Hole-y Plots, Batman!!

[epcotWSC]

LMAO

Personally, although Beast acted like a tantruming 5yr old much ofthe time, Belle wasn't exactly a well behaved girl. IMO she's very rude and stuck up.

Of course you could also say that Belle is a strong willed and independent woman who doesn't just follow along with the crowd.

Also it makes sense that Beast would be like that since he never really grew up (being a beast alone in your castle for 10 years is not growing up).


Of course if you want to talk about plot holes... How do they get all of the food? Do they grow their own somewhere? Slaughter their own animals? Have a farm? Is the food from before Beast was transformed? Does that mean that the food is over 10 years old?

It's a fairly tale, if they explained all of these things it would waste time that is unnecessary to the plot of the story.

 

[fosse76]

Beast(Prince Adam) answers the door and refuses an old lady a night's stay. she turns him into a beast. If he doesn't find love by his 21st birthday, the spell sticks.... Okay, one of the characters says they had been that way for 3yrs (correct me if I'm wrong as I know y'all will). So that means he was 17 when the spell was cast. Um, where were his parents? Why was he answering the door anyway? Wouldn't it have been his parents' house?

He would have been 18 or just turned 19 (3 years doesn't always mean 3 full years). At the time setting of the story, he would have been very much an adult (we only recently, as in the past 40 years or so, have infantilized children to where they are considered children until their early twenties). Being an Prince, his parents (presumably the King and Queen) would have had him living in his own castle by then. The plot hole is that he isn't already married.

The spell turned the entire castle's servents into objects representing themselves or their trade/job. In the case of chip, he's Ms. Potts' son who lived there and fell under the spell, too. Okay. Did anyone notice that, in the scene where Ms. P tells Chip off to the cupboard with you. It's past your bedtime, you see the cupboard is full of tea cups that are all asleep. She calls them his brothers and sisters....Uh, where's Mr. Potts and how on earth does Ms. Potts have all of those children? You never see the other children anywhere else, even the end when Chip is turned back into a boy.

Also, just about every object in the castle is alive. Could he really have had THAT many servants?!

This is the suspension of disbelief portion. Particularly with Chip and his supposed siblings...though the staff could realistically be in the hundreds, depending on the amount of wealth of the prince and the size of the castle.

And wwhat is Prince Adam prince of? Where are his parents who should be king and queen? How did no one KNOW he was a beast?! The village wasn't that far away if the villagers were able to walk there carrying weapons for the Mob scene. How did no one know a)their prince was enchanted and b)that a beast with a temper problem lived up the road?

You're assuming the Beast's castle is the governing castle where the head of state lives. As I stated above, the King and Queen, in that time period, would have set him off on his own to live his life until it was time for him to ascend to the throne. He is only young to be on his own by today's standards. Back then he would have been married. It's very possible that his parents would not have known what had happened, or that the locals would have thought the castle abandoned, especially since there was no "human" presence. It is a plot hole, but with a plausible explanation to fill in the gaps.

While I'm not opposed to suspending disbelief with movies (i.e., musicals, cartoons, enchanted objects, magic wands, etc.), the plot should at least make sense and be consistant.

 

[loveofamouse]

He would have been 18 or just turned 19 (3 years doesn't always mean 3 full years). At the time setting of the story, he would have been very much an adult (we only recently, as in the past 40 years or so, have infantilized children to where they are considered children until their early twenties). Being an Prince, his parents (presumably the King and Queen) would have had him living in his own castle by then. The plot hole is that he isn't already married.

You're forgetting the part of "Be Our Guest" where it says "10years we've been rusting..." That indicates he was enchanted at about age 10.



This is the suspension of disbelief portion. Particularly with Chip and his supposed siblings...though the staff could realistically be in the hundreds, depending on the amount of wealth of the prince and the size of the castle.



You're assuming the Beast's castle is the governing castle where the head of state lives. As I stated above, the King and Queen, in that time period, would have set him off on his own to live his life until it was time for him to ascend to the throne. He is only young to be on his own by today's standards. Back then he would have been married. It's very possible that his parents would not have known what had happened, or that the locals would have thought the castle abandoned, especially since there was no "human" presence. It is a plot hole, but with a plausible explanation to fill in the gaps.

While I'm not opposed to suspending disbelief with movies (i.e., musicals, cartoons, enchanted objects, magic wands, etc.), the plot should at least make sense and be consistant.

yes, it was the norm for children of royalty to not be raised by their parents. They were typically sent off around the age of 3 to their own households. They did, though, have a nursemaid/governess and a guardian, if their parents were dead. Yet, none of the objects/servants appear to be this parent figure for him at all. Something this tragic happening, the entire kingdom would have known, especially the parents. They would've been suspicious if their only son's household was no longer writing them or coming for holiday with the parents, especially for 10yrs.



Another thing that doesn't make sense but was added to the new version, there's a scene where Belle gives Beast a book to read outloud, but he struggles to read. This is way out there are, in that point of history, the children of the wealthy got the best education and started very young. Many, by the age of 10, were head deep in philosophy, astrology, astronomy, sciences, religion, etc. They also were speaking, reading and writing multiple languages including English, French, Latin, and possibly Italian. Yet, he couldn't read??

 

[Enchantâmes]

yes, it was the norm for children of royalty to not be raised by their parents. They were typically sent off around the age of 3 to their own households. They did, though, have a nursemaid/governess and a guardian, if their parents were dead. Yet, none of the objects/servants appear to be this parent figure for him at all. Something this tragic happening, the entire kingdom would have known, especially the parents. They would've been suspicious if their only son's household was no longer writing them or coming for holiday with the parents, especially for 10yrs.



Another thing that doesn't make sense but was added to the new version, there's a scene where Belle gives Beast a book to read outloud, but he struggles to read. This is way out there are, in that point of history, the children of the wealthy got the best education and started very young. Many, by the age of 10, were head deep in philosophy, astrology, astronomy, sciences, religion, etc. They also were speaking, reading and writing multiple languages including English, French, Latin, and possibly Italian. Yet, he couldn't read??

How is this a "light" conversation again? :wave:

 

[loveofamouse]

How is this a "light" conversation again? :wave:

Because we are not seriously disgruntled or ed about the movie. Just discussing and sharing thoughts about all of the Disney films.

 

[Mammymouse]

I have one:

My hubby & aunt swear up & down that Andy's mom was Jessie's original owner, Emily, in TS2. I have never gotten that indication but they both swear they have. When asked what part of the movie indicates that neither have a definitive answer. They have no explanation to support their theory but it is noteworthy that 2 people independently came to the same conclusion. My reasoning against Emily being Andy's mom is that she values toys too much to have discarded her childhood favorite the way Emily did. At the yard sale when the toy guy offers her money for Woody and she declines citing that he's a family heirloom of a toy this proves it. Also, I got the impression from this scene that Andy obtained Woody as an old family keeper. Wasn't Woody's Roundup an old children's show from the time period Mom would've grown up? If Woody was so valuable to have been carefully saved then handed down to the next generation certainly Jessie would've been treated the same.

And this is where I take major issue with the ending of TS3. If Woody had been saved from a parent's childhood & handed down to Andy, why on earth did Andy give his favorite toys including the family heirloom to another unrelated kid??? That's tragic! Andy should've saved his toys for his kids! We should've seen Andy's kids discovering our beloved toy gang in a box in the garage! Andy should be playing with his toys again with his kids! Ugh! I know a lot of people totally loved TS3 but I walked away some kinda miffed at him. Lol!

So has anyone else ever thought of Andy's mom as being Emily? Can you explain that thinking?

That sounds like a good storyline for Toy Story 4 - Andy's Search for Woody. Andy could be out of college and married with children. He is kicking himself for ever giving up those childhood toys and memories and the search turns into an international adventure to get them back.:sohappy:

 

[loveofamouse]

I have one:

My hubby & aunt swear up & down that Andy's mom was Jessie's original owner, Emily, in TS2. I have never gotten that indication but they both swear they have. When asked what part of the movie indicates that neither have a definitive answer. They have no explanation to support their theory but it is noteworthy that 2 people independently came to the same conclusion. My reasoning against Emily being Andy's mom is that she values toys too much to have discarded her childhood favorite the way Emily did. At the yard sale when the toy guy offers her money for Woody and she declines citing that he's a family heirloom of a toy this proves it. Also, I got the impression from this scene that Andy obtained Woody as an old family keeper. Wasn't Woody's Roundup an old children's show from the time period Mom would've grown up? If Woody was so valuable to have been carefully saved then handed down to the next generation certainly Jessie would've been treated the same.

And this is where I take major issue with the ending of TS3. If Woody had been saved from a parent's childhood & handed down to Andy, why on earth did Andy give his favorite toys including the family heirloom to another unrelated kid??? That's tragic! Andy should've saved his toys for his kids! We should've seen Andy's kids discovering our beloved toy gang in a box in the garage! Andy should be playing with his toys again with his kids! Ugh! I know a lot of people totally loved TS3 but I walked away some kinda miffed at him. Lol!

So has anyone else ever thought of Andy's mom as being Emily? Can you explain that thinking?

She couldn't be Emily. She would have recognized the Jessie toy when it showed up at the house.

 

[Enchantâmes]

Because we are not seriously disgruntled or ed about the movie. Just discussing and sharing thoughts about all of the Disney films.

Yes but you are nit-picking every single detail of a film that isn't meant to be taken as reality... This isn't "light" by any means its heavy from all full of grown adults taking plot points from a nearly 20 year old animated feature that was nominated for Best Picture way too seriously. I mean just about any film not based on a real story or even reality for that matter will have some sort of plot hole, get a hobby.

 

[trr1]

That sounds like a good storyline for Toy Story 4 - Andy's Search for Woody. Andy could be out of college and married with children. He is kicking himself for ever giving up those childhood toys and memories and the search turns into an international adventure to get them back.:sohappy:

kinda sounds like the brave little toaster

 

[wizards8507]

Thus the name "fairy tales".

*Sometimes the "girl" is actually a young widow or a single mother (or both) and there's no marriage at the end. Still has some sort of magical fairy help though. But the white knight rescue sorts of stories are actually few.

I take offense to the term "fairy tale." It is overtly homophobic and should be removed from the English vernacular.

I also take offense to the term "girl." It is overtly sexist and should be removed from the English vernacular.

I also also take offense to the term "white knight." It is overtly racist and should be removed from the English vernacular.

 

[Phonedave]

Yes but you are nit-picking every single detail of a film that isn't meant to be taken as reality... This isn't "light" by any means its heavy from all full of grown adults taking plot points from a nearly 20 year old animated feature that was nominated for Best Picture way too seriously. I mean just about any film not based on a real story or even reality for that matter will have some sort of plot hole, get a hobby.

1) A well written story will not have a plot hole.

2) I am having fun, not taking it too seriously, and am taking it lightly - sounds like I have a hobby.

-dave

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

how do you get round cooking talking rodents?

 

[sweetpee_1993]

kinda sounds like the brave little toaster

Oh man, I miss watching the Brave Little Toaster. My oldest totally loved that movie when he was a squirt...of course his favorite thing in the world back then was vacuum cleaners.... Lol!


Thanks, y'all for catching my back on the Andy's mom/Emily thing. I thought I had missed something.

 

[loveofamouse]

Yes but you are nit-picking every single detail of a film that isn't meant to be taken as reality... This isn't "light" by any means its heavy from all full of grown adults taking plot points from a nearly 20 year old animated feature that was nominated for Best Picture way too seriously. I mean just about any film not based on a real story or even reality for that matter will have some sort of plot hole, get a hobby.

Get a life. What makes you think you can jump into a conversation and tell everyone else what they can and can not discuss. You don't like it, DON'T CLICK ON IT! Geez!:zipit: From the looks of it, a truly heavy discussion will make you just break down and cry.

 

[wizards8507]

Get a life. What makes you think you can jump into a conversation and tell everyone else what they can and can not discuss. You don't like it, DON'T CLICK ON IT! Geez!:zipit: From the looks of it, a truly heavy discussion will make you just break down and cry.

:lookaroun

 

[Phonedave]

how do you get round cooking talking rodents?

LSD








bad LSD







-dave

 

[loveofamouse]

lsd








bad lsd







-dave

:roflol:


We just started watching Mary Poppins. I haven't seen this since I was a kid. I am laughing at the make up work back then. lol. I'm surprised the feminists haven't said anything about the mary poppins movie. They kinda paint the mother to be a complete idiot and inferior

 

[sbkline]

:roflol:


We just started watching Mary Poppins. I haven't seen this since I was a kid. I am laughing at the make up work back then. lol. I'm surprised the feminists haven't said anything about the mary poppins movie. They kinda paint the mother to be a complete idiot and inferior

If they do, I really don't want to hear it, considering how that's exactly how almost all of the fathers are portrayed anymore.

I was just thinking of one of the biggest plot holes of all: in Cinderella. At the stroke of midnight, the spell wore off. Her ballgown turned back into her raggedy clothes, the coach turned back into a pumpkin, etc. But for some reason, the glass slippers did not disappear with the rest of the spell. :shrug:

 

[rsoxguy]

I was just thinking of one of the biggest plot holes of all: in Cinderella. At the stroke of midnight, the spell wore off. Her ballgown turned back into her raggedy clothes, the coach turned back into a pumpkin, etc. But for some reason, the glass slippers did not disappear with the rest of the spell. :shrug:

I believe that I have an obligation to explain this. The Fairy Godmother's hobby was glass blowing. Consequently, that slipper was not magical, but rather "on loan", much the same way that fashion designers loan their gowns to stars today. She was simply trying to get her name out as a glass blower to the rich and famous. Needless to say, she sued Cinderella for losing the slipper.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

THe ugly sisters were probably feminists too.