Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** That's fair enough, but it's still annoying for people to act like there are no issues just because the relationship doesn't reach the level of Stockholm Syndrome. Even if the people complaining are conflating two different things, there's still something worth complaining about, however small.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Wasn't there a storm going on at the time she appeared? And she only proceeded a few steps into the ballroom, where all the people were gathered at the time, before asking to be given shelter for the night. It wasn't like she helped herself to a room there and cursed Adam for not going along with it. Do you not think it'd be cruel to turn someone away when they had nowhere else to go for the night, even by today's standards?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Were we watching the same video? Among the things mentioned were:
*** "Captor dictates what the captive can or cannot do". Beast ''tries'', but Belle's reaction is pretty much "Eh, who cares".
*** "Captive is under threat of death or physical injury". More in this film than the animated one, I suppose, but she still manages to just leave the one time Beast really did threaten her.
*** "Inability to engage in behaviors that might assist their release." Bell is literally shown making a rope to run off, and the huge doggy door isn't secured at all. Beast tells her to eat dinner with him once, and other than that, it doesn't seem like Belle would be unable to stay away from him inside his castle.
*** "Small kindness/absence of abuse causes positive feelings". Okay, this one is true in a way, but not quite. Stockholm Syndrome isn't normally used for the captor genuinely trying to be nicer, it's used for genuinely ''tiny'' things surrounded by more abuse. Say, cutting you with a knife and then bandaging the cut, or beating you and then hugging you when you cry. The kindnesses are far, far smaller than the abuse in those cases, captives just tend to cling to what they can get.
*** "The captive is trying to make sure their captor doesn't get angry". Yeah, Belle's not trying that at all.
*** "Negative feelings towards family etc". Again, simple no. Belle isn't exactly happy with the townsfolk trying to get her committed into an asylum and killing Beast, but it's not exactly her being angry they'd try getting her out of the castle.
** Now, "unhealthy" might be true, but that's not the same as "Oh she has Stockholm Syndrome". And, honestly, in the end the relationship seems... Mostly okay-ish. Beast is trying to be a good person and there's no real power difference between them.
*** "Captor dictates what the captive can or cannot do". Beast ''tries'', but Belle's reaction is pretty much "Eh, who cares".
*** "Captive is under threat of death or physical injury". More in this film than the animated one, I suppose, but she still manages to just leave the one time Beast really did threaten her.
*** "Inability to engage in behaviors that might assist their release." Bell is literally shown making a rope to run off, and the huge doggy door isn't secured at all. Beast tells her to eat dinner with him once, and other than that, it doesn't seem like Belle would be unable to stay away from him inside his castle.
*** "Small kindness/absence of abuse causes positive feelings". Okay, this one is true in a way, but not quite. Stockholm Syndrome isn't normally used for the captor genuinely trying to be nicer, it's used for genuinely ''tiny'' things surrounded by more abuse. Say, cutting you with a knife and then bandaging the cut, or beating you and then hugging you when you cry. The kindnesses are far, far smaller than the abuse in those cases, captives just tend to cling to what they can get.
*** "The captive is trying to make sure their captor doesn't get angry". Yeah, Belle's not trying that at all.
*** "Negative feelings towards family etc". Again, simple no. Belle isn't exactly happy with the townsfolk trying to get her committed into an asylum and killing Beast, but it's not exactly her being angry they'd try getting her out of the castle.
** Now, "unhealthy" might be true, but that's not the same as "Oh she has Stockholm Syndrome". And, honestly, in the end the relationship seems... Mostly okay-ish. Beast is trying to be a good person and there's no real power difference between them.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Right, I watched that video before hoping it would provide an answer. Unless I'm misinterpreting it, though, all it seems to say is that the film isn't a case of Stockholm Syndrome because Belle doesn't take a liking to the Beast until he starts being nicer to her, which still doesn't sound logical. Just because hostages are treated kindly by their captors doesn't change the fact that they're still being held prisoner, and it also doesn't seem like it would render a relationship between them as being any less unhealthy.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** This [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syYCO0QVkZo video]] explains it nicely.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
**And then, it could be just a simple plot hole caused by lazy (re)writing.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** I don't mean to start an argument, I'm just asking...How is it not an example of Stockholm Syndrome? Adam claims Belle is his prisoner. She not only gains sympathy for him, but goes back with him to the castle when she could easily escape, and even ends up falling in love with him. When he let's her go, he specifically tells her "You are no longer my prisoner," implying that after everything they'd gone through, she still was his prisoner up to that point. All of this points directly to the definition of Stockholm Syndrome.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
I'm pretty sure there's no indication that he was attacked. Feel free to correct me or remove this entry if I'm wrong.
Added DiffLines:
[[folder:Where were the wolves?]]
Ok, so Maurice is [[spoiler:tied to a tree by Gaston, intending for the wolves in the forest to devour Maurice in the night]]. But the next time we see him, it's morning, and there's no evidence that he was actually attacked, when [[spoiler:Agathe]] comes to save him. So, what happened that night? Is this something that can all be chalked up to [[AWizardDidIt the Enchantress' spell]]?
[[/folder]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 114 (click to see context) from:
This is probably a very petty thing to ask about, but this movie's version of "Gaston" has a new line that's a little strange. When Gaston sings about how he kills animals by shooting them from behind, [=LeFou=] asks "Is that fair?" Aside from song purposes, why did he say that? It doesn't seem likely that he ''wouldn't'' have known how Gaston kills animals, considering how they spend so much time together. Was he just trying to act as a conscience for Gaston, trying to make him question what he does?
to:
* This is probably a very petty thing to ask about, but this movie's version of "Gaston" has a new line that's a little strange. When Gaston sings about how he kills animals by shooting them from behind, [=LeFou=] asks "Is that fair?" Aside from song purposes, why did he say that? It doesn't seem likely that he ''wouldn't'' have known how Gaston kills animals, considering how they spend so much time together. Was he just trying to act as a conscience for Gaston, trying to make him question what he does?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Agreed. They still considered Gaston their hero, and Maurice was just... that weird guy with the weird daughter. The townspeople are depicted as being rather narrow-minded, so it's more likely that they would listen to Gaston calling them to action against the Beast before they ever stopped to consider what Maurice told them.
Added DiffLines:
[[folder:[=LeFou=], on Gaston's hunting methods]]
This is probably a very petty thing to ask about, but this movie's version of "Gaston" has a new line that's a little strange. When Gaston sings about how he kills animals by shooting them from behind, [=LeFou=] asks "Is that fair?" Aside from song purposes, why did he say that? It doesn't seem likely that he ''wouldn't'' have known how Gaston kills animals, considering how they spend so much time together. Was he just trying to act as a conscience for Gaston, trying to make him question what he does?
[[/folder]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 109 (click to see context) from:
** First can we drop the whole Stockholm Syndrome thing? The guy who invented the term has stated that Disney's Beauty And The Beast isn't an example of Stockholm Syndrome so I think we can put that to bed. As to the actual question after the Beast saves her she starts to like him and is less inclined to try a frankly rather desperate escape through hungry-wolf-infested woods.
to:
** First can we drop the whole Stockholm Syndrome thing? The guy who invented the term has stated that at least Disney's version of Beauty And The Beast isn't an example of Stockholm Syndrome so I think we can put that to bed. As to the actual question after the Beast saves her she starts to like him and is less inclined to try a frankly rather desperate escape through hungry-wolf-infested woods.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** First can we drop the whole Stockholm Syndrome thing? The guy who invented the term has stated that Disney's Beauty And The Beast isn't an example of Stockholm Syndrome so I think we can put that to bed. As to the actual question after the Beast saves her she starts to like him and is less inclined to try a frankly rather desperate escape through hungry-wolf-infested woods.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 80 (click to see context) from:
** This is rather assuming that the Enchantress is meant to be a total moral authority. She played a trick on the prince, he failed, she made a curse. Nothing in that makes her ''good,'' just judgemental. For her cursing the prince is worth the collateral. This is part of why I think she's one of TheFairFolk.
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** The answer is probably the same one to the question "why is a French prince living far away from anywhere the French royal family live?" The answer is that it isn't 1700s France, it's a fairytale version of 1700s France.
Added DiffLines:
** This is rather assuming that the Enchantress is meant to be a total moral authority. She played a trick on the prince, he failed, she made a curse. Nothing in that makes her ''good,'' just judgemental. For her cursing the prince is worth the collateral. This is part of why I think she's one of TheFairFolk.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Nobody ever said the Enchantress was being entirely fair. She cursed the castle and everyone in it, including Chip. His father wasn't there because he's not a servant at the castle, he's a potter in the village. Hence, no curse on him. The area of effect was "the castle" not "people I blame."
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** For the same reason the innocent child was cursed: the Enchantress' curse is rather arbitrary. She decides the rules and no-one ever said she was entirely fair.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* The criteria was that the Beast must love and be loved in return. It never said anyone has to announce that fact. Belle doesn't have to ''say'' she loves him to break the curse, she just has to love him.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 103 (click to see context) from:
* Belle makes plans to escape the castle almost from the moment she makes the deal with the Beast to take her father's place and makes good on the attempt at least twice (once after her meeting the Wardrobe and the second time after the Beast catches her in the West Wing). However, after the Beast saves her...she doesn't try to escape, even though she reminds the Beast after their big dance that she's still his captive. Why is she still there? In the original film it made sense as the only thing keeping Belle there is IGaveMyWord, something she was prepared to break when the Beast threatened her in the West Wing and was prepared to keep it after he saved her from the wolves. Here, it seemed they were trying to break the whole Stockholm Syndrome that the first film has been accused of...only to forget about it and unintentionally start it).
to:
* Belle makes plans to escape the castle almost from the moment she makes the deal with the Beast to take her father's place and makes good on the attempt at least twice (once after her meeting the Wardrobe and the second time after the Beast catches her in the West Wing). However, after the Beast saves her...she doesn't try to escape, even though she reminds the Beast after their big dance that she's still his captive. Why is she still there? there even though she could conceivably leave? In the original film it made sense as the only thing keeping Belle there is IGaveMyWord, something she was prepared to break when the Beast threatened her in the West Wing and was prepared to keep it after he saved her from the wolves. Here, it seemed they were trying to break the whole Stockholm Syndrome that the first film has been accused of...only to forget about it and unintentionally start it).have it in the story).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
[[folder: Belle's lack of escape attempts]]
* Belle makes plans to escape the castle almost from the moment she makes the deal with the Beast to take her father's place and makes good on the attempt at least twice (once after her meeting the Wardrobe and the second time after the Beast catches her in the West Wing). However, after the Beast saves her...she doesn't try to escape, even though she reminds the Beast after their big dance that she's still his captive. Why is she still there? In the original film it made sense as the only thing keeping Belle there is IGaveMyWord, something she was prepared to break when the Beast threatened her in the West Wing and was prepared to keep it after he saved her from the wolves. Here, it seemed they were trying to break the whole Stockholm Syndrome that the first film has been accused of...only to forget about it and unintentionally start it).
[[/folder]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** “Now I know she’ll never leave me” is an ironic line; he doesn’t literally mean he believes she will come back, he means that her memory , her place in his thoughts, will never leave him. He’s going to be haunted by the thought of what could have been. “I’ll fool myself,” is bitter and sarcastic, he’s not actually sincerely trying to fool himself, he’s acknowledging that he’d have to fool himself to believe she’d come back, but he can’t, he’s too aware of the loss.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** The Beast turning out to be real has little to do with whether Gaston left him to die in the wilderness, since Maurice was still in a panic to try and save her. And anyway, they were probably too focused on killing the Beast to think about that.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* What was the whole point of her entrance to begin with? In the original, she more or less knocks on the door and asks for shelter for the night. Here, she just straight up breaks in and asks for shelter. Was it to give the Prince a more sympathetic reason to kick her out besides pettiness? If anything, it looks like she's setting them up to fail her big test. [[SarcasmMode Sure, you just broke into my house and demanded shelter instead of asking for it like a reasonable person. Let me give you a place to stay]].
Added DiffLines:
[[folder: The Town Following Gaston]]
* Shortly after Gaston returns with the asylum folks, he is confronted by Jean about leaving Maurice to die in the woods. Gaston is able to weasel his way out of that by restating Maurice's crazed stories about the Beast in a castle surrounded by eternal winter and just as he's about to send Maurice away, Belle shows up, wearing a fancy ballgown and carrying a mirror that shows the Beast in question. Instead of asking Gaston to explain himself (because if it turns out someone is telling the truth about something this crazy, it might stand to reason that everything else he's said is true), they suddenly decide to side with him and go find the Beast.
[[/folder]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** With regards to the servants, yes there ''is'' more they could have done. They couldn't defy the Prince's father of course. But that doesn't mean they couldn't have comforted the Prince themselves or at least tried to make sure he was raised with some good morals. If you've ever suffered from abuse or bullying, sometimes people who simply are there for you and help you through it can make a lot of difference. It seems that the servants just stood back, let the abuse happen and the poor boy suffered on his own.
Added DiffLines:
** Maurice also seems to make a lot of artwork and inventions based off their home in Paris. So Belle might 'create' memories herself based off her father's artwork.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 90 (click to see context) from:
** More or less he is trying to fool himself. Since he is sure she isn't returning to him and the curse's time limit is looming over the castle, it gives him comfort. He has been miserable and downhearted for so long; and Belle gave him hope for the first time. It is all he has left to cling to since his servants will be forever inanimate. He will be truly alone "till the end of his days". So while he is "Wasting in my lonely tower", he'll imagine she comes back to him. It gives him something to look forward to "As the long,long nights begin, I'll think of all that might have been, waiting here for evermore."
to:
** More or less he is trying to fool himself. Since he is sure she isn't returning to him and the curse's time limit is looming over the castle, it gives him comfort. He has been miserable and downhearted for so long; and Belle gave him hope for the first time. It Combined with the fact that by letting her go, he is sacrificing any chance in his own mind for freedom. That hope and his love for her is all he has left to cling to since his servants will be forever inanimate. He will be truly be alone "till the end of his days". So while he is "Wasting in my lonely tower", he'll imagine she comes back to him. It gives him something to look forward to "As the long,long long, long nights begin, I'll think of all that might have been, waiting here for evermore." Despite this, he is sure she will never return to him.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 90 (click to see context) from:
** More or less he is trying to fool himself. Since he is sure she isn't returning to him and the curse's end is looming over the castle, it gives him comfort. He has been so dark and miserable for so long and Belle gave him hope. It is all he has left to cling to since his servants will be forever inanimate. He will be truly alone "till the end of his days". So while he is wasting in his lonely tower, as the song put it, he'll imagine she comes back to him. It gives him something to look forward to as he wastes away.
to:
** More or less he is trying to fool himself. Since he is sure she isn't returning to him and the curse's end time limit is looming over the castle, it gives him comfort. He has been so dark and miserable and downhearted for so long long; and Belle gave him hope.hope for the first time. It is all he has left to cling to since his servants will be forever inanimate. He will be truly alone "till the end of his days". So while he is wasting "Wasting in his my lonely tower, as the song put it, tower", he'll imagine she comes back to him. It gives him something to look forward to as he wastes away."As the long,long nights begin, I'll think of all that might have been, waiting here for evermore."
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Further explanation
Added DiffLines:
** More or less he is trying to fool himself. Since he is sure she isn't returning to him and the curse's end is looming over the castle, it gives him comfort. He has been so dark and miserable for so long and Belle gave him hope. It is all he has left to cling to since his servants will be forever inanimate. He will be truly alone "till the end of his days". So while he is wasting in his lonely tower, as the song put it, he'll imagine she comes back to him. It gives him something to look forward to as he wastes away.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Then why does he sing lines like "Now I know she'll never leave me" and "I'll fool myself; she'll walk right in," if he doesn't expect her to return?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** He doesn't think she's going to come back. He's been keeping her against her will and despite them forming a quasi-friendship he doesn't think she returns his feelings for her. In his eyes Belle has no reason to return.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
[[folder: Evermore]]
* It was a very nice song to listen to - probably my favorite in the entire movie - but do the lyrics to "Evermore" make all that much sense? The context in which Adam is singing it is that of him letting Belle leave his castle to help her father, at the cost of ever seeing her again, and being trapped as a beast for the rest of his life. Most of the song reflects this feeling by having him lament her leaving and that she's touched him in a way no one else ever has; however, he also sings at a few points, "I'll fool myself; she'll walk right in," suggesting that he thinks there's a chance she ''will'' come back. So...how much does he actually think he's giving up by letting her leave? Did he expect her to come back, or not?
[[/folder]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 36 (click to see context) from:
[[folder:Why were Candenza and Mme Garderobe cursed?]]
to:
[[folder:Why were Candenza Cadenza and Mme Garderobe cursed?]]
Added DiffLines:
** Or maybe it was ''because'' they were visiting that the Enchantress got particularly angry at them. The servants couldn't have spoken up for the Enchantress in beggar form because they ran the risk of losing their jobs, but Cadenza and Madame Garderobe were stars in their own right; heck, they were the ''only'' ones providing music for the party, and either/both of them could have said "Let the old woman in, or we'll leave." The worse that could happen is that a small-time prince might not pay them, and they clearly aren't wanting for money or fame. So they had the most leeway in terms of speaking up for the beggar woman, and they chose to stay silent--so they got hit with the curse too.
