Talk:Belle's Sisters/@comment-1672596-20150608173707/@comment-1765692-20150621045857

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.

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.

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. 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 nothing that supposedly "smart" people are just as capable of doing stupid or not-smart things as any other human.

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

"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.

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.