One really can make the argument that Belle is a walking case-study of Stockholm Syndrome, though. And, of course, you have the further issue that the whole thing is kicked off by the most wicked witch to ever be mentioned in a movie.
Think about it. Sure, the prince was a dick. Fine, curse him, make him a beast unless he can find love in a period of time, teach him to look beyond the surface, yadda yadda yadda.
But unless you're telling me that the entire castle staff gathered around and spat on the crone for good measure (including Chip Potts, remember), then she essentially put all of their lives in the hands of their narcissistic master's ability to seduce someone while suffering from a terminal case of five o'clock shadow, for no better reason than that they happened to show up to work that day. And she walks free after it all--no punishment, no attempt to hunt her down, just a quick footnote easily forgotten. SRSLY, WTF?
Ariel gets tricked while at an emotionally vulnerable moment, and then takes responsibility for dealing with her situation. Belle starts out strong and ends up placating a violent abuser to keep from getting beaten.
Neither's a great endorsement of female empowerment.
So go watch Tangled
late here, my apologies, but a possible additional "WTF, sorceress" factor: depending on how you interpret certain factors, it's possible that the lady cursed a kid.
In the prologue (which you can watch here
) the narrator says that the enchanted rose would bloom until his "*21st year," after which he would a little more time ("until the last petal fell") to "learn to love another, and earn her love in return" before he was doomed to be a beast forever.
Later, Lumiere says (well, sings) that they've been under the spell for ten years. ("Ten years we've been rusting/needing so much more than dusting...") If there's a single character who I'd imagine to be prone to wild exaggeration, Lumiere is probably it, but the prologue also says "as the years went by" in a way that would imply "more than 2-3," so there's that.
So, doing the math, the sorceress may have cursed someone who was somewhere between around ten to eleven years of age and their mid teens (at the very latest), depending on how strictly you interpret the script, and
his entire staff, to a potential lifetime of beastdom/being animated inanimated objects. All because the prince was kind of a dick.
And this, as you said, is NEVER ADDRESSED AGAIN.
(Now, all that said, I wouldn't be surprised if this were a case of "people weren't talking to each other" or "there are unexplained factors," because in the destroyed images of the Beast pre-Beasting he looks a LITTLE older than 10-11, but.)
ETA: Just for the hell of it, I went to see if I could find the transformation scene from the midquel that was released a few years after the first film. The only version I could find was in Thai, which I don't speak, but Adam/Beast looks to be about 14-16. So, uh, I guess that's... better?
*I've always understood this to mean "21st birthday," whereas a friend theorized that they instead meant "21st year (as a beast)." I tend to think that if they meant the latter they would have said "the 21st year" and not "his 21st year," but I could see either way.