Um, yes, it does. The movie industry is a business to make money. Money = success.
I'm thinking long-term here. Like, I don't know, whether it actually manages to stand the test of time. The Matrix sequels, the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy, Avatar, The Master, heck, Brokeback Mountain and Blue is the Warmest Color got a LOT of dough and won awards, yet they are barely even remembered by the populace. The only time making a LOT of dough even matters is if it saves them from bankruptcy. If it's during a time where there is plenty, it literally doesn't even matter.
Yeah. It has. It's still widely regarded as one of Disney's greatest. A con does not mean one is better than the other. Unless you think the Transformer movies have stood the test of time better than Apocalypse Now or The Godfather.
I'm not thinking anything about the Transformers movies (and for the record, most people aren't exactly a fan of the Transformers movies anyhow). And BTW, the fact that Beauty and the Beast hasn't even gotten a single fan convention, or any real exposure outside the Disney Princess franchise while TLM, for example, actually DID manage to have one massive independent Toys R Us sale back in 2008 shows that, no, it HASN'T gotten anything yet. And BTW, Film Historians don't really matter since they generally use their own leftist beliefs to claim such stuff (I had a bad experience with a film professor whose choice of good films are mostly based on his leftist politics).
Um, no, that did not happen at all. The book keeper seemed nice enough, but Belle didn't really consider him a friend. She probably only ever saw him in the store.
Ah, yes, actually, it did happen. I'll even post the appropriate GIF for you as well as a slideshow proving it and pay VERY close attention to their faces when Gaston comes out:
http://49.media.tumblr.com/7e423e6f727843100efb0d102a008ddf/tumblr_mkfs2amfeA1rpg57to3_250.gifhttp://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:345019 (first slideshow). It may have been minor, but make no mistake, it did actually happen.
And honestly, they had good interaction and seemed to look out for each other, last I checked, that's the definition of a friend.
No, it does not. That would be a literal translation from one medium to another. This is a retelling with its own elements.
Except this is more of a work in name only rather than an adaptation. Think, for example, of the Harry Potter films.
Ahh, so changes can be made. Remember that when you think of Sebastian and the completely different ending to the story.
They still kept a lot of stuff in the original tale even when it WASN'T necessary, unlike Beauty and the Beast where they kept extremely little from the tale, certainly not the spirit of the story.
Because he was her captor. And she was polite enough to him: "No, thank you." In what world does kindness translate to do everything someone tells you to?
And her change in attitude highlights the moral of the movie. She's kind when he's kind. She sees past the beastly appearance. That's the point.
She already saw past the Beastly appearance since she met him, so no, it didn't adhere to the moral of the tale at ALL.
And for the record, I never said she jump at the opportunity, I was thinking more, she doesn't quite trust Beast, but she'll give him a chance just once, heed his request, at least so she can read into him, and then have Beast inadvertently blow it during dinner and have her storm off. THAT would have worked better.
See, in the original tale, it actually WAS Beast's physical appearance that actually had Belle being hesitant. Having Belle look past that after he saves her when Beast was actually nice actually would HELP promote that part.
Um, no.
Yes, actually, she DID sell him out, or did you forget that SHE was the one who brought the mirror out, yelled "The Beast does exist and I can prove it! Show me the Beast!" And this is despite the villagers making it obvious that they would never listen to reason in their state.
Sure, destruction of property always solves everything. It's not like the man who runs an entire asylum and was just paid in gold couldn't possibly have or afford another wagon. Or just have him dragged off by hand.
It would take a lot of time for him to GET another wagon (remember, this was before the advent of radios and various telecommunication. If someone wanted to deliver a message, they generally did it on either horse or foot), and Belle would have used that time (plus the distraction posed by the villagers who are trying to find water to put it out) to get Maurice, Chip, any incriminating evidence pointing to Beast's castle, and getting the heck out of there before they can even realize what happens. Especially when the village was basically congregated into a mob at the time.
Yes. Very good. To show that good looking and ugly people can be both good and/or bad.
Problem is, they don't have a single major ugly character who actually was bad from start to finish. Even Beast managed to change. And even Belle, as I pointed out, came across as being more like her wicked sisters than the actual Belle in the original tale even WITH her genuinely loving her dad. Like I said, The Little Mermaid did it FAR better, with Ariel actually reading Eric's character as well as looking at his looks, the latter being more of a bonus, Ariel actually being lovely inside and out, and Ursula and Vanessa being hideous in and out, as well as having skin-deep beauty, respectively.
Not at all. Belle was beautiful and good. Lefou was ugly and bad. So was the Asylum director. Like I said, those girls didn't get the moral. That's not the movie's fault.
No, Belle was actually beautiful and bad, even if she WAS the protagonist. And I can name PLENTY wrong with her. Did Cinderella, for example, try to throw Anastasia and Drizella into mud when they bullied her? Absolutely not. Nor does Cinderella actually insult Drizella, Anastasia, or even her wicked stepmother, even when, unlike Belle, she actually WOULD have been perfectly justified in doing so. Yet Belle does that to Gaston, and even is shown to joke about it, and she openly insults the villagers in the opening song by complaining about how provincial the village is (she repeatedly says "There must be more than this provincial life!"). And for the record, LeFou and the Asylum director are NOT major characters, they are minor characters, nor, in the case of Vanessa, are they even disguises for the main villain, so they don't qualify. It only works if the characters in question are actual major characters, either directly, or simply acting as a disguise for one of them. In fact, the closest any character in this film comes to ACTUALLY MATCHING being beautiful and good are those triplets who the film frequently demonizes, especially when, unlike Gaston, despite being the closest Belle has to actual foils for anything, let alone the moral of the tale, they don't demonstrate ANYTHING pointing to inner ugliness.
Then I won't contribute to keeping his name and actions alive. No, thank you.
Good, I won't either. In fact, I actually intend to just burn everything he ever worked on and ENSURE he's an unperson. Unfortunately, education still promotes his actions, as did media such as Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker.
reply
share
PreachCaleb
8 years ago
The only time making a LOT of dough even matters is if it saves them from bankruptcy.
Any good business knows that's not true. A surplus of money is for saving and expanding. Not just to avoid potential bankruptcy. Thinking money only matters when you're facing bankruptcy is a good way to end up bankrupt.
I'm not thinking anything about the Transformers movies (and for the record, most people aren't exactly a fan of the Transformers movies anyhow).
No, but you think cons are a sign of staying power.
Ah, yes, actually, it did happen. I'll even post the appropriate GIF for you as well as a slideshow proving it and pay VERY close attention to their faces when Gaston comes out:
No, it didn't. They weren't the only ones setting up. Not to mention their: "What's wrong with her? She's crazy." Not exactly friendly. And they had no interaction what so ever. Belle never even mentions them. So that's not the definition of friends.
They still kept a lot of stuff in the original tale even when it WASN'T necessary, unlike Beauty and the Beast where they kept extremely little from the tale, certainly not the spirit of the story.
So changes are only acceptable when you think they're necessary. Gotcha.
See, in the original tale, it actually WAS Beast's physical appearance that actually had Belle being hesitant. Having Belle look past that after he saves her when Beast was actually nice actually would HELP promote that part
Again, this is not the original tale. But even in this one, Belle was scared of him. Until he started showing a softer side.
Yes, actually, she DID sell him out, or did you forget that SHE was the one who brought the mirror out, yelled "The Beast does exist and I can prove it! Show me the Beast!" And this is despite the villagers
That's not selling out. The villagers thought he was crazy because they had no proof. There was no "making it obvious that they would never listen to reason in their state."
It's not until Gaston riles them up that they turn into a mob.
It would take a lot of time for him to GET another wagon (remember, this was before the advent of radios and various telecommunication. If someone wanted to deliver a message, they generally did it on either horse or foot), and Belle would have used that time (plus the distraction posed by the villagers who are trying to find water to put it out) to get Maurice, Chip, any incriminating evidence pointing to Beast's castle, and getting the heck out of there before they can even realize what happens.
Right. Because she could easily outrun a mob while trying to drag her sick father along. Not to mention Gaston got to his horse pretty quickly. No way she'd out run him. You can't make stuff up to try and prove a point.
Problem is, they don't have a single ugly character who actually was bad from start to finish.
Except you're ignoring Lefou and the Asylum director.
Yet Belle does that to Gaston, and even is shown to joke about it,
Wow. You do realize he's cornered her and is forcing himself on her. That is just sick to think she's bad for spurring his borderline sexual assault advances. Defending herself does not make her bad. That is disgusting.
(she repeatedly says "There must be more than this provincial life!").
Doesn't make her bad for wanting more for herself. Plenty of people want to get out of their small towns. Doesn't mean they're bad.
Cinderella mocks her step-sisters' "music lessons."
Heck, Belle has the same motivation as Ariel. She wants a life different than what she has.
And for the record, LeFou and the Asylum director are NOT major characters, they are minor characters, nor, in the case of Vanessa, are they even disguises for the main villain, so they don't qualify.
Because they disprove your claims. Gotcha.
Good, I won't either.
Then quit encouraging people to read about him.
Let's be bad guys.
reply
share
otness_e
8 years ago
Any good business knows that's not true. A surplus of money is for saving and expanding. Not just to avoid potential bankruptcy. Thinking money only matters when you're facing bankruptcy is a good way to end up bankrupt.
Money is essential to running a company, sure, but it's not the be-all-end-all you're making it out to be. And like I pointed out, by that logic, the Matrix Trilogy, the Prequel Trilogy of Star Wars, Avatar, The Master, and all of those movies must have been successful despite the fact that they are at best ignored and at worst outright hated.
No, but you think cons are a sign of staying power.
What the heck is a con?
No, it didn't. They weren't the only ones setting up. Not to mention their: "What's wrong with her? She's crazy." Not exactly friendly. And they had no interaction what so ever. Belle never even mentions them. So that's not the definition of friends.
No, but they WERE the only ones who clearly were in the dark regarding Gaston being the groom (the three, or at least the one in green, were content with setting up, and then they look up, express shock, the one in amber turns to the girl in red and whispers something, and then they look extremely shocked and even to some extent devastated. That's NOT the reaction one gives if they knew Gaston was the groom, not to mention that's NOT the reaction everyone else gave either), meaning the only reason they would even BE there is if they were setting it up for Belle, and the only reason they would do that is if they were actual friends (especially considering how it was pretty obvious Belle was the groom since the reception was being set up just outside her house). And honestly, that exchange actually hints that they would have been willing to sacrifice their own desires for Gaston to let Belle have a chance.
So changes are only acceptable when you think they're necessary. Gotcha.
No, when they are necessary, period, regardless of what I think. I even acknowledged that their keeping Ariel's sisters weren't exactly necessary to the tale other than as a hold-over to the original tale, yet they did.
Again, this is not the original tale. But even in this one, Belle was scared of him. Until he started showing a softer side.
And again, it's an adaptation, and regardless, at no point does Belle actually indicate that her disdain for Beast was based on his physical appearance. She indicated it was more his overall brash behavior.
That's not selling out. The villagers thought he was crazy because they had no proof. There was no "making it obvious that they would never listen to reason in their state."
It's not until Gaston riles them up that they turn into a mob.
1. They were already a mob even BEFORE the Beast was exposed (remember, they came to arrest Maurice, and were very much acting in a mob-like manner).
2. How they behaved and especially how Gaston had used that as blackmail material IS the reason I would NOT expose Beast if I were in his position, just one look, and I'd know my attempts at reasoning, and my showing proof, would just inevitably result in them attacking the castle, especially when Gaston being the type to resort to blackmail would inevitably mean he would kill anyone he views as a rival, so I wouldn't expose Beast, not even to save my father (That doesn't mean I wouldn't attempt to save my father at all, just that I wouldn't use that method).
Right. Because she could easily outrun a mob while trying to drag her sick father along. Not to mention Gaston got to his horse pretty quickly. No way she'd out run him. You can't make stuff up to try and prove a point.
Ever hear of guerilla warfare? What I described is exactly how guerilla warfare is often successfully pulled off, especially regarding extractions. And all she requires is not being seen.
Except you're ignoring Lefou and the Asylum director.
Because they're minor characters, not major characters, the latter of which is an actual requirement for the moral of the tale. Look, in morality tales, they keep the moral predicated on the ACTUAL major characters, like the hero and the villain. The minor characters mean absolutely nothing in them. That's why I can't focus on them. The only exception to that rule is if one of the seeming minor characters turns out to be directly responsible for the events and the mastermind as a hidden villain, OR they are a disguise for the main villain. That's in fact why they are called the main protagonist or the main antagonist or main character or main villain.
The 1988 and 1989 versions actually GOT it right.
Wow. You do realize he's cornered her and is forcing himself on her. That is just sick to think she's bad for spurring his borderline sexual assault advances. Defending herself does not make her bad. That is disgusting.
Maybe you need to pay more attention to the film, because Belle was obviously using herself as bait to lure him to the door, not trying to defend herself. I'd know because of her exaggerated movements and her rather sarcastic use of "Oh, Gaston! I'm... speechless, I really don't know what to say..." And she was actually shown to joke about it. Just look at this GIF if you don't believe me:
http://45.media.tumblr.com/9e93cbbfb4514c6059c44d66d371c783/tumblr_ne4uw4c23E1tt2x1bo6_500.gifAnd here's the full context of that scene:
http://disneydriven.tumblr.com/post/101636569095/belle-lettin-gaston-down-easyYeah, she clearly wasn't using self defense. Most people who use self defense to get rid of an unwanted person do NOT take joy at having to harm another person (the entire POINT of self defense is that they are forced into a situation that they have to use force to drive them off to defend themselves, and people do NOT like having to use force). For a good example, look at the issue where Mega Man has to get closure for taking down Ra Moon in Archie Comic's run of the series: Mega Man knew Ra Moon was evil and needed to be put down, but despite that, he also at the same time can't exactly help but feel guilty for having to kill him, and Dr. Light even indicated that actually made him decent. Someone who uses self-defense, in other words, would not mockingly wave goodbye while smirking as if she just told a joke.
Doesn't make her bad for wanting more for herself. Plenty of people want to get out of their small towns. Doesn't mean they're bad.
True, but mocking their own small communities doesn't paint anyone in a good light. I grew up in a backwater community, Dunwoody Georgia, heck, sometimes I want to get out of the town, but I never, EVER wish to consider them hicks.
Cinderella mocks her step-sisters' "music lessons."
Does she do it openly, or in private? And either way, it's not the same thing as basically openly decrying the town in some sort of narcissistic view of yourself being better than everyone else.
Heck, Belle has the same motivation as Ariel. She wants a life different than what she has.
Except unlike Belle, Ariel DOESN'T mock or insult her own home.
Because they disprove your claims. Gotcha.
No, because they are minor characters. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether they disprove my claims or not. I could easily cite how Flotsam and Jetsam don't prove my claims in The Little Mermaid about ugly = good, but guess what? I won't precisely because they are minor characters, NOT major characters.
Then quit encouraging people to read about him.
Education is going to force people to read about him anyways, and they're more likely than not going to promote him as being the way to emulate. At least I'm trying to make SURE that he is exposed as the demon he is.
reply
share
PreachCaleb
8 years ago
but it's not the be-all-end-all you're making it out to be.
Only if you want your business to continue.
the Matrix Trilogy, the Prequel Trilogy of Star Wars, Avatar, The Master, and all of those movies must have been successful despite the fact that they are at best ignored and at worst outright hated.
Those movies brought in the studios a lot of money and made it possible for the creators to make more movies. That is the definition of success. FYI, if they're making money, they're not being ignored. Especially the amounts those movies made.
What the heck is a con?
The Little Mermaid at least has a massive fan convention known as ArielCon.
Seriously?
That's NOT the reaction one gives if they knew Gaston was the groom, not to mention that's NOT the reaction everyone else gave either), meaning the only reason they would even BE there is if they were setting it up for Belle, and the only reason they would do that is if they were actual friends (especially considering how it was pretty obvious Belle was the groom since the reception was being set up just outside her house).
It's not like the whole town was there setting up. Plus, Gaston straight up thanks everyone for showing up to his wedding. They all knew why they were there. They're not her friends. There are no interactions whatsoever.
No, when they are necessary, period, regardless of what I think. I even acknowledged that their keeping Ariel's sisters weren't exactly necessary to the tale other than as a hold-over to the original tale, yet they did.
Ahh. So only when you deem them necessary. Gotcha.
How they behaved and especially how Gaston had used that as blackmail material IS the reason I would NOT expose Beast if I were in his position, just one look, and I'd know my attempts at reasoning, and my showing proof, would just inevitably result in them attacking the castle, especially when Gaston being the type to resort to blackmail would inevitably mean he would kill anyone he views as a rival, so I wouldn't expose Beast, not even to save my father (That doesn't mean I wouldn't attempt to save my father at all, just that I wouldn't use that method).
Hindsight's great for someone who knows what happens next in the story.
Ever hear of guerilla warfare? What I described is exactly how guerilla warfare is often successfully pulled off, especially regarding extractions. And all she requires is not being seen.
Yes. Where does it say Belle has? Not being seen? Who do you think Gaston would look towards?
Because they're minor characters, not major characters,
Problem is, they don't have a single ugly character who actually was bad from start to finish.
So you arbitrarily revise your claims once they've been disproven? Gotcha.
Maybe you need to pay more attention to the film, because Belle was obviously using herself as bait to lure him to the door, not trying to defend herself.
Jesus Christ. You're sick.
Does she do it openly, or in private?
Doesn't matter.
Except unlike Belle, Ariel DOESN'T mock or insult her own home.
Doesn't matter. They have the same motivation. Plus, Belle didn't mock it. Just pointed out the routine of it all.
No, because they are minor characters. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether they disprove my claims or not. I could easily cite how Flotsam and Jetsam don't prove my claims in The Little Mermaid about ugly = good, but guess what? I won't precisely because they are minor characters, NOT major characters.
So the characters you choose are the ones that support you. Gotcha.
Education is going to force people to read about him anyways, and they're more likely than not going to promote him as being the way to emulate. At least I'm trying to make SURE that he is exposed as the demon he is.
So make up your min: You adding to his notoriety or not?
Let's be bad guys.
reply
share
otness_e
8 years ago
Only if you want your business to continue.
And the amount of money, as those examples prove, mean absolutely nothing if people don't even remember the film you made, or hated it.
Those movies brought in the studios a lot of money and made it possible for the creators to make more movies. That is the definition of success. FYI, if they're making money, they're not being ignored. Especially the amounts those movies made.
Conservapedia confirmed that Avatar has been all but forgotten, and have you seen how many people HATED Reloaded, Revolutions, or how they hated the Prequel Trilogy?
Seriously?
Oh, right, You meant Convention (and for the record, the Live Action Transformers films don't have conventions either). And for the record, Star Wars is a success on a massive level precisely BECAUSE it not only raked in money, but it also got a huge convention and a massive franchise. The Little Mermaid is similar, releasing stuff even outside the Disney Princess label even today, while Beauty and the Beast is basically an extension of the DP label, so no, it's NOT a success.
It's not like the whole town was there setting up. Plus, Gaston straight up thanks everyone for showing up to his wedding. They all knew why they were there. They're not her friends. There are no interactions whatsoever.
Thank you for proving my point. And for the record, the only ones actually confirmed to be going for the wedding for Gaston's sake were his bar buddies, possibly that baker and that egg salesman. The triplets' reactions made VERY clear they were NOT setting it up for Gaston since they most likely didn't even know he was the groom (do you really think they'd shift from content to downright shocked if they knew he was the groom? Absolutely not!). And it's obvious everyone knew Belle was the groom (for goodness sakes, the reception was being set up just outside her house). The only thing the Triplets knew for certain was that there was a wedding. It's pretty obvious from their reactions that they had no idea Gaston was the groom. If they knew, they would NOT have reacted in surprise. Seriously, did you even LOOK at how they reacted at all. I look at the tiny details and make SURE to incorporate them.
Ahh. So only when you deem them necessary. Gotcha.
No, not when I deem them necessary. I even explicitly stated that I didn't even think Ariel's sisters were completely necessary to the story beyond as a throwback to the original tale, but didn't mind that. I didn't deem them necessary, yet didn't mind their presence.
Hindsight's great for someone who knows what happens next in the story.
It's called "deductive reasoning." Had I been in her position and things were transpiring exactly as they were happening, and it was instantaneous, guess what? I still wouldn't do it, because I'd be using my deductive reasoning to realize precisely what could go wrong with the mirror plan she utilized, and especially realize how Gaston would react just from subtle elements of his character and especially how he tried to use blackmail.
Yes. Where does it say Belle has? Not being seen? Who do you think Gaston would look towards?
Considering the fact that she manipulated Gaston into being thrown out into the mud earlier, managed to deflect an imminent downpour from gutters without even looking up, managed to lift up Maurice and Beast (the latter being twice), she most certainly can pull all of that off.
So you arbitrarily revise your claims once they've been disproven? Gotcha.
Actually, I revised that first one before you even responded largely because I realized it may have been two ambiguous initially. It had nothing to do with whether it was disproven or not.
Jesus Christ. You're sick.
If you actually LOOKED at those GIFs, you wouldn't have said that, because what I said matches up EXACTLY with what was shown in those GIFs.
Doesn't matter.
Ah, yeah, actually, it does matter, especially when it is meant to highlight whether they were even remotely similar in character at all, right down to motives or anything like that.
Doesn't matter. They have the same motivation. Plus, Belle didn't mock it. Just pointed out the routine of it all.
Yes, she did mock it. "There must be more than this
provincial life!" She sings twice, three times counting the reprise. Ariel never even ONCE insulted her peers in her original movie.
So the characters you choose are the ones that support you. Gotcha.
No, actually, it's not. I even explicitly stated I wouldn't pick minor characters even IF they supported my views specifically BECAUSE they're minor characters and don't mean anything. If I really was going to pick only characters that support my views, I would have made sure I picked Lumiere as an example of a character depicted as being ugly yet good, yet last I checked, I never even MENTIONED Lumiere as an example at all (and personally, I thought he was distasteful due to his womanizing nature, and quite frankly, I'm disgusted Belle never called him out on that behavior).
So make up your min: You adding to his notoriety or not?
By doing absolutely nothing to expose him, I'm still adding to his notoriety anyways especially when education ITSELF, not to mention media, is promoting his sick views right now. That's what you don't get about this.
reply
share