RE: belle influence?littlemermaidSeptember 25 2021, 01:15:00 UTC
Oh definitely! I can really see the Belle influences here. And it’s way prettier than the one Emma Watson wore in the 2017 BatB remake too.
You know what’s so ridiculous about Emma’s look? She claims that the boots were more historically accurate than the ballet flats that Belle wore in the animated version - which I guess is true and they are more practical for horseback riding - but then her Belle walks around with part of her skirt raised up high so you could see her stockings and undergarments … and I’m pretty sure that was NOT accurate or appropriate in those times. So yeah, it’s really annoying how selective she was about historical accuracy, but then she brushes off criticisms about not wearing a corset and even having Belle in just her underwear at the end of the film.
* End of random BatB rant lol
But anyway, yes, you can clearly see that Belle was the inspiration behind Danielle (even their names are similar) as I’m sure she was the inspiration for many other live action and animated heroines from the 1990s. As we discussed on tumblr, Danielle in Ever After is very much what we would have wanted to see Disney do with a live action Belle.
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.
Basically, the fact that 2017Belle didn't want Gaston made him want her more.
Reverse psychology.
In the animated film, Gaston wanted Belle because she was very beautiful, and because she was smart, and presumably he was thinking that his kids would be good-looking and intelligent too.
Anyhow I'm pretty sure that if a woman stripped down to her underwear and rode on horseback in the 17th century, she would be considered to be a slut.
But yeah, I think Disney just tried way too hard for that 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.
It's precious. Belle teaches the little girl to read after the little girl takes interest in her washing contraption with the bucket and the donkey.
AND THEN THE TOWNSPEOPLE RUIN BELLE'S LAUNDRY because they hate the idea of another girl learning to read.
So the townspeople in the animated movie didn't understand Belle. She was reading fairytales, and they were working to feed their families.
BUT THEY WEREN'T CRUEL. They just went about their work and were slightly irritated at Belle for distracting them, but they wouldn't have done something like that. It just irks me because it's like the live action movie injected more misogynic undertones than there already were into batb :\
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.
About Belle’s washing machine - I remember reading somewhere (probably on tumblr) that it was selfish of Belle to use (and possibly ruin?) the town’s water supply like that just because she didn’t want to spend extra time washing her laundry by hand. I’m not sure exactly how her contraption works but it just feels like yet another poorly thought out idea.
And frankly - of all the things that Belle could have invented, why make a washing machine? Were they trying to mock Cinderella by saying that she wasn’t smart enough to create a machine that did most of the work for her? Cuz that’s what it felt like to me. I don’t know why but the washing machine thing always bothered me. Honestly, I don’t really see Belle as an inventor like her father. I see her more as a writer creating her own stories.
You know what’s so ridiculous about Emma’s look? She claims that the boots were more historically accurate than the ballet flats that Belle wore in the animated version - which I guess is true and they are more practical for horseback riding - but then her Belle walks around with part of her skirt raised up high so you could see her stockings and undergarments … and I’m pretty sure that was NOT accurate or appropriate in those times. So yeah, it’s really annoying how selective she was about historical accuracy, but then she brushes off criticisms about not wearing a corset and even having Belle in just her underwear at the end of the film.
* End of random BatB rant lol
But anyway, yes, you can clearly see that Belle was the inspiration behind Danielle (even their names are similar) as I’m sure she was the inspiration for many other live action and animated heroines from the 1990s. As we discussed on tumblr, Danielle in Ever After is very much what we would have wanted to see Disney do with a live action Belle.
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.
Basically, the fact that 2017Belle didn't want Gaston made him want her more.
Reverse psychology.
In the animated film, Gaston wanted Belle because she was very beautiful, and because she was smart, and presumably he was thinking that his kids would be good-looking and intelligent too.
Anyhow I'm pretty sure that if a woman stripped down to her underwear and rode on horseback in the 17th century, she would be considered to be a slut.
But yeah, I think Disney just tried way too hard for that 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.
(x)
It's precious. Belle teaches the little girl to read after the little girl takes interest in her washing contraption with the bucket and the donkey.
AND THEN THE TOWNSPEOPLE RUIN BELLE'S LAUNDRY because they hate the idea of another girl learning to read.
So the townspeople in the animated movie didn't understand Belle. She was reading fairytales, and they were working to feed their families.
BUT THEY WEREN'T CRUEL. They just went about their work and were slightly irritated at Belle for distracting them, but they wouldn't have done something like that. It just irks me because it's like the live action movie injected more misogynic undertones than there already were into batb :\
Reply
About Belle’s washing machine - I remember reading somewhere (probably on tumblr) that it was selfish of Belle to use (and possibly ruin?) the town’s water supply like that just because she didn’t want to spend extra time washing her laundry by hand. I’m not sure exactly how her contraption works but it just feels like yet another poorly thought out idea.
And frankly - of all the things that Belle could have invented, why make a washing machine? Were they trying to mock Cinderella by saying that she wasn’t smart enough to create a machine that did most of the work for her? Cuz that’s what it felt like to me. I don’t know why but the washing machine thing always bothered me. Honestly, I don’t really see Belle as an inventor like her father. I see her more as a writer creating her own stories.
Reply
Leave a comment