"Oh, okay. That's what I thought you were probably referring to. I had thought that Gaston's fall was a lot higher (although I can't take an actual tape measure and leap into the screen, ha.) Also the fact that she had been knocked into the whirlpool rather than splattering against rock/concrete/whatever, made me think that she'd be the much more likely survivor. (Come to think of it, Gaston's death had to be one of the more gruesome, painful, and terrifying ones in Disney history. They've done a lot of falls, but his just strikes me as being especially bad...the way we actually look down at him, free-falling from such a height, at a high angle really emphasizes it to me, I suppose.)"
I thought the whirlpool fall's height was about the same height, possibly higher, because a zoom away showed the bottom as being almost non-visible when Ursula was about to blast Ariel in the whirlpool. And Ariel actually did land on a rocky ocean floor, and its clear she never hit any of the sides of the whirlpool (in other words, she fell directly into the eye).
"All right, I see what you mean about the Maurice imprisonment thing. The reprise lyrics (following his whispering the idea to LeFou) are explicit giveaways to the other characters present, as well as the audience, that he doesn't have the best morals. He's planning something extremely underhanded, cruel, criminal, and self-serving in order to get what he wants. (And villains do tend to blurt out things they sometimes shouldn't when they're feeling so invincible. xD) We can tell from the beginning that he's bad, of course, and although it would have complicated the film to have the whole village try to convince Gaston to leave Maurice alone, etc., I can see why you suggest that idea."
Yeah, except usually that kind of blurting things out is what results in the Villain's downfall (except in cases where they deliberately give these kinds of details to the heroes specifically because they counted on them to actually act against them, which even then very rarely do they actually succeed). Take Scar for instance, he was very careful in regards to making sure his involvement in Mufasa's murder was kept secret: The only ones who actually were in on Scar's plot were the Hyenas, who already had enough reason to hate the Lions anyways, and even then, he had to infer that he would give them a surplus of food if they supported them as insurance ("Follow me and you'll never go hungry again!"), and his downfall literally came about when he just couldn't resist the urge to tell Simba before executing him that he was responsible for Mufasa's murder. Heck, even the Dark Knight's Joker (who was definitely the darkest and most psychotic/depraved incarnation of all Joker characters) doesn't actually show his hand in regards to what his actual plans were (a good example of this was during the bank robbery, where Joker not only managed to only tell the Bank Robbers which ones they should kill [which nearly got himself killed due to Grumpy inevitably finding out about the backstab chain], but also neglected to tell them about their actual escape vehicle (the School Bus) until seconds before Grumpy was run over by it, and heck, hid the fact that he was actually involved in the robbery directly [disguising himself as one of the robbers].).
Most times, villains usually try to deceive and maintain a benevolent appearance to get what they want, which means he needs to do his plotting in such a way that makes it seem as though it was not only practical to the village, but also moral. Think about it, if Stalin, Hitler, and all of those guys admitted to most of their people about their horrendous crimes, their time in office would be quite short even if they were totalitarian (don't forget, Robespierre despite nearly being totalitarian ended up killed by the populace).
"However, the way I always saw it, the people gathered in the tavern were possibly seedy-type individuals themselves, so maybe THEY wouldn't have had such a strong moral problem with helping Gaston commit a crime. The entire town wasn't in there. Those who were might have been perfectly willing to go along with Gaston in convincing everyone else that Maurice, the beast-raving madman, had fully cracked and needed transference to a mental institute of some sort. They could have lied and claimed that he'd become a danger to himself and others--even made it out to look as though the valiant Gaston were trying to protect Maurice's daughter."
I'm not so certain about it being composed of the seedy types: The Bimbettes didn't seem to be the particularly seedy type, and I'm extremely doubtful the other waitresses were fairly seedy (though come to think of it, the Bimbettes weren't present at the lynch mob at all, and considering old ladies were present among the mob, I'm extremely doubtful that the reason for their absence had to do with safety reasons at all, and LeFou's presence pretty much rules out wanting to avoid comic relief, as he himself is a comic relief character yet was clearly leading the charge officially). Also, considering that the lynch mob near the end of the film was actually laughing at Maurice mockingly when LeFou was officially leading the group (after LeFou managed to trick Maurice into describing the Beast to him again), including that bearded Baker (who most certainly wasn't among the tavern people during the first revelation about the Beast: the one that got Maurice thrown out, literally), I'm doubtful that they were actually frightened of Maurice being dangerous or anything. Remember, the only time true fear clearly sunk in was when Belle actually unveiled the Beast existed (a stupid move on her part, considering the fact that this mob would most certainly have gone after the Beast based on their actions regarding her father).
"I guess the Bimbettes are willing to follow Gaston's will no matter WHAT, and happy just to be near enough for him to lift on a bench. xD (You're right, though--if they'd had more brains among the three of them, they would've tried to sabotage the plan instead because they DON'T want him to wed Belle!)
I just sensed that those who knew the truth about Gaston were either okay with it, or afraid to make a stand against him. If the entire village knew the truth, then yes, I'm sure there would be far too many against him, and he wouldn't have been able to keep their support."
I know the Bimbettes are not particularly smart, but I doubt anyone would be that stupid (heck, at least one of the Bimbettes actually came close to marrying Gaston in one of the comics, I think she disguised herself as Belle and even played the part very well. The only reason why it didn't work was because of her sister's interference [who apparently were smart enough to realize that "Belle" was actually their sister disguised as her]. I think it was the third issue in the Marvel-published Disney comics series, although I can't comment on much as I only heard about it and never actually read it.). And considering the baker (who wasn't even in the tavern at the time Maurice first exposed the Beast's existence) was laughing among the other villagers in a derisive manner, no, I'm doubtful that the other villagers actually thought that Maurice was dangerous (Most people don't laugh and mock a person who is dangerous to society. Cops and security most certainly don't, and had I been a citizen concerned about Maurice becoming dangerous, I wouldn't laugh mockingly at him. Actually, I'd do what most people would do, which is tell him to remain calm and he needs rehabilitation, and I may be forced to use necessary force if he isn't willing to come quietly, and most likely would be terrified at his erratic behavior.).
And I'm doubtful it was fear of Gaston that acted as a motive, as there's literally nothing present in their facial appearances that indicated that they even feared him (unlike, say the reprise for "World's Greatest Criminal Mind" in the Great Mouse Detective, where it was made obvious from their facial reactions and overall reaction that Ratigan's henchmen were only continuing their praise of Ratigan and supporting his plot due to fear of being eaten by Felicia.), and considering I had to train myself to read facial expressions via an emotion chart just to get close to the level of non-autistics in understanding emotions, I'm pretty sure I could find subtle emotional reactions if any were present.
As far as the reference to Animal Farm, back when I was in the ninth grade, my teachers, in addition to having us read Animal Farm, showed us the live action adaptation of the film. Mom also watched the film at my request (largely because hey, might as well tell her what's going on at school), and she disliked it because she felt the writers felt the audience was too stupid to understand what was going on from how it was written. I was giving a comparison with the Gaston reprise because I got the feeling that the writers thought its audience must have been exceptionally stupid to have Gaston flat out state his plot in front of lots of witnesses, and their cheering him on. Although Gaston, since he's the main antagonist, would need to find a way to marry Belle to advance the plot, I feel they should have done it a lot better.
reply
share
thereseuphemiaabernathy
11 years ago
Well, I guess we'll just have to ask some animators from the two films what the actual fall heights were, and why only one was survivable. xD Personally, if given the choice, I would take the whirlpool and seafloor over the castle freefall any day, but in our world it would be quite the dreadful event either way!
Yes, in most cases the villains have to be very careful of what they reveal to whom, and maintain the appearance of doing something good for others. In Gaston's case, he seemed to have the support of everyone in town by default, even though his behavior was clearly immoral. But based upon the reprise, I had to assume that the tavern folks that night were all okay with the idea of putting an innocent, harmless, if somewhat kooky man away as part of the path to marriage. Either that, or they for whatever reason did not want to be the one to stand up, interrupt the joyous song, and say, "Hey, that ain't right, ya know!" Gaston was the most popular guy around, and plus could probably beat up anybody he wanted to, like the big bully he was. So if you were gonna be "that guy," I guess you risked being chucked out into the snow just like Maurice (or worse?) At the same time, though, I don't think Gaston was feared on the terror-stricken level of, say, Ratigan...perhaps because he had no enormous pet to whom to feed anyone who even slightly failed in their obsequious butt-kissing or mildly displeased him? xD;
I did notice that, curiously, the Bimbettes weren't part of the mob. You'd think that such standout characters who were in every other "villager gathering" scene would be visible there, but no. (That comic sounds pretty interesting and funny as well!)
And it was a little dumb of Belle to reveal the Beast's existence through the mirror, because it was pretty obvious what would happen next. She must have been desperate to prove her father's sanity right then and there to keep him from being locked up somewhere again (rather than, say, trying to introduce Beast to the people in a way that would prove his gentleness, so that her dad would be freed...but they likely wouldn't have given her the chance to do so, and Gaston would probably have tried to shoot him before she could prove anything. So what else was she really supposed to do, I suppose...)
She then tried to assure them all that Beast wasn't the threat he appeared to be. Too bad that failed miserably. (Maybe she was hoping he'd appear calm and docile-ish in the mirror, hah.) I don't think most of them would have been convinced that Maurice was dangerous in a serial killer kind of way, but I figured they'd be easy enough to persuade that he was a ridiculous, raving lunatic unfit to live among "normal" people any longer. They loved to mock and laugh at the guy, but at the same time could have harbored thoughts along the lines of, "Well, who knows what he might do in the future, if he truly believes he was imprisoned by a terrifying ten-foot hairy beast with fangs? He's unstable and crazy!" (Kind of like Santa Claus in Miracle on 34th Street--he too was, for all anyone knew, a sweet but delusional old man who insisted that he was Father Christmas. Yet some still wanted to prove him insane and put him away/get him help, fearing that such an individual was a menace to society and would become "dangerous.") At the time Maurice was obviously not going to rage against everyone for deriding him, nor be able to do much against the mob.
Also, you seem by and large quite a bit more logical and well-educated than the villagers. I think your point is valid...we'd just need to ask the filmmakers whether they intended us to assume the things I assumed, or what else their explanation would be for the villagers' compliance with and acceptance of Gaston's dirty plans.
reply
share
otness_e
11 years ago
"Well, I guess we'll just have to ask some animators from the two films what the actual fall heights were, and why only one was survivable. xD Personally, if given the choice, I would take the whirlpool and seafloor over the castle freefall any day, but in our world it would be quite the dreadful event either way!"
Maybe, though the fall in Ariel's case may be due to the fact that Ariel wasn't human and thus could survive a lot more than other humans (heck, she survived being crushed underwater from water pressure during her first transformation, and she was technically human at that point).
"Yes, in most cases the villains have to be very careful of what they reveal to whom, and maintain the appearance of doing something good for others. In Gaston's case, he seemed to have the support of everyone in town by default, even though his behavior was clearly immoral. But based upon the reprise, I had to assume that the tavern folks that night were all okay with the idea of putting an innocent, harmless, if somewhat kooky man away as part of the path to marriage. Either that, or they for whatever reason did not want to be the one to stand up, interrupt the joyous song, and say, "Hey, that ain't right, ya know!" Gaston was the most popular guy around, and plus could probably beat up anybody he wanted to, like the big bully he was. So if you were gonna be "that guy," I guess you risked being chucked out into the snow just like Maurice. At the same time, though, I don't think Gaston was feared on the level of, say, Ratigan...perhaps because he had no enormous pet to whom to feed anyone who even slightly failed in their obsequious butt-kissing or mildly displeased him? xD;"
He may not have a pet giant monster too feed them with, but knowing people of his type (ie, Josef Stalin, Bill Clinton, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Robespierre, and the like), he'd most likely end up silencing anyone who'd disagree with him, and even they have limits as to what they can get away with (and those guys largely had a complicit media to keep the populace at large in the dark about their "skeletons in the closets"). As such, they'd still need to have animated some degree of fear in the villagers if that was their motive, and either way I still say it was a terribly done plot point.
"I did notice that, curiously, the Bimbettes weren't part of the mob. You'd think that such standout characters who were in every other "villager gathering" scene would be visible there, but no. (That comic sounds pretty interesting and funny as well!)"
Probably the only reason might be cold feet (though some versions of the musicals have them participating, though that's non-canon, just as the other musicals are non-canon to the films they adapted). Again, old ladies were present among the mob, so that discounts safety reasons, and since LeFou, who for most of the film was the comic relief, was not only present in the mob, he was the official ringleader, that also discounts wanting to avoid comic relief.
"And it was kinda dumb of Belle to reveal the Beast's existence through the mirror, because it was pretty obvious what would happen next. She must have been desperate to prove her father's sanity right then and there to keep him from being locked up somewhere again (rather than, say, trying to introduce Beast to the people in a way that would prove his gentleness, so that her dad would be freed...but they likely wouldn't have given her the chance to do so, and Gaston would probably have tried to shoot him before she could prove anything. So what else was she really supposed to do, I suppose...)
She then tried to assure them all that Beast wasn't the threat he appeared to be. Too bad that failed miserably. (Maybe she was hoping he'd appear calm and docile-ish in the mirror, hah.) I don't think most of them would have been convinced that Maurice was dangerous in a serial killer kind of way, but I figured they'd be easy enough to persuade that he was a ridiculous, raving lunatic unfit to live among "normal" people any longer. They loved to mock and laugh at the guy, but at the same time could have harbored thoughts along the lines of, "Well, who knows what he might do in the future, if he truly believes he was imprisoned by a terrifying ten-foot hairy beast with fangs? He's unstable and crazy!" At the time he was obviously not going to rage against everyone for deriding him, nor be able to do much against the mob."
Usually whenever I hear of someone being unstable, crazy, and a danger to society (which is implied to be the opposite of Maurice being "harmless"), I think of people like The Joker, Adam Lanza, Maurice Sendak (and in case you're wondering what I meant by that, Sendak basically plotted to assassinate Bush while he was still president, its even on the record), that crazy Uncle Sam-like guy who held a car shop hostage and blew it up in Cats and Dogs 2, or people like that (you know, people significantly unstable and actually have proven themselves to be dangerous by taking or attempting to take innocent lives), and the last thing anyone would do to someone of that classification is mock and deride that person, not unless they are as much as they are confident for, or they have some sort of death wish.
"Also, you seem by and large quite a bit more logical and educated than the villagers. I think your point is valid...we'd just need to ask the filmmakers whether they intended us to assume the things I assumed, or what else their explanation would be for the villagers' compliance with and acceptance of Gaston's dirty plans."
We could, if we knew what their email or other contact information was. I wouldn't go for educated, though. Having learned of the bad fruits that "educated" people such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau (who was both the architect of the modern education system and one of the architects for the mass-murdering spree such as the French Revolution), Karl Marx, Freire, Ernst Hemmingway (and he's actually very similar to Belle due to his love to read), Voltaire (again, one of the architects of the French Revolution, alongside the Encyclopaedists of the Enlightenment), Jean-Paul Sartre, and the like. Not to mention some stuff I've experienced in the classrooms were bad, pushing leftist agendas among others. I try to be logical, though.
reply
share
thereseuphemiaabernathy
11 years ago
I too thought that perhaps being a mermaid magically transformed into a human might endow you with a wee bit of superhuman strength. I imagine mermaids are probably pretty strong creatures to begin with. ^^
This has been thought-provoking. I must say that I never thought to criticize that plot point before, as I'm sure most fans didn't--but I do see where you're coming from.
I've seen clips of scenes and musical numbers from the musical, but not the whole show from start to finish. It looked good, but like other Disney stage shows, not TOO different from the film--and when I go to the theater, I usually try to pick a show I haven't seen in any form.
Holy wow, I knew there was more to Sendak than just "celebrated children's storybook creator," but I never heard that he was a planned assassin!
I wouldn't want to jeer at anyone who'd demonstrated violent, psychotic tendencies, either. If there's anything to my idea that some of the villagers had been persuaded that Maurice could be in any way "dangerous" (to himself or others), I think it would be in more of a "Miracle on 34th Street" way--kind of a joke, because he's so obviously a kind and innocuous older man...but someone who could still be safely mocked if you had numbers and brawn on your side. xD Or the similar deal in The Santa Clause, where they're arresting and interrogating Scott Calvin, suspending his child visitation rights, etc., for supposedly being delusional about something relatively harmless. And of course, he really IS the new Santa Claus, so for them it's ultimately a moot point anyhow.
We could, if we knew what their email or other contact information was.
Yeah...somehow I sort of doubt you'd get a response even if you tried asking a more general Disney address to pass the question along to the appropriate people involved with BatB.
Well, you had struck me as being reasonably logical and intelligent, at any rate--even if "educated" isn't exactly how you'd put it. (Although you have quite an uncommon familiarity with various historical figures and subjects, so you must have received or given yourself a decent education! I wouldn't be down on learnedness as a bad thing just because a few such people weren't the best role models; indeed, reading and learning and thinking critically--as you obviously do--need to be encouraged. It doesn't automatically link you in any significant way to some leader or other with whom you'd prefer not to be associated. I'm a bit of a bibliophile and moderate political left-leaner myself, so I might not agree with everything there, but that's just fine so long as we both have our reasons for seeing from our perspectives.) I was more getting at the notion that Belle's quiet little town doesn't exactly seem like a haven of brainiacs and intellectuals--mostly simple countryside folk with probably, you know, quite basic schooling at best.
reply
share
otness_e
11 years ago
"This has been thought-provoking. I must say that I never thought to criticize that plot point before, as I'm sure most fans didn't--but I do see where you're coming from."
Yeah, there's barely any reason for the villagers to support it, under any circumstance, whether pragmatic or moral. When I was younger I thought the villagers were pure evil, something even my dad doubted.
"I've seen clips of scenes and musical numbers from the musical, but not the whole show from start to finish. It looked good, but like other Disney stage shows, not TOO different from the film--and when I go to the theater, I usually try to pick a show I haven't seen in any form."
Never actually saw the musicals (Not a musical kind of guy). However, you'd be very surprised to know what kinds of things they changed in the musicals. Take "The Little Mermaid," for example: They had Ariel killing Ursula by breaking the nautilus, despite it going at odds against not only the film, but also the original deleted scene. They also made Ursula Triton's sister, and heck, some were even completely unnecessary, such as when they moved "Under the Sea" to after Triton destroyed Ariel's grotto (which really made Sebastian seem like a really big jerk as a consequence). Also, Vanessa was cut out.
"Holy wow, I knew there was more to Sendak than just "celebrated children's storybook creator," but I never heard that he was a planned assassin!!"
Yeah, and his planned method of assassination was about as sick as one of the Joker's schemes (though not nearly as thought out regarding reality). Basically, he was to have tied a bomb underneath his shirt, somehow managed to enter the White House, meet with the President, the vice President, and their families, get them into a group hug, and then detonate the bomb. He even had the gall to claim that he would be a hero and that it would have been a very brave and "wonderful" thing. Fortunately, he never went through with it. He admitted it all in an interview with The Comics Journal. Some people said he was joking, but I never really got that sense that he was joking, especially when he didn't use phraseology that actually indicated that he was. Here's the article: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/06/25/Where-The-Wild-Things-Are-Author-Wanted-To-Assassinate-Bush-And-Cheney And here's the interview in question: http://www.tcj.com/maurice-sendak-interview-sneak-preview/
"SENDAK: Bush was president, I thought, “Be brave. Tie a bomb to your shirt. Insist on going to the White House. And I wanna have a big hug with the vice president, definitely. And his wife, and the president, and his wife, and anybody else that can fit into the love hug.”
GROTH: A group hug.
SENDAK: And then we’ll blow ourselves up, and I’d be a hero. [Groth laughs.] To hell with the kiddie books. He killed Bush. He killed the vice president. Oh my God.
GROTH: I would have been willing to forgo this interview. [Sendak laughs.]
SENDAK: You would have forgotten about it. It would have been a very brave and wonderful thing. But I didn’t do it; I didn’t do it."
Jeez, had Gaston been trying to lock this Maurice up, what this guy planned to do would probably have been reason enough for hum to be locked up, and heck, blackmailing Belle into marrying him wouldn't have even needed to be a factor into it. And even if he WERE joking (which based on the way he was talking, he wasn't), that's still an extremely sick thing to joke about.
"I wouldn't want to jeer at anyone who'd demonstrated violent, psychotic tendencies, either. If there's anything to my idea that some of the villagers had been persuaded that Maurice could be in any way "dangerous" (to himself or others), I think it would be in more of a "Miracle on 34th Street" way--kind of a joke, because he's so obviously a kind and innocuous older man...but someone who could still be safely mocked if you had numbers and brawn on your side. xD"
That doesn't sound like someone who is dangerous (the Miracle on 34th Street manner, I mean). Now if the guy was unassuming, yet deep down was some sort of mass murderer, I can agree with that.
"Well, you struck me as being reasonably logical and intelligent, at any rate--even if "educated" isn't exactly how you'd put it. (Although you have quite an uncommon familiarity with various historical figures and subjects, so you must have received or given yourself a decent education!) I was more getting at the notion that Belle's quiet little town doesn't exactly seem like a haven of brainiacs and intellectuals--mostly simple countryside folk with probably, you know, basic schooling."
Hey, I do my research, that's all I can say, and I'm actually more distrusting of my teachers right now thanks to some things they pulled on the students. Having my religion and morals being bashed and ganged up on is not exactly something I can tolerate easily, and believe me, I've experienced my fair share of these sorts of things in person in the classroom. As much as I hate Gaston for his behavior, and despite my initially being a feminist (and to some degree still am in the sense of the Susan B. Anthony-type), I ultimately have to agree with Gaston that reading and thinking are very dangerous and not really things that should be allowed, for anyone (and yes, that even extends to myself), especially when reading and thinking is what led to many of my fellow Christians to be massacred by the Jacobins, the Bolshieveks, the Khmer Rouge, heck, even the Nazis in their various revolutions and reign of terror, and especially what I've experienced of reading and thinking inside the classroom, which essentially entailed using Christians as target practice and inferring we're misogynists, and how we should support free sex and second-wave feminism.
EDIT: Correction, I meant "vice president", not ex-president.
reply
share
thereseuphemiaabernathy
11 years ago
While I never interpreted the villagers as being evil (just duped and manipulated), I could understand other children thinking that.
Ah yes, I've seen parts of The Little Mermaid show as well. Very creative set and costume designs in that one (guess they HAD to get creative for a musical set underwater!) I knew they did make Ursula Triton's sister, which I think had been an original idea for the film too. And I assume they wanted to have Ariel be the one to ultimately kill the villain, rather than Eric...although I never had a problem with him doing it in the movie, because she had already saved his life. He was basically returning the favor. We'd already seen how brave she was; Eric just happened to have legs and feet and a good giant-octopus-woman-killing vehicle at his disposal in that crucial moment. Ariel's still a heroine (and one of my all-time favorite princesses/characters.)
Can't believe they omitted Vanessa, though. That doesn't sound like a wise change. Just like moving "Under the Sea"...that movie is an almost perfect example of how to make a great movie, in my opinion, and messing with its ideal pacing/plot line is simply silly.
Wow, Sendak...that was...quite a bold thing to come out and say. I mean, even joking about murdering the president, family, etc., would have to cause outrage no matter whom was in the White House...and despite the fact that there'd always be those who would consider such an act heroic. It doesn't really sound to me as if he truly intended to do that, but I guess we'll never know whether it ever went through his head as a serious plan. (Heck, my own mom has spoken frequently of a willingness to assassinate other politicians, but I have genuine doubts as to her ability to actually kill anyone even if afforded a prime opportunity.)
Yeah, exactly...the Santa Claus in Miracle on 34th, like the one in The Santa Clause, really ARE Santa. So they're prosecuted as delusional, crazy people who need mental help, and Scott Calvin is prevented from seeing his son. Even if the movies were more realistic, and they WERE ordinary guys convinced of being Santa Claus, the comparison would still sort of apply...because they wind up getting treated, to humorous effect, as if they do have deep-rooted instabilities and could snap and become, say, totally dysfunctional or even murderers at some point. As if all "crazy" people or ones with psychological disorders and mental illnesses are exactly the same, and potential criminals or killers.
Well, research is great. I don't think it's right one way or the other for teachers and professors to confuse their personal opinions with the facts they're charged with explaining so that students can be informed and think for themselves, making up their own minds. They shouldn't have someone's agenda thrust upon them. I mean, sure, professors and students/young people tend to be more liberal in general (I lean left myself, but am really more independent and moderate), but making sweeping statements about all Christians or any other group is clearly wrong.
'Course I don't have anything against free sex, as long as there's some personal responsibility involved...
I'm also a feminist, although I recently saw it suggested that we should call it "humanist" instead--because "feminist" lets some people continue to insist that we want to make women superior to men when, obviously, the entire point is equality (only called "feminism" because the females are the ones beginning with disadvantages and therefore needing the movement.) I...could never say that "reading and thinking are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed," because on the contrary, I strongly encourage them. If no one read about anything or thought for themselves, everybody would be completely ignorant of everything, totally in the dark. There'll always be bad, dangerous people with warped and twisted ideas that can be transformed into acts of evil if they're permitted to...always be examples of the terrible things that happen because people have free will. Yet, very little good could ever come from taking it away. In fact, that's what any evil, tyrannical dictator worth his or her salt would want.
Buuut, that just got pretty off-topic into the philosophy zone--so suffice it to say that the villagers made a very LARGE boo-boo in supporting Gaston, and it was mighty big of Belle to forgive them...even though she had been friendly with a lot of them from the beginning, and seemed on superficially good terms with most everybody BUT Gaston.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT: I almost completely forgot about this. I'm simply going to put my response to the below up here, because it is all just far too pointlessly redundant and off-topic at this point to add another separate post.
As I'd said, my assumption (and I'm sure that of almost all viewers) was that Gaston only revealed the details of his plan to the group in the tavern with him that night. It was only a mid-sized group, and again, probably "seedy" (or just obsequious or scared) enough to go along with the mighty, hunky town hero. I'm sure that most of the other kindly townsfolk and families would not have been down for framing an innocent man and forcing a young woman into marriage.
Right, now that you've got the establishment of at least two octopus-women in TLM, the only way that Ursula could seemingly be related to Triton (and thus Ariel and their whole family) is distantly. Aww, it can be hard to pick favorite characters, I know; I don't want to leave anybody out when I love a lot or all of them. But, it is now easy enough for me to pick out Ariel, Merida, Elsa, & Anna as my very favorite Disney princesses. 8D
I have a few other Autistic friends, actually. And of course I was saying that the characters in movies such as Beauty & the Beast, The Santa Clause, or Miracle on 34th Street don't *understand* the variety of mental illnesses that people can have, and therefore *they* lump them all together and fear any "crazy kook" because they figure that if somebody could be that much of a "deluded crackpot," then they could eventually be capable of anything. Of course it's faulty, flawed, uneducated reasoning.
Indeed, a Disney movie page is no place for overlong philosophical discussions, much as I enjoy a good one now and again. (But ah, the French Revolution--I distinctly remember it as being one of the most interesting subjects covered in my AP European History class. Which was an awesome class on the whole, mostly thanks to the teacher.) Okay, I can't imagine for one moment Belle backstabbing Adam and joining any other massacres...we're talkin' about a Disney princess here. She knows that killing isn't justified unless it's absolutely necessary. I also don't see how the characters' most likely religions would be relevant to...whatever the initial question was. Clearly you're religious and that's fine, but few films are told from that perspective. That said, I could see Belle being a Deist, or Agnostic, or atheist (which would not be any kind of "worst." Atheists simply do not follow any religious belief system because none have proof of being true, and I value such practicality, objectivity, and logic. It's not okay to bash groups of people just because they're religious, OR non-religious.) But that provincial little town could've been filled with mostly Jews or Hindus or Buddhists or Wiccans or whatever, and it wouldn't have necessarily made a huge difference to the overall plot. And I like left-wing; it's when people are too far to either end of the spectrum that they become essentially the same power-crazed whackies who'll attempt to justify any means to reach their ends.
*imagines all good-looking people being evil, and all unattractive people being good* Wow, that was quite an extreme way to take the "inner beauty" lesson. xD Ariel & Misty? Yay, redhead fan! Although Jessie was always my favorite Pokemon ginger. And uhhh, I really have no idea by what you mean about liking people such as Ariel & Misty, other than liking carrot-tops. Belle certainly emits no more of a left-wing vibe than Ariel does. (Safe to assume that most Disney princesses will prove quite liberalish in their rule.)
Trustworthier Bimbettes? Hrm. I'd trust Belle; aside from the irresistible West Wing thing (hey, I'm as curious and adventure-seeking as she is), she gives me little reason not to. Of course the airheads aren't seen "bashing males" (no one is); they're too blinded by the outside to see what Gaston really is.
reply
share
otness_e
11 years ago
"While I never interpreted the villagers as being evil (just duped and manipulated), I could understand other children thinking that."
Yeah, especially when Gaston's blatant honesty about how his plan was to be done and how amoral and unethical it clearly was simply cannot realistically leave room for simply being manipulated, and that's not even getting into whether something that honest would even be followed by all but either those who are either exceptionally terrified of Gaston or the hardened psychopaths. Several real life bad people do not go into that kind of honest detail about their evil plans. Actually, that would result in their downfall.
"Ah yes, I've seen parts of The Little Mermaid show as well. Very creative set and costume designs in that one (guess they HAD to get creative for a musical set underwater!) I knew they did make Ursula Triton's sister, which I think had been an original idea for the film too. And I assume they wanted to have Ariel be the one to ultimately kill the villain, rather than Eric...although I never had a problem with him doing it in the movie, because she had already saved his life. He was basically returning the favor. We'd already seen how brave she was; Eric just happened to have legs and feet and a good giant-octopus-woman-killing vehicle at his disposal in that crucial moment. Ariel's still a heroine (and one of my all-time favorite princesses/characters.)
Can't believe they omitted Vanessa, though. That doesn't sound like a wise change. Just like moving "Under the Sea"...that movie is an almost perfect example of how to make a great movie, in my opinion, and messing with its ideal pacing/plot line is simply silly."
Yes, I heard of that (Ursula being Triton's sister in the original film's concepts). Then again, Morgana as well as the creation of an entire race of creatures like Ursula pretty much nixed that idea (especially when not only does Ursula have a sister, but a mother of the same species as her. I mean, adopted sister is one thing, but there's literally no way Ursula can ever be related to Triton or Ariel after Return to the Sea). And actually, while I won't go so far as to say that Ariel is my favorite character (Thanks to Toy Story and the subplot about Buzz and Woody regarding which is the "favorite", I'm not too keen on favorites), I do hold a lot of respect for her, largely because she actually did try to overcome challenges (as I myself am Autistic, which is a socially-hindering condition, and had to work very hard to get to where I am today).
"Wow, Sendak...that was...quite a thing to come out and say. I mean, even joking about murdering the president, family, etc., would have to cause outrage no matter whom was in the White House...and despite the fact that there'd always be those who would consider such an act heroic. It doesn't really sound to me as if he truly intended to do that, but I guess we'll never know whether it ever went through his head as a serious plan. (Heck, my own mom has spoken frequently of a willingness to assassinate other politicians, but I have genuine doubts as to her ability to actually kill anyone even if afforded a prime opportunity.)"
Yes, its never a good thing to kill a public official, or to kill period. Probably the only exception is if there is absolutely no other alternative (like if they arranged things so that, even when they are quite clearly guilty of treasonous behavior and doing verifiable grave harm to the Country, something all but the most delusional would clearly see and something not even the mass media can hide especially right now), and even then that should only be done as an absolute last resort.
"Yeah, exactly...the Santa Claus in Miracle on 34th, like the one in The Santa Clause, really ARE Santa. So they're prosecuted as delusional, crazy people who need mental help, and Scott Calvin is prevented from seeing his son. Even if the movies were more realistic, and they WERE ordinary guys convinced of being Santa Claus, the comparison would still sort of apply...because they wind up getting treated, to humorous effect, as if they do have deep-rooted instabilities and could snap and become, say, totally dysfunctional or even murderers at some point. As if all "crazy" people or ones with psychological disorders are the same, and potential criminals or killers. "
Speaking as someone who has an actual neurological disorder (Autism, or at least Aspergers Syndrome as well as some degree of OCD), I'm pretty doubtful of that.
"Well, research is great. I don't think it's right one way or the other for teachers and professors to confuse their personal opinions with the facts they're charged with explaining so that students can be informed and think for themselves, making up their own minds. They shouldn't have someone's agenda thrust upon them. I mean, sure, professors and students/young people tend to be more liberal in general (I lean left myself, but am really more independent and moderate), but making sweeping statements about all Christians or any other group is clearly wrong.
'Course I don't have anything against free sex, as long as there's some personal responsibility involved...
I'm also a feminist, although I recently saw it suggested that we should call it "humanist" instead--because "feminist" lets some people continue to insist that we want to make women superior to men when, obviously, the entire point is equality (only called "feminism" because the females are the ones beginning with disadvantages and therefore needing the movement.) I...could never say that "reading and thinking are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed," because on the contrary, I strongly encourage them. If no one read about anything or thought for themselves, everybody would be completely ignorant of everything, totally in the dark. There'll always be bad, dangerous people with warped and twisted ideas that can be transformed into acts of evil if they're permitted to...always be examples of the terrible things that happen because people have free will. Yet, very little good could ever come from taking it away.
Buuut, that just got pretty off-topic into the philosophy zone--"
Yeah, pretty much agreed about it being off-topic, though I could try to continue via email or PM, though, because I do intend to respond to that (and as a side note, thanks to research I've done as well as personal experience of meeting someone with a philosophy major, I have absolutely no intention of delving into philosophy).
"so suffice it to say that the villagers made a very LARGE boo-boo in supporting Gaston, and it was mighty big of Belle to forgive them...even though she had been friendly with some of them from the beginning, and seemed on superficially good terms with most everybody BUT Gaston."
Perhaps. I'm a bit cynical about Belle right now, though, especially with what I've learned based on both personal experience in the education system and research onto both the overall education system beyond what I've personally experienced and what several "intellectuals" of various time periods pulled, and the implied time period of Beauty and the Beast (I'll give you a hint, it's just a few years shy of the events of Bastille Day). To not go too off-topic, I get the feeling that Belle would most likely end up siding with the Jacobins, backstab Adam (Beast's human form) and proceed to ensure Rousseau and the Encyclopedists's insane ideology into existence and massacre anyone who does not submit or anyone who is Christian (and I have this suspicion this because that's exactly how the intellectual class of France behaved. Remember, the Jacobin Club was composed of intellectuals who were big fans of Rousseau's work). And besides, Belle doesn't strike me as being very religious. Considering the village was strongly implied by some things (such as Gaston's failed "wedding" and the villagers during the Mob Song saying "Praise the Lord") to be Christian, and Belle's complaints about the provincial life (suggesting she at the very least disliked the village) and her implied status as a social outcast in the song Belle (not to mention her never giving ANY indication that she held any religious beliefs), I'd argue that she's either a Deist at best, or an Atheist at worst.
Edit: Besides, I took the moral of the film (beauty comes from within) a bit too extreme when I was younger, to the extent that I thought when someone had external beauty they automatically were ugly on the inside, so that was not a very good message for me. It wasn't even until fairly recently that I realized my error. And honestly, even though I don't even like the Bimbettes, I nonetheless feel as though, per their being implied to be Christians and their not being very likely to actually bash males, they are ultimately a lot more trustworthy than Belle thanks to my experiences with education. Personally, I prefer women like Ariel or Misty. Belle seemed very left-wing in retrospect.
reply
share