last I checked, the specific skillsets they had were pretty clearly put to the test with Maurice well BEFORE Be Our Guest,
Oh, and for the record, the remake is making it pretty explicit that the Beast WAS a kid when he was cursed.
Only about three of the servants got to use theirs skills for Maurice.
What about the rest of the castle? The plates? The cook? The dusters?
That's cool. That's a different movie. Just like The Jungle Book remake had a different ending. It didn't affect the original. The remake of Beauty and the Beast doesn't affect this movie.
(how could they not, when their current forms pretty much left them with no other choice?)
I'm pretty sure that Disney also agreed with that interpretation.
We already discussed this a thousand times. Ofcourse they never knew about the beast, he stayed on his own dominion and the villagers kept to themselves. Maurice and Belle never mentioned a castle, so ofcourse the villagers didn't know where this beast lived. Maurice himself didn't even seem to know where the castle was.
No, we know exactly what Maurice said and he never mentioned the word "castle". He did say "dungeon" from which Gaston deduced that the beast lived in a castle. But one, he had no idea where Maurice had been and where this castle was (France is FILLED with castles). Two, he thought Maurice was crazy and that there was no monster, so why would he assume the castle was real? And if he did, why would he even care? Three, as soon as Belle acknowledged there was a beast, he went straight to the castle.
The movie explicitly states that the Beast concealed himself inside his castle. If he went out to hunt, he would do that in his own private forest where the villagers wouldn't be allowed to hunt. The villagers would go and hunt in the common forests. The Beast also seems to have hunted at night time, while most hunters hunt during the day. And the Beast would most certainly flee if he sensed a human nearby. So yeah, it's very unlikely they would've crossed paths. But I already explained this to you a thousand times.
First of all, Beast was unlikely to even have private forests
Maurice went on a trip, who knows which castle he's talking about. If it even existed, because the villagers thought he was crazy. There is no reason to go and check out the nearest castle if they don't believe there's a monster holding Belle prisoner in his dungeon. It's ridiculous.
Are you crazy? He's a nobleman, ofcourse he had a private forest! And yes, that practice still existed, it didn't change until the French Revolution. Peasants had very little hunting rights. Seeing the animals Gaston shot, he would mostly have hunted during the day.
The movie stated the Beast concealed himself inside his castle, so if he would go out to hunt he would stay in his own forest, most likely just outside the gate.
I doubt they knew Maurice had gone to the fair and they certainly didn't know where he supposedly encountered this beast. But again, they thought he was crazy, they're not going to check out the nearest castle because of some absurd claim. And like I said, Maurice himself wasn't even sure where the castle was.
We see Maurice travel through an entirely different area before he has entered the forest situated on the mountain. The forest is not right next to the village. The windows are symbolical, the Mob Song scene just a montage, if you take that literally then the castle was only a few minutes away.
You're not going to take those animal trophies seriously, are you? They're just a joke, they don't say anything about where Gaston hunts.
Maybe not, but he would have been certain it was close by due to it not taking very long to get him back to the village.
Maurice might have known the castle was just a couple of hours away, even though he didn't seem to know where exactly. But he never told anything to the villagers. But most importantly, they are not going to look for a monster in a castle if they think the man is just a raving lunatic.
Maurice may have taken a different route and may have gotten lost, but NO WAY would it have taken him half a day to get to a place only a few minutes away. If that were the case he would certainly have recognized the castle standing right next to the village. So yes, it is a montage, the mountain range might start near the village, but that shot does not show the distance between the village and the castle. It's a condensed scene, it's not real time, one moment they're still in the village, the next moment they're already on the mountain.
It's a joke because it's funny to have animals hanging there from the other side of the world. It's a joke just for those who pay attention. But maybe these animals were just chosen for aesthetic reason. There's simply no reason to take them seriously and deduce where Gaston hunts. It certainly doesn't imply that Gaston hunts in private forests owned by princes. If you want an in-universe explanation, Gaston bought those trophies somewhere else so he could impress the villagers with the impressive animals he supposedly shot.
If the castle was close by, even if it was just a couple of hours walk, they would at least be able to deduce the castle from his description. I never said they should believe Maurice about there being a beast there, just that they at least believe him about the castle.
I think you're missing the point: Look right near the village in that screenshot, there were a mass of trees in close proximity to the village, meaning, yes, the forest was in fact right next to the village. And if it took Maurice half a day to get to the castle, do you REALLY think the villagers would even be able to get to the castle in just a couple of hours, even WITH a mirror? Absolutely not! And yes, it did have to take a couple of hours for them to get to the castle without the sun rising.
Maurice never gave a description! Maybe there were other castles just as close by, but in a different direction. How should they know which one he's talking about? But if they don't believe there's a beast, then why should they believe the castle is real? The point that you keep missing, though, is that they thought he was talking nonsense, so it's ridiculous to suggest they should check out the castle. Absolutely ridiculous.
That could very well be a different forest or the forest could be HUGE! You're not making any sense, you really think Maurice would take half a day to get to the castle and not recognize his surroundings if it was next to the village? And the difference is that Maurice got lost and the villagers took a short cut. That short cut lasted at least a few hours, which means the castle is obviously not next to the village.
Your duck example is nonsense because, unlike the animal trophies, it was not simply featured in the background. You should NOT take the trophies seriously, they were either chosen for aesthetic reasons or because they thought it was funny to have animals from across the globe that Gaston could never have shot. You have a ridiculously high standard for every detail to make sense (which is rather hypocritical since you get so many details wrong yourself, especially when it comes to European history). And Gaston is a disgusting human being who abuses, blackmails and murders, I can very much see him buying exotic animal trophies so he can brag. But stop trying to deflect, in no way do those trophies show that Gaston hunted in the forest of the prince and it certainly doesn't mean he must've seen the Beast.
First of all, the duck example is definitely relevant because it was a character defining moment, and it was made repeatedly apparent that he was a hunter by trade. If they wanted to imply he just committed fraud with the trophies, they would have specifically either shown it, or at least give dialogue alluding to it.
BUT THE POINT IS, the villagers thought Maurice was insane, so they're not going to bother looking for a castle. The villagers are not as ridiculous as you, wasting time on something they don't believe.
We did not see the entire route the mob took, so it could very well have been a short cut. But they're obviously not going to climb rocks. But let's say they used the quickest route that was most easy to travel. It took several hours, so it's not next to the village! And if the quickest route takes hours and the villagers keep to themselves, why would they even know what happened to the prince?!
The duck example is irrelevant because it's not in the background like the trophies. The ducks have a close-up, you can hardly make out what kind of animals the trophies are. Chip's reflection on the marble floor doesn't even have a mouth, which shows you how little they care about the details. I didn't say they wanted to imply Gaston was a fraud, I'm actually saying they're not implying anything. I simply gave an in-universe explanation for your sake. And yes, Gaston could very easily be a fraud. He distorts the truth anyway.
Just keep babbling on about the trophies and ignore the point YOU were actually trying to make. The trophies in no way suggest that Gaston hunts in the forest of the prince!!!
And no, you have made many, many mistakes about European history. I've had to correct you many times, which you've even acknowledged in several cases. Your standard for others should be lower.
You'd think it would be an object of curiosity and gossip.
And the prince hasn't been a beast for that long you'd think a lot of the villagers would know about it.
and if the castle was hours away, you would think the villagers would be tired by the time they got there when they go to kill the beast, but they seem quite energetic when they arrive.
Adrenaline from wanting to kill a dangerous animal? I would actually say that's something very typical about mobs. But Belle didn't seem tired either. You really want the movie to spend time showing the villagers taking a break before attacking the castle?
i would think anyone would be interested in a castle and who lived in it
And i certainly can't see the villagers being that keen to rush off and kill the beast if he was hours and hours away. castles are not normally hours and hours away from the nearest village.
they don't need to take a break because the castle isn't that far away.
One, Maurice was not a guest but a trespasser. Their master did not accept him as a guest, so he doesn't count.
Two, only a handful of servants were able to attend to him and hardly even used their skills before being interrupted. They didn't even have the opportunity to sing the song.
Three, Maurice had only arrived the night before and Belle's visit was connected to him. I wouldn't see it as two seperate occassions. The arrival of Maurice and his daughter meant they could use their skills again.
Four, a lot of Ashman's lyrics should not be taken only literally, the figurative meaning of these lines is obvious. Ten year curse or not, in both cases the servants are saying that they hadn't used their skills for years before Belle came along.
These are the reasons all of us, including the writers, think that it totally makes sense for them to sing the song to Belle. Just because your autistic mind can't accept that Maurice wasn't acknowledged as a seperate guest they used their skills on before, doesn't mean the curse lasted ten years.
The difference between Belle and Maurice is that the Beast took her out of the dungeon and allowed her to make herself at home. She was more than just a prisoner.
Guiding someone to a chair is not putting one's service to the test. And again, those were only a handful of servants. It doesn't matter they originally sang the song to Maurice, that change actually meant that all the servants couldn't show off their skills until Belle came along.
The servants are luckily not you. They're not going to sing 9 years and 364 days just because Maurice was there a day earlier. The arrival of both of them in a 24 hour timeframe meant things had changed.
If you accept the figurative meaning then you also have to accept that it says nothing at all about the length of the curse. But the figurative meaning still makes sense. Serving tea to Maurice does not "put their service to the test" nor does it mean that their skills have not been rusting for ten years nor does it contradict their claim that nobody had been there in ten years.
I was actually speaking for all of us here who think it does make sense, but I could just as well speak for everyone who has ever commented on this movie because there hasn't been anyone who has claimed that the curse lasted ten years because Belle wasn't their first guest.
Yes, except as you pointed out in prior posts when I argued against her being a prisoner, she was still, at least officially, a prisoner.
Ah, yeah, actually, that IS putting your services to the test.
just have them not even MENTION how long they've gone without using their skills, period.
In case you've forgotten, Mrs. Potts' role was to serve tea, being a British maid, that means, yes, that DOES put at least her service to the test, pretty blatantly. And guiding a guest to someone's chair is what a major domo is supposed to do.
And again, I can name several people who DO think that the curse lasted ten years.
And you of all people should know this since you constantly have to put down literally anyone who claims it lasted 10 years.
Yes, she was a prisoner AND more. Unlike Maurice, who was simply a trespasser and never had permission to stay at the castle.
Clearly you don't understand what the expression "to put to the test" means.
That's nonsense, because it makes perfect sense. It had been ten years before Maurice arrived and it had been ten years before Belle arrived. But Maurice was not a guest, only few were able to serve him and he certainly did not "put them to the test". So Lumiere was certainly correct when he said that "WE were rusting" until Belle came along. Not once do the servants say that Belle was the first person in 10 years any of them were able to serve.
Again, you do not know what "to put to the test" means.
You need to read better. I said that no one has ever claimed the curse lasted ten years because Belle wasn't their first guest.
I have done no such thing. I simply disagree with them and explain why. You are the one constantly putting ME down, look at what you're doing now.
Whenever anyone claims that Beast was 11 when he was cursed, you jump in and tell them they are wrong, and that it was referring to Beast being so unpleasant that no one wanted to go to the castle and that Belle was the first visitor they had. You've done that every single time. And not just to me.
No, "to put to the test" means to test how good someone is, to make them show their best. That's absolutely not what Maurice did. They did so little, their skills would still be rusted. A "skill" is the ability to do something well, pouring tea and guiding someone to a chair is someone anyone can do, they didn't do anything special.
Oh, you mean like you jump on me every time I say that there's no reason for the villagers to know about the beast? Or when I say that the prince wasn't 11 when he was cursed? Or that the curse didn't last 10 years? Or EVERY TIME I disagree with anybody? Or like you jump on every poster criticising the movie to tell them how right they are? Hypocrite. I don't jump on them, I simply disagree with them and explain why. You can't expect me to respond and say how right they are when I don't think they are right. You need to learn how to live with that.
No, "rusted" would mean even with the basics,
I actually explained a lot of the logic problems posed regarding the villagers not knowing about the Beast,