I'd rather be a fire-breathing candelabra.

What if the Beast had fallen in love with Mrs. Potts?

Was Mrs. Potts a widow?

If not, then where was her husband? Was he so unimportant a character that they never showed him?

Was her husband away from the castle when this happened?

Did he come home at all during that time? How did he feel to discover his beloved wife was a teapot?

You know… I don’t think Disney intended these types of questions to be asked when they made the movie. Then again, that was then and this is now. I can’t be sure but maybe widowed mother’s raising a child on their own weren’t a hot topic back then?

What exactly did that enchantress do to make household objects so pliable as to be able to wave their "arms" and talk?

She cast a magic spell. Duh.

^

CANNOT UNSEE

Agreed, TMiB.

'twas one of the awesome Disney movies...and I don't know whether it's bragging or confessing, but I've watched it much more recently than 5 years old.

-Jordboy1

*gasp!* Despite your marvelous skills of observation, Turakii, you didn't catch the most important question of all!

If the prince, who is obviously an adult in the stained glass intro, only had until his 21st year to break the spell, how on earth did the village where Belle's from forget they had a PRINCE in a huge CASTLE within a half days ride from their home? That's what, 3 or 4 years since the curse and they've forgotten who their ruling monarch is and where he lives? Talk about short-term memories...

At least, that's the question that always bugs me when I watch this movie... (But BatB is still my favorite Disney. ^.^)

This is how I watch movies.

My theroy about all musicals is that they take place in a alternate world were humans developed this gland that secreted this thing (much like adrenaline) that caused them when they or anyone in there vincinity had strong emotions to sing, in perfect tone, harmony and everything.

At least that's my theroy.

^

 

CANNOT UNSEE

Agreed, TMiB.

ohmygoodness

i too cannot unsee

The most interesting point was the bit about how annunciation of certain consonants would be difficult with a different jaw, lip, and tooth structure. The science-fiction series Animorphs always changed my perspective in this aspect, since it payed such fine attention to this aspect of realism. I believe it even highlighted that an ape, as similar to a human as it is, would have difficulty pronouncing some of our consonants. Taking this into consideration, I have always been questioning whenever I create a new species in my science fiction universe of The Journal, because sometimes I have to wonder what their speech patterns would instead sound like.

The other two points that I always, always noticed from the first time I ever watched it was that yes, everything was cooler when the castle was enchanted. The Beast was cooler, the castle was, and the staff was.

Now it just occurred to me, the Beast never introduced himself by name.

As for Jithra's point, I always wondered that one too. My assumption was that he was actually nobility, and not a genuine prince. Either that or Belle's town was France's border and this was a small, fictional country next door of the likes of Andorra, except perhaps even smaller. I was never led to believe that his authority extended to the people of Belle's town.

This is, by the way, the method in which I have always watched movies. There has always been that bit which critiques realism and stylistic elements of the story. I notice the small things. It always baffles me when people say "Dude, it's a movie! You're not supposed to think of that stuff." This argument is used particularly in science fiction films, when there are scientific flaws that just stick out like soar thumbs. Some people will notice them and it kind of takes away from the film. In my case, I'm thinking of Avatar particularly. I'm sorry, but when I see a science-fiction film, it's just my nature to notice every single detail and think them over later. People should be willing to acknowledge that such people, let us call them "nerds", do form a population, and while it may be a minority, it is a little disrespectful to regard such a mentality as being irrelevant, insignificant, or "against the purpose of watching films".

Your Honor,

Emperor Kraggh

This argument is used particularly in science fiction films, when there are scientific flaws that just stick out like sore thumbs. Some people will notice them and it kind of takes away from the film. In my case, I'm thinking of Avatar particularly.

Avatar certainly had some. XD A friend of mine pointed out a few. For example, why is it they can't breathe the planet's atmosphere, and yet can fly in an open helicopter without breathing devices?

Also, if they know that animals are going to attack them, why do they bring such horribly useless guns?

Anyways, I totally agree with you. Sometimes I wonder if script writers should hire people to not only make sure their story follows the rules of physics, but also lines up with rules or statements they themselves made previously.

Turakii

THE BEAST REGENERATES.

But he was waaay cuter as a beast. =(

XD

Also, is it just me, or is the narrator in the first scene really creepy?

~

The original story (supposedly) said that the servants had been turned into animals who wore clothes and walked around on two legs, but I guess Disney was trying to dodge the wrath of furry loathers for once? Now there's a whole new cult of ... people who love talking household objects (is there a name for that?), and those who still glare at their wardrobes whenever they hear an odd noise.

^

Nerds.

THE BEAST REGENERATES.

=O It's a time lord? =O Mind=blown.

=P