Because I have some deranged masochistic urge to cause a crippling migraine attack, we will cover a collection of fan theories today. However, I understand they’re not just random theories, but all share some common element. So, what is that element, Dave?
Dave: All four are from Disney movies.
…Is there a theory about Frozen?
Because I don’t want to do another article on Frozen for a while. If you bring me another theory about that movie before I’ve had time to recover from last time, I will start hitting you with a stick, and I don’t know when I will stop.
Dave: Oh… in that case, let’s make a triple feature. But they’re all really good! Prepare to have your mind blown!
I don’t think rupturing a blood vessel in my brain counts as ”blowing my mind”. But fine, let’s get this over with.
Dave: The first theory is that Jane from Tarzan is the grandaughter of Belle and Beast.
Alright. What are the arguments?
Dave: There is a resemblance between them, but also, Jane could understand Tarzan, who was quite animalistic, just like Belle understood Beast.
Is that all?
Dave: No, there’s also the fact that Jane owned a tea-set with a pot and cups that looks just like Mrs. Potts and Chip. One of the cup even has a crack in it! A family heirloom, perhaps?
OK. So let’s break this down. As for the supposed ”Family resemblance”, is there really that much of a resemblance? Yes, both Belle and Jane are white brunettes, so there are some similarities, but is it really enough to say ”Yes, these two are related”? I’m not so sure.
But then there’s the idea that ”Jane understood Tarzan, like Belle understood Beast”.
Maybe you and I were watching different movies, but Beast wasn’t animalistic in the sense that he was feral. He looked like a beast, but his mind was unaltered. He could speak, reason and argue. He wasn’t a wild animal she tamed. Belle understanding him wasn’t a matter of animal/human relationships. It was a matter of being able to speak.
Dave: But what about the tea-set?
Yes, about that. It looks a lot like the one in Beauty and the Beast, I agree. But there’s one very important detail you’re forgetting about that tea-set. Do you remember what happened to it?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t that tea-set TURN INTO A BUNCH OF PEOPLE?!
I pointed this out in my article about the movie! They didn’t merge with stuff in the castle, they BECAME stuff from the castle!
In other words, the tea-set from Beauty and the Beast effectively CEASED TO FUCKING EXIST once the curse was broken!
Which means this is a different tea-set, and its appearance doesn’t prove a fucking thing!
So really, there is no evidence to back this theory up. The most you can say is ”they both wear yellow at some point”.
Dave: Ok, so sticking with Beauty and the Beast, you know that book Belle calls her favourite?
Dave: Belle is reading the story of Aladdin! Think about it. ”Far off places, daring sword fights, magic spells, a prince in disguise”! It’s all there!
Ah, ok. I can see a few flaws with that. First of all, ”Far off places”? Agrabah is far way from France, but considering the stereotypical opening of fairytales is ”Once upon a time, in a far away land”, I don’t think that really says much.
”Daring sword fights”? True, Aladdin stabbed Jafar with a sword, and swords appeared here and there… but actual swordfighting? Not really. Certainly not enough to warrant a special mention. As for ”Magic spells”, sure. But again, it’s not like that’s unique to Aladdin. Hell, it’s not unique to Disney! And then there’s ”A prince in disguise”.
Let me ask you this. What fucking movie were you watching?! Aladdin wasn’t a prince! That was the whole point of him wishing for it! That giant parade existed solely to make people THINK HE WAS A PRINCE!
That’s a PAUPER in disguise, not a prince! You got it completely fucking backwards!
And finally, ignoring all of these points, she takes that book with her and reads as she walks through town. At one point, she sits down by a fountain, and we see the inside of the book, with illustrations.
Sure, you could argue it’s a westernized depiction, but the scene she describes? That doesn’t happen! In fact, the complete OPPOSITE happens, with Aladdin meeting Jasmine, not knowing she’s a princess!
All of this is also ignoring that Aladdin came out AFTER Beauty and the Beast, which sinks this whole theory anyway. Can I go nurse my headache now?
Dave: I still have one more theory.
Dave: Mother Gothel and the Queen from Snow White are the same person!
Excuse me… I must have missed that. We’re talking about the same people here, right? Mother Gothel, the villain from Tangled?
And the evil queen from Snow White? Tall, grim, flowing cape, talks to a mirror?
Dave: That’s the one.
And they are the same person? Not sisters? Not just similar? The actual same person?
Dave: Yeah, isn’t it cool?
No, it’s among the dumbest theories I’ve ever heard. What I find strange is that, instead of the migraine I expected, I suddenly started tasting copper, and everything went bright red for a split second.
So what are the arguments?
Dave: Well, they look similar, they both have daggers in boxes, and they’re obsessed with youth and beauty.
I see we’re ignoring the big issue for now. Well, then. You say they look similar? In what way? What is so similar looking about them? They both have black hair and thin eyebrows? They also have different coloured eyes. Gothel has blue eyes, the Queen has green.
Dave: Uhm… but when they turn into hags, they look a lot alike!
You’re still ignoring the eye colour, Dave. But I’ll play. Let’s see, shall we?
And you’re also missing the fact that with Gothel, that is how she actually looks. With the Queen, it’s a disguise.
Not to mention, their personalities are absolutely nothing alike, with the Queen being dominering, regal and cold and Gothel being manipulative and feigning affection. Both are vain, but Gothel is motivated by greed, wanting eternal youth. The Queen is motivated by jealousy, not wanting anyone to be more beautiful than her.
And ignoring the fact that Gothel kept a dagger in a drawer, not a box, the Queen has a dagger in a box? When does she ever have a dagger in a box? The only knife seen in the movie is the one carried by the huntsman. As in, his own hunting knife!
Dave: There’s another! It’s in the box she gives to the huntsman.
That box? You mean the box she explicitly told him to put the HEART in?! The one that had a dagger ON the lock, not INSIDE THE BOX?!
Dave: Well.. that dagger looks a bit like Gothels dagger…
Firstly, so what?! And secondly, no, it fucking doesn’t! It looks nothing like it! Gothels dagger was ornate, with a swirled handle and a curved handguard, and the dagger on the box was more simplistic, with a straight handguard!
Dave:… why do you know that..?
Because unlike you, I pay fucking attention!
Speaking of, there’s that small nagging issue… what was it… Oh right.
How do you explain that both these characters, who according to your theory are one and the same, both end up kind of sort of ever so slightly EXTREMELY FUCKING DEAD!?
Dave: Well, we never see the Queens body…
True, but you know what the thing is with the Queen? Her death is one of the most excessive of any Disney villain!
She’s trying to roll a boulder down on the dwarves, using a stick as a lever. Then a bolt of lightning strikes the stick she’s holding. That’s about 30,000 amperes going through your body. If that doesn’t kill you, (which, considering 0.2 ampere is lethal, is very likely) it’ll hurt like everliving hell. Then the rock she stands on crumbles, and she falls down the cliff.
Given that her scream lasted about six seconds before fading out (rather than abruptly stopping) I’d say we’re looking at a more than 180 m drop. In simple terms, she’s dead on impact.
And then the boulder she was going to use to crush the dwarves falls down after her!
The point I’m trying to make is that it’s probably best we don’t see her body, because she didn’t just die. She got overkilled to death.
Gothel, meanwhile, aged what is probably a few centuries in a couple of minutes, to the point where there’s nothing left of her but dust. These are observable as separate events, meaning they cannot be the same person.
In other words, this theory, which is so stupid I fear I have actually become dumber for having dissected it, is as dead as the two old bats it concerns. And I swear, Dave, that if you bring me any more fan theories today, what I will do to you will make the ordeal the Queen suffered seem like the Elysian fucking fields by comparison.