Gay character in new Beauty movie?

[Jdbsfw]

From a straight, hunting, shooting, camo wearing (when Hugo Boss won't do) formerly pickup driving Texan....It's 2017, who gets offended by the sexual orientation of a fictional character? My gosh get outta of the Stone Age.....

 

[jknezek]

As a non-native Alabamian I'm just going to give my big huge surprise face that here in the heart of the Bible Belt we have people protesting about a minor moment with a minor character that if you aren't specifically watching and waiting for you are likely to miss it. Hang on, I'm putting it on, wait... wait... nope. Not surprised at all.

I remember passing Southern Baptist protesters on the way in to the parks in the mid to late 90s. My parents were quite colorful in our discussions of why they were there.

 

[ThurlFan]

Believe me, my family is just the same as yours.

As a hetero dad and husband, I can't think of anything to add.

 

[atkinstogram]

My godson (the floppy haired ball of energy in my profile pic with me) has a particularly religious conservative aunt who likes to tell him that.. well, pretty much everyone is a sinner and going to hell. By

She sat with him once and told him that my partner and I are going to hell because being gay is a sin. He just told her that was stupid and carried on playing with his planes.

Kids don't know how to hate until they're taught. Repeatedly taught.

It reassures me to come on here and see such broad swathes of society, from so many different walks of life, thinking sensibly.

 

[stratus]

The fact that this is still an issue in 2017 shows just how we still have to go.

... It saddens me that people are still so desperate to make sure other people aren't allowed to be themselves and be happy.

CLARITY: The below is not a comment on atkinstogram, but a reaction to the general sentiment.


I think this is a horribly and wholly inaccurate read on the situation. To be honest those who are most "concerned" about freedom of expression and social justice or however you want to frame it, are the least willing to have a discussion. The sentiment seems to stop at "You are free to make yourself happy as long as you agree with me". This sort of sentiment REALLY burns me.

I don't like taking something that was part of the biological family structure and changing it for no reason. There was no indication that LeFou was gay in the cartoon, there is no need to come out and change it (or emphasize) now. i felt the same about Dumbledorf (or however you spell it). I felt it was an unnecessary change. I also didn't like that they changed all the Ghost Busters to women just because.

To be clear, in some cases people are not reacting to the thing itself but change. The original ghost busters were men, was that such a horrible injustice that it had to be changed? The original cartoon, LeFou was ambiguous, was that so horribly offensive that it had to change? Hardly, I feel that a lot of these moves are more so-called "virtue signalling" than anything else. Showing how "progressive" you are by changing established canon (for lack of a better word) is weak, they should establish new stories not co-opt old ones.

It has nothing to do with (I'll speak for myself here) "allowing people to be happy". As hard as it is to believe some of us just don't see the point in changing elements of existing stories. It feels revisionist for the sake of virtue signalling, not because it adds anything to the story. The target audience must not be the original target audience. My children (all under 7) aren't going to understand or care about LeFou's confused feelings, which makes it pointless. Now if you were to say that the target audience is now in their teens or young adulthood and Disney was using the movie to help deal with a growing epidemic (which is a different story altogether) maybe, just maybe, i could see it.

My reaction has nothing to do with the happiness of people who have a different orientation than my own and quite honestly I find it border line offensive that it is socially acceptable for someone to just be able to assume what my thoughts/feelings/intentions are and then stigmatize based on *THEIR INTERPRETATION* of my motives. Yet somehow, I am the bad guy.

Are groups in society so fragile, or perhaps petty, that they must re-write everything that has been established? I don't think so. I would hope that they would be ok with blazing their own trail with new stories of their own (didn't the oscar go to that big LBQT movie?). If something is grossly out of touch, it just fades into obscurity (Song of the South...). If its horrible, don't resurrect it, let it die, if it isn't horrid, leave it along and create something new and wonderful

And no, I don't live in the bible belt, Alabama or Russia. I am higher educated (I have a masters degree) and amazingly not afraid to think for myself. When did it stop being ok to have divergent opinions? As a libertarian leaning person, I value your right (the generic you) to have your freedoms without impinging on my own and vice versa. To be frank both sides are beyond me. One side protesting, one side socially stigmatizing, it all seems divisive and destructive.

 

[atkinstogram]

I understand what you're saying Stratus. But you are very much in the minority. You're right in that *some* people are reacting to the change, not the thing itself.

But those people are not refusing to show it in cinemas. Those people are not threatening to stand outside cinemas and make life hell for people going to see it.

*Your* reaction has nothing to do with the happiness of others. But there are plenty of people for whom it is. And they are the ones who disappoint me. As I stated earlier in the thread, dislike the casting of Emma Watson, or of Luke Evans, and that's entirely your opinion, and that has zero impact on anyone else.

Diverging *opinions* are one thing. But those people who are taking their point of view and imposing that view upon the happiness of others, they are not like you. I have firsthand experience of the kind of narrow-minded people for whom homosexuality is an abomination, and who will take the happiness of their church, and the guidelines of some dusty old tome, over contact with their blood.

If everyone was, like you, willing to have a different opinion, and leave it at that, I don't think we'd be in this place we are now.

But when groups in society are fragile, it's because we have reason to be.

 

[Strikan]

Stratus - I think you are missing something here. The movie we are talking about is a new interpretation of a story that Disney has told before. It is not like they went back and changed the original animated movie. If they had, I would agree with your sentiments. That would be changing something merely for the sake of changing it or to be seen to be politically correct or whatever you want to call it. However, this new movie is supposed to be a new vision - not a slavish copy of the animated movie. Therefore, Disney is able to incorporate new ideas and interpretations. On that basis, I fully support seeing people like me represented in these re-tellings - why not after all?

 

[rteetz]

Just a reminder that we can't get religious here. Let's keep this about the new Beauty and the Beast movie please.

 

[Strikan]

Just a reminder that we can't get religious here. Let's keep this about the new Beauty and the Beast movie please.

Understood - trying to walk a fine line here. Don't want to step on anyone's toes.

 

[Laz]

From a straight, hunting, shooting, camo wearing (when Hugo Boss won't do) formerly pickup driving Texan....It's 2017, who gets offended by the sexual orientation of a fictional character? My gosh get outta of the Stone Age.....

For those still in the Stone Age, for heaven's sake don't watch CW Network Programs. You might damage your cave.

 

[atkinstogram]

Just a reminder that we can't get religious here. Let's keep this about the new Beauty and the Beast movie please.

Understood. It's a bit of a tightrope though, when without that aspect there wouldn't be the furore..

 

[wilkeliza]

CLARITY: The below is not a comment on atkinstogram, but a reaction to the general sentiment.


I think this is a horribly and wholly inaccurate read on the situation. To be honest those who are most "concerned" about freedom of expression and social justice or however you want to frame it, are the least willing to have a discussion. The sentiment seems to stop at "You are free to make yourself happy as long as you agree with me". This sort of sentiment REALLY burns me.

I don't like taking something that was part of the biological family structure and changing it for no reason. There was no indication that LeFou was gay in the cartoon, there is no need to come out and change it (or emphasize) now. i felt the same about Dumbledorf (or however you spell it). I felt it was an unnecessary change. I also didn't like that they changed all the Ghost Busters to women just because.

To be clear, in some cases people are not reacting to the thing itself but change. The original ghost busters were men, was that such a horrible injustice that it had to be changed? The original cartoon, LeFou was ambiguous, was that so horribly offensive that it had to change? Hardly, I feel that a lot of these moves are more so-called "virtue signalling" than anything else. Showing how "progressive" you are by changing established canon (for lack of a better word) is weak, they should establish new stories not co-opt old ones.

It has nothing to do with (I'll speak for myself here) "allowing people to be happy". As hard as it is to believe some of us just don't see the point in changing elements of existing stories. It feels revisionist for the sake of virtue signalling, not because it adds anything to the story. The target audience must not be the original target audience. My children (all under 7) aren't going to understand or care about LeFou's confused feelings, which makes it pointless. Now if you were to say that the target audience is now in their teens or young adulthood and Disney was using the movie to help deal with a growing epidemic (which is a different story altogether) maybe, just maybe, i could see it.

My reaction has nothing to do with the happiness of people who have a different orientation than my own and quite honestly I find it border line offensive that it is socially acceptable for someone to just be able to assume what my thoughts/feelings/intentions are and then stigmatize based on *THEIR INTERPRETATION* of my motives. Yet somehow, I am the bad guy.

Are groups in society so fragile, or perhaps petty, that they must re-write everything that has been established? I don't think so. I would hope that they would be ok with blazing their own trail with new stories of their own (didn't the oscar go to that big LBQT movie?). If something is grossly out of touch, it just fades into obscurity (Song of the South...). If its horrible, don't resurrect it, let it die, if it isn't horrid, leave it along and create something new and wonderful

And no, I don't live in the bible belt, Alabama or Russia. I am higher educated (I have a masters degree) and amazingly not afraid to think for myself. When did it stop being ok to have divergent opinions? As a libertarian leaning person, I value your right (the generic you) to have your freedoms without impinging on my own and vice versa. To be frank both sides are beyond me. One side protesting, one side socially stigmatizing, it all seems divisive and destructive.

Remaking something doesn't change anything it is just a new interpretation. The fact you think it is because the studios are trying to fix some injustice shows that you aren't logically thinking about the situation.

The new ghostbusters does not negate the originals or replace then. This movie (Beauty and the Beast) doesn't replace or change the animated movie. For the sake of correction Dumbledore always was and is gay. When the author is who comes out and says it and says it was always from day 1 then you take their word for it. She didn't change anything due to pressue the books and movies are still the same. It has nothing to do with fragile or petty and it is wn insult to say that is the reason why remakes and reinaginations were given the go.

Again I'm all for people having different opinions but that doesn't mean that I can't defend myself when words like fragil and petty get thrown around.

 

[Slayd]

So LaFou's obsession with Gaston in the original didn't throw up any red flags originally? This has got to be the least shocking news I've heard since I heard the NSA was spying on us all.

 

[HopperFan]

I don't like taking something that was part of the biological family structure and changing it for no reason. There was no indication that LeFou was gay in the cartoon, there is no need to come out and change it (or emphasize) now. i felt the same about Dumbledorf (or however you spell it). I felt it was an unnecessary change. I also didn't like that they changed all the Ghost Busters to women just because.

To be clear, in some cases people are not reacting to the thing itself but change. The original ghost busters were men, was that such a horrible injustice that it had to be changed? The original cartoon, LeFou was ambiguous, was that so horribly offensive that it had to change? Hardly, I feel that a lot of these moves are more so-called "virtue signalling" than anything else. Showing how "progressive" you are by changing established canon (for lack of a better word) is weak, they should establish new stories not co-opt old ones.

Completely disagree with you here. Way back when it came out to theaters, in the years since and today - there is no doubt in my mind that LeFou was gay. Disney is great about their subtle nuances in movies and this was one. If you watch the character, if you actually hear the lyrics to the songs .... he is gay. The beauty of Disney storytelling is the story was there all along .... and yet so many missed it.

Back in maybe 2004 our local high school did B&B theater production. It was excellent. After I asked my DS if the young man who played LeFou was gay himself or had he just done a great job of giving the character his true depth. Now with live action they have the opportunity for more development with all the characters.


AND most the folks here and in the general public are not saying they won't play the movie in their theater, pay for the movie tickets or take their kids because something supposedly changed ... they are being very clear in why they aren't going to see it.

 

[ScienceDad]

I don't like taking something that was part of the biological family structure and changing it for no reason. There was no indication that LeFou was gay in the cartoon, there is no need to come out and change it (or emphasize) now. i felt the same about Dumbledorf (or however you spell it). I felt it was an unnecessary change. I also didn't like that they changed all the Ghost Busters to women just because.

This sentence instantly sends off alarms. What do you mean "biological family structure"? And what does it have to do with this movie? LeFou was ambiguous in the original movie and as this is not a shot-for-shot remake of the original they are taking liberties making changes from the original.

You say your objection is only that they are changing a character from the original, however it seems to me this is only fleshing out a previously 2 dimensional character. A bigger change to me is that they have made the piano a character. In the original it was just an instrument. Are you angry about this change? Are people refusing to see the movie because of this, and other changes they have made? No.

I'm on the fence on if the movie will be any good but I just want us to be honest about this.

 

[Strikan]

A bigger change to me is that they have made the piano a character. In the original it was just an instrument.

Ok now that is just a step too far - how am I supposed to explain that to my daughters?

 

[Hikergirl]

Anyone notice that the theater in Alabama that is refusing to play it has no problem playing a POTC movie? (Apparently that is being promoted on their FB page)
So, drinking, sexual innuendo, violence, stealing, murder is all OK in a Disney film, but a brief moment hinting that a character may be gay isn't?
Please keep standing your moral ground, you don't look at all like hypocrites And the same goes for the people who aren't willing to watch the movie yet will watch any other movie (Disney or not) showing the things mentioned.

 

[Slayd]

Anyone notice that the theater in Alabama that is refusing to play it has no problem playing a POTC movie? (Apparently that is being promoted on their FB page)
So, drinking, sexual innuendo, violence, stealing, murder is all OK in a Disney film, but a brief moment hinting that a character may be gay isn't?
Please keep standing your moral ground, you don't look at all like hypocrites And the same goes for the people who aren't willing to watch the movie yet will watch any other movie (Disney or not) showing the things mentioned.

And apparently in a movie with the main plot dancing around beastiality, homosexuality is the last straw?

And while we're on "children asking awkward questions" can I say that I am much more uncomfortable in the original during the implied rape scene where the broom is being attacked during the castle storm. I could have done without that.

 

[MamaBelle4]

Some people are concerned with what to say to their kids.

We've just started watching Modern Family (tardy to the party, I know). My daughter (8) asked my why Mitch and Cam were married.

"Some boys love boys. Some boys love girls. Some girls love girls. Some girls love boys."

"Oh, okay."

Phew. Glad she got through that conversation unscathed. She doesn't wake up screaming at night at the thought that some families are different than ours.

And LeFou was absolutely gay in the original. He fawns over Gaston the entire film.

And this is Disney. The so called gay moment isn't going to be rated R.

And, finally, as I said in my post on the poll thread before it closed, how is a man being attracted to another man a more adult theme than cursing a man, cursing his servants just because they lived there, the sacrifice and subsequent imprisonment of a woman and then murder?

 

[atkinstogram]

Ok now that is just a step too far - how am I supposed to explain that to my daughters?

I'm already having enough trouble trying to explain that not all carriage clocks are actually British gentlemen in disguise. :/