The teaser makes it look like the Beast was a kid when he got "beasted". If that's so, then they've been enspelled for about 13 years or so...
Given that assumption, Where the **** did Chip come from?

Maybe the Beast aged utill his 21st birthday (the narrator tells us this) but everyone else's aging process just froze.

Yeah.... that's it. :I

I can predict Phil's reaction to this theory: "Hmmm."

I always thought the enchantress was excessively vindictive, punishing an eleven-year-old boy by transforming him "into a hideous beast" (talk about teen angst!)

Well, nobody said enchantresses were nice. And if the Beast's later behavior is anything like how he treated her you can understand her being a little bit ticked off....sticking folks in towers etc...

And as for Chip, I'd say that certain types of logic may not be strictly necessary for kids' films. ;-)

BTW, this is my own favorite of the recent Disneys.

And aren't the Beast's servants just so nice. If I spent the last ten years of my life as an armoire I'd be a tad miffed, wouldn't you?

Personal rankings (LittleMermaid on)

1. Beauty&Beast
2. Lion King
3. Little Mermaid
4. Mulan
5. Aladdin
6. Hercules
7. Hunchback of Notre Dame
8. Pocahontas

Questions, comments, are welcome. Flames to /dev/null

How exactly does Lumiere manage to spontaneously ignite his candles? And why hasn't he melted after ten years in his present state?

He didn't melt because it's the magic. And the prince was Eleven when the enchantress came. If you pay atttention the narrator say the rose will bloom until he's twenty-one, and Lumiere, during the song "be our Guest" says that they have been waiting ten years.

I also wonder, if the beast was a prince, who were his subjects. Surely it's not the town, but they do know where his castle is for some reason.

Oh wait sorry my bad. I thought someone said the prince was twelve when the enchantress came. Sorry.

My biggest nit with this story is that they changed the basic plot of the fairytale. In the original story, the rose was brought to Beauty by her father. (We won't even mention that this story loses her two sisters.) In retaliation for the illegal plucking of the rose, the Beast incarcerates the father. When Beauty takes her father's place, the Beast basically ignores her. Over time, she learns to respect and even like him, despite his appearance.
Why is this important? Because it changes the entire complexion of their love. The Beast doesn't try to "force" her love; the love comes naturally, from mutual respect and from learning about each other. The Disney version seems to make their love less "real": he doesn't really love Beauty, he just wants out of the spell.
This spoils the whole movie for me.

You know when belle's father is lost out in the woods, one of the faded signs seem to look like it has the name Anehiem on it. A nod to Disneyland.

I hated the attack by wolves. I'm really tired of people making wolves out to be bad guys. Anyone who has studied wolves at all knows that they are among the gentlest of predators.

"I beg your pardon, Ma'am, but may I bite you ?"
The Wolf, Esq.

this has bothered me from the first time I watched the film. The wolves attack daddy in the forest. He is unseated. The horse gallops away in great fear. Daddy trudges on by foot and finally chances on the Beast's castle. The horse returns to Belle. Belle says, "take me to my father", AND THE HORSE GOES STRAIGHT TO THE BEAST's CASTLE. How? the horse isn't magic, unlike the castle personnel. I don't buy him picking up the scent like a dog. Within the confines of cartoon logic, he was a "normal" horse and has to behave as such.

American wolves can take down a carrabou or deer. In Europe they attack villiges and eat humans. One Wolf in France, the Beast of Gevuder, killed 70 people over 30 years, and was the size of a donkey. Wolves also hadn't been shot at for 400 years back then.

Tuaz - let's face it. Whether or not wolves actually do attack people (never documented in North America in the wild, of course), they are part of the Fairy Tale mythos. Big bad wolves are a staple; they're part of our unconscious, and will continue to be. Where's Jung on this?

Actually, my point was that the horse should not have been able to take Belle to where daddy was, because it would not have had any idea where daddy was. I have no real problem with the movie making wolves big and bad.

Are you Disneyphile from Disney EverNotice?

Are you talking to me? If so, the answer is no. What is Disney EverNotice?

Your also forgetting that the horse can somehow understand English perfectly.

Which is really impressive, because he's a French horse!

The horse must have gone to the same school as Jean-Luc Picard!

The horse has a name, you know! Okay, so I can't, at this moment, remember what it is -- Phillippe, maybe? --but is it really necessary to keep referring to him only by his species? Horses have feelings too.

And I think Phillippe -- if that is, in fact, his name -- was proably ensorceled or something, and that's how he was able to understand English. In fact, that's how they were *all* able to understand, and speak, English. That pesky sorceress decided to punish the country at large for their spoiled rotten princely brat's behaviour, and so she took away their beautiful language and replaced it with our complex, bizarre and occasionally ugly one. Man, what a bitca.

On the wolf issue, I think they were the attacking kind because Gaston lived nearby. They were so freaked by his frequent attempts at killing them all that they turned on humanity, as one. You can't really blame them. If my only contact with man had been Gaston, I would probably have turned as well! What was the story with all of those women in that village? How dopey do you have to be to fall for that guy? Ick.

The Beast v Gaston grudgematch was really well animated, I thought...and was in no way used as a template for the Simba v Scar deathmatch in "The Lion King". No. Not at all.

Now, following DisneyFile's lead, here are my top Disney films (post-Mermaid):

1. The Little Mermaid
2. Mulan
3. The Lion King
4. Pocahontas
5. Aladdin
6. Beauty and the Beast
7. The Hunchback of Notre Dame
8. Hercules

Have yet to see "Tarzan". I never liked the movies or the TV show, I can't stand the books...so, I'm bound to love it.

Seeing as how I haven't seen a single one post-Lion King, I'm not sure how qualified to rank them, but here goes…

1. Aladdin
2. Mermaid
3. Lion King
4. Beauty and the Beast
5. Mulan (didn't see, but heard good things, which is more than I can say for the last few.)
6. Tarzan, ditto

BIG GAPING HOLE

1000000000. Pocahontas (Pocahontas was 12, people, and she didn't waste her time talking to a willow tree!)
1000000001. Hercules (the original myths were much better written, and a whole lot moe violent than this story. And why is gospel-style music being used in a film whose time period is far before Christianity?)
1000000002. Hunchback (this story is NOT for children. Can't they leave well enough alone?)

I Loved Hunchback. Probably for the Fact that it wasn't for kids. I saw much more depth in the characters, than in other Disney movies. And I saw the movie 6 times at the theatre. I'm Crazy, I know it. But to each his own way. I can understand why you didn't like is.

It's not the fact that it wasn't for kids, but the fact that they tried to make it be for kids. It's the same argument that I have with the North American dubs of a few animes, actually.

There's nothing wrong with seeing a Disney film that many times! (Actually, considering it was Hunchback, there probably is). I've seen Tarzan four times now in the cinema.

Actually, just to prove to you how much I know the story, I can sit there and say most of the dialogue, and I sing ALL the songs! It's like a big sing a long, it's a good thing the music's so loud in the cinemas!

At least we don't refer to the horse as "species 5439" or something like that.

If the prince was beasted at age 11, then that begs the question of what was an 11 year old doing in charge. If I remember correctly the witch turned him into a beast as punishment for telling her to get lost cause she was user her magic to make her look ugly to see how he would react to her. But how many people would honestly have let her in? Being a prince and all for all he knew she was there to trick him and wanted to kill him. He was only 11 afterall. 11 in kind of young to be enlightened about "it's whats inside that counts".

What I don't get is why the witch also punishes the princes servents and such, they can't be held responsible for his actions.

I`m actually talking to Disneyphile, who posted earlier. I should have said "The same Disneyphile"

Disney EverNotice is a webpage at www.evernotice.com/
It`s like a Nitpicker`s and Trivia Spotter`s Guide for Disney films.

Chris-

As another Chris told me early on in the board:
"No one ever said enchantresses were nice."

Chris-- the question about why the servants are also punished is addressed in the musical version of "Beauty and the Beast."

They basically were part to blame for making the Prince be the "Spoiled Brat." I mean if he was the ruler, then those who run the castle do have a greater responsibility.

And who knows? Maybe the enchantress opted to take a chapter from Millicent's book. :P

The way animal Pychology works is that the more they are attacked, the more reclusive they become. It's because the strongest, quickest, and most secretive survive. If Gaston was hunting the wolves they would flee deeper into the forest. Wolves attack the weakest animals, they are not going to attack humans if they perceive them as strong.

I'm with Murray - these aren't real wolves, they're fairy-tale wolves, the kind that are forever harassing pigs and showing up at grandmas' doorsteps to cadge a snack.
In short, they're meant to represent the dark terror of the woods, not star in a National Geographic special.

I don't think the prince was supposed to have been 'beasted' at age eleven - the stained-glass panels in the intro clearly show at least a teenager. Given also that the dog/ottoman's still alive and frisky - and (as pointed out above) Chip's around at all...I'm thinking the enchantment did in fact slow up everyone's aging considerably.

The bit with Philippe the horse leading Belle to the castle bugs me a little too. On the other hand, we don't know that he led her all the way there. Philippe does know the rough direction Maurice took, but perhaps once they headed that way there was enough of a trail for Belle to follow herself.

One inexplicable problem I've always had is with the scenes in which Belle demonstrates super-strength. First she lifts the Beast onto Philippe all by herself (and presumably keeps the Beast from falling off all the way home, since there's nothing to tie him on with) despite being wet, cold and exhausted from her flight.
And later, at the climax of the fight scene, she grabs hold of the Beast's cloak and prevents him from falling off the parapet. I mean, this is a slight, non-athletic young woman we're discussing here. The adrenaline of the moment can only explain so much.

PS to argument #2 - the pre-Beast portrait we see of the prince also clearly shows him to be in at least his early (and more probably late) teens.

Mei: The Disney version seems to make their love less "real": he doesn't really love Beauty, he just wants out of the spell.
This spoils the whole movie for me.

That's exactly why the Beast eventually lets her go after her father, knowing it means the end of his hopes to break the spell - but he has to, he says, 'because...I love her'. Sounds pretty convincing to me!

Meg: You know when belle's father is lost out in the woods, one of the faded signs seem to look like it has the name Anehiem on it. A nod to Disneyland.

Good eyes. Just been watching the Special Edition with commentary track, and the directors confirm that besides Anaheim there's one sign that reads Burbank, and several other in-joke places I can't recall at the moment.

Also in the commentary track, they point out a couple nits in the animation - the bats that rush out to attack Maurice and then just sorta disappear, Gaston's magical moving bearskin rug/chair in the tavern sequence - and one major plot problem they never quite solved: the amount of time that Belle spends as Beast's prisoner.
From the castle POV, 'months' seem to pass; but that means that poor LeFou has been standing guard by their house for all that time...and what of poor, poor Maurice, lost and sick in the woods? (Also, it's a little inexplicable to me that Belle wouldn't have mentioned her dad once in all that time.)

I did notice the time frame this time. The movie definitely seemed to take place over a matter of days.

I've heard some believe that Lumiere's "ten years" comment may just be an exaggeration.

One cute thing I did notice last time I watched: after "Be Our Guest", Cogsworth is trying to get everyone to bed and says "look at the time". When he says that, he points at his own face.

Now, this is a bit of a stretch in no way justified by the animation or narration, but... what if the narrator means it will bloom until his 21st year (as a beast)?

NANJAO -- something that just struck me recently.

If you listen to the opening song ("Belle"),

---

quote:

Oh, isn't this amazing?
It's my favourite part because you'll see
Here's where she meets Prince Charming
But she won't discover that it's him 'til chapter three

---