“So let me get this straight (no pun intended): these countries (and some people on this very site) will boycott the movie because of a gay character. But the original premise of the movie, bestiality, IS PERFECTLY FINE!?
Sometimes I don’t get this world.”
I’ve seen that argument before. But the beast isn’t a beast, he’s a prince who was turned into a beast. Just as the princess who kissed the frog to turn him into a prince didn’t have an amphibian fetish, Belle wasn’t searching for jollies with an animal.
I think your confusion extends farther than you realize.
Now if you wanted to simply discuss the merits of including gay characters, that’s something you could actually debate.
Yeah, the whole thing was not intended to be a promotion on bestiality (though I’ll admit that I can forgive the mistake, since Belle clearly didn’t seem to realize that the Beast was originally human in the original film, something that this remake fixed by having her actually LEARN about the curse). Besides, this was in the original fairy tale anyways, well before Disney took it over.
That said, I do think that people ought to give a fresh look at the original 1991 film, since while it does not necessarily have a gay agenda (though, then again... Martin Blythe did imply otherwise: http://www.sexualfables.com/beauty_and_the_beast.php ; http://www.wildaboutmovies.com/features/MartinBlytheInterviewSexualFables.php ), it most certainly had a radical left-wing feminist agenda as even Linda Woolverton admitted (and let me tell you: You think Emma Watson was radical? She’s a moderate compared to Linda Woolverton. Just look at her Maleficent film and how she treated males in that movie, and you’ll see EXACTLY what I mean by that.).
Ummm. The prince isn’t a beast really. He’s human and was cursed to look ugly. The lesson on the hundreds of years old story is that you shouldn’t judge a book by it’s cover. Good for Malaysia, though. It’s their country and their children.