10 MOVIE MISTAKES Fixed By Beauty And The Beast (2017)

10 MOVIE MISTAKES Fixed By Beauty And The Beast (2017)

Posted by

Disney’s Oscar-winning animation Beauty And
The Beast is often considered one of the studio’s best. Still, over the years, fans have analysed
the film and uncovered numerous movie mistakes, goofs and plot holes. Yippee-ki-yay movie lovers, it’s Jan here
and in this video, I’ll be explaining how Disney’s live-action remake of Beauty And
The Beast fixes many of those mistakes. And just before I get stuck in, be warned
there are spoilers ahead for both movies. To avoid them, you can tap or click here to
watch my spoiler-free review of Beauty And The Beast and come back when you’ve seen the
films. Now, I invite you to relax and pull up a chair,
as I proudly present 10 movie mistakes, goofs and plot holes fixed by the new Beauty And
The Beast movie. Bookworm Belle seemed to have a curious arrangement
with the bookseller in her village as she didn’t appear to actually buy any books from
him, instead she borrowed books freely whenever she wanted something to read, making his bookshop
more of a library than an actual business. The new movie cleverly fixes this by having
Belle borrow her books from the local priest Père Robert and acknowledges the original
movie mistake by having her thank him with the words: “your library makes our small corner
of the world feel big.” In fact, it’s odd that there’s a bookshop
at all in the original film given how much all the townspeople hate reading. And it’s a call-back to this inconsistency,
when Père Robert refers to Belle as “the only bookworm in town.” You might have enjoyed watching Gaston fall
into a muddy pond after Belle fended off his advances in the animated movie, however, the
way it happened really doesn’t make sense. What I mean is that he falls out of Belle’s
door straight into the muddy pond, however, the pond isn’t anywhere near Belle’s house
so that couldn’t actually happen. This time around Gaston doesn’t fall into
a pond, but he does step into a muddy puddle just after Belle rebuffs him outside her home. And notice that the filmmakers located that
muddy puddle a little way down the street from Belle’s house, very likely in recognition
of that funny incongruous moment in the original movie. The time period for the original Beauty And
The Beast was never officially confirmed by Disney, but the clothes, the type of gun Gaston
uses, and the use of steam-powered machinery by Maurice suggests the likely time period
is the 1790s or early 1800s. Now, that means that the Eiffel Tower which
appears during “Be Our Guest” is an anachronism because construction only began on it in 1887. The new movie makes a very funny correction
to this original movie mistake as it replaces the Eiffel Tower in “Be Our Guest” with a
guillotine joke when Lumiere chops a baguette in two. The guillotine would have been historically
accurate for the animated movie because this form of execution was introduced in France
during the French Revolution in 1792, which fits into the likely time period when the
animation was set. Curiously though, Lumiere’s use of a guillotine
joke may have introduced a new movie mistake into the live-action version, because as I
just mentioned the guillotine wasn’t common in France until the late 18th century, whereas
Disney has stated that the remake is actually set in the mid-18th century. By the way, chopping the baguette may also
be a little knowing joke by the filmmakers about how they cut the line, ‘Marie! The baguettes’, from the new movie! Talking of timelines, there’s a significant
plot hole heavily implied in the animated movie. In that film, Lumiere revealed that the castle
has been under the Enchantress’s spell for ten years. And the narration at the beginning of the
film explained that the prince had until his 21st birthday to break the spell or the curse
would become permanent. If we do the maths and subtract ten years
from 21, this suggests that the prince would have been around eleven at the time of the
curse. But the painting we see the Beast slash is
one of him as an adult man which doesn’t make sense if he was cursed as a child. The new movie neatly fixes this issue in a
couple of ways. Firstly, we see that the prince is already
an adult when the Enchantress curses him, and secondly, Lumiere’s line in “Be Our Guest”
changes from “Ten years we’ve been rusting” to “Too long, we’ve been rusting”. The ages of Chip and Mrs Potts in the animated
movie have also been questioned by fans. In that movie, Chip’s voice sounds younger
than 10 years old and he also looks very young when he transforms into human form, which
implies he was born a teacup, rather than a human child. This crazy thought has spawned theories about
whether Mrs Potts the teapot could actually have given birth to a teacup while enchanted! Also, when she’s in her human form, Mrs Potts
looks somewhat old to be Chip’s mother. These age problems are fixed in the remake
as the filmmakers made a point of including a scene where Mrs Potts and Chip run in to
the ballroom as the prince is being cursed, meaning that we know they both existed in
their human form/s before the curse was enacted. The new movie also makes a joke about the
idea that Mrs Potts was perhaps rather old to be Chip’s mother in the original movie. This happens when LeFou asks Mrs Potts if
she’s Chip’s grandmother, which infuriates her so she kicks off the attack by the enchanted
objects on the villagers invading the castle. And there’s another Mrs Potts goof fixed from
the animation during “Be Our Guest”. You’ll need to look carefully, but notice
that when Mrs Potts utters her iconic line, “Heaven sakes, is that a spot?” this time
she cleans off a dirty spot on Chip. Well, in the original movie, the spot she
finds and cleans is on herself. But watch the animation carefully just before
this moment and you’ll see that even though Mrs Potts hops around all over the place and
we get to see her all over, there was never a spot on her at any point until she says
that line in the film. The new movie gives proper time on screen
to the Enchantress, with new details and clarification of how the curse works helping to explain
away other plot holes in the animated version. For example, in the original movie, it seemed
silly that the local town was totally unaware of the nearby castle. This is fixed in the Enchantress’s new narration
as she explains that her curse made everyone in the town forget that the castle and the
servants who lived there ever existed. When Maurice can’t figure out which way to
go in the original film, it seems like an overwhelmingly foolish choice to take the
fork in the road that leads down a dark and misty foreboding path. Maurice’s horse Phillipe really doesn’t want
to go that way either, but the animation uses his master’s poor choice to set up an accident
where Maurice gets separated from Phillipe and ends up later at the Beast’s castle. The new movie has a much better take on this
in keeping with its story, as a lightning strike causes a tree to block Maurice’s usual
path, which then forces him to take the alternate, more ominous-looking path. When Phillipe returns home to Belle in the
animation, he appears to know how to take her to Beast’s hidden castle. This makes no sense because Phillipe had never
been to the castle before, having bolted before Maurice ever got to the Beast’s enchanted
home. In the new film, Maurice ends up at the castle
with Phillipe, so it now makes more sense that the horse would be able to direct Belle
there. In both movies, Beast comes to Belle’s rescue
when she’s attacked by wolves after trying to flee the castle and, in both cases, he
gets badly injured. The animation, however, skips over how Belle
managed to lift the unconscious and enormously heavy Beast on to her horse. The new movie has a nice subtle remedy to
this problem when Belle goes to the injured Beast and says to him, “You have to help me,
you have to stand”, because it’s clear that there’s no way Belle would be able to lift
the huge Beast by herself without his help. So, what do you think of Disney’s Beauty And
The Beast remake, and how well do you think it fixed any problems with the original? Also, did you spot any new movie mistakes,
goofs or plot holes in the new movie?! Do let me know in the comments below. And if you enjoyed this, I’d really appreciate
it if you’d hit that like button! And while you’re here, check out my full Beauty
And The Beast playlist with easter egg videos, secrets about the making of the movie, and
my breakdown of the differences between the 1991 and 2017 movies. Tap or click here to check those out and subscribe
to get notified about all my upcoming new Disney and Beauty And The Beast videos. Thanks for watching and see you next time. Yippee ki-yay movie lovers!


  1. NEW Beauty And The Beast video just uploaded!
    Movie Mistakes & Plot Holes ► https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UfMiji866s
    For my full Beauty And The Beast playlist click here ► https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLi8DA5V4mmmfXbSdLMUZfGHtNlXJr4vtx

  2. Is anyone else kind of annoyed that this movie didn't get more from the Critics, It has 71% on Rotten Tomatoes, I'm like seriously 71% that's it, that implies that it's decant this movie was way beyond decant it was absolutely wonderful, I seriously struggle to understand what they were expecting, sorry but the critics failed to meet deadlines this time.

  3. I am a HUGE fan of Beauty and the Beast and I even really liked the live action version. However, I actually thought that these corrections were annoying and unnecessary. Yes they were plot holes that were fixed but as an already huge fan of the original, it was distracting because I knew it was put in there so no one can criticize the movie and not because it was an artistic choice. They even kept SO much of the original, even most of the dialogue, that I felt it was stupid to try and fix/add plot points to it. I say that they should have just taken a new spin on it if they were already going to add so many things. Although I did not like the new Cinderella remake, it was admirable that they made a whole new version of the original while still keeping the core plot – which again, is what I feel this movie should have been like. The new writers obviously had several new and good ideas (such as a background to Belle's and Adam's parents, the teleportation book, Gaston being a soldier, and LeFou's gay orientation).

  4. My mom watched it before me and told me that it was awful, so I was very scared to watch it cause I really REALLY love the original (REALLY!!) So eventually I gained some courage and watched it and LOVED it.. it was awesome and the actors did a great job, I liked the new songs a lot too!

  5. the new movie also explains why all the servants get cursed aswell. Wich has never adressed in the original.

  6. I love how they did the glows of the movie. A lot of ppl are saying all the bad things with the movie. I love the live action movie

  7. In the new live action when Maurice returns to the bar/restaurant before Gaston Gaston said "Maurice I've spent the last 5 days trying to find you" when it was only a day or two later before they left to find Belle.But the Live action is better

  8. The major difference between the written works and when Hollywood takes a story and attempts to make a visual adaptation.

  9. Belle rides off to help Beast, riding in her yellow gown and pretty shoes. When she gets to the castle, she is in a white shift (could have been under the dress…maybe) but she has on her old boots? Did she stop and change her shoes (and dress?) Hate to nit pik but just wondering. Misatke I think. LOVE the show more than chocolate and believe me, that is a LOT. grin

  10. It may have fixed a few plot holes but the live action was itself one big mistake. Whoever enjoyed this movie doesn't know beauty from beast.

  11. What I don't get is in the animated movie there was a scene where Mrs.Pots is putting chip to sleep and she says "into the cupboard with your brothers and sister" and u see a bunch of little cups sleeping . But that's the only time u see or hear of them again. Like in the end when everyone transforms back where r they?? And why is only chip the one who is seen with her? Am I the only one who notices that??

  12. The plot hole I found in the new version is that no one explains the magic mirror. In the animated version, the opening narration says that the enchantress left a mirror to the Beast as his only window to the outside world. This is left out in the live-action version. It's also confusing when the Beast gives Belle the mirror to see her father, but he never explains how to use it. He just hands it to her and it seems as if she automatically knows it works. At least Gaston was able to figure out how to use the mirror by seeing Belle use it, but how would Belle know how to use it?

  13. You failed to mention that they also fixed the big mistake of Bolles front door which open both inwards AND outwards in the scene where Gaston falls into the pool d. A major boo boo.

  14. The original seems hackneyed compared with the lovely new version. Emma watson can obviously emote way better than the animated Belle who looks kinda dim-witted. The best thing about the old version is the songs. The new version has even more songs, is funnier and is just better.

  15. In the original intro the narrator goes back and forth contradicting himself using expressive words and quotes about appearance, such as "haggard" and "ugliness" to describe the enchantress when the whole moral of the intro and ultimately the entire story was that "beauty is found within". The 2017 intro corrects these grammatical inaccuracies by softening the description and importance of appearance and empathy by simply changing "ugliness" to "outward appearance".

  16. Whilst its great these mistakes have been rectified, as a young child (I was about 6) watching the animated film there were no mistakes just a brilliant story and amazing songs!

  17. I really loved how they fixed these mistakes but when I was younger I Too was confused about certain things, I just wish that in the remake they made the mirror a transportation and not a “spying” glass. In the original remember, the beast never traveled when he asked to see belle. But belle did travel, not only back to her old home where she was born but also back to the village to face Gaston and save her father.

  18. Personally it is still too much singing in the remakes…
    I would die for Disney to make a remake and make it a movie for adults. You know… no porno or gorefest. But more adult aproach and that you have to actually worry for the characters.
    Also I would love if they could manage to hire someone who explains them how to get physic into their cgi. It pulled me so much out of the movie that the paws of the beast seem to hover over the floor. Or that his arm put no weight on to the sheets. ;___;

    I want to like the movies disney makes. But they make it really hard this way…

  19. Also the beast almost died when he was attacked by the wolf, but when Gaston shoot the Beast 3 times, he was feeling very well

  20. Sorry you may have missed one or more mistakes when Beast let Belle go during the animation she was still wearing her dress leaving the castle she changed back into our normal clothing but in the live-action Belle was still wearing her fancy dress.

  21. the age thing wasn't the fault of the spell scene. it was either the line that he had until this 21st birthday or the 10 years we've been rusting line. in the opening scene he doesn't look 11 nor does his portrait. if they hadn't had that line in the song or 21st birthday part of the curse, there would have been no problem.

  22. A lot of the scenes are implied, such as the last one, it is implied that belle couldn’t lift the beast so she asked for help. It’s a trick in film making. This increase of explaining things because “they don’t make sense” pulls away from the imagination that we all had as kids. Now everything is too literal and does not allow people to think for themselves.

  23. A mistake I noticed… when gaston first went with Maurice into the woods, and Maurice saw the tree that had been hit by lightning but was now "magically fixed", Gaston said there werent any castles or beasts, but frostbite was one of the real life concerns he listed. If it was July, and he didn't believe Maurice, why would he have concern about frostbite?

  24. I know I'm a little late to the party here, but if you read the original fairy tale, neither version of the movies is technically accurate with what actually happened….

  25. The only thing I don’t get is that they say the beast is trapped in the castle for several years. Yet when Chip, a little boy, is turned back into a human, he doesn’t seem to have aged at all. They do that in the cartoon, and in the new live action movie. If they had been inanimate objects for several years did they not age?

  26. The issue I had with the animation is that Belle barely takes a single bite of the food presented before her. In the live action, she manages to scoff down a full plateful.

  27. The story in the Animated version of Beauty and the Beast is Perfect! It's very tight, cut straight to the point, and doesn't have any filler!

  28. Also, in the original Gaston and the mob only had a single picture to know where the castle was, while in the remake Maurice showed Gaston where it was.

  29. I love the new movie so much. It also fixes why Belle doesn't like the town. In the original she sounds whiny while in the new one it is explained that the people think she's odd, destroyed her laundry invention, and is against women reading which makes the fact that it was set years ago much more logical since everybody thought that back then. Belle is a woman who's ahead of her time which makes her so amazing.

  30. You ignored one of the most glaring plot hole fixes:

    In the cartoon, Belle's father gets imprisoned for trespassing. Belle does the same thing (trespasses) but her imprisonment only happens as an exchange for her father's freedom.

    In the live action (more in keeping with the traditional story) Belle's father is imprisoned for stealing a rose in the garden. (It's interesting to note that the cartoon transformed the function of the rose from "stolen object" to "hourglass," which makes the live action movie roses a little redundant.)

  31. You guys are mixing the two movies up. Nowhere in the original movie did they say that everyone in the town hates reading. They just say that it's strange that Belle is reading constantly. There are plenty of readers in the real world who might think an avid reader is strange.

  32. The more recent Beauty And The Beast did a fantastic job as well as the actors, I think Emma Watson and Dan Stevens matched the jobs really well, and luckily they both have experience with singing. I prefer the newer one, not just because I'm younger than the older one its self because I have seen both, Its just because of the way they preformed everything. Although the 'Be our guest' scene must have been really boring for Emma Lmao.

  33. …actually the movie created more plot holes than filling in the plot holes from the animation, it’s redundant than anything, it would’ve been preferable if they made something original rather than remake it, because nothing can compete with the original and do it better, the original is timeless and will always be better, unlike the movie it’s nothing but trying to mimic it and been its shadow, it is nothing but a remake, and remakes are terrible ideas, especially for a successful property.

  34. 6:18 I have always wondered how she knew to take a cloak with her
    It was summer in her town so she wouldn’t need a jacket at all, yet she randomly knows to take one

  35. New live Disney version was boring. It failed to capture the same comedy & romance of the cartoon. However, the French live-action one was absolutely amazing.

  36. Well actually, the 2017 Beaty and the Beast was in the 14th century this is because the plague started going crazy. And her mother in 2017 died of the Black Death. And Beauty is fairly young. So in conclusion, this took place in the 14th century. CASE CLOSED

  37. Has anyone thought about the difference between the two is that the original was aimed for kids and the new one is more mature? I took my younger sisters who are 4 and 9 to the new one and they were bored as hell lmao. I didn’t mind it but I am definitely way too childish for this movie 😂 I liked the fact that in the original the beast looked like a cute puppy, in the remake I got scared of it because it looked like an owl hahaha. Props to the production and the actors, it was a great movie but doesn’t suit me, the same with the other live action remakes, they were great but I didn’t enjoy them nearly as much as cartoons.

  38. When did the plague rage last time? We get told in the re-make version that Belle learns that her mother dies being one out of many victims of the plague. That lead me to think about the middleage or what it's called in English

  39. I Love. This. Movie. I based my entire outlook on love on this movie as a child. (Even in my childhood brain, I had it worked out to argue the Stockholm syndrome issue without really knowing it.)
    BUT I really wish they would have picked someone lesser known for the part of Belle.
    When I see Emma Watson, I can't help but picture Hermione from Harry Potter (I grew up with her basically). So it's kind of weird.
    Also, Emma's voice was just too high to really sound like Belle, and the accent. It's France. Why is she still British???
    I was really bothered, and it kind of ruined the movie for me…but Dan Steven's actions and expressions as Beast were spot-on. I like how he seemed more agitated about his own existence, instead of just a giant rude monster.

  40. He was young if you watched the animation, the Christmas version, and he was 18 when he was put into the beast and has till he was 21.

  41. New plot holes:
    1. The enchantress was nice enough to give the Beast a book to travel anywhere he would like in the world. So what's the point of having the mirror as the 'only window to the outside world'
    2. They could have used the book to teleport to Maurice's side and teleport him back to the castle instead of letting Belle go.
    3. How did Belle remember Paris?

    Things that the older one did better:
    1. It slowly revealed that Beast had a heart in a more subtle way. An example is that Belle was originally left in the cell, but due to Beast feeling sorry (without being convinced by his servant's) he gave her a new room.
    2. Belle was actually scared and showed that she was upset to the new captive circumstances. Lumiere doing 'Be our guest' was a major turning point in the story which Belle accepted her new surroundings in a better light as it calmed her down.
    3. Gaston wasn't a 'villain' in the beginning, but just an arrogant and egotistical man. He becomes cruel gradually throughout the movie.
    4. The iconic dance was done in a more realistic fashion. The Beast and Belle were encourage to have a meal together, it got them in the mood. Then, THEN being the key word, Belle get's the idea to end the evening with a dance, and asks the Beast. It was on a whim, and that made it more human in my opinion. Imagine going on a date, and following a strict schedule of point A to point B. That's so boring, some parts might be planned, but parts that aren't to plan, done on a whim, or done by instinct is what makes romantic dates in stories so much more realistic.

    Don't get me wrong. The new movie was enjoyable and all, but I don't understand why people say that the new one is 'perfect'. Yes it fixed plotholes, but it introduced new ones. Yes some parts were better in a story sense (i.e giving Belle and Maurice a backstory), but the old one progressed the story in better and more realistic way. If you don't believe me, write up what happens in each movie and take a look in the perspective of the characters, what they are going through, and how they come to their decisions. It was a blast to do so, so I encourage people to do so. 😀

  42. I actually prefer the re make to the original. It’s just better thought out and it makes more sense. The original is still great though.

  43. actually in the Christmas beauty and the beast it tells how the beast got turned into a beast on Christmas and he was only a chilled.

  44. I disagree on the curse origin, but I have read several variations. Why? Lumiere says '10 years we've been rusting'. In all the books I have read Beast doesn't know exactly how long he has been cursed and in one he states at the end he has aged "I think it comes down to 1 year for every 10 of yours.' Which makes everything being run down, overgrown, rusty and parts crumbling much more plausible than the mere ten years of magic making it look older. While the original fairy tale never states his age, it is apparent in his more human mannerisms that he was in fact an adult when he was cursed.

  45. It’s says the horse didn’t go to the castle in the old film but I could direct belle because horses have really good sense of smell

  46. How do gaston and the villagers know where the castle is, to storm it? The mirror shows the castle, but ot isn’t a navigationsystem is it?

  47. Also, when Belle takes of her yellow dress to ride the horse back, where did she manage to find the jacket she wears when she arrives at the castle?

  48. This missed one plothole they closed: The background of Belle and her father.
    In the original I always wondered WHY they were so different from the rest in the town. How did it happen that she was interested in books in a town full of superficial people who would never touch a book.
    The remake explained the background of the family…

  49. Fixed? The movie made belle annoying ,why is she British. .in Paris , they erased the beasts character development completely . Belle wouldn't have to "teach a girl how to read" and people disliking it because in that time period some woman's magazines existed. Blacks in France in that time period ,probably not. The whole parents thing? Songs sucked and information wasn't necessary ,the castle staff feeling bad doesn't make sense because well…monarchy. the movie was the worst remake I have ever seen.

  50. Another fix was the way they replaced a good singer with a trendy celebrity who can't sing but autotuned her to the point where she sounds like a robot.

  51. Except nothing is actually "fixed" because the live-action film is a completely separate entity in a completely separate universe, so nothing is "fixed". Neat video, though.

  52. The new one was awesome.. but when Beast it getting ready for his "date".. the cartoon was better.. Lumiere says.. "You look soo.. sooo.". and Beast retorts, "Stupid!" They should have THAT in.. seeing as how in the live action, Beast is wearing heavy blush..haha

  53. I'm glad that it was a priest who had a small library instead of a bookseller, because in a town where only she reads, it didn't make much sense for there to be a bookstore

  54. Yeah, the original had plot holes; and even though the remake has "fix" some of them, it also created new plot holes as well. There are some parts in the movie I thought was interesting but I still ended up greatly disliking it. To me, the original is better.

  55. Also, what the live action film did that the animated one didn’t, was a part when after belle and the beast had danced and were talking outside. In the animated film the beast asks her if she is happy with him and she says ‘of course I am, I just miss my Father.’ But in the live action film, when he asks Belle the same question, she replies with ‘can anyone be truly happy if they aren’t free?’
    I like that they changed this line because I don’t think anyone is truly happy if they aren’t free, even if Belle did love the beast. She loved her Father and her home so much more and that was her happy place.

  56. Merise went down the dark way cause he thought the map told him to do that. Plus a pro Lomé with the live action is that Emma Watson talk sings the songs.

  57. I know I'm late on this one, but one other problem fixed the live action remake is Gaston's death.
    In the 1991 original, Gaston climbs to the top of the outside structure of the castle, stabs Beast, looses his grip and falls about 500ft to his death. Gaston surely would have known the risk he was taking before climbing
    In the 2017 remake, Gaston stands on top of a crumbling bridge (which is happening underneath his feet so there's a chance he was unaware of the risk he was taking) and shoots Beast, before the bridge collapses completely bringing Gaston with it. This way, his death is a result of the castle's crumbling structure rather than of his own stupidity.

  58. One thing that struck me in the live-action is when they started to interact, the Beast sometimes acted like a bratty child, which would make sense if he was turned very young like the animated. But the live-action, he was already an adult. So why would he act this way?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *