Jump to content

Talk:Beauty and the Beast (1991 film)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Reception

The Film needs a reception section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.179.191.27 (talk) 01:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}
The second paragraph, beginning "This is the thirtieth film ...", proceeds to describe the film as "the third animated feature released during the Disney Renaissance ...".

This film is actually the second feature released during the Disney Renaissance, following The Little Mermaid and preceding Aladdin.

See Disney Renaissance#Box office.

MarkZettlemoyer (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

DoneSpitfire19 (Talk) 20:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it was correct the old way. The Rescuers Down Under was released between Mermaid and Beauty. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Ult88, 19 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Could you please add tr:Güzel ve Çirkin (1991) to the language bar? Thank you. Ult88 (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Set Sail For The Seven Seas 284° 15' 45" NET 18:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Something There

Does anyone know the similar rhythms in the song "Something There" from this film and the "Dance of the Hours" in Fantasia?? (No, the melodies are not the same; only the rhythms are similar. The rhythms would be the same if the line that goes "and he was coarse" in Belle's verse was absent.) Georgia guy (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mestere, 25 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please add to "Mei Lin" and "梅琳" link to her official Wiki page we are currently building: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meilin Thank you! :) You can google and baidu her career, and confirm this change is legitimate. She is the real "Mei Lin 梅琳" Mestere (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: I'm uncomfortable adding a link when the subject's notability is still uncertain. Let's wait for a bit. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello there. I have noticed the Meilin linkage is missing as well. Could someone revisit this issue? Her wikipedia page seems in order and quite ressourceful and also I am thus assuming this page recently had major upgrade done since the subject is notable. It shall link as mentioned above, it is a correct fact. Mei Lin 梅琳 would point to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meilin Best regardsScubba1982 (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Scubba1982, 30 July 2010

Mei Lin 梅琳 should be referred to as a clickable link to the wikipedia page for this celebrity found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meilin Best regards. There are many references on this Meilin page about the Beauty and the Beast video, also a link to the actual video and photos of her and the man she is mentioned to sing with for Disney. Reliable sources. Thank you for looking into it and helping since for some reasons I cannot seem to edit it by one self today. Have a great day whom ever reads this!

Scubba1982 (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for making the edit request, and I added the wiki-link for Meilin. Welcome to Wikipedia, and please let me know if you have any questions about the editing process! BTW, the reason you cannot edit the semi-protected article is that the new account must be of a certain age and must have some edits already. That way, IP addresses that vandalize can't circumvent semi-protection to continue vandalism. Have yourself a great day too! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 11:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very very very much for the welcoming! :) I will learn how to enjoy edit on wikipedia! I have been a reader for YEARS, never even noticed one could have an account. ha ha :) Could you please add as a reference next to Meilin's name a link to her most recent artice interviewed by the largest english speaking China's newspaper China Daily? http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2010-06/25/content_10017043.htm And for both Nicholas Tse and Meilin here is a page of a press conference where they are both together taking the microphone to speak about the movie Beauty and The Beast they've made the music video for Disney in Mandarin! http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4a7f7ab301000auc.html I believe those two links are great additions and very informant for both artist since not much is writen about them! Scubba1982 (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you wanting these references added to Beauty and the Beast (1991 film)? They seem like they should belong at Meilin and Nicholas Tse, respectively. These articles are not semi-protected like this one is, so they can be edited to include these references. In any case, hope you will look into becoming an editor! :) It's kind of fun to add information to an article to share with the world. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jbattema, 29 September 2010

{{Edit semi-protected}} Please add a link to the Official Disney DVD and Blu-ray website:

Jbattema (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Per WP:ELNO: The site exists primarily to sell a product or service. Celestra (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Home video releases // proposed revision

{{Edit semi-protected}} The Home_video_releases section includes just one sentence as of now, and it currently makes no reference to the differences between the prior release (2002) and the more recent one (2010) -- though they are mentioned in multiple independent publications. This more recent sentence hasn't quite yet been brought up to the standards of the two paragraphs preceding it.

Since Disney is a client of my employer I'll hesitate to add it outright just yet; instead I've posted the proposed update to my user page here: User:Jeff_Bedford/Beauty_and_the_Beast_(1991_film). Also of note, I've referenced four independent sources in this proposed version, which should help to bring the article up to Wikipedia's own standards on WP:RS.

Let me know what you think -- I'm happy to make these edits myself if there is consensus for it. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks great to me! I'm curious as to why you marked this with a {{Edit semi-protected}} when you are able to add it yourself though. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Appreciate your weighing in on this. My mistake on adding the {{Edit semi-protected}} tag -- I now understand that it wouldn't pertain to me. I've implemented this edit per Stickee's guidance above, while remaining open for continued feedback. I'll also look to identify a few WP:RS for the paragraph on the 2002 release in the next week or two, as this is currently unsourced. Kind Regards, Jeff Bedford (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

title

Is this film from 1991 as in the title of ute article or from 1996 as everywhere in the content? I'm hesitant to bring it up as it would seem to be a rather fundamental error, so there almost has to be a reason for the discrepancy... My bluray says 1991, FYI. 80.101.113.45 (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It's been resolved, thanks! BOVINEBOY2008 16:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Belle or Beast??

Who is the true protagonist of this film?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a matter of interpretation or analysis... BOVINEBOY2008 00:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. While I would personally say Belle, a case could be made for either. Of course, unless you find a credible source doing so, it couldn't be added here anyway. Sailorknightwing (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The question was brought to my attention because of an edit changing the order of the characters in the article came along and someone reverted it. Georgia guy (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Such a magnifient movie. IT'S A BOX OFFICE BIG HIT!! (sings) Celebrate good times, come on!! (blows party blower) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.204.79 (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

H & Claire

A recording of "Beauty and the Beast" coincided with, and was recorded to promote, the 10th anniversary of the Disney film of the same name and a re-release of the film on video and DVD, with the video for the song appearing on both formats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jking88 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

How the franchise article affects the Video Games section

Due to the new Beauty and the Beast (franchise) article, I have copied over the entire "Video Game" section to that article, as I feel this article tried to cover too much about the franchise as a whole when it should be focusing on the 1991 film. I therefore think that the Video game section in this article should either now be removed entirely or made much shorter.--Coin945 (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe in Franchise to movies should provide a link to the to the item or items by a listing. As anybody looking for info for a game in the game portal or listing should not have to read or try to find info on a game in a movie (Film, TV Show) section in "Video Game" section . When it comes down to downloading a pdf file or printing a page for a game it should not contain all the info on the movie (Film, TV Skow) and a small portion on the game. When only only info for the game is needed. If a game is after a movie then it should have a movie link. Because you will not find any movie in a game section describing or giving a article about a movie. Most of this franchise write ups (from what I found) has the game info removed due to the lack of info relating to the movie itself or shortened because it. It would be better to leave a game as listed with no link than a link to a whole article on something completely different or a line like: They also made a video game also called Beauty and the Beast. It seems that only the Video Games suffer from this as if movie spawn a TV Show, Album, Book, Toy or Actor, Actress or Singer as each has it own articles with the proper links. Surely myself and others will gladly appreciate if the franchises links be put in their proper sections. Game Searcher August 13, 20015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.144.147 (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

IMAX

I saw the IMAX release when it was out in 2002 and there was definitely a 3D version available at that time. The article doesn't seem to mention that and makes it sound like this version was made in 2010. I'd wager they didn't have a lot of work to do on the "Disney 3D" release, it was pretty much ready to go when 3D first started catching on. Thoughts? Having trouble finding sources to corroborate this. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Plot section

A well-meaning editor has a few times expanded the plot section [1][2], however, the current version is 630 words, and the IP's version is 837. The ideal length is between 400–700 words. The IP is using a different IP now, which makes it difficult to discuss this with them, but their version is too long. They are welcome to trim down their version and resubmit, but it really needs to be under 700 words. For this reason, I have again removed the content. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely concur with Cyphoidbomb. WP:FILMPLOT is pretty clear on this. Otherwise, fans of this or that particular movie tend to insist that their favorite film needs and deserves more than 700 words. And if Titanic and Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol can be summarized in less than 700, so can virtually any film other than something like, say, the 2 hour 45 minute nonlinear narrative of Pulp Fiction. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Gaston's death

There has been some ongoing debate regarding the wording for Gaston's death in the Plot section. I believe that the important part is that Gaston dies, but the way that he dies (falling to his death), not so much. I think we need to make this matter clear. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that some version of "loses his footing and falls to his death" is the clearest and most complete way to describe that moment, with a net impact of 3 extra words contrasted against "loses his footing and dies". Since one does not die simply from losing their footing, "falls to his death" clears up any ambiguities. "He loses his footing and gets hit by a plane/gets smoked by a sniper/gets eaten by wolves/has a heart attack, etc. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Then, how about "falls off the roof to his death"? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Gaston's death is not explicitly shown in the film, so this would be an assumption by the viewer. I think it would be best to just state what happens in the film (Gaston falls into the river), and then allow the reader to decide for themselves if Gaston died or not.FishLizardMan (talk) 07:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually, even if it isn't explicitly shown in the film, Gaston is confirmed to be dead by Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise themselves according to the 2002 DVD commentary, which is considered a reliable source and is used throughout the article. Given that statement, it's not really considered an assumption by the viewer since we do not assume deaths in fiction. I think its best if we should restore the wording that Gaston has died with the audio commentary itself as the source. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Wordier edits

In this edit an IP user added some content, but I don't think it was a material improvement as it was made longer with extra filler words, with no real new information having been added. Some statements didn't make any sense, for example this change:

  • (Before) Despite other women flirting with him and many men admiring him, Gaston is determined to marry Belle.
  • (After) Instead of other women flirting with him and many men admiring him, Gaston is determined to marry Belle.

The former (although not perfect) seems to convey that although other women think he's cute, he's determined to marry Belle. The latter doesn't communicate this. The following change was just redundant:

  • (Before) She repeatedly rejects his advances.
  • (After) She repeatedly rejects his advances every time.

There was also this change to the embedded note that seems to diminish what the embedded note is instructing:

  • (Before) PER WP:FILMPLOT, PLOT SUMMARIES FOR FEATURE FILMS SHOULD BE BETWEEN 400 AND 700 WORDS.
  • (After) PER WP:FILMPLOT, PLOT SUMMARIES FOR FEATURE FILMS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO AT LEAST BETWEEN 400 AND 700 WORDS.

The limit isn't "at least" 700 words. The change doesn't make sense. For these reasons and others, I have reverted their edit. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Special Edition Runtime

With the song, Human Again, the runtime of this version is at 90 minutes. I thought it would be something to add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Beauty and the Beast and Stockholm syndrome

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Beauty and the Beast and Stockholm syndrome. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I see that with this edit, MagicatthemovieS removed all mention of the Stockholm syndrome matter. Per the aforementioned discussion at WP:Film, I do feel that it should be mentioned somewhere in this article; it is an aspect of this film's legacy. But I don't think that the parody material needed to be there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I see that, too. The Honest Trailers does have 2.7M views on YouTube, which seems noteworthy to me. I do agree that it would be good to include the Stockholm angle. There are a number of articles that are addressing the differences between the 1991 and 2017 films from that perspective but I don't know where they would best fit. Beauxlieux (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Since MagicatthemovieS has yet to comment, then I suggest we find a way to add something about this to the article, but not a lot; we should point readers to the 2017 article for further detail. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
First off, parodies are not good sources. Second, Stockholm Syndrome is a "contested illness" even according to its own Wiki article. We should only give weight to this subject if it is real science, not a "contested illness." MagicatthemovieS (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
MagicatthemovieS, I did not support the parody material. I am not talking about including parody material. Since you are speaking of WP:Due weight, I will go ahead and note to you now that due weight is with treating Stockholm syndrome as a real condition. And either way, that is not a factor for whether or not it applies to this topic (a film). It applies to this topic because a number of reliable sources cover it within the context of this film; this is why it's covered in the 2017 article. At WP:Film, there was general agreement that it should be covered somewhere on Wikipedia. So far, we've covered it in the 2017 article. My argument is that it should be briefly mentioned at this article, with a link to the more in depth material at the 2017 article. And I don't see any policy or guideline prohibiting this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Missing Content

It should be noted that Phillipe abandoned Maurice because he was scared of the wolves that they encountered in the forest, which left Maurice to face the wolves by himself. Rlopez4 (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hairstyle

Belle is wearing a hair bun (not to be confused with Haibun). In this picture, she looks like a beautiful princess with a hair bun for that beast. People think that beast might KILL BELLE or jumpscare her like Five Nights at Freddy's if they haven't seen the 1991 film yet and Belle.

172.58.6.140 (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC) (boy)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Beauty and the Beast (1991 film). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beauty and the Beast (1991 film). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Describing Belle as beautiful

SNUGGUMS, regarding this and this, if it were a different character, I'd agree. But in the case of Belle, the beautiful description is a core aspect of the film. All the townspeople consider Belle to be beautiful, and the only reason that Gaston shows any interest in Belle is because she is beautiful. Not just beautiful, but the most beautiful woman in town, according to Gaston and the rest of the townspeople. Furthermore, her name literally translates to "a beautiful girl or woman, especially the most beautiful at a particular event or in a particular group." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of name and role, "beautiful" is an opinion, and it's inappropriate to insert unattributed personal views within an article. This isn't supposed to be a Beauty and the Beast/Disney fansite, and inserting that without attribution comes off as in-universe and biased. It wouldn't be so bad if that was used as part of a quote or a statement of what other characters think (i.e. "who is considered beautiful") per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Except for discussions on whether or not Belle is beautiful, this is not a personal opinion issue. Like I stated above, it is a character description issue. Belle being beautiful is a core aspect of the story. This is why I do not understand your viewpoint on this matter. I could easily add WP:Reliable sources for "beautiful" with regard to Belle, but I don't see the point of doing that. I would also hate to have the content be subject to what WP:In-text attribution warns against, which, in this case, would be making it seem that Belle being beautiful is simply the opinion of a lone author or authors. I see the point of describing her as beautiful in the Plot section, for example, because her appearance is literally an aspect of the story. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
From what I heard about what you are talking about, please do not add something about her personality and physical appearance traits (even if her name literally means "beautiful" in French) on Wikipedia, unless any members (especially the screenwriters and the storytellers) that worked on the movie actually said that it is part of the movie's storyline in a reliable source, such as in newspaper articles and official documentaries on any releases of this film. It is still technically a personal opinion issue, as it is not really a fact, unless it is sourced reliably. Please know that Wikipedia is obviously more strict and different than on Disney Wiki and Beauty and the Beast Wiki. Thank you! - Truly yours, Aubreeprincess (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
The title of the work is Beauty and the Beast and are descriptive of the main characters. The point of the story and a contrast. Hardly needs a reference that someone described as a beauty is beautiful. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beauty and the Beast (1991 film). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

VHS worth $200 bazillion

Re this edit.

Yes, "techtimes.com" reports that the Black Diamond VHS sells for $9,999. Their source is reddit, essentially a blog. Blogs are not reliable sources. Aside from WP:SPS, it's worth noting that blogs are often wrong, as is the case here.

If I print out a copy of this article, list it for sale for $9,999 and write about it on reddit, it would be wrong to say that printouts of this article are worth $9,999. The next two sources, thebalance.com (another blog) and snopes (generally reliable), point this out.

The edit in question cites two unreliable sources and a trivial report in a generally reliable one to tell erroneously tell us that the tapes "fetch considerably high prices on eBay". They don't. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the extremely late reply- my mind has just sort of been pre-occupied with other crap, but I've meant to respond to this so I'll do it now.
I would like to clarify that I am fully aware that the VHS isn't actually worth oodles of money, nor were a whole lot of people actually buying the few listings that there were. :However, I'm not trying to insinuate in the article that they really are worth that much money. I believe that this is a notable topic in the sense that there was a point where this subject did receive a considerably high level coverage- a lot of people were pointing at these listings and saying "hey, these old VHS's may be worth thousands!", although in reality they really weren't worth anything. To name a few articles that I'm pretty sure would be notable, Metro UK and tech times both did articles on this supposed phenomenon, and of course Snopes did an article "disproving" it. I would say that that's enough coverage to at least mention the event itself in the article, albeit not in a way suggesting that the tapes really were worth, or even sold for, thousands of dollars/quid/pounds/whatever currency the country used.
As for the Tech Times article, just because Reddit is used as a source doesn't make it unreliable- doesn't that just mean that it's using a primary source?? It would obviously be a different story if one were to actually use just plain old Reddit as a source, as that is undoubtedly unreliable, but this is a fairly reputable news source (as far as I can tell, of course) citing a primary source- in other words, sort of what you have to do in order to write an article like that. I suppose that the other two sources probably were unreliable as I may have just pulled them from completely random websites, but the two I've provided here (plus Snopes, of course) seem to be pretty damn useable. Maybe more references would be needed to concretely show notability, but I'm sure that more probably exist covering the subject.
So basically, to summarize my overly detailed set of paragraphs; I personally do believe that the subject shows enough notability that it deserves to be added to the page, and that while the myth about the values of the tapes isn't necessarily true, the fact that news outlets and other people bitched about it for a period spanning across a few months- that is true, and merits coverage in my opinion.
I realize that I'm responding to an issue that happened a little less than 2 months ago, so I'll mention @SummerPhDv2.0: so that they can input their thoughts on what I've said. 16:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I see nothing to indicate "Tech Times" is a reliable source. I see a post making real reaches base on a Reddit post.
This leaves the Metro article. I don't care how many blogs, forum postings, etc. discuss something. We are looking at reliable sources. This seems to be all we have. (Yes, snopes has a page debunking it. Snopes has hundreds of pages debunking rumors about Coke. We don't include them based on that. If a topic is notable, independent reliable sources will discuss it. We have one. WP:WEIGHT is clearly an issue, especially since the article is not about this film on VHS, it's about a a rumor about a dozen or so movies on VHS, one of which is this movie.
Further, it does not support your claim that this particular was "notable at one point for its tendency to fetch considerably high prices on eBay, with several outlets taking notice of copies of the tape being listed for upwards of thousands of dollars".
With additional sources -- reliable ones -- I might see a place for a single sentence on this in an article specifically about the "Black Diamond" tapes at most. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough points. If I ever find any other reliable sources then I’ll look into adding a sentence in another article. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Why the "big five Oscar sweep?"

This movie was nominated by AMPAS as the best, not only (1) overall, but also for its (2) sound and (3) score, including (4) certain original songs - - more than one song, but only one may win the prize. That's four categories, not five. Why does the "Accolades" section tell of its completing "the big five Oscar sweep"? Mucketymuck (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The Big Five Oscar sweep is in reference to The Silence of the Lambs winning Five Oscars. Perhaps the sentence can be changed to "It lost the Best Picture award to The Silence of the Lambs[112] which became the third film to complete the big five Oscar sweep." Crboyer (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beauty_and_the_Beast_(1991_film)/Archive_2&oldid=1228595517"