'Beauty And The Beast' (2017) Emma Watson and Dan Stevens
Options
Comments
-
I always thought of Lefou as just a mindless lacky sidekick that antagonists usually surround themselves with.
Hell, it's no different than these celebrities and politicians. If Lefou is ? , probably half of Donald Trump's cabinet is too. -
I guess it being a live action musical... That field of work is dominated by ? people.
Making a character openly ? was probably an ode to themselves -
fortyacres wrote: »fortyacres wrote: »This movie will make money with or without fake outrage ? , Disney dont really need some of yall $20 breh.
I dont feel what i expressed is fake outrage. And my son likes the cartoon &wants to see this so i will be taking him.
That said i guess if you dont have kids yourself we cant discuss this topic at hand.
ummm, thats not exclusive to you because you have children dude , thats a cop out. We all have families ,siblings , friends etc.
Yall are comfortable with a young girl falling in love with a fictitious fantasy monster but a ? character (in which we dont really know how they will choose to portray that) really is out of order ? word ?
Its pretty simple Disney made a decision , if it bothers someone that much dont watch it , there is the book and the cartoon version and a litany of Disney movies to pick from , than people being up in arms about this.
There were no "? characters" in the original.
My only beef is that its a kids movie. Why add it?
If its as small as a lil dance scene like Gabi said than the only reason the director said anything was to get ppl talking about the film.... Because he knew it was controversial.
Kids seeing ? stuff get confused and ask lots of questions. I dont think pre-schoolers need to be thinking about all the different sexuality preferences because Disney shoved it in their face.
If they get confused thats your que to explain it to them as a parent should , as they are confused and ask many questions about anything else. There are also ? parents with children too, so why dont they deserve representation in this ever changing world? (people would be up in arms nowadays if disney movies lack a diverse cast as they rightly should.), and like i said its one movie out of dozens released or being released for people to focus too much on this.
Moreover what have they shoved in your face ? no-one has seen the movie yet and dont even know how that issue is gonna be addressed. So heterosexual romance is okay to have pre-schoolers ? -
fortyacres wrote: »fortyacres wrote: »fortyacres wrote: »This movie will make money with or without fake outrage ? , Disney dont really need some of yall $20 breh.
I dont feel what i expressed is fake outrage. And my son likes the cartoon &wants to see this so i will be taking him.
That said i guess if you dont have kids yourself we cant discuss this topic at hand.
ummm, thats not exclusive to you because you have children dude , thats a cop out. We all have families ,siblings , friends etc.
Yall are comfortable with a young girl falling in love with a fictitious fantasy monster but a ? character (in which we dont really know how they will choose to portray that) really is out of order ? word ?
Its pretty simple Disney made a decision , if it bothers someone that much dont watch it , there is the book and the cartoon version and a litany of Disney movies to pick from , than people being up in arms about this.
There were no "? characters" in the original.
My only beef is that its a kids movie. Why add it?
If its as small as a lil dance scene like Gabi said than the only reason the director said anything was to get ppl talking about the film.... Because he knew it was controversial.
Kids seeing ? stuff get confused and ask lots of questions. I dont think pre-schoolers need to be thinking about all the different sexuality preferences because Disney shoved it in their face.
Moreover what have they shoved in your face ? no-one has seen the movie yet and dont even know how that issue is gonna be addressed. So heterosexual romance is okay to have pre-schoolers ?
Like i said if its just a dance scene than this is obvious the director tryn to start a buzz.
If its something explicit like a man on man kissing scene than yes i would file that as "shoving it in our face"
And Yes heterosexual romance is alot more normal than ? romance like it or not. Seeming as how thats how everyone was brought into this world. Thats not a shot at ? people either its just how you explain to a child how babies are made. -
-
The triplettes are disappointing
-
Damn them ? is fugly.
The cartoon versions >>> -
Looking like Bill Hader in drag. They can't ever deny that the director is ? .
-
fortyacres wrote: »fortyacres wrote: »fortyacres wrote: »This movie will make money with or without fake outrage ? , Disney dont really need some of yall $20 breh.
I dont feel what i expressed is fake outrage. And my son likes the cartoon &wants to see this so i will be taking him.
That said i guess if you dont have kids yourself we cant discuss this topic at hand.
ummm, thats not exclusive to you because you have children dude , thats a cop out. We all have families ,siblings , friends etc.
Yall are comfortable with a young girl falling in love with a fictitious fantasy monster but a ? character (in which we dont really know how they will choose to portray that) really is out of order ? word ?
Its pretty simple Disney made a decision , if it bothers someone that much dont watch it , there is the book and the cartoon version and a litany of Disney movies to pick from , than people being up in arms about this.
There were no "? characters" in the original.
My only beef is that its a kids movie. Why add it?
If its as small as a lil dance scene like Gabi said than the only reason the director said anything was to get ppl talking about the film.... Because he knew it was controversial.
Kids seeing ? stuff get confused and ask lots of questions. I dont think pre-schoolers need to be thinking about all the different sexuality preferences because Disney shoved it in their face.
Moreover what have they shoved in your face ? no-one has seen the movie yet and dont even know how that issue is gonna be addressed. So heterosexual romance is okay to have pre-schoolers ?
Like i said if its just a dance scene than this is obvious the director tryn to start a buzz.
If its something explicit like a man on man kissing scene than yes i would file that as "shoving it in our face"
And Yes heterosexual romance is alot more normal than ? romance like it or not. Seeming as how thats how everyone was brought into this world. Thats not a shot at ? people either its just how you explain to a child how babies are made.
clearly everyone was not brought up that way (heterosexual) , or there would be no ? people anywhere in the world in all recorded history to this point.
Its only abnormal if you make it out to be , you can either be indifferent , roll with the program , teach your kids (same way you teach them about anything complicated racism/racial policing, current political climate, & religion etc) or be left behind coz the world that yall want aint gonna be the current or future reality.
-
fortyacres wrote: »fortyacres wrote: »fortyacres wrote: »fortyacres wrote: »This movie will make money with or without fake outrage ? , Disney dont really need some of yall $20 breh.
I dont feel what i expressed is fake outrage. And my son likes the cartoon &wants to see this so i will be taking him.
That said i guess if you dont have kids yourself we cant discuss this topic at hand.
ummm, thats not exclusive to you because you have children dude , thats a cop out. We all have families ,siblings , friends etc.
Yall are comfortable with a young girl falling in love with a fictitious fantasy monster but a ? character (in which we dont really know how they will choose to portray that) really is out of order ? word ?
Its pretty simple Disney made a decision , if it bothers someone that much dont watch it , there is the book and the cartoon version and a litany of Disney movies to pick from , than people being up in arms about this.
There were no "? characters" in the original.
My only beef is that its a kids movie. Why add it?
If its as small as a lil dance scene like Gabi said than the only reason the director said anything was to get ppl talking about the film.... Because he knew it was controversial.
Kids seeing ? stuff get confused and ask lots of questions. I dont think pre-schoolers need to be thinking about all the different sexuality preferences because Disney shoved it in their face.
Moreover what have they shoved in your face ? no-one has seen the movie yet and dont even know how that issue is gonna be addressed. So heterosexual romance is okay to have pre-schoolers ?
Like i said if its just a dance scene than this is obvious the director tryn to start a buzz.
If its something explicit like a man on man kissing scene than yes i would file that as "shoving it in our face"
And Yes heterosexual romance is alot more normal than ? romance like it or not. Seeming as how thats how everyone was brought into this world. Thats not a shot at ? people either its just how you explain to a child how babies are made.
clearly everyone was not brought up that way (heterosexual) , or there would be no ? people anywhere in the world in all recorded history to this point.
Its only abnormal if you make it out to be , you can either be indifferent , roll with the program , teach your kids (same way you teach them about anything complicated racism/racial policing, current political climate, & religion etc) or be left behind coz the world that yall want aint gonna be the current or future reality.
Many of people who are ? were traumatized or molested as children. Not all but a good portion. (Same goes for women who choose to go into porn)
But anyway i do plan on teaching my children about the the police, racism, politics, religions, & the different sexualities... But my only point was that preschool isnt the time for it.
Im not tryn have the most "woke" preschooler. He can enjoy his childhood innocense until at least elementary school. -
fortyacres wrote: »fortyacres wrote: »fortyacres wrote: »fortyacres wrote: »This movie will make money with or without fake outrage ? , Disney dont really need some of yall $20 breh.
I dont feel what i expressed is fake outrage. And my son likes the cartoon &wants to see this so i will be taking him.
That said i guess if you dont have kids yourself we cant discuss this topic at hand.
ummm, thats not exclusive to you because you have children dude , thats a cop out. We all have families ,siblings , friends etc.
Yall are comfortable with a young girl falling in love with a fictitious fantasy monster but a ? character (in which we dont really know how they will choose to portray that) really is out of order ? word ?
Its pretty simple Disney made a decision , if it bothers someone that much dont watch it , there is the book and the cartoon version and a litany of Disney movies to pick from , than people being up in arms about this.
There were no "? characters" in the original.
My only beef is that its a kids movie. Why add it?
If its as small as a lil dance scene like Gabi said than the only reason the director said anything was to get ppl talking about the film.... Because he knew it was controversial.
Kids seeing ? stuff get confused and ask lots of questions. I dont think pre-schoolers need to be thinking about all the different sexuality preferences because Disney shoved it in their face.
Moreover what have they shoved in your face ? no-one has seen the movie yet and dont even know how that issue is gonna be addressed. So heterosexual romance is okay to have pre-schoolers ?
Like i said if its just a dance scene than this is obvious the director tryn to start a buzz.
If its something explicit like a man on man kissing scene than yes i would file that as "shoving it in our face"
And Yes heterosexual romance is alot more normal than ? romance like it or not. Seeming as how thats how everyone was brought into this world. Thats not a shot at ? people either its just how you explain to a child how babies are made.
clearly everyone was not brought up that way (heterosexual) , or there would be no ? people anywhere in the world in all recorded history to this point.
Its only abnormal if you make it out to be , you can either be indifferent , roll with the program , teach your kids (same way you teach them about anything complicated racism/racial policing, current political climate, & religion etc) or be left behind coz the world that yall want aint gonna be the current or future reality.
Many of people who are ? were traumatized or molested as children. Not all but a good portion. (Same goes for women who choose to go into porn)
But anyway i do plan on teaching my children about the the police, racism, politics, religions, & the different sexualities... But my only point was that preschool isnt the time for it.
Im not tryn have the most "woke" preschooler. He can enjoy his childhood innocense until at least elementary school.
I gave you a cosign but the bolded....
Lets do better in 2017 -
:#CottonCitySlim wrote: »fortyacres wrote: »fortyacres wrote: »fortyacres wrote: »fortyacres wrote: »This movie will make money with or without fake outrage ? , Disney dont really need some of yall $20 breh.
I dont feel what i expressed is fake outrage. And my son likes the cartoon &wants to see this so i will be taking him.
That said i guess if you dont have kids yourself we cant discuss this topic at hand.
ummm, thats not exclusive to you because you have children dude , thats a cop out. We all have families ,siblings , friends etc.
Yall are comfortable with a young girl falling in love with a fictitious fantasy monster but a ? character (in which we dont really know how they will choose to portray that) really is out of order ? word ?
Its pretty simple Disney made a decision , if it bothers someone that much dont watch it , there is the book and the cartoon version and a litany of Disney movies to pick from , than people being up in arms about this.
There were no "? characters" in the original.
My only beef is that its a kids movie. Why add it?
If its as small as a lil dance scene like Gabi said than the only reason the director said anything was to get ppl talking about the film.... Because he knew it was controversial.
Kids seeing ? stuff get confused and ask lots of questions. I dont think pre-schoolers need to be thinking about all the different sexuality preferences because Disney shoved it in their face.
Moreover what have they shoved in your face ? no-one has seen the movie yet and dont even know how that issue is gonna be addressed. So heterosexual romance is okay to have pre-schoolers ?
Like i said if its just a dance scene than this is obvious the director tryn to start a buzz.
If its something explicit like a man on man kissing scene than yes i would file that as "shoving it in our face"
And Yes heterosexual romance is alot more normal than ? romance like it or not. Seeming as how thats how everyone was brought into this world. Thats not a shot at ? people either its just how you explain to a child how babies are made.
clearly everyone was not brought up that way (heterosexual) , or there would be no ? people anywhere in the world in all recorded history to this point.
Its only abnormal if you make it out to be , you can either be indifferent , roll with the program , teach your kids (same way you teach them about anything complicated racism/racial policing, current political climate, & religion etc) or be left behind coz the world that yall want aint gonna be the current or future reality.
Many of people who are ? were traumatized or molested as children. Not all but a good portion. (Same goes for women who choose to go into porn)
But anyway i do plan on teaching my children about the the police, racism, politics, religions, & the different sexualities... But my only point was that preschool isnt the time for it.
Im not tryn have the most "woke" preschooler. He can enjoy his childhood innocense until at least elementary school.
I gave you a cosign but the bolded....
Lets do better in 2017 -
fortyacres wrote: »fortyacres wrote: »fortyacres wrote: »fortyacres wrote: »This movie will make money with or without fake outrage ? , Disney dont really need some of yall $20 breh.
I dont feel what i expressed is fake outrage. And my son likes the cartoon &wants to see this so i will be taking him.
That said i guess if you dont have kids yourself we cant discuss this topic at hand.
ummm, thats not exclusive to you because you have children dude , thats a cop out. We all have families ,siblings , friends etc.
Yall are comfortable with a young girl falling in love with a fictitious fantasy monster but a ? character (in which we dont really know how they will choose to portray that) really is out of order ? word ?
Its pretty simple Disney made a decision , if it bothers someone that much dont watch it , there is the book and the cartoon version and a litany of Disney movies to pick from , than people being up in arms about this.
There were no "? characters" in the original.
My only beef is that its a kids movie. Why add it?
If its as small as a lil dance scene like Gabi said than the only reason the director said anything was to get ppl talking about the film.... Because he knew it was controversial.
Kids seeing ? stuff get confused and ask lots of questions. I dont think pre-schoolers need to be thinking about all the different sexuality preferences because Disney shoved it in their face.
Moreover what have they shoved in your face ? no-one has seen the movie yet and dont even know how that issue is gonna be addressed. So heterosexual romance is okay to have pre-schoolers ?
Like i said if its just a dance scene than this is obvious the director tryn to start a buzz.
If its something explicit like a man on man kissing scene than yes i would file that as "shoving it in our face"
And Yes heterosexual romance is alot more normal than ? romance like it or not. Seeming as how thats how everyone was brought into this world. Thats not a shot at ? people either its just how you explain to a child how babies are made.
clearly everyone was not brought up that way (heterosexual) , or there would be no ? people anywhere in the world in all recorded history to this point.
Its only abnormal if you make it out to be , you can either be indifferent , roll with the program , teach your kids (same way you teach them about anything complicated racism/racial policing, current political climate, & religion etc) or be left behind coz the world that yall want aint gonna be the current or future reality.
Many of people who are ? were traumatized or molested as children. Not all but a good portion. (Same goes for women who choose to go into porn)
But anyway i do plan on teaching my children about the the police, racism, politics, religions, & the different sexualities... But my only point was that preschool isnt the time for it.
Im not tryn have the most "woke" preschooler. He can enjoy his childhood innocense until at least elementary school.
Thats not factual dude , there is no concrete evidence that substantiates you calm the homosexuality is mostly a result of child trauma and molestation , thats just Umar Johnson type nonsense.
-
Nah Umar Johnson would say its the white man trynin to subliminally feminize the black race somehow
-
I just heard homosexuality is very common in animals from a zoo expert
Muhfuckas out there molesting animals in the wild? -
So no outrage about the ? ?
-
Took my kids to see it. Yeah that ? was ? af. My kids loved the movie and didn't even notice so I guess that's all that matters
-
Movie making money hand over fist despite it's averageness and redundancy. Good for Dan Stevens if the exposure helps put more eyes on Legion.
-
When you open the door to ? , who's to say where's the limit?
-
Inglewood_B wrote: »I just heard homosexuality is very common in animals from a zoo expert
Muhfuckas out there molesting animals in the wild?
That's ? is always funny to me lol...? ? always try to use that animal ? to support their argument. ? we ain't animals, animals eat their own ? , would they use that to justify a human eating their own ? ? Lol -
bless the child wrote: »Inglewood_B wrote: »I just heard homosexuality is very common in animals from a zoo expert
Muhfuckas out there molesting animals in the wild?
That's ? is always funny to me lol...? ? always try to use that animal ? to support their argument. ? we ain't animals, animals eat their own ? , would they use that to justify a human eating their own ? ? Lol
Too soon for a Chuck Berry reference? -
Back on topic
I saw it last night. I'm going to be honest, as someone who has a strong affection of the brilliance of Disney's animated films of the 70's, 80's, and 90's, I recognize how incredibly high the bar had been set by the classic Beauty and the Beast.
The one thing I thought walking out of the theater was, "they didn't have to make this movie".
Not a good thought to have after paying ticket price for a 2+ hour film. The singing wasn't as good as the original, the acting was cringe worthy at times, many characters were miscast, and some of the animation looked like ? . The animated version was so well done, I just can't understand why they would go out of their way to deviate from it.
The changes were very unnecessary.Why was the witch in the film so much? The things she did made no sense. For someone with that much power, she really had no sense of purpose.
That ? magic book made the whole movie moot. Beast is supposed to be trapped in his castle, but he can transport anyone anywhere he wishes. He can also bring things back. And then, it's only used once. Why didn't Belle just use the book to grab her father and bring him to the castle?
The lyric changes were so unnecessary and took the magic out of the songs.
The new songs SUCKED ass. They ? SUCKED. I hated all of them.
Lumiere was a womanizer and a perpetual showman. Those were his defining traits and hey stripped him of both.
The talking piano had a romance with the dresser. GTFOH
The one black man in town was a minister who never spoke up against the injustices.
Gaston was more likeable than anyone in the entire movie. Belle was actually the most dislikeable character by far.
It was just not a well directed film. I think a movie could have been made that corrected the minor flaws of the animated version and solved unanswered questions about certain plot points but that movie wasn't made. Instead what we got was a movie that created more problems than it solved.
4/10 -
^
at the piano & the dresser -
Ey I thought it was dope didn't notice many changes, the feminist angle, the ? ? I heard about or anything else really. Pretty much a frame by frame adaptation of the cartoon movie.
-
Oh two things I forgotThey changed the way Gaston and Beast fought. Making him shoot Beast instead of stab him makes him look ? . Gaston actually was kicking Beast's ass in the animated version before Beast saw Belle and decided to fight back. It was climatic. But here, ? just happened out of place. And then an otherwise intelligent Gaston somehow doesn't notice the ground crumbling beneath him. Unnecessary change.
Then, the last petal falls and the curse is supposed to be permanent, only for the witch to reverse it anyway. It defeats the whole point of her curse, if there ever was one.
https://youtu.be/1JG6f5_37tg
