Discussion YMMV / BeautyAndTheBeast2017

Actually when I look into this, most of them have audience reactions, not personal opinions. Think about what the audience thinks of Gaston, not yourself. Many people think that Gaston has increased in terms of villainy.

And I would recommend that you take that same advice. There are many that find Gaston far less villainous in the beginning of the movie.

The reason they think that Gaston is far less villainous at the beginning is because as a psychopath, he is good at superficial charm. Also I think that judging on the way you said it about Gaston being a designated villain, it sounds its coming out of only you, not the others.

You're certainly welcome to your opinion and your interpretation of the situation, but, given that Luke Evans agrees with me, I'd say that I'm not the only one with this persepctive: "The best villains are not villains from the beginning. They turn into villains. He probably does suffer from PTSD, which he manages to keep under wraps because he has people like the villagers and Le Fou and the girls who puff him up and make him feel sexy and wanted. But below that is a broken human being. He’s jaded, and the second he realizes that he’s not going to get what he wants, this military creature comes out of him." If the actor himself agrees with me that he's not a villain from the beginning, I'd say my position has some reason behind it.

Since the following is related to the discussion, we need to see whether the Designated Villain entry is valid, as it is contested at the moment. If there is anyone who feels that it does not apply to Gaston, speak up now.

A designated villain doesn't apply to Gaston here. He only helped Belle and Maurice purely to make himself look good, not out of pure altruism. It's called self-serving and also it makes him more Faux Affably Evil.

The definition of this YMMV article is objective, the subjective part is whether it applies or not. Designated Villain says "a character who is treated as a bad guy by the principal characters, despite never actually doing anything as to justify that amount of hate." That is what is described in the contested entry: Maurice and Belle treat Gaston as if he's done villanous things, but he hasn't yet. Seems right to me.

It's extremely long, though. It could go into less detail, and be condensed into a couple sentences.

There's a thing called stalking people. That's what Gaston was doing to Belle. I saw him do that when I was watching the film. Stalking girls you like creeps them out and make them not want to go out with you. Also before Maurice denies Gaston his blessing to his marriage to Belle, we can see him threatening to feed Maurice to the wolves, and being calmed down by Lefou through his happy thoughts about blood, explosions and widows. That's pretty justified for Maurice's and Belle's part in their part in rejecting Gaston.

I don't get any indication that Gaston is stalking Belle, and if there is anything concrete on screen that showcases that, I'd like to hear it. He makes his way through a crowd, goes up to her and gives her flowers and attempts to make small talk. If we weren't pre-disposed to think he's the villain, his actions would be setting us up to see him as a hapless suitor who is about to learn some valuable life lesson.

Further, anyone have a transcript of the sequence of lines for his argument with Maurice handy? That would certainly help with the Maurice part.

There's another thing that he did before Belle rejects his marriage. After he tells her about unmarried woman begging for scraps, he grabs her dress and tries to pull her. And then before Belle closes the door on him, he's like trying to close in on her. If you try to pull a girl's dress to you, they kick you in no time because one, its creepy, and two its downright rude.

Wait, what is the justification for saying that the principle characters (Belle and Maurice) hate Gaston? The only evidence I see in this discussion is "they reject his offer of marriage". The Designated Villain entry gives slightly more evidence; "Belle's utter disgust". Such evidence would mean that LeFou is also a Designated Villain because Gaston rejects him.

I can't personally speak to the dress-grabbing scene, since I don't remember it (which I think says something for how impactful it was), so I don't how how diabolical it looked on-screen. We'll have to wait until we can re-watch it to dispute that point in any depth.

As for the justification that characters hate Gaston, to qualify as a Designated Villain, a character needs to be treated as 'a bad guy' by the protagonists, not necessarily be hated by them. When Belle sings about how disgusted she is by Gaston, you can hear the loathing dripping from her voice. Consider the animated version. By the time that Belle gets to that song, Gaston has insulted her, insulted women in general, insulted reading, thrown her book in the mud (and this is 18th century France, thats not just mud), insulter her father, barged into her house, dropped his mud-covered boots on another one of her books, told her that he wants her to pump out 6 sons (in an age before modern hygiene), thrown her furniture around, and repeatedly violated her personal space as he demands an answer to his proposal. In the live action version, Gaston has accidentally stepped on some cabbages or lettuce.

You want proof?

https://www.instagram.com/p/BRqyT79gkwm/

There's your proof. Do you want to know why Gaston fits the definition of a Sociopath? Here's the criteria for a sociopath in this link.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheSociopath

Thank you for providing that clip. However, that does not look that villainous to me. To me, I see someone making a heartfelt plea. Look at how he's describing the village, and how she reacts to that. He's operating on an entirely different level than her, and doesn't even realize it; he thinks living a simple life is perfectly fine, and she doesn't. Its actually sad.

Now, if you want to read Gaston as a Sociopath, go for it. You can make a reasonable argument for that interpretation. I would say that I can make a reasonable argument for my interpretation. Luckily, YMMV is made for just such disagreements. In fact, isn't that the point of interpretation of fictional works? That two people can reasonably and in perfect good will come up with two entirely different views on a piece?

Besides, you've taken the time to plaster the main character page for Gaston with your interpretation. Can you bear seeing the alternative view hiding away in this section?

One more point: Edward Davies repeatedly describes Gaston as a sociopath, but his most noteworthy characteristic, the one word that pretty much defines Gaston is not sociopathy, but narcissism. And the very description of sociopaths on this wiki says that they are not narcissists, because the sociopaths never lose faith in their self-worth, while narcissists are vulnerable to others' opinions of them. Gaston needs an entire song number by a crowded tavern to cheer him up after being rejected by Belle, exactly the reaction a narcissist would have, not a sociopath. A sociopath would react in the exact opposite fashion.

That's exactly why Belle and Maurice don't like Gaston. He's narcissistic. A narcissist is interested in only himself and no one else.

Edward Davies, either he is a narcissist or he is a sociopath. The two are distinct and, while they have some similarities, they are completely different. Both tropes are, in fact, defined, in part, by not being the other:

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheSociopath https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Narcissist

You can make an argument that he is a sociopath, but I think that the argument that he is a narcissist is far stronger. Neither Belle nor Maurice's reactions to Gaston seem to be directed toward his narcissism, either. In the animated version, Gaston actually will say something dripping with narcissism for Belle to react to. Here, the line she reacts to is Gaston calling their life in the village simple.

The other reasons why Belle rejects him is because one, marrying on the spot before knowing them is just plain ridiculous and unrealistic, and also Gaston seems keen on turning her simple like the other women in the village. Belle is a realist. Thats why she rejects him. And you're saying that its ok for Gaston to marry Belle right on the spot, and that in rejecting him, she is the bad guy? Are you insane?

At what point does Gaston from the 2017 version ask her to marry him on the spot? I certainly remember Gaston from the 1991 version doing that, with a wedding ready to go, but part of the original point I was making here is that it feels like Belle is reacting to the animated Gaston, not the Gaston in front of her.

Where do you get the idea that Belle and Gaston don't know each other? They are on a first name basis and interact like two people who know each other. Further, if your argument here is that Belle doesn't know Gaston, then she doesn't know him well enough to be disgusted by him (unless you go by the theory that she's disgusted by everyone in the village, which hardly paints her in a flattering light).

Where do you get the idea that he wants to turn her simple like the other women? We see him show his utter disdain for the other women and declare that he admires Belle's dignity. There's no line where he suggests that he wants to rob her of that dignity and turn her into a clone of the women that don't interest him.

To finish my responses to your latest reply, you questioning my sanity is totally uncalled for plenty of reasons that are hopefully self evident enough that we can avoid derailing our disagreement on the movie any further, though I will point out that you have consistently moved the goalposts on the entire discussion.

Edward Davies, I'm assuming the reason why this discussion is being looked at by a moderator is to determine what the best course of action is. I think it is inappropriate for you to be deleting the Designated Villain entry while the discussion is ongoing. Especially since your alternate version under the Alternate Character Interpretation is taking potshots at those that disagree with you.

I have put the Designated Villain entry back in (again) but I have left your entry in (again). Please stop.

And the weaselly pot shots are pretty low.

"a character needs to be treated as 'a bad guy' by the protagonists" — Designated Villain does not say "that amount of dislike", it says "that amount of hate". Disliking a character isn't enough to say they are 'a bad guy'. Even if it did, the corresponding actions would need to be that much lower to justify it. Gaston could easily be said to represent the best of the town, and Belle wants something different (she says "more").

"He's operating on an entirely different level than her, and doesn't even realize it; he thinks living a simple life is perfectly fine, and she doesn't." — That's a wonderful way to describe their conflict. They are operating on different levels. Belle doesn't want "this provincial life" and Gaston doesn't want "adventure in the great wide somewhere". They "would never make each other happy", so she has no reason to accept his romantic overtures. But he disregards her requests. His lines in "Belle" inform the audience how Gaston thinks he is entitled to Belle.

Chris Valentine, Edward Davies, you're both still edit-warring, and neither of you have officially reached a consensus.

The Nerf Guy, I'd be happy to discuss a consensus, but given how many potshots Edward Davies has taken, and how he's even taken them in the individual tropes, I'd like to see some consideration of a consensus from him, as well. From the edits he's made, I get the impression that he is uninterested in any consensus that does not establish his view as the correct view and disagreeing views as wrong. I'm trying to stay away from changing anything while this is going on, but I could not rise above removing said potshots.

crazysamaritan, well, we don't know Gaston's opinion on adventure (which is not antithetical to a simple life, after all), since Belle never gives him a chance to voice his opinion on it. Belle tells him flat out that 'no one can change that much' (which goes entirely against the theme of the movie, but never mind that). And it is that unwillingness to even give him a chance, on both her part and Maurice's part, that causes me to interpret their treatment of him as Designated Villain. I'd be open to discussing changing the trope to Designated Monkey.

Stop right there; there is NO reason that she must be willing to give him a chance. She is under ZERO obligation to give anyone the chance to woo her. If she wants to live as a spinster, it is completely her prerogative. That has nothing to do with Gaston, it's about respecting her rights.

No. Excuse me, but my exact words were: "Belle never gives him a chance to voice his opinion on it." I did not say she has any obligation to give him a chance to woo her or that it is not her prerogative to live life as a spinster. Hell, I didn't even say that she has any obligation to give Gaston a chance to voice his opinion on anything. I said WE, the audience, don't know Gaston's opinion on the subject of adventure because Belle doesn't give him the chance. Thats not a judgement, its a simple matter of cause and effect: she does not want to engage him in conversation, therefore, we learn less about him than we might otherwise (because live action Gaston is not nearly as willing to talk over Belle as his animated counterpart is... which proves the point I've been trying to make this whole time).

Just because she as a person has every right to dismiss him the way she does does not mean that it flows naturally from the script, which the the entire point of the Designated Villain or Designated Monkey tropes.

And, finally, the white elephant in the room: She gives the Beast a chance. The guy who imprisons her for his own selfish reasons.

Your exact words were "it is that unwillingness to even give him a chance, on both her part and Maurice's part," — there is NO reason that she must be willing to give him a chance. She isn't treating anyone like a bad guy just by refusing a date.

"She gives the Beast a chance. The guy who imprisons her for his own selfish reasons." — That's no elephant; that's the Stockholm Syndrome. Her willingness to give him a chance is one of the biggest criticisms of the story.

Crazysamaritan, I get the impression that I'm not explaining myself as clearly as I want to be. I'm simply regarding Belle from a narrative standpoint, not disputing that a person has the freedom of association with whomever they may wish or not wish to associate.

Perhaps contrasting her two interactions with Gaston in the opening of the movie would demonstrate the point I'm trying to get across here. When he offers her flowers and asks to have dinner with her, she simply refuses him, which does not contrast with the narrative. When he approaches her again, and she rejects him again, it is her reaction afterward (the musical number, Belle reprised) that does not seem to flow from the narrative (though, again, her rejection itself sounds perfectly normal and fits very well with the tone set so far between the two characters). Her voice is dripping with venom and her lines have not been changed from the animated version. In that version, she says "'Madame Gaston!' His 'little wife' No sir! Not me!" which is a response to his line "My little wife, massaging my feet." Here, he's never said anything like that, so the line, and the attitude simply feels out of place. In the animated version, she sounds (to my ears) to be more exasperated with him than disgusted. If you swapped them around (animated Belle being disgusted and the new Belle being exasperated), I think it would fit the narrative better.

To the general point of Gaston's characterization, I've found reviewers for various publications that seem to agree with the perspective I've been trying to offer: http://www.thisisinsider.com/beauty-and-the-beast-live-action-movie-vs-animated-2017-3

http://observer.com/2017/03/beauty-and-the-beast-changes-dan-stevens-emma-watson/

The piece from Observer, I think, aligns most closely with my perspective and covers almost all the points I've been trying to make (I thought of quoting choice bits, but I can't bear to cut out any of the bits from the Gaston section):

- Gaston starts off feeling like a lead from a Rom-Com, not an overbearing brute.

- Belle insisting Gaston can't change undercuts the theme of the movie, even though she has every right to do so.

- Belle and Maurice are antagonistic to Gaston before he's done anything antagonistic to them.

- The movie overcompensates for the earlier 'normalization' of his character by adding the 'leave Maurice to die in the woods' scene.

If anyone has any particular suggestions for best tropes to use to describe this overall characterization, I am absolutely all ears.

You missed part of what the Observer said, "Gaston asked, Belle said no, he should respect that." — her distaste doesn't become apparent until she has to do it a second time. At that point, a pattern of harassment has been established. The article writer was more annoyed at Gaston becoming evil than the way Belle treated him, claiming that his Moral Event Horizon was an Face–Heel Turn moment compared to his initial characterization. She points out that LeFou was surprised by this act.

As I was about to edit this very section myself, I'm glad to have checked the discussion threads so as not to contribute to a potential edit war. Nevertheless, I cannot see how Designated Villain applies to Gaston. While his initial actions come across boorish, he still displays narcissist tendencies and pursues Belle to the point of harassment despite repeatedly being rejected. The second paragraph of this particular tropes reads as follows:

"The result is a character who is treated as a bad guy by the principal characters, despite never actually doing anything as to justify that amount of hate."

Belle's disgust derives from Gatson's relentless pursuit and Maurice only turns hostile when he physically assults him (grabbing him by the coat). Both are entirely justifible responses. Likewise, the narrative doesn't attempt to treat him as a "bad guy" per the description; his own actions and personality articulate the perception.

I feel all of this qualifies for a Draco and perhaps Alternate Character Interpretation but not a Designated Villain.

Thank you for checking first. There's also discussion going on in a Trope Talk thread; Is this an example?

crazysamaritan, I didn't miss that. I just read it differently than you did. I don't see him calling on her twice as harassing (her vegetable garden might disagree with me), nor do I consider two instances enough for a pattern.