[The Beast1]

Beauty and the Beast is just an elaborate story about a woman going through Stockholm syndrome.

I'll wait for this to hit the premium movie channels. No way i'll watch this in theaters!

[AnonymousBosch]

Came for the Beauty, only to find it's dead-eyed, corpse countenance SJW Emma Watson herself, whose light of youth was so violently-extinguished post-Harry Potter that I can't even begin to imagine however vile whatever happened to her must have been.



^ For fuck's sake Emma, try and look a little less like a walking void of existential sadness, can you?

Would Not Save Her From Gaston.

[CynicalContrarian]

The toy makers are having fun at her expense.

[AnonymousBosch]

^ Thanks for that CC. I'm waiting for my girl to get her shit together in the bathroom to go out. She heard me laughing so I showed her the doll on the phone. Once she stop laughing, I mentioned my 'dead eyes' theory.

Her comments: "What happened? She looks haunted... like she's dealing with child abuse."

I just said "I'm starting to think even the bloody doll got touched up."

It's bad when a girly-girl, the target audience, thinks this.

Hell, I must ask her about Gaston vs the Beast, though I reckon I already know the answer.

[CynicalContrarian]

"But wait, there's more!"



Yep, they're definitely having fun at Emma Watson's expense.
I had no idea Luke Evans of 'Dracula Untold' & The Hobbit Trilogy fame was in this rendition of Beauty & the Beast.
Yet one mere glance at that doll above & I knew it was Luke Evans.

Whereas the Watson doll is being compared to Justin Beiber...

[kbell]

Luke Evans is gay too. So I wouldn't be surprised if they make this Gaston secretly gay too.

[Leonard D Neubache]

I think it's time for a name change, GastonymousBosch.

Has a nice ring to it.

Casting Emma Watson? Sometimes it seems like they throw darts at a board when they make these decisions.

So I go check the interwebs for "female movie stars under 30" thinking that I should be able to come up with a substitute fairly easily. Sure! Turns out they should have cast... umm... errr...

WTF? It seems every female actor under 30 who's even vaguely famous is alternately ugly or pretty-but-trashy. So Emma Watson is the least bad choice?

[Cadders]

Plot-twist; Maybe Emma is playing the Beast.

[CynicalContrarian]

(03-02-2017 08:32 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

...Casting Emma Watson? Sometimes it seems like they throw darts at a board when they make these decisions.
So I go check the interwebs for "female movie stars under 30" thinking that I should be able to come up with a substitute fairly easily. Sure! Turns out they should have cast... umm... errr...
WTF? It seems every female actor under 30 who's even vaguely famous is alternately ugly or pretty-but-trashy. So Emma Watson is the least bad choice?

As far as notable actresses, you're not wrong.
Emma Stone is 27, yet it's doubtful she'd take a step back & do this kind of kids shit.
Jennifer Lawrence (25) is obviously over-exposed in more ways than one.
Blake Lively, 28. Once again, not suitable for this kind of kids shit.
Margot Robbie, 25. Also, not suitable for this kind of kids shit.
Shailene Woodley, age 24. She lost what 'star-power' she may have garnered with the trite 'Divergent' series.
Kristen Stewart, age 25. About the only other viable & notable option it seems, but still not as cutesy & kid friendly as Harry's hoe.

[hv123]

(03-02-2017 09:14 AM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  

(03-02-2017 08:32 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

...Casting Emma Watson? Sometimes it seems like they throw darts at a board when they make these decisions.
So I go check the interwebs for "female movie stars under 30" thinking that I should be able to come up with a substitute fairly easily. Sure! Turns out they should have cast... umm... errr...
WTF? It seems every female actor under 30 who's even vaguely famous is alternately ugly or pretty-but-trashy. So Emma Watson is the least bad choice?

As far as notable actresses, you're not wrong.
Emma Stone is 27, yet it's doubtful she'd take a step back & do this kind of kids shit.
Jennifer Lawrence (25) is obviously over-exposed in more ways than one.
Blake Lively, 28. Once again, not suitable for this kind of kids shit.
Margot Robbie, 25. Also, not suitable for this kind of kids shit.
Shailene Woodley, age 24. She lost what 'star-power' she may have garnered with the trite 'Divergent' series.
Kristen Stewart, age 25. About the only other viable & notable option it seems, but still not as cutesy & kid friendly as Harry's hoe.

Most of those women are not beautiful. Kirsten Stewart...! Margot Robbie is genuinely high end attractive but not in a girly way. I would say even she is 30 but she's only 25 (i.e early wall hitter in the making). Don't know Woodley, don't care either tbh.

Watson is perfect - from their perspective. She's got the younger harry potter audience on a lead in and ticks all the right fem-tards SJW boxes. Even her look is what they want - short hair lesbo look - not a real feminine beauty with long hair and T&A. I've never thought she was particularly attractive. She doesn't have long hair so she can't be anyway.

[churros]

From the NYT

Quote:

The Daily Beast swiftly called it a “welcome and inclusive development.” The Daily Dot, without having seen the movie, stomped its foot, saying that a gay LeFou was “hardly a high point for positive L.G.B.T. representation” because he is “a dweeb who hopelessly pines after a muscular straight guy.” Social media was filled with supporters of both viewpoints.

As if the debate only concerns what kind of homosexuality should be represented, not whether it should be represented in the first place.

Telling that liberals can't even imagine a world in which someone disagrees with their viewpoint. So much for diversity of opinion.

[LockeAndLoad]

Hmmm...did this ruin Beauty and the Beast for the forum? Are members going to boycott en masse?

[911]

The most obvious perversion in Beauty and the Beast is the undercurrent of bestiality, haven't see that mentioned 2 pages into this thread. Close second is "The Beast", a horned creature, as a representation of satan.

[sterling_archer]

First time I actually read about this beauty and the beast, especially character Gaston (I am not really familiar with Disney movies).

Here is interesting thing from wikipedia about Gaston. Note expressions used.

Quote:

Beauty and the Beast parodies the idea of excessive masculinity, a trait shared by both Gaston and the Beast. Obsessed with his own virility, Gaston shares several opinions associated with "the hyper-masculine male", boasting many "traditionally heroic" qualities and beliefs. Representing "everything that can go wrong in the heterosexual male" according to The Meanings of "Beauty and the Beast": A Handbook author Jerry Griswold, Gaston is essentially a caricature of hypermasculinity; he proudly hunts, drinks, fights, spits, bullies and lies in addition to being shallow and ignorant, exuding what are considered to be some of the worst masculine traits. Gaston intimidates and threatens anyone opposed to his ideas, and actively attends male social gatherings via which he can exercise his "alpha male" status. Extremely egotistical, Gaston appears to pride himself as the greatest at any task he attempts.

Gaston is Disney's most chauvinistic villain to-date, although this trait is approached with humor. According to Yahoo! Movies' Will Perkins, Gaston believes that "he’s God’s gift to women and the world." Referred to as a personification of misogyny, Gaston is accustomed to acquiring anything he desires, and believes he deserves to marry Belle only because she is considered to be the most beautiful girl in his hometown, and thus "the best."

[azulsombra]

This doesn't surprise me. Im actually shocked that it took this long. Disney has been firmly entrenched in the pro gay marriage/ lifestyle camp for a long time.

The last time I went to a Disney theme park a few years ago I was surprised how many openly gay couples with and without children were walking around. I believe the parks have held gay focused or themee weekends for several years now.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(03-02-2017 01:01 PM)sterling_archer Wrote:  

First time I actually read about this beauty and the beast, especially character Gaston (I am not really familiar with Disney movies).

Here is interesting thing from wikipedia about Gaston. Note expressions used.

Quote:

Beauty and the Beast parodies the idea of excessive masculinity, a trait shared by both Gaston and the Beast. Obsessed with his own virility, Gaston shares several opinions associated with "the hyper-masculine male", boasting many "traditionally heroic" qualities and beliefs. Representing "everything that can go wrong in the heterosexual male" according to The Meanings of "Beauty and the Beast": A Handbook author Jerry Griswold, Gaston is essentially a caricature of hypermasculinity; he proudly hunts, drinks, fights, spits, bullies and lies in addition to being shallow and ignorant, exuding what are considered to be some of the worst masculine traits. Gaston intimidates and threatens anyone opposed to his ideas, and actively attends male social gatherings via which he can exercise his "alpha male" status. Extremely egotistical, Gaston appears to pride himself as the greatest at any task he attempts.

Gaston is Disney's most chauvinistic villain to-date, although this trait is approached with humor. According to Yahoo! Movies' Will Perkins, Gaston believes that "he’s God’s gift to women and the world." Referred to as a personification of misogyny, Gaston is accustomed to acquiring anything he desires, and believes he deserves to marry Belle only because she is considered to be the most beautiful girl in his hometown, and thus "the best."

Guys should take note here - all those description of Gaston are exactly what women find attractive. This misogynist would bang broads in the hundreds in our times - in any time.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(03-02-2017 12:54 PM)911 Wrote:  

The most obvious perversion in Beauty and the Beast is the undercurrent of bestiality, haven't see that mentioned 2 pages into this thread. Close second is "The Beast", a horned creature, as a representation of satan.

I had a massive takedown of some of the Disney movies in recent times - especially the cartoons - among those the recent Tinkerbell flic as well as other bigger blockbusters like Maleficient, How to TRain a Dragon 2, Big Hero 6 etc:

It is evil evil stuff:

thread-45977...#pid980668

This is a positive creater in Tinkerbell:



This is what men are to them:



And I did mention the frequent killing off of parents, siblings - especially fathers since that should traumatize little children and give them a feeling that they can only depend on the state for protection.

[911]

Exactly Zel, all these princess-centered themes are about leaving the family realm through some form of sexual "liberation".

This is a good rundown of the subliminal elements and general subtexts:

A few examples of subliminal images in Disney films:

Anatomically correct rabbit hole, see clitoris/hood on top:


Other examples:

[Mercenary]

(03-02-2017 12:54 PM)911 Wrote:  

The most obvious perversion in Beauty and the Beast is the undercurrent of bestiality, haven't see that mentioned 2 pages into this thread. Close second is "The Beast", a horned creature, as a representation of satan.

There are 4 different parts in the holy bible that specifically mention and prohibit bestiality with punishment of death, 2 of which mention women:

Quote:

Exodus 22:19 says, “Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal must be put to death.” Leviticus 18:23 declares, “Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.” Leviticus 20:15-16 commands, “If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” Deuteronomy 27:21 agrees, “Cursed is the man who has sexual relations with any animal.”

Why on earth would such things be in the bible especially in relation to women as mentioned in the 2 seperate passages of Leviticus ?

Were these things happening back in the time of the bible ?!

[CynicalContrarian]

(03-02-2017 07:37 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

There are 4 different parts in the holy bible that specifically mention and prohibit bestiality with punishment of death, 2 of which mention women:

Quote:

Exodus 22:19 says, “Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal must be put to death.” Leviticus 18:23 declares, “Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.” Leviticus 20:15-16 commands, “If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” Deuteronomy 27:21 agrees, “Cursed is the man who has sexual relations with any animal.”

Why on earth would such things be in the bible especially in relation to women as mentioned in the 2 seperate passages of Leviticus ?

Were these things happening back in the time of the bible ?!

They'd sacrifice infants to wooden / stone carvings.
In their warped pagan minds bestiality probably wasn't worth consideration.

"What a consenting adult & a consenting animal do in their own bedroom is none of our business..."

[sterling_archer]

(03-02-2017 07:37 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

Why on earth would such things be in the bible especially in relation to women as mentioned in the 2 seperate passages of Leviticus ?

Were these things happening back in the time of the bible ?!

Times of Bible were big period, but yeah, there is no reason to suspect this. Even now in some south American countries there is rite of passage for males to fuck donkeys.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

< The Old Testament is not a guideline for Christian values. They stone adulturers at the time of Jesus.

Christianity has different values. Though of course a lot of the Biblical texts take into account the then prevalent practices of child sacrifice or worse( cult of Baal). Mohammed borrowed some of the texts straight from the Old Testament and kept it there.

[Kabal]

(03-02-2017 09:14 AM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  

Emma Stone is 27, yet it's doubtful she'd take a step back & do this kind of kids shit.
Jennifer Lawrence (25) is obviously over-exposed in more ways than one.
Blake Lively, 28. Once again, not suitable for this kind of kids shit.
Margot Robbie, 25. Also, not suitable for this kind of kids shit.
Shailene Woodley, age 24. She lost what 'star-power' she may have garnered with the trite 'Divergent' series.
Kristen Stewart, age 25. About the only other viable & notable option it seems, but still not as cutesy & kid friendly as Harry's hoe.

Belle is indeed one of the tougher roles to cast nowadays, because so many actresses just do not have the classical sense of femininity, innocence, wholesomeness, and charm that Belle has--nor can they even fake it.

Pretty much all of the Disney princesses are ingenues, but Belle stands out as the ingenue of ingenues--and we can see why she would inspire town harem-king Gaston and a former prince-turned beast to wager their lives over her.

Emma Stone -- I like her looks a lot, but possibly too bitchy looking for an optimal Belle.
Jennifer Lawrence -- flat out too bitchy-looking, with constant resting bitch face.
Blake Lively -- previous roles too slutty and/or trashy (Gossip Girl, The Town, perhaps others). While she can at least portray friendly characters well (Gossip Girl), it does not come with that sense of innocence--Serena was too slutty for her looks.
Margot Robbie -- previous roles far too slutty and/or trashy.
Shailene Woodley -- don't know who she is off the top of my head.
Kristen Stewart -- resting bitch face, flat-personality-wise, not that attractive.

Plus, I have no idea if any of the above can sing.

Emma Watson is but a slightly better version of Kristen Stewart. She does not look like someone who could inspire two high status men to fight over her. I get de-inspired just by her usual expression, like she constantly just smelled a fart. In addition, she's an obnoxious PC-liberal.

My choice would be Emmy Rossum. We know from Phantom of the Opera that she sings well. Her role as Christine did convincingly portray the consummate ingenue. And she's less affected by her previous roles... maybe Shameless, but I don't think too many people watched that.

Look at the doe-eyed, starstruck looks she gives Raoul and the Phantom. I need someone who looks at me like Christine looks at them:

We need to promote more kind, innocent, chaste, wholesome ingenues in pop culture. They're a much better role-model for girls than the Kardashians and Harley Quinns of the world.

[CynicalContrarian]

Seems there may not be any big gay scenes as such, just gay innuendo.
Either way the only correct response is to boycott this stupid film :

The Wrap– Dan Callahan

Most problematic in this version is an attempt to make Gaston’s sidekick Le Fou (Josh Gad) into a gay character who is in love with his friend. This isn’t a bad idea on the face of it, but it seems like Condon and scriptwriters Stephen Chbosky (“The Perks of Being a Wallflower”) and Evan Spiliotopoulos (“The Huntsman: Winter’s War”) are trying to hedge their bets on this issue, and the result is coy and unconvincing. Especially at the climax of the film, when the attempt to match Le Fou up with a proper romantic partner feels very clumsy and shoe-horned in.

http://screenrant.com/beauty-beast-2017-movie-reviews/

...hyper-masculine Gaston and Gad as the sycophantic Le Fou gaining a bit more depth than his animated predecessor (though for all the talk about his sexuality, he’s mostly only coded as gay).

[AnonymousBosch]

(03-03-2017 06:41 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

My choice would be Emmy Rossum. We know from Phantom of the Opera that she sings well. Her role as Christine did convincingly portray the consummate ingenue. And she's less affected by her previous roles... maybe Shameless, but I don't think too many people watched that.

It must have been great acting on her part, since, in real life, she's an finger-wagging, hypocritical SJW. Trump's pussy-grabbing comment gave her the vapours at the time and I could only think: have you ever even watched your own fucking vile show, Precious? They're sexualising the child actors on your watch, you formerly-pretty bitch.

Quote:

Fucking hell, Gerard Butler can't sing for shit. I remember watching this with a girl I was dating, and she was angry at Christine for picking 'dull, boring' Raoul, when she had an obsessed creative genius wanting to make her a huge star. When his scarring is revealed under the mask, she clucked her tongue in annoyance and started yelling at the screen. "Girl, more than half of him is still very pretty! Just sleep on the right side of the bed already!" *

A quick search through Youtube Comments, and, yes, it's exactly what I'd expect, knowing women. It's back to the Boring Beast / Boring Thor vs the oddly-attractive Arseshole Gaston / Loki thing again.

Quote:

Deformed face or Nah I would go with the Phantom!!

Quote:

Yes, this is beautiful!! I hate Raoul, Phantom was the best for her, I was so mad when she left him

Yes, they even make excuses for the whole 'crazy murderer' thing.

This one made me laugh:

Quote:

can she really be all that happy when she marries Roual after all living life of the rich can be dull and boring most of the time. Eric had talent in many things he is a musician, magician, architect, smart, cunning etc what does Roual have to offer Christine other than a title and money?

I was talking privately to a member the other day and I said, functionally, my intelligence was largely-useless for game purposes, except the type of malevolent intelligence where you'd show you're smart and crafty enough to get the better of others, if she's in on the shared secret.

You can see why girls want to see similar men in their romantic fantasies.

One last note: the movie wasn't great - it's a chick thing and the male lead really can't sing - but, oddly, Miranda Richardson as Madame Giry gives one of the most intense, committed and emotionally-believable performances I've ever seen. I remember wishing everyone else was in the same movie she obviously thought she was in.

----

* I've noticed a lot of chicks seem to have Florence Nightingale type of fantasies when I'm banged up. I think it's known to the Female Typist set as Hurt / Comfort. Remember the scene with the leads in 'Raiders of The Lost Ark?' on the boat? A guy might be in great physical or emotional pain, but a woman's touch will make him forget all that.

I remember being in the cinema with a girl seeing the Heath Ledger Batman film, and when Aaron Eckhardt revealed that half his face was now burnt off, she commented to me that he was still 'Oddly sexy'.

Since isn't the weirdest sexual statement I've heard from a girl, it didn't really raise my eyebrow, but it might offer some encouragement to some of our Game Newbie guys.