Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 insaniak wrote:

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:

The only legitimate reason for a film company to remake its own movies, especially ones only a couple of decades old, is to make them better. I mean that’s obvious. No company is saying, “let’s remake our old movies and make them worse!”

That would be a reason, but it's not necessarily the only reason. In the case of these live action remakes, I think the goal is just to tell the story in a different way, rather than necessarily to tell it better. It's ultimately the same thing as making a movie from a book or graphic novel.

There's also been talk that they don't have to credit any of the originators of the animated versions thanks to weirdness.

I would also argue that it's for kids today. It's been how many years since Aladdin? Time to put a new batch of 7-12 year olds into theater seats.

 insaniak wrote:

Then report them and move on. That avoids you having to make snarky posts based on assumptions, and everyone can get on with their lives.

So that a mod who is on record as stating that they have no interest in addressing any of my concerns can act on it?

A populace that does not trust its law enforcement will always prefer to take matters into their own hands.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Then report them and move on. That avoids you having to make snarky posts based on assumptions, and everyone can get on with their lives.

So that a mod who is on record as stating that they have no interest in addressing any of my concerns can act on it?

A populace that does not trust its law enforcement will always prefer to take matters into their own hands.

Go away you moral busy body, you got all outraged because we are attracted to a certain kind of woman and are not afraid to say so..... like someone else said, you must be fun at parties

Man, I can't even imagine how my girlfriend would react if I told her that I think she's beautiful because I've dug dark-eyed, dusky beauties since I saw a cartoon when I was 8.

I presume I'd wake up with 'exoticising bastard' carved into my chest. If I'd doubled down on it when challenged I don't think anyone would find the body.

nfe wrote:
Man, I can't even imagine how my girlfriend would react if I told her that I think she's beautiful because I've dug dark-eyed, dusky beauties since I saw a cartoon when I was 8.

I presume I'd wake up with 'exoticising bastard' carved into my chest. If I'd doubled down on it when challenged I don't think anyone would find the body.

I know its way off topic but have you never had that conversation with your GF? EVERY single GF I have ever had has asked me WHY I find them attractive and not in some insecur way (ok maybe one).

 Formosa wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Then report them and move on. That avoids you having to make snarky posts based on assumptions, and everyone can get on with their lives.

So that a mod who is on record as stating that they have no interest in addressing any of my concerns can act on it?

A populace that does not trust its law enforcement will always prefer to take matters into their own hands.

Go away you moral busy body, you got all outraged because we are attracted to a certain kind of woman and are not afraid to say so..... like someone else said, you must be fun at parties

I'm not in the slightest bit outraged. If anything, your continued obliviousness is amusing.

You openly fetishized Indian/Arabic women and reduced over 1bn people to a short list of physical characteristics that appeal to your dong.

EDIT: Nvm.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Then report them and move on. That avoids you having to make snarky posts based on assumptions, and everyone can get on with their lives.

So that a mod who is on record as stating that they have no interest in addressing any of my concerns can act on it?

A populace that does not trust its law enforcement will always prefer to take matters into their own hands.

Go away you moral busy body, you got all outraged because we are attracted to a certain kind of woman and are not afraid to say so..... like someone else said, you must be fun at parties

I'm not in the slightest bit outraged. If anything, your continued obliviousness is amusing.

You openly fetishized Indian/Arabic women and reduced over 1bn people to a short list of physical characteristics that appeal to your dong.

Yep I did, got a problem with that, gonna clutch those pearls and tell me what I can and cannot like eh, gonna tell me that I am not allowed to be married to a woman I am deeply attracted to, like I said, go away you moral busy body and stop pretending that woman do not do the EXACT same thing, my sister only like black guys, gonna call that fetishism and call it wrong?

Oh and hate to break it to you but humans need to be attracted to someone before the intimacy is even thought about, you can lie and claim that you do not do the same, but I have a twin sister who has shown me exactly what woman are like and they are NO different in this regard.

So yep, I will continue to look at woman and decide if I find them attractive based on characteristics that I find attractive and I will openly admit it, once I find a lovely lady I am attracted to personality etc. comes into play, welcome to how the real world works

I'm not in the slightest bit outraged. If anything, your continued obliviousness is amusing.

You openly fetishized Indian/Arabic women and reduced over 1bn people to a short list of physical characteristics that appeal to your dong.

I'm more than happy to call someone a sexist pig when they're being one, and I think you're clutching at straws.

Plus this is just going to get this thread locked. Go make a new thread to talk about this and get that one locked instead cause people might still want to talk/read about the movie here.

 LordofHats wrote:

I'm not in the slightest bit outraged. If anything, your continued obliviousness is amusing.

You openly fetishized Indian/Arabic women and reduced over 1bn people to a short list of physical characteristics that appeal to your dong.

I'm more than happy to call someone a sexist pig when they're being one, and I think you're clutching at straws.

Plus this is just going to get this thread locked. Go make a new thread to talk about this and get that one locked instead cause people might still want to talk/read about the movie here.

I can attest to that hahaha

OK I will drop it.

This has got ridiculous, can we please stick to the topic at hand and remain polite whilst doing so.

Board policy achieves its intended effect of maintaining the status quo.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Galas wrote:

Man what a great movie. I don't know how anybody can think the extremely toxic "Endure your relationship with an abusive beast until he becomes a better man, sure trust me that works" Belle and the Beast storyline can even try to compare with that.

Belle doesn't really "endure" it. She frequently shuts down the Beast immediately when he is being beastly. When he literally goes violent (after she finds the rose) she does leave, regardless of her initial promise.

She treats him with respect and kindness when he does the same to her. When he doesn't, she shuts that right down. Lindsay Ellis covers this much better than I could in a rebuttal to the whole "Stockholm Syndrome" stuff that people bring up about the film.

I like Lidnsay Ellis very much but with that video I think her bias shows too much, just like with Shrek, a movie she judges based not in the movie itself but in whats behind it.
No, when an abusive and inestable man behaves harsh and "beastly" agaisnt you, the proper response is not to "shut him down" but to leave him right straight. If you need to wait until he acts violently agaisnt you to leave, then thats literally how most toxic relationships of this style work. The woman endures or even calls him out in is outrages and then when the violence begins she runs, but normally not for long because then the other will come apologizing.

You don't think a man that beats his wife has moments of being kind to her? And threating her well and promising it (The violence) isn't going to happen again? In those relationship theres love, because theres a base on top that love has build upon. Nobody is gonna fall in love with a man or woman that is abusive with him/her since the first moment without any second of kindness, as false as that kindness can be.

Isolation is step one in the abusive creeper playbook. It's also the first thing the Beast inflicts upon Belle. Then he temporarily releases her and she interprets this as kindness.

As she is supposed to.

Lindsay Ellis has a B.A. in Film Studies. That is it. She is not even remotely qualified to question - let alone attempt to redefine - the extremely well-accepted and evidenced psychology at play here.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Isolation is step one in the abusive creeper playbook. It's also the first thing the Beast inflicts upon Belle. Then he temporarily releases her and she interprets this as kindness.

As she is supposed to.

Lindsay Ellis has a B.A. in Film Studies. That is it. She is not even remotely qualified to question - let alone attempt to redefine - the extremely well-accepted and evidenced psychology at play here.

I suppose you are though?

 Gael Knight wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Isolation is step one in the abusive creeper playbook. It's also the first thing the Beast inflicts upon Belle. Then he temporarily releases her and she interprets this as kindness.

As she is supposed to.

Lindsay Ellis has a B.A. in Film Studies. That is it. She is not even remotely qualified to question - let alone attempt to redefine - the extremely well-accepted and evidenced psychology at play here.

I suppose you are though?

Qualified to question the psychology? No, not in the slightest. B.Sc Commercial Music Production and L.LB Law, dated and lived with a psychologist once but I scarcely think that's relevant.

Which is why I'm not and haven't. I'm relying entirely on the overwhelming consensus of opinions of people who know much, much, much, much better than I do.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Isolation is step one in the abusive creeper playbook. It's also the first thing the Beast inflicts upon Belle. Then he temporarily releases her and she interprets this as kindness.

As she is supposed to.

Lindsay Ellis has a B.A. in Film Studies. That is it. She is not even remotely qualified to question - let alone attempt to redefine - the extremely well-accepted and evidenced psychology at play here.

Except for that fact that she can literally leave whenever she wants to, as demonstrated by her just running out after finding the rose. The beast has not imposed any physical (such as locking the front door) or emotional barrier to her leaving if she wants to. The only barrier is her own word and the promise she made to Beast in order to free her father which, again, she broke as soon as he became violent.

She can leave at any moment.

Beast hasn't impossed any kind of pressure in Belle for her to remain in the castle.

Only that Beast had his father kidnapped. I'm not saying Belle has stockholm syndrome. I'm saying that in no way the relationship she has with Beast would have fly in the real world as anything more than a toxic one.

I find hard to understand why so many people is so fast to point out all the sexists tropes of old and not that old Disney movies but when it comes to Belle and the Beast ,as so many people LOVE it, then everything is brushed aside.

 Galas wrote:
She can leave at any moment.

Beast hasn't impossed any kind of pressure in Belle for her to remain in the castle.

Only that Beast had his father kidnapped. I'm not saying Belle has stockholm syndrome. I'm saying that in no way the relationship she has with Beast would have fly in the real world as anything more than a toxic one.

I find hard to understand why so many people is so fast to point out all the sexists tropes of old and not that old Disney movies but when it comes to Belle and the Beast ,as so many people LOVE it, then everything is brushed aside.

Post modernism dude, I remember growing up and loving these stories and as soon as I got to uni and was taught things in a post modernist way I could not help but look at all these things in a different way, luckily I grew up an realised that post modernism is just another grand narrative and started to look at other philosophical avenues to investigate, but a lot of people still see the world through the post modern eye and just want to rip down old ideas for the sake of ripping them down.

Its not an invalid way at looking at the world, just pointing it out.

 Formosa wrote:
Its not an invalid way at looking at the world, just pointing it out.

So...abusive relationship or not in your opinion?

From my pooint of view, it does start as an abusive relationship or at least has all the markers for one. Belle's first motivation for her kindness and affection is a mix of gratitude for having been saved and also pity which the Beast cultivated. He doesn't hesitate to threaten violence and even imprison her for a little while. In certain sense, the Beauty and the Beast love story is strongly influenced by the time in which the very first story had been written. At that point in time, displays of violence, threats and or being confined to ones home was largely tolerated within a relationship. That's probably why the lengthy version of Villeneuve was cut short and the Beast made much more amiable in the Beaumont version which reduce the story to its most bare allegory. It's, afterall, mostly just an elaborate fantasy on the power of love as a redemption tool, but, like vigilentism, the reality of it is actually a lot more disturbing then the fantasm.

Remember when this thread was about the Aladdin movie?

Good times.