Changes

|1991

|1991

|G

|G

|A young woman overcomes a shallow society and finds true love. Although by comparison a powerful and immensely popular antidote to [[feminism]] to the [[liberal]] movies churned out by [[Disney]] since, as well as overall promoting redemption (as seen with the Beast's transformation), and also promoting some family values (such as Belle being loyal to her father), there were a few hints at feminist propaganda at the beginning of the film, such as Belle being different from the villagers because she can read, which is implied to not be supported by the villagers at all (feminist propaganda often falsely claims that women couldn't get an education until the 1960s), as well as Belle being unwilling to hold the role of housewife for Gaston or raising children, and later her blaming the titular Beast for her fleeing the castle despite most of the events leading up to and after that event being largely her fault (specifically, her deliberate disobedience towards Beast and the servants by going into the West Wing as soon as she found out where it was located) and the story framing that as being a good thing she did. Then-Disney Chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg also mentioned that he wanted "a feminist twist" on the original fairy tale by creating a heroine who is "a departure from typical Disney female characters",<ref>http://articles.mcall.com/1991-11-22/features/2825583_1_beast-s-castle-fairy-tale-madame-gabrielle</ref> and the feminist writer [[Linda Woolverton]] made clear that she made Belle a feminist and based her on the women's liberation movement from the 1970s in order to avoid creating another insipid princess.<ref name="Beauty and Maleficent">{{Cite web|url = http://time.com/2798136/maleficent-beauty-beast-writer/|title = The Same Woman Wrote Maleficent and Beauty and the Beast—Here’s How They’re Linked|date = May 30, 2014|accessdate = January 16, 2014|website = Time|publisher = |last = Rothman|first = Lily}}</ref><ref>http://www.ew.com/article/2016/05/26/linda-woolverton-alice-belle-disney-heroines?xid=entertainment-weekly_socialflow_twitter</ref> Gaston is a conservative and hardworking hunter who is considered by the villagers to be their town hero, but is shown to be the main villain of the movie (it should also be noted that in the original screenplay for the film, Gaston was intended to be a Marquess [French nobleman], meaning the decision to make him a conservative and hardworking hunter was made after a rewrite). In addition, although not to the same degree as other Disney films that came after it, the film also has a slight anti-Christian bent, as the villagers (strongly implied by various verses in the opening song and the mob song, as well as a failed wedding, to be practicing and devout Christians) were later briefly seen supporting a plan that went against God's teachings, as well as overall depicted as being idiots, while Belle, the character framed as an intellectual and a moral figure, is not even seen or even implied to believe in God at all. In addition, Belle's love for Beast (where it is implied that she was largely unaware of the Beast being formerly a human prince) could be seen as promoting bestiality. Also, it is the first Disney movie to neither show nor hint at the two love interests getting married, and in fact, the only "wedding" in the film was the one Belle ruined, creating negative implications about marriage as a result, as well as starting a string of movies that don't paint marriage in a positive light. Similarly, the only three females in the film who are implicitly supportive of marriage and Christianity are demeaned, depicted as dumb blondes with the script and credits explicitly referring to them derogatorily as "the bimbettes." There was also a slight anti-hunting sentiment in the film, due to the main villain, as aforementioned, explicitly being labelled as a hunter. There were also several overtones of a pro-homosexual agenda within the film, including the mob song late into the film, largely because of the executive producer, Howard Ashman, being gay and dying from AIDs at the time the film was made. One of the protagonistic characters, Lumiere, is briefly seen making out with a featherduster and was implied that the two weren't married, with some hints at Lumiere being an unrepentant womanizer (with the implication being further increased in the Special Edition-exclusive song "Human Again" where Lumiere mentioned he had a "mademoiselle in each arm", would be "courting again, chic and sporting again", and Mrs. Potts interjecting "Which should cause several husbands alarm." with Lumiere laughing at this, heavily implying that Lumiere was an adulterer to married women). In addition, some elements of the film were later reused in the [[Essay:Worst Liberal Movies#Social|definitely liberal]] ''Maleficent'' movie.<ref name="Beauty and Maleficent" />

|A young woman overcomes a shallow society and finds true love. Although by comparison a powerful and immensely popular antidote to [[feminism]] to the [[liberal]] movies churned out by [[Disney]] since, as well as overall promoting redemption (as seen with the Beast's transformation), and also promoting some family values (such as Belle being loyal to her father), there were a few hints at feminist propaganda at the beginning of the film, such as Belle being different from the villagers because she can read, which is implied to not be supported by the villagers at all (feminist propaganda often falsely claims that women couldn't get an education until the 1960s), as well as Belle being unwilling to hold the role of housewife for Gaston or raising children, and later her blaming the titular Beast for her fleeing the castle despite most of the events leading up to and after that event being largely her fault (specifically, her deliberate disobedience towards Beast and the servants by going into the West Wing as soon as she found out where it was located) and the story framing that as being a good thing she did. Then-Disney Chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg also mentioned that he wanted "a feminist twist" on the original fairy tale by creating a heroine who is "a departure from typical Disney female characters",<ref>http://articles.mcall.com/1991-11-22/features/2825583_1_beast-s-castle-fairy-tale-madame-gabrielle</ref> and the feminist writer [[Linda Woolverton]] made clear that she made Belle a feminist and based her on the women's liberation movement from the 1970s in order to avoid creating another insipid princess.<ref name="Beauty and Maleficent">{{Cite web|url = http://time.com/2798136/maleficent-beauty-beast-writer/|title = The Same Woman Wrote Maleficent and Beauty and the Beast—Here’s How They’re Linked|date = May 30, 2014|accessdate = January 16, 2014|website = Time|publisher = |last = Rothman|first = Lily}}</ref><ref>http://www.ew.com/article/2016/05/26/linda-woolverton-alice-belle-disney-heroines?xid=entertainment-weekly_socialflow_twitter</ref> Gaston is a conservative and hardworking hunter who is considered by the villagers to be their town hero, but is shown to be the main villain of the movie (it should also be noted that in the original screenplay for the film, Gaston was intended to be a Marquess [French nobleman], meaning the decision to make him a conservative and hardworking hunter was made after a rewrite). In addition, although not to the same degree as other Disney films that came after it, the film also has a slight anti-Christian bent, as the villagers (strongly implied by various verses in the opening song and the mob song, as well as a failed wedding, to be practicing and devout Christians) were later briefly seen supporting a plan that went against God's teachings, as well as overall depicted as being idiots, while Belle, the character framed as an intellectual and a moral figure, is not even seen or even implied to believe in God at all. In addition, Belle's love for Beast (where it is implied that she was largely unaware of the Beast being formerly a human prince) could be seen as promoting bestiality. Also, it is the first Disney movie to neither show nor hint at the two love interests getting married, and in fact, the only "wedding" in the film was the one Belle ruined, creating negative implications about marriage as a result, as well as starting a string of movies that don't paint marriage in a positive light. Similarly, the only three females in the film who are implicitly supportive of marriage and Christianity are demeaned, depicted as dumb blondes with the script and credits explicitly referring to them derogatorily as "the bimbettes." There was also a slight anti-hunting sentiment in the film, due to the main villain, as aforementioned, explicitly being labelled as a hunter. There were also several overtones of a pro-homosexual agenda within the film, including the mob song late into the film, largely because of the executive producer, Howard Ashman, being gay and dying from AIDs at the time the film was made. Similarly, during the battle in the castle, there was a brief instance of transgenderism that was treated as a joke where the wardrobe proceeded to dress one of the male villagers in a Hawaiian outfit. One of the protagonistic characters, Lumiere, is briefly seen making out with a featherduster and was implied that the two weren't married, with some hints at Lumiere being an unrepentant womanizer (with the implication being further increased in the Special Edition-exclusive song "Human Again" where Lumiere mentioned he had a "mademoiselle in each arm", would be "courting again, chic and sporting again", and Mrs. Potts interjecting "Which should cause several husbands alarm." with Lumiere laughing at this, heavily implying that Lumiere was an adulterer to married women). In addition, some elements of the film were later reused in the [[Essay:Worst Liberal Movies#Social|definitely liberal]] ''Maleficent'' movie.<ref name="Beauty and Maleficent" />

|$$218,967,620

|$$218,967,620

|-

|-

|2017

|2017

|PG

|PG

|On the one hand, the 2017 film version of ''Beauty and the Beast'' is the latest in the film trend of needlessly and shamelessly remaking animated films or children's stories for the sake of earning quick revenue in the dying Hollywood studio system. Liberals also seized the opportunity with the remake to exploit diversity within the ''Beauty and the Beast'' universe. The final result of the diversity inclusion is that it feels self-congratulatory in the sense of putting it in for the sake of having it, rather than having it be just a part of the story and the film. One notable example is the filmmakers' decision to make LeFou, Gaston's diminutive and bumbling sidekick, a homosexual who is conflicted with his feelings for Gaston. At the end of the film, LeFou is shown taking a romantic interest in a musketeer who is now a transgender woman after being transformed into one during Gaston's siege of the Beast's castle. Not only is it an atrocious artistic decision of the filmmakers to needlessly incorporate diversity simply for the sake of it, but the 2017 film version of ''Beauty and the Beast'' also serves as an example that liberals can legitimately shoehorn the [[homosexual agenda]] into Disney films. Adding salt to the wound, the filmmakers also further changed history to suit their feminist agenda, similar to previous Disney films like ''Mulan'' (1998), ''Pocahontas'' (1995) and ''The Princess and the Frog'' (2009) (most infamously, the villagers are shown to be explicitly intolerant of Belle learning how to read and teaching girls to do the same, smashing her washing machine in the process, despite the fact that the namesake for the village in this film, Mdm. Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve, the original author for the fairy tale, was herself a woman). The 2017 film version of ''Beauty and the Beast'' is now even more of a feminist propaganda film than the 1991 animated film version ever was. There were also hints at an anti-war message due to Gaston being turned into a war veteran.

|On the one hand, the 2017 film version of ''Beauty and the Beast'' is the latest in the film trend of needlessly and shamelessly remaking animated films or children's stories for the sake of earning quick revenue in the dying Hollywood studio system. Liberals also seized the opportunity with the remake to exploit diversity within the ''Beauty and the Beast'' universe. The final result of the diversity inclusion is that it feels self-congratulatory in the sense of putting it in for the sake of having it, rather than having it be just a part of the story and the film. One notable example is the filmmakers' decision to make LeFou, Gaston's diminutive and bumbling sidekick, a homosexual who is conflicted with his feelings for Gaston. At the end of the film, LeFou is shown taking a romantic interest in a musketeer who is now a transgender woman after being transformed into one during Gaston's siege of the Beast's castle (who, unlike the original film, actually enjoys it). Not only is it an atrocious artistic decision of the filmmakers to needlessly incorporate diversity simply for the sake of it, but the 2017 film version of ''Beauty and the Beast'' also serves as an example that liberals can legitimately shoehorn the [[homosexual agenda]] into Disney films. Adding salt to the wound, the filmmakers also further changed history to suit their feminist agenda, similar to previous Disney films like ''Mulan'' (1998), ''Pocahontas'' (1995) and ''The Princess and the Frog'' (2009) (most infamously, the villagers are shown to be explicitly intolerant of Belle learning how to read and teaching girls to do the same, smashing her washing machine in the process, despite the fact that the namesake for the village in this film, Mdm. Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve, the original author for the fairy tale, was herself a woman). The 2017 film version of ''Beauty and the Beast'' is now even more of a feminist propaganda film than the 1991 animated film version ever was. There were also hints at an anti-war message due to Gaston being turned into a war veteran.

All of that, along with the other shortcomings of the film, reinforces the statement that most of Hollywood is currently out of ideas for motion pictures. It also re-establishes the fact that Disney would, at times, forsake genuine family entertainment in favor of blatant liberal propaganda.

All of that, along with the other shortcomings of the film, reinforces the statement that most of Hollywood is currently out of ideas for motion pictures. It also re-establishes the fact that Disney would, at times, forsake genuine family entertainment in favor of blatant liberal propaganda.