That Time Disney Remade Beauty and the Beast

When does the last petal fall? LUMIERE: The master remains a

beast

forever and we become... MRS. POTS: Antiques. Lindsay: Another major change in this version was adding more stakes to certain aspects of the plot. Which you already know in theory is fine. Instead of the rose falling apart, now the entire castle is falling apart. It's not just the possibility that they all stay as they are forever, the staff becomes more and more inanimate as they get closer to Rose-mageddon PLUMETTE: I grew three more feathers and yesterday I plucked them. Which, as you know, is fine: it's not the worst thing, since it adds more clarity to what's at stake.

But this adds to the problem that adding these higher stakes doesn't take into account the plot elements that they do retain from the original animated film. I mean, the punishment of basically condemning his entire castle out of existence doesn't really jive with his decision to let Belle go. BEAST: I let her go. COGSWORTH: You... What?! LUMIERE: Master, how could you do that? Lindsay: Adding more risk around staff adds a whole host of problems, like turning the

beast

's lack of concern for his staff from anger management issues and general immaturity into something morally reprehensible. BEAST: I set her free.

Sorry I couldn't do the same for all of you. Lindsay: I guess boss of the year. Sorry, Caveman Dad. So adding these higher stakes removes meaning from the moment he decides to let Belle go. This turns the Beast's decision from a moment of personal growth into a trolley problem: whose life matters more? Maurice or all the living beings in the damn castle... In this version, the fact that the Beast lets Belle go is no longer that he puts Belle's needs before his own, but that he decides that Maurice's life is worth more than that of all those he has now in the castle. sentenced to death.

The point here is that the movie wanted to up the ante, okay, but it fundamentally changed what is supposed to be the emotional core of the story. That being of beast growth is a person who can put the needs of others before his own. Because this clashes with the entire essence of the story. The stakes are higher and require the enchanted objects to explain their plight to Bella BELLE: What happens when the last petal falls? LUMIERE: The master remains a beast forever and we become... MRS. POTS: Antiques. Lindsay: Yes, it would logically make sense for Lumiere, Cogsworth, and Mrs.

Potts to do this, but it diminishes what should be the emotional core of the story; that Bella develops these feelings on her own terms and in her own

time

. She doesn't do it because there are fucking lives at stake. She does it because she falls in love with him because he begins to live his best self. Not because of a problem with the tram that she ignores because Maurice needs help. And while we're here on the topic of terrible editing, what is this? MRS. POTS: Chip! Have you seen Chip? He has escaped! COGSWORTH: Oh, no... What was Chip jumping on?

Why is this happening? Did this scene really need more stakes out of nowhere? Lindsay: If I can't live like a cup, I'll die like a cup! Lindsay: Look, over-explaining everything in this case not only insults the audience's intelligence, which is perhaps deserved because there is a certain sect of film commentators who have built their careers on complaining about not being held by the hand throughout everything. the process. Narrative: It also diminishes what should be a fairly simple but powerful story about love, forgiveness, redemption, and discovering your best self. But it's very difficult for the Beast to discover his best self in this movie because there isn't one.

Lindsay: The Beast was a challenge in the original movie because he had to be scary, repulsive, a huge jerk, and ultimately extremely likable. Part of this is achieved through animation, which, with a skilled animator, is much more capable of capturing clear, complex emotions. This shot at the beginning of the film shows a complex internal conflict at a point in the narrative where he is still the bad guy and all without dialogue. The Beast's transformation is inspired by Belle's desire to do the right thing, and Belle's kindness to him in turn makes him deserve it. She doesn't become his life coach or train him in the art of being kind, but she does give credit where credit is due. 2017 Beast is a huge idiot BEAST: Idiots!

Lindsay: And I don't mean he's an arrogant prick, but then he learns the wrongs from him, like I think... I think this is supposed to be charming. BELLA: Actually Romeo and Juliet is my favorite play. BEAST: Why isn't it a surprise? BELLA: I'm sorry? See, this is what's called "neg," popularized by Neil Strauss' 2005 book, The Game. No, I don't have a copy of The Game lying around BEAST: All that pain and longing. Lindsay: The Beast saves Belle from the wolves and while he is unconscious, Mrs. Potts explained that it is the staff's fault that he grew up to be an idiot and when he comes to and Belle professes her affection for Romeo and Juliet ...Classic neg.

BEAST: When he entered the room, the laughter dies. Lindsay: Well, maybe it's because you abuse them and they're afraid of you. See this moment could have been worth adding a line where she explains that her staff is afraid of her and maybe it could be a moment of growth. BEAST: When I enter the room, the laughter dies. Lindsay: But. No. There are a lot of small, baffling changes to the Beast's character that are just... I don't understand why they're there. Gone is that humanizing moment when the Beast realized his anger got the best of him and he made a big mistake.

BEAST: OUT! BEAST: COME ON! Lindsay: So when he shows up to save Bella from the wolves, he comes out of nowhere because he never has that emotional beat of realizing that he made a mistake. In this version, Belle does not have a deal with the Beast, so she cannot renege on it. LUMIÉRE: Where are you going? BELLA: Promise or not, I can't stay here another minute! Lindsay: Which not only raises the question of why she stays with her, but also adds a particularly unpleasant dynamic to the scene where she runs away and everyone in the castle tries to imprison her.

Here he hits her in the face with a giant snowball. . Which he then laughs at. Not even like an 'Oh shit!' I bet he broke his nose. Then followed the change in the library scene. In the original it follows the Beast's change of mind. He wants to do something for Belle that she will appreciate. BEAST: I've never felt this way about anyone. I want to do something for her. Lindsay: In the remake it's just him showing BEAST: There are so many better things to read BELLA: Like what? BEAST: Well, here are a couple of things you could start with.

Lindsay: Look at my library. It's very sweet. You can look at it. I guess. All these small changes add up. Beast doesn't win Belle's affections, so she tries harder than him and ends up being her *BLEEP* life coach like she was in Belle's 'Enchanted Christmas' and ends up doing all the *BLEEP* work . The Beast is simply a mediocre man who fails to achieve success in possessing the right objects despite never making any effort to satisfy his needs and discover what he wants. Lindsay: Well, I guess I'll come down to your level. Lindsay: And this scene doesn't read that way in the animated film where the Beast actually makes an effort to use a spoon but physically can't.

But the worst thing is that these two have no chemistry at all BEAST: It's silly, I guess. May a creature like me hope that one day I can win your affection. Lindsay: But I never think she'll grow up to take care of him anyway. Honestly, it's funny how quickly she fools him when he lets her go. And then at the end when she cries for him, there's just no chemistry here, I just don't think so. And this scene isn't helped much by the damn sorceress barging into what's supposed to be a private, intimate moment. Thanks for that, Becky.

It would have been cool if he scolded her after becoming a man again and said something like, 'wow, your pores are a lot less noticeable now that I have human eyes,' and she said, 'that's you!' The movie needs to be longer! So it's filled with a bunch of junk that's going nowhere. Some of these additions are plot related. A small example is the rose. A plot element of the original story, Belle's evil sisters ask her father for niceties, while the virtuous and humble Belle only asks for a rose. In the original film, The Rose is a gift offered by The Enchantress which later becomes the clock in the film.

The 2017 remake decides 'hey, why don't we have both?' Then the new movie keeps the rose and adds a backup rose like in the original story and this goes nowhere and I hate it. Bella doesn't have evil sisters who ask for nicer things with the humble Bella asking for just a rose here Bella asks for a rose because: MAURICE: What can I get you from the market? BELLA: A rose. Like the one in the picture. Lindsay: I don't know, something to do with the mom. Oh, we'll get to the mom. Food and water are fine, but don't you dare touch my roses.

MAURICE: Apparently that's what happens here when you pick a flower! Lindsay: Oh, but it doesn't end there because we have to explain too much what the Beast is like, traumatized by the roses. BEAST: I received eternal damnation for one, I'm just locking him up. Lindsay: He explains this with his words and that's why he locks up Maurice. Another really disconcerting change is that Lumiere and Cogsworth go behind the Beast's back. instead of having that humanizing moment and having it be his decision to put her in a nice room instead of the tower. BEAST: I'll show you your room.

BELLA: My room? But I thought... BEAST: Do you... do you want to stay in the tower? BEAUTY: No. BEAST: Then follow me. Lindsay: So, it was Lumiere who told him not to go into the West Wing. LUMIERE: The castle is yours now, so feel free to go wherever you want! COGSWORTH: Except the West Wing! COGSWORTH: Oh. We do not have. Lindsay: Not the Beast. BELLA: What's in the West? BEAST: It's forbidden! Lindsay: So there is no tension or betrayal in this scene because the Beast never established that boundary that he then crossed. BEAST: WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?

Lindsay: Why are you mad bro? But some of the changes are of character... profound. I think the intention here was to make the city sympathetic and redeemable, something that wasn't really in the original and that was the point. The original film actually takes a rather cynical view of the masses. CANTO: We don't like what we don't understand, in fact, it scares us. And this monster is mysterious to say the least. Lindsay: That people are easily fooled by things. that they are strange and alien and he doesn't beat around the bush on that point. But the 2017 remake does it by making the town redeemable, which isn't really earned nor is there any emotional reward when, I don't know, Mrs.

Potts meets Mr. Potts and Cogsworth meets the apparent annoyance of him. he handcuffs and then begs to be turned back into a watch. Thanks, I hate it. So on the one hand, there's this attempt to make Gaston feel sympathetic by implying that he has PTSD, a truly stupid and insulting change that adds nothing. Look, Gaston doesn't need any harm, he's the high school jock everyone looks up to. He is a hunter. He doesn't need to be more than that, he just needs to be a big handsome doll that everyone loves because he is arrogant and handsome.

Because that's usually how it happens in the real world and that's the point of the movie. So the addition of "Gaston was in the war" is horrible. Not only does he add a backstory that goes nowhere, but as the movie goes on he's less "was in war and was damaged" and more like a blood psychopath who seems to wake up at the mere thought of violence. . LEFOU: Think happy thoughts. He returns to war! Blood...explosions...helpless widows... GASTON: Widows... Lindsay: The remake has guests on Maurice. the benefit of the doubt and seems to go in the direction of making Gaston more reasonable and understanding, but then BOOM, Blood Rage!

So instead of Gaston being widely admired, the characterization of him is not only inconsistent and confusing: GASTON. : Wonderful book you have there. BELLE: Have you read it? GASTON: Well, not that one, but, you know... books. Lindsay: The city is kind of skeptical of him. kill Maurice Lindsay: So much so that during 'Gaston' Lefou pays people to sing? WHY add this? Why can't Gaston be genuinely admired by a small town who is taken in by a handsome guy who is secretly internally monstrous? Why do we need to make the city more intolerant and more understanding? They are a poor provincial city!

They are basic! They take everything at face value, including Gaston, Beauty and the Beast, that's the point, I hate it. But the worst addition has to be the teleportation book. Lindsay: Okay, so the change to Bella's pest mother's backstory is a suggestion that should have been removed at the script stage because it's so pointless and doesn't add anything. Then Bella's mother was an artist and she died of the plague. Maurice never tells Bella for some reason. BELLA: Just tell me one more thing about her. Lindsay: But don't youWorry, Beast has a book that not only transcends space but also

time

.

So towards the end they go to Paris, Beast makes a joke about tourism. BEAST: The Champs Elysées? No, too touristy. Lindsay: Belle talks about the Paris of my childhood. BELLE: This is the Paris of my childhood... Lindsay: There's a plague mask and Bella says, now I get it. And I suppose they bond over the young and tragic deaths of their mothers. Then, later in the scene in the padded car: BELLA: I know what happened to my mom. Lindsay: I learned about the tragic story, Dad. Lindsay: And now we can resolve the conflict that we didn't have and that also has nothing to do with the story.

The addition of the space-time book raises the question of why they never used it later. Hmm, if Maurice is in danger, it would be helpful if we, I don't know, had some kind of device that would get us from point A to point B in an instant. The worst aspect of this is that it adds internal conflict that doesn't really need to be resolved. Bell wants to know his backstory, what happened to Mom. Good. What does that have to do with her learning to love the Beast? What does that have to do with the Beast learning to put his needs before yours?

Hell, it doesn't even drive a wedge between Belle and Maurice. It's not creating a conflict between her and anyone, she really has nothing to do with Gastón, he's just stuck there and it feels like just another metatextual response. "Where are all the Disney moms?" Ask the clickbait sites. Well, here's your answer. She died. Does it add anything to the story? Does it enhance the characters? Does it deepen any relationship? No. But it does offer an answer to the complaint that Disney princesses have largely absent mother figures, which in itself was not so much a criticism of this story as a question of the broader trend in Disney films. .

Where are the moms? Hey, did you know this movie has the first Gaaaaaay? Lindsay: When it was announced that Lefou would become the first gay character in a Disney movie, the L's, the G's, the B's, the T's, and of course all you disgusting, disgusting Qs responded with thunderous applause. So yeah, the LGBT community responded overwhelmingly with '*BLEEPING* seriously?', which was updated to 'are you *BLEEP* kidding me?' when we saw the final product and the only thing that came out about Lefou that wasn't completely subtext was this. Wow. Very gay. So a lot of people were very upset because this was the best we could get for the first gay outing in a Disney movie.

LEFOU: Well, I used to be on Gaston's side, but. us. They're in a bad place right now. MRS: POTTS: You're too good for him, anyway. Lindsay: The jester character whose name translates to "the fool," you're welcome, cheap, liberal gays. sure Hollywood is Belle. MAN: What are you doing? Teaching another girl to read isn't enough? Lindsay: Introducing #BeastforShe? It pretty much started and ended with 90's Disney feminism. JASMINE: I'm a fast learner. HERCULES: damsel in distress? MEGARA: I'm a damsel in distress. I can handle this. Have a nice day. Okay, and I honestly don't want to shit on #HeForShe.

I think a lot of people in the US and UK miss that it's supposed to be a global thing. This is not a criticism of Emma Watson, who I sincerely believe is a purely positive person and I really respect that she uses her platform to promote a more globally oriented type of feminism. But at some point, Disney decided "hey, as long as we use this movie to answer all the criticisms thrown at the original, we should probably go ahead and appease The Feminists while we're here." Then Belle helps Maurice with her watches. Maurice calls her ahead of time.

She bows. Belle tries to escape the castle twice, which is much more feminist than the original where she only tries to escape once. Jesus Christ, I'm surprised they didn't like Bella looking directly into the camera and asking the audience if they thought she was developing Stockholm syndrome. The biggest and most egregious addition is, of course, Belle's damn washing machine, something she invented at the same time she was promoting female literacy, but oh no, here comes the patriarchy. MAN: What the hell are you doing? Teach another girl to read? Isn't one enough? Lindsay: Wow, he sure will be satisfying later in the movie when this guy learns the mistake of him and that female literacy is important.

Oh wait. Lindsay: And then they vandalize her washing machine and destroy it. I mean at least you tried Belle. BELLA: All I wanted was to teach a child to read. Lindsay: Too bad the washing machine or your inventive skills are never mentioned in the movie again. And honestly, I hate pointing out the issue of historical accuracy in a Disney movie because I don't care. I realize this is a sticking point for a lot of people who complain about the accuracy of the period that inspired the film, but I don't care. Wow, there's no depth to how much I don't care for that line of thinking.

However-- Lindsay: since the movie decides to highlight the historical aspect of the movie and decides to place it definitively in a period of French history that didn't seem too bright for absolute monarchs *BLEEPING-- LUMIERE: After all, miss. , this is France. Lindsay: Female literacy wasn't exactly something that was frowned upon in this particular culture in this particular period of history. There were many magazines specifically for young women. The original Beauty and the Beast was even published in one of those magazines. So this didn't exist and I hate it because not only did it not exist, but it's not going anywhere.

Lindsay: At no point does this guy or anyone in town have a come-to-Jesus moment and realize that sexism is bad and literacy is good. But hey, #BeastForShe. Likewise, the fact that Bella is an inventor is also not worth it. She never likes to invent anything to help the beast or the castle staff. Hell, in the end she doesn't even take them out of the padded cart. In the original, Chip destroys them. CHIP: Guys, you have to try this. Lindsay: In this version Maurice does it but don't worry, he uses Bella's hairpin. Bend over, Bella. The worst thing about this is that the movie implies that the town's intolerance is A) partially induced by the enchantment, which is disgusting.

B) a problem that can be solved, all they need to do is wake up. He adds all this rubbish about intolerance without understanding its underlying causes, which are neither rational nor charming. Lindsay: The original movie is really good at this subtext. The city's intolerance is understood to be heavily driven by emotions and not really dictated by logic. That is the point. And that's why Gaston is able to manipulate them so easily. GASTON: The Beast will take your children! He will come after them in the night! Lindsay: The Beast will take your jobs! He will come to cross the border at night!

Wow, these villagers sure have a lot of socioeconomic anxiety. Meanwhile, the New York Times is here writing about 800 profiles about the anti-Beast villagers and why they follow Gaston. But in the new version the villagers see the error of their ways without showing that they have really learned anything. But don't worry, they won't be sexist or bigoted anymore and suddenly I wasn't racist anymore. Flight of the Conchords: And suddenly I wasn't racist anymore... not anymore. Lindsay: Problem solved. Flight of the Conchords: Albi the racist... well, not anymore... Dragon Lindsay: Wow, that was easy. #BeastForHer. So it's not even that these common bad faith criticisms of the original film exist and are such popular topics of conversation.

Yeah, that's a little annoying and basic, but you know, whatever. But the key to success with Iger, which never took off with Eisner, is that these live-action remakes have to add something to their originals, make metacommentary on them. Lindsay: So here we have a movie that fixes holes in the plot that don't need fixing, adds dimension to characters that aren't going anywhere, adds weird things to the plot that also don't go anywhere, and pokes a few wrinkles in them. lazy hat in his version of progressivism. But that this formula has proven to be so successful (wow, I can't wait for Dumbo, now with more emotional support, and Mulan), but not a musical because China doesn't like musicals.

Lindsay: But the worst thing for me is that this new approach doesn't feel like Disney. And by Disney I mean Walt, who, independently of Cocteau, had a similar approach to storytelling. According to Walt Disney; The original Beauty and the Beast has the spirit of Walt and Cocteau, but the new one is just cynical. The merger with Fox Studios is another important element that means fewer films will be released overall. And given how safe these live-action remakes of events are, more resources will go into far fewer productions. Lindsay: Back to Eisner's memo again: So Disney under Iger certainly makes money, congratulations on that.

But they no longer make history. This is simply a safe regurgitation of brands we've already seen catering to a nostalgia-hungry market. Lindsay: And that wouldn't be so bad, but increasingly this comes at the cost of creating something new. And when Iger saw the breadth of his domain he cried, because there were no more properties to remake. Parts of this episode were inspired by reading the book 'Disney Wars' by James B. Stewart, an audiobook I listened to while stuck in traffic and I liked listening to really long non-fiction like this book while stuck in traffic . This episode was sponsored in part by Audible Audible has the largest selection of audiobooks on the planet and there was a lot of really excellent, long-form nonfiction that's perfect for the hours you'd otherwise waste stuck in traffic.

Audible members get one credit each month good for any audiobook, regardless of price, and unused credits roll over to the next month. If you don't like an audiobook, you can easily change it, plus your audiobooks are yours to keep forever, even if you cancel them. You can go to audible.com/LindsayEllis yes, it's just audible.com, enter my legal name to get started or by text you can text Lindsey Ellis to 500500 to get started. You can also find a link in the summary. This episode was also partially supported by our Patreon patrons.