I don't know why it's so great - Beauty and the Beast (1991) Discussion

[–] Cristianos 7 years ago

If you understand why the film is considered one of Disney's best animated films, then, that's okay. Don't be or feel forced to like it.

A few key aspects as to why Beauty and the Beast is well-praised are because of:

The character, Belle, was a strong departure from the previous Disney princesses. Ariel, of course, began the strong departure with her rebellious, knowledge-seeking personality that took matters into her own hands to get what she wants. However, at the time, feminists complained that her goal seemed to be to get a man, which was false, but it stuck. With Belle, her goal was not get a man, but to have an adventure. Her love for literature and standing up to an abusive Beast was also well-applauded.

Unlike the other princes, the Beast had a personality and a strong character arc we could follow and the change he feels at the end felt believable.

The romance was very deep, convincing, and well-told. Mid-way through the film, you start to think the Beast and Belle will not get together, but after the wolf fight, things begin to click that relate with their desires and needs. The Beast satisfies Belle's love for literature, and Belle returns to the Beast the love he needs to become a better man.

The musical score and songs felt very much like Broadway, and the songs were memorable enough to become some of Disney animation's best well-known songs

And above all, this was a film carried strong adult appeal so much that adults feel they can watch it without being with their children.

What we do in life, echoes in eternity.

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake01 7 years ago

Thanks for your reply, I saw Beauty and The Beast when it was first released, I was 11 I think, I was unimpressed then and I am unimpressed now. You mentioned the music but I honestly can't even remember a tune.

I love The Little Mermaid but I must concede she doesn't give a good message. What was her goal really? She simply wanted to be something she was not, and wanted a man. I must say that they are correct.

reply

[–] Cristianos 7 years ago

As sung in "Part of Your World", Ariel's goal was to learn more about the human world. She had a grove of human artifacts, but she doesn't what they mean. She already had that goal before she fell in love with Prince Eric, which only pushed her further to making the drastic leap to becoming a human.

What we do in life, echoes in eternity.

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake01 7 years ago

Interesting, I had never seen it that way, but I'd argue that that goes out the window once the prince comes in. I just don't know what is the message, the more I scrutinize it, the more negative it is. At least in the original story, she wants a soul, eternal life.

reply

[–] otness_e 7 years ago

Interesting, I had never seen it that way, but I'd argue that that goes out the window once the prince comes in. I just don't know what is the message, the more I scrutinize it, the more negative it is. At least in the original story, she wants a soul, eternal life.

I still say that the Disney version ultimately had a better message than the original version, though. Let me put it this way: At least in the Disney version, Ariel actually redeems herself for her mistakes and actually made sure to fix the mistakes she made before it was too late. The original mermaid's actions regarding her desires, some of which DID have extremely dire consequences that cannot be fixed (like, for example, her going to the sea witch ultimately getting her grandma to die of a broken heart, and her sisters undergoing chemo, I think her dad also suffered some misfortune, I dunno) was to essentially commit suicide, and overall her actions and motives for gaining an immortal soul were extremely selfish, about as selfish as what Lord Farquaad's motives were for marrying Fiona as well (and it also doesn't help that the process through which she wants to gain a soul sounded WAY too similar to the dementor's kiss from Harry Potter) and overall just came across as an extremely selfish brat who literally got away with a lot of bad deeds and was a karma Houdini. And this is speaking as someone who is a devout Roman Catholic. Besides, I found the whole plotline about how merpeople lacked a soul at all, let alone an immortal soul, to be extremely stupid anyways. I can understand that argument being made with, say, seaweed, reeds, or dogfish, or octopi. But something as sentient and sapient as merpeople lacking souls? That just comes across as God really dropping the ball.

And I wouldn't necessarily say that her desires to learn more about humanity go out of the window once Eric entered the picture. Don't forget, during her second day as a human, she went to nearby Village with Eric, and she pretty clearly had the reaction of someone who... well, went to Disneyland, meaning she was able to fulfill her opportunity to actually experience at least some things humans in day to day life experience.

Beyond those tidbits regarding TLM, though, I must end up having to agree with you regarding BATB.

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake01 7 years ago

what the hell are you even talking about?? There is nothing stupid about the original tale, did you even read it? It will always have more depth and soul than Disney's. And how did she fix any mistakes?? Literally how?

reply

[–] otness_e 7 years ago

Yeah, I've read it, and I hated the ending especially. Here's how the story SHOULD have ended: It transpires like it did before, but here's the catch: God gives the mermaid a soul, but then casts her down to Hell for all eternity for all the selfishness she displayed in life. And yes, she most certainly SHOULD have gone to Hell for the fact that she basically went to the Sea Witch for the selfish reason of getting an immortal soul (which, BTW, given that merpeople are God's creation, not to mention have various similarities to humans, God's ultimate creation, it would stand to reason that they WOULD have souls), which led to her grandma dying from a broken heart, her sisters doing chemo in what ended up being a pointless attempt at saving their sister's life, and her dad suffering some misfortune, and even the prince despite the mermaid sparing in probably the one selfless act she ever conducted in life, was heartbroken at her death. Sure, maybe she wouldn't have been wife material for him, but he DID care for her like a sister. Did she give that ANY thought? I have little problem with sad endings, as long as they mean something (for example, I thought Under the Red Hood was a good film despite it being a very sad film, and probably also Mega Man Zero 4's ending, which had Zero sacrifice his life to save Area Zero from Dr. Weil.), but this... this was not even a meaningful sad ending, it was a selfish brat getting away with everything, a karma Houdini of the highest order. Probably the only one that ranks high with it is either the ending to The Matrix Revolutions (which also was extremely pointless of an ending) and Metal Gear Solid 4's ending (for the same reason as Revolutions).

And as far as how Ariel fixed her mistakes, simple, she saved Eric from Ursula, and she alongside Eric worked to STOP Ursula before it was too late, which by their actions proceeded to undo Ursula's curse. THAT'S how she fixed her mistakes. Oh, and I might as well add something else, the mermaid in the original tale fell for the prince for an extremely shallow reason (she only fell for him because he just so happened to resemble a statue she had in her grotto).

reply

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] otness_e 7 years ago

Fine, be that way. But the fact stands that the original tale definitely had its fair share of problems. Had I done the kinds of stunts the mermaid did, guess what, I know God will damn me anyway, because he will focus in on the fact that, while I did do an unselfish deed, my life has been more selfish than selfless, and will punish me accordingly. Just because it features self-sacrifice doesn't mean it was in any way Christian in nature. Don't forget, a Trojan story had a guy sacrifice his life to keep a fox under his tunic, and that was not a Christian story at all since it predated Christianity.

reply

[–] quisque 7 years ago

Don't forget, a Trojan story had a guy sacrifice his life to keep a fox under his tunic, and that was not a Christian story at all since it predated Christianity.

I believe you mean "a Spartan story." https://www.google.com/webhp#q=sparta+fox+story

reply

[–] otness_e 7 years ago

Yes, thanks for the correction.

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake01 7 years ago

Your critiques are beyond moronic. She was a child first and foremost, and the sisters voluntarely gave up their hair to help her, which goes with the story's theme of sacrifice, which obviously went over your head. Ariel literally sacrifices nothing, and learns nothing at the end of her story arc.

reply

[–] otness_e 7 years ago

Actually, the mermaid was a year younger than Ariel at most, so she was NOT a child. She was a teenager like Ariel, if anything.

And I am fully aware of what sacrifice is, and the theme for it. Problem is, it wasn't even a good depiction of sacrifice. Mega Man Zero 4? That dealt with sacrifice VERY well, far better than the original tale did. Also Return of the Jedi. I'll probably like the original version of the original tale a bit better, since at least THAT had the mermaid actually getting her just desserts by staying foam. Besides, that Spartan story I alluded to dealt with the theme of sacrifice as well. In order for sacrifice to mean anything, it would require that something even greater ends up achieved, like, I don't know, actually saving a massive group of people or a massive group of people actually benefitting from the sacrifice. From what I could tell, only the mermaid had any definite benefit. Her and maybe the prince and his new wife since the latter two were at least living instead of dead, though even there they were clearly devastated and not even aware that she tried to kill them.

And as far as Ariel, actually, she DID sacrifice. She sacrificed being with her family (something she even explicitly noted when about to make the deal with Ursula with some hesitance), and her very first instinct when she noticed Flounder was nearly about to become shark chum by the shark earlier on in the film was to save him, the fact that she may have become shark food instead of or even in addition to Flounder did not have any bearing on her decision (and we know she at least knew the risks of encountering a shark during that time since she explicitly mentioned that Flounder should watch out for sharks when he tried to fake illness to get out of searching the ship graveyard). Heck, the fact that she even LET Eric even have Vanessa at all without a fight, even knowing her fate regarding becoming Ursula's property, makes it very clear that, yes, she was sacrificing herself (in fact, the only reason she even bothered to actually stop Vanessa was after she learned that Ursula was disguised as her in a clear violation of their deal). And I'd say she DID learn quite a few things at the end of her arc. Otherwise, she would not have attacked Ursula, and if anything would have probably been gloating to her dad and taunting him. Heck, she even told Eric to leave her just before Ursula became giant, implying that she was going to fight Ursula herself and didn't want Eric to get hurt. If anything, Ariel actually went out of her way to nearly sacrifice herself far more than the original mermaid did, the latter of whom only managed to truly sacrifice herself when she jumped into the ocean.

In fact, regarding Ariel and sacrifice, this actually does a far better job at explaining it than I can:

*http://seethem-dancing.tumblr.com/post/87251460397/erics-wedding-with-vanessa-was-perceived-by-ariel

*http://seethem-dancing.tumblr.com/post/64826092369/waltdisneyconfessions-i-really-do-wonder-with

*http://seethem-dancing.tumblr.com/post/60928030267/shesaidclud-the-interesting-thing-about-the

*http://seethem-dancing.tumblr.com/post/61221770216/ariels-expressions-during-the-scene-when-ursula

*http://seethem-dancing.tumblr.com/post/58396742039/im-going-to-say-it-for-12483989894869869-time-and

In fact, I'll probably just link you to the entire meta page here:

http://seethem-dancing.tumblr.com/guide

Now, granted, I don't necessarily agree with seethem-dancing on absolutely everything (for starters, I don't exactly agree with her atheism or her more pro-choice ideas, or, for that matter, her negative points on patriarchy, being more neutral to the last one), but the core point, regarding Ariel not being selfish, Ariel actually sacrificing quite a lot, and all of that stuff, I most certainly agree 100% on.

Either way, at least Ariel did in fact learn her lesson more than, say, Belle, especially considering at least Ariel didn't blame Triton for any mistakes or misdeeds she did, not even when it in fact WAS Triton who was largely responsible for the disaster, while Belle blamed the Beast exclusively for the mess regarding the wolves, even though in that case, it was largely Belle's fault (the only thing Beast can truly be blamed for with that event was his losing his temper to such an extent that he smashed furniture).

Am I saying Ariel is without flaws? Absolutely not. She was impulsive (her going into the sunken ship and forgetting about the concert is an especially notable one), and also rebellious, and yes, she also at times is extremely naïve. But she definitely doesn't deserve the kind of bashing she gets right now from either Belle fans or, in your case, fans of the original tale. Now, if your complaints were directed to, say, Merida, I'd agree with you.

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake01 7 years ago

I'm not even bothering with your insane, ignorant, sexist rantings.

reply

[–] otness_e 7 years ago

What's sexist about what I said? I don't recall even alluding to the mermaid's gender or whether it was superior or inferior to my own as being a reason for why I wasn't fond of the original story, OR, for that matter, my comments regarding Beauty and the Beast (and for the record, Belle bearing much responsibility for what happened and Triton bearing much responsibility for what happened isn't due to their genders. In fact, they're both the opposite genders, so it obviously COULDN'T have been sexist and if anything was closer to equal opportunity, and if it has to do with my saying Ariel took responsibility for something that was barely even her fault while Belle didn't even when it WAS her fault, no, it's not sexist. In fact, if they were both men, I STILL would have said it. Heck, I would have said it if the two had different genders from each other. It's called, "taking responsibility for your actions", and Ariel came closer to actually TAKING responsibility, which is commendable REGARDLESS of gender. And if Ariel and Triton/Belle and Beast's genders were swapped, I STILL would have said the same thing, and I would have said the same thing if both parties had been the same gender. Gender played absolutely no role in what I thought, ergo, not sexist. If you want to insult me, at least try to be accurate in your insults.). Now, you COULD say that Linda Woolverton was sexist, especially after the Maleficent movie made her views on men clear.

I can sort of get the insane part even if I don't actually agree that I am that, though.

reply

[–] lotte1942 7 years ago

Interesting, I had never seen it that way, but I'd argue that that goes out the window once the prince comes in. I just don't know what is the message, the more I scrutinize it, the more negative it is

Well, she wouldn't have gone to Ursula and wouldn't have given up her voice and changed her body only to know more about human world and to be able just to walk on the soil to study human culture, she did this only after prince came into the story and she fell for him. So he was the main driving force for her actions.

The problem with the message in TLM that it didn't age that well, I mean maybe it worked better in 1989 when it first came to screens, because in comparison to Snow White or Aurora Ariel was an obvious improvement, but since then it regressed and I can see what you mean with negative message of TLM.

reply

[–] otness_e 7 years ago

Well, she wouldn't have gone to Ursula and wouldn't have given up her voice and changed her body only to know more about human world and to be able just to walk on the soil to study human culture, she did this only after prince came into the story and she fell for him. So he was the main driving force for her actions.

Technically, Eric wasn't even the main driving force at that time (he was closer to a nudge in the right direction). After all, she didn't, say immediately go to Ursula, and in fact implied right before Under the Sea that she intended to meet Eric in mermaid form. No, the REAL driving force behind her going to Ursula ultimately was Triton blowing that gasket towards her grotto. Remember, that's what directly led to her going to Ursula, and even that required a rather underhanded trick on the part of Flotsam and Jetsam by flicking what little remained of Eric's statue toward her, considering when they directly went to Ariel and suggested she see Ursula, even when she was still emotionally broken down by the destruction of her grotto, she still found enough personal strength to actually refuse and demand they leave. And as pointed out, she already HAD a desire to live among humanity even BEFORE she met Eric or, heck, even knew he existed. Now, if Jeffrey Katzenberg got his way and had Part of Your World end up on the cutting room floor, THEN I'll agree regarding Ariel.

The problem with the message in TLM that it didn't age that well, I mean maybe it worked better in 1989 when it first came to screens, because in comparison to Snow White or Aurora Ariel was an obvious improvement, but since then it regressed and I can see what you mean with negative message of TLM.

Honestly, I'd argue BATB didn't really age all that well, TBH. For the record, the only reason Beauty and the Beast is like it is today is because Jeffrey Katzenberg pretty much forced the development staff to make it a "feminist twist" and hired a feminazi writer by the name of Linda Woolverton to write the film after critics who quite frankly did not know what they were talking about claimed Ariel was "cloyingly sexist" just because Ariel actually WANTED to go for a guy, despite the fact that she demonstrated quite a bit of badassery and actually took initiative in various areas, and even went as far as to save her lover WITHOUT making him look weak at all. When you get down to it, BATB was the exact same kind of feminist propaganda that Simone de Beauvoir and Betty Friedan had in mind, and also had the same awful messaging as in Maleficent (which Woolverton also pointed out in a Time Magazine interview.). Not to mention, in the case of Belle, let's face it, she actually came across as a jerk in the beginning, even with her genuine love for Maurice, and in some cases came across as even MORE impulsive than even several criticisms toward Ariel (like breaking into the West Wing with zero hesitation even AFTER learning about it, fleeing the castle without even thinking about what could possibly happen in the forest or what would probably end up happening to her father despite promising to stay for Maurice's sake, or her exposing the Beast to a bloodthirsty mob and then acting all surprised when they decided to kill him), acting a lot more like her wicked sisters in the original tale, and the triplets, the closest she has to actual foils, actually acted more like genuine sweethearts even though it was pretty clear that we weren't supposed to root for them, largely because, naïve crushing on Gaston aside, they were never, EVER depicted as actually HAVING any truly negative characteristics that made them ugly on the inside.

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake01 7 years ago

I agree, all I see when I see The Little Mermaid is a story about not wanting to be who you are, and going extra miles to change it. It's almost like the tranny princess. That's what she is, she's a tranny basically, except it's not a sex change but a species change. The original tale is so much better but its themes are way too complex for Disney, I mean they would never have the guts to even attempt it.

reply

[–] otness_e 7 years ago

Ariel's NOT a tranny, because she was still female. At best, you can compare it to whatever the procedure was that Sgt. Osiris's character actor went through to get the role in Tropic Thunder.

And for the record, Walt Disney himself actually DID attempt to do the fairy tale at one point, though there is some debate as to whether he went with the original sad ending or if he managed to change the ending during his attempt at it, since the producers claimed that the changes they made were coincidentally the same changes Walt Disney himself had made with his draft (well, save for MAYBE the part where Eric rammed his ship into Ursula, that was Katzenberg's idea.).

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake01 7 years ago

Walt Disney did nothing, his Little Mermaid didn't get past preliminary artwork stage.

reply

[–] otness_e 7 years ago

Actually, according to one of the commentaries for the film, they by chance found his draft, and apparently, most of the changes they made were the same changes Disney himself called for.

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake01 7 years ago

yeah right.

reply

[–] otness_e 7 years ago

Here you go:

http://disneyanalysis.tumblr.com/post/54854747722/mickeyandcompany-30-curiosities-about-the

Second to last point, to be more specific.

reply

[–] Naptown317Native (524) a year ago

Ariel was a thirsty cock hound

reply

[–] Stratego 7 years ago

The movie definitely is better than those movies you mentioned. Better animation, better acting, better music, better script, better characters. But what's the point of your thread? You want us to tell you why it's great?

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake01 7 years ago

better animation than sleeping beauty? please.

reply

[–] Stratego 7 years ago

Could you make that "pretty please"? Sleeping Beauty was not the only movie you mentioned. It has amazing animation, but that alone does not make it a better movie.

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake01 7 years ago

the animation of sleeping beauty alone makes it a better movie than beauty and the beast. 101 Dalmatians was revolutionary animation wise for its time and still holds up. There is just nothing remarkable about beauty and the beast.

reply

[–] Stratego 7 years ago

I completely disagree the animation alone is enough. The movie has quite a few flaws, it's uneven, the script is rather weak, there's hardly any character development, the title character lacks screentime and personality and the songs are nothing special.

A lot of things are remarkable about BatB. It's revolutionary animation wise and still holds up. It has great characterization, a more adult plot, great songs and music, a strong script and a excellent balance of comedy and drama.

But again, what's the point of your thread? It doesn't seem you really want to know what people think makes this movie great. You just want to tell the fans the movie is no good.

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake01 7 years ago

And you just want to force your opinion on everyone. Nothing you've said really applies to Beauty and The Beast, but it does to many other films, like Pocahontas.

reply

[–] Stratego 7 years ago

WTH? Are you a troll or something? You are the one who started by stating opinion as fact. I'm simply answering your question.

How about this, nothing you've said really applies to those three movies you mentioned, but it does to other movies, like BatB.

As for Pocahontas, it has great animation and music but the script is absolutely the weakest part.

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake01 7 years ago

Except it does, 101 Dalmatians was 100% groundbreaking in its animation. Real groundbreaking as in, it had never done before, not faux groundbreaking just because you said so like Beauty and the Beast.

reply

[–] Stratego 7 years ago

BatB was groundbreaking for its use of CAPS and CGI. 101 Dalmatians used a Xerox camera which saved time and money but but also lacked the quality of hand inking (which they weren't able to achieve again until BatB). Even Walt Disney didn't like the animation style. It doesn't have groundbreaking animation just because you say so. Now stop trolling.

reply

[–] otness_e 7 years ago

Technically, the use of CAPS and CGI had actually been used beforehand in The Little Mermaid.

reply

[–] Stratego 7 years ago

It had also been used in The Rescuers Down Under, that doesn't mean its use in BatB wasn't groundbreaking. 101 Dalmatians wasn't the first movie either to use the Xerox technique.

reply

[–] otness_e 7 years ago

I never said or even implied that 101 Dalmations was the first movie to use it, in fact, I wasn't even focusing on 101 Dalmations and its animation techniques at all (and if other Disney films used the Xerox method, and it was very recent, then yes, it most certainly isn't groundbreaking that 101 dalmations used that animation style either). Generally, groundbreaking implies that it was never even used before (or if it WAS used, it was such a long time ago it is practically the first time it had been used in quite a while), so no, BATB by definition is not groundbreaking on that front.

reply

[–] Stratego 7 years ago

And I never said BatB was the first movie to use CAP and CGI either. It did, however, use new methods in the field that were never used before, so yes, it was groundbreaking. Nothing like the ballroom scene had ever been created before.

Now don't be a hypocrite and complain to the OP that they called 101 Dalmatians groundbreaking, while in reality it wasn't.

reply

[–] otness_e 7 years ago

And I never said BatB was the first movie to use CAP and CGI either. It did, however, use new methods in the field that were never used before, so yes, it was groundbreaking. Nothing like the ballroom scene had ever been created before.

Actually, something like that WAS used before. The staircase sequence for The Little Mermaid, remember? IMDB's trivia page for the film even noted that was the first time CAP and CGI was used, and it was used for a very pivotal point. And then there's the final battle.

Now don't be a hypocrite and complain to the OP that they called 101 Dalmatians groundbreaking, while in reality it wasn't.

I also made clear in my earlier post that 101 Dalmatians isn't groundbreaking either if it had indeed been used before, so you don't need to worry about me complaining about it.

reply

[–] Stratego 7 years ago

The staircase sequence was CGI, but did not use the exact same methods. The techniques used in the ballroom scene were groundbreaking. According to Disney it featured the first computer-generated colour background to be both animated and fully dimensional. A literally moving background and sweeping camera moves had not been used before in their animated movies. Pixar developed new software specifically for the movie.

You always choose to respond to me instead of the other poster. Just ignore me for once and complain to someone else.

reply

[–] otness_e 7 years ago

Fine, point taken.

As far as your other bit, I just responded to the other user.

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake01 7 years ago

Correct me if I am wrong but 101 Dalmatians was the first movie done entirely on xerox and rotoscopic, that alone makes it a groundbreaking film. On top of that you add Cruella De Vil's groundbreaking animation, the script and all it has and it's 10 thousand times more the groundbreaking film than beauty and the beast.

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake01 7 years ago

Except it does, it was something entirely different, never attempted before and looked fantastic. CGI had been used before Beast.

reply

[–] Stratego 7 years ago

Xerox had actually already been used in Sleeping Beauty and Goliath II. But you really think that a quick and cheap method that lacks the refined quality of hand inking is groundbreaking? They couldn't even use colored lines anymore because of this process. I never liked the scribbly animation style it introduced, Walt Disney didn't like it either.

Like I said to otness, according to Disney BatB featured the first computer-generated colour background to be both animated and fully dimensional. A literally moving background and sweeping camera moves had not been used before in their animated movies. They had never done anything like that ballroom scene. But is The Rescuers Down Under also a better film than BatB simply because it was the first movie to entirely use CAPS? No, it isn't.

Anyway, clearly the point of your thread is to tell fans they are wrong for thinking BatB is a great movie, you don't care about their reasons.

reply

[–] otness_e 7 years ago

Was 101 Dalmations actually 100% groundbreaking in its animation? Or did other films use it before? I need an answer, even provide links proving it if you must.

reply

[–] NobodymournstheWicked 7 years ago

I would think a lot of people will disagree with you on the movie not being great, and I know that animated movies did have to start with something

reply

[–] lotte1942 7 years ago

Well, imho, Beauty and the Beast is so revered because:

-main female leads of Sleeping Beauty and Snow White were lovely, but rather dull in the end. I mean they both fell asleep and did nothing for a large part of their movies, they needed to be saved from curse and woken up by princes, etc. Belle wasn't like this, she took action up until the end of the movie, returned to Beast, which gave him reason to fight, she saved him by not letting him fall to his death and then she removed the curse by loving him.

- main male lead aka Beast actually has a complicated persona and not just that "typical prince charming" routine.

- the best development of relationships and love story between two leads with mature character's growth in the process (not the "love at fisrt sight" cliche, not the "I lied to girl in order to make her fall for me, hoping it will work out"). Snow White and Sleeping Beauty are all about that "love at first sight" cliche, and 101 Dalmatians are cute af, but romance while being a part of it, is not central to the plot, so beautifully shot and superbly narrated love story such as BatB easily comes on top, I think, in the end.

-music, the score is shamefully wonderful and the songs are such gems, I mean it was the first Disney animation movie which got 3 Oscar nominations for songs and it shows why. 101 Dalmatians is not a musical cartoon. Snow White doesn't have as much gem songs as BatB and the most memorable piece of music in Sleeping Beauty is "Once Upon a Dream" which isn't even original piece of music, but is based on Tchaikovsky's music from the ballet of the same name.

Bonuses:

- Beast lives in a beautiful enchanted castle with cool gothic elements.
- While it's pretty simple who was the villain and why in Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, 101 Dalmatians, in BatB you could always argue how that Enchantress who cursed the whole castle just because she didn't like how young Prince behaved with her (although she came to his property uninvited, he was young, etc.) is the biggest, most horrible hidden villain of the story.

reply

[–] otness_e 7 years ago

-main female leads of Sleeping Beauty and Snow White were lovely, but rather dull in the end. I mean they both fell asleep and did nothing for a large part of their movies, they needed to be saved from curse and woken up by princes, etc. Belle wasn't like this, she took action up until the end of the movie, returned to Beast, which gave him reason to fight, she saved him by not letting him fall to his death and then she removed the curse by loving him.

I see you forgot to mention Cinderella and Ariel, neither of which fell asleep, and they did do quite a few things, and in fact, Ariel actually TOOK Action quite a few times.

- main male lead aka Beast actually has a complicated persona and not just that "typical prince charming" routine.

While Beast does indeed have complexity going for him, I do think Eric also had some degree of complexity there as well.

- the best development of relationships and love story between two leads with mature character's growth in the process (not the "love at fisrt sight" cliche, not the "I lied to girl in order to make her fall for me, hoping it will work out"). Snow White and Sleeping Beauty are all about that "love at first sight" cliche, and 101 Dalmatians are cute af, but romance while being a part of it, is not central to the plot, so beautifully shot and superbly narrated love story such as BatB easily comes on top, I think, in the end.

Eh, to be honest, I thought how BatB developed its relationship was actually one of the WORST ways to develop a relationship, mostly because in real life, that kind of development in a relationship generally leads to a divorce (and if that's not enough for you, Ron and Hermione after Book 7, according to JK Rowling, are going through marriage counseling and possibly even finalizing divorces, and that kind of relationship was derived from one where the characters initially couldn't stand one another), not to mention we could easily say she only started falling for Beast due to his library, not even the fact that he saved her from the wolves. And besides, why rip on Love at First Sight? That's actually a pretty real relationship. I'd know because my parents actually MET a family a couple years back who did have a love at first sight relationship, AND they actually had a strong enough marriage to last them over 25, maybe 30 years at this point.

-music, the score is shamefully wonderful and the songs are such gems, I mean it was the first Disney animation movie which got 3 Oscar nominations for songs and it shows why. 101 Dalmatians is not a musical cartoon. Snow White doesn't have as much gem songs as BatB and the most memorable piece of music in Sleeping Beauty is "Once Upon a Dream" which isn't even original piece of music, but is based on Tchaikovsky's music from the ballet of the same name.

The songs by themselves may have been good, but the actual use of them in BATB wasn't so good. A lot of times, the characters just looked insane when suddenly breaking out into song and dance maneuvers (like with Little Town and the first rendition of Gaston), and in some cases just broke the story completely (like the Gaston reprise, due to the way it was handled just being flat out stupid by insinuating the entire village knew and supported Gaston's plan, when in real life, if Gaston tried exposing that stuff in real life, he'd be arrested).

Beast lives in a beautiful enchanted castle with cool gothic elements.

Okay, I'll admit, Beast's castle was kinda cool.

While it's pretty simple who was the villain and why in Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, 101 Dalmatians, in BatB you could always argue how that Enchantress who cursed the whole castle just because she didn't like how young Prince behaved with her (although she came to his property uninvited, he was young, etc.) is the biggest, most horrible hidden villain of the story.

A hidden villain that, unfortunately, did not get any actual comeuppance. Instead, the only villain who actually GOT a comeuppance was essentially the personification of the chauvinist pig character from various gender studies courses, and compared to the Enchantress, he's got a clean rap sheet. Here's the deal, if you're going to make a hidden villain, have them eventually step out of the shadows and reveal themselves, actually reveal their role in the events of the story, and then get their comeuppance in some form. Like, for example, Dimentio from Super Paper Mario was a perfect example of how a hidden villain is supposed to operate.

reply

[–] lotte1942 7 years ago

I see you forgot to mention Cinderella and Ariel, neither of which fell asleep, and they did do quite a few things, and in fact, Ariel actually TOOK Action quite a few times.

I did not forget to mention them. They were not included in OP's original post. Since OP was talking in original post about SW, SB and 101 Dalmatians and I was replying to that original post, I was talking about points in them and BatB.

While Beast does indeed have complexity going for him, I do think Eric also had some degree of complexity there as well.

Eric is nice, but pretty much falls into "typical prince charming" mold - he is good looking, kind, heroic and brave from straight to go, there is no mystery about him or his character, no big progression and no character growth and no big difference from how he started in the movie till the closing moments of the movie. Apart from that one time he was bewitched, but then he didn't have any free will.

Eh, to be honest, I thought how BatB developed its relationship was actually one of the WORST ways to develop a relationship, mostly because in real life, that kind of development in a relationship generally leads to a divorce

Eh, it's one of the few Disney movies that actually nicely showed two leads developing love not from instant mutual crush, but from learning to respect each other, becoming friends, and then falling in love, not to mention that the guy actually improved as a being in the course of these relationships taking shape. That has more nuances and layers then a quick "love at first sight" thing, which is mostly rather one-dimensional. Unless you have some solid statistics on a lot of divorces happening in real life 100% due to that kind of development, I'm afraid this statement of yours is rather questionable and exaggerated.

(and if that's not enough for you, Ron and Hermione after Book 7, according to JK Rowling, are going through marriage counseling and possibly even finalizing divorces, and that kind of relationship was derived from one where the characters initially couldn't stand one another)

Well, since you brought up JK Rowling herself according to JK Rowling and "Harry Potter and the Cursed Child" which was approved and co-authored by Rowling herself and which is official and canon continuation of HP series, not only Hermione and Ron are still married and doing fine (no divorce), it's shown there that without Ron, Hermione would have ended up miserable and a worse person, actually. So I'm afraid you picked a wrong example.

not to mention we could easily say she only started falling for Beast due to his library, not even the fact that he saved her from the wolves.

Well, we of course can easily say anything. It's Internet after all. But it's very clearly shown that Belle warms up to Beast after he saved her (when she treats his wound) and that it was the turning point in their relationships. The library thing was another point in the development of their relationships - he showed her that he actually remembered about her interests, what she cared about and gave her the best opportunity ever (room full of books to read), unlike Gaston for example who while courting her didn't care for her love for books and could throw her books into mud. I don't see anything weird that it touched her and made her warm up to Beast even more and helped their mutual frienships-which-turned-to-love. It's quite natural reactions and quite beautiful progression of the relationships.

And besides, why rip on Love at First Sight? That's actually a pretty real relationship. I'd know because my parents actually MET a family a couple years back who did have a love at first sight relationship, AND they actually had a strong enough marriage to last them over 25, maybe 30 years at this point.

That's kinda boring in movies/cartoons (specially in Disney cartoons), this whole "love at first sight". Relationships in movies/cartoons that have development not "just from love at first sight" offer more realistic and interesting perspective on characters, their interactions, situations and etc. More to work with and to look at. As for realism and examples from real life, love at first sight exist in real life,of course, but it's not necessary requierement for happiness or good marriage. My own grandparents didn't like each other very much when they first met, they became friends in a while and then they fell in love and married, and their marriage worked out quite nicely. I mean they managed to celelbrate golden jubilee of marriage together after all. So there is that. And returning to Disney cartoons "love at first sight" in cartoons often don't offer a lot for female characters in terms of their characters. I liked how "Frozen" trolled this "true love from first sight" cliche actually.

The songs by themselves may have been good, but the actual use of them in BATB wasn't so good. an, when in real life, if Gaston tried exposing that stuff in real life, he'd be arrested).

I don't see any problems with the actual use of songs in the BatB as they were used nicely, stroke all proper chords, brought out characters and situations as it fits for the musical cartoon. I don't have problems when in plays or musicals some characters have out loud monologues about how they would kill somebody or lie to somebody, though some of those characters are nearby, or spill their inner thoughts and feelings.

A hidden villain that, unfortunately, did not get any actual comeuppance.

But villains not always get comeuppance. Not all villains anyhow, especially if the villain is hidden and cleverly masked himself/herself as the good guy and a force of justice. I like that double layer in the cartoon.

Instead, the only villain who actually GOT a comeuppance was essentially the personification of the chauvinist pig character from various gender studies courses, and compared to the Enchantress, he's got a clean rap sheet.

Yes, Gaston was a very realistic villain in his chauvinism and selfishness and being a coward, but he paid dearly for all of it - dying by falling from height (and breaking spine most likely) is quite a punishment. Also he cared for his looks so much, well, being a bloody mess after such a fall sure did a number on his looks, lol.

Here's the deal, if you're going to make a hidden villain, have them eventually step out of the shadows and reveal themselves, actually reveal their role in the events of the story, and then get their comeuppance in some form.

Not necessary, actually. It works both ways.

reply

[–] otness_e 7 years ago

I was going to reply with a massive post to you addressing your points bit by bit, but then the tab ended up refreshing itself before I could finish it up due to a glitch in the system and I lost what I had worked on, so instead, I'm just going to post links to what I was going to mention and how it related to your post.

Before that, I want to mention that Eric throwing the flute into the ocean and was clearly about to take Grimsby's advice about going for Ariel over an imaginary woman when Vanessa interfered. And realistically, Eric would have been shocked to discover who he loved was actually a mermaid. I'll also add that Ariel actually DID observe Eric during her first encounter with him, anonymously I should add, so she actually had a far better and more accurate impression of Eric than Anna did with Hans via face to face interactions, or even Aurora, Cinderella, and Snow White regarding their respective characters. And I honestly thought the lampooning in Frozen was terribly inaccurate, and besides with, that movie alongside Zootopia and Big Hero 6 and their use of twist villains would actually have kids grow up to be grossly maladjusted, and in fact, I'd compare those movies to something from the Metal Gear series than, say, true Disney films (if anything, I think Moana did a good job at outright avoiding a villain twist plot, actually GIVING a standard bad guy now). Also, The Little Mermaid's soundtrack was better than BATB because unlike BATB, there was actual in-universe justification for most of the songs being sung.

And now for the links:

For the statistics in terms of divorce rates. Here's Alfonzo Rachel on the matter (not kid friendly, I should warn you): https://youtu.be/8_p-5-tqydU

For the bit about Ron and Hermione apparently going through divorce papers/marriage counseling according to JK Rowling: https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/2/2/i-love-that-j-k-rowling-wants-to-break-up-ron-and-hermione; http://newsfeed.time.com/2014/02/11/j-k-rowling-ron-and-hermione-just-need-a-bit-of-counseling/

For the bit about Sartre having similar interests with women and their shallowly falling for him yet his backstabbing them repeatedly, among other things (as well as his similarly falling for that mass murdering terrorist Che Guevara): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-559137/Dangerous-liaisons-sex-teens-The-story-Sartre-Beauvoir-told-before.html; http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2000380/posts Personally, I go by actual character, not whether they share the same interests as me.

And finally, for the bit regarding Belle apparently not liking Beast, or at least not trusting Beast even after the wolf image, this image, taken when Beast suggests to Belle she close her eyes beforehand: http://www.caps.media/199/1-beauty-and-the-beast/full/beauty-and-the-beast-disneyscreencaps.com-6009.jpg

I might as well address this as my last point: Gaston in no way qualifies as a realistic villain, because quite frankly, villains in real life do not EVER expose their plans in public to anyone, because it would assuredly lead to their downfall (just look at what happened when the Secret Speech was aired after Stalin died, public opinion turned against him in an instant when confronted with irrefutable evidence towards his crimes. Same deal with Sandusky.). Scar and Ursula come far closer to actually BEING realistic villains, alongside Claude Frollo. Gaston at most was a cartoonish villain.

reply

[–] Johanesse (432) 2 years ago

And you couldn`t tell us why?

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12327) 2 years ago

Everybody's entitled to like or not like some Disney film or other. That's your choice and based on what you like in your entertainment. I don't expect every person on the planet to like this film, and that's a realistic, practical way of looking at it. You can't please everyone.

reply

[–] blue1981 (6474) 2 years ago

I consider Beauty and the Beast a fairy tale come to life.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 2 years ago

Better score, pretty dark, a massive character arch for the beast and multiple characters. a blooming believable love between a smart likeable belle and an at first scary and hated, but slowly sympathetic beast as belle helps him become human again (first internally then externally and literally). Their love makes sense and grows organically and naturally and is by definition not about surface level traits like looks (since he is a scary beast) but a deeper connection.

Compare this to Snow White who is a bland 2d perfect caricature and doesn't grow at all! Even the dwarves are 2d, their names are literally their one discerning characteristic who love Snow White only cause she's hot.

who is rescued by an equally 2dimensional knight character. what's his name again? was he only referred to as Prince Charming? why did he love her again?

reply