Neither of the characters in the gay subplot were in the original story.
No worse than them doing the same with staightness since the invention of cinema.
Because they are movies with adults in them, and that's just part of being an adult.
If parents want to show their children movies devoid of sexual themes, they should focus on cartoons that feature anthropomorphic objects.
Who said anything about sexual themes? There's no reason that the relationship depicted between two male characters will be any more sexualised that the relationship between the two leads (with it's bestiality undertones that all the objectors are conveniently overlooking of course).
As I said, no more that the straight relationship that forms the core of the plot. Part of the problem here is the objectors who refuse to (or are psychologically incapable of) recognising homosexual relationships as having just as wide a scope as heterosexual relationships rather than just being about about sex.Gay themes aren't sexual themes? Eh?
To be honest, I think that could well be a valid point but the benefit (or cost) to the private company is their business. The objection here appears to be some kind of moral one and the suggestion that they shouldn't (or be allowed to!) do it even if they did see an artistic, economic or social benefit.I don't understand what's to be gained by Disney in going beyond that.
I don't have a problem with "diversity characters" but it's the way they publicize it.
Just put him the movie and don't make a stink about it.
Most folks will probably shrug it off and not make a deal.
It's when it feels forced and shoehorned, where the problem lies.
Everything having a gay couple in it wasn't the main reason I gave up TV and movies, but it was at the top of the list.
On a related note, a movie theater in Mississippi isn't showing the movie because of this issue. It's about damn time the progressive Hollywood social engineering agenda gets some push back.
The people making a stink about it are, well, people like our illustrious OP.
As I said, no more that the straight relationship that forms the core of the plot. Part of the problem here is the objectors who refuse to (or are psychologically incapable of) recognising homosexual relationships as having just as wide a scope as heterosexual relationships rather than just being about about sex.
To be honest, I think that could well be a valid point but the benefit (or cost) to the private company is their business. The objection here appears to be some kind of moral one and the suggestion that they shouldn't (or be allowed to!) do it even if they did see an artistic, economic or social benefit.
"Gay people exist."
SOCIAL ENGINEEEERRINNNNG!
Sorry, but it's a fact that Hollywood uses their medium to push their view points on their audience. Hell, everyone is doing it these days. Have you noticed how many interracial couples their are in just TV commercials alone?
Agreed. I see absolutely no problem with a peripheral gay relationship showing up in a film. Sheesh. There are far more problems with B&tB than a gay relationship--you know, the whole beast thing and the obvious misogyny prevalent in the theme itself.
Almost as many as I see every day. :roll:
Everything having a gay couple in it wasn't the main reason I gave up TV and movies, but it was at the top of the list.
On a related note, a movie theater in Mississippi isn't showing the movie because of this issue. It's about damn time the progressive Hollywood social engineering agenda gets some push back.
Do you close your eyes so nothing get shoved down your throat? Cuz gays are everywhere, even on the internets. Oh look, there are some now...
View attachment 67214805
No, it's way more than that.
Well yea, but if the movie makers just "organically inserted" the people in the movies.
I'd imagine most wouldn't notice nor give a crap.
You said you gave up TV. So then how would you know how common it is?
It figures you can't think of anything to do but that. Oh and yeah, I consider it gross and I always will consider it gross. All Hollywood did was drive people away with that nonsense.
oh noz!!!!!! You was exposed to something you do not like!!!!!!!!! Man, that never happens to any one else!!!!!!!!!!
Do you need a safe space? You seem to be triggered.
I can't imagine it has gotten less common since I left. The trend when I left was more interracial couples, more gay couples and more warrior chicks and I bet that trend is still going strong today.
Considering that not too long ago, the number of such in commercials was zero, more really does not mean much.
Ok, my curiosity is getting the best of me. What is the obvious misogyny theme?
I watched TV and movies for entertainment and being grossed out is not entertaining.
It's been awhile since the Cheerios dad commercial.
You're kidding. Right?
Belle falls in love with the abusive "Beast" in order to turn him back into a prince. Case 1.
Prince imprisons Belle in his castle. But, surprise surprise, she develops feelings for the creep anyway. Classic Stockholm syndrome. Case 2.
There's probably more, but I am not exactly an expert on this movie. But, I know the basic theme, and it's misogynist to the core.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?