Something to think about

I think your cynicism is justified

-Elizabeth
http://geocities.com/lesmisforever

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Er, wow.
I don't mean to insult you, but it's pretty pathetic that you would waste time to write a 20-something page essay about the faults of a simple little kids movie and how horrible it is. I'd understand if it was critically acclaimed and a complete piece of trash but really, it's JUST a movie.

Wiggum: It would be really gas if you turned your magic bus around and headed to our pig pad.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

BETHANY COX
"Music comes from within, from your heart and from your soul."

Fosthoff, I agree with you. Almost every single Disney film has at least one continuity error. The OP is being very cynical about what a sequel that is considered by a majority to be one of the better DTV sequels. In fact, when I read his paper, the ONLY thing I agreed with him about was that he acknowledged it was a fantastic voice cast.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

First of all, the original BATB had its share of continuity errors. One good example is the scene when Gaston tries to propose to Belle. When he enters the house, the door opens inward. Then when she throws him out, the door opens outward so that he falls out. Then when she tosses his boots out after him, the door opens inward again. Well what do you know? Couldn't the animators keep track of which way it went, eh?

I'm not sure if I would call that a continuity error so much as an animation mistake. Continuity errors generally imply problems with the plot (like writing mistakes, plot holes, etc., etc.). Though that being said, I definitely agree that the original Beauty and the Beast definitely had quite a large portion of continuity problems (and I mean plot-wise, not animation wise), enough that I heard it was considered the champion of plot holes (The Little Mermaid didn't really have any continuity problems, with the closest to a true continuity problem was Caroletta inferring that the event where Eric was saved by Ariel occurred the past week, yet the scene after Ursula's monologue about her garden implied that the events took place the morning after Ariel saving Eric and becoming infatuated with him). Like, for a few examples:

*The bit about the prince's exact age when he was cursed (the portraits suggested he was a late teen, early adult, yet Lumiere implied that the curse lasted as long as ten whole years [and despite what others may claim, it's unlikely it was referring to their skills, since their official jobs aren't really the kinds that would... "rust" from being cursed as enchanted objects (for example, Lumiere and Cogsworth, and to some extent Mrs. Potts acted under an advisory function for Beast [which really doesn't require much physical activity or even mental capabilities to rust], and the other time they actually treated to a guest was with Maurice, and they did a pretty dang good job helping him out.). And aside from that, the other servants' current forms, like Chef Bouche and the featherduster, if anything actually improved their capabilities for their jobs, meaning they'd have the exact opposite to rusting in terms of skills, they'd be having a heckuva time improving their skills. Probably the only one of the revealed servants in the original film that most likely DID rust in terms of skills was the wardrobe since she obviously would not have been able to fit dresses onto any females prior to Belle arriving since... well, there WERE no female characters who were human before her arrival, and aside from that... if supplemental materials are anything to go by, she used to be an opera singer and... well, obviously she can't continue as a opera star while stuck as a wardrobe. In the Special Edition, there were the garden tools and the cleaning staff that most likely had been rusting, though even there, they seemed to have done a very good job there.).

*The fact that the woodchopper device was even repaired at all (in the film, it was implied that the woodchopper had to be dismantled to fit on the back of Maurice's wagon, and realistically, neither Belle nor Maurice would have had enough time to fix up the device, either when discovering Maurice was missing, or Maurice going home to pack up to find Belle alone, or when Belle nursed him back to health right before Gaston's blackmail plan came into effect. And based on the villagers' interactions with them and especially their treatment of Maurice [well, most of them anyways, it's unlikely the bookseller or even the triplets thought Maurice was crazy at all], it's extremely unlikely they would have repaired the device, especially not when they didn't even know Beast existed until Belle idiotically exposed him).

*The villagers not being aware of the Beast's existence at all, especially when the village was a couple hours away at most from the castle on foot via the most direct path based on how some scenes were framed (one of the bigger problems with that is that Beast had a rotted ribcage inside the West Wing, which strongly implied that Beast hunted for food sometimes. Considering that and the close proximity between the castle and the village, the Beast would have been more like an urban legend rather than a literal unknown realistically).

*Mrs. Potts' exact age (she had at least a six or seven children based on some scenes, yet she looked and acted old enough to be their grandmother).

That's at the top of my head, and there are probably others.

Also, I noted that in the essays you wrote, you slammed on EC for having the characters (whose presence you seemed to dislike as well) sing "Deck the Halls", as you said that was historically inaccurate. I might point out that there were anachronistic moments in the original BATB. Specific examples would be when Cogsworth wipes his face with the clock hands in a windshield like manner or the Indy car sound effect used when Mrs. Potts rides the tea cart to Maurice. Also, when Gaston tries to propose to Belle Lefou strikes up the band to play "Here Comes the Bride", a song which was first introduced in 1850. Depending on what point of the 18th century the film took place, that could be just as historically inaccurate as "Deck the Halls".

Actually, not just "depending on", that is flat out historically inaccurate (the 18th century is the 1700s, meaning there is absolutely no way Here Comes the Bride could be played during that time. That came out during the 19th century.). And you forgot to mention Lumiere and the dishes not only forming the Eiffel Tower, but also having a few bars of Les Marsellaise playing during Be Our Guest, even though not only did the film take place a century before the Eiffel Tower was developed at all, but Les Marsellaise wasn't an idea until most likely a couple of years after the film (since the film is implied to be pre-French Revolution). And don't get me started on how the opening song had a twofer where the villagers during the market scene were demanding for "a pound" and "a yard" of some items. First of all, France during that time utilized hands and feet as measurements. And even IF they were to ignore that bit, they would have used the metric system (liters, meters, that kind of stuff), NOT American measurement systems (inches, feet, yards, miles, etc.), since the French use the metric system (which was created as a result of the French Revolution). Even elementary school students know what the metric system is (heck, their rulers actually have it on the other side of the bit with inches).

Oh, and about your gripe on the crowd of people in the hall at the begining of EC? You said that there was no explanation as to why they were there? Well do you at all remember the large group of people who gathered to watch the Prince and Belle dance at the end of the original BATB? Perhaps it's *those people*? It was pretty well established that there were a lot of servants, plus Cogsworth made mention in EC to the fact that the townsfolk came to the Christmas feast. Is it so inconcievable that some of the townsfolk came to help decorate the castle or came to assist in some way?

I think that took care of that more than I can state it. Besides, the original film had plenty of characterization mistakes anyways, like Belle being framed as pure of heart (the beauty), yet acted like a jerk for most of the first half, the triplets being depicted as genuine sweethearts despite being Belle's foils (not to mention arguably outranking her in terms of outer beauty at least, if not inner beauty due to their nice nature), among others.

And yes, Enchanted Christmas was definitely one of the better DTV movies (personally, I think Simba's Pride, Return to the Sea [kind of], Enchanted Christmas, and the two Aladdin sequels were the better DTV movies).

reply share

add reply

formatting help