RE: belle influence?arielstreasuresSeptember 25 2021, 14:32:07 UTC
That's a good point. I remember when she threw off her dress and rode off on the horse in her petticoat.
THAT MADE NO FUCKING SENSE
It was the 17th century, wasn't it?
Even the "town hoes" - the bimbettes - wouldn't do something like that. They tried to say that Belle was about "practicality", that she "hitches" her skirt up because she doesn't like all the material to get in the way of her chores, and she doesn't have the patience for it, and also she has "pockets" to put books in her skirts.
I get the concept, and maybe if this was set in the 19th century it would make more sense.
I think what went so wrong with BATB2017 was that Disney tried too hard.
And it made no sense why Gaston would want the ugly weird girl! The bimbettes were so much prettier, so much more feminine. And also Belle's "lunatic" father, as perceived by the townspeople. Like, if everyone thought that Maurice was "nuts", why would he want to marry Belle? Gaston basically wanted a woman to cook and clean and have babies. It made no sense in the movie
( ... )
RE: belle influence?littlemermaidOctober 2 2021, 10:59:50 UTC
Yeah, Disney basically took an animated masterpiece like Beauty & the Beast and turned it into a live action disaster.
SO MANY THINGS went wrong with that remake that it’s honestly embarrassing. It’s just so wild to me how artists were able to evoke more emotions with animated characters than the actual actors did in the 2017 movie.
For real. I can’t think of one single thing about this remake that was better than the original. It was such a failure, such a wasted opportunity to create something truly beautiful and inspired.
RE: belle influence?arielstreasuresOctober 2 2021, 14:59:44 UTC
There was one tiny thing I liked, but then Disney ruined it.
Louise - the little village girl Belle teaches to read - had no name in the movie, but in spinoff books related to the live action movie, she was called Louise. Which I think is a beautiful name.
RE: belle influence?littlemermaidOctober 7 2021, 00:29:07 UTC
I agree - I really love the idea of Belle being a teacher and showing kids how to read. And yes, the townspeople were closed minded and they thought Belle was weird, but they were never cruel to her. Yet another thing about the remake that was both bad and unnecessary to the plot
( ... )
( ... )
Reply
( ... )
Reply
( ... )
Reply
Reply
THAT MADE NO FUCKING SENSE
It was the 17th century, wasn't it?
Even the "town hoes" - the bimbettes - wouldn't do something like that. They tried to say that Belle was about "practicality", that she "hitches" her skirt up because she doesn't like all the material to get in the way of her chores, and she doesn't have the patience for it, and also she has "pockets" to put books in her skirts.
I get the concept, and maybe if this was set in the 19th century it would make more sense.
I think what went so wrong with BATB2017 was that Disney tried too hard.
And it made no sense why Gaston would want the ugly weird girl! The bimbettes were so much prettier, so much more feminine. And also Belle's "lunatic" father, as perceived by the townspeople. Like, if everyone thought that Maurice was "nuts", why would he want to marry Belle? Gaston basically wanted a woman to cook and clean and have babies. It made no sense in the movie ( ... )
Reply
SO MANY THINGS went wrong with that remake that it’s honestly embarrassing. It’s just so wild to me how artists were able to evoke more emotions with animated characters than the actual actors did in the 2017 movie.
For real. I can’t think of one single thing about this remake that was better than the original. It was such a failure, such a wasted opportunity to create something truly beautiful and inspired.
Reply
Louise - the little village girl Belle teaches to read - had no name in the movie, but in spinoff books related to the live action movie, she was called Louise. Which I think is a beautiful name.
( ... )
Reply
Reply
( ... )
Reply
( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment