Blackpill what do these "nice guy" comics have in common?

[Sheogorath]

you're the first to provide this specific interpretation about Gaston being some kind of Chad with a heart of gold,
playing opposite the "hypergamous" Belle.
There's no way they intended that.

Belle's hypergamy was 100% intended. From the outset she shits on being saddled with a 'provincial life' (she wants to live in a fancy city not a rural village) and fantasizes about a prince and ultimately marries a prince who just so happens to own a castle with a bunch of servants.

If it wasn't about that, then Gaston would've been the guy who lived in a castle, and Belle would've gone for Beast despite Beast being homeless.

As for the intentions, are you saying the intentions are objectively true or not? If we know what the movie is supposed to be about, is it objectively true that that's what the movie is about? And movies outline heroes and villains all the time. They go for certain portrayals. That's why we call them "Disney villains." There is no "Come to your own conclusions maybe Snow White should've died in that forest." You can come to your own conclusions if you want, but we're talking about what the writers intended.

We don't 'know' what a movie is supposed to be about.

We might get interviews with writers about their intentions, but ultimately that isn't guaranteed to be the truth.

Admittedly Disney probably does have some kind of official 'villains' designation, so you can call that OVERT intent, but there could be SUBVERT intent.

Like for example: Maleficent was designed to be scary, but are you 100% sure she was meant to be hated or non-sympathetic?

People ended up liking her (I think KH contributed to reviving that) and Jolie's antiheroine interpretation (perhaps helped by OUAT show) solidified that.

Since that was the end result, they may have intended for it to happen ALL ALONG. No way of disproving that.

 

[ItsOver4cel]

The nice guy meme unironically shits on the “just be urself” advice

 

[FrothySolutions]

We don't 'know' what a movie is supposed to be about.

We might get interviews with writers about their intentions, but ultimately that isn't guaranteed to be the truth.

Admittedly Disney probably does have some kind of official 'villains' designation, so you can call that OVERT intent, but there could be SUBVERT intent.

Like for example: Maleficent was designed to be scary, but are you 100% sure she was meant to be hated or non-sympathetic?

People ended up liking her (I think KH contributed to reviving that) and Jolie's antiheroine interpretation (perhaps helped by OUAT show) solidified that.

Since that was the end result, they may have intended for it to happen ALL ALONG. No way of disproving that.

Then there's no way of proving anything. We can just come up with ridiculous theories like how Belle is supposedly the intended bad guy of Beauty and the Beast. Even though we know it's not that deep.

 

[Sheogorath]

Then there's no way of proving anything. We can just come up with ridiculous theories like how Belle is supposedly the intended bad guy of Beauty and the Beast. Even though we know it's not that deep.

Intentions exist on individual levels. While Gaston being the intended villain being the intention of every single writer/director of that film DOES seem probable/likely I'm just acknowledging it's an absolute guarantee.

I agree that we generally cannot prove anything, just support various stances to varying degrees.

Like to give weight to that viewpoint, you could just argue for Occam's Razor that this being their intent is the simplest and most likely (highest odds) explanation, so long as you acknowledge it's not the only possible one.