Talk:Belle's Sisters/@comment-1672596-20150608173707/@comment-1672596-20150621221919

"So, you're not as thick as I thought. Then again, maybe "stubborn" was a better word for it."

"Regardless of whether or not your complaints about the film are valid, you don't need to spout them every chance you get. It'd be like if I went around on Bulbapedia and constantly said, "Misty is a terrible person, because she cares more about the safety of her bike than a human being, she abandoned her responsibilities, and left her gym in the care of three airheads who would rather have fun than do their job." Something tells me you'd be pretty annoyed if I kept repeating that ad nausea. Also, I understand that my reasoning on any subject is fallible, and that just because I think something makes sense doesn't necessarily mean that everyone else has to agree with me. (I think this is what's called the "observer-expectancy effect".) "

"When did I say I wanted unlimited changes? ...Oh, you must mean when I was... one, Beauty and the Beast at least kept most of the same story as the original; two, an adaptation doesn't have to be faithful in order to be good (The Iron Giant, How to Train Your Dragon, Frozen). But, if you demand total faithfulness, there's nothing I can say to that. Go watch Golden Films' take on the story. "

That's where you're wrong, actually. The 1988 and 1989 drafts kept most of the same story as the original. The 1991 version barely kept ANY of the original story. Remember, in the original story, Maurice was a failed merchant, not a self-proclaimed inventor with implied sanity issues. Belle did NOT have an unwanted suitor as a main antagonist, in fact, her antagonists were her older sisters. Beast wasn't cursed under an imposed time limit, he was cursed for however long it took before he learned his lesson and learned to love another. Maurice was the one who nearly tried to pilfer Beast's rose, not Belle (Belle wasn't even a factor beyond his wanting to give it as a gift before then), and in fact, the rose was just an ordinary rose, not even indirectly tied to the curse and certainly not enchanted. Beast was implied to have actually let Maurice stay for the night willingly and be a good host (albeit anonymously) in the original tale, unlike in the film where Beast clearly didn't want him to stay at the castle and when he did have him stay, he locked him up, the only time a time limit was even suggested to have occurred in the original tale was with Belle leaving to see her family, and as such, obviously in the original tale Beast didn't set her free indefinitely so much as granted her visitation rights to her family, Belle's sisters tried to get Belle eaten by the Beast by faking sadness at her having to depart, Beast nearly dying as indicated above had absolutely nothing to do with a rival suitor stabbing him, but due to a broken heart about Belle nearly breaking her promise, Beast and Belle actually got along a bit better in the original tale than in the final film, and Belle's family's reason for moving to the provincial life had to do with rotten luck on Maurice's part regarding several of his merchant vessels being lost at sea and their house burning down. Oh, and obviously, the curse didn't even affect Beast's servants or even the surrounding environment (actually, it wasn't even clear if Beast even had servants in the original tale, as it was implied he tended to his own castle). Really, the only things that actually were similar to the original tale were Maurice getting lost in the forest and Belle ultimately breaking the curse. It's actually an extremely loose adaptation of the fairytale, either of the Beaumont version or the Villeneuve version. Honestly, The Little Mermaid despite its ending change was much closer to a faithful adaptation of the fairytale it was based on than Beauty and the Beast was.

And another thing, Iron Giant tried to push an anti-gun message in spite of the fact that it really ended up causing some real problems with the plot (for example, the Iron Giant basically elected to get himself hit by the nuke, despite the fact that he doesn't even NEED to get hit just to get rid of the nuke: Specifically, he could just swat the missile away so it wouldn't even be a threat to the town, maybe even swat it into the sun), not to mention the anti-gun thing is probably as ham-fisted and inapplicable as Cars 2's anti-oil message. And Frozen also has several problems of its own regarding some things as well. I can't comment on How to Train Your Dragon since I'm not sure if it's even originally a storybook.

"I compared the Bimbettes to the cabbage guy and the flatula. I guess I should have compared them to the "MY LEG!" guy from Spongebob to give a more accurate comparison. Or perhaps the "do the flop" guy from asdfmovie. Or any other character that exists solely for comic relief, and does nothing else but repeat that one joke as a running gag. Another thing, if I understand it, the Bimbettes would have had to actually interact with Belle at some point to qualify as foils. They barely even share any screen time together."

It still left Belle without at the very least an actual effective foil though, especially regarding the moral of the tale. And what's worse is that the flaws Belle had actually highlighted internal ugliness.

"Your defense for the premise that Belle is supposed to be the smartest Disney princess is that fans and journalists say so? That isn't like you, normally you extract every detail you can from every official source possible, and fans and journalists are hardly an official source."

I at least cited Paige O'Hara and Linda Woolverton's statements on the matter, which is official. And besides, Woolverton and O'Hara were the main point, the journalists and fans were just filler, really, to show more sources (and personally, I wouldn't have gone there if I didn't need to).

"Besides, Belle's behavior in the film directly contradicts those claims. And then you continue to form arguments based on that premise, even though we both know it is incorrect. There's also the possibility that people are confusing "smart" (as in "knows stuff" or "has experience") with "intelligent" (as in "intuitive" or "well-read"). It's also worth noting that supposedly "smart" people are just as capable of doing stupid or not-smart things as any other human. "

You think I'm not aware of smart people making stupid or not-smart things or making mistakes? Of COURSE I'm aware of that. In fact, we've got plenty of people who did just that, like Jean-Paul Sartre claiming Che Guevara was the most complete human being of the century despite his pretty obviously being a monster, or Michel Foucault infecting others with AIDS after he landed himself with it in San Francisco's BDSM subculture and bath houses, or even how he supported the Ayatollah Khomeini overthrowing the Shah of Iran despite the fact that the Ayatollah planned on exterminating gays (remember, Foucault WAS gay). The problem is that the writing staff and her voice actress did claim her to be smart, probably the smartest one out there (and this is despite plenty of evidence to go against this claim), so if they are going to depict her as genuinely being smart, and not just from the fact that she's able to read (hey, Ariel can read as well as Part of Your World demonstrated. Why don't the critics comment on that?), by golly, do that!

"Personally, I think Belle being flawed actually strengthens the moral. Isn't the idea to look past the flaws to see the inner beauty? That kind of story wouldn't work as well if one member of the relationship were already perfect. It defeats the whole purpose. That's how I look at it, anyway. Just food for thought. "

The idea of the moral is to look past the physical flaws, not someone's personal flaws. In fact, God encouraged us to never embrace any personal flaws at all. Jesus even died on the Cross to ensure that we strive to become perfect and sinless, eliminate our faults. And for the record, by that logic, that would mean Belle's sisters actually emphasized the moral more than the actual protagonist, or Vanessa, or Drizella, Anastasia and Lady Tremaine, or even Queen Grimhilde, more than their respective protagonists. See the problem there?

"The book thing does not add to the narrative. Period. It just doesn't. "

It did, in fact, Linda Woolverton specifically stated she added it in to make Belle more tolerant and worldly like a good liberal.

""Treating women like human beings does NOT entail constantly sleeping around" ...So, you've got poor social skills, huh? But in all seriousness, you've never heard of "open relationships", have you? As for actual unfaithfulness, that can happen because of problems in the relationship. It does not necessarily indicate that a person is a misogynist. People can, in fact, view members of the opposite sex as people while still [getting lucky] on a regular basis."

Apparently, you haven't heard of the kinds of "open relationships" Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir did, and how it actually RUINED people as a result, heck, even ruined Sartre and Beauvoir's relationship as well. Oh, and for the record, my parents grew up during the 1960s and 1970s, and "Open Relationships" (I presume you're referring to what's known today as "Friends with Benefits") actually ended horribly for the most part, the women being extremely saddened by her mate abandoning her, often confused as a result (my parents actually knew several people who underwent such a relationship with others and ended up getting a bad deal as a result. Something similar happened with the original Hunchback of Notre Dame with Phoebus and Esmerelda.), and BTW, Open Relationships are actually on a decline in my generation.

"Not related, but your self-description... it bothers me. I mean, first you look kinda like me in the videos, then you describe yourself with some of the same vices I have. And your beliefs are the exact opposite of mine. Could it be that we have discovered proof of the multiverse theory? Are we actually the same person, but from different universes where we made different choices? ...Nah, it's probably just my imagination."

No, we're definitely not the same person. Some people have similar traits, but they aren't the same person, and we definitely not from different universes AFAICT.