First opening gay character for Disney..WTF
 

I don't understand the WTF? Seems like the world is ready to me.

I dunno...I've seen it used many times and figured most would know what the acronym meant...you tell me.

Who cares? Do people still hate gays?

It depends. Is Alex gay?







I kid, I kid.

NOT the point...This is a remake of a classic Disney movie. I could care less about gays...why ADD something like this to a perfectly good story? What's the point?

My question is - is 'opening' a Freudian slip?

it's big business

Wait a minute. Was Ken not gay in Toy Story?

http://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/u...poster_ken.jpg

You do, of course, realize that the original Disney movie wasn't original at all and varied significantly from the source material? So I guess you could apply that same argument there as well.

The inevitable follow up to the 'who cares' retort to Disney's decision.

Now we 'care' that some movie house in Alabama decided showing it didn't fit their business model.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news...hpj?li=BBmkt5R

Stop ****ing with my Disney movies! /grown man

Watson's going grrrl power with her character, as well.

I really can't conjure up a single **** to give.

Who is "we?"

The world doesn't care. Good for gay.

Why is it important to put sex (of any kind) in a kids flick?...

Hell yes you bundle of sticks?

Am I a rube for wanting my grandkids to hit grade 5 before they even consider gay/straight etc?

Is that unreasonable?...

But kidnapping, Stockholm Syndrome, bestiality, witchcraft, and talking to inanimate objects is A-OK.

removed. eDave beat me to it

""LeFou is somebody who on one day wants to be Gaston and on another day wants to kiss Gaston," Director Bill Condon tells Attitude Magazine,

"He’s confused about what he wants. It’s somebody who’s just realizing that he has these feelings. And Josh makes something really subtle and delicious out of it. And that’s what has its payoff at the end, which I don’t want to give away. But it is a nice, exclusively gay moment in a Disney movie," Condon says."

They make him as stereotypical gay as possible. Little kids watching this will now think that their guy friends want to kiss them if they show a "feminine" side. More bullying, thanks disney.

But really, a payoff that is subtle, delicious, and an exclusively gay moment. Are they opening a bakery together?

Then don't go see the ****ing movie.

So grouchy

"You can interpret this as a tragic story for LeFou, but it’s hardly a high point for positive LGBT representation in 2017: a dweeb who hopelessly pines after a muscular straight guy," Baker-Whitelaw writes.

It seems kinda thrown in is all I'm saying, more a business decision than anything. It'll sell more tickets this way

Is Alex Smith a muscular straight guy? Asking for a friend

No, it's not.

Don't go.
Convince your family not to go.
Convince others not to go.

It's the only way a company as large, and SJW infested, as Disney is going to stop ****ing up the story lines.

Just going to take a wild guess and say that the gay guy falls in love with Gaston by the end of the movie, Gaston realizes he is gay as well and was only being an ass because he was repressing his gay-ness, the guy and Gaston hook up after Beauty and The Beast hook up, happy endings for everyone.

That, and oodles of butt****ing.

As long as you don't assign their pronoun until they decide. :D

I doubt his character is so overtly gay as to cause any issues.

I'd bet money that nobody is going to be making out or anything. Many a character has had gay overtones, this isn't going to be Brokeback Disney Mountain.

Bert and Ernie
Batman and robin
Sponge Bob and that starfish guy

Wait for the reviews to see how "gay" the character is before you take the kids? :shrug:

Why is it important not to?

Did you think it was an abomination to show that Aladdin was attracted to Jasmine? You act like they are going to show him smoking dicks in the cartoon. He's just going to be attracted to a male sex. BFD

Yes. Why would they be considering? They either are gay or not. Watching gay disney characters won't make them catch teh ghey!

Sodomy coming to a playground near you!

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

"And, in this corner....weighing in at two thousand-two hundred and fourteen posts; all the way from Louisville, Kentucky; the reigning champion of Beauty and the Beast knowledge.....Third Eye!" (crowd goes wild)....

Seriously though....I didn't know that....tell us what you know about the source material.

LOL

For real.

Disney isn't telling you how to raise your kids. They aren't even telling you "YOU SHOULD TRY THIS GAY THING THATS ON THE TREND UP!" Gay people exist.. they are here. They are a minority, and it's our reality where they are being more open. I know some funny and cool ass "homos".. they aren't bad. If you think God hates gays.. then he hates the way you oogle other women/porn just as much.

This his how the world is going to end. Being gay is going to become so popular because it's so glorified now that everyone will be gay and nobody will repopulate

Doubtful. I do think people who are curious as a young moldable mind will be more likely to try same sex relationships however

I'm also worried about kids seeing a teen girl romantically dancing with a buffalo-man-monster. I fear all the little kids out there who will now be more likely to try buffalo-man-monster relationships.

Beauty and the Beast (French: La Belle et la Bête) is a traditional fairy tale written by French novelist Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve and published in 1740 in La Jeune Américaine et les contes marins (The young American and Marine Tales).[1] Her lengthy version was abridged, rewritten, and published first by Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont in 1756 in Magasin des enfants[2] (Children's Collection), and by Andrew Lang in the Blue Fairy Book of his Fairy Book series in 1889, to produce the version(s) most commonly retold.[1] It was influenced by some earlier stories, such as Cupid and Psyche, written by Lucius Apuleius Madaurensi in The Golden Ass in the 2nd century AD, and The Pig King, an Italian fairytale published by Giovanni Francesco Straparola in The Facetious Nights of Straparola.[3]

Variants of the tale are known across Europe

LOL

Good Lord, please tell me you're joking.

Children Of Men was not fictional.

In before Chiefshrink tells us how some book says gays are bad and Disney will be going to hell.

Is anyone going to address the wtf title of this this thread?

Opening gay?

Meh. I never liked Disney princess stories anyway. As a child or an adult. They were girl cartoons. If you're afraid your boy is so easily influenced, don't take him. I would also recommend not buying him pink tights and high heels, but who knows, maybe he'll look good in them?

Nice work. who knew?

You can want whatever you want, but kids start thinking about sex way earlier than most adults want to think about. Even if they don't know exactly what it is. Did you not have a crush on a girl any time before the 5th grade? I can think of two different crushes I had in kindergarten. Do you not think there are boys pre-fifth grade that have crushes on boys? Sexuality is not something figured out during puberty.

I saw this movie last night with my daughters and this was without a doubt way overblown. He was more "french" than anything.

Oh, and the movie was very well done. Many little nuggets of good adult humor mixed in for the parents to enjoy.

Good point. What are we supposed to do? Censor France from everything in this country?

The right is triggered by anything and everything, even suggestions of things.

So did Beauty and The Beast **** at all in this movie ? I mean before the transformation. Shouldn't people be more worried about a creeping acceptance of bestiality than whether or not the two dancing teacups both have vaginas?

It's running up huge numbers at the box office, so it doesn't look as if many stayed away.

Would that be so bad?

Yeah....I kept waiting for this over the top shit and nothing happened. I thought the movie was a little long....but still pretty good. My kids loved it...and that's all that mattered.

Yet another example of why the passive voice sucks balls.

How exactly 'was' 'this' overblown?

Let's not let the conversation elide the fact that this all started with the director of the movie characterizing a scene from the movie that no one else had viewed as 'exclusively gay.'

There's enough phumphering and muttering over this shit to begin with, without twisting the sequence of events.

This wasn't a case of some white trash mama in Alleybammy watching the movie in the theater and coming out and yelling into a camera that some character was too froofy and swooshy for her chillens.

Whatever the merits, this started with the director of the film announcing how awesome it was to gay up a kids movie.

Just can't stand not having something to fight about, can you?

Are your kids gay now?

What fight? I was just clarifying history. What part of your ambiguous characterization of what happened here do you lament having to face criticism or correction?

Seriously, if my language was too brusque I apologize. But I wasn't trying to start a fight. Rather trying to clarify some that could start a fight unnecessarily if left uncommented.

I mean, it seems like this entire thread exists to try to start a fight, and plenty of other people appear ready to oblige. Don't know why my remarks were singled out.

What's an 'opening gay character' ?

A characters who's gay and opens the movie?

The opening weekend take for this movie was far from gay.

No, they didn't seem extra fruity after the movie. Although maybe they will be.....at least then I won't have to deal with boys coming over.

Because its ****ING DISNEY...

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/bea...the_beast_2017

I've likely been exposed to a few more people up in arms then you it seems. :) I listened to a morning show that mentioned something about it a couple weeks ago (Johnny Dare?). Then a specific facebook "I'll never watch another Disney movie again" was fresh in memory. Maybe I overblew the overblown. schmeh.

I understand that, at this point, some people seem 'up in arms.'

My only point was that there is a difference between if these people are up in arms because they watched the movie and decided that some of the characters looked too swishy for them on their own, and if they're up in arms because the creators are giving interviews about how proud they were to make a gayed-up kids movie.

Thus my gripe about passive voice. Someone[s] did something. Things didn't just happen.

It's not the 'this was overblown.' It's either 'the audience has overreacted' or 'the creators have overhyped.'

All the bullshit i saw was weeks before it was even released. So I doubt they actually saw it.

You didn't see bullshit. You saw responses to idiots involved in the project would couldn't/wouldn't just keep their ****ing mouths shut, and who felt the need to gay up a non-gay story.

Man, you keep fighting the good fight. We need to make sure that nobody gets gay by seeing a movie, that shit's contagious. Next thing you know they'll be putting people of color in Disney movies and the whole shootin match is lost! The entire goddamned world is gonna be nothin but gay black people.

It almost ruins the entire plot by diverging from the wholesome children's story about a young woman falling in love with a much older chimera man-buffalo-monster. It's the gayification of America...

LMAO

People are funny that way. Some understand that a chimera man-buffalo-monster doesn't really exist, and is never, on it's own, anything more than a plot point, while homosexuality is real, and some equate them as if they have equal weight in a discussion about people's offended morals.

I'm not fighting anything. You, perhaps, have me confused with someone else.

Chimerism actually is a plot point in the story. Homosexuality is not a plot point in the film at all. It's not even implied. That's why your claims of people in the project who "couldn't/wouldn't just keep their ****ing mouths shut, and who felt the need to gay up a non-gay story" sounds pretty dumb. You're the one sounding like your morals are offended.

I said that.

The creator stated it was there, in this version, which is the point. Here's an article about the overall situation. You can note McGregor's (not the director) comments

among the rest.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertain...icle-1.2997991

The problem is your reading comprehension.

Again, homosexuality is not a plot point in the story. If the director had not made a statement, it wouldn't even be a story. There was nothing homosexual about the story other than the director's description of the character. That's the entire point. They didn't gay up a non-gay story. There was no male-male sexuality in any way. You're getting worked up over the director's description, not the actual movie.

I haven't seen this movie, but how did they determine he is "openly gay?" Does he blow some dude in the movie, or toss a salad, or get bent over in a prison rape scene? Somehow that doesn't seem like Disney's style.

John Waters, maybe.... but not Disney.

Of course not. Which is why this is so overblown. No male-male contact. No character dialog ascribing him to be gay. No sexuality. He's just silly and French.

These are literally the entire parts of the movie.

Le'fou is obviously infatuated with Gaston. It's easy to see from an adult perspective. Nothing over the top.

In one of the scenes, the villagers are attacking the castle. A wardrobe sprays three guys with a bunch of cloth and dress parts. They all end up dressed as women and have full makeup on. Two of them run away, the other stands there smiling.

At the end of the movie, everyone is dancing to music. Le'Fou and the guy who got dressed up as a girl are dancing together.

That's literally ****ing it.