Disney's Christopher Robin - Teaser Trailer

Bet you've been waiting for this for a while.

So I've been missing for...a while really and that's because I've literally had no laptop to write with since November / December. But that doesn't matter, you've not waited for me to come back and waffle on about what I thought about the new Fifty Shades film or Early Man, you've missed me talking about Disney, and considering I've not done that for a while and I just spent the past ten minutes crying over a teaser trailer, I thought it only right that I come back with some Disney talk.

From the limited information we get in the trailer, it looks like our little friend Christopher is having a bit of a hard life, he's lost his childhood imagination and works for some sort of business, being an adult and all that. His boss has laid off a few of his co-workers and has asked Christopher to work during his time off, in which he was going to go on a trip with his wife and daughter. Of course, he ends up choosing his work and they go on the trip without him. He goes back to what I can only assume is where he grew up and he sits, puts his head in his hands and says "what to do" three times. That's when our favourite little ol' bear speaks up with "what to do indeed". This leads to the best part of the trailer, a grown man shouting "Pooh". This then leads to the sweetest thing I've seen in a while. Christopher says something about thinking he's cracked and Pooh Bear says "oh I don't see any cracks..." the little bear then reaches up, touches Christopher's face and says "...A few wrinkles maybe." Roll the "Coming Soon" card and the trailer is over and my heart has snapped.

The plot to this film seems like it might have a similar plot to Hook. Grown fictitious character spends too much time working and not enough with his family, meets up with something/one from his past and has to learn to have fun again. The only difference I can see in the storylines is that where Pan's thing was that he was a workaholic and that Robin's thing is that he either works or he gets fired.

The cast looks great too, with Ewan McGregor as the grown Christopher Robin, the intensely talented Jim Cummings as our lovable Pooh Bear,  backed up by some...strange choices such as Peter Capaldi and Chris O'Dowd as Rabbit and Tigger respectively and...those are some choices I can't hear in my head but I really want this to work out so I'll bring my hopes down only slightly.

I'm genuinely so excited for this, I love Pooh Bear from the bottom of my heart, always have, always will and nothing will ever change that. I repeat, NOTHING. Not even the fact that Pooh Bears mouth barely moves which is kind of scary. I get that it's a live-action film and they want it to look realistic but it just kind of looks like something from a SAW game where you'd have to confess your sins in time before your mouth gets sewn shut. Regardless of that, this looks beautiful, like it looks like it could be funny but also like there's going to be a lovely yet heartbreaking...going off the trailer anyway. I mean I cried over little Pooh Bear touch his old friends face so God knows how I'm gonna be at the end of this film.

If what I've talked about with this so far doesn't convince you this film could be great...
Take a look at the poster

Are you not blessed to be looking at something so lovely? Is your heart not overflowing with love and joy at Pooh Bear in Christopher's hat? This should be the only convincing you need to see it?

What? Need more? Well here's the trailer.

Christopher Robin - 2018 Teaser Trailer

Go and support this bear in helping his old friend.

That would be it from me, have a good night and be careful of those heffalumps and woozles.


This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about the films listed. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like the films listed then go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray or paying for a ticket to see the film in theaters.

What's to come from Disney?

Am I ever gonna leave Disney alone? Probably not.

Alright so, I know I said in my last post where I was discussing Disney and how the fact that putting in an "openly gay" character who is "exploring his sexuality" was pretty much just an unnecessary marketing ploy and was also just kinda shoved in to put in "representation for the gay community". Honestly, it's a little out of place in revolution-era France but whatever, I'm moving on from that. Still, the best of the remakes though the more I think about it, it goes down in my estimations. But now that this is over, we're all looking toward the future of Disney remakes because...they know they're definitely gonna cash in on this. So what's to come from Disney in the future? I've done a bit of research and here's what I've found. I'm going to give the name of the film, a brief description of what I've found about it and my opinion on them. Hopefully, I'll be able to keep it short and I'll try and not let my emotions run the show and ramble on.

Alrighty, here we go.

• Genies. This is apparently an idea being thrown around, with no cast, director or even a release date as of right now but from what I can gather, this is going to be a prequel/origin story of the Genie and how he came to be in the lamp. This is obviously going to be so hard to do because the reason everybody loved the Genie in Aladdin was because of the late Robin Williams energy, charisma, and pure comedic talent. I've seen posts about how they would cast the Genie or whether or not they should even do an Aladdin remake and I understand their concerns but, think about it this way. Robin is gone but we'll always have his stand up and his films. If you're going to be upset by the casting choice for the live action version of the Genie then don't watch the movie. Disney are remaking their classics for a new generation but that doesn't erase the original. Go and watch that rather than protest it. I'm sure that whoever is cast for this will do their best to respect the character that Willams brought to life and will do their best to honour it while also making this iteration their own. 
• Aladdin. Speaking of the Genie then it's only right he appear in this remake too. Guy Ritchie, is directing at this time but that could change in the future, I'm not sure. Hollywood is a fickle place. And before you google "Was Guy Ritchie married to Madonna" yes. Yes, he was. I just saved you some time. Now I think they could do this, of course, there are still the concerns with the casting of the Genie and I've heard there is going to be a very diverse cast so hopefully, people won't be having a shit fit over whitewashing. I mean the original cast was white people drawn as Arabian people with one of them taking inspiration from Tom Cruise but...that's not white-washing in these people's eyes. This could be a good film for the marketing team because they could set up a "controversy" again to ensure butts get in seats. Watch this space.
• Dumbo. Tim Burton is set to direct this little classic with a mix of CG and live-action which I hope looks right. I really do. There's no set release date right now but I think when I first heard about this, I think the article said 2018. Don't quote me on that, I can't find that exact article. Like I said, I hope this looks right. Tim Burton is a very hit or miss director in terms of his style. Don't get me wrong, I love his style but in the places you think it'd look good, it doesn't *cough cough Alice in Wonderland cough cough*. I think that this is where he could definitely shine, especially in that pink elephant's scene. I swear if that scene isn't in this and doesn't look creepy and awesome. I'm gonna be so done with any Disney remake. That was easily the best scene in the original and despite everyone saying it scared them as a kid, they still went back to it and now as adults, they still think it's a bit freaky but it looks fucking cool. I'm excited for this but literally just to see what he does with this. Love ya Tim, don't let me down.
• The Lion King. The success of The Jungle Book did this guys, you wanted live-action animals and now you're getting it. This one doesn't have a release date yet but what I do know is that Jon Favreau of Iron Man producing fame is set to direct. James Earl Jones (Mufasa) is going to be back with Donald Glover (Simba) which I'm over the fucking moon about. No Matthew Broderick. This character isn't going to sound bored out of his head while he's talking. Excited doesn't cover it. 
• The Little Mermaid. This is already going to be production hell considering it's had three actresses attached and all three have dropped out, I've not seen anything about a director or producer or a release date or anything. All the people at Disney have is the story, as far as I'm aware. Considering this could be a production hell of a project, it could go two ways. It could be terrible and all the problems are on screen like with The Good Dinosaur (which was a production hell) or it could be like Inside Out (another production hell) which was able to get past all its problems and bring out something incredible. I hope for Disney's sake it goes well.
• Cruella. Another classic villains origin story. This is apparently going to be similar to Maleficent in the sense that it could bring a more human side to the wannabe puppy killer which, I almost don't want to see. Emma Stone, hot off the success of La La Land is set to play the fur-obsessed villain which, I suppose isn't a bad choice but we'll just see how it goes. Alex Timber is set to direct and I've heard there is a 2018 release date. I hope this doesn't bring a more human side to her because I always saw her as that crazy kid who'd burn ants. I know Disney has a "family friendly" image but...going darker can't hurt right? Don't give her a broken heart, make her a little crazy and as time goes on, let it get gradually worse. 
• The Sword in the Stone. The story of an orphaned boy who learns about magic with his wizard mentor. The orphan? A young King Arthur. The wizard? Merlin. Who's attached to this? Game Of Thrones writer/producer Bryan Cogman. How cool does that sound? Fucking awesome. That's all the information I need to get hyped over this film. 
• Winnie The Pooh. The story apparently involves Christopher Robin returning to his friends in the Hundred-Acre Wood as an adult. I've not seen anything about a director or cast or anything yet but my imagination is running wild with the possibilities. How is Pooh Bear going to react to his best friend growing up? There's a nice little quiet moment in the end of the original 1966 animated where Christopher Robin talks to Pooh Bear about the inevitability of him growing up and living his life without Pooh Bear. It's such a sad little talk but it really fits in with the tone of the film and this is already such an interesting premise for a film that I just hope they can pull it off.  
• Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. A remake of the original story with no cast, director or release date. It could suck, it could be good, are they going to get a real 14-year-old to play the 14-year-old character? Probably not. Are they going to make her a strong independent woman that actually kinda backfires like with Cinderella? Probably. 
• Rose Red. Ever heard of Rose Red? No? Go back to the Grimm fairy tales and you'll find she was the sister of Snow White. She's getting her own spinoff movie where she teams up with the dwarfs to break the spell put onto Snow after she bites the apple. Interesting idea, let's just hope that for this to work they don't try to make Snow White an independent woman like Cinderella. 
• Peter Pan. David Lowry, the director of the live-action Pete's Dragon is now set to direct this live-action adaptation of the 1953 animated film. No cast or release date right now but you know that you can't break the streak of gorgeous guys who have played the boy who will never grow up. Tinkerbell will also be getting her own spinoff. Why isn't that another bullet point? Because, there isn't enough information, opinion or emotion to make it more than one sentence.
• The Jungle Book 2. Jon Favreau is apparently returning to direct this and there is no cast or release date to speak of but there is an opinion. Let's face facts, Disney sequels suck. Disney live-action remakes have sucked so far. Disney sequels and remakes made money. What's the next logical thing to do? Make a live-action sequel obviously! God, I just...I just don't want to bother if the story to the sequel is similar to the animated sequel. Let's just hope that Christopher Walken returns because he was the best thing about that movie.
• Maleficent 2. Angelina Jolie, no director, no release date, no interest from me. Why is this being made? The first one made money and rather than leave a story where it was left, all nicely wrapped up and put away carefully, you gotta drag it back out and mess with it more. What could even be added to this story? Is she going to protect Aurora/Briar Rose's baby from a curse from another evil witch/fairy whatever the hell she is? It really wouldn't surprise me at all. At least with The Jungle Book there are actual books to take ideas from. This one was a fabricated humanisation of a classically evil villain and there is nowhere else they can take this.
• Pinocchio. This shit scary animated kids film is also getting the live-action treatment with a story loosely based on that of the original animated film. Will it take darker aspects from the original story too? Maybe, I don't know, I kinda hope so because...kids films can always be darker and films these days always need that PG-13 rating. 
• James and the giant peach. The Roald Dahl classic book got a semi-live-action film back in 1996 and it was...mediocre at best. The book is a hell of a lot better. Now Disney is talking about remaking the film as, I'm guessing, a live-action/CGI movie which could be decent. I don't know.
• Chip 'n Dale. A chipmunks movie that hopefully won't become a horrible franchise? If it does well then it could be. This will be based on the TV series which ran from 1989 to 1990, and there isn't much information on this right now but apparently it's already in it's production so...fingers crossed this will be a good film.
• Chernabog. The final and funniest of them all (that I'm aware of). Who is Chernabog? He was a demon (the Devil) who was featured in an 11-minute segment called A Night On Bald Mountain from the masterpiece that is Fantasia. He is apparently going to get the same treatment Maleficent got and he will be given a more humanised backstory. Why Chernabog though? Who even really watched Fantasia in my age range or younger? Not a lot. The only reason I ever watched it was that my parents had it on VCR and I bugged them until I got to watch it. Even they found it boring but I loved it so they watched it with me whenever I wanted to put it on. Whenever I've talked about Fantasia with people in my age group, literally none of them has watched it and I highly doubt that kids have seen this too. So why do it? I'm not sure but I do think it would interesting to see. Maybe it could be similar to Fantasia in the sense of it being a silent film aside from classical music and deals with religion. It could be gorgeously animated and depending on the amount of people who see it, it could lead to another Fantasia movie. Disney have done a film dealing with religion before and the animation was just gorgeous, the music gave me goosebumps. Hunchback Of Notre Dame is a gorgeous film with religious themes and I hope that this is the route they take but...with the information I've been given about giving him a more human backstory? I almost don't want to see this come to light. 
• Mulan. A more serious take on the boring girl with no personality who saved China. How is it more serious? It's apparently not a musical and Buzzfeed wrote an article complaining about that. You thought it might be due to the fact that they want to do this seriously with better character development? Of course not, you want the exact same thing coming at you but live-action with no change what so ever. All you care about is the I'll make a man out of you number. This film is already in production with Niki Caro apparently on board directing and a release date for 2018.
• Mary Poppins returns. Not a remake, but a sequel to the 1964 film and I can already feel the CGI burning into my retinas. Emily Blunt is apparently going to take on the role of the magical nanny with Lin-Manuel Miranda from Hamilton is set to star alongside her. The film is set to be released Christmas Day 2018. Merry Christmas guys.

So that's all the films I've heard about, all 20 of them. And out of those 20, only 4 of them really grab my interest and I just can't wait for all of these to come out so I can write about them. I really do love Disney but I genuinely feel like they're dying and their only hope is to cash in on nostalgia and remake their classics. I hope they sort their shit soon and bring out some original content because I'd honestly hate to see this company pander to the masses and go under because people get bored of nothing original.

This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about the films listed. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like the idea of the films listed then go and support its creators by buying tickets to see the films in cinemas or the DVD or Bluray when they're available for home release.

Disney and The Gay Agenda - Part 2

DON'T READ IF YA DON'T WANT SPOILERS

Alright so, you remember how a few weeks ago people were kicking off about LeFou, the absolute main icon of Disney's wholesome values that cannot ever be touched, was going to be a gay character? Of course you do. Do you remember my last post about this where I was saying that it doesn't even matter unless it damages the film itself? No? Go read it then come back here.

https://somegirltalksaboutmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/disney-gay-agenda.html
(Also go look at my review for the film https://somegirltalksaboutmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/beauty-beast-2017.html )

You read it? Good, we can continue. You wanna know how changing the very core of Disney from a straight man to a gay man went? It barely fucking did anything. LeFou (Josh Gad) showed the same blatant signs of attraction that the cartoon did but in a different and very slightly more obvious way. There were scenes in which LeFou quite literally copied Gaston (Luke Evans) and it's in a way cute, in another way funny and in another kinda creepy. But you know what those lists say; if you want your crush to notice you, copy some of the little things they do to get their attention. This, of course, didn't work for poor little LeFou, then he sticks up for Gaston in the bar when Maurice (Kevin Klein) accuses him of attempted murder. LeFou then breaks into well-known song Gaston and yes, that is the name of the song, I looked it up on about 4 different sites. During this song, LeFou shows his affection toward Gaston and this is the biggest clue that this character is probably in the closet, and this is probably the start of the whole "LEFOU IS GAY LIGHT THE PITCHFORKS" thing. The rest of his scenes essentially follow the original story.

However, during the fight scene at the end, he gets flattened by a table, it's not the lovely dog/footstool table, it's just a coffee table that comes out for the fight. He pleads Gaston for help but, Gaston being the dick he always was, leaves him in pursuit of the Beast. Later during the fight, Mrs Potts sees Mr Potts, a man I never knew existed in the original movie. I guess he had to exist in some way for Chip to be born but, it's just weird to see him. Back to the point, though. Mrs Potts sees her estranged husband and falls, as she's falling, you almost think she's going to smash into pieces on the floor, but you see her get caught. Who catches her? Your favourite french fool, LeFou. Mrs Potts asks why he caught her and isn't he on the other side? He replies that he and Gaston are going through a rough patch like someone would say if they're in a fight with their partner. Mrs Potts then goes on to say something along the lines of either "You don't need him love" or  "you can do better love" or maybe both, it's been 2 days since I watched it and I can't remember every line spoken. Sue me. Also, during this fight scene, Madame Garderobe (Audra McDonald) clothes three men, I'm not even joking she showers them in clothes and they come out fully done up, makeup and wigs and gorgeous dresses. Two of these men scream in terror and run out but one of them just smiles and looks so happy and just walks away. It's a cute moment and at the time it looks like a silly throwaway joke or something but it goes somewhere.

Now then, you'll notice there's nothing particularly gay about any of this. I've described a pretty camp character and crossdresser. That can't be it, right? There was such a build-up, where's the butt plugs? The anal beads? The dildo-headed, leather gimp suits? Where's even the tiniest gay moment? You wanna know where it is? Right at the very end and lasts less than a second. Literally. After everyone gets returned to their human form there's the final reprise of Tale as old as time and everyone is having fun in the ballroom dancing, and loving life. There's a shot of LeFou dancing with a young woman and it cuts away to someone else dancing or Emma Thompson singing. Again I'm not sure, I barely remember the details shot by shot. It then cuts back to LeFou dancing with this woman, he then pushes her aside and starts dancing with the man from earlier who was happy in the dress. There's your gay moment guys. LeFou dances with a guy. We're off to hell guys, we watched the gayest thing two men can do together. Dance.

I'm not even joking, that was the "exclusively gay moment". So...did it matter? No. Why was there such a hype over it to the point where I was expecting anal beads and dildo-headed gimp suits? Personally, I think the creators knew that controversy sells and that they didn't have enough confidence in their product. This was simply a marketing ploy and a cheap one at that. I can't lie, I'm hurt by this. Why couldn't the creators go balls to the wall and have him actually explore his sexuality rather than be overly affectionate toward Gaston. Seeing a character just explore who they are would be nice at least but this whole thing just seemed like such a last minute thing that you wonder what even triggered the need to put it in.

Personally, I think it was the desperate need for representation of everyone that some people have these days. People want more women, gay people, trans people and ethnic people represented in film, and that's understandable, but why put these characters in these films just for the sake of representation? If you're just throwing these characters in without thought, for a controversy storm to start up and bring in an audience that...considering that this is A) a Disney product B) a remake of a perfect piece of film and C) a big thing because of the cast they managed to get, there really is no need to create such a storm. This really does show the confidence the makers had in this film. They knew that no matter what, this was going to be a bad film compared to this first one and they had to do whatever they could to get butts into seats. Like I said, this is an iconic property and the film would have been the exact same without it.

I really don't know what else to say about it, there was no need to put in an "exclusively gay moment" that didn't even exist. I'm offended because they had a great shot at a character exploring their sexuality to normalise it for kids and they bitched out of it. It would have been nice to have this little side plot with LeFou rather than filling our time with 4 pointless songs that stopped the film or the unnecessary exposition with Belle's mother dying of plague (don't come at me, you had a spoiler warning). This could have at least made the film it's own thing. In that respect, the Cinderella remake was better because at least it tried to be its own thing. It made the product worse in doing so but at least they tried. With this? It's a shot for shot remake of the cartoon with more exposition that just stops the film. That doesn't change my opinion on it, I do still like the film, I went in with low expectations and they were met, that's all I asked for with this remake.

I know that this is all over the place and honestly...this whole thing was kind of all over the place, there was no need for a petition to be made before anybody saw it. There was no need for anyone to ban this from their theatre before they even saw it. There was no need to cause a media storm over nothing. I hope someone from Disney or someone in film at least, sees this and the many other peoples complaints about there not being a gay moment and I hope they take it on board and think about what they're going to do and why they're going to do it. I'm so sick of thing just being shoehorned into films just for the sake of advertisement. Do it because the story needs it or you feel it's something that needs to be talked about. All it says about you is that you're not confident in your work if you have to either shoehorn something in *cough cough female ghostbusters* or just flat out lie to your audience.

I'm pissy about this, peace out and have a good day guys.

Disney & The Gay Agenda.

Fuck right off with this, honestly, I thought this was a joke when I first saw it but...apparently it's a real thing. Disney are now pushing a gay agenda now due to the fact there is a gay character in the upcoming Beauty & The Beast film, which is, of course, ridiculous for the following reasons:

1. LeFou was pretty gay in the original 2D animated feature.
2. There was no uproar about Elsa possibly being gay.
3. Who the hell even cares anymore?

Let's address this bottom to top. Who cares whether LeFou is gay or not? Don't claim it's "pushing an agenda" because it's not. It's broadening children's minds, it's helping them to understand that it's ok to be gay. If they grew up without this sort of thing and their parents never taught them it was ok, these kids could either become extremely sexually repressed or intolerant to other people and the way they go about their lives. As I'm writing this I'm reading the comments on the Change.Org petition to "Remove Exclusively gay moment from Beauty and the Beast before it hits theaters." Some of them make sense to me, such as "I DON'T want to see a timeless classic be rendered just to appease any specific group of persons. LEAVE IT THE WAY IT WAS ORIGINALLY MADE!" I understand where this person is coming from, I really do. Beauty & The Beast was one of my absolute favourite films when I was a kid and when I first heard this was being remade I thought...I might not be all that down for it because there are gonna be things that won't capture the magic the original did, however, I'm still going to give it a chance, if it's shit it's shit, if not then...great. The problem is, there are comments like "Normalizing sexual perversion for children and pushing political agenda on children, and "hiding" it in a children's movie is just wrong." Now I respect this person's opinion, it's how they feel and I'm not gonna tell them they're wrong for what they're feeling. What I am going to do is bullet point what's wrong with that statement.

• "Normalizing sexual perversion". That's not what's going on, LeFou is described as "Explore(ing) his sexuality after developing feelings for macho leading man Gaston." Meaning this is most likely going to be done visually, through facial expression and atmosphere. I highly doubt Josh Gad, who will be playing Lefou, is going to start whipping out baby Jesus butt plugs and Orca dildo's (both of which are very real things) out at a hardcore gay bar where everybody in is a leather gimp suit and tied to the ceiling. I just don't see that happening. 
• "Political agenda" It just isn't. I'm not bisexual because of politics, I'm bisexual because that's who I am. I genuinely have never heard of anybody being a certain sexuality because of politics, just a daft thing to say. There is no such thing as a gay agenda unless I'm not in on it because I'm not totally gay. (Note to self, talk to the gay people you know about whether there is a gay agenda, they might not let you in on it but at least you tried.)
• "Hiding it in a children's movie" And where the hell were you when there were theories about the penis in The Little Mermaid VHS cover and a few DVD covers? What about the word SEX being written in the stars in The Lion King? Hell, what about the topless lady in The Rescuers? No calls for banning those. I mean there was about that last one but it's honestly amazing someone even found that in the first place. LeFou's gayness, for lack of a better word, is fairly open, nothing is being hidden with that. 

My point is, you're entitled to your opinion, but when you say that you want something banned because it's pushing its agenda on people, aren't you doing the same thing?

Another comment I saw was "It is up to parents to introduce their kids to alternative lifestyles, not anyone else." Which again, I understand, but to them I ask, what about the parents that don't talk to their children about this sort of thing. My parents never did and if they did it would be partly homophobic, I just accepted that as just the language they used to talk about things like this. For example; one year we went to Torquay (highly recommend it, by the way, gorgeous place) and we went shopping during the day, I saw a men's pink shirt and suggested it to my dad, his response was "you're never gonna get me in a posing puff pink pully like that." Which at the time I thought was some funny alliteration, still do for an on the spot remark, but I do see how it can be problematic for other people. If I wasn't more of an independent thinker I'd probably have grown up with homophobic tendencies. If parents don't talk about this sort of thing they're either gonna learn it from their friends, schools or even the media. This film is a form of media and it's promoting positivity. I haven't yet seen the film, I definitely will be going to see it because...I got nothing to do with my life now really until September so...why not. 

The final comment I'll mention will be "I do not support non traditional marriage". This has almost nothing to do with what's going on here. What's happening is a fictional character exploring his sexuality at a point in his life. As far as I know, he isn't the one who'll be getting married. If there's a plot twist where Gaston realises he was just trying to impress everyone by being so macho and ends up kissing LeFou at the end and an after credits scene in which the two marry then your comment will have some sort of validation. To my knowledge from the original, that most likely will not be the case but...you never know.

Let's talk about another Disney character that sparked a conversation about homosexuality in Disney films. Elsa. Where was the backlash against fans just wanting her to be a lesbian? As far as I know, and please correct me if I'm wrong, there was little to no negative reaction to it. Elsa's voice actor Idina Menzel is even in favour of Elsa being gay. There's even a petition in support of giving Elsa a girlfriend in the Frozen sequel. So why is it, that Elsa gets mass public support yet LeFou gets massively condemned. Is this a form of sexism pushed by the media? Is it algorithms only showing what's popular rather than what's important? Is it political? I don't know, personally, it seems like a lot of people just complaining because they don't want to talk about anything important. My biggest problem with this is that Meridia, the Scottish princess from Brave never got consideration for being gay. She never chose a suitor and in fact decided to marry when she wanted, if she even wanted to marry at all. I don't remember her ever specifying deciding to marry a man if and when she wanted to. Is that because the film didn't do that well? Is it because nobody cares about Scotland? Or is it because nobody cares in general? 

Last bullet point I'm gonna talk about before I start wrapping this up; LeFou was already pretty gay. I mean, did you ever see the way he looked at Gaston? Did you see his disdain toward the Bimbettes whenever they fawned over Gaston? The way he sang of Gaston's perfection in the tavern? Even the way that he just sucks up to Gaston, trying to get his attention from Belle? This guy was always clearly besotted with the manly man Gaston. Nobody noticed it because it was subtle story telling. LeFou was a side character, he had no character arc and rarely had a direct impact on the story itself. Personally, I always kinda liked this character and in giving him an arc, it could mean we get to see more of him which is a pretty good thing.

I'm gonna wrap this up now because it's 02:25 and I'm just exhausted. I'm going to leave this post with this though, whether you think this is wrong for religious reasons, personal reasons, political reasons I just want to say that I respect your opinion and your right to have it, but if you don't like the idea of an openly gay character in a Disney film because Disney is a "family friendly" company, then I would ask you to take a look back at some of the films that Disney has produced over its entire life span. Those floating heads in the Tim Burton reimagining of Alice In Wonderland aren't very family friendly, are they? I wouldn't say that The Hunchback Of Notre Dame with its creepy imagery and sexual themes is very family friendly either, come to think of it, neither is Jungle 2 Jungle with the animal abuse. Hell, what about Chicken Little with its disgusting portrayal of a father/town? Why aren't you kicking off because those aren't family friendly? For the sake of argument, people argue that Stockholm Syndrome is a key theme in Beauty & The Beast so why aren't there calls to scrap the film because of that?

I'd like to think that people think about what they're watching and I would hope that they realise that these things are done, not to promote a specific agenda, but to educate anyone that sees them. We can't go around catering to sensitivities, education is important in all areas. I'm always down for a conversation about why someone likes or dislikes something but as soon as they start spouting "I don't like this so it has to go" that's when I just tune out. If you don't agree with something, such as a film, where it's message isn't harmful to anybody and a character's story arc intends to educate something then just accept it and don't go to see the film or support it in any way. It's as simple as that. If you want to talk about something and make a difference then talk about lesser known health conditions, mental and physical, get involved in politics because the world is kind of a mess right now, but please, don't waste your time complaining about something that, in the long run, is going to be forgotten about within days of the film's release. Similar to the Ghost Busters remake. 

I can't tell people to go and see this film because...I don't know what this is going to be like. I can't tell you why you should or shouldn't go and see this, other than go and see it if you want to. When it comes out I'll be talking about it and if they gay thing is a big deal like everyone is making it out to be then I'll talk about it more, if not then...who cares? Nobody is gonna remember this once this thing is out in cinemas.

Damn, 03:00, I should get to bed...'Night...Or...Good morning I guess...