What do you think of the Beast in Disney’s 'Beauty and the Beast' turning back into the Prince at the end of the movie? Wasn’t the whole moral of the show about discovering the inner beauty of a person? So when Belle see past the hideousness of the Beast and love him for who he is, she gets rewarded with physical beauty? Frankly I think it is so not right. For example, would you like your pet dog to suddenly turn into a Fabio like stranger? Would you like your dad to turn into Tom Cruise? At least, Shrek got the whole moral thing correct.
But what if the Beast didn’t turn back into the prince? Would it be immoral for Belle to actually marry a Beast and consummate their marriage? Fairy Tales are so screwed up.
2006-08-16 05:24:43 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
No! He should have stayed the beast completely! Not only for the moral of the story to remain valid but the fact is that the beast was way cooler than some sissy boy prince.
One of the main differences between Beauty and the Beast and any other peanut gallery cookie cutter fairytales is that the beast was not a good guy. That’s how he got turned into the beast in the first place- he already was one on the inside.
Something I was never sure of was- did beauty really fall in love with the beast OR did she fall in love with the idea of saving and changing him? If the latter, then the entire character of Bell comes into question- and actually makes more sense. She read a lot (which I’m not knocking because I real all of the time.) but that expressed to us, the audience that she lived for and in a fairy tale world- which (to me) seemed full of harrowing romance.. Where someone has to change the other?! Isn’t the entire point of love to fall in love with who they are? Not who you can trick them into being?
Changing him into the prince was the final straw for me, even though its my favorite Disney movie- it was basically saying that the inside is always clearly reflected on the outside which is just obviously not true. (If it was, Gestaun would have been a dog turd by the end of the film). And not to mention- that love is changing the person your with or changing yourself. That love is compromise, and to me personally I think that that idea is a pile.
Its like they’re saying ‘if you ever want love, change who you are and what you believe in to make the other happy’ which is not love, its giving up and settling. Love is acceptance for who you are and not submissiveness.
And for the bestiality question, it’s a good one. But by far the lesser of the evils. Look at the other fairy tales, right? Compare it to some of the other themes, necrophilia, date rape, stalking, gang bangs, hair and foot fetish’s… well actually bestiality is ranking up with the rest of them… Somehow I think that if I said ‘at least it would be two consenting adults’ that it would sound wrong. But between bestiality and being with someone who is only a hallowed out shell of what they were?
Which would you choose if you were beast- the extra hair or the lobotomy?
2006-08-16 07:09:46 · answer #1 · answered by Karmically Screwed 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Beast Turns Into Prince
2017-01-12 18:16:16 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This Site Might Help You.
RE:
Should the Beast have turned back into the Prince?
What do you think of the Beast in Disney’s 'Beauty and the Beast' turning back into the Prince at the end of the movie? Wasn’t the whole moral of the show about discovering the inner beauty of a person? So when Belle see past the hideousness of the Beast and love him for who he is, she gets...
2015-08-23 06:31:18 · answer #3 · answered by ? 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, because the whole point of the story was for the beast to get someone to truly love him so he could back into a prince. Without Belle's love, the spell wouldn't have been reversed.
2016-03-17 01:31:47 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
i think to read to much into a children's animated movie is just ruining it.. it is for entertainment not to be morally right. I f you watch a lot of Disney films there is a lot of messed up stuff in them. we could then ask the question why did disney kill Bambi's mom so early in the movie? Is it right for Dumbo to get drunk and see crazy elephants? Was it moral for Snow White to live with 7 little old men (dwarves)? ect..ect..ect..
The reason why the Beast turned into the Prince is a simple answer: according to the story (that disney did) once the spell was broken the entire castle would revert back to how it was before the enchantress cast the spell on him. Also remember that the Beast was not the only one that changed. All the servants reverted back to their human form as well
2006-08-16 05:37:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
okay, first of all, it's for kids and it's a movie. you need to understand the art of interpretation from the makers. if you listened to the spell in the begining of the movie, he would only remain a beast if she didn't love him before the final petal fell. she did and the curse was lifted letting them live happily ever after. he was able to return to his true form, the form that showed his new character instead of his beastly attitude. it's not that it's a reward, it shows the viewers the beauty of love in the lifting of the curse.
but if it was too late and the beast didn't turn back into the price, i don't know if they would acctually marry. frankly, if i was belle, i wouldn't let it go that far. i guess that's why he did change back. fate had it so that they could marry and live happily ever after. but with shrek, that also wasn't your average fairy tale. lol.
2006-08-16 05:39:07 · answer #6 · answered by sweetiethatcares 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The difference between Shrek and BatB is that Shrek was never handsome to begin with. Beast simply reverted back into his normal form after lifting his curse, which was the whole point of the movie. He had to learn that you couldn't judge things by their appearance and to love unselfishly. Shrek was left in his "beast" form because that was the whole point of the movie-- to accept yourself as you are. Great movies both, IMO.
2006-08-16 05:33:10 · answer #7 · answered by Cat 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes he should. Belle broke the spell on the Beast, when she loved him. She excepted his exterior of the beast, and softened his facade of his inner beauty. Would you prefer Belle to be with Gaston? And Shrek was totally different, when Fiona turned into an ogre, and not stayed her same as a human princess. (I'm not sure if you also referred to the sequels to it too.)
2006-08-16 05:31:28 · answer #8 · answered by Kristen H 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No because he was much more attractive as the beast and had developed a soft side unlike the spoiled baby face prince.
2016-10-06 19:25:59 · answer #9 · answered by dani 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the physical beauty had to return..it turned him back human. her love was returned after he loved her, and that way everyone could be human again. she wasnt rewarded, his spell was broken. truly the point isnt belle's love for the Beast, its the coming of age process for both the Beast and Belle.
2006-08-16 05:32:16 · answer #10 · answered by TheMaverick.The Artist 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋