I said that.

The creator stated it was there, in this version, which is the point. Here's an article about the overall situation. You can note McGregor's (not the director) comments

among the rest.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertain...icle-1.2997991

The problem is your reading comprehension.

Again, homosexuality is not a plot point in the story. If the director had not made a statement, it wouldn't even be a story. There was nothing homosexual about the story other than the director's description of the character. That's the entire point. They didn't gay up a non-gay story. There was no male-male sexuality in any way. You're getting worked up over the director's description, not the actual movie.

I haven't seen this movie, but how did they determine he is "openly gay?" Does he blow some dude in the movie, or toss a salad, or get bent over in a prison rape scene? Somehow that doesn't seem like Disney's style.

John Waters, maybe.... but not Disney.

Of course not. Which is why this is so overblown. No male-male contact. No character dialog ascribing him to be gay. No sexuality. He's just silly and French.

These are literally the entire parts of the movie.

Le'fou is obviously infatuated with Gaston. It's easy to see from an adult perspective. Nothing over the top.

In one of the scenes, the villagers are attacking the castle. A wardrobe sprays three guys with a bunch of cloth and dress parts. They all end up dressed as women and have full makeup on. Two of them run away, the other stands there smiling.

At the end of the movie, everyone is dancing to music. Le'Fou and the guy who got dressed up as a girl are dancing together.

That's literally ****ing it.

OH NOEZ :eek:

It's interesting then that the director Bill Condon (who's gay) felt the need to inform everyone before the movie opened that this character is 'openly gay'. Whatever that means?

I mean, if nothing had ever been said about it, would the public had even known? I mean, why does it even matter?

Someone would have noticed and asked him the question and if Disney said yes you would have a bunch of idiots claiming that Disney is sneaking a gay life style into its movies without telling people and they are trying to brainwash kids.

Just saw the movie. I didn't have a problem. His gayness was handled tastefully, and it was hilarious to be honest. The actor nailed the part.

So for those who know and love the original, does the live action build on anything?

I don't have anything opposed to watching, I'm just having a hard time imagining an improvement on what it already is in my mind and on my shelf.

I felt like it was an extremely flashy version of the original. The songs were all very well done and probably an improvement. Be Our Guest was ****ing blown out almost to the point of hilarity LMAO.

The rest, not so much.

I didn't really buy Emma Watson as Belle. She was a bit wooden.

Ewan McGregor, Sir Ian and Emma Thompson were absolutely fabulous as the candle, clock and teapot, however, and Luke Evans as Gaston was awesome. These were the highlights of it for me.

Beast CGI was excellent.

Wife saw it. She said it did a good job of giving some more backstory about why he was cursed and whatnot. She enjoyed it.

Not to tear it down but what's new that deserves a reboot/retelling?

IMHO if they should redo anything it should be improving the original animation on The Fox And The Hound and leave the story untouched.

This flick finds a way to parallel race/economic/political relations and how all people start off good and end up tweaked out by growing up...