Disney's first 'exclusively gay moment' hits screens in Beauty and the Beast

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: TheScale

So you are of the opinion of banning all The Arts (Performing, Visual, and Literary) that deal with Cishet (Cisgendered Heterosexual) things also?

nope. there is a place and time for everything, this is one of those subjects that has no place in a childs film

a reply to: TheScale

But Cishet does?

Can't you see your own hypocrisy? it's ok for a Movie to push the Cishet agenda, but an LGBT+ character shouldn't be allowed because "Muh Children"

It's a character in a movie, do you understand how ignorant "a time and place" sounds when dealing with a character?

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: TheScale

But Cishet does?

Can't you see your own hypocrisy? it's ok for a Movie to push the Cishet agenda, but an LGBT+ character shouldn't be allowed because "Muh Children"

It's a character in a movie, do you understand how ignorant "a time and place" sounds when dealing with a character?

pretty sure thats not what i said. i said its not ok to push those subjects in a childrens film. theres a time and place for it and its not a film targeted at children. i mean theres a reason why most childrens stories end in the good guy winning, the bad guy losing, and everyone living happily ever after. if u dont see why then i dont know what to tell you. this pertains to a wide variety of subjects across a broad scope.

a reply to: seasonal

The buzz about this "gay moment" is actually an advert for the movie.

Love it or hate it, you won't want to miss Disney's open gay moment on screen.

It's a tactic older than dirt! And that's all it is.

Beauty and the Beast (2017)
Live Adaptation
Rated PG

PG – Parental Guidance Suggested : Some material may not be suitable for children. Parents urged to give "parental guidance". May contain some material parents might not like for their young children.

____

It's not a film designed for toddlers (who are in the early formative stages of sexual identity), and we can thereby conclude these precious kiddos have already been ***SHOCK AND AWE**** exposed to other, more common factors that influence ones sexual identity.

Everyone freaking out over this minutia in a film, meanwhile their "precious kiddos" (8+ years) more likely than not have full blown internet access to far more explicit depictions of sexuality than Disney would ever dare breach in their family films.

But no, let's go after Disney because they're the "cash cow" and obviously the Gateway into "abnormal" hormonal raging.

Seriously.

Talk about having blinders on, this whole freak out over a gay character is absolutely childish.

It's amazing the human species has survived this long.

a reply to: TheScale

Sorry, but I didn't read about any rage about this movie until the word Gay came up, likewise, I haven't read any rage about any other movie.

people hide behind "much children" all day, but you can't ignore the fact that if it wasn't a gay character it would be overlooked

a reply to: veracity

Yeah, perhaps.

I ain't not never seen most of those films to be fair, think the last disney film I watched was beauty and the beast when I was a kid.

Even that story was a bit weird, I realise it's an adaptation of someone else's work, ain't most of their films?

I don't know what the moral message is, she meets the beast, falls in love with the beast and as a reward for her being open minded and accepting the beast in all his ugly glory the beast becomes a dashing human chap or something.

I think the moral is...go with the ugly guy and eventually you'll wind up with someone or thing much better looking...or does the dashing prince symbolise the beasts internal beauty? I never really got the morality of it, it's kinda warped logic. Love ugly people and they'll become beautiful?

He should have remained a beast. I suppose in some ways it's a trans-type story well ahead of its time. My memory is hazy.

It reminds me of that stand up routine Ricky Gervais done where he picked on the supposed morality of various nursery rhymes and fables - my favourite was the lazy mouse and the industrious mouse...

The lazy mouse spends his time eating everything and being lazy whereas the industrious mouse collects food and stores it for the harsh winter. Come winter, the lazy mouse has nowhere to go and nothing to eat, so the industrious mouse takes him in and shares his food with the lazy mouse. Ricky concluded that the moral of the story was to be lazy and someone else will come along and give you everything you need in the end.

Which kinda reflects modern society in some regards..there are indeed lazy people out there who expect handouts.

But in the end I suppose it's all a storm in a teacup, someone mentioned Smithers from the Simpsons who was always very camp and often times sexually suggestive and openly homosexual and nobody cared very much.

I alwaus saw the Simpsons as more adult oriented, though. Same can be said for Sout Park, Mr Garrison, Mr Slave, Big gay Al, it was never really for kids but we all know kids watch it.

I heard a funny and rather interesting conversation between my nephew and another little boy who called my nephew a "gay banana" which made me laugh. Also made me think about how calling someone gay in the modern day is apparently still an insult...as is calling someone a banana.

Peresumably being a combination of the two is some modern-day super-insult.

I dunno...gay banana, it is funny. But it kinda shows how things are no different now to when I was a kid and we would say stupid things like that to each other. In school there were some really camp kids who were obviously homosexual and open about it. The really odd thing is I don't really remember anyone ever abusing them or calling them names....it was like the word "gay" was reserved for insulting people who were actually not gay.

I'm not sure being called or labelled gay when you actually are is an insult, who knows. But when all's said and done it's just Disney doing what Disney do...courting controversy in order to draw attention to their latest offering, nout new about it.

Zip-a-dee-dooo-daaaaaah, zip-a-dee-yaaaay!

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: seasonal

Great, Disney has gone full retarded with their agendas.

They have been an evil corporation for years, but this is a new low even for them. Let kids be kids. They don't need to be pawns of liberal identity politics agenda in grade school.

being gay is not a liberal agenda..get over yourselves. Just bc you dont agree with something does not mean it is liberal agenda...

its reflecting real life!

Really?

Was Alfred gay?

Jarvis?

Igor?

lol.



ETA; wow didn't know this was 20 pages!

EETA; it seems stereotypical to have a gay man servant. imo

a reply to: burgerbuddy

It's funny when you think of how things have changed so drastically.

In the 50's you had some crackpot psychologist claim that comic books were corrupting the young. He said Batman and Robin were gay...he might have had a point - at one point they were seen sharing a bed.

But everyone was up in arms back then and the comics code authority was formed...putting an end to classics such as tales from the crypt.

The comics code put an end to some of the best series in comics, it was all so blown out of proportion. As a fan of the genre I can see how the furore damaged the industry and we ended up with a lot of crap through the late 50's to mid 70's and early 80's.

I suppose that in fairness the same can be applied here to Disney. The main difference is the target audience, though Those comics were never really for kids any more than Sout Park is, but kids still read them and everyone knew it.

There's a fine line between protecting kids from the harshness of reality and complete, blanket censorship. I don't have an issue with Disney having a homosexual character in a film, i don't see him/her being overly camp and sexually promiscuous, it'll be subtle no doubt.

But there has to be a limit...personally I don't think the purpose of Disney is to depict realism, their movies feature singing mice and teapots so the notion that they should depict real-life situations and scenarios is kinda redundant since their historic output has been far from realistic.

I suppose in the end you'll always have your fans and your critics. I'm not particularly enamoured by the idea of them featuring a homosexual character but at the same time I'm not a huge fan of censorship, either.

I suppose if it's done repsectfully and tastefully there's no real problem. Most kids probably won't even pick up on it, there are loads of kids cartoons, movies and tv shows that feature adult jokes and content that mostly go right over their heads, anyway. Look at Rugrats, Rocko's modern life, Daria, etc.

This thread makes me lose all faith in humanity. Gay people compared to "rapers" (LOL) and murderers?

Like it, or not, gay people are and always have been a fact of our everyday life. From what I gather it's just going to be a subtle hint that dude in the movie has a man-crush. OMG!!! War on GAWD!!! Who cares??? It's not inappropriate, and your kids won't catch the gay from it. The only to way to catch the gay, is to be born with the gay.

There is no agenda. Just a real life scenario in a fictional movie about a girl and an animal being in love. Nobody is "normalizing" anything, because homosexuality IS normal.

I'm sure my gay, 12 year old daughter will love this movie.

Beauty and Beastiality more like it. Sick and decadent Disney corrupting the minds of the nations youth.

a reply to: BronyBoy

Says the brony lol

To be fair I can kinda see both sides of it.

As for catching "the gay"...hmm, I think it's insincere to claim that young kids are not impressionable and influenced by what they see and hear while growing up.

If you dig deep enough you'll find 12 year old kids in some middle eastern countries who were filmed beheading someone...do you think they were born that way? I don't.

Your environment and surrounding, what you're told is "normal" as a kid most definitely influences your mindset.

I'm not comparing murderers to homosexuals, by the way - what I am comparing is the influential mind of one child to another.

originally posted by: HeathenJessie
a reply to: veracity

Yeah, perhaps.

I ain't not never seen most of those films to be fair, think the last disney film I watched was beauty and the beast when I was a kid.

Even that story was a bit weird, I realise it's an adaptation of someone else's work, ain't most of their films?

I don't know what the moral message is, she meets the beast, falls in love with the beast and as a reward for her being open minded and accepting the beast in all his ugly glory the beast becomes a dashing human chap or something.

I think the moral is...go with the ugly guy and eventually you'll wind up with someone or thing much better looking...or does the dashing prince symbolise the beasts internal beauty? I never really got the morality of it, it's kinda warped logic. Love ugly people and they'll become beautiful?

He should have remained a beast. I suppose in some ways it's a trans-type story well ahead of its time. My memory is hazy.

It reminds me of that stand up routine Ricky Gervais done where he picked on the supposed morality of various nursery rhymes and fables - my favourite was the lazy mouse and the industrious mouse...

The lazy mouse spends his time eating everything and being lazy whereas the industrious mouse collects food and stores it for the harsh winter. Come winter, the lazy mouse has nowhere to go and nothing to eat, so the industrious mouse takes him in and shares his food with the lazy mouse. Ricky concluded that the moral of the story was to be lazy and someone else will come along and give you everything you need in the end.

Which kinda reflects modern society in some regards..there are indeed lazy people out there who expect handouts.

the moral is to look inside at someones inner beauty...that is what bell did, she saw kindness and love in him and fell in love even tho he was a beast (or it was stockhold syndrome)...either way...the formation into a young hot prince was just a side effect of "doing the right thing" and not judging a book by its cover.

(wasnt a bad looking beast tho)

originally posted by: HeathenJessie
But in the end I suppose it's all a storm in a teacup, someone mentioned Smithers from the Simpsons who was always very camp and often times sexually suggestive and openly homosexual and nobody cared very much.

I alwaus saw the Simpsons as more adult oriented, though. Same can be said for Sout Park, Mr Garrison, Mr Slave, Big gay Al, it was never really for kids but we all know kids watch it.

I heard a funny and rather interesting conversation between my nephew and another little boy who called my nephew a "gay banana" which made me laugh. Also made me think about how calling someone gay in the modern day is apparently still an insult...as is calling someone a banana.

Peresumably being a combination of the two is some modern-day super-insult.

I dunno...gay banana, it is funny. But it kinda shows how things are no different now to when I was a kid and we would say stupid things like that to each other. In school there were some really camp kids who were obviously homosexual and open about it. The really odd thing is I don't really remember anyone ever abusing them or calling them names....it was like the word "gay" was reserved for insulting people who were actually not gay.

I'm not sure being called or labelled gay when you actually are is an insult, who knows. But when all's said and done it's just Disney doing what Disney do...courting controversy in order to draw attention to their latest offering, nout new about it.

Zip-a-dee-dooo-daaaaaah, zip-a-dee-yaaaay!

I too used the word "gay" to insult things, sayings, anything i could that were not really gay. Like if someone dropped their brush "that was so gay" or if a teacher assigned too much homework....it was so gay. If the basketball player missed the hoop at a game...it was gay.

I realize now how rediculous i was and sort of feel bad for it. I had NO IDEA i may have been insulting actual gays. I knew of actual gays and although in my mind felt bad for them i would never say anything out loud. I had bigotted ways when I was younger. I like to think i just matured.

edited...TMI

I love my life

While I think banning the movie because it contains gay themes/references is ridiculous, I can see why some people feel there is an agenda taking place.

Remasters and reboots of original stories have taken place for many years, it is nothing new. However, despite the obvious tendency to acquire more profit through redoing a story, other motivations for doing so have mainly come down to technological advancement and modernity. If you can tell an old story so that it is easier and more engaging for the eyes and ears to take in, as well as make it more relatable for most of the audience, why not go ahead?

The trouble is when stories get changed almost solely for political and social reasons. If you cannot see the obvious political and social changes made to books, comics, games, movies and so forth over the last 20 years, then you must be blind. A story that is changed for political or social reasons destroys what made the original story unique and special.

My beef is with changing original works to conform to social evolution, not the creation of new works that promote social evolution. If you want a black, gay, homosexual, foreign etc. main character or story containing those themes, create a new piece of art to express those desires. Don't ruin established stories to push your political/social agenda.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

I think its really cool that it changes. And i think its even cooler to find a copy of the movie from way back or even a book and look at hows its changed, point out the differences.

Did you know that dorothy's ruby red slippers used to be silver?

originally posted by: LordAhriman
This thread makes me lose all faith in humanity. Gay people compared to "rapers" (LOL) and murderers?

Like it, or not, gay people are and always have been a fact of our everyday life. From what I gather it's just going to be a subtle hint that dude in the movie has a man-crush. OMG!!! War on GAWD!!! Who cares??? It's not inappropriate, and your kids won't catch the gay from it. The only to way to catch the gay, is to be born with the gay.

There is no agenda. Just a real life scenario in a fictional movie about a girl and an animal being in love. Nobody is "normalizing" anything, because homosexuality IS normal.

I'm sure my gay, 12 year old daughter will love this movie.

i sort of thought leFou could have been gay in the original

originally posted by: HeathenJessie
As for catching "the gay"...hmm, I think it's insincere to claim that young kids are not impressionable and influenced by what they see and hear while growing up.

Extremely flawed logic. Nobody chooses who they're attracted to. Often times children are depressed and scared s#itless to admit it they're attracted to the same sex... Can't imagine why after reading this thread...

Kids know what they're attracted to by kindergarten age. I know of several kids that were obviously gay just out of toddlerhood. I know I was attracted to girls even before kindergarten, same goes for gay kids.

Suggesting that seeing a guy with a man crush on TV is going to turn kids gay is like saying that gay conversion therapy actually works. Hint: it doesn't.

We're all wired different and homosexuality is as natural as taking a pee.