MovieChat Forums > Beauty and the Beast (1991) Discussion > So he was only a beast for a couple year...

So he was only a beast for a couple years? I guess I was misremembering

posted 8 years ago by andrewrrrr
52 replies | jump to latest

I must have completely forgotten about that 21st birthday time limit on his curse. I always thought he had been a beast for a long time and just like didn't age while in that form or something cause they mention the years slipping away as he gave up hope but I guess he was aging normally. He looks the same when he transformed as when he transformed back so he was only like 19 or 20 when he got cursed and that was only like a year before the start of the movie or something? This seems like it would have made more sense if he had been cursed as a little boy.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

I think he was more likely a teenager when he was cursed, like 16 or 17.

[–] ZakkWyldeMyLittlePony 8 years ago

He might've been close to 18. Barely an adult.

Nicko McBrain of Iron Maiden is a Brony

[–] NobodymournstheWicked 8 years ago

No he had to be a Beast for 10 years at the very most since it is mentioned in the Be our guest song here is the part of the song

Ten years we've been rusting

So it would have been 10 years that he would have been a beast

[–] andrewrrrr 8 years ago

That means he's 11 in that painting of him from before he was cursed

[–] PreachCaleb 8 years ago

Not necessarily. Lumiere mentions needing exercise, which implies they were still human when they sat around doing nothing. Sounds like the prince had been turning guests away for a long time before he was even cursed.

Seize the moment, 'cause tomorrow you might be dead.

[–] otness_e 8 years ago

He also said "needed so much more than dusting" and "use their skills," and last I checked, the specific skillsets they had were pretty clearly put to the test with Maurice well BEFORE Be Our Guest, and they actually performed very well in their tasks (and besides which, it really doesn't take much physical activity for their other roles which was acting as advisors to Beast).

Oh, and for the record, the remake is making it pretty explicit that the Beast WAS a kid when he was cursed.

[–] PreachCaleb 8 years ago

last I checked, the specific skillsets they had were pretty clearly put to the test with Maurice well BEFORE Be Our Guest,

Only about three of the servants got to use theirs skills for Maurice.

What about the rest of the castle? The plates? The cook? The dusters?

Oh, and for the record, the remake is making it pretty explicit that the Beast WAS a kid when he was cursed.

That's cool. That's a different movie. Just like The Jungle Book remake had a different ending. It didn't affect the original. The remake of Beauty and the Beast doesn't affect this movie.

Seize the moment, 'cause tomorrow you might be dead.

[–] otness_e 8 years ago

Only about three of the servants got to use theirs skills for Maurice.

What about the rest of the castle? The plates? The cook? The dusters?

The dusters obviously would have been exercising their skills (how could they not, when their current forms pretty much left them with no other choice?). And as far as the cook, it's not entirely clear how the Beast dined. On the one hand, the Beast's rotting ribcage in the West Wing would suggest he hunted for his food, but on the other, Beast actually DID have the chef prepare what was presumably a tasty feast before Belle refused to dine with him (The chef even said as much). I'll give you the plates, though, and probably also the pallanquin (that spider-coach thing that delivered Maurice back to the village) given roots were clearly seen on its legs before it departed.

That's cool. That's a different movie. Just like The Jungle Book remake had a different ending. It didn't affect the original. The remake of Beauty and the Beast doesn't affect this movie.

Even still, it's pretty clear the guys who are writing the remake certainly had the 11 year old being cursed interpretation in mind when making it, and since Disney, you know, signed off on it instead of firing the guy for going against them in a totalitarian manner, I'm pretty sure that Disney also agreed with that interpretation.

[–] PreachCaleb 8 years ago

(how could they not, when their current forms pretty much left them with no other choice?)

Easy. They could just walk around the floors but not dust the shelves, cupboards, tables, etc.

I'm pretty sure that Disney also agreed with that interpretation.

Absolutely. For the remake. Just like they agreed with Mowgli not returning to the man village.

Seize the moment, 'cause tomorrow you might be dead.

[–] PreachCaleb 8 years ago

(how could they not, when their current forms pretty much left them with no other choice?)

Easy. They could just walk around the floors but not dust the shelves, cupboards, tables, etc. In any case, the point being they don't entertain guests often.

I'm pretty sure that Disney also agreed with that interpretation.

Absolutely. For the remake. Just like they agreed with Mowgli not returning to the man village. An interpretation for a remake is not a confirmation of something in the original.

Seize the moment, 'cause tomorrow you might be dead.

[–] otness_e 8 years ago

When I think of a company running things, I think of it as being a very totalitarian manner, meaning, if Disney wanted the remake to basically be similar to the film in many ways, if they do even a slight difference, that writer is fired.

As far as the featherdusters, I'm pretty sure the featherdusters do in fact dust whatever they are on (after all, how can they not, when their bottom halves are literally feathers), especially considering that Lumiere, Mrs. Potts, Cogsworth, and the like had no problems walking all over tables, shelves, etc., etc. And I still don't buy the whole he was so unpleasant no guest wants to go to the castle. First of all, villagers are pretty much required to be guests (it's even in the bible), and second of all, even if they weren't, considering Gaston's even MORE of an, pardon my language, but... ass than Beast ever was, and the village STILL is at least popular enough to get newcomers (due to Belle and Maurice not being native to the village), it's pretty obvious that wouldn't have been the explanation (otherwise, the village would have been abandoned precisely BECAUSE no one would want to live there thanks to Gaston's antics and the villagers not telling him off).

[–] BelleStar82 8 years ago

I had the idea that time was frozen in the enchantment somehow....
It had to be long enough for a WHOLE VILLAGE to forget there was a monarchy / castle just a horse ride away.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

In 18th-century France, the monarch of the country would be living in Versailles, not on top of a mountain. The Beast was simply a prince. The fact that the villagers don't talk about him or know he has turned into a beast doesn't mean they aren't aware of a prince living a few hours away.

[–] otness_e 8 years ago

Agreed that it's not the crown prince or anything like that (the "prince," if anything, would have been closer to Prince Escolas from Romeo and Juliet in terms of position or at least being a nobleman).

However, the fact that the villagers seem to be completely unaware of the beast at all or even his castle (they clearly thought Maurice was crazy when he mentioned the beast, even when he explicitly mentioned the castle he was at. Had I been any of the villagers, I'd probably at least believe his claims of there being a castle and try to investigate, NOT dismiss him as crazy, due to knowing there was a castle nearby) suggests they weren't even aware of the prince living a few hours away or his castle, let alone his being turned into a beast.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

We already discussed this a thousand times. Ofcourse they never knew about the beast, he stayed on his own dominion and the villagers kept to themselves. Maurice and Belle never mentioned a castle, so ofcourse the villagers didn't know where this beast lived. Maurice himself didn't even seem to know where the castle was.

[–] otness_e 8 years ago

We already discussed this a thousand times. Ofcourse they never knew about the beast, he stayed on his own dominion and the villagers kept to themselves. Maurice and Belle never mentioned a castle, so ofcourse the villagers didn't know where this beast lived. Maurice himself didn't even seem to know where the castle was.

Belle may not have mentioned a castle, but Maurice most certainly DID mention the castle when he ran to that tavern and got thrown out, or at least the dungeon. Not to mention Gaston when relaying his plan to the warden explicitly said "he came into this tavern raving about a beast in the castle," the latter of which he shouldn't have said if Maurice didn't. Also, if a castle was mentioned and the castle was only a walk away at most, it's not hard to put two-and-two together to deduce that's probably the castle. I know if I was a villager, I'd at least take Maurice at his word regarding the castle, even if not the beast, due to being familiar with the castle due to it being walking distance.

And as far as the whole dominions thing and keeping to themselves, Beast was implied to hunt for his own meals (a deleted scene had him chowing down on a freshly killed deer in an animalistic manner, and there was a rotting ribcage in his quarters even in the final version), and I'm pretty sure that Gaston and possibly the other villagers would also go out into the forests to hunt, and given the implied close proximity between the two in the Mob Song and the prologue's stained glass windows, it's extremely unlikely they wouldn't have crossed paths.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

No, we know exactly what Maurice said and he never mentioned the word "castle". He did say "dungeon" from which Gaston deduced that the beast lived in a castle. But one, he had no idea where Maurice had been and where this castle was (France is FILLED with castles). Two, he thought Maurice was crazy and that there was no monster, so why would he assume the castle was real? And if he did, why would he even care? Three, as soon as Belle acknowledged there was a beast, he went straight to the castle.

The movie explicitly states that the Beast concealed himself inside his castle. If he went out to hunt, he would do that in his own private forest where the villagers wouldn't be allowed to hunt. The villagers would go and hunt in the common forests. The Beast also seems to have hunted at night time, while most hunters hunt during the day. And the Beast would most certainly flee if he sensed a human nearby. So yeah, it's very unlikely they would've crossed paths. But I already explained this to you a thousand times.

[–] otness_e 8 years ago

No, we know exactly what Maurice said and he never mentioned the word "castle". He did say "dungeon" from which Gaston deduced that the beast lived in a castle. But one, he had no idea where Maurice had been and where this castle was (France is FILLED with castles). Two, he thought Maurice was crazy and that there was no monster, so why would he assume the castle was real? And if he did, why would he even care? Three, as soon as Belle acknowledged there was a beast, he went straight to the castle.

I know France (heck, Europe as a whole) is littered with castles. That's not the point. The point is, the castle was located right near the village, and if it's located near the village, even taking into account how France is littered with castles, they'd put two and two together and assume that's the castle he was probably at, taking into account the amount of time he was gone alongside the distance. Also, thinking Maurice is crazy means absolutely nothing when there's a castle literally on your back yard. The only thing he might assume is the beast doesn't exist, NOT that the castle doesn't. Had I been in Gaston's position, I'd probably assume that he did get to the castle, but had a psychotic break and hallucinated the presence of a castle while there, NOT that the castle flat out didn't exist. It's called knowing your environment. There's a big difference between not knowing of a castle in, say, assuming this was in Alsace-Lorraine, then in Gascony, and not knowing there is a castle literally right on your own back yard, the latter of which is clearly the case.

The movie explicitly states that the Beast concealed himself inside his castle. If he went out to hunt, he would do that in his own private forest where the villagers wouldn't be allowed to hunt. The villagers would go and hunt in the common forests. The Beast also seems to have hunted at night time, while most hunters hunt during the day. And the Beast would most certainly flee if he sensed a human nearby. So yeah, it's very unlikely they would've crossed paths. But I already explained this to you a thousand times.

First of all, Beast was unlikely to even have private forests (in fact, barring that bridge, that castle was separated from most of the area, being on a peak, so it's impossible for him to have those). Second of all, I'm pretty sure thanks to several elements of the enlightenment that that bit was minimal if it was still practiced (especially considering that Gaston was clearly a hunter and displayed trophies despite his obviously not being a nobleman), and we know it took place during the French Enlightenment because Glen Keane confirmed the setting was mid-to-late 18th Century France. And lastly, I'm familiar with a few hunters who have in fact hunted at night time, especially if they are engaging in hunting trips. And if he truly concealed himself in the castle, please explain the rotting rib cage here: http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/disney/images/4/4e/Beautyandthebeast_2607.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20160602022332

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

Maurice went on a trip, who knows which castle he's talking about. If it even existed, because the villagers thought he was crazy. There is no reason to go and check out the nearest castle if they don't believe there's a monster holding Belle prisoner in his dungeon. It's ridiculous.

First of all, Beast was unlikely to even have private forests

Are you crazy? He's a nobleman, ofcourse he had a private forest! And yes, that practice still existed, it didn't change until the French Revolution. Peasants had very little hunting rights. Seeing the animals Gaston shot, he would mostly have hunted during the day.

The movie stated the Beast concealed himself inside his castle, so if he would go out to hunt he would stay in his own forest, most likely just outside the gate.

[–] otness_e 8 years ago

Maurice went on a trip, who knows which castle he's talking about. If it even existed, because the villagers thought he was crazy. There is no reason to go and check out the nearest castle if they don't believe there's a monster holding Belle prisoner in his dungeon. It's ridiculous.

The fair he was going to was in another town, and back then, such trips usually lasted several days, at the very least two (one for the trip there, and one for the return trip, and that's assuming he doesn't stay at an inn). If he were back in a single day, things would be a bit suspicious, especially when he isn't scheduled to be back by then (in fact, based on the villagers shocked reactions by Maurice's arrival at the tavern, they clearly weren't expecting him to be back).

Are you crazy? He's a nobleman, ofcourse he had a private forest! And yes, that practice still existed, it didn't change until the French Revolution. Peasants had very little hunting rights. Seeing the animals Gaston shot, he would mostly have hunted during the day.

The movie stated the Beast concealed himself inside his castle, so if he would go out to hunt he would stay in his own forest, most likely just outside the gate.

Fine, fair point, I stand corrected regarding the private/common huntings, but the forest also encompassed the village as well based on where the village was located and the Mob Song. And I've seen at least one instance of a hunter hunting deer at night. Namely, Eragon, the very opening had the titular character about to hunt a deer before the warped Dragon egg came about, and the environment was clearly set during the night time.

And considering how little distance was between the village and castle (based on both the prologue windows and the Mob Song), that would indicate that Gaston couldn't have hunted in the forests, even though at least a few of the animal trophies were forest-dwellers (certainly the antlers and deer had to come from the forest). Besides, by that logic, Gaston would have hunted in America due to the presence of Big-Horn Sheep and a Bald Eagle trophy, and probably hunted on the Spanish border due to the bear rug at his tavern, even when, as you and the film claim, the villagers, Gaston included, don't even care about the outside world and thus have no reason to do that (and BTW, the presence of coonskin hats among some of the villagers implied that at least some other Villagers besides Gaston hunted abroad as well, since raccoons weren't even a thing in France until the 20th century when some were accidentally brought over. Back then, they were strictly a North American animal).

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

I doubt they knew Maurice had gone to the fair and they certainly didn't know where he supposedly encountered this beast. But again, they thought he was crazy, they're not going to check out the nearest castle because of some absurd claim. And like I said, Maurice himself wasn't even sure where the castle was.

We see Maurice travel through an entirely different area before he has entered the forest situated on the mountain. The forest is not right next to the village. The windows are symbolical, the Mob Song scene just a montage, if you take that literally then the castle was only a few minutes away.

You're not going to take those animal trophies seriously, are you? They're just a joke, they don't say anything about where Gaston hunts.

[–] otness_e 8 years ago

I doubt they knew Maurice had gone to the fair and they certainly didn't know where he supposedly encountered this beast. But again, they thought he was crazy, they're not going to check out the nearest castle because of some absurd claim. And like I said, Maurice himself wasn't even sure where the castle was.

Maybe not, but he would have been certain it was close by due to it not taking very long to get him back to the village. Or are you going to claim that that carriage had superhuman speed?

We see Maurice travel through an entirely different area before he has entered the forest situated on the mountain. The forest is not right next to the village. The windows are symbolical, the Mob Song scene just a montage, if you take that literally then the castle was only a few minutes away.

First of all, Maurice took an entirely different route to the castle than the mob did. Maurice left through gates that were closer to the cellar of his and Belle's home. The villagers moved across the bridge, crossed a few streets, and emerged from behind the village and scaled a mountain path. Second of all, this screencap makes it very clear that the forest was in fact right next to the village: http://www.caps.media/199/1-beauty-and-the-beast/full/beauty-and-the-beast-disneyscreencaps.com-8429.jpg And no, that wasn't really symbolic, that showed what exactly occurred regarding the curse. And that most certainly wasn't a montage either. You want a montage? Try Lion King's Hakuna Matataa scene where it shows Simba, Pumbaa, and Timon crossing a log to beats and it showing with various settings Simba aging to adulthood, or Tarzan as a kid jumping up and then it seamlessly cutting to him becoming an adult. Heck, even the ending to Mega Man 2, which shows Mega Man walking home while seasons were passing as you can see here: https://youtu.be/Ys7CC9oP8mU. I can also cite the training montage for Rocky, Batman Begins, and the Wii version of Punch-Out if you'd like.

You're not going to take those animal trophies seriously, are you? They're just a joke, they don't say anything about where Gaston hunts.

How are they a joke? Last I checked, they didn't seem to be there for humor. In fact, there really wasn't any real reason for them to be there other than as a means to showcase his hunting prowess. The only time I can even think of any of his trophies being used for humor at all his antler chair, and that's only because his friends lifted it up and proceeded to throw it on LeFou in a very slapstick manner.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

Maybe not, but he would have been certain it was close by due to it not taking very long to get him back to the village.

Maurice might have known the castle was just a couple of hours away, even though he didn't seem to know where exactly. But he never told anything to the villagers. But most importantly, they are not going to look for a monster in a castle if they think the man is just a raving lunatic.

Maurice may have taken a different route and may have gotten lost, but NO WAY would it have taken him half a day to get to a place only a few minutes away. If that were the case he would certainly have recognized the castle standing right next to the village. So yes, it is a montage, the mountain range might start near the village, but that shot does not show the distance between the village and the castle. It's a condensed scene, it's not real time, one moment they're still in the village, the next moment they're already on the mountain.

It's a joke because it's funny to have animals hanging there from the other side of the world. It's a joke just for those who pay attention. But maybe these animals were just chosen for aesthetic reason. There's simply no reason to take them seriously and deduce where Gaston hunts. It certainly doesn't imply that Gaston hunts in private forests owned by princes. If you want an in-universe explanation, Gaston bought those trophies somewhere else so he could impress the villagers with the impressive animals he supposedly shot.

[–] otness_e 8 years ago

Maurice might have known the castle was just a couple of hours away, even though he didn't seem to know where exactly. But he never told anything to the villagers. But most importantly, they are not going to look for a monster in a castle if they think the man is just a raving lunatic.

If the castle was close by, even if it was just a couple of hours walk, they would at least be able to deduce the castle from his description. I never said they should believe Maurice about there being a beast there, just that they at least believe him about the castle.

Maurice may have taken a different route and may have gotten lost, but NO WAY would it have taken him half a day to get to a place only a few minutes away. If that were the case he would certainly have recognized the castle standing right next to the village. So yes, it is a montage, the mountain range might start near the village, but that shot does not show the distance between the village and the castle. It's a condensed scene, it's not real time, one moment they're still in the village, the next moment they're already on the mountain.

I think you're missing the point: Look right near the village in that screenshot, there were a mass of trees in close proximity to the village, meaning, yes, the forest was in fact right next to the village. And if it took Maurice half a day to get to the castle, do you REALLY think the villagers would even be able to get to the castle in just a couple of hours, even WITH a mirror? Absolutely not! And yes, it did have to take a couple of hours for them to get to the castle without the sun rising.

It's a joke because it's funny to have animals hanging there from the other side of the world. It's a joke just for those who pay attention. But maybe these animals were just chosen for aesthetic reason. There's simply no reason to take them seriously and deduce where Gaston hunts. It certainly doesn't imply that Gaston hunts in private forests owned by princes. If you want an in-universe explanation, Gaston bought those trophies somewhere else so he could impress the villagers with the impressive animals he supposedly shot.

Doubt it. His very introduction had him shooting a migrating duck out of the sky in one shot, which is most certainly not a very easy task to accomplish at all. Not to mention the same scene also revealed that, besides the duck, he also had at least four pelts with him, including a raccoon (which can easily be assumed to have come from America), that and what is presumably some big cat based on the paws that was briefly seen, a deer, and a brown furry animal. And given that Gaston immensely prides himself in his abilities, I'm pretty sure he would not be the type to just buy trophies from another village and essentially commit fraud. And let me ask you something: Suppose you are a hunter, and you have enough skill at hunting, especially marksmanship, that you actually manage to shoot down a flying duck in mid-air among a flock of them. Would YOU with those skills actually purchase trophies from another place and then claim them to be your own? Or would you, I don't know, actually GET your own trophies fair and square via hunting? I'm no hunter myself, yet if I had those skills, I'd probably get my trophies fair and square, no purchasing trophies from another village, seeing how I wouldn't need to get trophies from another village if I have the skills to make my own kills and make my own trophies. Gaston, in other words, is nothing like, say, Gilderoy Lockhart, who was frequently demonstrated to be incompetent throughout the books, and is later revealed to be a fraud. All of the stuff Gaston bragged about, it is strongly implied that he actually DID have the skills to back up his boasts.

And in either case, that's still not a joke. You want a joke? Here's a joke: What color is a burp? Burple. Or how about this: "See, there were these two guys in a lunatic asylum... And one night, one night they decide they don't like living in an asylum any more. They decide they're going to escape! So, like, they get up onto the roof, and there, just across this narrow gap, they see the rooftops of the town, stretching away in the moon light... stretching away to freedom. Now, the first guy, he jumps right across with no problem. But his friend, his friend did not dare make the leap. Y'see... Y'see, he's afraid of falling. So then, the first guy has an idea... He says 'Hey! I have my flashlight with me! I'll shine it across the gap between the buildings. You can walk along the beam and join me!' B-but the second guy just shakes his head. He suh-says... He says 'Wh-what do you think I am? Crazy? You'd turn it off when I was half way across!'" Heck, Larry, Mo, and Curly's slapstick elements are jokes, as is Cogsworth's "If it ain't baroque, don't fix it" line. This is not a joke.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

If the castle was close by, even if it was just a couple of hours walk, they would at least be able to deduce the castle from his description. I never said they should believe Maurice about there being a beast there, just that they at least believe him about the castle.

Maurice never gave a description! Maybe there were other castles just as close by, but in a different direction. How should they know which one he's talking about? But if they don't believe there's a beast, then why should they believe the castle is real? The point that you keep missing, though, is that they thought he was talking nonsense, so it's ridiculous to suggest they should check out the castle. Absolutely ridiculous.

I think you're missing the point: Look right near the village in that screenshot, there were a mass of trees in close proximity to the village, meaning, yes, the forest was in fact right next to the village. And if it took Maurice half a day to get to the castle, do you REALLY think the villagers would even be able to get to the castle in just a couple of hours, even WITH a mirror? Absolutely not! And yes, it did have to take a couple of hours for them to get to the castle without the sun rising.

That could very well be a different forest or the forest could be HUGE! You're not making any sense, you really think Maurice would take half a day to get to the castle and not recognize his surroundings if it was next to the village? And the difference is that Maurice got lost and the villagers took a short cut. That short cut lasted at least a few hours, which means the castle is obviously not next to the village.

Your duck example is nonsense because, unlike the animal trophies, it was not simply featured in the background. You should NOT take the trophies seriously, they were either chosen for aesthetic reasons or because they thought it was funny to have animals from across the globe that Gaston could never have shot. You have a ridiculously high standard for every detail to make sense (which is rather hypocritical since you get so many details wrong yourself, especially when it comes to European history). And Gaston is a disgusting human being who abuses, blackmails and murders, I can very much see him buying exotic animal trophies so he can brag. But stop trying to deflect, in no way do those trophies show that Gaston hunted in the forest of the prince and it certainly doesn't mean he must've seen the Beast.

And yeah, we've already noticed that you only understand one type of joke. That's your own fault, though. Those animal trophies are a visual joke like Cogsworth wearing a bicorne, only more subtle.

[–] otness_e 8 years ago

Maurice never gave a description! Maybe there were other castles just as close by, but in a different direction. How should they know which one he's talking about? But if they don't believe there's a beast, then why should they believe the castle is real? The point that you keep missing, though, is that they thought he was talking nonsense, so it's ridiculous to suggest they should check out the castle. Absolutely ridiculous.

Gaston mentioned that he raved about a Beast in a castle, and Maurice also specifically mentioned a dungeon when talking about it. If I had been a villager, even if I DID think he was nuts, I'd still call an investigation just because he mentioned a castle, which the village would have at least some passing familiarity with.

That could very well be a different forest or the forest could be HUGE! You're not making any sense, you really think Maurice would take half a day to get to the castle and not recognize his surroundings if it was next to the village? And the difference is that Maurice got lost and the villagers took a short cut. That short cut lasted at least a few hours, which means the castle is obviously not next to the village.

No, that was closer to the main path to the castle, NOT a short cut. A shortcut means it's OFF the main path specifically to cut down distance. And in case you've forgotten, Maurice wasn't even ON the path to the castle in the first place, he was on an entirely different path to presumably another village and literally stumbled upon the castle while fleeing the wolves. Ironically, the bit about the wolves was closer to an actual shortcut precisely BECAUSE he did not take the path to the castle and was a shorter distance via going down that hill than the actual path was to the castle in the ending (not to mention, that path he took that ultimately got him to the castle in the first place was explicitly listed as a shortcut by Maurice.). And in any case, let me cite an example of what I mean by that: In Die Hard, John McClaine called a police man to warn him that there was a terrorist holdup in the building he was in. Even though the police didn't necessarily believe him, they nonetheless sent a policeman over to investigate. Think something along those lines.

Your duck example is nonsense because, unlike the animal trophies, it was not simply featured in the background. You should NOT take the trophies seriously, they were either chosen for aesthetic reasons or because they thought it was funny to have animals from across the globe that Gaston could never have shot. You have a ridiculously high standard for every detail to make sense (which is rather hypocritical since you get so many details wrong yourself, especially when it comes to European history). And Gaston is a disgusting human being who abuses, blackmails and murders, I can very much see him buying exotic animal trophies so he can brag. But stop trying to deflect, in no way do those trophies show that Gaston hunted in the forest of the prince and it certainly doesn't mean he must've seen the Beast.

First of all, the duck example is definitely relevant because it was a character defining moment, and it was made repeatedly apparent that he was a hunter by trade. If they wanted to imply he just committed fraud with the trophies, they would have specifically either shown it, or at least give dialogue alluding to it.

Second of all, want to know HOW he could get those trophies? By hunting, and nowhere is it even remotely implied that he faked his kills. Far from it, it's heavily implied that those kills WERE genuine (if they wanted to imply he committed fraud, just have him casually mentioning that another town found a new trophy he can add to his tavern to LeFou). And I doubt he'd recklessly try to kill Beast in his last stand if he was just the type to fake his kills. And we already know there were deer in the forest, at least pre-curse/post-curse, because the opening had a deer in the opening scene (not to mention a deleted scene had Beast try to have dinner via a deer he had killed). And those pelts that was in the beginning of the movie included a raccoon (we can tell it was a raccoon due to the bushy striped tail), and it's pretty obvious that he made those kills there.

Third of all, I've looked into European history quite a bit, read up on various sources regarding that bit, like Timothy Dwight's July 4, 1799 sermon, and also other sources like Demonic and Triumph, as well as read up on the causes of the Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, and I've even read up on the Crusades, and other places like that, and I've also make sure I keep my details in line. So, no, I did make sure my details are accurate, and any mistakes I may have made, I make SURE to rectify them for later. I place high level of details on everything, to the extent that I myself have to hold to a very high standard just as I hold it to everyone else.

Fourth of all, Gaston may have been those things, but nowhere in the film was it EVER implied, let alone stated, that he was the type to commit fraud. And honestly, if he were a hunter, do you REALLY think that the forest would have been off limits to him, ESPECIALLY considering the likelihood that, assuming of course they even knew even passively about the castle, it was at most abandoned. Heck, there's little indication of any signs of a private forest at all. Even back then, they'd at least have something warning people of which is private land, and which is public hunting grounds.

Lastly, I do understand quite a few jokes, not just one (in fact, I listed four genres of jokes, like word play, funny stories, slapstick, and a traditional joke). I am also familiar with other kinds of jokes as well, like black humor (not that I actually like black humor, but I do at least know what it is), potty humor, and sight gags (like, for example, A guy looks and sees someone wearing an outlandish outfit, he then rubs his eyes and looks back, and sees the guy wearing a standard outfit).

And I'm not deflecting at all, I'm responding to the very topic, and pointing out how the Beast being close by was a pretty major plothole, something that, BTW, quite a few users agreed with me on. Not to mention, it being ten years is still a very major issue, especially considering that, if we are to use the claim that he never got visitors simply because of his vile behavior, the village would ALSO not get any newcomers precisely because of Gaston's vile behavior, and we can obviously tell that's not the case at all.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

Gaston concluded it was a castle because Maurice mentioned a dungeon, which in itself is NOT a castle, by the way. We all saw that Maurice never gave any further description. If Gaston suspected which castle it was (and it was really next to the village), he wouldn't have said "a beast in A castle". BUT THE POINT IS, the villagers thought Maurice was insane, so they're not going to bother looking for a castle. The villagers are not as ridiculous as you, wasting time on something they don't believe.

We did not see the entire route the mob took, so it could very well have been a short cut. But they're obviously not going to climb rocks. But let's say they used the quickest route that was most easy to travel. It took several hours, so it's not next to the village! And if the quickest route takes hours and the villagers keep to themselves, why would they even know what happened to the prince?!

First of all, the duck example is definitely relevant because it was a character defining moment, and it was made repeatedly apparent that he was a hunter by trade. If they wanted to imply he just committed fraud with the trophies, they would have specifically either shown it, or at least give dialogue alluding to it.

The duck example is irrelevant because it's not in the background like the trophies. The ducks have a close-up, you can hardly make out what kind of animals the trophies are. Chip's reflection on the marble floor doesn't even have a mouth, which shows you how little they care about the details. I didn't say they wanted to imply Gaston was a fraud, I'm actually saying they're not implying anything. I simply gave an in-universe explanation for your sake. And yes, Gaston could very easily be a fraud. He distorts the truth anyway.

Just keep babbling on about the trophies and ignore the point YOU were actually trying to make. The trophies in no way suggest that Gaston hunts in the forest of the prince!!!

And no, you have made many, many mistakes about European history. I've had to correct you many times, which you've even acknowledged in several cases. Your standard for others should be lower.

[–] otness_e 8 years ago

BUT THE POINT IS, the villagers thought Maurice was insane, so they're not going to bother looking for a castle. The villagers are not as ridiculous as you, wasting time on something they don't believe.

So? I'm pretty sure the cops in Die Hard didn't take John McClaine seriously about a terrorist situation either, yet they still sent a cop to investigate the place he claimed to be at.

We did not see the entire route the mob took, so it could very well have been a short cut. But they're obviously not going to climb rocks. But let's say they used the quickest route that was most easy to travel. It took several hours, so it's not next to the village! And if the quickest route takes hours and the villagers keep to themselves, why would they even know what happened to the prince?!

It's in close proximity though. Also, if they truly kept to themselves, they wouldn't HAVE tobacco at all, and some of the villagers certainly wouldn't have Raccoon hats, either. In fact, they'd be so isolated it would have been comparable to Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge regime, that's what truly "keeping to yourself" actually entails, to such an extent that they refuse even medicine from the outside world.

The duck example is irrelevant because it's not in the background like the trophies. The ducks have a close-up, you can hardly make out what kind of animals the trophies are. Chip's reflection on the marble floor doesn't even have a mouth, which shows you how little they care about the details. I didn't say they wanted to imply Gaston was a fraud, I'm actually saying they're not implying anything. I simply gave an in-universe explanation for your sake. And yes, Gaston could very easily be a fraud. He distorts the truth anyway.

Just keep babbling on about the trophies and ignore the point YOU were actually trying to make. The trophies in no way suggest that Gaston hunts in the forest of the prince!!!

And no, you have made many, many mistakes about European history. I've had to correct you many times, which you've even acknowledged in several cases. Your standard for others should be lower.

Yes, you corrected me a few times, and I made sure that with those corrections, I STOPPED making those errors. And are you going to claim that Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn and H.W. Crocker III made mistakes regarding European History as well? Because I based my knowledge on European history on those guys, that and various other searches, not on public school education or education right now.

And in any case, there's also little to suggest, even taking into account the time period actually ALLOWING for private forests, that there was even a private forest owned by the Prince. Look, even back then, they would have some sort of boundary marker to indicate when you're entering private lands to hunt. Not much point of making hunting on private lands illegal when you can't even enforce it and thus highlight where the line is you shouldn't cross.

And actually, I COULD make out what some of those trophies were. I know the white headed bird was a bald eagle, while the curved horned head was a bighorn sheep, as did at least one other person. And those pelts in the beginning definitely had a raccoon tail. And if someone who you call an idiot can make them out, I'm pretty sure even a self-described genius like yourself can make them out as well.

And I really wouldn't say Gaston distorts the truth at all. Actually, the reprise for Gaston has him being far TOO honest, considering he blurted out key details about his plan like some idiot.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

My god, what an absolutely ridiculous comparison to Die Hard. MacClane was a cop and was not considered a lunatic, they had every reason (and the duty) to take him seriously. I can guarantee you that if a looney told me the same things as Maurice , I would say "sure" and just continue with what I was doing.

Several hours away is not "in close proximity". And good god, how many times do I have to tell you this! The fact that they kept to themselves does not mean that they weren't interested in civilization.

Considering the many mistakes you've made, you should lower your standard for other people. You're making another mistake about private forests. In those days almost ALL forests belonged to the nobility. Peasants had very few hunting rights. And no, there wouldn't always have been markers. My family owns a small piece of forest and there are no markers at all, because there's also a little thing called "right of way". Landowners would hire gamekeepers to prevent poaching.

People only notice the trophies if they watch it multiple times, want to pay attention, or hit the pause or slow-motion button. The casual viewer won't notice it, the ducks, however, are something completely different.

"Self-described genius" Wth??

Gaston certainly distorts the truth if it suits him. Like when he suggested to the Beast that he and Belle had been together. But it doesn't matter, because the point is that the trophies don't suggest that he hunted in the prince's forest and certainly not that he must've seen the Beast.

[–] louiseculmer 8 years ago

yes, this is a major weakness of the plot. A castle inhabited by a bad tempered beast is something you would think wouldn't be entirely unknown to the villagers, given it's not very far away (doesn't take them long to get there when gaston leads them there).

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

Why would the villagers who didn't care for outsiders know about a beast who, as the movie explicitly stated, concealed himself inside his castle?

(You really think the castle was only three minutes away when it took Belle and Maurice hours to get there?)

[–] louiseculmer 8 years ago

You'd think it would be an object of curiosity and gossip. And the prince hasn't been a beast for that long you'd think a lot of the villagers would know about it. And wonder what had happened to him. and if the castle was hours away, you would think the villagers would be tired by the time they got there when they go to kill the beast, but they seem quite energetic when they arrive.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

You'd think it would be an object of curiosity and gossip.

What exactly would be an object of curiosity and gossip? What would they even know?

And the prince hasn't been a beast for that long you'd think a lot of the villagers would know about it.

How would they know? And what does the fact that he hadn't been a beast for that long have to do with that?

and if the castle was hours away, you would think the villagers would be tired by the time they got there when they go to kill the beast, but they seem quite energetic when they arrive.

Adrenaline from wanting to kill a dangerous animal? I would actually say that's something very typical about mobs. But Belle didn't seem tired either. You really want the movie to spend time showing the villagers taking a break before attacking the castle?

[–] otness_e 8 years ago

Adrenaline from wanting to kill a dangerous animal? I would actually say that's something very typical about mobs. But Belle didn't seem tired either. You really want the movie to spend time showing the villagers taking a break before attacking the castle?

War also has a lot of adrenaline for needing to kill the enemy before they kill you, yet even soldiers need to take a break once in a while when trying to find and rout an enemy during a war time situation, as did the French Revolutionaries I should add during Vendee (and bear in mind, pretty much everything in the French Revolution was the result of mob mentality of an even WORSE sort than what was shown in Beauty and the Beast).

As far as your example, Belle at least was on horseback, NOT on foot unlike the other villagers.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

Soldiers can actually fight for HOURS without taking a break and their adrenaline is not comparable to a civilian fighting a monster for the first time in their life.

But again you jump on me because I don't agree with someone. Or actually, I'm just asking them questions to find out why they feel this way. So I'm not interested in what you have to say.

[–] louiseculmer 8 years ago

i would think anyone would be interested in a castle and who lived in it. Why wouldn't they be? And since the prince hasn't beena. Beast for very long, you'd think they'dr emember him pre beast.

And i certainly can't see the villagers being that keen to rush off and kill the beast if he was hours and hours away. castles are not normally hours and hours away from the nearest village. they don't need to take a break because the castle isn't that far away.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

i would think anyone would be interested in a castle and who lived in it

Why? If it had been there for centuries and they know what family lives there, why would they even care anymore? The villagers kept to themselves and had no business with the prince.

And i certainly can't see the villagers being that keen to rush off and kill the beast if he was hours and hours away. castles are not normally hours and hours away from the nearest village.

Says who? The castle was all the way on top of a mountain. If it was rough terrain, the castle could easily be hours away and in those days a couple of hours was nothing special. Gaston also had convinced them the beast was a danger to them. Ofcourse they would be willing to go.

they don't need to take a break because the castle isn't that far away.

I never said they needed a break, it's otness who thought they couldn't attack the castle after walking a couple of hours. Ofcourse the castle is at least a few hours away. Otherwise it wouldn't take Maurice and Belle so long to get there. Only in the Mob Song sequence doesn't it seem that far away, but that isn't real time, because it certainly isn't only 3 minutes away. Otherwise Maurice would know exactly where this castle was.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

No. He's talking literally, but also figuratively in the sense that their skills have been rusting. The Beast is so unpleasant, guests weren't coming over anymore even before he was cursed.

[–] kentry 8 years ago

The Enchanted Christmas elaborated on how nasty The Prince was as a human better than BATB did. In TEC, The Prince is shown nastily barking(ha, barking, as he is turned into an animal soon, LOL) at his servants to bring him his presents and callously throws a book his servants gave him as a present. He then opens the door when he hears a knock(On YouTube, posters pointed out that a Prince should not have been opening the door in the first place, it should have been a servant) and an old woman tells him she needs shelter for the night from the cold and offers him a rose as payment for the stay.

He sneered his nose at her rose(funny verbatim from one of the movies, LOL) and said something like, "What do I need a rose for? I don't need it! Go away, you wretched old hag! "Lord have mercy, LOL! :D) Though I am kind of on his side in his defense. Why would a boy want a rose? WTF? LOL

The hag was really a beautiful Enchantress and cursed him to be a beast because he was selfish and spoiled. In BATB they basically just SAID what happened but in TEC they SHOWED what happened and actually showed the human Prince being a nasty spoiled brat who looked about 16 not 10 or 11 like many people assumed due to Lumiere saying "10 years we have been rusting," and The Beast has until his 21st year to find true love and vice versa or he will remain a beast for the rest of his life.

Drake is repetitive. He just raps the same thing over and over as if he is in an insane asylum!LOL:D

[–] otness_e 8 years ago

I'm beginning to think that their moving Be Our Guest to having Belle be the recipient instead of Maurice may have been a huge mistake considering all of this (yes, Be Our Guest was originally meant to be sung towards Maurice, not Belle. They moved it to her because they thought they shouldn't waste such a well-crafted song on a "minor character.").

At least if Maurice had been the recipient of the song as intended, it actually WOULD be plausible that their skills had been rusting and that would have been what they were referring to, not to mention their not actually getting guests even before the curse. Now, because of their singing it to Belle, who is the second guest of the castle [and yes, as Lumiere pointed out, she was closer to a guest than an actual prisoner] it instead gives the implication that the spell was in fact 10 years long precisely because the servants had already managed to be put to the test when Maurice arrived (to say little about when Belle arrived shortly thereafter), what, with how Lumiere, that coatcheck, Mrs. Potts, Chip, Sultan the Dog, and the maid tray Mrs. Potts used performing stellar service for Maurice [it's as if their skills hadn't even been impacted at all], and let's not even get started on how, in addition to Mrs. Potts and Chip, the others of that set proceeded to perform admirably well, as did Cogsworth, and even the wardrobe proceeded to do pretty well for someone who Belle just refused her dresses due to not going down to dinner. Even the Cook managed to prepare what was presumably a sumptuous meal (and only didn't get to serve it because Belle refused to come down). In other words, it renders the idea that the guests weren't coming over due to the prince's unpleasant behavior utter nonsense, completely implausible.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

One, Maurice was not a guest but a trespasser. Their master did not accept him as a guest, so he doesn't count.

Two, only a handful of servants were able to attend to him and hardly even used their skills before being interrupted. Serving tea is not being put "to the test". They didn't even have the opportunity to sing the song.

Three, Maurice had only arrived the night before, which would still make it ten years. And Belle's visit was connected to him, I wouldn't see it as two seperate occassions. The arrival of Maurice and his daughter meant they could use their skills again. Who says they're not referring to him as well? The problem is that he isn't there anymore.

Four, a lot of Ashman's lyrics should not be taken only literally, the figurative meaning of these lines is obvious. Ten year curse or not, in both cases the servants are saying that they hadn't used their skills for years before Belle came along.

These are the reasons all of us, including the writers, think that it totally makes sense for them to sing the song to Belle. Just because your autistic mind can't accept that Maurice wasn't acknowledged as a seperate guest they used their skills on before, doesn't mean the curse lasted ten years.

[–] otness_e 8 years ago

One, Maurice was not a guest but a trespasser. Their master did not accept him as a guest, so he doesn't count.

By that logic, Belle is a prisoner, not a guest, despite Lumiere stating otherwise, since that's what Beast specifically stated about her, not to mention Beast specifically told them to not feed her after she refused to dine with her. So in point of fact, they HAD no guests to entertain during that time, either if it were Maurice or with Belle. Either both qualify as guests, or none do.

Two, only a handful of servants were able to attend to him and hardly even used their skills before being interrupted. They didn't even have the opportunity to sing the song.

Lumiere proceeded to guide him towards the Master's chair, that coatcheck acted as... well, a coatcheck, the Footstool propped Maurice's legs up, and Mrs. Potts proceeded to serve him some tea, as did Chip. Last I checked, that IS fulfilling their roles for serving guests, and they did a darn good job despite that. And they WOULD have had the opportunity to sing the song had the writers decided to save it for Belle instead of using it for Maurice.

Three, Maurice had only arrived the night before and Belle's visit was connected to him. I wouldn't see it as two seperate occassions. The arrival of Maurice and his daughter meant they could use their skills again.

They were still two separate people, even if connected. If I were in their position, I'd still count them as separate guests even if genetically related due to my viewing guests by numbers only.

And besides which, "put to the test" would imply they HADN'T been able to put their service skills to use beforehand, which is patently false because they HAD done that with not just Maurice, but even Belle right before that musical number.

Four, a lot of Ashman's lyrics should not be taken only literally, the figurative meaning of these lines is obvious. Ten year curse or not, in both cases the servants are saying that they hadn't used their skills for years before Belle came along.

Yeah, and the figurative meaning would have been far MORE apparent if they were singing it to Maurice instead of to Belle, since the latter had the figurative meaning being far less apparent precisely BECAUSE they used their skills with Maurice beforehand, and even to Belle right before dinner. Heck, I wasn't even talking about the literal aspects of it, I was talking specifically about the figurative elements, because even THERE, it didn't work.

These are the reasons all of us, including the writers, think that it totally makes sense for them to sing the song to Belle. Just because your autistic mind can't accept that Maurice wasn't acknowledged as a seperate guest they used their skills on before, doesn't mean the curse lasted ten years.

You're not the human race, so you don't speak for all of them. And besides, there were plenty of others on this topic who thought the song was referring to the curse, and in fact, it's prevalent enough that the remake right now actually IS going with the whole 10 years interpretation based on what's been unveiled right now. I myself would NOT use "everyone believes this" or words like this because I operate under a mathematical mind, and thus would realize there IS no way everyone can actually agree on something.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

The difference between Belle and Maurice is that the Beast took her out of the dungeon and allowed her to make herself at home. She was more than just a prisoner.

Guiding someone to a chair is not putting one's service to the test. And again, those were only a handful of servants. It doesn't matter they originally sang the song to Maurice, that change actually meant that all the servants couldn't show off their skills until Belle came along.

The servants are luckily not you. They're not going to sing 9 years and 364 days just because Maurice was there a day earlier. The arrival of both of them in a 24 hour timeframe meant things had changed.

If you accept the figurative meaning then you also have to accept that it says nothing at all about the length of the curse. But the figurative meaning still makes sense. Serving tea to Maurice does not "put their service to the test" nor does it mean that their skills have not been rusting for ten years nor does it contradict their claim that nobody had been there in ten years.

I was actually speaking for all of us here who think it does make sense, but I could just as well speak for everyone who has ever commented on this movie because there hasn't been anyone who has claimed that the curse lasted ten years because Belle wasn't their first guest.

[–] otness_e 8 years ago

The difference between Belle and Maurice is that the Beast took her out of the dungeon and allowed her to make herself at home. She was more than just a prisoner.

Yes, except as you pointed out in prior posts when I argued against her being a prisoner, she was still, at least officially, a prisoner.

Guiding someone to a chair is not putting one's service to the test. And again, those were only a handful of servants. It doesn't matter they originally sang the song to Maurice, that change actually meant that all the servants couldn't show off their skills until Belle came along.

Ah, yeah, actually, that IS putting your services to the test. In case you've forgotten, servant and service has the exact same root word, to serve, and guiding someone to a chair IS servitude. And Lumiere's guiding someone to a chair, guest or otherwise, is precisely what his job entails (the major domo is someone who guides guests to meet with their superior and makes them comfortable).

The servants are luckily not you. They're not going to sing 9 years and 364 days just because Maurice was there a day earlier. The arrival of both of them in a 24 hour timeframe meant things had changed.

I know they're not me, and I wasn't even thinking of giving them a precise date, but rather, just have them not even MENTION how long they've gone without using their skills, period.

If you accept the figurative meaning then you also have to accept that it says nothing at all about the length of the curse. But the figurative meaning still makes sense. Serving tea to Maurice does not "put their service to the test" nor does it mean that their skills have not been rusting for ten years nor does it contradict their claim that nobody had been there in ten years.

In case you've forgotten, Mrs. Potts' role was to serve tea, being a British maid, that means, yes, that DOES put at least her service to the test, pretty blatantly. And guiding a guest to someone's chair is what a major domo is supposed to do.

And if they wanted the figurative meaning to be apparent, they should have supplied the song to Maurice, no ifs, ands or buts, because that's the only way the figurative meaning can be truly apparent with little, if any confusion. Certainly, if they kept it to Maurice, we wouldn't even HAVE this issue right now.

I was actually speaking for all of us here who think it does make sense, but I could just as well speak for everyone who has ever commented on this movie because there hasn't been anyone who has claimed that the curse lasted ten years because Belle wasn't their first guest.

And again, I can name several people who DO think that the curse lasted ten years. Heck, this was even part of the FAQ, which wouldn't even be necessary if no one actually thought that. And besides which, the remake is clearly going with the 10 years being how long the curse lasted route. And you of all people should know this since you constantly have to put down literally anyone who claims it lasted 10 years.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

Yes, except as you pointed out in prior posts when I argued against her being a prisoner, she was still, at least officially, a prisoner.

Yes, she was a prisoner AND more. Unlike Maurice, who was simply a trespasser and never had permission to stay at the castle.

Ah, yeah, actually, that IS putting your services to the test.

Clearly you don't understand what the expression "to put to the test" means.

just have them not even MENTION how long they've gone without using their skills, period.

That's nonsense, because it makes perfect sense. It had been ten years before Maurice arrived and it had been ten years before Belle arrived. But Maurice was not a guest, only few were able to serve him and he certainly did not "put them to the test". So Lumiere was certainly correct when he said that "WE were rusting" until Belle came along. Not once do the servants say that Belle was the first person in 10 years any of them were able to serve.

In case you've forgotten, Mrs. Potts' role was to serve tea, being a British maid, that means, yes, that DOES put at least her service to the test, pretty blatantly. And guiding a guest to someone's chair is what a major domo is supposed to do.

Again, you do not know what "to put to the test" means.

And again, I can name several people who DO think that the curse lasted ten years.

You need to read better. I said that no one has ever claimed the curse lasted ten years because Belle wasn't their first guest.

And you of all people should know this since you constantly have to put down literally anyone who claims it lasted 10 years.

I have done no such thing. I simply disagree with them and explain why. You are the one constantly putting ME down, look at what you're doing now.

[–] otness_e 8 years ago

Yes, she was a prisoner AND more. Unlike Maurice, who was simply a trespasser and never had permission to stay at the castle.

Maurice had permission from the servants, or at least Lumiere, heck, the latter even tried to vouch for Maurice before Beast silenced him with a roar.

Clearly you don't understand what the expression "to put to the test" means.

Yeah, actually, I do what "to put to the test" means. It's to see whether you've retained any of your skillsets from what it was before. And considering the limited amount we've seen of the servants, you know, being servants before Be Our Guest, I'd say they most certainly did put it to the test and passed.

That's nonsense, because it makes perfect sense. It had been ten years before Maurice arrived and it had been ten years before Belle arrived. But Maurice was not a guest, only few were able to serve him and he certainly did not "put them to the test". So Lumiere was certainly correct when he said that "WE were rusting" until Belle came along. Not once do the servants say that Belle was the first person in 10 years any of them were able to serve.

The servants treated him like a guest, and in fact it was Lumiere's idea to actually welcome him in. And last I checked, when they served tea, guide him to a chair, give him something warm, and all of that, that by definition IS putting their skillsets to the test. You want to know what ISN'T putting their skills to the test? Doing absolutely nothing, which is what Cogsworth proposed.

Again, you do not know what "to put to the test" means.

"To put to the test" means to see whether someone has retained any of their skillsets from what it was before, or see if something works. Last I checked, what they did WERE by definition their skillsets, and they passed, instead of being an adjunct failure.

You need to read better. I said that no one has ever claimed the curse lasted ten years because Belle wasn't their first guest.

I know, and your everyday viewer isn't exactly all that aware that Maurice was the original recipient of Be Our Guest. And for the record, if they did those actions to Maurice like serving them tea, guiding them to a chair by the fire, acting as a footrest, giving him a blanket, and all of that, something that, you know, is in the JOB DESCRIPTION of being a servant, and did very well especially given they were interrupted by Beast, that fits being put to the test and succeeding.

I have done no such thing. I simply disagree with them and explain why. You are the one constantly putting ME down, look at what you're doing now.

No, actually, you have, and the posting history makes that much clear on this thread. Whenever anyone claims that Beast was 11 when he was cursed, you jump in and tell them they are wrong, and that it was referring to Beast being so unpleasant that no one wanted to go to the castle and that Belle was the first visitor they had. You've done that every single time. And not just to me.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

Servants can not give permission to have someone as a guest.

No, "to put to the test" means to test how good someone is, to make them show their best. That's absolutely not what Maurice did. They did so little, their skills would still be rusted. A "skill" is the ability to do something well, pouring tea and guiding someone to a chair is someone anyone can do, they didn't do anything special.

A handful of servants started treating him as a guest. That still doesn't mean that Lumiere is incorrect when he says "WE were rusting" before Belle came. He's speaking for EVERYONE and his skills didn't suddenly unrust because he showed Maurice to a chair.

Whenever anyone claims that Beast was 11 when he was cursed, you jump in and tell them they are wrong, and that it was referring to Beast being so unpleasant that no one wanted to go to the castle and that Belle was the first visitor they had. You've done that every single time. And not just to me.

Oh, you mean like you jump on me every time I say that there's no reason for the villagers to know about the beast? Or when I say that the prince wasn't 11 when he was cursed? Or that the curse didn't last 10 years? Or EVERY TIME I disagree with anybody? Or like you jump on every poster criticising the movie to tell them how right they are? Hypocrite. I don't jump on them, I simply disagree with them and explain why. You can't expect me to respond and say how right they are when I don't think they are right. You need to learn how to live with that.

[–] otness_e 8 years ago

No, "to put to the test" means to test how good someone is, to make them show their best. That's absolutely not what Maurice did. They did so little, their skills would still be rusted. A "skill" is the ability to do something well, pouring tea and guiding someone to a chair is someone anyone can do, they didn't do anything special.

No, "rusted" would mean even with the basics, it either took so long to do that it wasn't worth the effort, or otherwise ended in an unmitigated disaster. And for the record, guiding someone to a chair and pouring tea is actually part of a servant's job description. Here's what it would take for them to actually BE rusted in their skills: Lumiere accidentally guides Maurice to someplace that ISN'T actually a place to sit (like, I don't know, a credenza, or even a lit fireplace), and Mrs. Potts when delivering tea mixed up "tea" with "laxative." And 10 years without any visitors to utilize their skills on, curse or not, would most certainly be long enough to have them even screw up the basics.

Oh, you mean like you jump on me every time I say that there's no reason for the villagers to know about the beast? Or when I say that the prince wasn't 11 when he was cursed? Or that the curse didn't last 10 years? Or EVERY TIME I disagree with anybody? Or like you jump on every poster criticising the movie to tell them how right they are? Hypocrite. I don't jump on them, I simply disagree with them and explain why. You can't expect me to respond and say how right they are when I don't think they are right. You need to learn how to live with that.

I actually explained a lot of the logic problems posed regarding the villagers not knowing about the Beast, plus the bit about their not caring about the outside world (You want a good example of what it takes to actually NOT care about the outside world at all? Be a shut in, do embargoes with literally everyone outside your community, heck, even do things the Khmer Rouge did where they even refused medicine from the outside world). And for the record, I respond to anyone regarding that. That's the point of discussions, after all. You, on the other hand, have gone out of your way to put down anyone who actually DOES think, for justified reasons, that Beast was 11 when cursed (and considering the remake currently IS slated to have Beast cursed at 11, it's pretty obvious that the idea was wide-spread), or anyone who does have pretty valid reasons for thinking the film has flaws. You even did that to Louise when she agreed with me about how the bit about the villagers not being aware of the Beast was a flaw with the original film in this very thread.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

No, "rusted" would mean even with the basics,

No, just pouring a cup of tea does not unrust your skills. Their skills are much more than something ANYONE can do. A retired marathon runner doesn't unrust his skills either by taking a walk with his dog. And you don't have to completely screw up for your skills to be rusted. But whatever Lumiere and Mrs. Potts did, certainly doesn't unrust the skills of all the other servants Lumiere was speaking for.

I actually explained a lot of the logic problems posed regarding the villagers not knowing about the Beast,

No, you haven't actually.

And no, I haven' t put anyone down just for having a different opinion. I've simply disagreed with them, explained why and asked them to explain themselves, like I did just now with louiseculmer. Ofcourse, YOU have to come in and jump on me again.

Now stop deflecting and actually discuss the issue at hand.

[–] otness_e 8 years ago

No, just pouring a cup of tea does not unrust your skills. Their skills are much more than something ANYONE can do. A retired marathon runner doesn't unrust his skills either by taking a walk with his dog. And you don't have to completely screw up for your skills to be rusted. But whatever Lumiere and Mrs. Potts did, certainly doesn't unrust the skills of all the other servants Lumiere was speaking for.

The marathon runner is a very bad example because a marathon runner isn't expected to simply walk. That's completely different regarding the servant's duties, of which the job description for most if not all servants do entail EXACTLY the basic kinds of stuff you dismissed, such pouring a cup of tea for someone, or guiding them to a chair, among other stuff (and besides, Mrs. Potts also needed to prepare the tea in the first place and make sure it was fresh, so she still had to do a lot of work just to prepare that for Maurice, and under short notice as well). Becoming a servant is not exactly something akin to running a marathon, though that being said, it does also require a significant amount of loyalty. And yes, in this particular case, you DO have to particularly screw up big time in order to actually rust in those areas, precisely BECAUSE most stuff servants or waitresses do ARE in fact basic stuff many people could do. Now, I will acknowledge that in the case of the chef, preparing a sumptuous meal actually would require a lot of hard work and most certainly would be put to the test right then and there (and I will acknowledge that in THAT particular case, he definitely was put to the test when Belle actually had dinner, though to be fair, he also was put to the test when he prepared that earlier dinner before Belle's refusal to come down forced Beast to cancel it), he would be the closest to a marathon runner in this case. However, the others definitely did very well regarding their intended functions.

No, you haven't actually.

And no, I haven' t put anyone down just for having a different opinion. I've simply disagreed with them, explained why and asked them to explain themselves, like I did just now with louiseculmer. Ofcourse, YOU have to come in and jump on me again.

Now stop deflecting and actually discuss the issue at hand.

Yes, actually, I have, I explained that with the villagers, if the village was in close proximity to the castle as both the Mob Song and the prologue implied, they'd at least be familiar with it rather than completely unaware about it. Not to mention the forest was definitely cursed as well if the prologue's stained glass windows were to be believed, meaning they would have noticed a change there as well.

I also pointed out how if they were truly self-isolated as you claimed, they wouldn't have raccoon skin caps, they wouldn't have tobacco (and yes, they do in fact sell tobacco due to their being a storefront that had a smoking pipe as their sign) since that's not even native to France, let alone that village, and in fact, Gaston himself would be just as much of an outcast precisely BECAUSE he left the village to hunt abroad.

And your post to Louise also demonstrated your jumping down on it. She gave some fairly reasonable points and you dismissed them. Louise doesn't agree with me entirely, but at least she does it in a gentle manner, same with furienna.

And as far as the issue at hand, I still say that Maurice should have gotten the Be Our Guest musical number, because at least there, it would have been VERY clear especially under figurative measures that the servants were definitely put to the test with their first ever visitor/guest. Belle, if anything, was closer to the second guest (and please don't claim that Maurice doesn't count because he "trespassed". 1. The servants let him in, and he even asked for permission to stay for the night, 2., Belle is hardly a guest since, at least officially, she is considered a prisoner, and 3., if the servants went behind Beast's back to let him in without his permission, don't you think he would have killed them for disobedience?). And quite frankly, they should have omitted the 10 years remark specifically to AVOID any confusion. At least the musical did away with that unnecessary bit. And when the confusion is bad enough that the remake actually has Adam being explicitly shown as a child when the curse took place, you know the writers screwed up big time. And quite frankly, one of the reasons why the whole "he was so nasty he never had any guests come over" made zero sense is because Gaston was just as much of a jerk as he was if not even more so, yet that had absolutely no impact on the village receiving visitors or newcomers based on Belle and Maurice arriving at the village, and no one was moving the heck out of there.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

The skills of servants aren't simple either, otherwise anyone could do it. Again, pouring a cup of tea and guiding someone to a chair does not "put someone to the test" nor does it unrust your skills to entertain guests, and certainly not the skills of the complete staff, for which Lumiere was speaking.

No, you've not explained yourself as to why the villagers should know about the prince having turned into a beast. I never claimed they were isolated, I said they don't care for the outside world. That doesn't mean they don't care for civilization, it simply means they like to keep to themselves and don't care about interacting with a prince living a few hours away.

No, I didn't jump on louise, I simply disagreed and asked her to explain her arguments. The only way for you to say I don't jump on her is if I say that's she's completely right. Sorry, not going to do that, because I don't agree. You keep jumping on me, though. But just keep deflecting by making personal attacks, it just proves you have no arguments.

The Be Our Guest scene could've made sense with Maurice, but it still makes sense with Belle.

The villagers were not acquaintances of the prince, now were they? The people whom the prince associated with may have been completely different.

[–] Horror_Metal 8 years ago

That would be stupid as hell if he was cursed as a young boy. A lot of kids are selfish and unkind, doesn't mean he will always be like that. Seems a bit harsh to place a curse that could possibly last forever on a child who doesn't know any better. Plus that painting of him looked nothing like a young boy or even a teenager for that matter. I wish they never included the "...on his 21st year" line, because that either means he has only been a beast for a couple years or since he was a boy, both of which would be dumb and take away from the story.

My Reviews: https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbYVmhjEJi9UAB4pZqseAGM9CSmMooF0n 