Talk:Belle (Disney character)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Belle (Disney). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150224214734/http://people.stfx.ca/x2011/x2011bwz/Gender%20Portrayal.pdf to http://people.stfx.ca/x2011/x2011bwz/Gender%20Portrayal.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021053803/http://movies.about.com/od/animatedmovies/tp/best-animated-films-1990s.htm to http://movies.about.com/od/animatedmovies/tp/best-animated-films-1990s.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic chat
Belle + Quasimodo = true?

In The Hunchback of Notre dame, as Quasimodo sings "out there", we see Belle walking on the square of Paris with her book. Is this a hint that if we feel sorry för Quasimodo not getting Esmeralda there is another girl whos speciality is to look beyond looks and look to the interior? Note that Belles father might be the constructor of the advanced defense mechanisms of the cathedral. Mechanisms that Quasimodo is obviously trained in using.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.130.31.203 (talk) 09:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 12:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 29 April 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: procedural close. This can be done as an editorial choice using markup: e.g.,. As noted by the IP editor, these are not move requests. Dekimasu よ! 20:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

– In the article titles, the Beauty and the Beast part should be italicized. I am not requesting a new name for these titles. 2601:183:101:58D0:21FA:6823:6996:3DB1 (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Belle (Beauty and the Beast) → Belle (Beauty and the Beast)
 * Beast (Beauty and the Beast) → Beast (Beauty and the Beast)
 * Gaston (Beauty and the Beast) → Gaston (Beauty and the Beast)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

First Disney non-victim female character - Linda Woolverton vs. Matt Millikan
Linda Woolverton, the creator of the character Belle, stated that "Disney traditionally portrayed its female characters as victims prior to Beauty and the Beast. Matt Millikan, a writer for ACMI, in an essay, basically says Woolverton is wrong and he says Ariel from the Little Mermaid wasn't portrayed as a victim and proceeded Beauty and the Beast. Basically saying Woolverton is wrong in her statement. I see little value in having this debate in this article. Woolverton is talking to her motivation in creating the character and that is relevant for this article. Millikan's opinion that she is wrong really adds nothing of value to explaining this character and I don't think it belongs in this article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Also the opinions of Jodi Benson also refuting Woolverton are just as irrelevant to the point of Woolverton's passing comments about her motivation in Belle's characterization. Discussion about characterization of Ariel and The Little Mermaid belong in their respective articles, not in this one. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Note: Including this off-topic content about Ariel was last added by User:Mr. Razorteeth a blocked sock of User:Honest Yusuf Cricket with this edit. It has been removed previously by other editors as irrelevant to this article. 20:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * "Ariel from the Little Mermaid wasn't portrayed as a victim" Really? The girl who receives emotional abuse from her father, and is manipulated into a deal with the devil by an amoral witch is beyond victimhood? In any case:


 * Flora, Fauna and Merryweather from Sleeping Beauty (1959) are responsible for most of the heroic actions, and their spells cause Maleficent's death.
 * Bianca from the Rescuers (1977) is a fearless heroine and rescues a victim, instead of being victimized.
 * Eilonwy from Black Cauldron (1985) escapes captivity through her own efforts, and released two other prisoners. She is the most proactive of the heroes in the film.
 * Olivia Flaversham from Great Mouse Detective (1986) convinces two strangers to help her in a quest to rescue her kidnapped father, and she is a rescuer rather than a victim.
 * Both Rita and Georgette in Oliver & Company (1988) go out of their way to rescue the kidnapped Jennifer "Jenny" Foxworth, despite their own shady activities in earlier parts of the film.
 * As far as I know, Disney has never portrayed any major female character as a pushover. Snow White demonstrates a take-charge attitude when interacting with the Dwarfs, Cinderella has several scenes demonstrating her resourcefulness, and Wendy Darling demonstrates courage and defiance when threatened by Captain Hook. Dimadick (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I second @Geraldo Perez's reasoning. Regardless of how we personally feel about Woolverton's claims (even I myself, who is responsible for getting the Belle article promoted to GA, would argue that the character is still very much a victim in the quite literal sense considering the fact that she is imprisoned, captured, attacked, and rescued on several occasions), we should not be trying to dispel Woolverton's motivations behind creating the character in the "Development" section of the article, which is intended to discuss the creation of the character and creators' opinions, among other aspects. Yes, I'm sure dozens of Disney heroines before Belle exhibited traits of proactiveness to a certain degree; even Aurora, arguably the most docile heroine in the entire Disney canon, vocally objected to being betrothed to a man she (thought) she doesn't know upon realizing she cannot marry the man she loves. But the fact remains that, from Woolverton's perspective, she created Belle out of a desire to dispel the victim tropes that had most commonly been associated with leading ladies in Disney films at the time, and wanted to avoid depicting her as a victim unlike, in her opinion, Ariel. Trying to defend Ariel from Woolverton does not belong in this section of the article, if at all.
 * On the flip side, if one day we came across a quote from Walt Disney himself saying, I don't know, "I didn't want Cinderella to be a victim like Snow White", we couldn't try to dispel Walt's motivations with an argument from a third-party critic saying "Actually, Cinderella is more of a victim than Snow White because" of such and such. Changedforbetter (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the article that referenced Jodi Benson actually had Jodi Benson being largely neutral in regards to the whole bit about whether or not Ariel was a victim or not (she merely stated that Ariel made some ground since Sleeping Beauty, and never really indicated whether she was superior to her predecessors or not. If anything, Benson in the same article also indicated that Disney's version of Cinderella was someone she looked up to in her youth in a similar manner to Ariel being idolized lately, specifically citing her survivor status as why she looks up to her, so unlike Woolverton, or for that matter Paige O'Hara, Benson actually does treat Ariel's predecessors with respect, doesn't kick them down just to prop Ariel up. Come to think of it, Woolverton and O'Hara started that rather toxic trend). Weedle McHairybug (talk) 02:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 28 December 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: move the pages to the proposed titles at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 04:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

– Current disambiguation tag is ambiguous with characters from the fairy tale Beauty and the Beast. These articles are actually about characters from Disney's Beauty and the Beast (franchise). 162 etc. (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Belle (Beauty and the Beast) → Belle (Disney character)
 * Beast (Beauty and the Beast) → Beast (Disney character)
 * Support selon proposition. Hameltion (talk &#124; contribs) 05:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose Her article title is similar to Aurora and Ariel's as it shows the movie of which she is the protagonist. (Disney character) is quite broad, and works better for Snow White and Cinderella as their names are already in the title of the movie, e.g Cinderella (Cinderella character) would look silly, but (movie title) works better for the characters who's original movie doesn't include their name. Reli source (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, current title's disambiguation fails to actually disambiguate. "Disney character" also helps the scope of the article, since it covers her appearances in numerous mediums (stage, video games, etc.)
 * Support – Per WP:PRECISE. Svartner (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)