Is Gaston Holla Forums pagan min?

Is Gaston Holla Forums pagan min?

yes

He also the only good thing about the shit remake

If by that you mean he was portrayed as a villain all while being the good guy, then yes.

Gaston just wanted to save a girl he liked from a monster holding he really hostage.

This Gaston actor is incredibly underwhelming. You need a strong chinned, super buff, Superman type of actor to play Gaston. Not this discount Orlando Bloom. Also fuck everyone involved with this movie for making the fat guy so fucking gay.

didn't we have this thread less than a month ago?

Fun fact: Russian government is trying to use this this as an excuse to ban this movie from theaters. Can't have kids watching this obvious filthy homosex propaganda, I suppose.

Wow the fat guy is pretty good. Still think they could've gotten a better actor for Gaston.

Good.

Good. Fuck the faggot.

Walt wouldn't have stood for this shit.

What fucking pisses me off more is how you can see the fat guy paying everyone on the bar to start praising Gaston, while in the original everyone just loved the guy. Guess fucking Disney cannot show that manly, charistmatic guys are admired by other men and desired by women.

Also fuck that Gaston, he actually looks like a faggot compared to the original.

If only China would do the same. Disney would declare it another shoah

Gaston was very much a trope deconstruction, but Jewsney doesn't care or remember anymore. Now he's just another tool to signal their virtues.

How so?

It also kinds of mess with the rest of the story. Gaston was able to convince everyone of Bella's father madness and to hunt the beast because everyone trusted the guy, he was the hero of the town. It also undermines Bella character because it weakens the idea that she was a woman ahead of her time. The reason anybody couldn't fathom why she didn't want to marry him is because he was seem as the ideal man. So now the new film has somehow an even weaker femenist message than the old one, as well as worse characters.

He's handsome, athletic, brave, popular - he would have been a protagonist or that very same "prince" archetype in a conventional narration. Instead he's the primary antagonist.

BUT, did they bravely and baldly have black and gay characters before? No? I thought so.

Its pretty likely that China will do it.

Weren't both characters now play by black actresses slaves servants in the original film?

I don't think they were in the original film at all.

I'm pretty sure atleast this one was a maid.

Yeah, super hot. Not black.

They movie is still airing, but kids will not be seeing it. China on the other hand is more unlikely to let this happen. Best case scenario: they will ban it altogether and worst case scenario: they will only censor LeFou's scenes out since he is such a minor character it wouldn't make a difference.

Hencewhy me saying "trying to". Also, I wasn't really following recent remake trends, what's with the live-action remakes? First Jungle Book and now this.

inb4 they make his faggotness a key plotpoint

Mate, they've been remaking their shit for longer than Jungle Book. Longer than Cinderella even but the Cinderella remake started the most recent trend.

Actually Maleficent is what started it.

Well then, postmodernism was a mistake. We need to find a way to escape this endless loop of rehashes of remakes.

user, this has been going on for a while now since the first Alice in Wonderland in 2010 I think. Its funny because that movie was bashed by everyone, but didn't stop a shitload of live-action remakes like Maleficent, Cinderella and the like.


Wew lad, if they actually do that shit, its a guaranteed ban.

Yeah, but is Maleficent technically a remake?

Yes, they recreate entire scenes and it deviates about as much as Cinderella and Jungle Book, the only difference being that those don't have any angles to spin so it doesn't stuck out as much as stronk and independent Maleficent. God what a shit idea.

Can it be classified as "part prequel, part remake"?

They want to have it both ways. On one hand, they want to make it so subtle and minor that they can openly mock the extremist homophobia of anyone who'd stretch so far as to object to such a teensy minor detail that you need to squint with a microscope to see. "It's no big deal, why are you wingnuts so obsessed with this?"

On the other hand, they also want to push the groundbreaking "FIRST OPENLY GAY DISNEY CHARACTER" news and articles to make progressives cheer and shower praise upon them for their courage.

Does it really counts if you just randomly call a preexisting none-gay character - gay? They did the same thing with Star Trek and with something else. At least work for your faggot cheers, make an actual gay character for your new property. But then nobody gonna care and there won't be any controversy to tip your fedora at, huh.

A non-gay character becoming gay is a metaphor for coming out of the closet, in an effort to encourage people to also come out and bolster their ranks.

Only animation could capture that level of manliness. Live action can never capture that.

The very purpose of cartoons

This all just makes the live action remake even more redundant and unnecessary. Fucking kikes are all out of ideas.

One time casting fucking Rock would actually be beneficial.

Yeah but he's not the right complexion. A wrestler is the right idea though.

What about 101 Dalmations though? Granted that was years before but that was still a remake.

It didn't start anything, otherwise they wouldn't have waited 20 years to continue

err, he is