Why would it be difficult to love a beast???!!? - Beauty and the Beast (1991) Discussion

[–] Furienna (3342) 2 years ago

🤣

Seriously though, it is not like he was that cuddly when we first meet him.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 2 years ago

Yes but that is because HE is an asshole.
But his form does not automatically make him unlovable (as we see in the story, once he starts acting decently).
Had he been a nice person the whole time, the very "curse" makes no sense, unless you are a superficial racist like the witch.

reply

[–] Furienna (3342) 2 years ago

Well, we have to start with that he wasn’t a human for most of the movie.
So I don't think that talking about racism is fair.
And honestly, I think you would be afraid if you saw a beast and didn't know him...

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 2 years ago

Ok, I put racism in "" for that reason.
Is there a definition for discriminating against other species? Specism?
So, it's fair to use racism, it's clearer than a term that is not invented yet.
The witch is discriminating against other species only on the base of her own prejudice.
NORMAL people love beasts innately.

I think I might have been afraid of a beast like that. So what? That does not mean I would have trouble loving it too at the same time. I can be afraid of a shark or a bear, doesn't mean I don't love them and get pissed off is something bad happens to them.
Fear has got very little to do with it.

Plus, this particular beast can speak and is highly intelligent, so I would be even more impressed, more keen to loving him, and very easily convinced that there's nothing to fear.

reply

[–] archer1203 (48) a year ago

Is there a definition for discriminating against other species?

I think it's Zoophobia. At least that's what Google says.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) a year ago

That sounds incorrect.
The very word phobia in it implies a mental repulsion, not a prejudice.
Racists are not sick. They are assholes.

reply

[–] They4cedTheVax (318) 2 years ago

Thinking about that BEAST COCK aren't you..........

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Shhh, he might be a furry. Don't be hatin'!

reply

[–] liscarkat (18367) 2 years ago

I love my dog. I find her face beautiful, and I enjoy looking at it much the same as I enjoy looking at the face of a beautiful woman. But the thought of having sex with her is disturbing.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 2 years ago

Who said ANYTHING about sex?
I did not.
Neither did the witch. Or did I miss something?

reply

[–] RoboReCop (3294) a year ago

First comes love, then comes marriage, and then comes human-puppy hybrids in a baby carriage.

Sex would be inevitable.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) a year ago

I am sure you love your pets............

reply

[–] RoboReCop (3294) a year ago

I've actually never owned a pet, but if I did I'd choose a kitten. However, in this exercise in dialog, I'd prolly choose a goat, donkey, or sheep for practical purposes.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) a year ago

LOL

reply

[–] RoboReCop (3294) a year ago

As a wise man once said, "I may not be a smart man, but I know what love is".

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

The OP is trolling, but I'm going to try to elevate this discussion somewhat, because until there's a true successor to the IMDB forums, Movie Chat is all we got.

It's not that no one can love a beast. The problem is that no one romantically love a beast.

The original story cleverly dealt with this issue by having Beauty fall in love with Beast as a human being first, so that when she actually loves the beast, readers know that she didn't fall in love with an actual animal but the human being that he was the entire time. So, there isn't that "ick" factor.

Also, in the original story, the relationship was very much platonic/fatherly. All that happened is that Beast kept trying to cheer Beauty up by putting on shows, giving her music boxes, etc. So, she saw him as just a sweet guy trying to make her stay at the castle as pleasant as possible. He was friendzoned until the last moment when he was dying.

In the Disney movie, Belle falls romantically in love with Beast, as the animal that he appears to be. It's not like how in the original story, she only falls in love with him as the beast after she falls in love with him as a human. It's really bizarre how the screenwriters didn't see why this wouldn't be a problem. The movie didn't take place in a wacky Family Guy universe where there's an overlap between people and talking animals. In the movie, Beast really is a beast.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

I think you sum up the main problem with this movie really well.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Thank you very much. I expected to get a lot of hate over this, given how much people love this movie. I think there are serious issues with it and it gets worse when you see all the changes they made to the original story.

reply

[–] Furienna (3342) 2 years ago

Really though, they had Belle wait until he was turned back into a human to even kiss him.
So I would say that they managed to decrease the ick factor enough to make it acceptable.

Besides, it is a fairytale and not supposed to be overanalyzed like that.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 2 years ago

How am I trolling?

I am pointing out the obvious. You are not.

In THIS movie, about the curse, who talks about romance or sex?
I think they only talk about love. Am I wrong?

reply

[–] Stratego (30497) a year ago

The spell doesn't specify if it's romantic love or platonic love or both that could break the spell, only that it has to be a woman. The point is that he's a scary-looking beast, so he has to put in some effort to convince this woman of his good nature.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) a year ago

Yes but the story makes it sound like it's inherently difficult, if not impossible, because he is a beast.
While in reality most if not all beasts are very lovable, particularly so the intelligent ones. We find Orcas and wolves to be lovable.

I think the whole premise smells of old fashioned racism and ignorance, when any animal was considered an enemy or a slave.
The witch should have specified ROMANTIC love, that would make it difficult.

reply

[–] Stratego (30497) a year ago

I assume the story considers there's a difference between animals and beasts/monsters. The latter are always scary and never cuddly and loveable.

I don't agree the enchantress needed to specify romantic love, since it's implied with the reference to a woman.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) a year ago

Well if by beast she meant monster, that kinda makes it even more racist.
But I understand your point.
The whole premise is just a bit too grey area for me to just give it a pass, as beasts are real and not monstrous.
Monsters are indeed the offsprings of an ignorant mind, that does not understand what he sees and interprets them as a danger or an evil.

In this case, as the story itself says, he just looks weird as a human, but there is nothing monstrous there.

reply

[–] Stratego (30497) a year ago

Not "racist", but prejudiced, which is the point of the story. The enchantress simply knows people will not react all too well to a beast/monster. She is a total bitch, though.

"he just looks weird as a human, but there is nothing monstrous there."

I don't agree, he looks like a combination of different predator animals, which is indeed monstrous and also very scary to humans.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) a year ago

Yes, I use the term racist because prejudiced is not as strong for some reason, but you are correct.

But I see no monster in any animal. As shown by the many Beast plush toys sold at Disneyland, he is not that monstrous.
Of course if you see him pissed off at night under some creepy lighting, he can look like a monster.
So does any other animal or person, even a great looking one.

He is a combination of a few mammals, but he can go from cute to ugly, depending on the situation and the viewer.
If he his laying there, in a neutral setting, sitting still or sleeping, he would just look like a big animal, like a cow or a bear or a rhyno. Again, not that monstrous to me. But I am a big animal lover.

reply

[–] Stratego (30497) a year ago

Good luck petting a bear or a rhino...

He is the PRECISE definition of a monster: a creature with a strange, grotesque appearance that causes terror and fear. And of course he does, not only is he something nobody has ever seen before, he looks like predator animals who are actually a danger to humans. Anybody would be scared at first sight and so would you. The only way to change their minds would be to show his good intentions, which the enchantress knew would be hard for him to do.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) a year ago

Wait a sec, are you saying that his appearance causes terror and fear?
I strongly disagree with this statement.

Are you saying that his actions cause terror and fear?
I kinda disagree with this statement, because he just acts pissed off at intruders inside his property, not exactly unreasonable if you ask me.

reply

[–] Stratego (30497) a year ago

"Wait a sec, are you saying that his appearance causes terror and fear?
I strongly disagree with this statement."

How can you disagree with this when it's a fact that's literally shown in the movie?

Locking up Maurice in his dungeon for trespassing is unreasonable.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) a year ago

Well, it is set in an age when people were killed for way less than that.
It is unreasonable for us, and I think Maurice deserved to be kicked out, not imprisoned. But in Beast's shoes I would be worried about this intruder reporting my location to the other villagers, so I would lock him up to protect myself, not to punish him.

Like I said already, I think in a neutral situation Beast is not scary looking at all, he actually looks awesome, but I am an animal lover not an ignorant villager.

reply

[–] Stratego (30497) a year ago

Killing or even imprisoning people over trespassing would've illegal in those days. "Right of way" was more of a thing back then.

One, the villagers never saw the Beast in a "neutral situation"
Two, you are being insincere if you truly claim you would not be scared if you walked in a forest and came across a large unknown creature that resembled a predator. That beast would have to show his good nature for you to trust him, which was the point of the enchantress.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) a year ago

I walk in a forest.
There is a huge bear minding its own business in the distance.
I would be scared for my life because I know I am in the wrong place and I AM TRESPASSING IN ITS HOUSE and I am very weak compared to it. The animal is not scary on its own.
Anyway, I would just go back and stay away from it because I know they are unpredictable.
I would certainly NOT consider that bear "scary".

Would you consider a whale scary? It you are swimming right under its tail, you would be probably scared shitless for your life. Otherwise you would consider it a very harmless animal. That's like saying "I saw a truck at the last moment when I was crossing the street- it stopped right before me, almost running me over- trucks are scary".
The truck is not scary per se, obviously. You see a truck parked, you would not be scared. You see one driving in the distance, same. You walk right in front of one, of course it's scary. If this explains what I mean about Beast.

reply

[–] Stratego (30497) a year ago

A whale is not a predator.

"I would certainly NOT consider that bear "scary"."

Lol, you've done enough trolling for today. Good luck petting a lion when you come across one in the wild!

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) a year ago

What fucking trolling?!?!?!?
I am chatting with you, if you have a problem with it, bye.

reply

[–] Stratego (30497) a year ago

Okay, bye!🍆

reply

[–] PaladinNJ (21509) a year ago

as a human he was a hansome man but ugly on the inside. The witch made him as ugly on the outside so he couldn't depend on his looks. He had to fix what was on the inside for Belle to love him.

reply

[–] xergan (1067) a year ago

This!
It's also ridiculous to say from our modern standpoint that "why you can't love a beast". The fairy tale is from a time, when people were burned alive when they had the wrong look. So loving a non human was unthinkable. Nowadays we see it all day long, if its now in cartoons or fantasy movies. So we are used to accept there could be non humans. This was not the case for people of the 18th century.
The story had been likely a similar reaction in roman times, as back then gods were "all the time" in beast mode. No one would question if this would be possible.

But yes, in the end it is just an allegory for changing the look for the soul.

reply

[–] Wint3rFir3 (7146) a year ago

In the sense of loving a pet? Should be absolutely easy. Pets are quite often assholes, we still love them regardless. And there's nothing more romantic than living rent free in a castle with free top of the line meals, a massive library, tailored clothing and doting friends/servants. All you gotta do is eat meals with said beast a few times a day that you don't have to cook or pay for and have snowball fights in return for this lifestyle? I see no downsides.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) a year ago

Not only that, but the village and most other villagers were abysmal.
And the library in the castle had the biggest collection in the world.
Who in their right mind would ever think of leaving?!?

reply

[–] archer1203 (48) a year ago

I didn't read all of the reply's here so I don't know if anyone mentioned this but, wouldn't it be considered bestiality.....sort of?

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) a year ago

Nope.
I LOVE "my" animals. Nobody mentally sane would ever consider that bestiality of any sort.

reply