Yesterday, the world went into meltdown when the first official pictures of Emma Watson as Belle and Dan Stevens as The Beast for Disney’s live action version ofBeauty and the Beast.

Be our guest for an exclusive first look at @Disney ’s magical and romantic live-action #BeautyAndTheBeast! https://t.co/jniafxmEpV???? pic.twitter.com/xaIGIdc8EA

— Entertainment Weekly (@EW) November 2, 2016

Yeah, we know. It’s beautiful. It’smagical, even.

But because some people don’t like us having nice things, they have complained that Beast is too…beastly.

via GIPHY

Yes, really.

Beauty and the beast high key looks ugly

— ️ (@makingwater) November 2, 2016

I had kinda hoped we wouldn’t see the Beast until the movie came out. At the very least I hoped he wouldn’t look like.. that

— linds (@sunbonnettrio) November 3, 2016

Others wrote on Instagram that Beast was “way more handsome” than what the live-action remake has hinted, while others said that he “looked lame”. Ouch.

Some fans were confused about why Beast had horns…even though, he clearly had horns in the animated Disney film, you guys.

via GIPHY

Those brown things? They are horns.

May we offer up friendly reminder that his character isn’t called BEAST for no reason. Looking unlike any Prince Charming we’ve ever seen is kind of the point.

If you really want to go there, don’t you think it would be weird if Beast was suddenly super attractive?

He is, after all, a beast-like animal. So look, we don’t want to get technical, but getting sexual feelings about him in the cinema probably wouldn’t be great.

Beast, we still love you. We think you look awesome, so just keep doing you.

via GIPHY