UPDATE: So weirdest thing ever, Nerdist News and I published the SAME THEORY at relatively the same time, so it might be canon, folks! Nerdist is never wrong! Wow, sorry…I just still can’t believe my theory was so on point! Read on, mes amis!
ORIGINAL POST: So a little over a month ago, the first teaser trailer for Pirates of the Caribbean; Dead Men Tell No Tales dropped, and I spent way too much time over-analyzing what little visuals and audio they gave. But heck, it’s really fun, so Ima do it again.
This morning, I woke up, opened up my phone, and was greeted to the sight of literally everyone freaking out and sharing the first official trailer, which left me so chill-ridden that I was nearly levitating out of my bed.
I was a tad skeptical at the recent first look Entertainment Weekly gave at the sudden reveal of the Beast, the final design of the enchanted objects (particularly Lumiere and Plumette), and Belle’s very yellow dress. But once I was able to see all of these elements systematically coming together in motion, it all seemed to fit together far better than I ever expected, and now I am back to anticipating this newest Disney live action adaptation, before the whole conceit becomes very old very quickly.
BUTTTTTTT….it’s now time for intense speculation! One frame of the trailer caught my eye early on, and now that I’ve had a chance to watch it a few times, I have come up with a new theory, and I am now wondering if it will ultimately come to fruition in the final film.
One of the 1991 animated film’s very few plot holes is a relatively big one: In “Be Our Guest,” Lumiere sings the line, “Ten years we’ve been rusting, needing so much more than dusting.” The narrator at the very start of the film, however, explains the conditions of the castle’s curse thusly:
The rose [the Enchantress] had offered was truly an enchanted rose, which would bloom until his twenty-first year. If he could learn to love another, and earn their 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.
That would make the Prince (WHOSE NAME IS NOT ADAM, I WILL FIGHT YOU ON THAT! COME AT ME!) eleven years old at the time of his curse. This inevitably leads to the reasoning that of course he was rude to the Enchantress disguised as an old lady – 1) He was just a punk kid, 2) Stranger Danger! Finally, this plot hole becomes even bigger when Belle finds a torn portrait of the Prince looking rather…adultish, don’t you think?
Early on, when I first saw on IMDb that the 2017 film’s crew had cast a King and Queen, I knew at once that we were going to get some more Prince back story, which will hopefully explain this rather large plot hole.
Well, let’s take a look at the torn portrait in this new film.
It’s a new take on the classic moment from the animated movie, and we can clearly see that a depiction of an itty bitty Dan Stevens was used to create this image, and also features his mother and father standing behind him.
What interests me, however, is that while the Prince’s visage retains the expected scratches from a rather enraged Beast later on, the King’s face is almost completely scratched out, while his mother remains untouched.
This clues me in to four things:
- The film will explain the origin of the curse in great detail.
- The King and Queen’s absence will most likely be explained. My guess? They were either killed by the Enchantress or have subsequently died as a result of the curse (they themselves couldn’t break the curse before a certain amount of time and paid for it with their lives).
- The Prince/Beast loved his mother dearly and views her as an innocent, seeing as her image is free from his claws.
- The King is most likely to blame for the curse. I don’t anticipate that the film will deviate very much from the original story, and most likely the Prince will still be a child from the onset of the curse, living out ten years before the last petal falls, sealing his fate forever. Therefore, my prediction is that it was the King’s rudeness, and perhaps similar unkind traits exhibited in the Prince, that landed the entire castle into their cursed state.
So, in sum, here’s my prediction for how the origin of the curse came about and will ultimately unfold in the film, or at least, how I would do it:
- An old beggar woman arrives to the castle on a stormy night, offering the King a rose.
- She is either refused at the door, or is shown in but treated incredibly rudely by the household staff and the King himself.
- The King pays her great insult, and the Prince remains at his side, further taunting her.
- The woman gives the King a final chance to repent for his cruelty. When he fails to cease, she reveals herself to be the Enchantress.
- In punishment, she kills the King and Queen (a little harsh, might have to be revised, I’ll admit), and sets the curse on the castle staff and the Prince. She still sees the capacity for love in him, perhaps love exhibited by his mother. It is with this hope in mind that she transforms him into a beast and bestows the rose upon him, telling him that he has ten years to learn how to love and earn love in return before his curse becomes permanent.
…I mean, wouldn’t that be cool? I think it solves all of the plot hole problems as well! What do you think? Am I way off track? Right on the money? Can you think of anything else I’m not thinking of? WHY ISN’T IT MARCH ALREADY?!
That’s all folks! Thanks for joining me on what is sure to become a series of, “Reading Too Much Into Trailers.”
All gifs from giphy.