Theories to Know Before the Live-Action Beauty and the Beast Hits Theaters
Is it just us, or has Ariana Grande & John Legend‘s take on “Beauty and the Beast” been in your head all week long? It has to be — it’s so freakin’ good! Like, if we had to pick one person to remake the Celine Dion classic, it’d be Ariana ’cause her impersonation of the diva is GOLD.
Since it will not get out of our heads — nor do we want it to — we’re giving in to all the live-action Beauty and the Beast goodness, and looking at all the fan theories surrounding it. You’ve already seen all the theories about the original animated Disney movie, but these are specific to the upcoming Emma Watson reboot. Read ’em all before one of the most highly-anticipated flicks of 2017 hits theaters on March 17:
1. The flick takes place in 18th century France. Reddit user Obversa believes that the Emma Watson-led film is set in the Western European country during the 1750s or 1760s, and mixes fantasy & magic with real-life historical events. “Gaston is a French soldier and war hero turned hunter,” Observa also suggests, “the Beast is the only son and heir of the French King and Queen; Belle is all-but-a-commoner in looks; and Maurice, Belle’s father, is an inventor, clock-maker, artisan, and automaton creator.” The user’s evidence: the stills released by Entertainment Weekly.
2. Belle’s more than just a bookworm. This theory was actually already confirmed by Emma herself. “In the animated movie, it’s her father who is the inventor, and we actually co-opted that for Belle,” the 26-year-old told Entertainment Weekly. “I was like, ‘Well, there was never very much information or detail at the beginning of the story as to why Belle didn’t fit in, other than she liked books. Also, what is she doing with her time?’ So, we created a backstory for her, which was that she had invented a kind of washing machine, so that, instead of doing laundry, she could sit and use that time to read instead. So, yeah, we made Belle an inventor.” A proud moment for feminism.
3. Hermione & Belle are the same person. This theory was dubbed a parody/satire right from the beginning of Reddit user GreggoryBasore‘s post, but it’s still worth a look.
According to Greggory, “Hermione’s marriage with Ron failed because [J.K.] Rowling said it would [in a Wonderland magazine interview]. So after she broke the heart of her boyhood crush, who was too insecure to be her husband, and disappointed her children and couldn’t have Harry, who she somehow should retroactively have ended up with or something, Hermione snapped.”
The thread continues to suggest that Hermione had a breakdown and “used her magic to create a bubble universe where she’s in a muggle fairy tale that probably really happened in the wizarding world.” Or she used a time-turner. “She must’ve built or found a huge one that would work on a huge scale and she went back to the Dark Ages and then used the memory charm on herself so she could completely escape the pain of her now-existent-totally-not-previously-a-part-of-the-orignal-story love triangle with Harry and Ron! Then she was taken in as someone’s daughter and got taken hostage by a beast and so on and so forth.” Wowza.
4. The flick will have a Shrek-like ending. By night one way, by day another // This shall be the norm // Until you find true love’s first kiss // Then… take love’s true form. That was part of the curse that left Princess Fiona an ogre in the evenings. When she and Shrek kiss at the end of the film, she remains an ogre — all the time. She questioned it, saying that she’s supposed to be beautiful post-kiss; that’s when Shrek informed her that, no matter what form she comes in, she is beautiful.
This theory by Reddit user Vidogo lends itself to a fairly similar concept: “Belle rushes to the Beast, kisses his ugly mug and professes her love. He floats up, the magic swirling around him and then releasing, restoring the castle and all his servants. But then he lands on his feet, still as the Beast. He’s confused, not understanding why he’s still human, but then Belle takes his hand in her and tells him that it doesn’t matter what he looks like, he’s the one she fell in love with.”
If things worked out differently, Emma Watson could’ve played these roles as well: