[ SECRET POST #4274 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4274 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 33 secrets from Secret Submission Post #612.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 2 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

06. https://i.imgur.com/HNQm5fo.png

[(Anonymous)]

You're acting like Disney didn't already hire Woolverton for the original because they wanted a feminist writer after feminists complained about the Little Mermaid.

[(Anonymous)]

What?

[(Anonymous)]

http://cartoonresearch.com/index.php/in-her-own-words-linda-woolverton/

[(Anonymous)]

But how does this relate to the secret?

[(Anonymous)]

What was bad about the movie? I mean, besides the CGI Beast face. Prosthesis would have been so much better.

[anarchicq]

Here, watch Lindsay Ellis' 35 minute take down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpUx9DnQUkA

[(Anonymous)]

Okay I tried, but five minutes in she's still bitching about how dare Disney want to make money.

[anarchicq]

Ok, so basically the feminist stuff is ill fitting, like, there were many female writers so women reading wasn't a thing.

The Beast never rises up to Belle's level, he was always just there. He's also a literary snob, so they don't bond over that, he just poopoo's her taste in books, then goes "Fuck it, here's better books in my library." instead of "I want to something nice for her, here's a gift"

The servants feel guilty that they didn't raise that boy right and so they deserve to be punished, too.

There's a magical book that takes them to anywhere IN SPACE OR TIME!

[(Anonymous)]

you know, i checked the video out because that didn't sound right and it's not. it's just factually incorrect.

so i kind of suspect you've got some form of bias?

[(Anonymous)]

Auto-tuned Emma Watson, Belle's ballgown, first Disney-acknowledged gay character gets maybe one second of dancing with his love interest, Dan Stevens and Emma Watson don't have chemistry, etc.

[(Anonymous)]

I'll agree on the dress and her singing. I don't think she's a TERRIBLE singer (certainly better than me, but that's a super low bar, lol) but because the ensemble cast was SO MUCH better than her, her lack of talent in that respect stood out to me even more.

I can't do more than shrug at the dancing thing because he's hardly a main character. They only showed other characters dancing together for a brief moment too.

[(Anonymous)]

The point about the dancing thing isn’t just that he didn’t get much time, it’s that Disney leaned heavy on it in the marketing beforehand when it was such a brief, missable moment in the movie. It’s the kind of bait-and-switch inclusion you get _all the time_ when it comes to LGBT representation; it’s a way for studios to have their cake and eat it too, by marketing incredibly minor moments like that to the LGBT community while simultaneously not needing to worry as much about it turning off more regressive people through the work itself, since there’s a good chance it won’t even register to them. It’s basically faux inclusion, like a half-step above queerbaiting.

If it hadn’t had such a marketing push, it probably wouldn’t have been an issue. The issue is that Disney all but bragged about a moment that’s barely even noticeable.

[(Anonymous)]

Boring, inconsistent characterization, bad effects overall, too long, weak plot, bad singing. Gaston’s actor was pretty good though.

[(Anonymous)]

I love Luke Evans. If you don't mind horror films, watch No One Lives. It's so dark and he's just amazing.

[(Anonymous)]

MTE

[(Anonymous)]

As the core of the beauty and the beast story is a Stockholm syndrome variant of arranged marriage, so any take will carry this shit morals and there's no fixing it. Dressing the pig up is only adding to the stink.

[greghousesgf]

also, there the whole nonsense about looks still being very important if you're female....

[(Anonymous)]

lol

[(Anonymous)]

Well if you hate Beauty and the Beast for that reason, you probably shouldn’t bother critiquing any adaptations of it.

[osidiano]

Is it still a Stockholm variant if you volunteer? Serious question, because I see people saying this all the time and it completely ignores Belle's agency and choices (especially in the animated version). Like, Belle tricks Beast into letting her into her father's cell, ostensibly to say goodbye, and then shoved her dad out and is all "If you have to keep a prisoner for trespassing, then keep me and not my sick father who is totally going to die of pneumonia in here if he doesn't get back to town ASAP." And Beast agrees, but like.. the front door isn't locked. Belle could literally leave ANYTIME SHE WANTED, but doesn't, not out of fear, but because she said she would stay. The very first time she gets truly scared of Beast, she flees the castle and we get that scene where she's chased by wolves and Beast rescues her. And then, again, she CHOOSES to take him back to the castle and tend to his wounds. She could have easily peaced out back to the village, with or without Beast.

I feel like a lot of this "Beauty & the Beast is Stockholm Syndrome" discourse is very shallow, and people tend to repeat it without understanding either the Stockholm study case, the actual canon events, or the psychology around abuse scenarios.

[(Anonymous)]

I have several issues about your argument, but for the sake of brevity we’ll assume that by “actual canon” you mean the Disneyfied canon of the ‘91 musical and recent remake. First, the Stolkholm case and the psychological phenomenon that was named after it share similarities, but aren’t identical. People who try to look academic by invoking the Norrmalstorg robbery during literary character analyses often end up looking desperate to score credibility points instead. Interestingly, these same people are generally fine with characters having Oedipal complexes without any prophecies or eye-gouging at all! Secondly, even in the Disney version, Belle’s agency is marred by the fact that she was forced into a choice between her freedom and her only living family member’s life. Much like “fuck or die” is still rape despite the person “choosing” to have sex, Belle’s still a hostage even if she chose to exchange her life for her father’s. Your whole “if it was abusive, why did she stay?” argument is problematic, but I'll assume you’re very young. Consider volunteering at a women’s shelter. They need the help and you need the reality check.

[(Anonymous)]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/does-belle-from-beauty-and-the-beast-suffer-from-stockholm-syndrome-we-asked-an-expert-175449990.html

But I guess you're more of an expert on the subject than Frank Ochberg is.

[(Anonymous)]

I honestly didn’t care about most of the “feminist” additions to the movie, aside from disliking Belle’s costumes. I hated that they autotuned the leads to death instead of casting people who could sing without it—and ffs why couldn’t they cast a baritone as the Beast and bring his, what, three lines as the Prince up an octave instead of casting a light tenor and basically making a 90% synthetic growly beast voice? Also between Emma Watson playing Belle as basically Emma Watson and the immobility of the CGI Beast head, I really didn’t buy their relationship despite liking a lot of the other minor plot changes.

[morieris]

three lines as the Prince up an octave instead of casting a light tenor and basically making a 90% synthetic growly beast voice?

Jesus, his rendition of Evermore - a pretty good song, all tings considered - was atrocious.