?

Log in

Previous Entry | Next Entry

So, I was rereading the comments for this Beauty and the Beast parody comic from Shortpacked:
http://www.shortpacked.com/2013/comic/book-14/09-same-planet-different-dimentia/prankd/

And I started wondering about whether or not the upcoming 2017 live-action version of Disney's "Beauty and the Beast" will address any of the points that were brought up. I'm not saying that the film must address these points, but it would be fun if they did. So, here are a list of questions/plot holes/threads left hanging from the original Disney movie:

  1. What is the prince's name? Will the movie give him one, as the recent live-action version of "Cinderella" did for its prince?

  2. How old was the prince when he was cursed? In the original Disney film, the portrait seems to indicate that he was a young man, but the combination of the line in the prologue that says that the rose will wilt after the prince's 21st birthday and the "ten years" line in "Be Our Guest" implies that he was eleven.

  3. Who is running the kingdom while the prince is cursed? What happened to his parents? Do his fellow royals know that he's been cursed? If he was eleven years old when he was cursed, then he'd have a regent.

  4. Why does nobody in Belle's village seem to know that there's a castle in the nearby woods? Why does nobody ask or mention what could have happened to the missing prince?

  5. What is the timeframe of the events in the movie? How long was Belle's stay at the castle? How long were Maurice and LeFou out in the cold?

  6. Why did the prince answer the door himself when the Enchantress came calling instead of ordering a servant to do it?

  7. Why did the Enchantress include the servants in the curse when it was only the prince who was cruel to her?

And here are some possible answers that people in the comments suggested (that may or may not show up in the live-action movie):

  1. The prince does have a name, but is so ashamed of his appearance that he refuses to use it. As I said before in a previous post about the 2017 film, hopefully the movie will give him a name that Belle will use.

  2. Since Chip seems younger than ten and the portrait clearly shows the prince to be older than eleven, then the prince wasn't eleven years old when the Enchantress cursed him and it hasn't been ten years since the spell was cast. Or, if it has been ten years, then nobody has aged because the curse caused everyone to be stuck at the same ages that they were when they were cursed.

  3. The prince isn't in charge of anything because he's the youngest of several siblings. Or he's still a prince, but he's not the son of a king (as is the case with Monaco and with several Russian princes prior to the Russian Revolution). Or, if he is an only child, his parents sent him away from court to their summer castle as punishment for being a brat. As for why they didn't know about the curse...

  4. ...either the curse wiped everyone's memories of the prince or the curse also stopped time in the castle until a visitor came along. That's why the Prince isn't missed by anyone and why he looks just as he does in the portrait. Which leads to Question Number Five...

  5. ...since time works differently at the castle, Belle and the Beast really did spend months together in castle-time while LeFou and Maurice only spent a week at most outside (or, to be kinder to LeFou, a few days). The spell placed the castle in an alternate dimension à la Narnia.

  6. The prologue does show the Prince at the door (as does the infamous Christmas midquel). However, one of the people in the comments made a suggestion that I didn't think of, which is that the Prince didn't let the Enchantress in. It was a servant who answered the door, but the Prince ordered for her to be thrown out, similarly as to how the Beast locked Maurice in the dungeon after Lumiere and Cogsworth let him in.

  7. The Enchantress is a snob who doesn't register the servants as people or the she cursed them so that the Beast would be constantly reminded of the consequences of his behavior. However, she looks bad either way, so I don't know how the film will address it.

And here's a theory that popped up in the comments that I'll include just for fun: the bookseller is the Enchantress in disguise. She works in Belle's village in order to stay close (but not too close) to the Beast. She lends the book about "a prince in disguise" to Belle on purpose, recognizing that Belle has the intelligence, imagination, and kindness to save the day. In fact, the whole idea of posing as a bookseller, given the fact that printed books are a luxury because this is the 1700's and the bookstore is located in a small village in the country, is so that the Enchantress can ferret out who in this 'poor, provincial town' would be the likeliest candidate to break the spell. That's why the bookseller can afford to lend books and give them away for free, why he's nowhere to be seen in the mob scene, and why, against all odds, his store is still running and he hasn't starved to death.

Comments

( 4 comments — Leave a comment )
zelda_queen
Nov. 16th, 2016 01:38 am (UTC)
Having just seen the trailer, I now have many thoughts!

"What is the prince's name? Will the movie give him one, as the recent live-action version of "Cinderella" did for its prince?"

I honestly am curious about that as well, if only because it seems to be a bit of a joke that the prince never actually got a name in the movie. I hope they do give him one (I'm pretty fond of Adam, but I wouldn't mind if they came up with something else, as long as it wasn't ridiculous).

"How old was the prince when he was cursed? In the original Disney film, the portrait seems to indicate that he was a young man, but the combination of the line in the prologue that says that the rose will wilt after the prince's 21st birthday and the "ten years" line in "Be Our Guest" implies that he was eleven."

They case someone as the prince as a child, so he's definitely showing up as a kid at some point. The question is whether or not it's for a flashback or the prologue.

"Who is running the kingdom while the prince is cursed? What happened to his parents? Do his fellow royals know that he's been cursed? If he was eleven years old when he was cursed, then he'd have a regent."

Your theories (that he's a younger brother or that he's got the title but no actual authority) are two popular ones I've heard of. Another is that the prince is illegitimate and was set up with a castle and servants to keep him out of the way.

Other theories I can think of include his parents knowing about the curse and fleeing until it's broken and his parents NOT knowing about the curse, but abandoning the castle when they come back to find their son gone and a monster living there.

"Why does nobody in Belle's village seem to know that there's a castle in the nearby woods? Why does nobody ask or mention what could have happened to the missing prince?"

I think I heard that the movie would answer that one. I'm pretty excited to find out how it's explained!

"What is the timeframe of the events in the movie? How long was Belle's stay at the castle? How long were Maurice and LeFou out in the cold?"

I think your Narnian time explanation's probably the best. It would also fit, since a lot of retellings suggest that the Beast's castle is sort of in a bubble from the rest of the world.

I also notice that, in the trailer, there's a shot of Belle on her horse riding through the garden at night while it's snowing. It may be the scene where she leaves to find her father, but I got the impression it was when she showed up. Especially since it's also snowing in the scene where Maurice picks the rose.

Actually, that brings me to a different theory - time does work differently in the Beast's castle, but it's always winter there. We definitely see shots of it being warm and sunny in all of the clips taking place outside of the castle. All of the exterior castle clips are snowy, though (although for that to work, we'd have to assume the forest counted as part of the castle grounds).

"Why did the prince answer the door himself when the Enchantress came calling instead of ordering a servant to do it?"

I have to wonder if the backstory with the Enchantress will somehow be made to tie to the rose bush we see Maurice taking a rose from. I don't know how they'd do it, but if it was that the Enchantress judged the prince's cruelty by, say, him punishing someone for going near the bush or asking for a rose or some such, that could be where the enchanted rose comes from. She picks one and is like, "Okay, you loved the roses so much? This one marks how long you have until the curse is permanent".

(Which, another interesting detail - all the roses on that bush are white. The only red rose is the one in the castle. I have this image of the Enchantress turning the rose red and since the Disney movie associated red with hunting and violence and Gaston, and if that color still fits the violence theme in this movie... really wondering!)

"Why did the Enchantress include the servants in the curse when it was only the prince who was cruel to her?"

I hope we do get a bit more of an explanation for that.
zelda_queen
Nov. 16th, 2016 01:38 am (UTC)
Other things I noticed about the trailer, incidentally:

In a few clips, we see Belle in what appears to be a white dress, very upset and struggling to get into the castle. It looks like it's during the climax, when she tries to reach the Beast before Gaston kills him. Upon closer examination, I noticed the "dress" seems to be Belle's undergarments (the top looks rather corsety), which makes me wonder if the movie will have her use her dress to break out of the cellar (Midoriri reminded me of the whole "use cloth to bend bars" bit).

The Beast seems to be based off of his Broadway version, which is a bit of a blend of the Disney movie and the fairy tale version. I think that makes sense. I don't there's any way a live action actor could accurately be as animal-like as the animated Beast was. His "imagine what you want most" line especially had me imagine the more fairy tale-inspired Beast of Megan Kearney's webcomic.

I'm incredibly curious about the scene with the women in white dancing. I wonder if that ties to the song we've been told about, where the servants reflect on their old lives as they go to bed. Alternatively, I have to wonder if the castle was having a party in a flashback (maybe the night the Enchantress showed up?)

Also, that "Enchantress is the bookshop owner" theory is brilliant and I hope it's true!
aikaterini
Nov. 16th, 2016 04:02 pm (UTC)
/I noticed the "dress" seems to be Belle's undergarments (the top looks rather corsety), which makes me wonder if the movie will have her use her dress to break out of the cellar (Midoriri reminded me of the whole "use cloth to bend bars" bit)./

Yes, I noticed her white dress too and that's a cool idea!

/I don't there's any way a live action actor could accurately be as animal-like as the animated Beast was./

Yeah, that reminds me of "Death Note" fans criticizing the live-action film version because the actors were "too stiff" or something and the film's defenders saying, "Of course they're not going to be as dramatic or fluid as the characters in the anime. They're not cartoons!"

There was one thing that I noted in the scene where Belle meets the Beast for the first time that made me wonder. The Beast asks Belle if she'll take her father's place, but I hope that he's just repeating what she said, because Belle coming up with the exchange herself was one of the things that I thought Disney improved about the story.

/I'm incredibly curious about the scene with the women in white dancing./

Me too. I'm guessing that either they show up in a flashback or the prologue, like you've said, or the castle throws a huge party after the curse is broken (and who could blame them?).

Although, it looks like Belle will in fact interact with CGI servants after all. :P

As an added note, have you seen Dan Stevens's eyes? I can't believe that they're that blue. I remember people complaining that Daniel Radcliffe's eyes weren't green/he didn't wear green contacts, but wow did this casting get the Prince's eyes right on the money.
aikaterini
Nov. 16th, 2016 03:53 pm (UTC)
I swear that I only saw the new trailer a few hours after I posted this. How serendipitous!

/They case someone as the prince as a child, so he's definitely showing up as a kid at some point./

Yes, and as I've mentioned before, the slashed portrait that's showed in the movie clearly depicts him as a child. So, I'm really wondering what angle they're going to take with the curse.

/his parents NOT knowing about the curse, but abandoning the castle when they come back to find their son gone and a monster living there./

Oh, that's an interesting idea! It would set the stage for a possible reunion at the end with Belle.

/I think I heard that the movie would answer that one. I'm pretty excited to find out how it's explained!/

Oh, I didn't know that. I'm excited too!

/time does work differently in the Beast's castle, but it's always winter there./

If that is what the movie is going for, I wonder if it'll be symbolic: it's cold and frozen because it reflects the Beast's unhappiness and isolation, but once the curse is broken, the snow melts and the weather turns to spring. (It's very "Frozen"-esque :P).

/I have to wonder if the backstory with the Enchantress will somehow be made to tie to the rose bush we see Maurice taking a rose from. I don't know how they'd do it, but if it was that the Enchantress judged the prince's cruelty by, say, him punishing someone for going near the bush or asking for a rose or some such, that could be where the enchanted rose comes from. She picks one and is like, "Okay, you loved the roses so much? This one marks how long you have until the curse is permanent"./

As soon as I saw Maurice pluck a rose from the bush, I wondered if this version would combine both the Disney version and the original version of the father's meeting with the Beast. Because, as Phelous pointed out in his hilarious reviews of the BATB knock-offs, Disney's Beast only got angry at Maurice for trespassing while Original!Beast got mad at Belle's father just for taking a rose.

However, if your theory is correct, that could be a sly sort of meta commentary on the original tale. We're not supposed to view the Beast as unfair and unreasonable for threatening a man's life over a rose in the original fairy tale, but yet that could the catalyst for why the Enchantress punishes him in this version.
( 4 comments — Leave a comment )