Right tho? I always thought that was fucked up. I mean if they were gonna break the curse why not turn him into at the very least, an average guy. Instead of giving him perfect proportions and better hair then I could ever dream of
tum0r Guys I think you're forgetting something: the beast was 11 when he was transformed. And he hasn't been outside since. He has no idea what love is, has had the worst puberty ever, has probably needed therapy that he could only get from furniture people that have to suffer with him, and is racing against the clock to save himself and said furniture people. Furniture people who he might have murdered a few of, eats off of and with, and lights one of them on fire all the time. That is like the worst 10 years for all of them. The fact they got turned normal at all is a miracle
That's kind of funny because I always thought the transformed beast was kinda weird looking...also, fun fact, one of the producers of the movie didn't want the Beast to transform at all, but he was shot down by the others (probably because kid-friendly Disney didn't want to associate themselves with beastiality support) and instead tried to implement a line where Belle asks the transformed beast "Do you think you could grow a beard?" That line got cut out, too, though.
Scar didn't fail as a ruler. Looking at the trees and vegetation, how dry and leafless they are, it's clear that the region is suffering from a heavy drought - a weather condition, which Scar has no control over, and that can't be possibly caused by the introduction of the hyenas in the local ecosystem. Besides, the movie's perspective tricks us into believing that Scar quickly turns Pride Rock into a devastated place, when in reality it takes all of Simba's childhood years and at least some in his adulthood before the situation becomes "unsustainable". Taking into account that in real life, lion cubs take from three to eight years to mature into adults, and the fact that none of the lionesses or hyenas look malnourished (if Scar's only promise to the latter was food, they'd probably rebel as soon as the only thing they were told they'd have went missing), it's pretty safe to assume that the lack of enough prey is a very recent issue, which in turn only highlights how his rule wasn't bad at all.
+LordJokester How do you know that means a drought and doesn't mean he just fucked up with taking care of everything? He had food but no one else did so that means he was selfish and therefore failed as a ruler. Everyone was starving and he could have prevented it. He also lied saying "I'll give you food" then not only did he let them starve he then went on to say "fuck you guys, we're enemies now even though your the only reason I'm king"
The part that annoys me is that their meals, whatever they were, looked very appetising, and yet they didn't take a single bite. I mean, that looked good. . .
@@katebreck7624 does anyone know what katie is up to now? Theres info on Micheal and Dan obvs and soren is writing for american dad i think but katie seems to have dropped off the map.
Ursula did nothing wrong. Nowhere in the contract does it say she couldn't interfere in Ariel's attempt. The real message of the story is know a contract before you sign it.
+Wolf Works She was actively sabotaging Ariel's attempts to achieve her goals. That doesn't need to be explicitly prohibited in the contract. That's already prohibited by the rules of basic human interaction. (The only exception being games. But Ursula didn't declare it to be a competitive game.)
tuschman168 You think sabotage isn't practiced in the real world? It might be more subtle, but people have no problem sabotaging if it nets them a better gain. The "rules of basic human interaction" as you put it don't exist. If they did, we wouldn't need the court system.
Wolf Works I would agree if your original comment had said "Ursula did nothing illegal". Rules of human decency do exist. It's just that they can be broken without breaking the law. That doesn't make it right. Remember in The Big Lebowski when the Dude said to Walter "You're not wrong, you're just an asshole"? Basically that. "Prohibited" was admittedly a poor choice of words from me since it sounds like I was referring to something legally binding. I wasn't.
Did you know Scar's full story? It makes it a lot more sympathetic. He was born as a weak male lion who had intelligence, but no brawn. Meanwhile, his older brother (who is a bully to him) automatically becomes king because he's first in line. The cut was made by a buffalo when Scar was trying to prove himself to their father by hunting (albeit by the watering hole, which was wrong) so he might have a chance, and ended up almost being killed while his brother virtually turned tail and ran. Virtually everyone disliked him because he was weak and he was depressed because he never had a chance of becoming anything. He couldn't even leave the pride to challenge another one as the other prides would pick him apart.
There were a lot of flaws with the movie. Another one is that Hyenas are not truly scavengers. In fact, they are often the ones who bring the pray down, and their kills are usually stolen by the lions. So really, the lions were jerks who stole food from hyenas and then banished them.
Oh! Not long ago I found out on internet that a lion with darker mane (like Scar) are likely to be stronger and usually become king in real life. Disney got it wrong. Mufasar and Scar should switch their appearance.
Scar's main fault wasn't that he caused the wasteland of the Pride Lands, it was because he refused to move the pride once things went to shit. There was a drought of sorts, that's why all the other animals moved on. But when Sarabi tells him that they need to do the same, what does he say? "I'm the king, I can do whatever I want!" That's what made him a crappy king, he was so egotistical about winning that he wanted to live in that splendor forever, even if it wasn't what it once was.
Why woud he star a war with another pack of lions a war he know he would loss remember “When it comes to brain I have lion share but when it comes to burt strength I am at the shallow end of the gene pool
Mel M Who? You mean the 90 year old guy? In the entire city she basically has 2 friends. A 90 year old guy and Gaston who is her age. Gaston who really ONLY acts friendly towards her, and tries to make sure that the town doesn't excessively mistreat her. He constantly tried to get her to be more social. If anything the Beast was way more abusive. If I remember Gaston asked Belle to do everything, Beast demanded and forced her into everything. If anything Belle only started to like Beast when the beast showed brute force and killed animals. Yet when Gaston does the same she considered him a brute.
Crim World When Beast used brute force, that was to defend her against rampaging wolves after he told her to gtfo, and none of those wolves suffered any serious harm we were made aware of. Gaston, meanwhile, killed a bird flying overhead before his opening shot. The beast then went on to get to know her and act kinder, even asking her to help him read. Gaston dismissed reading, her only passion, in the most sexist way he could muster. Besides, Belle is quite happy to socialise. When anyone starts talking to her, she responds cheerily and engages in conversation. It's other people who dismiss her for her hobby of reading. No wonder the book merchant, the only other guy in town who accepts her hobby, is the person she gets along with best.
Most sympathetic villain is actually Maleficent, if you ask me. She was scorned, gave the monarchs a chance to make amends, and was insulted once again. She punished them for being dicks to her. If they hadn't been so rude, she might've given Aurora a really sweet power/blessing/whatever. Or, at the very least, she probably wouldn't have cursed the whole kingdom. Either way.
I agree. Gaston was totally in line from his perspective; he didn't know the whole story, he didn't know the beast was really a human. He thought he was a _beast_.
And that sumarizes the isolated idea of the US trying to bring democracy and freedom to other countries. * Not involving the selective list of countries built after interests but only that will of controling others' choice making process.
"All good things come at a price." "But Ursula cheated!" "Yes, private corporations never do anything unethical to cheat their customers." "Therefore, still a valuable lesson."
OK, I have to say this. I'm surprised Captain Hook didn't make it into this video. Honestly, if some little kid cut my hand off, I'd probably try to get revenge too.(and there's no evidence that Captain Hook and Peter Pan had any rivalry, Peter just off and mutilated him) I'm pretty sure in the book Peter only fought him on a dare and the two hadn't even meet before then.
And its not even mutilating him. Hook was willing to pass of Pan cutting off his hand s a boyish prank, but throwing it to the crocodile, putting his life in danger is what he refuses to forgive
I kinda feel sorry for hook because smee talks about the Spanish main so they probably aren't origanly from neverland and just wandered in like the kids but their probably old enough t oremeber their familys.
How about Hades? Hades makes a deal with Hercules that if Hercules gives up his strength for one day, Megera will not be hurt, she gets hurt, and he gets his power back. Then Hercules makes a deal with Hades that if he can get Megera out of hell, he will stay in her place. Then Hercules gets her out, punches Hades in the face and walks away.
The underworld isn't really hell so to speak Mt Olympus is for gods only. Disney wasn't accurate with the mythology the underworld is where everyone goes when they die.
How would him staying work, though? He became a god once he got Megara out of the underworld, so he could not be killed. Seems kind of pointless for him to hang around anyway.
Hades was better than Captain Hook when it came to keeping a deal, though. Hades never meant to intentionally hurt Meg, "Not one hair on her pretty little head will be hurt" or something like that, because that was part of the deal. Hercules? Yes. But that's because he never made that deal. He was, quite simply, Lawful Evil. Plus: Zeus is a prick. A womanizing, lecherous, adulterating prick. I mean, didn't he trick Poseidon and Hades, leaving them with crap parts of the world while he ruled the heavens? It made sense that Hades would be understandable butt-hurt by that, and held a long-lasting grudge. The true villain: Zeus. Captain Hook on the other hand made the deal that not one hair on Peter Pan's head would be hurt, then proceeded to pluck it from his head (which was hurting it, anyway, by making sure it would no longer grow,) and went "Well, there ya go! Not ONE hair was hurt!" And ultimately screwed over everybody.
Most misunderstood villain in a Disney film was the hunter who shot and killed Bambi's mother. He was just doing his best to feed his family and keep the deer population at a manageable size.
Thinnestmeteor You've clearly never seen the ecological devastation of a run-away deer population. In places without natural predators, hunters HAVE to manage the deer population or they will straight up strip the forest bare, leading to mass starvation and death. Wolves, panthers, and other predators take out the weak and the old, keeping the deer population strong and in check. Human don't like having wolves and panthers around, so we have to manage the population in their stead.
Can I just mention real quick how disappointing Scar was as a villain? He was good at the first half. He was intelligent, he was thorough in his planning, managed to get a really big following among the hyenas. Not to mention he kills his brother without so much as batting an eyelash. Then he actually becomes king, and it's like he goes from an amazing villain, to a petulant child. "I'm the king, I can do whatever I want!" I still like Scar, but it *does* make the movie a little bit less enjoyable for me when I see him change in the second half of the movie. It's like if Frollo, after Esmeralda calls for sanctuary in the church, just lies down on the floor and throws a temper tantrum.
Scar was meant to be a dark reflection of Simba from the get-go. He shown early in the film to be lazy and self-absorbed. He is basically the "Just can't wait to be king" Simba if Mufasa had never died.
Good point, but I think it's just another characterization of Scar that highlights his flaw: selfishness. He doesn't understand what it means to be the king of Pride Rock, and that he had to look out for the animals as their leader. By showing him as a temper tantrum child, it showcases how he was only in it to assert his power, and when he couldn't back it up he threw a hissy fit. I just love Disney characters.
+Juliette Nguyen - from what I heard, in the Golden Books, we see Scar and Mufasa's childhood and basically Mufasa was dad's favorite since they're just alike, and Scar was a pampered mama's boy. Apparently the relationship was Dad: Man up you little bitch! Mom: don't listen to your dad, your my little prince, yes you are. And that messed up Scar as he grew up.
+Omar Harris Yeah I know about that. Scar has an absolutely shitty childhood. At one point he was referred to as Taka, or "trash" by his own parents. It's pretty sad, but it doesn't change the fact that he just has a tragically flaw personality. Unfortunately Mufasa was righteous because of Scar's treatment, but it doesn't change the fact that he was a good father and a pretty good leader. Honestly the real "villains" would be the parents who don't know how to love two kids, but then again they don't do that in the wild anyway lol.
Gaston actually makes quite a lot of sense if you consider the time period he lived in. He lived in a village around.. 1600 or such? No education, just a hunter and likely protector of the village in case bandits or wild beasts attack. Gender roles at the time where not equal yet. Parents tried to marry their daughters off to men of the best status they could find. And Gaston seems very important to the village, he is their hero. With her father being pretty much insane I can't blame him for not talking with him about it as would have been the custom of the time. Regarding his attack on the castle, well he did see the beast roaring like a monster in that mirror. But he took charge, rallied a militia and led the attack to destroy a threat close to their town. That village might be quite doomed after he died though, they'd have no one to protect them since there are no guards or soldiers. He was all they had. Sure he was an arrogant jerk, but there could also be made a case about Belle feeling herself too good for the village and being drawn to the beasts wealth and status and living at the castle since he seems a worse brute than Gaston when she first meets him.
+Willem Verheij I agree with most of what you said, although I think Gaston wanted to attack the Beast more because he noticed the affection Belle had for the Beast and was jealous. At least, in the movie Belle's kind words for the Beast followed by her insult to him is what prompts him to rally the villagers to slay the Beast. So yes, while his actions can be considered logical and there may be noble reasons for (most) of them, his intentions were still pretty selfish.
***** True he is jalous, but it would be quite difficult to grasp that anyone would love that roaring monster they see in the mirror. They only see that roaring part after all.
ShalakumX Simba Pretty much yes. Only bad things he did was not letting Belle's father free when it turned out the beast was real and locking Belle up. Though it could be argued that he locked Belle up for her own safety considering her fondness of the roaring beast they see in that mirror so she wont do anything foolish.
+Willem Verheij I agree with your historical analysis, but I do think that the way he intents to blackmail Belle into marrying is not justifiable. He knows that her father does not belong in an asylum and he only has him arrested because he knows that Belle would agree to anything to save her father. Also his rampage against the beast is clearly shown to be out of jealousy ("Belle is mine!) not out of concern. But as you highlighted he is a complex character and one of the reason why this movie is so great.
Maybe you think Gastons actions are justifiable because Belles dad was crazy, but may I point out that the intention behind putting Maurice in prison was so that he could blackmail Belle into marrying him? That's hardly noble, moral or justifiable.
Didn't say he was perfect, just that he had most of his shit together from his point of view. I mean, he likes her and truly thinks that her being with him is literally the best thing that could happen to her...so if he has to blackmail her to do it then so be it, ha. Kinda like doing the right thing for the wrong reasons -- he feels like the means justifies the end.
Ha, well, yeah :] That's not the point though -- the whole point is looking at it from Gaston's perspective. I mean, it's dramatic irony because only we know the full details of all sides of the story whereas Gaston is just looking at it from his own (which isn't inherently evil, just misguided).
It's RICKYSPANISH Yes, just like how Ratclife thinks he's doing the right thing by killing the natives, Shan-Yu kills to help his people, Maleficent is justified in persecuting Aurora and so fourth. Evil is inherently subjective, and while all villains aren't evil just to be evil, they are selfish and judge others and prosecute them for selfish gains. And that in the end is the true evil of this world. Exploiting others for ones own gain. And that is exactly what Gaston does.
under scar's rule everyone starved to death but was it really Scar's fault? I mean he can't control how much grass grows... they pretty much blamed him for a drought or change in seasons
Scar wanted power, and cared not to preserve the balance. Hyenas either bred too fast or ate/drank too much. So all the food was gone because he used them to secure his power.
Gaston isn't saying "I think you're cool, let's hang out," he's saying "if you don't marry me because I have never been denied anything then your lame dad is spending his remaining years locked in an easily-bribed asylum owner's idea of hell."
so was the beast, except gaston never murdered his furniture servants. in the movie you could see broken plates and furniture everywhere. which means the beast killed them
Basically all of this was outlined in Starkid's Twisted - The Untold Story of a Royal Vizier. Look at the lyrics/dialogue from one of the songs. Ursula: I only wished to reclaim what was mine! Scar: I only wished for equal rights for all! Gaston: I only wished to save her! Maleficent: I only wished to be invited to the party! Scar: I only wished to improve relations between the races! Hook: I only wished to teach the boy responsibility! Ursula: I only wished to give the people a voice! Hook: So he wouldn't end up like me! Gaston: I only wished to love her! Ursula: To help the miserable, lonely, and depressed! Maleficent: To be included! Scar: To live in harmony! Maleficent: For once! Hook: I never knew my father! The rest of the song goes into more detail, but basically supports the entire video.
Ursula didn't actually cheat... there was nothing in the deal that said Ursula couldn't interfere or work against Ariel. It certainly wasn't fair, but it wasn't cheating.
werewolfassasyn blah blah blah blah we will gain acess to your house blah blah blah blah we may also transplant any organs from you blah blah blah blah sign here: _______ for a free cookie!
So if someone moves 8 spaces in Monopoly when they rolled a 7 that's cheating, but if you can use magic to control/manipulate someone then it's just unfair. O.o I guess you went to the Tonya Harding school of hard knocks
Brennan Ryan yes because the rules of monopoly are that you cannot move more spaces than you roll... The contract Ariel signed didn't stipulate that Ursula couldn't interfere.
Adam Nichols that's true my bad xD so I guess my example should have been "stealing someone's turn or blinding your competitors with acid" but its like the beauty and the beast there's magic keeping him in his form and he needs to find love with his handicap, That's unfair. If he was changed and Belle came along to string him along then magic was used to get her to say,"no" and he stayed that way forever then that's cheating
Adam Nichols To be fair, she clearly stated that Ariel would get three days to reach her goal. Ursula interferes on the second day despite her words and conditions. so she did in fact cheat.
In some of the episodes, the person in the kitchen window is watching. They disappear and come back. Seems pretty realistic! Listen, do some prep, tell other staff what you heard, listen again, clean some dishes, get an order, cook and listen lol
The difference between Gaston and Beast that Beast changed; he was willing to let Belle go back to her father with the curse still intact even knowing it left him doomed and alone. Gaston never learned anything. Also, in the original draft, Ursula was banished because she attempted to steal the throne from Triton after their father died.
The ENTIRE MORAL of Beauty and the Beast was fucked and forgotten when the beast turned back into a handsome prince at the end of the movie. "Beauty is only skin deep - as long as you can change someone to benefit one or both of you in the end". That's not the kinda moral I'd wanna teach kids....
***** Completely agreed. But the whole "distrust the ugly unless or except when they turn into something beautiful" was a common theme in old folklorish fairytales.
I've seen black men (or women) get he white girl (or boy) in movies before... What Disney does is take traditional European folklore and give it a giant kid-friendly middle finger. You want the ORIGINAL, better stories, don't watch Disney. I probably won't let my kids.
Don't forget about all the villagers who probably got self-defense'd to death by the Beast's castle staff. Seriously, for the villagers, that castle would've been right out of The Evil Dead. As soon as they knock down the doors to try and confront the *literal monster* who kidnapped one of their own, they're violently attacked in ways that a medieval apothecary is most certainly *not* equipped or skilled enough to heal them. There's even a point when the tea kettle and the cups dump boiling water on a group and *all we hear are their screams of pain*, but I'm sure leeches are a perfectly adequate substitute for skin grafts. Then there's the more straightforward ones like the candelabra setting people on fire (see skin grafts above) and the armoire crushing people. And then, as they desperately flee what must be Satan's winter palace, Gaston the hunter, the greatest among them, explodes on the cobblestones after being hurled from one of the castle's tallest spires. I think it's pretty safe to assume that once stories of a castle filled with possessed furnishings in a town ruled by a monster...well, let's expect some attention from any number of parties who A) object to the previous sentence and B) have the men and weapons to lay a proper siege. That's assuming the town doesn't get a small-scale Crusade called against it.
Man, fuck that ending. I already disliked the characters that were people who turned into inanimate objects, we really didn't need to have disturbing slapstick violence with them. I watch Metalocalypse and that part disturbed me a little. I think it's because it's so much violence in a kids movie that you're supposed to laugh at, but seriously, those people are getting _horribly murdered_.
I think they were pretty justified in trying to protect their home and master from the people who were incited into a mob because of one man's jealousy. Plus, remember they're all really human beings and they get turned back at the end. So, yeah, even if the stories got out, once people saw the castle was inhabited by an ordinary prince and his court, they'd turn the other way
princeofalbany I don't think the villagers would be terribly inclined to be very forgiving, regardless of the shape the house staff was in the immediate aftermath. Plus, if a bunch of people get killed in a house by demonic furniture and said furniture suddenly turns into people (who have presumably been assumed dead for the last decade), medieval peasants aren't going to assume "Oh, I guess a curse was broken unrelated to our attack on the castle." They're going to be thinking something more along the lines of, "Our blood was used to fuel some kind of evil ritual to give life to that which has none."
electricbayonet2 Could Belle not just explain to them what happened to Beast? With how smart she is supoed to be compared to them, I'm sure she could manage to convince them now that there's nobody to say otherwise. Besides, in one of the official novelizations, some of the villagers actually get invited to and attend Belle's wedding, so it seems like they're all on good terms now
Hades in Disney's Hercules could be seen as rather sympathetic: 1. The original myths say that Hades was considerable NICER than Zeus. This doesn't count. The Disney's Hercules is different from the original Greek Myths. 2. Hades was pretty much dumped into a position he hated, completely alone and worked his already bony fingers to the bone while Zeus sat around living the life of luxury with his gorgeous wife and his infinite power. 3. Hades actually upholds his deal with Meg rather than going back on it, whereas Hercules goes back on his deal with Hades. True, if he didn't the movie would've ended on a really depressing note but speaking from a realistic perspective, this makes Hades the more sympathetic here, especially since Herc punches him into the River Styx and leaves him for dead afterward. That's my two cents anyway. I might add some points if I can.
Not to mention, the whole time he warns Meg (like a friend really) not to get involved with Hercules because it was a man that got her into her situation in the first place. If she'd just played along, she could have been free and like.. queen of the world or something while Hades was the new highest god of Olympus. :U And he probably would have let her keep Hercules as a pet.
Existential Squid I thought the potion Pain and Panic made him drink was to turn him mortal, not kill him. That's why he was able to turn into a god at the end of the movie, because Pain and Panic were told that they had to make him drink every last drop and they failed to do so.
Hercules never really went back on either of the deals he made with Hades though. The first deal became null when Meg got hurt. The second deal was fulfilled, the exact terms being if he could reach her in the River of Souls, her soul could leave, while his soul would take her place in death. He reached her, and at the moment of death became a god. The deal is now void, because his soul is no longer subject to death. And let's face it, Hades tried to screw him hard in that second one. And even then Herc was going to walk away until Hades grabbed Meg's soul's face and started messing with it.
+Aspiring Marauder Oh shit! O-o Now i want a Game of Thrones Spin-off by Disney. That would sound awesome if all Disney Classics happened in a shared world. Cinderella lived in this Kingdom, Snow white there, Ariel lives in King's Landing... lol Oh my God! O_O
+Yandere Clementine that's pretty much how Once Upon and Tenth Kingdom rolled. Not *exactly* but it seems everyone really wants to make a series along that line.
Yeah Mufasa banishing the hyenas can easily be explained: the one adult male lion in a pride must protect the territory from anything that might want to attack them or steal their food. Hyenas and lions have similar diets so it's obvious that the lions would not want them in their territory stealing their food. Also here's something that the movie shouldn't have done with lions: a lion with a bright red mane means that he is very sick and is going to die, a lion with a black mane is perfectly healthy. Once you learn that fact, your childhood is ruined by finding out that the movie basically told you that Mufasa was going to die before you had to experience the trauma of watching it happen.
I guess thats why scar lives so long and stays kinda young. If you look at it, he looked middle age when simba was born, yet even after simba grows up and returns to the pride rock, scar is still fit enough to fight - this kinda shows that scar was probably a lot younger than mufasa, hence proving your point about the manes, even though scar's mane never changes color.
DINTHEDESTROYeR You can say that, I suppose. Also, most lions have brown manes indicating that they're in average condition. I'm sure that Disney only changed the mane color to indicate who was who. If Scar, Mufasa, and adult Simba all looked like normal lions with brown manes then it would be harder to distinguish them.
Anything that puts Scar in a good light justifies my childhood, not ruins it. He was possibly my favourite Disney character. I completely understand you mentioning the hyenas vs lions thing in reality, but the movies seems to imply that the hyenas are ruled by the lions, like everything else in the Pride Lands and don't even seem to get a chance at food. It's weird that they wouldn't stage a rebellion without Scar (probably because that would be a whole other film in itself), but it certainly makes me think of them as an analogue for the poor rather than ruthless natural rivals.
Hyena's never finishes eating their prey and will hunt for another as a game, thereof that explains why they were banished. I do feel sympathetic towards Scar though even if he did kill Musafa. Always wonder why he had a scar in the first place.
as a character Gaston might be underdeveloped, but as a villain, no way. he starts as a jock who doesn't get what he wants, but then when he finds a way to get Belle, he waits months for her and maurice to come home, gets the village to take his side, and then leads a mob to destroy his rival. he's a good villain because of his fixation on this one goal, and his willingness to do whatever it takes to win.
Chad Sanderson I was actually upset he was called underdeveloped. I find your case for Gaston is justified, though i do argue one thing. If Gaston didn't see the beast as his rival, then why did he say "were you in love with her beast? did you honestly think she'd want you, when she could have someone like me?"
she wasn't a villain the beast was a selfish brat at the time and was a jerk to her, I mean come on that's not villainous on her part she was just trying to teach a lesson
+iampumaa Okay, but the spell she casts on the Beast specifically says he must love another and be loved in return before the last petal falls on his 21st birthday to be freed of the curse. Everything else that occurs in the movie happens ten years later... Maybe the Beast was a jerk, but he was also a 10 or 11 year old kid, and since he's apparently in charge of the castle, he seemingly doesn't have any parents in the picture either. Like, all she offers him is a rose. How often do we tell kids not to take candy from strangers? But when your parents are out/away/dead, you must take flowers from them and let them into your house otherwise you're a selfish brat? Nah, for a kid, that's probably the smartest thing to do.
+Sarcastic Zombie in the be your guest song he said it was 10 years, but he clearly extradites in other parts of that song, so why couldn't he have been exaggerating in that part. in the stained glass windows he was clearly an adult. Also after she turned in to a beautiful enchantresses the beast beggs for forgivnes, probably because he wanted to bang her, she is teaching him not onley to be kind, but that peaple are not objects, by turning his staff in to objects and him in to a beast, a lesson most men today need to learn, she is pretty much just saying "how do you like it".
Ursula uses her victims and their dreams to get them to sign into slavery. Also, the way you described Triton sounds A LOT like parents! "don't sass me or I'll take your stuff away"? "I forbid you to run off with a strange boy"? "YOU'RE ONLY SIXTEEN DON'T RUN OFF INTO SHARK-INFESTED SHIPS"?! I can't believe I'm saying this but Triton has every right to treat his daughter that way when she endangers her life to not obey him! As for Mufasa and Scar, yes, I believe Mufasa was a horrible older brother, and maybe he did ban out the hyenas (is that how you spell it?) unfairly, but I'm going to assume they're based off of real life like the other animals; they don't care for the order of the animals, and they kill mercilessly, more than they need to eat. also, he not only killed his brother but orphaned his nephew who looked up to him sometimes! As for Gaston, he tried to force Belle by blackmailing her of sending her dad into an asylum. and the beast only broke the spell because Belle loved him truly without force. I rest my case. I love After Hours but this was the worst episode...
He didn't take her stuff away, he flat out destroyed it. He also wants all of his daughters to perform in a burlesque style show every day. He is creepy towards them and is _very_ possessive.
I think Ursula was truly the most sympathetic and that's a huge stretch. She makes it hard for one to achieve their dream sure...but it's not completely impossible. It's like a deal with a devil, the odds are stacked against you sure, but it's not impossible. She's the living example of what not to do, or what to do when you're desperate. I agree with your the other points though. Triton is a typical parent with a wild daughter like Ariel, Mufasa and Scar are both terrible brothers dragging others in their family politics. And Gaston, well...he's the real beast in the film.
What about Edgar from the Aristocats? I mean, he was bound to serve this old cat-obsessed lady for all his life, giving up having a family in order to live with his mistress. How would you feel if, after dedicating your life to one person, they repaid you by putting you in a lower scale of consideration than fucking cats? Sure, he was stupid (because no, cats do not have 9 lives so he wouldn't have to wait that long), but he wasn't bad. He could just straight up kill them with some kind of poison, instead he drugged them and left them around.
No, they'd need proof it was him; I mean, only an idiot would drug the cats inside their own house. The first time they go as guests in somebody else's house, he could just drug them and leave the bottle of poison in the house, maybe near the condiments. It would pass as an accident - I've seen too much Murder She Wrote when I was little XD.
They're cats...CATS!!!! wtf were they going to do other than the exact thing they were doing then? So he hires another butler to take care of them and pamper them and then takes up residence in the old ladys room lavish surrounded by opulence. 15-20 years later no more cats. Edgar was a moron. An absolute moron.
@@HiroshimaSeems 1: They were fucking cats. No one would have cared enough to DO a tox report. 2: There are dozens of ways for a servant to kill a couple of cats and make it look like an accident. 3: THEY WERE CATS! It's not like they were going to throw or go to lavish parties, so no one would even notice they were dead for a while.
Gaston only wants Belle because she doesn't want him and he doesn't like being denied. He could just go with the blond triplets but he's too much of an egotist.
Haha, I said the exact same thing about Gaston a few years ago (I love the guy, in much the same way that I love Starscream from Transformers - they're both entertaining jerks). In a lot, and probably the majority of other stories, many of Gaston's actions would be considered heroic - he just had the misfortune of existing within the Beauty and the Beast universe.
I love Starscream!!! oh, he was hilarious, I think his best moment was when Megatron fell for like one microsecond, and immediately Starscream stepped on him and declared leadership XD
Yeah!!!!!! He does. Because at the end of that movie, the Beast/Prince Adam was literally fighting for his life and for his humanity when Gaston came to his castle and Belle just came in at the right moment to not only save him, but to also remind what else why he had to let her go in the first place before she came back for him. So yeah, that actually did ruined the points that Michael was trying to make about Gaston being sympathetic.
Yea, I would never use Disney stories as a life guide, especially for relationships. Shreck actually did a better job at getting the whole inner beauty message across because (spoiler alert) Shreck does not turn into a handsome prince fiona just turns into an ogre.
Desert Foxchild Yeah, of course, because you're an adult! But you're actually so totally wrong, if you watched any Disney movie as a kid, you ABSOLUTELY use it, or at least used it, as a reference to relationships :p. Kids are influenced. But it's not that surprising you don't use it as a guide now, you're supposed to have grown up ;). I like Shrek too, and you are right, the message is more realistic
The point was that she loved him as a beast. She did. Though he was handsome in the end, it didn't change that she fell in love with him while he was a beast. That still completes the point of the curse and the movie. His handsomeness could be considered an added bonus since she was already in love with him. It did not technically ruin anything. She loved him as a beast. That's the point.
Epic Otaku Cherry Alright! That's good enough for me. And that basically was the actual premise of Beauty and the Beast...."Beauty is and will always be skin-deep. No matter what!" *Good message, Disney!!!*
Actually, the witch is the villain in Beauty And The Beast. I think that's pretty clear. She shows up at this guy's house, asks for help, and because he was a selfish prick (as was well within his rights), she assaulted him with a magic spell that ruined his whole life. Everybody else within the movie is acting understandably from their perspectives. Gaston is selfish and a bit of a jerk, but he's not a villain. The Beast does some pretty terrible things, but when you consider the circumstance he's in, that's understandable. Neither of them are really, truly villains. It all comes back to that witch. She's the true villain, and that's always been the the intention.
So, if you're a jerk, and I know I can refine you by slapping you, that makes it okay? I'm sorry, no. Just because he was a jerk didn't give her the right to cast a spell on him that destroyed his life. She was the villain. Being a jerk is not a crime.
***** Exactly. That was his message. Since I was a kid, I couldn't STAND Gaston. It baffles me that he is one of Disney's most favorite character, it truly does. He is unbelievably shallow and a freaking moron. His character is so unbelievably weak to me. But I think that was the point, or as I see it, anyway. So in that sense, the writers did a good job. Gaston is an incredibly shallow man who sees himself as perfect and as the "hero." Everyone is to adore him, and he is to be rewarded for these self-perceived, "valiant" qualities. I slightly compare him to Wagner's Siegfried, who I despise just as much. ^^;
Mufasa banished the hyenas because they eat everything (as seen by Scar letting them in). And he didn't leave them to starve; he said, "Go hang out in the elephant graveyard." That's where all the elephants in pride rock will go to die and the hyenas get all that meat to themselves. They're still hungry, but they've lived there for years so they clearly don't starve. He's saved the kingdom from starvation while still giving them a place they can call their own where they get a consistent, if not plentiful, source of food.
Seriously?! Hyenas eat more than lions or any other predator?? A.) The negative point of the story is that Mufasa judged an entire species. That's called stereotyping and generalizing. Equivalent to Racism (Specism?). B.) Elephants live for decades. Not enough elephants would die to feed all of the Hyenas on a weekly basis. Obviously, since the Hyenas were so starved. Mufasa didn't even allow them the same privilege he has himself in hunting. He basically sentenced them to a slow death by starvation. Very similar to Darfur today (!). E.g. Genocide. C.) America went through it's own Civil Rights movement when we decided that "Separate but Equal" is wrong. The hyenas were revolting because they are treated like second class citizens. In Finem: Mufasa is a specist and ever person that liked your comment would have been tricked by the same false logic that kept minorities as second class citizens in America's past. Congrats, you guys have learned nothing and are easily tricked into being racists.
Silver Jaiden A) In the real world, lions and hyenas are natural enemies; if a hyena invades a lion's territory, the lion will defend it violently. In the movie, the hyenas are, for the purposes of the story, a species that doesn't respect the circle of life and will bring ruin to pride rock if they're allowed to stay (again, as seen by what happened under Scar's rule). B) Go by the evidence: the hyenas have been living out there for decades (since before Mufasa's rule I think) and have been surviving (if you look at their numbers, they seem to be doing fairly well). It seems that the point to their characters is that they're always hungry for more and need to be stopped before they consume too much for anything to survive (including them). C) There is a significant difference between the two species (unlike different citizens amongst the one human species). Hyenas are scavengers that eat the weak, dead, and dying and will continue to do so until none of them are left. Lions are hunters that eat enough to satisfy themselves and keep the balance in the circle of life. In Finem: Mufasa doesn't irrationally hate the hyenas because they're different, he defends his kingdom against them because they're a threat (while allowing them to have enough from his kingdom to survive independently); they would (and eventually do) destroy everything and balance is only restored after they're gone. It's not a matter of citizens being treated worse, it's a matter of an army that wants to invade your territory and claim your natural resources because they're not content with what they already have even though it is sustaining them. And, it turns out that if they succeed in this invasion than both your people and theirs will all die. That's kinda different than one group of people saying another can't be treated equally because they look different.
A well thought out defense, though if hyenas eat only 'the weak, the dead and the dying', as you point out, that doesn't threaten the circle of life. Lions would pose more of a threat, if they, as the movie shows, eat young individuals during their reproductive years. Anyway, I HATED that shit movie for its misrepresentation of spotted hyenas. I, for one, find them as beautiful and awe-inspiring as lions. Heres a little known fact: spotted hyenas are excellent hunters; perhaps even more so than lions as they have far more stamina. The actively capture 90-95% of the food they eat.
ungoliant29 Interesting, I didn't know that (I knew they did hunt for themselves, but I didn't know it was that much). In the movie though, the lionesses hunted for the hyenas in addition to themselves, so even the prey that was beyond the hyenas ability to hunt was fair game for them. And you'll need to forgive the movie for being a movie: there has to be a bad guy and, when there is a force behind the good guy, the bad guy needs a force behind him. The fact that hyenas and lions are enemies in the real world makes them the prime choice for the movie.
How do you figure that things went bad because the hyenas ate too much? It's been a while since I watched the movie but I don't remember anything that suggested the hyenas were irresponsible about food. It was like "things suck now because Scar and the hyenas suck" but there were no details about how this decline played out.
The Sheriff of Nottingham. His job was to ensure safe trade routes and fight poachers. The Merry Men both attacked traders and endangered the wildlife of Sherwood Forest by hunting. Sure, so in the Disney version he's apparently also a tax collector but that's just a job that needs to be done, especially in hard times when a bunch of bandits holed up in the woods cripple the economy.
+fotakatos Here's a fun fact: irl the reason Prince (later, King) John had to levy huge taxes was to drum up the ransom money to free his brother 'Good King Richard the Lionheart' who got himself captured while out on crusade. And yet in every Robin Hood story, King Richard is the dashing hero who returns to save everyone from John's 'tyranny'. There's gratitude for you!
+fotakatos in Disney's robin hood, the tax collector was a dick. when robin hood is disguised as a blind beggar, the tax collector steals the one gold coin robin hood had in his cup. The tax collector didn't know it was robin hood in disguise, so by doing that we know that he would steal from any person he can take advantage of.
***** Well, I don't think that being blind is a legitimate excuse for withholding taxes. Obviously whatever percentage the beggar owed would be rounded up to the one gold coin he had. Bam, lawyered!
+fotakatos Excuse me but the taxes were so devastating that communities were shut down and most of the population arrested. The sheriff of Nottingham is only the hero in the minds of the most right wing people.
Loitering during 1400s was a crime, that while in larger cities may have been over looked Nottingham was a smaller town that would not economically benefit from having beggars turn away more respectable trade. The Sheriff was obviously taking the beggars coin as payment for the infraction made by the beggar and beggars have been commonly during that time treated as less than equal to a regular citizen as they offer no economical benefit to the society as a whole.
Can't believe no one brought up Maleficent! She was shunned by the royalty by being the only one not invited to Princess Aurora's birth celebration. When she shows up and basically gives them an out like, "Oh, I guess my invite was lost in the mail," the Queen's reaction (who is for some reason relieved??) is, "Oh, wow! So you totally don't mind that we didn't want you here? :D" Only THEN does Maleficent say "Well f you and prick your finger!" Gaston nothing more than a rapist waiting for an opportunity. It's not surprise Belle went with the Beast when the entire town not only approves of Gaston's behavior, but encourages it with song. Also, they think she's weird cause she reads chapter books..I mean. COME ON
I thought that about Maleficent too. The Gaston Rapist implication is a bit strong. I mean if he was a rapist I doubt the blonde women would be all over it thirsty as hell and also why would he need to rape anyone with them at his heels anyway? The song was them approving of his masculinity and being the hero of their town its nothing more or less than what we do today with star athletes. Gaston is only looked at as evil because he is arrogant and obnoxious but is that really evil? I mean did he do anything evil? People tend to forget the beast was a huge asshole through a big part of the movie. Locked up a old helpless man in a cold dark dungeon for seeking shelter from the cold and wild animals that attacked him, He sent him away kidnapping his daughter in his place, Held her without her consent with the intention of MAKING her fall for him, Screamed at her constantly, Treated his servants like crap I mean they were all quivering with fear whenever he entered a room. If you had a scoreboard for who is more evil Gaston or the Beast the beast would actually win. He only turned good when he ran out of options and realized it was time to grow up that is where he and Gaston differ. The beast grows and develops while Gaston remains proudly arrogant and stupid and that eventually leads him to die.
ajhornell Thats assuming that men who rape women do it only cause they can't get pussy. Not because they have violent tendencies and control issues. Belle was the only girl that didn't want his D and his insistence on making her his is incredibly creepy at best.
jaxbaby91 And like I said the rapist implication is strong and a bit unfounded. Just because someone is aggressive doesn't mean that he's a fiend it just means he knows what he wants and goes for it. Belle doesn't want a man of action like Gaston she wants someone passive who wont tell her what to do and how to live. How is Gastons insistence on making Belle his any different or any less creepy than the beast? Like Micheal said on this video Gaston is saying hey you're cute I like you we should go out and let me show off for you etc etc". Where as the Beast is keeping her held captive with the intention of pulling off some Stockholm syndrome and making her fall in love with him. It was only until his servants suggested it that he became nice to her and did nice things for her. Otherwise she would have remained locked up in her room until she broke down and did whatever the beast said.
Im not saying he is a rapist. I just don't like hearing the assumption that some men don't "need" to rape. No one "needs" to rape anyone whether they get lots of female attention or not. Maybe he is just an aggressive dude and Belle's not into that which is her right, and im not saying she made the best choice in the beast (which is her choice to make). Im just saying a guy that can't do everyone a favor and take no for an answer is creepy regardless of how attractive other females find him.
jaxbaby91 True but it doesn't make him evil. Gaston did nothing remotely evil other than be ignorant and obnoxiously confident. Overtly confident people such as Gaston go into any situation thinking its gonna come out in their favor including relationships. And if things don't go their way they get angry their pride gets wounded. Gaston was mopey and pissed off that Belle rejected him when the village sang that song. If you wanna talk creepy factor the beast outweighs Gaston ten fold start to finish. But then EVERY SINGLE man in that movie apart from chip cuz hes just a kid is terrible in some way or another. Belle's dad abandons his only child in a village that finds her odd and troublesome with no way of taking care of herself financially other than a small farm to go and patent his invention that is more dangerous than helpful. Gaston for reasons listed above, Gastons sidekick for being a perverted follower, Cogsworth is selfish as is Lumiere they only want the beast to fall in love so that the spell can be broken and they all can be free to sexually harass the slutty french maids. The Beast for reasons Ive listed before.
Gaston isn't interested in Belle just so he can "hang out" with her. He just wants to bone her because she's the hottest girl in the town. He doesn't care about what she wants. He doesn't care about her hopes and dreams. But Adam does. Heck, he straight up Gives her the closest she can get to paradise: a library so vast and complete that her appetite for learning and reading could run unchecked for her entire life and she would never get bored. What does Gaston give her? The promise of a dull future where she cooks and cleans and takes care of children all day every day while he goes out and does 18th century jock things like hunting and drinking. Basically where she does all the work and he has all the fun. Gaston is NOT the most sympathetic villain in Disney.
I agree. Gaston even had that line where he said "It's not right for a woman to read. Soon she starts getting ideas, and thinking..." which would imply that he believes women should not be informed or opinionated. Also I don't think, in this version anyway, that Belle's change of opinion was due to Stockholm syndrome. Yes she had been forced to live in the castle, however she was surrounded by characters who liked her and were accepting of her. Cracked has a point that she was snubbed a lot in the village; it was a change for the better, as she wasn't afraid to be herself. Beast/Adam was brash and threatening, but that was the only way he had been able to communicate to people, and the fact that the only other residents were servants who were supposed to be subservient to him. Yes, perhaps his original intention (which he does state in the movie) was to woo Belle so she could break the spell, but he does change and realizes that he cares about her and her future, more than his own, which is why he lets her leave before she could have confirmed her feelings. Yeah...I think I'll stop here for now.
Kousei13 Technically he thinks anyone thinking is dangerous, he even says so in his song. And give the guy credit, he is right. WE have driven countless species to extinction because we can reason.
Compared to the poor villagers and the peasants Belle would have had a really good life. Belle would have been treated like a trophy wife with fancy clothes and a big mansion and she would have servants to do everything for her. The only bad thing would be Gaston would constantly be boning the prostitutes and he would parade her around like a trophy. She probably would have died in childbirth because Gaston's kids would be too big to push out.
Scar just over farmed the land. That's why it was like that. It's told that as a child Scar was treated as less than dirt, while Mufasa was treated with great respect. So, sympathy there.
About Scar... Scar doesn't deserve sympathy for the reasons given here. He didn't "want to feed the hyenas". He just say an opportunity to get supporters for his own selfish quest and jumped at it. If anything, the hyenas are the "Villians Who Were Right All Along", NOT Scar.
@Bruce Wayne I'm pretty sure at this point it just boils down to opinion, but when I watched The Lion King I got the impression that Scar wasn't promising the hyenas food because he felt bad for them, but because he saw an opportunity to get people to follow him for an easy price (of course, he kept his promise to the hyenas and fed them, so I guess he does gain a few "good guy points"). But on the other hand, he let the entire rest of the savanna starve. If we're talking about "Disney Villians Who Were Right All Along," that shouldn't be classified under "right". Mufasa, even though he let the hyenas starve, still fed tens if thousands if not hundreds of thousands more than Scar even bothered to feed. In that case, Mufasa is the "right" one.
***** But then again, isn't it great that it's possible to have this sort of arguement about it? If anything it's the sign of a well made villain and story overall :P I do know it's based on Hamlet... but hey, that's not the worst they could have based it on by any means :P
i like you guys you actually use logic to prove things and not just say something is the best all because your a fan of one and not the other like most people do, you just earned yourself another subscriber
I don't think the case with Belle falling in love with the Beast was Stockholm Syndrome at all. First of all, Belle VOLUNTARILY offered to replace her father, an idea that she came up with on her own. The Beast even scoffed at her at first. Second of all, Belle wasn't afraid to stand up to the Beast. Even with him roaring in her face all the time, she was courageous enough to put him in his place. Third of all, if she was suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, then she would have returned to the castle immediately after saving her father. She would have felt guilty for leaving the Beast. However, she took her father home, only going back to the castle when she realized the Beast was in danger and it was her fault.I rest my case.
"Gaston is basically Belle's only friend in the village because everyone else makes fun of her for being strange." Well there was that librarian who let her keep that book, so I guess that's kind of a friend...
Barbora Urbankova I think that's just a metaphor for over exhausting the resources of the land. No way did he put any cap or hunting limits on the hyenas, and therefore the circle of life was disrupted.But if we take it literally, yeah, the drought was just shit luck. :)
+Michael Weldon Even if he didn't put a cap on the hunting I seriously doubt it could affect the population that harshly. Most of the animals we see in the Lion King migrate so they would only be in the 'over hunting' area for a short time before they move on. There is no way that a sinlge location on their migration route could have destroyed the population. They always hunt either the old, sick, or young and the first two are individuals that wouldn't affect the over all population because they most likely wouldn't survive or be able to reproduce. The Hyena now eating enough to not starve could not have damaged things so badly.
+Barbora Urbankova Depends, if he allowed the grass to be grazed to the ground then it is his fault. Because vegetative covering encourages (somehow, but there is a solid body of science to support this) rain to fall more abundantly. Desertification is a feedback cycle, less rain-> less healthy vegetation->even less rain->even less vegetation->even less rain-> desert. Though, if the grazing animals die of dehydration the grass will start to come back reversing the cycle. The problem is, uh, huge and complicated.
*sighs* The reason the Hyena's weren't allowed to live in the area was because they didn't respect the circle of Life. All they cared about WAS food. They would just eat and eat and eat and eat. They wouldn't respect the lives they're taking, they wouldn't hold themselves back, they would kill everything in Pride Rock if it meant they could eat. thus they were exiled to protect the balance in the area. Not to mention Scar USED the Hyena's. He didn't give a shit about them. he sold them out when Simba was about to kill him. MENTION ALL THE FACTS YOU.....UGHH! But that doesn't make Gaston sympathetic! And in fact, he never did it to actually help anyone but himself. He wanted to put Belle's father away to blackmail her into going out with him. And he went after the Beast because the Beast had earned from Belle what he in his cocky, chauvinistic, sexist arrogance couldn't get: Belle's love. He in no way is acting for the greater good, he's acting purely out of selb absorbed interest. And the Beast doesn't force Belle to love him to break the curse. While that is a possibility, he simply holds her there because she offered to give herself up in exchange for her father's freedom. Not to mention, the Beast is more then willing to sacrifice his own chance at being free of the curse to let Belle rescue her father and take him back home. Gaston would have said "Fuck that, you're mine bitch".
I personally found Frollo from Hunchback of Notre Dam really sympathetic. Sure he was really OCD with his whole job as a religious leader but I gotta say, if some bitch randomly started waving a tambourine around and grinding on me in front of everyone, I'd be a bit upset too. And then there's Captain Hook. He wants money and hates kids. How the fuck can you NOT relate to him?!?!
Frollo also wanted genocide of all the gypsy people, he killed quasi's mother only because she was a gypsy, and only didn't murder quasimodo as a baby because the priest stopped him in the nick of time. Never mind he burned down half of his city because he wanted to rape esmerelda, and regularly publically humiliated poor quasi and reminded him constantly throughout his life how horrible he was. Honestly, of ALL the disney villains I'd say he's the best at being bad simply because he DOESN'T have likeable qualities. Its one of the reasons what makes that movie my favorite of their movies. Not only is he more fucked up than their other villains ( rather than simply being powerful or king, he wants to murder thousands of people simply for being the race they are ), he doesn't even KNOW he's being bad.
I think Capt. Hook is pretty sympathetic in some ways. Not that it's good that he's fighting a kid, but Pan is kind of a stinker. And the only reason Hook wants to get him is that they were doing their protagonist/antagonist thing and Hook's hand got chopped off and fed to a crocodile. He has issues with revenge, but...oh, I just remembered that he kidnapped Tiger Lily--but then he also knew Pan would save her so she wouldn't really die...
InkBird In the book, Frollo is honestly a really sympathetic character, and Disney kind of took that away from him. When he was nineteen he came home from college and saw his parents were dead and his infant brother had been laying in his crib for days without any help. Frollo takes his brother in and raises him, and he loves his brother very, very much but his brother is an a-hole towards him. Also in the book, Frollo found Quasimodo abandoned at the church and decided to take him in and raise him as well when all the women of the town sneered at Quasimodo for being ugly and deformed. Sure, Frollo could be sort of a d-bag towards Quasimodo, but he never burned down Paris, his goal in the book WASN'T to kill all the gypsies, and he struggled between lust and faith. That being said, yes, he actually attempted to rape Esmeralda and he stabbed Phoebus on the shoulder so I can't give him TOO much credit, but really, I think Frollo is an anti-hero and is arguably the protagonist of The Hunchback of Notre Dame. You just have to read it to really get it. Watching him do bad things made me feel like a mother disappointed in her son. I cried a lot at he ending.
I don't think he had to want to harm her( da fuck?) for her to develop Stockholm Syndrome. I think just being held captive by someone for a long period of time(months,years) willcause you to eventually develop it. But then again, I'm no psychologist or anything, so I could be wrong :/
***** True, and he even initially scoffed at the idea before he realized what she could potentially do for him. Also, I think the Beast was only holding Maurice in the first place was to prevent him returning the village, raving like a lunatic about some hideous monster in a castle, and causing an armed mob of concerned villagers to go investigate.
Tim Clark he still gave her free reign of the castle except the west side sure she couldn't leave but i still see no kidnapping he gave her a warm NICE room if i recall when people are captured they're not given a nice room with a warm blanket js
Tim Clark still traded herself in and was given a warm room and bed free castle roam so nope I see no kidnapping or stockholm syndrome as people call it
The point wasn't "the beast kidnapped her" the point was from Gaston's view he could only rationalize Belle's sudden disappearance as being kidnapped by the beast. gaston didn't know what really happened.
Richard Nevarez Lion King-Hamlet, Lion King 2- Romeo and Juliet, Lion King 1 1/2- Rosencrantz and Guildentstern are Dead. The entire series is based on Shakespearean plays.
***** I saw Kimba and this shared some loose similarities to situations and certain bird characters but they went in a completely different direction with tht movie than with this one.
At one point in the film, Belle runs out into the forest and into a pack of wolves. In parallel scenes, we see Gaston first of all ignoring Maurice's pleas for help for Belle and then paying off a warden to have Belle's father put in an insane asylum if Belle refuses to marry him another time. Meanwhile, Beast realizes that Belle has run into the dangerous forest. He chases after her and fights off the wolves that attacked her. They wound him and he passes out in the snow. This is the important part right here. Beauty and the Beast is brilliant because it shows us exactly why we should sympathize with Beast despite his serious flaws, and contrasts him with an awful 'beastly' person in the form of Gaston. Beast is a spoiled brat used to getting his own way who's angry at his fate, but when he doesn't get his way, he's still willing to help Belle. When Gaston doesn't get his way, he actively plots to hurt Belle. In my eyes this contrast pushes both characters away from each other and highlights generosity of spirit, even when you don't get what you want.
Another thing I'll say about TLK, Scar has a really sad back story, so he's probably the only bad guy here I would sympathize with. Not saying that he has good excuse to be evil, but he has a slightly better excuse than others. Also, lions and hyenas are natural enemies, so aside from the point TechLeafRanger made about them not respecting the circle of life, I'm sure Disney chose hyenas for the simple fact that IRL they really are assholes and lions hate them.
I know this about the cartoon characters (and I agree, Scar's background is sad) but I thought I'd mention that real hyenas really aren't that bad! They literally get persecuted because people hate them, so I'd love to see a big movie where they are the protagonists! They actually hunt for up to 95% of what they eat, so don't just steal from lions, although both lions and hyenas will occasionally steal from each other. They will also kill each other's young. Basically they are just in direct competition and can be as bad as each other (still makes sense that lions would banish them though)! Sorry for derailing, I just like hyenas and had to make my case for them :)
zuhzoo hyenas prefer stealing than killing one themselves, they're like vultures, just they are more powerful than the birds, it annoys other predator too,
Asyraf Ashari NO THEY DO NOT! Read it up-the species of hyena depicted in the movie (spotted; Crocuta crocuta) is an excellent hunter. They've got great stamina and can chase prey for miles. Indeed, 95% of the food they eat the captufe themselves. And 'scavenging' isn't necessarily 'stealing'-it's opportunistic behaviour that lions resort to when conditions get hard enough. This movie has really wrecked the reputation of a beautiful and fascinating animal. Makes me angry.
Asyraf Ashari I'm surprised you didn't look it up considering I was directly saying that wasn't the case, but hopefully you have now or at least believe us. And thanks ungoliant for backing me up. Hyenas really are fascinating, worth reading about! Then again, most animals are :)
zuhzoo Ok so in an adult version you could see what's actually happenned in the lion king: Mufasa's seen as a great king by the lions because he's driven their rivals, the hyenas, from the field, evidently killing their leaders (hence their need to get leadership from Scar). The bit about the circle of life is straightforward propaganda: The ecosystem just can't support both groups properly. So Scar's failure is in trying to bring peace when the conditions for it won't let it happen, by not wiping out either the lions or hyenas, but trying to let both live freely. Horrendously malthusian, and a little racist, but then it is disney... As an aside hyenas are aggressively territorial (second only to humans in sheer violence, hyenas from rival packs often get mutilated as a punishment for tresspassing and hunting food in their areas), and capable hunters in areas where lions don't dominate and squeeze them out of the food chain (where they often are reduced to scavenging, as are lions in hyena dominated areas).
So, curiosity needs to be sated here - WHERE did you get that little factoid that "Ursula was based on a drag queen?" I will only accept OFFICIAL Disney links or books, please. All others are invalid especially forums and will be deemed as an internet lie.
I'm not content to believe everything I see or read on the internet. If you want to believe it, fine. But I would like you to question everything before you perceive it as fact.
PokéPony I watched the making of Little Mermaid on my Platinum edition DVD and they said they based Ursula on a drag queen named Devine and one of the animators was gay. It's even mentioned on Devine's wiki page. Ariel is based on the woman that wrote for Animaniacs and voiced Slappy Squirrel and ironically she hates princesses and girly characters.
I really don't see Ursula as 'vaguely ethnic' her entire design is based on the drag queen Divine, who was white... There's really no ethnic traits in her design that I can see at least.
ahh, I figure her tentacles were black to make it more like octopus ink, and black, blue, purple and grey are common for villain colour schemes. The grey skin just looks sickly to me, like she hasn't been able to be in the sun for years. Just my interpretation though.
Sadly completely true. From Gaston's point of view, and that of the majority of the townsfolk, he was completely in the right with his pretty much every action taken in the entire film. He was more or less the Jock stereotype to a tee.
And the village did nothing more than treat him like how most people treat star athletes today. The character has obviously been the number one person in his village for a long time even the older residents look up to him for leadership. Anyone raised with or constantly surrounded with praise day in and out for just standing around is gonna eventually gonna get to anyone's head. Gaston is an asshole yes but so is the beast. They didn't even talk about how much of an asshole he is to his servants I mean they quivered in fear when he came into a room. I can't really imagine that a rich prince would only have that many servants too. For all we know he kept breaking his teapots til he was left with only Mrs Potts and her children (his best china) o.O
mikhail white I'm not saying he is. But they were talking about how the beast kept Belle prisoner, but didn't mention that he lets her go home to her dad.
Beast is only the good guy when Belle lived with him for a few days. Before that, he was very much the bad guy. A heartless prince who hated everyone and locked up someone who didn't mean to come here. He then says Belle has to stay forever, basically saying she will never see her hometown again. He then forces himself to be nicer just to break the spell, but only when he sees Belle is nice, he will become the good guy
Dudes, the reason why Beast was the good guy was that He put Belle's needs before his own, that's why he let her go. Gaston never did that. From his "perspective" Belle was a silent doll whose thoughts and opinions were unimportant. That is why he is evil. Mufasa wasn't being racist because he never banished the hyenas, they were part of this system where they had their own territory that they stuck to in exchange for table scraps, doing so they played the role of the scavenger, meaning they fed off what was left from the stronger animals which is how the "circle of life" works. Scar toppled that balance that existed there by giving the hyenas more food than there was to go around. In fact do you ever see the hyenas complain about being hungry before Scar takes power? I didn't think so. But you do see Scar helping them play the part of scavenger by presenting them with the food they were most likely being given in exchange for staying within their set boundaries.
I can't see the hyeans from the Liong King as bad guys at all. They helped killing Mufasa - the evil tyrant who let them starve, banishing them outside the borders like saying hey it's not my problem (and yet he reminds constantly Simba about responsibility, fucking hypocrite). If I had to choose between starving to death and getting food by helping overthrow the tyrant who is the reason I am starving to death I would pick the latter. And I dare say that many other persons would do the same.
Simba did the exact same thing to the Outlanders/Outsiders in Lion King 2, and then they were made out to be the villains, especially at the beginning of the movie. Mufasa may not have been as great a King, or teacher, as the movies wanted us to believe.
By letting the hyena's almost supernatural gluttony run rampant and destroy the Pride Lands, Scar unintentionally proved that Mufasa knew what he was doing.
***** yea i remember in the movie scar is constantly commanding sarabi to go hunting for more food. i think the main problem in the entire movie was that the animals had exceeded the amount of predators the land could hold without ruining the ecosystem
Brandon Burton The thing about Lion King II is not only did Simba banish the lionesses, he banished Nuka, Vitani, and Kovu, even though they would've only been babies and very young children at the time. Nuka is almost definitely Scar's son, Vitani is probably Scar's daughter, and Kovu is Scar's adopted son (and was originally going to be Scar's actual son). And whether or not he was emotionally blackmailed and manipulated into it, Simba abandoned the kingdom, therefore abandoning his claims to the throne. Scar was the king, and after Scar died, the rightful king should technically either have been Kovu, as Scar's "pawpicked heir", or Nuka, as Scar's firstborn son. Simba banished his own baby cousins to a land without food or water to be raised abused and malnorished by a deranged psychopath, just to eliminate rival claims to the throne. What a dick.
"What crime could be so hyenous that it gets an entire species sentenced to starve to death among the bones of monsters?" First off, excellent pun. Secondly, those "monsters" are Elephants and they are majestic creatures. Show some respect Daniel. And finally, the Hyenas are presented in the film as a monstrous horde that devours everything. When Scar takes over he lets them operate with impunity and their presence drives out all the prey species, which in turn causes the kingdom to suffer. Now people can say that a drought causes the desolation we see but that's not it. Also way too literal for a Disney movie. The desolation isn't because of a drought. It's because of the disruption to the balance needed for the circle of life as explained by Mufasa in the first act to continue. "Everything you see exists together in a delicate balance. As king you need to understand that balance and respect all creatures" Hyenas don't do this. They eat everything and disrupt the balance. This is why pride rock is a desolate wasteland. This is why the Hyenas were banished to begin with.
I like it when they build a case for something that most people wouldn't normally think of. From Gaston's perspective beauty and the best was a tragedy.
Ursula never said she couldn't interfere though. The only condition was Ariel couldn't speak. She also never said Ariel couldn't write Eric notes. I also just assumed that Triton and Ursula are still brother and sister, and Ursula is a purple octopus thing because evil transformed her or it was a bad potion.
To be honest, I kinda wanted Ursula to win. After finally seeing "The Little Mermaid" last summer, I immediately disliked Ariel and fell in love with Ursula.
I never liked Ariel to begin with... I know people will hate me for an OPINION, but that's just how I am... I thought that if she cared enough, she could've spoken up against her father for what she desired... But clearly, she didn't give enough of a damn. Not to mention, she barely even GLANCES at the scroll before she signs it... Who knows? In that fine print that she didn't read; it could've said something like "The Sea Witch, Ursula, is not limited from interfering in my quest for love and whatever the outcome, I shall abide by the main deal in this contract." At first, I didn't like Ursula either; but now I positively adore her... She's hilarious, evil and has an awesome voice - not the princess~esque "I have a lovely voice because I'm gorgeous and good and BLARGH", but the awesome because it gets you without being pretty.
Another lesson that Ursula would've been teaching would be that there are loopholes in the deals you make and you should know what your getting into before agreeing (read your contracts basically). Ariel only knew that she would have the promise of legs and the chance that she could be with the Prince forever if he kisses her with the kiss of true love. Ariel didn't know that Ursula would be able to use her voice in anyway she wanted to and that Ursula then owned her voice. She also didn't read the contract that Ursula made for her to sign and only knew what she would get out of the deal and not how it benefited her. Ursula was honest, but only about what she wanted Ariel to know. Manipulating Ariel into signing the deal knowing that with Ariel's voice she would be able to woo the Prince into loving her and then become the princess of a land kingdom while becoming the queen of the underwater kingdom since she would use Ariel as leverage for the king to take Ariel's place to own.
Pretty cure Mufasa banished the Hyenas for not respecting the circle of life and killing without remorse. Hades in Hercules as @CJCroen1393 mentioned is far more sympathetic. Had Zues allowed his brother to rule the underworld from Olympus and gave him more freedom Hades probably wouldn't have overthrown him.
however Hercules isn't true to Greek Mythology cuz according to that if Zeus was overthrown by the titans then all the gods would be "killed" (they're immortal so they most likely would'be been cut up and trapped under mountains) and since Hades is a god he would no longer exist (and they changed Hercules' story but i'm not gonna go into that) however based on the movie's adaptation Hades was the most sympathetic villain.
PercyJacksonLover I'm aware in the original Mythology Hades was probably the least jerky God of all and Zeus was a womanizing (sometimes manizing???? or Whatever the male equivalent would be) ahole who couldn't keep it in his pants. But Since this is about the Disney Villain the true Mythology is irrelevant.
I see ur point, so yes i guess based on how disney used the greek gods, Hades would be the least jerky. I just always relate anything mythology related to the ACTUAL myths, but as a Disney character Hades is the least jerky
Okay, a lot of people like to give Prince Hans flack for being "a weak villain" and "a poorly written bad guy". I'm gonna come out and say this: Hans was one of the best Disney villains ever created. And i have two distinct reasons for saying so: WARNING - THIS POST IS A (rather obvious) SPOILER. IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN FROZEN, YOU MAY NOT WANT TO READ. OTHERWISE, READ AT YOUR OWN RISK, AND DON'T BITCH AT ME ABOUT IT LATER. lol 1. He was a bit more realistic than some of the more known dynamic villains. I mean, sometimes you don't need the magical power to make a princess fall into eternal slumber by pricking her finger on a spindle wheel, or the goal of stealing a magical trident that will allow you to rule the seven seas. Sometimes just good old fashioned greed, jealousy, and lust for power will do the trick. Hans wasn't a powerful wizard who could hurl magic at his foes, or a huge robot masquerading as a human that could crush your skull. No, he was just a man; a prince, 13th born in his royal generation (a pretty unlucky number, actually) who wanted his own kingdom. And he hatched a plot to get one. No magic, no great amassed power, no army of hyenas at his beck and call. Just him and his underhanded schemes. And he even came pretty close to succeeding! Makes you wonder how things would have turned out if he DID have great magical powers or a ravenous army of scavengers doing his bidding. 2. Hans, unlike other Disney villains, was much MUCH more cunning with hiding his true nature. I mean, think about all the other Disney movies you're seen. In each one of them, you knew who the bad guy was as soon as they came on the screen: Lion King - The sullen black-maned lion grumpily declaring to a mouse he just caught how unfair it is that that he will never become king since the birth of the new prince has happened? Yeah, I'm banking on him being the villain. Beauty and the Beast - The arrogant jackass declaring that he's the greatest thing since sliced bread and should, therefore, be allowed to "own" the prettiest woman in the village as his wife? Yeah, definitely the bad guy. Aladdin - The dark-voiced sinister-looking guy with the talking parrot who looks like he could freeze you to death if he stared at you? Uh huh, bet you a dollar to a dime he's the villain. Frozen - Uh..... In Frozen, you had absolutely NO IDEA who the bad guy was (or at least I sure as hell didn't) until he decided to reveal himself as such. I mean, usually in movies, the viewer at least knew who the villain was if none of the other characters on the screen did. It was just a matter of waiting to see him exposed and defeated. In Frozen, Hans actually walked, talked, and showed the attitude of a genuinely good person. A good villain can fool others into thinking he's one of the good guys. A REALLY good villain can fool the audience into thinking he's one of the good guys. The reveal with Hans had me thinking "Huh? What the fuck!? You serious!?" I mean, I genuinely thought the Duke of Wesselton to be the film's main and only villain, him trying to kill the queen and all. But oh no! Not Prince Hans! It was even a bit of a blow to me, I thought Hans was cute. And he turned out to be a dick. (sigh) Story of my life... Well, that went on longer than I planned, lol. Just my $0.02. I'll stop now.
I don't fully agree with you. If you fully pay attention to Hans' quotes, there is ONE after Elza's revelation, that should give you a HUGE hint of his TRUE nature.
I personally always thought Beauty and the Beast has the weakest villain (in fact, the weakest plot). His death upset me greatly. It felt cruel. The girl made a good point about stereotypical portrayal of good and evil. Gaston was the foil to Beast in more than just his appearance. Gaston only wanted Belle because she was beautiful. He discouraged her reading. Beast, on the other hand, gifted her a whole library. He loved Belle for who she was on the inside. The movie is good, but I think it could have been done better. Also, keep in mind that kids' media will always use obvious markers of villainy and good to make things clear for their audience's young undeveloped minds unless THE moral of the story is that things are not as they always appear. Beauty and the Beast fall in this category. Adult media in contrast makes extensive use of "grey areas" and blurred ethical boundaries. Kid movies are comforting to watch. You feel safe and relaxed in their black and white world where the right thing to do is obvious and leads to a happy ending for most parties involved. I wish the real world were like that more often. Nice discussion. Thanks for the upload.
The Beast and Gaston really aren't very different. The Beast only eventually comes to respect Belle's wishes after her kidnaps her and starves her. He is even more abusive than the simply completely insensitive and domineering Gaston. The movie treats Gaston rallying the villagers to slay The Beast as an irredeemably evil act when it's clear The Beast would have done far far worst.
I haven't seen the movie in a long time, so I'll take your word for it. But if I recall correctly, the Beast changed his ways, while Gaston stayed on his single-minded path. Also, while the Beast is violent, he doesn't hurt anyone. He smashes furniture to get his anger out, but he lives in isolation so that he won't hurt others or others hurt him. Also, he kidnaps Belle out of deep isolation and desperation, which is understandable. Also, I think it was Belle who refused to eat (she didn't want to play by his rules), not that Beast starved her. And Gaston had the Beast cornered when he finally killed him, and he was extremely weak at that point actually trying to run away, so the movie did kind of establish grounds for Gaston's death, but idk. The movie leaves me conflicted. Gaston could have been redeemed, you know? Gaston's death also felt like a cop out, like the writers didn't know what to do with him post climax, like they wrote themselves in a corner, so they were just like "eh how 'bout we just kill him? The consequences of his actions if he stays alive are too much to deal with in our time frame." Whenever Disney promotes the film, they always show the pretty romantic part of Beast and Belle ballroom dancing. They kind of brush the ugly stuff under the rug. In any case, I've never liked this movie, for many reasons, and never will. Who's up for Tangled reruns? There was a great villain with a good motive.
seacrest73 Ah, but the Beast only changed after he and Belle were cooped up alone for a few days and he got to know her and she taught him how to be gentler. Possibly if she had been put in a similar situation with Gaston he also may have matured and grown.
Gaston: Belle said no. She obviously didn't like him. And he ignored that and believed she just didn't know any better. That's enough to be a villain right there. The Hyenas: It's not right, but I think they got that from an old African superstitions thing. My dad was raised in Kenya. And he's said before, that his people hate hyenas. They have constantly, in folklore for years and years and years, been portrayed and acted like mean, vicious little creatures. So that's probably where the whole banishment of the hyena thing came from. From the beliefs of the people that live where the movie took place; hyenas are horrible.
from what I understand lions and hyenas just dont get along in the real world which kinda makes sense when you think about it predators that live in the same areas rarely peacefully coexist.
I think that Edgar the "evil" butler from Aristocats was right all along. He waited on that old lady hand and foot and she was gonna leave all her money to her cats. He was getting the shaft because she was insane. ....Although he did put kittens in an oven... Yeah.
Man it was World War 1 he was just trying to ration food and do his part for France. Times were tough back then, sometimes you gotta eat a cat if it means kicking the Krauts in the teeth y'know.
Ursula, teaches people that there is always going to be a cost to what you get, and there is always going to be something or someone in your way. She teaches determination.
+Allycat Actually, she teaches that the system is rigged against you, as everyone who comes to her ends up in her menagerie. When she believes that Arial's determination will win her the day, Ursula cheats in order to ensure that Ariel fails. They conveniently left that part of her MO out.
Huh. I never really noticed until now, but, you guys are right. I love these movies, seen them each a million times (exaggeration), and never saw the not-so-bad points of these villains.
Scar's the most sympathetic to me: he's been constantly pushed around by his elder brother, doesn't want to spend the rest of his life without achievement, sees either an instrument or kindred spirit (or both) in the hyenas and is simply doing what feels his right. The only way to seize the throne is to kill his brother, he tries to kill Simba to make sure he doesn't threaten his reign later, which he does - a must do for any new monarch, as shown in conflicts between newly anointed uncle-kings and their nephews throughout history, and the famine that accompanies his reign isn't necessarily his fault; could just be a natural event... Only slightly disagreeable part, which is why Disney cut it, is the deleted scene where he tries to seduce Nala and mentions doing it with her. But then again, lionesses mate at a young age and incest is a frequent thing among African lions...
Nala wasn't even related to Scar, she was a young adult by lion standards thus fair game. And as you said it was completely normal for a kings brother to kill his nephew and his brother in order to seize the throne. Happened throughout history so many times. In the Broadway version Scar appears more ambitions and then later mad then just evil since he doesn't have the Disney villianous visage. But yea seeing how Mufasa's death is one of the saddest movie moments of all time there is no down playing him.
Only the purpose of a king is to benefit his kingdom, not his own personal "achievement". It's not like Mufasa was doing a shit job and Scar thought "I bet I could free this long-suffering land from the rule of my brother, the oppressive tyrant!". Scar only wanted the power and probably had to let his hyena troops roam freely in exchange for their support.
But King's aren't elected, they're born into the right of succession, and then take the throne. It doesn't matter how good or bad a job they do, even to the point where it's justified in rebelling against them, the throne's still their's by right. Since Simba was still a cub by the time Mufasa was killed, even if it wasn't Scar that killed him and didn't want to usurp the throne, Scar would still have ruled as regent until Simba came of age. And are we really to believe that Scar would have let the opportunity to rule and create his own dynasty slip out of his claws..?
Scar was always the most sympathetic for me, also. Glad to see that not everyone who's seen that movie is just "OMG SCAR KILLED MUFASA HE MUST DIEE!!1!!! D:" even though that seems to be the most common reaction everywhere. -.-' I mean, yeah, he was mainly motivated by jealousy and such, but he wasn't really that bad, in my book. The drought obviously wasn't his fault and he did do more for the hyenas than Mufasa ever did. *shrug* Maybe that's just me. Oh, and speaking of the others, Gaston is an asshole when it comes to women, I never found him that sympathetic. :/ I see your point on Ursula, though. Interesting video. xP
