Beauty and the Beast : Shouldn't their actions have proved they were in love? :/

Shouldn't their actions have proved they were in love? :/

The curse was that The Beast was doomed to become a Beast for the rest of his life if he did not find someone to love him and earn her love in return by his 21st birthday. The curse was only broken when Belle told him she loved him right before the last rose fell.

Shouldn't their clearly in love actions have broken the curse? He releases her as his prisoner knowing the last rose is going to fall down very soon, sealing his fate, because Belle tells him Maurice is very sick and may be dying and she wanted to tend to her father. That's love. Plus his howling roar of despair as she leaves furthers that he is in love. Later on he is seen CRYING over losing Belle(Which looks to the unsuspecting villagers as raging) and is later shown to be depressed and does not even run when Gaston draws an arrow at him. It was clear losing Belle really made him emotionally damaged. That's love. He even outright said/implied that he loved Belle twice(He said to Lumiere he would confess his love to Belle at dinner before he knew she was going to be leaving to take care of Maurice, and told Cogsworth he loved Belle).

Belle defends The Beast when Gaston called him a monster and talked about how gentle and kind he was and even slightly implied that The Beast was her boyfriend proving she was not ashamed of him. She was HORRIFIED when the mob planned to kill him. She rushed back to the castle(with the help of Chip after Gaston locked her and Maurice in their own house and Chip found away to get them out of there using Maurice's invention. The fact that she returned to the castle willingly after he set her free proves she was in love(The old,"If someone returns to you after you set them free, it's love" thing). The Beast's eyes light up when he sees her and he gets his will to live back and actually fights Gaston back knowing his love came back. She begs Gaston not to kill The Beast and saves him from falling to his death after Gaston cowardly stabs him in the back after The Beast decides NOT to kill Gaston. All of that was love on Belle's part.

I don't get why Belle had to SAY she loved him for the curse to be broken. Actions speak louder than words.
.
Drake is repetitive. He just raps the same thing over and over as if he is in an insane asylum!LOL:D

Re: Shouldn't their actions have proved they were in love? :/

in the original story, beauty only realises she loves the beast at the end, when he is apparently dying. She tells the beast she loves him and her tears fall on him, whereupon he is transformed into a handsome prince. In the film, i don't think she actually says she loves him until the ending, perhaps the words were necessary.

Re: Shouldn't their actions have proved they were in love? :/

I don't think Belle even realized she truly loved the Beast until he was dying. Before, she simply thought she cared for him. Also, do you think the curse would know what goes on inside Belle's mind? The rose probably reacts to the words actually being spoken out loud into the world.

Re: Shouldn't their actions have proved they were in love? :/

You have a good point there, even through you have to remember with Belle and the Beast it wannest true love at first sight, as I bet that Belle when she first met the Beast she didn't think she would ever have to defend him at any point. She might have found a way to get out run to the village for help like Maurice did, and said "there is a huge monstrous Beast in a castle, and I need you to kill him", or something like that and I bet Gaston and the villagers still wouldn't have believed the Beast existed. Gaston and the villagers didn't even believe he existed until Belle should them in the magic mirror. You do bring up a good point about Belle having to speak that she loves the Beast, but you have to remember that as we the audience his aware of Belle is not aware of the curse, and remember that David Ogden Steirs ended his narration by saying

If he could learn to love another, and earn her love in return by the time the last petal fell, then the spell would be broken. If not, he would be doomed to remain a beast for all time. As the years passed, he fell into despair and lost all hope. For who could ever learn to love a beast?

Re: Shouldn't their actions have proved they were in love? :/

I agree that actions speak louder than words and that showing you love someone is sometimes the way more so than claiming you love somebody but not showing it. I guess Belle and the Beast telling each other they loved one another had to be the icing on the cake. They couldn't just say they loved each other if they did not truly love each other.

Metallica, Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath, and My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fan

Re: Shouldn't their actions have proved they were in love? :/

Yeah, agreed, it really didn't make sense for Belle to just tell him explicitly she loved him to break the curse. Any one of those instances would have broken the curse, yet they required saying she loves him to do any dent to the curse at all, let alone break the curse? (Actually, come to think of it, I also noticed the spell didn't even specifically state that the "love" earned was true love, something The Little Mermaid and Sleeping Beauty had to make sure to specify regarding the curse Ariel and Aurora respectively were afflicted with. What's to say Belle had loved Beast for reasons other than true love.).

Another problem with the curse overall is, why on earth would neither Beast NOR the servants tell Belle about the curse? I mean, it's not like telling her about the curse, say, before the wolf attack would have made any difference regarding the situation, she still would have hated the Beast regardless, and probably even say to the servants she befriended "that's [their] problem" and coldly dismissing them. Heck, even after the wolf incident, it probably wouldn't have made much difference there anyways, since she was growing to love the Beast anyways.

Hopefully the remake will address these issues. I know the remake, for example, is going the route of Beast actually BEING cursed at 11.

Re: Shouldn't their actions have proved they were in love? :/


she still would have hated the Beast regardless, and probably even say to the servants she befriended "that's [their] problem" and coldly dismissing them.


That's precisely why they wouldn't tell her. They don't want her to hate them or hate the Beast even more ruining any chance of her falling for him.

Seize the moment, 'cause tomorrow you might be dead.

Re: Shouldn't their actions have proved they were in love? :/

Well, yeah, but maybe if they explicitly stated it, like in a conversation in private between the servants, they'd at least have that bit out of the way.

And in either case, I was just saying that simply telling her wouldn't have really made any difference regarding whether it broke the spell, especially when most people assumed that if they did tell her, somehow she's obligated to just love Beast for their sake, and not actually grow to love them.

Re: Shouldn't their actions have proved they were in love? :/

It is worth wondering if fake saying "I love you," would break the spell. People say, "I love you," when they are plain lying. A very good example is a teenager saying,"I love you," to get his girlfriend to give him her virginity(a 16 year old actually admitted she gave her virginity to her boyfriend just because he told her "I love you," and felt like a fool when he realized he completelty lied and said it just to get him to have sex with her. Poor girl. :( So, I do have to wonder if them plain lying about loving each other would have broken the spell....

Re: Shouldn't their actions have proved they were in love? :/

I'm sure if Belle lied about her loving the Beast out loud it wouldn't have broken the spell, cause you can't cheat the magic.

Re: Shouldn't their actions have proved they were in love? :/

Except spells at the same time require exact words. Like for example, in Frozen, the spell only said that the spell to undo Elsa's accidental curse on Anna was an "act of true love", it never necessarily said that said act of true love required a lover, and sure enough, Anna's taking the bullet for Elsa and Elsa's remorse for Anna brought her back from the brink.

Maybe if the spell made specifically stated that said love had to be true love, I could see it, but it only said love, which if we could go by exact words, may just as easily mean pseudo-love. That's why with Sleeping Beauty and The Little Mermaid, the method of undoing a curse specifically stated that it be a kiss of true love, not just any kiss. That's why they couldn't simply break Snow White, Aurora, or even Ariel's curse by simply having, say, the Dwarves kiss her, Aurora's parents kiss her, the three good fairies kiss her, or even any of Ariel's friends or Triton kiss her.

Re: Shouldn't their actions have proved they were in love? :/


Except spells at the same time require exact words.


Not necessarily, otherwise, the method of undoing a curse for Snow White, Sleeping Beauty and The Little Mermaid must have only bluntly stated that it must be "a kiss of true romantic love", not just a kiss of true love. Because true love can be not just romantic, but from parents or dear friends in a totally non-romantic and yet true and powerful way.

You said yourself "they couldn't simply break Snow White, Aurora, or even Ariel's curse by simply having, say, the Dwarves kiss her, Aurora's parents kiss her, the three good fairies kiss her, or even any of Ariel's friends or Triton kiss her".

But then it means that only a romantic kiss was needed and could only work, and yet it was never directly stated in any of the movies about SW, SB or TLM that it was only a romantic kiss that was required. Just "a kiss of true love". So no, spells do not require that exact words. Not in Disney cartoons anyway.

Re: Shouldn't their actions have proved they were in love? :/

I thought it was pretty directly stated in The Little Mermaid at least (otherwise, Ursula wouldn't have needed to say "and not just any kiss" before saying a kiss of true love). And considering Merriweather's the only reason Aurora's ONLY put into a coma, if they knew a true love's first kiss could easily come from, say, her parents, they wouldn't have needed to find Philip, so yes, the only kind of true love IS something that's not related to you familially, either by blood or by adoption.

Re: Shouldn't their actions have proved they were in love? :/

You're not getting the other poster's point. In TLM, SB and Frozen the spells all mention "true love", but in two of those movies it apparently means "romantic" love while in the other it means "sisterly" love. This contradicts your claim that spells require exact words.

Re: Shouldn't their actions have proved they were in love? :/


You're not getting the other poster's point. In TLM, SB and Frozen the spells all mention "true love", but in two of those movies it apparently means "romantic" love while in the other it means "sisterly" love. This contradicts your claim that spells require exact words.


Anna certainly assumed that the "true love" involved romantic love when it really didn't, so it still qualifies under exact words in that example at least.

Re: Shouldn't their actions have proved they were in love? :/

Still not getting the point! It doesn't matter what they thought, the point is that the spells don't require exact words. The same words can mean two different things.

Re: Shouldn't their actions have proved they were in love? :/

That's what exact words generally MEANS. Just go here if you don't believe me: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExactWords

Or, to use a more specific example, when Darth Sidious called the Separatists at Mustafar, where he told them that as his reward for their service in Revenge of the Sith, he will have his new apprentice, Darth Vader, come to Mustafar, he'll "take care of them", letting them assume that Vader would provide them with aid, yet in reality, he meant "take care of them" as in, cause a bloodbath in their ranks. Heck, what the Joker in The Dark Knight often does with his choice of words or how Lady Tremaine did things with her words.

Re: Shouldn't their actions have proved they were in love? :/

And STILL missing the point. True love could mean romantic love or sisterly love. The spells don't explicitly state which one it is, but only one of them counts. The same goes for BatB, "pseudo" love doesn't count either, it's only real love. So exact words are not required. And the point of the whole curse in his movie makes clear it had to be real love, otherwise it would have no purpose.

Re: Shouldn't their actions have proved they were in love? :/

Except they didn't even say "real love" or "true love" in the spell at all, while in Frozen, Little Mermaid, and Sleeping Beauty, it is made explicit. And besides, there are actually four forms of love: Agape, Eros, Platonic, and Philic. Agape comes the closest to true love. If I were a particularly evil witch, or warlock in my case, and I were feeling particularly devious, I'd actually say the requirement of the spell was love, but deliberately neglect to mention true love, so that it's easy to break, yet the person who broke it didn't have any real love at all and abandoned them shortly thereafter, deliberately making them heartbroken as a result, and I'd then taunt them that I neglected to say true love, and rub the pyrrhic victory on them.

Re: Shouldn't their actions have proved they were in love? :/

And AGAIN you missed the point. In Frozen true/real love doesn't mean the same as in Sleeping Beauty, but the spell never specifies it. The spell in BatB never specifies what kind of love it is either, altough it turns out it's supposed to be real romantic love. The purpose of the spell (the prince learning how to love and becoming a better person) makes clear it's not "pseudo" love, but true love.

Re: Shouldn't their actions have proved they were in love? :/

And what you're failing to understand is that they still didn't use the term "true love" in BATB, while even with Frozen, despite the obvious difference in definition between that and, say, Sleeping Beauty and The Little Mermaid, they still at least used the term True Love, and in the case of Frozen actually used the Exact Words trope. And if they wanted it to be true love, they would have made it explicit.

Re: Shouldn't their actions have proved they were in love? :/

And what you fail to understand is the point the other poster was making. All those movies may have said "true love" but the spells never specified if it was romantic or sisterly. BatB never said it was true/real, but the purpose of the curse makes clear it's not supposed to be "pseudo". They didn't make it explicit because no one in their right mind would think the Beast's curse could be lifted by insincere love. So again, spells don't require exact words.

Re: Shouldn't their actions have proved they were in love? :/

If no one in their right mind thought that the spell could be lifted by insincere love, why is it that the servants and Beasts didn't seem to think of, I don't know, flat out TELLING Belle about the curse? At least with Ariel, she had an excuse due to being mute, and the fact that F&J or even Ursula herself would try to undo any attempt at direct communication with Eric about it. And considering that, in the case of The Little Mermaid, Ursula had to specify that it needed to be a kiss of true love, I'd say she was VERY specific regarding what true love was. And Frozen, again, utilized exact words. In fact, if you looked at the TVTropes page for Exact Words, particularly the Animated Film section, it even MENTIONS the whole curse under Frozen as being under that trope.

And had I been the enchantress, I'd deliberately make sure it was pseudo-love specifically to troll Beast. And as Kentry pointed out, if it needed an explicit declaration of love for it to break the spell, most likely it wasn't true love, especially when actions speak louder than words (if Belle truly loved Beast, for example, she would not have exposed Beast to that mob, not even to save her father, precisely BECAUSE she'd be all too aware that they would go after the Beast if she told them. THAT'S what true love ultimately is, putting another person's needs above your own.).

Re: Shouldn't their actions have proved they were in love? :/

What? If they told Belle about the curse then that would exactly make insincere love more likely. Belle would try or pretend to love him out of pity. Her love for him had to grow naturally.

Luckily you're not the enchantreess, so move on. She didn't want to troll him, she wanted him to truly change.

Again, Belle probably didn't even realize she loved him until she thought he had died! If you don't like the fact that the curse was only lifted after Belle spoke those words, then complain to the writer of the original story, Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont. It's just the way it is.

Re: Shouldn't their actions have proved they were in love? :/

1. It would have at least demonstrated how it needed to be true love, if they really wanted to make clear it was true love without actually saying it.

2. If she truly wanted him to change, she wouldn't have gone as far as to curse the entire forest (and yes, she DID curse the entire forest, considering the opening prologue's stained glass windows depicted, yes, the forest being altered). Cursing him, even the castle and servants was one thing, but cursing the forest was beyond overkill, and yes, I would in fact assume that the Enchantress would have in fact wanted the curse to remain in place. Even Maurice stumbling upon the castle was a complete accident, and the trailers strongly implied that Gaston knew about the curse. And she most certainly would not have driven Belle and Maurice away from the castle as a wolf and an owl in one of those comics Disney released that took place before the film, thus nearly causing Beast to commit suicide. If anything, having Belle go to the castle with Maurice would have been the perfect opportunity to put Beast to the test to see if he had indeed changed.

3. Actually, in this case, the original story is not to blame, because unlike the Disney version, Belle didn't actually know she had feelings for Beast until it actually WAS too late. In the Disney version, when Gaston accused her of having feelings for the Beast, she didn't even deny it, so yes, she most certainly DID realize she love him during that time, yet she STILL exposed him to a bloodthirsty without even a THOUGHT about how she endangered him and his servants with that action. In this case, I blame Linda Woolverton.

Re: Shouldn't their actions have proved they were in love? :/

It was clear to most of us that it needed to be true love. That's what fairy tales are about and that was the whole point of the curse. Otherwise the Beast could just kidnap a girl and force her to love him without changing at all.

She didn't curse the ENTIRE forest, she cursed the prince's land. She did so to challenge him, to actually get him out of his castle to meet the people whom he looked down on.

Feelings, yes, not LOVE! In the original story she also thought she felt only friendship for him. And she was trying to save her father from being institutionalized, for fncks sake! She didn't know Gaston was capable of murder.

No, don't put the blame on Linda Woolverton, the blame's on you.

But why the hell are you turning this into a different discussion?!

Re: Shouldn't their actions have proved they were in love? :/

I would have to agree with your explanation and add one or two more reasons why(to an already great list) we(the viewers) are expected, by Disney, to assume that true love was the specific emotion needed to break the spell, and not just love in any form.

First off, as you already mentioned, BatB being a fairy tale, from Disney, is a dead giveaway. Even before we sat down to view it the first time(knowing that where it came from allows a certain amount of vagueness, from writers and producers), we knew to expect a romantic love story.

Also, if a "sisterly" love was enough to reverse the effects from the enchantress's spell, the living objects clearly love the beast they serve. They were more than servants, they were the beasts only family. I guess it's possible that when the spell was cast, the Prince felt little for them but even then, the time and togetherness they shared, over the years, grew whatever insignificant feelings they felt for each other, into a real and durable love.

Top