Because if beauty is found on the inside, Beast should have fallen in love with a less attractive girl I think. It would prove he's really changed.

And this is precisely why I am not too fond of Belle, because her character sort of contradicts the story.

If Beast was cursed for turning away an old woman because she was ugly, why have Belle be pretty? What lesson is he learning?

Beast first fell for Belle because she was beautfiul.
"Oh, it's no use. She's so beautiful, and I'm... Well, look at me!"

To me, they should make Belle NOT pretty, and have Beast fall in love with her. That would be more of a lesson on inner beauty, for me. Beast, to me, didn't really learn much of a lesson, except to be kind. And Belle didn't really learn any lesson either. She already knew the lesson "Beauty is found within", because she didn't fall for Gaston, and didn't fall for the Beast when he was being a dick. So it's not a lesson Belle had to learn.

It would be more of a lesson, to me, if Belle WASN'T pretty and Beast fell in love with her (though obviously not righ taway). Then it would show he had learned his lesson about beauty being found within.

Would Beast have fallen for Belle if she wasn't beautiful? Because of the fact she IS beautiful, we don't know.

To me, it would make sense of Belle was a not very pretty girl in town, Gaston made fun of her for it, but she went to rescue her father and such. Then we would really admire Belle more, I think. If a not very pretty girl was still beautiful inside. It defeats the purpose if she's beautiful on the inside AND outside. Not that it can't exist, of course, people can be beautiful inside and outside....but for the purpose of the story...

Belle being this beauty who could have any good looking guy choosing to go with a beast was part of the point for me. The fact that her beauty gave her more shallow options, but she chose not to take them always seemed like part of the point to me. She set aside the paths her looks gave her to have more depth. I think that reflects better on her than someone who took the deep route because it was the easiest one available to them. If she was unattractive she isn't choosing personality over looks, it's choosing her.

Plus I feel like a lot of Beast's learning was supposed to be internal. It was about how he viewed himself and how he felt it was ok to behave, not him learning to be ok with unattractive people, so Belle's beauty didn't harm that, it helped. Him seeing someone as beautiful as her learn to love someone as beastly as him is what helped him learn. She taught through example. Putting him in the position of being the 'ugly' one who could still be loved by someone superficially better would teach him that lesson better than two uglies shacking up I think. It's more powerful to me that Belle had shallow options readily available and didn't want them than if she didn't have the same choice between superficiality and depth. That's just how I see it :)

^^ I agree with some of your points, but I still feel it would make more sense if he fell in love with Belle even THOUGH she was ugly, and she taught him to be kind.

Well, I do see where you are coming from. But Belle is not that kind of person to give in right away to anyone. Her and the Beast fought with eachother to begin with and he was nothing more than her Prisoner. Beast had to like himself before he could even like her. And she had Gaston who repeatedly told her she was the most beautiful girl. I think her beauty might have been as much a burden as the Beast being " ugly". She wanted someone to see her for a person and not a pretty object to just marry-LIKE GASTON, and Beast wanted someone to see the good side of him. And in the end they both succeeded. It actually took her longer. She went back to help her father and then realized she needed and loved the Beast.

I totally agree with princesslullaby and SkylerJett.
Beast is the one who's supposed to be learning a lesson throughout the film, not Belle. What is Disney's obsession with making the women in their stories perfect, inside and out? It's always the men who get to learn the lesson, whereas the girl has to be pretty. God forbid Disney make an average princess. Not to mention, what does a guy who is too focused on looks falling for a pretty girl prove? If he had fallen for a less attractive girl who was a good person, we'd be POSITIVE he had learned his lesson. Whereas with Belle being beautiful we're left wondering: Does he really love her for her (oh so amazing according to most Fanpoppers) personality or for her oh so gorgeous face?

Yep, I'm tired of the MEN being the ones who learn the major lessons in the films.

Aladdin- Aladdin learns to be himself...Jasmine learns?? nothing.
BATB- Beast learns to love & be kind...Belle learns? nothing. (and neither of them learn about beauty being on the inside.)
Pocahontas- John learns to be understanding of other cultures...Pocahontas learns??! her path? big deal. That's not a moral the audience can take away.

Belle's beauty is what first attracted the Beast to her. I don't think he just saw her and poof - he was in love with her and wanted to change. They spent time together and actually got to know each other. Belle didn't like the Beast at first either. After all he was the one who locked her father up not caring he could die, so why should she have liked him? The point of the movie is to not judge a book by its cover and beauty comes from within. Belle was pretty on the outside; if we didn't know her that well we could say she was ugly on the inside. Beast was ugly (or, I say scary) on the outside, but despite that Belle was able to see the beauty within him. Had they not gotten to know each other, that would have never happened. We see them start sort of seeing eye to eye with the wolf scene. Beast scared Belle and she ran off with Phillipe, only to get cornered by a pack of wolves. Beast went after her and saved her, getting injured in the process. If he just stayed in the castle and let the wolves devour Belle and her horse, he couldn't get much uglier inside. Belle took him back to the castle and helped healed him, also expressing her gratitude for him saving her. If that didn't happen maybe something wouldn't have started there. I see that scene as the one that kind of did start them actually liking each other, or at least seeing something start to develop.
Maybe Belle being pretty did help the Beast along a little or get it started, but that's not all it was. the more time they spent with each other the more they were able to see of each other. Beast saw Belle for who she was and Belle did see the goodness and beauty in the beast. She was the right girl for it. And assuming we didn't know if Beast fell for her because she's pretty, how would we know if he really would fall for a less attractive girl or not?

^^ we don't know if he would. That's what makes it not as a good of a point.

Agree with almost all the points of those who picked No!

Well, the story wouldn't be Beauty and the Beast without the beauty but yeah, I see your point.

me too ppv

Because it's a classic story, Disney has covered two inner beauty stories but both of the ugly characters who were beautiful on the inside were men (Beast and Quasimodo) and both of those movies had a heroine who was beautiful on the inside AND the outside. It's teaching little girls that for boys, it's ok, but girls should aspire to be a kind person AND be beautiful at the same time. No little girl watches Beauty and the Beast and then relates themself to the Beast, they all aspire to be like Belle which makes them focus on being beautiful like she is. You know it's true.

I don't think when a kid looks up to Belle it's her looks they focus on. When I was little what I liked about Belle, and what I took from her character, was her not caring that being a bookworm made her an outcast, her looking past people's appearance. The message I took as a child was appearance and popularity don't matter, whether you're pretty or ugly. They needed both an attractive and unattractive character to show that, otherwise the message isn't "good looks aren't important" it's "good looks aren't important if you don't have them". I feel to fully express the message characters from both ends of the appearance scale had to see true beauty is on the inside, otherwise they risk the implication that it's only not ok to be shallow if you don't have the looks to back it up. It had to be both a beauty and a beast rejecting superficiality, that way it's not being rejected through necessity but because it's the right thing to do.

Don't get me wrong, if Disney do a hot/ugly pairing again it would be good to reverse the genders, because if they only ever do it this way it does imply outward beauty is more of a priority for women, but judging just beauty and the beast as an individual story I think Belle's beauty was good for the overall message not bad.

You make a very good point, Mermaid-Tail, as always.
For me though, I think The Hunchback of Notre Dame was a bit much because once again, it showed us an ugly male character with a good heart while the single female character (Esmeralda) was known as drop dead gorgeous. Out of two inner beauty movies done by Disney (Hunchback and Beauty and the Beast), the message being sent to girls on both occasions was: Girls who are pretty AND a good person make the best heroines.
Why can't girls ever be appreciated for their inner beauty ALONE like Quasimodo was? And the sad thing is, generally people prefer Esmeralda over Quasimodo even though Quasimodo's character does more heroic deeds and is clearly the more complex character. I'll give you three guesses why. Because Esmeralda is pretty AND fights for justice. For about ten minutes until turning into the typical Disney damsel who falls for a handsome guy and needs to be protected and rescued.

^^ ME? I prefer Quasimodo. Again, I think I'd like Esmeralda more if she WASN'T so beautiful and just loved Quasi for his innter beauty, and then maybe still didn't get him, and got Phoebus instead, but then I think it would sting more if she left Quasi. Another reason I hated the second film because Quasi got the beautiful girl.
Every time, the guy has to get the pretty girl, and it's annoying.

Yeah! In the sequel, it's like: Hooray Quasimodo! You now have your own perfectly proportioned girl!

Because God forbid the ugly deformed guy fall for a girl who's actually in his league. It's a Disney movie. He deserves the MUCH more satisfying stereotypical hot blonde chick.

*rolls eyes

^^ I guess their supposed to satisfy the audience by showing that even Quasimodo can get the beautiful girl too, but come on. Why can't he get a plain girl who's known for her kindness? I understand the lesson they're trying to teach, that just because Quasimodo's ugly, he can still get a beautiful girl through his kindness, but is that really a more important lesson than having an ugly guy get a girl who is plain but undyingly kind, and not a backstabber like Madeleine was? To me, it's much more internally satisfying than satisfying on the surface like the first lesson.

She's not even that pretty anyway. It's not like they went "Hey, here's a scantily dressed sex Goddess!"

i think it actually proves the point. Beast falls in love with the beautiful girl, but doesn't expect anything in return, since he's so ugly. Belle has a choice: the sweet, ugly Beast, or the evil, hot Gaston. even though she could've had Gaston, she chooses Beast, proving that beauty comes from within, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

and to anyone who cares: i prefer Quasimodo. :)

I agree with all the people above who chose "No".