Disney Duster wrote:Belle being an inventor shows she wants to bring change to the village…and then it doesn’t work, it doesn't amount to something, she doesn't change the village. We already knew Belle didn’t fit in her village! The new film basically says the village is even worse than the first film’s version.
Aaron and I are championing Belle's position not just as an outcast in her village, but an innovator who can see ways to improve village life - even if the village doesn't accept it. The general idea of innovation adds a new layer to her as a character. She's no longer just an outcast because she's the inventor's daughter, she's an outcast because she, too, is an inventor. What the rest of the village sees as tradition that doesn't need change is now getting challenged by her: teaching girls to read, mechanizing daily chores, etc. This is not about our reading of the village, but our reading of Belle.
Disney Duster wrote:Belle wasn’t flaky for running out of the Beast’s castle despite a promise in the original film. She was saving her life! And not just literally, but giving herself a better life by escaping him! That was a good thing for her character to do!
"Promise or no promise, I can't stay here another minute."
"Promise or no promise" - so regardless what she may have said before, she will make a decision.
"I can't stay here another minute." - the decision she makes.
He yelled at her. He didn't strike her. He didn't threaten to kill her. He did nothing but yell, "Get out" of his private place. You may argue that it's her survival instinct to flee, and that it's a good thing, but at the same time, it still paints Belle as going back on her word, and that's the definition of flaking out. No character is 100% good or bad, and Belle flaking out shows that even she is imperfect. Aaron and I make the argument in the podcast that we like how this version of Belle has chosen from the get-go that she will trade spaces with her father, because she already knows she will try to escape. Animated Belle isn't given that motivation, and so despite what she says, her actions later on still define her: she flakes on her promise. It's not about whether or not 1991 Belle is good or bad for her decision to leave, but that we accept this new character motivation in the new film.
Disney Duster wrote:Belle and the Beast didn’t even share love of the same books.
So what?
If Aaron loves
Captain America: Civil War and I love
Captain America: The Winter Soldier, even though we aren't as fond of the other film, then it's still factual that we both love
Captain America films even if they're not the same ones. Belle and Beast can love books without having to have every single one of them be the same.
Disney Duster wrote:They didn’t talk about how great any books were except in how one liked a book and the other didn’t, and the Beast happened to be reading a book about romance and Belle likes romantic books.
Beast rolls his eyes at
Romeo and Juliet because he's read other romantic books. Though Belle loves it, Beast knows there are other stories she would equally love, hence why he shows her his library. "You like romance? I've got a bunch more." He's sharing in his interest of romantic stories with her by inviting her to learn about more of them. Why is that a problem with the new film? It adds more to their respective love of stories and equals them, at least literature-wise. It's not the whole "I'll teach you to read" angle now, but "If we're gonna read, we've got a lot we can pick from."
Disney Duster wrote:Emma Watson a reserved character, with intensity? Ok, but I found her seemingly bored, stiff, and not very lively or intense at all.
Well, that's your reading of the performance, then. Clearly, we saw it differently.
Disney Duster wrote:Even though, of course, it doesn’t make sense that a French person wouldn’t understand the French words being said to him.
That's the whole point of meta-humor.
Disney Duster wrote:Um, Chip did move, not just talk, when he first met Maurice.
A talking piece of furniture is still more shocking than one that moves of its own accord. Especially for an inventor... you know, someone who creates things that can move of their own accord like figures in a music box.
Disney Duster wrote:“Let’s go home.” “Can anybody be happy if they aren’t free?” So she calls it her home, like she has grown to like it? And thus be happy with it? But it’s also her prison?! Those lines conflict.
Er, that's why I quoted them, because of the conflict. The two lines intentionally conflict because no matter how dressed up and comfortable a prison is... it's still a prison.
Disney Duster wrote:“The wonder of us”…what did you mean? That the enchanted objects are singing of the wonder of them being hopeful in the universe? Or of everyone existing and being unique in the universe? Because, though that is a deep thought of yours, why would they go from “we’re under a spell, it sucks, but we have hope we’ll become human…” to “people existing in the universe is amazing!”?!!!
This one got away from me in the discussion. But the general idea is that, no matter how terrible their current fate may be, they still hold on to some hope, some happiness, and that's what they sing about. The "wonder of us" is that they still have the ability to recognize and accept what they are in the grand scheme of the universe, not just in the limited scope of who these characters are within that one moment in the story.
Disney Duster wrote:The Beast was punished for a lifetime of being a jerk, not a moment. Plus, the lines in the film about eternal damnation for a rose don’t fly because he didn’t receive eternal damnation in exchange for a rose. The lines just don’t really work.
It's a metaphor. He's symbolizing his treatment of the old woman and the rose for his entire life. That one moment defined him more than a lifetime of vanity could.
Disney Duster wrote:Allowing the natural singing voice for Quasimodo works in the musical because it’s on stage, suspension of disbelief, it wouldn’t work for a movie like Beauty and the Beast.
Anything fictional requires a suspension of disbelief, be it stage, film, or television. It would work.
Disney Duster wrote:I think “Who can make up these endless refrains like Gaston?” is meant to be “Who is so great endless refrains can be made about him?” Otherwise why would people be asked to think of a character joke that Gaston takes credit for things he didn’t do, when they’re supposed to be thinking of the humor that they are acknowledging they’re making endless refrains?
It's basic grammar and more meta-humor. The line works because these are actors in a musical asking in lyrics about who else BUT the actor could sing those lyrics. It's not about Gaston taking credit, it's about Howard Ashman's lines directly asking the audience just how many more lines Luke Evans (or whoever would have performed Gaston) can sing. This is the part where you'd use that suspension of disbelief. A musical with a song in which the characters directly address that they are in a musical singing a song.
Albert