moviefan2k4

That's assuming the Beast physically aged during his time under the curse, which is another angle the film doesn't address.

"Return" was okay, but "Thieves" was much better. Robin's work as the Genie helped make the rest of the first film believable, which is why the second suffers so much.

fujishig

I always thought it was unfair of Belle to agree to the terms (and really her father did trespass, and she did as well) and then cry about it and run off. At that point the Beast had given up all hope of turning back to normal anyway, what did he want a prisoner for, especially since he let the dad go? If the dad was even semi-competent the villagers would have stormed the castle.

I also kinda felt that Belle was more enamored with the adventure and mystery surrounding the Beast, since she was bored of her normal life and longed to have adventure. So I wonder if she was disappointed when he and the rest of the castle turned human again...

Alan Smithee

I've actually been meaning to start a thread on this. I worked at a theater when this came out and saw it during the first week and IMMEDIATELY had that problem with it, and everyone I said that to thought I was just being ridiculous and overanalyzing a Disney movie. My problem is precisely that this isn't suitable for any movie aimed at kids, and I hated seeing all the really young kids being brought to see it. (The damn thing stayed for MONTHS too, and then even came back for a couple weeks after it had left!) People thought I was really being ridiculous comparing it to "Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down" (which was OK as that was meant more as a dark comedy and not a damn kids' movie.) Bottom line is that the beast takes her prisoner, and she falls in love with him. Not OK. (And one argument someone gave me was that she learned to love him for what he was, and I retorted that the same thing could have happened with one of Jeffrey Dahmer's victims if they had just stayed around him long enough. OK, maybe that is getting a little ridiculous there. I blame the weather.)

Mabuse

It's my understanding that the original story (like most fairy/folk tales) was meant to be instructional. These stories proliferated and were popular because they were instructional metaphors (or in some cases alarming warnings) about the proper ways to behave. The original B and the B story was meant as an instruction to young girls; that they should be loyal to their father above all things (Belle, the purest of heart of all her sisters takes her father's place dutifully even though the father was completely at fault...she blames herself for asking for a rose). Her relationship with the Beast once she is a prisoner is meant to instruct young ladies about the nature of marriage; that the man may seem monstrous, overbearing, dominant; that he may kill animals with his bare hands, or fight other men in duels, or go off to war and kill, or do so many things that the female temperament of the era could not comprehend the monstrousness of, but that the bride must accept as a matter of course in a heterosexual relationship. The story is saying "Look, when the honeymoon is over you're going to find out all kinds of shit about this guy, and he's going to behave in all kinds of ways that seem horrifying to you if you were brought up as a "lady", but it is your feminine power over him that will redeem him." Today of course it seems “old fashioned” to follow these mores.

As someone already said, the Disney version subverts the original stories intent to a considerable degree by making it more the story of the Beast than of Beauty; how the Beast sinned and must come to understand how to get a woman to love him if he is going to win the redemption she offers. But both versions need to be given a bit of latitude in their construction. Beast keeping Belle as a "prisoner" is largely metaphorical and is a story device that is necessary in order to make the larger point about masculinity, femininity, and the balance of the sexes in a relationship. Hence "the dance" is the centerpiece of the film.