Thread:DisneyTriviaBuff/@comment-1672596-20150325200633/@comment-1672596-20150329021551

DisneyTriviaBuff wrote: Weedle McHairybug wrote: Yeah, agreed, especially when removing Marguerite was a huge mistake that if anything hurt the film more than helped it. I can kinda understand the rationale for removing Belle's sisters, even if I don't really agree with it (Disney had no problem reusing characters in their fairytales, like how The Evil Queen was somewhat reused with Lady Tremaine and Maleficent, not to mention Aurora suffered a similar fate to Snow White. And besides, they technically reused Vanessa with the Featherduster's human form), but removing someone would have been perfect as a foil for Belle for the purposes of the moral was inexcusable, especially when thanks to Woolverton's insistence on trying to base Belle on the women's movement, she came across as pretty ugly in her character, almost as bad as Woody in the Black Friday reel (which ironically was also Jeffrey Katzenberg's fault).

I never understood why it needed to be rewritten. The whole "dark, dramatic and somber" element doesn't seem to cut it because, quite frankly, Snow White and even Cinderella were about as dark as if not darker than that draft (not to mention the final film came across as extremely cynical as a result). Not to mention, Katzenberg tried to do to Toy Story what he decried Beauty and the Beast as being. No kidding! However, that isn't to say that there weren't some things that the final film did improve on. For example, the idea of the Enchanted Objects having individual personalities instead of being mute, as was originally intended was a fantastic idea as watching them perform repetative pantomime routines would've got boring. Also, Purdum never intended to have songs in his film and while I can't say wether or not that could've worked, the score by Howard Ashman and Alan Menken was awesome! The pacing in the initial storyreels is also pretty bad, as Belle gets the least amount of screentime, the Beast has not yet appeared by the end and lots of unessacary, random gags, such as the prostitute accosting Maurice are thrown in. Although, with that said, I've always felt that instead of completely scrapping Purdum's screenplay, which is what made him quit, Katzenberg could've asked Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise to co-direct with him and compormise on their ideas.

With that said, I've always felt that there were several things Purdum did that worked a lot better than the choices they made with the final film. For example, the 17th century costumes and architecture would've been absolutely breathtaking to see, much more so than the somewhat generic-looking 19th century ones of the final film. Second, I like Gaston's original characterization much more as the strong, pushy guy that everyone loves because he's strong has been seen in plenty of other Disney Movies (Kay in The Sword in the Stone, Brom Bones in The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad.) Thirdly, I absolutely love the fact that with the original Maurice, we would've had a Disney father that wasn't an old, jolly guy for once but instead a handsome, middle-aged man and am appalled that they went back to that cliche with his final design. .

I guess you have a point regarding the enchanted objects (though I do think they should have still made sure the objects are just animated objects instead of transfigured servants even if they do talk, since that at least wouldn't have the Enchantress coming across as a monster as a result of the implications of her cursing children for something they were completely innocent of), and Belle getting somewhat shafted. Also the prostitute angle as well (that would probably be something not necessary, though at least she's actually shown to be one, unlike the Bimbettes where it's never even made clear whether they've even lost their virginity at all in the film, and in fact their overall nature makes it extremely unlikely they were hookers). On the other hand, though, I'm not so sure about the songs. Be Our Guest, Something There, and Beauty and the Beast were fine, and as long as The Mob Song, contrary to what that idiot Dan Rather claimed, is not meant to be a pro-homosexual agenda song, I'll be fine with that. However, they definitely should have axed the Gaston reprise since it painted the village in a needlessly negative light and basically had any realism Gaston may have had gone down the drain by his openly gloating his plan like a James Bond villain (which is the worst way to plot). I actually wonder if they only inserted the Gaston reprise because the writers felt cynical about the kids' intelligence and ability to deduce Gaston as being an actual bad guy. And the opening song really needs to be reworked in order to actually show how Belle's life at the village was terrible (despite all intentions, the song only succeeded in showing her to be an arrogant jerk due to complaining about it being provincial, which unfortunately as I pointed out broke the moral on her end.).

And yeah, I also prefer Marquis Gaston to the final version. At least HE has an actual reason for going after Belle (quite frankly, his motives for going for Belle in the final film made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Come on, those triplets far outrank Belle in terms of at least Outer Beauty if Dead or Alive and how it's female cast were infamously designed are anything to go by, not to mention they pretty much match what Gaston wants in a wife, anyways.), and at least he doesn't demonize an entire settlement by openly gloating his evil plan and then being cheered on for reasons that can only be guessed as the songwriters being particularly cynical about the audience's intelligence. As far as old jolly guy for a father, I see your point, but I'm not sure King Triton was really all that jolly in the original Little Mermaid film, and I'm not even sure if he's even that old, though I do agree regarding Maurice. I think the intended setting was late 18th century, going by what Glen Keane stated in the commentary, though that being said, I also wish they actually HAD Belle being discerning of her literature considering future events after that time. If Belle ends up joining the Jacobins just because she "drunk the Kool-Aid" regarding some of the various Philosophes' writings, things are gonna get very ugly regarding Belle and Adam's future, especially given that the French Revolution's likely going to be just on their doorstep.

And there's also Marguerite. As noted above, she was perfect for a foil of Belle. In the final film, the closest we've got to actual foils for Belle are those blonde triplets, and there's literally nothing indicating they even had inner ugliness at all aside from crushing on Gaston, and in fact they ironically came across as being more pure of heart and internally beautiful than Belle despite their crush on Gaston, meaning they were terrible foils for the sake of the moral (it also doesn't help that the failed wedding scene implies that they viewed Belle as a friend since they were setting it up without even knowing that Gaston was going to be the groom). Probably the closest we've got to them actually being ugly in character was in the Marvel Comics serial, which ironically conflicted heavily with their film characterizations besides crushing on Gaston.