Beauty and the Beast - Time to Crush a Rose

[bjj hero]

But it makes Gaston less douchey?

Nope, but his actions are defensible. If I was townsfolk, Id be team Gaston rather than team Beast.

 

[Asita]

But youre happy to root for a killer, a kidnapper, someone whos vile actions cursed an entire towns worth of people. Think of all of their families where daddy never returned because he is now a plate.


Maybe Gastons motivations are suspect but his actions are correct when he storms the castle. He went to fight the beast being the under dog, physically smaller, no horns, fangs or claws.

No, they really aren't. He has absolutely no reason to believe that the Beast is a threat to anyone, he didn't even believe the Beast existed until literally a few seconds before deciding to attack him. And even then Belle only revealed the Beast to him and the townsfolk to vindicate her father, whom Gaston had arranged to be committed to an insane asylum to blackmail her into marrying him. Say what you will about keeping Belle as a prisoner, by the end of the story Gaston is worse.

Except when Belles father told him about the beast he stressed how monsterous he was. Gaston doesnt believe him. Belle confirms this beast so that is the only information he has. Big, monsterous and kidnaps townsfolk. In any other story that is the time to go and stop him.

But we root for beast because he kidnaps belle and wears her down until she likes him, the only non furniture company she is allowed.

And now you're reaching to make Gaston more heroic than he actually is. Even after the reveal, Gaston didn't care until he realized that Belle preferred the Beast to him. He didn't decide to go after the beast until she said that Gaston was more monstrous than the Beast was...at which point he riled up the villagers by inventing fanciful tales about how the Beast would raid the village to eat their children and they wouldn't be safe until the Beast's head was mounted on Gaston's wall as another trophy. You know, slander, to complement his preceding bribery, blackmail, and forthcoming jealousy-motivated attempted murder. Gaston is not a good person.

At the start of the story he's just a classic "jerk jock" with severe entitlement issues, and the Beast starts off even worse. But where the Beast's character development pushes him towards increasing empathy and humanity, Gaston's pushes him to increasing self-centeredness and monstrousness. They are dramatic foils to one another like that. Gaston represents what the Beast could have become. Borrowing from other Disney movies for a minute, Beauty and the Beast sets up a similar question of "who is the monster and who is the man" between Gaston and the Beast as the Hunchback of Notre Dame later did with Frollo and Quasimodo, albeit one where the answer is less static.

 

[Hawki]

Good point... though now, I'm wondering what kind of plot they'd spin out of the basic premise of "Satan on a Mountaintop, just hanging around".

Well, there is already a basic plot for the piece, like most of the Fantasia segments. We have Chernabog on a mountaintop above a village, who's entertained by the spirits of the dead, demons, etc. It ends with the coming of dawn, with him having to go into slumber again.

So in theory, you could wring out a story from that. Make Chernabog an actual threat to the village that's at the mountain's base, have the coming of dawn be an achievement of the characters rather than a guarantee, maybe even have them confront Chernabog, so that the Ave Maria segment is their 'reward' rather than a natural progression of a day-night cycle. It's a more conventional story than what Chernie presents (after all, he never even speaks in Fantasia, and is probably more memorable for it), but if you're dragging it out to movie length, you'll need characters, among other things, and ideally character arcs (likely based around faith if they're staying true to the original short).

 

[RJ 17]

They are gonna continue it, and according to Wikipedia they are gonna make live action films for:

Mulan
Aladdin
Don Quijote?
Dumbo
Peter Pan
Pinnochio
Snow White
The Lion King
Little Mermaid
And.....Night on Bald fuckin MOUNTAIN?! They are gonna live action this?

I am not kidding this is what it says in the Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Walt_Disney_Pictures_films#2010s

God damn you for posting that link. Your list alone was enough to make me shit my brain, but morbid curiosity bade me to click the link and see the full shit-show of future projects.

Disney has officially gone out of control. Marvel, Pixar, and Star Wars has made them drunk with power, and now we get to see the reckless and irrational consequences of their inebriation.

 

[bjj hero]

plenty of text

Falsely imprisoning townsfolk does make him a menace. It is a crime in every civilised country in the world with a hefty punishment. Hardly slander.

Read my previous posts. Ive never said Gaston was good. Just that storming the castle makes sense.

 

[Asita]

plenty of text

Falsely imprisoning townsfolk does make him a menace. It is a crime in every civilised country in the world with a hefty punishment. Hardly slander.

Read my previous posts. Ive never said Gaston was good. Just that storming the castle makes sense.

But that's the thing. It doesn't. Even assuming Gaston somehow knew everything that the audience did, the only two people he could point to as victims were only imprisoned after trespassing on the Beast's estate, and were voluntarily released no worse for the wear. Basically, all available data said at worst "leave him alone and he'll leave you alone". Storming the castle doesn't make sense under even those premises, and that's ignoring the fact that Gaston and the townsfolk never believed that Belle was held captive, and never invoked it as a rationale. Instead Gaston concocted the tale that the Beast ate people and would raid the village with impunity, all out of malicious intent to rile the village up to appease his jealousy. Hence slander.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

They are gonna continue it, and according to Wikipedia they are gonna make live action films for:

Mulan
Aladdin
Don Quijote?
Dumbo
Peter Pan
Pinnochio
Snow White
The Lion King
Little Mermaid
And.....Night on Bald fuckin MOUNTAIN?! They are gonna live action this?

I am not kidding this is what it says in the Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Walt_Disney_Pictures_films#2010s

God damn you for posting that link. Your list alone was enough to make me shit my brain, but morbid curiosity bade me to click the link and see the full shit-show of future projects.

Disney has officially gone out of control. Marvel, Pixar, and Star Wars has made them drunk with power, and now we get to see the reckless and irrational consequences of their inebriation.

Well the list that I highlighted the most:

Mulan should be PG-13 and less magical. I mean did the actual story of Mulan had fantasy elements like a guardian spirit aiding her?

Aladdin oh my goodness I can see the racial politics being spawned with that movie.

I am most curious about Don Quijote because I never read the whole story and I eat in a Resteraunt/Pizzaria that has a Don Quijote theme.

Dumbo.....just no.

How many fuckin Peter Pan adaptions do we have already?!

Oh man CGI puppet Pinnochio is gonna look creepy.

Snow White is the only one that's possible and makes some semblence of sense. I wonder how they are gonna design the Dwarves?

The Lion King movie live action is probably gonna be the worst one, because I can I not shake off the feeling that they are gonna incorporate live human actors in the story?

My perverted side wishes they cast a hot actress for Ariel with big tits, but sadly no. But I think a Live Action Little Mermaid is up there with Lion King in "this won't work"....but than again an Aquaman movie is being made so who knows.

And we come to my most curious: How the fuck are they gonna get away with a Night on Bald Mountain movie? And doing any such film from Fantasia is heresy in my eyes. Are they gonna turn Chernabog as this misunderstood tragic person that was good all along like how they did it with Maleficent? Kill me

 

[bjj hero]

But that's the thing. It doesn't. Even assuming Gaston somehow knew everything that the audience did, the only two people he could point to as victims were only imprisoned after trespassing on the Beast's estate, and were voluntarily released no worse for the wear. Basically, all available data said at worst "leave him alone and he'll leave you alone". Storming the castle doesn't make sense under even those premises, and that's ignoring the fact that Gaston and the townsfolk never believed that Belle was held captive, and never invoked it as a rationale. Instead Gaston concocted the tale that the Beast ate people and would raid the village with impunity, all out of malicious intent to rile the village up to appease his jealousy. Hence slander.

This is going no where. If you take a wrong turn and arrive at my house by accident; I am not allowed to hold you hostage. Even if Im going to let you go days/weeks/months later. This idea is so wrong that there is a whole sub-genre of horror movies based on variations of this premise.

Can we agree that if you imprison someone against their will that it is wrong and the proper authorities should get involved? That as a crime it warrants sanction?

There appears to be no real police force in this town. Just a town militia. Ive not seen this film in over a decade so excuse me if a policeman turns up in the 2nd act.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

This could be a decent, helpful review, but Mathew Parkinson is responsible for what I feel is the most wildly misjudged review of Rogue One I read (which came across as if it was written after he'd stubbed his toe, or been deprived of sleep for 72hrs), so mountains of salt are required...

I've never seen the original, so I may enjoy it for what it is as opposed to what it isn't. I mean, I have no intention or wish to see the film (the basic story always seemed a bit twisted), but I was hoping it'd turn out good, if only for Watson's sake.

 

[Asita]

But that's the thing. It doesn't. Even assuming Gaston somehow knew everything that the audience did, the only two people he could point to as victims were only imprisoned after trespassing on the Beast's estate, and were voluntarily released no worse for the wear. Basically, all available data said at worst "leave him alone and he'll leave you alone". Storming the castle doesn't make sense under even those premises, and that's ignoring the fact that Gaston and the townsfolk never believed that Belle was held captive, and never invoked it as a rationale. Instead Gaston concocted the tale that the Beast ate people and would raid the village with impunity, all out of malicious intent to rile the village up to appease his jealousy. Hence slander.

This is going no where. If you take a wrong turn and arrive at my house by accident; I am not allowed to hold you hostage. Even if Im going to let you go days/weeks/months later. This idea is so wrong that there is a whole sub-genre of horror movies based on variations of this premise.

Can we agree that if you imprison someone against their will that it is wrong and the proper authorities should get involved? That as a crime it warrants sanction?

There appears to be no real police force in this town. Just a town militia. Ive not seen this film in over a decade so excuse me if a policeman turns up in the 2nd act.

And in the event that you did, I would neither have the right nor be wise to try and kill you.

No police force is seen. Does not change the fact that the rationale you are invoking to defend the act never crossed the mob's mind.

 

[THM]

Can we all finally admit to ourselves that Emma Watson really isn't that good of an actress? I mean, I've seen worse, but she really is bland in all the roles I've seen her in.

We could, but then the ravening hoards of feminist zombies would tear your...uh...face off. Remember, she's not just about acting anymore, she's about making men feel bad about existing uh, I mean equality (yeah, that's the ticket). Who needs to display 'talent' when there's a 'movement' to lead, right? :/

OP: Welp, 'nother Disney live action adaptation to stay the hell away from. Looks like 'Maleficent' is the only one that got it right. Oh well.

 

[bjj hero]

But that's the thing. It doesn't. Even assuming Gaston somehow knew everything that the audience did, the only two people he could point to as victims were only imprisoned after trespassing on the Beast's estate, and were voluntarily released no worse for the wear. Basically, all available data said at worst "leave him alone and he'll leave you alone". Storming the castle doesn't make sense under even those premises, and that's ignoring the fact that Gaston and the townsfolk never believed that Belle was held captive, and never invoked it as a rationale. Instead Gaston concocted the tale that the Beast ate people and would raid the village with impunity, all out of malicious intent to rile the village up to appease his jealousy. Hence slander.

This is going no where. If you take a wrong turn and arrive at my house by accident; I am not allowed to hold you hostage. Even if Im going to let you go days/weeks/months later. This idea is so wrong that there is a whole sub-genre of horror movies based on variations of this premise.

Can we agree that if you imprison someone against their will that it is wrong and the proper authorities should get involved? That as a crime it warrants sanction?

There appears to be no real police force in this town. Just a town militia. Ive not seen this film in over a decade so excuse me if a policeman turns up in the 2nd act.

And in the event that you did, I would neither have the right nor be wise to try and kill you.

No police force is seen. Does not change the fact that the rationale you are invoking to defend the act never crossed the mob's mind.

Which comes back to my comment. The action is justifiable, even if the motivations are questionable.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

I sometimes wonder where I was when fairies were sprinkling dust over everyone to make them fall in love with Emma Watson. Her popularity baffles me.

It?s the whole nerdy girl turned beauty shtick that is popularized by romcoms and sitcoms. Plus, a number of current day teens and young adults grew up with her with Harry Potter.

Yeah, but you'd have to be, like, beautiful for that, right?

I'm not trying to come across like a dick who only values appearances, but the way Emma Watson gets presented like she's this mezmerizing vision of beauty just really makes me scratch my head. They tried to do the same with Daniel Radcliffe, making him out to be this hunk, and... no sorry, just no.

I understand where you're coming from. I'm just as bewildered as you that so many people seem to find her gorgeous to look at. Or at least that the media tells us that people think she is. Her being in this movie killed any potential interest I could have mustered up for it. If they had put a real hottie like Emma Stone or Eva Green in a couple of those corsets I might have gone for some eye candy. With Watson I was more than content to sit this one out and let the girlfriend go with her sister instead.

 

[ryan_cs]

But that's the thing. It doesn't. Even assuming Gaston somehow knew everything that the audience did, the only two people he could point to as victims were only imprisoned after trespassing on the Beast's estate, and were voluntarily released no worse for the wear. Basically, all available data said at worst "leave him alone and he'll leave you alone". Storming the castle doesn't make sense under even those premises, and that's ignoring the fact that Gaston and the townsfolk never believed that Belle was held captive, and never invoked it as a rationale. Instead Gaston concocted the tale that the Beast ate people and would raid the village with impunity, all out of malicious intent to rile the village up to appease his jealousy. Hence slander.

This is going no where. If you take a wrong turn and arrive at my house by accident; I am not allowed to hold you hostage. Even if Im going to let you go days/weeks/months later. This idea is so wrong that there is a whole sub-genre of horror movies based on variations of this premise.

Can we agree that if you imprison someone against their will that it is wrong and the proper authorities should get involved? That as a crime it warrants sanction?

There appears to be no real police force in this town. Just a town militia. Ive not seen this film in over a decade so excuse me if a policeman turns up in the 2nd act.

And in the event that you did, I would neither have the right nor be wise to try and kill you.

No police force is seen. Does not change the fact that the rationale you are invoking to defend the act never crossed the mob's mind.

Which comes back to my comment. The action is justifiable, even if the motivations are questionable.

Isn't that why no one's angry at the villagers for doing this? I kinda agree their actions are sorta justifiable, but I think part of the reason that I don't hate the villagers as much as Gaston for taking part is because I have no reason to believe that the villagers are doing it out of malice. However, Gaston's motivations are very unsympathetic, "Gaston and the townsfolk never believed that Belle was held captive, and never invoked it as a rationale." I'd probably sympathize more if he did, but since he didn't it shows that he does not care about Belle. This is part of the reason that he's considered to be the villain.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I understand where you're coming from. I'm just as bewildered as you that so many people seem to find her gorgeous to look at. Or at least that the media tells us that people think she is. Her being in this movie killed any potential interest I could have mustered up for it. If they had put a real hottie like Emma Stone or Eva Green in a couple of those corsets I might have gone for some eye candy. With Watson I was more than content to sit this one out and let the girlfriend go with her sister instead.

I was more than content to sit it out either way. I don't care if they'd cast freaking 80's Phoebe Cates as Belle -- I'd still have to look at that awful Beast design.

 

[thepyrethatburns]

Eh.

I was thinking the other day if they had made Gaston gay then turned the last 30-40 minutes into an ending where Beast and Gaston transcended their outward issues to fall deeply in love, that would have been a movie that I would have been curious to see (and would have been worth so much of the "controversy").

As it is, the only thing that is vaguely interesting is the notion of Emma Watson playing a woman who falls in love through Stockholm Syndrome.

 

[Clankenbeard]

Does Night on Bald Mountain even have a plot? It's just The Dark Lord Satan and his entourage hanging out until curfew.

That's pretty much it, but if anything, that makes the sound of a movie sound more appealing. It'll force the movie-makers to come up with a bona fide plot, whereas the other remakes will follow their predecessors to some degree.

Good point... though now, I'm wondering what kind of plot they'd spin out of the basic premise of "Satan on a Mountaintop, just hanging around".

"Satan and Entourage go to White Castle" It practically writes itself--in blood.

OT: 20 Years ago, Gaston would have been played (poorly) by Bruce Campbell. I know he can "sing"--I saw him sing (poorly) Hungry Like the Wolf in an Old Spice Commercial once.

 

[lacktheknack]

As it is, the only thing that is vaguely interesting is the notion of Emma Watson playing a woman who falls in love through Stockholm Syndrome.

I wish people would stop saying this.

For one thing, Belle doesn't get sweet on Beast until he stops being so awful, and also, when he lets her go... she leaves.

 

[marioandsonic]

So...not very good, then? As someone who absolutely adores the animated film, that's disappointing. Then again, not entirely unexpected. I don't think anything could top the 1991 masterpiece.

I've heard it's doing fantastic at the box office though, so get ready for more live-action remakes...

As it is, the only thing that is vaguely interesting is the notion of Emma Watson playing a woman who falls in love through Stockholm Syndrome.

I wish people would stop saying this.

For one thing, Belle doesn't get sweet on Beast until he stops being so awful, and also, when he lets her go... she leaves.

THANK YOU. Finally, someone said it!

 

[Pyrian]

Can we agree that if you imprison someone against their will that it is wrong and the proper authorities should get involved? That as a crime it warrants sanction?

There appears to be no real police force in this town. Just a town militia. Ive not seen this film in over a decade so excuse me if a policeman turns up in the 2nd act.

Well, this is a feudal setting, so the proper ultimate authority would be the local noble. Y'know. ...Beast.