Talk:Belle's Sisters/@comment-1672596-20150608173707/@comment-1765692-20150621013301

PorygonSquared? Never heard of him. I can always trust you to make assumptions, can't I? No, I'm just some jerk who googled your names. You can google mine, if you'd like.

So, you could give cutting personal arguments to me, eh? Considering that you're an all-around poor judge of character, I highly doubt that. What would you even tell me, anyway? I'm already aware of most of my flaws. I'm hypocritical, egotistical, condescending, blunt, smug, cowardly, sadistic, a [jerk], possibly bipolar, and I have trouble letting go. Just to name a few. I'm not ashamed to admit these things, unlike some people who seem to think they have no flaws at all. Really, what would you tell me that I'm not already aware of?

But, we're getting off-topic. Honestly, I wouldn't even have as much of a problem with your opinion if you weren't so forceful about it. Every chance you get, it's "Belle is an awful person. The movie would have been so much better if she had two evil sisters. Belle should have differentiated between good and bad books." If you said it maybe once or twice without acting like your word should be law, I might have been a little more understanding. "Oh, he doesn't like Beauty and the Beast, but since he isn't being a total stuck-up [jerk] about it, I'm not going to complain." And that would have been it.

Now then. You mention The Joker as an example of a gag character. The Joker is not a gag character, he is Batman's arch-nemesis – that is, a very prominent antagonist who serves as a major driving force behind the story. When I say "gag character", I mean something like the cabbage guy from Avatar, or the flatula from Treasure Planet. A character that exists solely for the purpose of a joke or running gag. That is what the Bimbettes are, a running gag, and nothing more. If they were intended to be foils, they would have behaved like foils.

Lumiere differs from Gaston in one particular way: he is not a condescending [jerk]. Gaston looks down on women and acts like they're property. Lumiere actually treats women like human beings.

Belle didn't own up to the fact that it was partly her fault? So, you're saying she was wrong for trying to run away from an abusive environment? "Obviously shouldn't be touched"? It's a rose. The Beast never told Belle about the curse, she had no way of knowing what could have happened.

You forget one thing about some purists: they're okay with some changes, as long as they're changes they personally approve of. It's like moving the goalposts (you should be familiar with that particular fallacy). Making Alice slay a dragon? That won't fly. Giving her a genie love interest? Perfectly acceptable. As long as the one detail the purist cares about remains untouched. (Perhaps "purist" is the wrong word for it...)

So, you've heard other people complain about the same things you complain about. Belle still isn't you. And Belle isn't so much smart as she is bookish, for precisely the reason you stated. The premise is incorrect.

And one more bonus thing for now: the definition of "consummate" is "showing a high degree of skill and flair; complete or perfect." This has absolutely nothing to do with the argument at hand, I just thought I'd let you know what that word means. Like I said, I have trouble letting go.