactly pinpoint. The movie just misses something for me. Though personally I think it's full of Disney magic. The kind that warms your heart at least.

I have to say I am surprised at this debate. Being a TLM fan, I've heard countless times that it spreads a bad message, or the animation is bad and off-model, or other such things. But when it comes to push and shove I like The Little Mermaid because it reminds me most of the Disney magic. The Disney magic I believe in. Obiviously, UncleEd and Beast_enchantment find Disney magic in Beauty and the Beast. Otherwise they wouldn't be debating with Lazario about the movie's magic. Also, obviously, Lazario finds Disney magic a different way. And remember, how much a movie makes in sales means nothing. The Black Cauldron is just as important and good as The Little Mermaid.

Keep debating over whatever you think about the movies, but let's not swear or make fun of people. We need stimulating conversations, not name-calling.

[Lazario]

Keep debating over whatever you think about the movies, but let's not swear or make fun of people. We need stimulating conversations, not name-calling.

Oh, this "conversation"s gone right down the crapper. I admit I'm hard to talk to at times. But at least I don't degrade the entire discussion by making it about politics. (This one, anyway)

[Disney Duster]

If Beauty and the Beast isn't complex, this discussion of it sure is. Here we go!

I Love Bambi, this is not about corrupting children, this is about the filmakers not realizing they could be sending a harmful message, and you have to admit it could at least be there. Anyway, as I said, it's the fact that the beast became someone handsome and beautiful and traditional for Belle to love after the story about loving despite the appearance, when it really wasn't needed for him to be handsome anyway. If we are supposed to apply the messages of a film to our own life, we could say the beast represents and undesirable looking man. But if someone loves him and then he changes into a desirable man...well, that doesn't happen in real life, and we shouldn't make people change like that, and it's just downright not nice to expect it to happen.

As for the source material, they actually changed the story from Beauty having sisters and her father bringing Beauty a rose from the Beast's garden, then the Beast telling him he must give him one of his daughters in exchange for the rose, and guess which one that was? They also added a lot more, like the enchanted objects and Gaston, so they changed the source material a lot, they didn't have to stick to the transformation, either.

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

Well, I guess he explained it already, but he never said he hated most Disney films. Come on now, you made a mistake, and I provided evidence of what he really thought. You read him wrong.

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.

First off, it doesn't matter if you have an axe to grind or not, if you find bad things about something, then you still have them. You can't say they don't exist because the people found them out of dislike. Anyway, notice I mentioned the interviews of two young girls who thought Belle could stay with the Best and change him with her sweetness. Do you want girls to think they can change an abusive guy just by being nice to him? This shows that children really are getting bad messages from the film.

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?

Actually he said:

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."

All he said was he was angry with the Beast's change, and did not specify what that change was, but the word "superficial" helped me to think it was about the fact he was handsome, along with saying the changed beast looked like her, a girl who's designed to be beautiful and her name means Beauty. It was possible for me to read that he was angry at the beast changing into someone handsome and traditional, while you only read that he thought it bad to change him to a human. So we read it different ways. Its possible, and it happened.

...was the prince all that handsome? I've heard plenty of women say he was not.

I've heard people agree, but that doesn't matter because we know the prince was intended to be handsome. He had chiseled, typically super-model features, and makes a match with beautiful Belle. You can't deny he is tall, hairless, and buff, which are all desired traits of a man and what is considered handsome. If the animators didn't please everyone, of course beauty's in the eye of the beholder, but they obviously tried to make him beautiful. He looks like one of the statues on his castle.

"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.

Well, I didn't find any whiffs of it, you did, and pulled them out, which means that if Lazario wasn't intending that, you're the one who presented it. I admit, I assumed you had problems with same sex marriage but that came from very clear indications as you tried to equate person + person (of same sex) with person + animal, and even more so by saying "what if I do have a problem with same sex marriage?"

On a side note, I'm very interested in that Thomas Schumacher thing, and curious to know what you think he injected into the later films.

..."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.

What you said was rather confusing. Just as bad as...what? All I did was capitalize the words that I wanted to show were so different from each other, and you can't deny that they are really different, even if you think they're both bad. As for injecting my morality on others, I only expressed my opinion and reasons for it. Just like when you said the mob that wants to kill the beast is like the KKK, I said a human and an animal is unlike a human and a human.

"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?

Well, Belle fought with him but stayed with him despite the danger to herself (he definitely could have been dangerous, she didn't know what he was capable of, the audience might, but not her). In real life, women may fight or "butt heads" with their partner, but they stay with them despite the abuse. The fact that they try to fight or "butt heads" doesn't matter if they're still receiving abuse.

See, you agree with Lazario so you circle the wagons around his idiotic statements because you agree with them.

I let him go because he said there's a lot of screwed up people in the world which could have implied beast_enchantment, but it was possible to be taken as a tease and I took it that he was saying beast_enchantment only didn't realize the screwed up messages in the film. You on the other hand directly and obviously insulted Lazario with "You're living proof of your final statement" after "Well, there are certainly a lot of very screwed up adults in the world." That couldn't have been taken any other way or in a teasing way.

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

I do when they're not there.

But what about you suggesting the film could have a pro-gay-marriage theme? Or that Thomas Schumacher injected "kooky beliefs" into later films? If I can attempt to see those messages, than you can attempt to see Lazario's or mine, too! So why not at least consider what bad messages a movie for your children could be sending, even by accident?

"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.

Well, the thing is children don't realize what messages they're getting all the time, just like they don't realize that by watching their parents they're learning about what gender roles to follow and what is expected of them, and so forth. And what about the children who watch the films Thomas Schumacher had to do with and they don't realize "they're minds are being warped"? Though I have yet to hear what messages you think are there and whether I find them valid or not, I'm just using what you said as an example.

"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.

Um...as I said, he gave opinion, and opinion is never wrong or right, and never fact. I don't know what you meant by "how can I change what he said when he said it", because you didn't change anything, you just said that his opinion is incorrect and opinion never can be incorrect. There's no such thing as a correct opinion. And I will have you know that I've seen Song of the South, I don't like it, but I think it should be released.

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?

I never told anyone they were wrong. That was you who came out and said me and Lazario were wrong.

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...

That doesn't matter because people don't always realize the bad messages they send either. It was not intended for Beauty and the Beast to end up with the messages it has. But what about the fairy tale Cinderella, which contains the possible message that you should stay in a bad situation (with an abusive family) until a man (the prince or king or any of the men who came to her house) saves you? Cinderella is my favorite Disney film and I look for other, better messages in it, but I can't deny that that message can and has been found, so it's there. It's not right or wrong, it's just possible. I can find things that possibly refute the message upon further thinking by pointing out Cinderella does some things herself to help her out of the situation or the men can't really help her themselves, but the message was found. Back to my main point, many women have adapted the Cinderella story, especially in a lot of books, with dialogue they write for it, but they're still using a story that contains a possible bad message. It's doesn't matter whether they see it or not, it's there to be seen by the people who can.

Now onto Lazario! You've carefully looked at the Disney films, and that's very thorough and good. I haven't done the same to know what Disney magic you've found but I have gotten wonderful feelings from Beauty and the Beast, perhaps it is just a pleasantness that people have thought was Disney magic to you, but I don't think so because it's almost an unsettling, sad and yet also wonderful...magical feeling. Like the complicated eerie music you complained was doing to many things at once. But my magical feelings don't matter in this discussion, because I still don't care for Beauty and the Beast that much.

I can understand thinking a movie is horrible for a horrible main character, but I think the many good things about it can subvert the bad. In Snow White's case, the main thing was I felt bad for Snow White as she was getting tricked into eating the apple, and then bad for her and the dwarves when she died. That was the main attraction of the movie, and I don't know if a wiser Snow White would have enabled such a thing. Also, innocence and goodness are linked to stupidity and helplessness, and Snow White is supposed to be a child in many ways, including the fact she's trusting and unknowing. Did you also notice her design is rather childish? It was all for a reason.

I don't think you had what beast_enchantment found in the film "wrapped up." You think it's pleasantness, but since the music's so well-crafted and so is the animation (in general, despite the bad scenes) and there's darkness and sadness and eeriness, I don't think you can surely say you know it's the pleasantness that makes him like it.

I now see what you meant about Beauty and the Beast's score and how it is inferior to those of Bambi or Snow White, thanks also in part to Kossage. I can only say you have good points but until I watch the movie again to possibly feel different I will think fondly of the eerie yet romantic, sad yet hopeful orchestrations of Beauty and the Beast. But I can now see in what way it is bad.

As for "Kill the Beast", I suppose I can see how its good in that the village is evidenced to adore Gaston at the wedding and his tavern so joining him in his hunt for the beast flies, and it shows how they are scared into fighting, but then I can see how its bad in that it may not be believable enough or the people actually talk about their refusal to consider their intentions unjust as they mindlessly go to kill something they don't know about. Since you don't want to get into it with me because it would be rather stressful or hurtful to you and then others, all right, maybe you want to direct me to the threads you did talk about it?

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.

First of all, I said that you must agree that magic and trickery are associated, not that they're the same thing. Once again we run into the problem that Disney magic is different for everyone, but if you say that you found one kind in all these films except two, then that is actually a kind of fact because you've found a specific kind of magic to one definition in your head. If you gave examples or comparisons, maybe we could understand better.

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.

It was off track because beast_enchantment was obviously talking about the transformation scene in the animation and music and feeling sense. You were talking about the plot point of the transformation. Those are different things, and so you went off track of what beast_enchantment was talking about.

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.[/quote]
Okay, well, cruelty is intangible so we don't all have the same definitions, but dictionary.com described it as "willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others." I have a feeling you were thinking of a slightly different or more extreme meaning. In fact, what I meant was that what you said wasn't necessarily meant to harm but you didn't care if it did. I myself have said things I know could possibly hurt others, but I say them to help make my points or because they are the truth (like you do) and I hope that people don't take them to be hurtful unless they can't be taken any other way. I'm sure you could find something I said in this discussion that could possibly be considered cruel, I just considered what you said to be in that instance. Anyway, the comment I was talking about was a jab at beast_enchantment in suggesting he was crazy for what he said. I could understand it just be poking fun if I didn't take the whole tone of your post to be so negative towards him.

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.

Yes, now I can see how the music and story could be so bad, and how it comes down to interpreting the story, and how some ways can be viewed as wrong. I don't know if it's wrong or just different, though.

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.

I read and saw how the film could be immature, but that's just one way something can be immature. Maturity does have different meanings, simply go to this page on dictionary.com and see how it can mean full development or intended for adults. But anyway, I admit I may try too much to see the many possible ways things can be viewed, so perhaps I should have said maturity can have multiple connotations since the connotations change the meaning.

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.

Yea well, good point for you, too.

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

So now I can see what you meant, but in the way that beast_enchantment meant it was very on track. He meant that since most adults tend to like mature things or things that are considered better than things for kids, it's one indication Beauty and the Beast is a good movie and better than a lot of other Disney films. That's what he meant and in that way it was very on track.

[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."

I don't know if giggling and childlike wonder is that much of a change. It's certainly rather childish to read fairy tales which are intended for children (well, as an adult I love them but I'm talking about the usual, the typical), and that's exactly what she does, and what she dreams of. Then she finds a magical castle with talking sidekicks, so how do you expect her to inquire about them? All in all I agree Belle might have needed more time to think about her father or try to reason with the beast to go see him more, but her acting differently when she is experiencing different feelings...come on, she's supposed to be intelligent and like to find out and know things, that's what she does as she explores the castle.

And I'd like to say, this is one of my biggest problems with Belle. She's supposed to be so smart and intelligent just because she reads, but she reads fairy tales. People have constantly called her the smart one of the Disney princesses when she's not all that different from them, especially if she's reading about and dreaming of living the kinds of tales they've been in.

Personally, I found "Gaston" too annoying and too Broadway-esque. "Be Our Guest" may be the most Broadway-esque number, but it fit because they were putting on a show. "Gaston" didn't fit in the context or what was actually going on. Aside from the way it's sung, it's especially annoying when I hear the dialogue of Gaston planning what to do, it sounds so forced into the musical number, and very characteristic of Broadway-like musicals. It has a lot of good things but the points I made overcome them for me.

And now I turn back to UncleEd.

Oh, yes. I'm so sure than hundreds of Disney artists, writers, and legal, many of them women themselves, all missed that when it was so clear as dau that only you notice it.

But I noticed it too, and so did more people in that video and that video was posted in a thread here and many more people saw it and saw the bad message and discussed why or why not they agreed with it and so on.

According to you we have millioins of abusive men and battered women in thiscountry because of this film and no one but you buys it.

No, Lazario never said that. He said the film could send a bad message that could cause battered women to put up with abusive men.

I never said there was anything wrong with Ariel either. I just calls 'em likes I sees 'em.

Really?

Ariel's choices were always based on impulsive, emotional selfishness, and what she wanted so she got burned.

Impulsiveness and selfishness are usually considered bad or something wrong with a person, and people get punished or "burned" for doing things wrong, so I have strong evidence you meant there was something wrong with Ariel.

"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. "

Translation: You gots me good and I knows it so I'm ignoring your points proven so I don't feel bad about myself.

Well, that's not how I translated it, and since it was directed at me, it matters more what I think of it. I didn't translate Lazario as being "gotten" or that he ignored my points or that he felt bad.

"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."

There's nothing wrong with Snow White. Sure her voice is annoying at times but that doesn't make her foolish.

WOW. Lazario never even mentioned her voice being one of the reasons she was foolish. You found no way to refute what he said at all.

"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.

I don't know, according to you they did make the dark powerful enough for you to believe that the beast is an abusive spouse.

To be honest, I would have agreed with that, but Lazario's point was it wasn't dark or powerful in a professional or mature way.

"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."

And that's why a group of his peers awarded that "hack" Alan Menken an Oscar for his score. Surely if your points were valid he would have lost.

Or his peers didn't see what was bad. So they didn't.

" 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."

Um, Bob, I have a newsflash for you.....She's a CARTOON in a FAIRY TALE that's set to FILM, she's not a real woman.

First of all his name is Lazario not Bob, get it right, and second of all you previously said:

"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."

You obviously don't understand people, do you?

So after Lazario explained why she's not like a real person, you indicated he didn't understand that she was like a real person, meaning you thought people in films should be treated like, well, people.

"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."

Translation: You have bested me once again but watch me slip through your fingers faster than a greased Bill Clinton...

No, since that was also directed to me it matters more that I translated it as him not wanting to talk about something that is so awful it really bothers him to even talk about it, and not that I bested him or the rest of what you translated at all.

"It's still a ridiculous movie. But the gag here is how people take it seriously and can't see through it."

Oh, yes! And you're the only enlightened one...

No, me and the people in the video and the other people on here who watched the video saw it too.

Still sounds like you're trying to play the "Love knows no boundaries, age, religion, gender, creed..." card and we all know that NEVER works in the real world.

No, we don't all know it never works in the real world. My mom was Moravian and married my Catholic father, they've been together all my life. They even look very different from each other. And anyway, it's just a fact that not everyone in the world can ever know that what you said never works, uh, never works.

You have no idea what is true. You live in your own little bubble where you find offensive fault with things that contain nothing wrong.

I disagree, I think Lazario has lots of good ideas that have lots of truth.

"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. "

Then why is it only you see it?

I see it too, and so did the people in the video, and the people on here who watched the video. It's here on the forum and if you want I'll even direct you to it.

And you're such a riot they should dress you up in a jester's outfit to prance for our amusement.

No they shouldn't. Lazario doesn't deserve even the suggestion of that.

"But now you're just throwing anything out at the wall and hoping it will stick. "

And what would you say you're doing? Nothing has stuck yet, has it?

It's stuck to me and Kossage.

"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!"

And if Belle is as smart enough to know she's in an enchanted castle I'm sure she's smart enough to know that the Beast has an enchantment of some sort on him. She also knows you can't let on you know or the spells will never be broken. Belle is a smart cookie and not as stupid as you think she is.

Belle wasn't even sure if the prince was the Beast she fell in love with as she revealed when she said, "It is you!", and she said that after looking at his picture before. That's not very smart. And wouldn't the Beast know she knew something if she was in the West Wing with the rose? And so, did she know she was going to be able to break whatever enchantment there was? Why didn't she try to find out how to break the enchantment after she and the Beast were living peacefully? And who says you can't let on that you know a spell or it can't be broken? Sure, that may be the case with other fairy tales or other versions of Beauty an the Beast, but that is never established in this film.

"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."

There's no difference. We all know the Fish and bird argument Bob proposed is really an example to get a foot in the door for the other.

What do you mean by that? I mean, there's a big difference between a person loving a person and a person loving an animal...what were you getting at?

"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? "

I'd ay that's more like several hours. Maurice found his way back to the pub in the time. It's more than 1 hour. I'd say Belle left for the castle in the morning and made her deal by early afternoon. The Beast's dinner could have been as early as 3 and Belle might not have had her's until 9 or 10. It was dark when she left the castle after all.

You know what? Those were good points.

So what have we learned today, folks?

1.) Bob hates traditional things

2.) Bob finds fault with things that aren't there.

3.) Bob wants Beauty and the Beast to become a platform for pro gay marriage

Final score:

Ed - 10

Bob - -0

YOU LOSE!!!!!

NONE of that has been proven. Really bad try.

Translation:

Wow, Ed, you really mopped the floor with my ass through your superior knowledge. You really licked me. Now I'm going to go hide and lick my wounds.

But you didn't mop the floor with Lazario's anything, and you didn't provide any superior knowledge while Lazario did. You didn't lick him at all. Mostly what you did is just refute or say the opposite of what he said or simply say something to the effect of "no you're wrong" without providing good reasons, explanations, or, well, logic.

Here's some of the best examples of why:

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

No it's not. Mermaid is much more simple in every way compared to Beauty. Oliver and Great Mouse Dectective even more so.

All you did was say the opposite of what Lazario said. Lazario gave reasons why Beauty and the Beast was so simple, but you didn't do a thing to prove otherwise.

"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."

Belle wasn't stupid.

You just made a statement without logic backing it up. And even though you only tried to refute something Lazario said, he didn't even say that. Lazario said that the movie treated Belle like she was stupid.

"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."

Um, no. People like the music because it's GREAT!!!

Wow. You didn't give any reasons or logic as to why you can think that, when Lazario gave countless ones, especially in his post to Kossage about why the music isn't great. By the way, "great" is an unspecific word that is much less definable than "pleasantness", so while Lazario makes it easy to see what he's talking about, you haven't let us know what makes the music great.

And those are examples of why Lazario provided logoc superior to yours, and if anyone "won" this, it was Lazario.

lol!
pretty accurate

No, it's not accurate as I showed. I don't understand why you can think UncleEd won an argument where he argued against gay marriage after everything I know about you. Did your love for Beauty and the Beast overcome your desire to marry the person you love?

[Lazario]

Beauty and the Beast is one of those movies that people make more important than it really is because to them it represents something so special... It's all in you guys, not the movie.


As for this discussion, it might have been complex, something. Whatever. But now Ed's turned it into "I'm better than you are because I'm a traditionalist and you're the psycho radical." Or whatever- I really don't know what his game is. I'm not into playing stupid games. Nor did I know that true respect for strong female characters was so radical. Belle starts out strong, but the movie makes her weak. At least by 1991 standards. It's insulting.

If you don't agree, I think you're not looking at it the right way. If you don't like that, deal with it. I do not care.

[UncleEd]

"You are so pathetic, I don't know where to begin. Nor does anyone in your real life, I imagine. Which is probably why you fight your battles on a message board. Rolling Eyes"

Ha! You don't know a thing about my real life! I only "fight a battle" when it has to do with silly people like you reading things into harmless films like Beauty and the Beast or Song of the South. I'm just an advocate for films being portrayed in an honest light. But your agenda is to attack people rather than discuss their brilliant, valid points.

"If you had "mopped the floor" with anything, I most likely would not have said anything. And you don't see me hiding anywhere."

No, you attack. It's the same thing.

"Oh, this "conversation"s gone right down the crapper. I admit I'm hard to talk to at times. But at least I don't degrade the entire discussion by making it about politics. (This one, anyway)"

Um, you did.

"You read him wrong. "

No I didn't. I'm always right...in so many ways..

"First off, it doesn't matter if you have an axe to grind or not, if you find bad things about something, then you still have them. You can't say they don't exist because the people found them out of dislike."

Yeah and Song of the South is really about happy slaves....

"Anyway, notice I mentioned the interviews of two young girls who thought Belle could stay with the Best and change him with her sweetness. Do you want girls to think they can change an abusive guy just by being nice to him? This shows that children really are getting bad messages from the film."

I was too busy beating my wife to notice...but seriously, we don't know in what context these interviews were done or how they were edited. As a film maker I know how easy it is to do trickery with film and be a Michael Moore.

"All he said was he was angry with the Beast's change, and did not specify what that change was, but the word "superficial" helped me to think it was about the fact he was handsome, along with saying the changed beast looked like her, a girl who's designed to be beautiful and her name means Beauty. It was possible for me to read that he was angry at the beast changing into someone handsome and traditional, while you only read that he thought it bad to change him to a human. So we read it different ways. Its possible, and it happened."

Oh, yes. There are no wrong answers. Morality is relative and all of that jazz. You say what you mean or you don't. Not everything is cryptic with mutiple meanings...

"I've heard people agree, but that doesn't matter because we know the prince was intended to be handsome."

He's either handsome or he's not. You can't intend to be handsome and not be. Otherwise there's a whole world full of ugly people who intended to be handsome...

"Well, I didn't find any whiffs of it, you did, and pulled them out, which means that if Lazario wasn't intending that, you're the one who presented it. I admit, I assumed you had problems with same sex marriage but that came from very clear indications as you tried to equate person + person (of same sex) with person + animal, and even more so by saying "what if I do have a problem with same sex marriage?" "

See, you read stuff in my post I did not intend so there.

"On a side note, I'm very interested in that Thomas Schumacher thing, and curious to know what you think he injected into the later films."

Thomas Schumacher once said something to the effect of he could change the world by indoctrinating children with what he believed in Disney films. He is responsible for the enviornmentalism in Pocahontas and Lion King but his career highlight was to be that cancelled film called Wild Life with flamboyantly gay characters and gay inuendo. Roy Disney screened it and was appauled. He said "We don't make films like this at Disney" and shut it down after 5 years of production. The thing that put Roy over the edge was a joke about "man holes". Every animator I've ever talked to, and some were very well known HATED Thomas Schumacher and told me stories about what a jerk he really is. If you see interviews of some of these same people on the DVDs you laugh when you hear what they say about him in the interviews if you know the real story. On David Pruiksma's site he had a page all about Schumacher as the one who ended it all (since Snow White started it all) and he wrote a fable about the destruction of feature animation with Schumacher as the Dark Fairy (Fairy had 2 meanings here, the tinkerbell type creature and because he's gay.) If he still has it up go check it out.

"All I did was capitalize the words that I wanted to show were so different from each other, and you can't deny that they are really different, even if you think they're both bad."

They're the same thing.

"As for injecting my morality on others, I only expressed my opinion and reasons for it. Just like when you said the mob that wants to kill the beast is like the KKK,"

No, I said the KKK was similar to the mob. It had nothing to do with morality. But everyone knows it's wrong to kill people. Duh!


"I said a human and an animal is unlike a human and a human. "

And a male and a male and a femal and a female are not like a male and a female.

"Well, Belle fought with him but stayed with him despite the danger to herself (he definitely could have been dangerous, she didn't know what he was capable of, the audience might, but not her). In real life, women may fight or "butt heads" with their partner, but they stay with them despite the abuse. The fact that they try to fight or "butt heads" doesn't matter if they're still receiving abuse. "

Doesn't Belle chew the Beast out and he's not a jerk after that? I still don't see the Beast as being abusive.

"I let him go because he said there's a lot of screwed up people in the world which could have implied beast_enchantment, but it was possible to be taken as a tease and I took it that he was saying beast_enchantment only didn't realize the screwed up messages in the film. You on the other hand directly and obviously insulted Lazario with "You're living proof of your final statement" after "Well, there are certainly a lot of very screwed up adults in the world." That couldn't have been taken any other way or in a teasing way. "

Bob meant it eaxtly as I took it. He was trying to imply fans of the film are screwed up. I cleverly turned his insult back on him and it must have worked because you cry foul.

"But what about you suggesting the film could have a pro-gay-marriage theme?"

The termonology Bob used about the Beast remaining a Beast is just a leap away from turning this into a film about the gay marriage thing. That whole thing is "You can't confine love to a flesh and blood body" is exactly the door that opens up. That isn't what the fairy tale is about but this is probably why he (and you) would rather it be changed this way.

"Or that Thomas Schumacher injected "kooky beliefs" into later films? If I can attempt to see those messages, than you can attempt to see Lazario's or mine, too! So why not at least consider what bad messages a movie for your children could be sending, even by accident? "

Wrong! Thomas Schumacher's stuff IS intentional AND kooky! The stuff you and Bob say is in Beauty and the Beast is not there.

"Well, the thing is children don't realize what messages they're getting all the time, just like they don't realize that by watching their parents they're learning about what gender roles to follow and what is expected of them, and so forth. And what about the children who watch the films"

Children know more than you think and only the unshepherded base their reality on films. I should know, I've met plenty of them who grew up in the 80's.


"Thomas Schumacher had to do with and they don't realize "they're minds are being warped"? Though I have yet to hear what messages you think are there and whether I find them valid or not, I'm just using what you said as an example."

It doesn't matter if you find them valid or not if he admits putting them there and why he did so. That means they are there and intentional.

"Um...as I said, he gave opinion, and opinion is never wrong or right, and never fact."

Then what if someone tells you it's their opinion the Holochaust never happened? Opinions can and are wrong all the time.

" And I will have you know that I've seen Song of the South, I don't like it,"

Good for you! Why don't you like it? I like to tell people I liked it so much it made me go out and join the KKK and get me some slaves to prove how absurd that argument is.

"I never told anyone they were wrong."

You did so.

"But what about the fairy tale Cinderella, which contains the possible message that you should stay in a bad situation (with an abusive family) until a man (the prince or king or any of the men who came to her house) saves you?"

The Prince didn't save Cinderella. She saved herself. In the fairy tale she also forgave her family but the prince killed them.

"I can find things that possibly refute the message upon further thinking by pointing out Cinderella does some things herself to help her out of the situation or the men can't really help her themselves, but the message was found."

You just deluded your own claim proving how it's not there. I can find anything I want to in any film I choose. That doesn't mean it's there.

"Back to my main point, many women have adapted the Cinderella story, especially in a lot of books, with dialogue they write for it, but they're still using a story that contains a possible bad message."

According to previous things you've said there can be no right or wrong messages so whose to say a man saving you is wrong?

"But I noticed it too, and so did more people in that video and that video was posted in a thread here and many more people saw it and saw the bad message and discussed why or why not they agreed with it and so on. "

Only you and Bob seem to think this is there...

"No, Lazario never said that. He said the film could send a bad message that could cause battered women to put up with abusive men. "

I want to see numbers that prove this is true. If it is then it has effected women and men. Show me the numbers!!!

"Really?"

Yep.

"Impulsiveness and selfishness are usually considered bad or something wrong with a person, and people get punished or 'burned" for doing things wrong, so I have strong evidence you meant there was something wrong with Ariel. "

And Ariel DID get burned. She only got her wish granted when she asked for her Father's forgiveness. I don't see anything wrong with that.

"WOW. Lazario never even mentioned her voice being ones of the reasons she was foolish. You found no way to refute what he said at all."

I was saying what many others have said about Snow White's voice.

"To be honest, I would have agreed with that, but Lazario's point was it wasn't dark or powerful in a professional or mature way."

Spin to circle those wagons!

"Or his peers didn't see what was bad. So they didn't. "

And we're talking hunderds and hundreds of sophisticated music people. Sure they couldn't tell a bad score when they see one. Therefore it's a good score.

"First of all his name is Lazario not Bob, get it right,"

His name is Bob.

"and second of all you previously said to Lazario "you obviously don't understand people, do you?", meaning you thought people in films should be treated like, well, people. "

Um, no.

"No, since that was also directed to me"

It wasn't.

"it matters more that I translated it as him not wanting to talk about something that is so awful it really bothers him to even talk about it, and not that I bested him or the rest of what you translated at all."


Bob brought this subject up in the FIRST PLACE. If it's so traumatic to him that he can't talk about it then he should have kept his mouth shut about it.

"No, me and the people in the video and the other people on here who watched the video saw it too. "

Videos prove nothing....

"No, we don't all know it never works in the real world. My mom was Moravian and married my Catholic father, they've been together all my life. They even look very different. And anyway, it's just a fact that not everyone in the world can ever know that what you said never works, uh, never works. "

I know it never works. They always claim it does but if religion really matters to you it matters and if you know the real story about the gay community you'd know it's not the silly, gay people the media portrays them to be. When I heard about the lesbian couple who got married a few years ago and now want a divorce and can't get one I just laughed. I remember when they were pushing that through they said gay relationships are more stable than traditional ones. Ha! So wrong...

"I disagree, I think Lazario has lots of good ideas that have lots of truth. "

You live in his same insane bubble.

"I see it too, and so did the people in the video, and the people on here who watched the video. It's here on the forum and if you want I'll even direct you to it. "

See above and Michael Moore says whatever he wants in his films and it's proven he makes stuff up. In one example he took 5 or so speeches Charlton Heston made and edited them together in a way that portrayed them to be one speech rallying the NRA to swarm into Columbine in reaction to the school shootings. The fact was these were 5 speechs, in many cases he altered what Heston said to say something different, and the NRA's convention was schedualed for Columbine years in advance. But through clever editing Moore said something different. Film can lie.

"No they shouldn't. Lazario doesn't deserve even the suggestion of that. "

Sure they should And you can be his prancing buddy. You're not as silly, you're just sad.

"It's stuck to me and Kossage. "

That's because you're kooks.

"Belle wasn't even sure if it was the Beast she fell in love with as she revealed when she said, 'It is you!", and after looking at his picture before. That's not very smart."

How do you know she didn't know? She obviously recognized the eyes in the painting, the Beast's eyes, and the Prince's eyss. I'm sure she knew something was up.

"And wouldn't the Beast know she knew something is she was in the West Wing with the rose?"

This could be part of why he didn't want her in the West Wing.

'"And so, did she know she was going to be able to break whatever enchantment there was? Why didn't she try to find out how to break the enchantment after she and the Beast were living peacefully? ""

I'm sure she read enough fairy tales to know about loves first kiss and all that jazz.

"What do you mean by that? I mean, there's a big difference between a person living a person and a person loving an animal...what were you getting at? "

Homosexuality is immoral. It doesn't negate talents people have, I love Howard Ashman's work but I still know he was an immoral man.

"You know what? Those were good points."

As is everything I say.

"Beauty and the Beast is one of those movies that people make more important than it really is because to them it represents something so special... It's all in you guys, not the movie."

No, it's in the film.

"But now Ed's turned it into "I'm better than you are because I'm a traditionalist and you're the psycho radical." Or whatever"

I NEVER said I was better than you but since you feel that way, thanks! I'll accept that I am you radical kook you!

"Belle starts out strong, but the movie makes her weak. At least by 1991 standards. It's insulting. "

YAWN. Go vote for Hitlery KKKlinton.

"If you don't agree, I think you're not looking at it the right way. If you don't like that, deal with it. I do not care."

Translation: I'm right! Look at me!!! You're all wrong! Me! Me! Me!

[Siren]

I remember when this movie came out, how they said it was one of the first Disney movies that had the biggest adult audience, that more adult couples were buying tickets than children. I heard that on some morning show.

Anyways, what I think of the movie. I thought it had a strong story and cast. I think the casting was perfect. As was the music. I have always loved Beast' design. He had so many different animal parts and you can see that easily. A gorilla's thick brow ridge. Wolf's legs and tail. Buffalo's head. Lion's mane. Boar facial structure. And the body of a bear. When it all comes together with those blue human eyes, he can seem so fearsome and so soft. Truly one of Glen Keane's greatest moments in his career was in Beast's final look and movement.

The comedy timing of the movie was well done too. At times the movie was dark, but they moved it along so well that the humor and music didn't seem out to place (see Guy Like You thread).

Gaston was not the strongest villain. You didn't really fear him like you did Cruella or Maleficent. He was just a regular guy. Yeah, he was pompous and arrogant and very vain, but was he really "bad"? In his eyes, Beast was just that, a beast. Another animal for his wall. He hunted him to keep Belle for himself and probably for the sheer joy of killing, as he seemed to do often. As far as he was concerned, it was another sport hunting trip. Not really the makings for a dastardly villain. His treatment of Maurice to manipulate Belle was far worse, IMO.

On the DVD treatment, though I like the additional Belle/Beast scenes and I know Human Again was in the original story treatment, it felt like a recap of "Be Our Guest". I would have rather the melancholy "If I Can't Love Her" or even more "How Long Must This Go On?".

Note: Hopefully my post won't be lost under the drivel of people's pathetic bickering.

[I Love Bambi]

If Beauty and the Beast isn't complex, this discussion of it sure is. Here we go!

I Love Bambi, this is not about corrupting children, this is about the filmakers not realizing they could be sending a harmful message, and you have to admit it could at least be there.

It is based on an old fairy tale, many of which today's audience could describe as "harmful" or a bad influence. If one thought about it, they would find that nearly every story has some sort of "harmful message" in it, but what matters the most is how far you take that 'message.'

The Beast changing into a handsome human is pure fantasy, obviously. But the point of the moral was not that you could transform an ugly person into a sweet and gentle one, it was to not judge a book by it's cover.

[Siren]

If Beauty and the Beast isn't complex, this discussion of it sure is. Here we go!

I Love Bambi, this is not about corrupting children, this is about the filmakers not realizing they could be sending a harmful message, and you have to admit it could at least be there. Anyway, as I said, it's the fact that the beast became someone handsome and beautiful and traditional for Belle to love after the story about loving despite the appearance, when it really wasn't needed for him to be handsome anyway. If we are supposed to apply the messages of a film to our own life, we could say the beast represents and undesirable looking man. But if someone loves him and then he changes into a desirable man...well, that doesn't happen in real life, and we shouldn't make people change like that, and it's just downright not nice to expect it to happen.

Can't say I see it the same way. He was a handsome prince before the transformation. But he sounded like a spoiled brat. He was vain and pig headed. In all truth, I think Prince Adam acted very much like Gaston before his transformation. He had a big beautiful portrait of himself IN HIS BEDROOM. Something very vain of him. He turned away an ugly woman because she displeased him just for her looks. I bet he and Gaston would have made great friends, until they fought over who was better looking. All the enchantress did was make the ugliness on his inside show on the outside. To gain love, he couldn't use his looks, he would have to use his heart. His personality. And to do that, he had the make a greater change than any magical transformation could do. He had to completely change how he ever thought of himself, his servants, and the world. As the movie progressed, he treated his servants better. Treated them like friends rather than the help. And in the end, when he transformed, Belle didn't jump right into his arms. He wasn't the handsome prince she may have been dreaming of. Up to that point, she was in love with Beast, she had to take several moments to look into his eyes, to see him. Not his long hair, not his chiseled looks. She had to see the soul she saw when he was a beast. And once she knew it was him, they embraced, but only when she knew.

[Chernabog_Rocks]

Don't worry Siren, I read your posts

I agree with you about Glean Keane's design of Beast, how it's one of his best. What I love about it is how despite it's an assortment of parts, it still looks natural, not some grotesque frankenstein of animal parts.

Gaston and Beast seem to mirror each other at times personality and action wise in the movie, they both capture Maurice and use him to blackmail Belle essentially. Also they're both obviously vain In a weird way they seem to complete each other, during the fight sequence at the end Beast is in love with Belle and is all nice, he's "beautiful" on the inside, whereas Gaston turns ugly on the inside and becomes more full of hate sort of like Yin and Yang. Of course, during the middle half/early parts of the movie Gaston is "beautiful" on the outside, while Beast is full of hate on the inside so by the end of the movie both characters have switched so to speak.

Here's an old post of mine from AwallaceUNC's thread that should *hopefully* help clarify what I'm trying to say.

"Well lots of people these days are selfish so would that make them a "villain" as well? I know that's not the best point in the world but I try Anyways the Beast could have been considered a villain before the events of BATB by the towns/village people, but now throughout the movie he's slowly redeeming himself by learning to be a good guy again, by learning to love, and be caring, gentle and patient. Gaston on the other hand was trying to win Belle's hand ONLY because of her looks as he sings in Belle " Here in town there's only she, who is as beautiful as me, so I"m going to woo and marry Belle" he was doing it for all the wrong reasons, and on top of that he blackmailed her into marrying him by throwing her dad in the Looney Bin, than he tried to eliminate the competition. So Gaston is the main villain of the movie, and Beast like I said was a villain most likely but has now redeemed himself through his actions."

Hope that all makes sense

[Lazario]

YAWN. Go vote for Hitlery KKKlinton.

That's pathetic, and so are you.
And that's all the paying of mind you're worth.

[Chernabog_Rocks]

Ok, so now that I've finally finished the last two pages of this thread I must admit Lazario does bring up many interesting points about the movie, and I must admit I would never have thought about the movie in those ways or even noticed any of his points if he hadn't mentioned them.

So thanks Laz for showing me the movie in a new way, it may not be all sachharine (sp?) and fluffy but it is a rather unique perspective

I guess it's sort of ironic since this movie is about Beauty and the Beast, and yet while this movie is visually pleasing, it does have it's beast like qualities/undertones. Of course I'm not too sure if it's irony or not I could be a bit off

[Beast_enchantment]

Gaston and Beast seem to mirror each other at times personality and action wise in the movie, they both capture Maurice and use him to blackmail Belle essentially. Also they're both obviously vain In a weird way they seem to complete each other, during the fight sequence at the end Beast is in love with Belle and is all nice, he's "beautiful" on the inside, whereas Gaston turns ugly on the inside and becomes more full of hate sort of like Yin and Yang. Of course, during the middle half/early parts of the movie Gaston is "beautiful" on the outside, while Beast is full of hate on the inside so by the end of the movie both characters have switched so to speak.

couldn't have put it better myself! the Beast and Gaston are essentially the same character through different stages - one a human, the other a beast. both vain and superficial. both angry. the beast becomes the human and the human becomes the beast. this is why i consider Gaston to be one of the strongest Disney villians. he may not have magical powers or the ability to turn himself into a dragon, but he has an agenda. he wants Belle and the Beast is in the way of his prospect so he must eliminate it. sometimes the scariest thing imaginable isnt an evil witch or wicked fairy, but a human with a motive. Because he is human he is more realistic as a threat to the beast and to Belle.

Go vote for Hitlery KKKlinton.

for once im agreeing with Lazario. this is out of order. i stuck up for you before but im not doing it again!

[UncleEd]

"That's pathetic, and so are you.
And that's all the paying of mind you're worth"

Translation: I'm a loser, Ed! You see right through my half assed posts. Now I'm going to go in the corner and sulk now as I think about how I've wronged this glorious film...

"for once im agreeing with Lazario. this is out of order. i stuck up for you before but im not doing it again!"

Don't you know silly sarcasim when you see it? Sheesh!


So where does this Prince Adam name come from? I've seen it said before over the years but I don't think I've ever seen it cited for a source.