Hollywood movie promoting homosexuality. Movie insiders say crucial reason movie "Onward" has bombed is because of its openly gay character

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rhubarb said:
The Prince in Sleeping Beauty was the bad guy?

No, I am not exaggerating. Movies depict a LOT of things. That doesn’t mean that those things are being promoted. There are gay couples. Gay people. There always has been, there always will be. There is nothing to promote. It’s just depicting a realistic world.
Click to expand...
huh? No, Maleficent was. I just re-read your post about Sleeping Beauty. The idea that it’s date rape or something like that is totally ridiculous. He kissed her to DEFEAT Maleficent’s evil, not to take advantage of her.

Depicting poisoning an apple as evil is not promoting it.

Depicting cohabitation as bad is not promoting it.

Depicting cohabitation as good or neutral IS promoting it.

Depicting homosexual behavior as sinful is not promoting it.

Depicting homosexual behavior as natural and/or good IS promoting it.
 
phil19034 said:
He kissed her to DEFEAT Maleficent’s evil
Click to expand...
It was always my understanding that he kissed her because he found her beautiful. I am not even sure whether he was aware of the spell at all.

Depicting cohabitation (or homosexual behavior for that matter) as something which exists is not necessarily promoting it.
 
twf said:
Wow… I took my son to see this film on Saturday
Click to expand...
We saw it yesterday. The art is where they are pretending to be that human/horse copper talking to the other coppers. One of them mentions their girlfriend.
 
F_Marturana said:
When I was growing up it was common for women to refer to their female friends as girlfriends.
Click to expand...
Has that changed? I don’t know. I didn’t see the movie but if the reference is the only evidence of what the OP article calls homosexual agenda, it seems pretty weak.
 
It’s one line from an a character that appears once and is otherwise of no significance like the other background characters.
 
Last edited:
JimmyTolder said:
They should have a character neutrally make an offhand comment about being a member of the Nazi party.

Then we’d see how these “bUt It’S jUsT oNe LiNe Of diAloGe!” people react.
Click to expand...
That’s not a comparison they are going to accept. Saying things like that won’t help anyone.
 
mdgspencer said:
Industry insiders, who are not usually associated with conservative causes, are citing Disney’s promotion of homosexuality, and the petitions and boycotts related to it, as a significant reason for the movie’s failure to attract crowds.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, the “homosexuality” in the movie consists of a throwaway line that indicated a character was homosexual. Now, to be fair, perhaps the claim of promotion is referring to the fact this was apparently used some in the marketing to try to hype it up (I say “apparently” because I didn’t even hear about this until yesterday, but then again I wasn’t paying too much attention to Onward). The problem with concluding that this led to the film underperforming (not bombing–underperforming) is that Disney did this exact same thing in the live-action Beauty and the Beast, in trying to hype up the movie for “representation” in including a homosexual character despite the character’s homosexuality being such an irrelevant part of the film you could’ve cut it out of the movie entirely with minimal editing. And while I can only go by my own experience, I should note that I remember them doing a whole lot more advertisement of that fact in Beauty and the Beast than they did for Onward.

But the live-action Beauty and the Beast was a smash hit. If this factor was supposedly what led to Onward underperforming, what’s the explanation for why the live-action Beauty and the Beast is the 17th highest-grossing film in history?

The claim thus doesn’t make sense. But it’s not like I ever expect much of quality out of LifeSiteNews anyway.
 
Last edited:
Rhubarb said:
Because something depicted in a film does not equal promoting. There ARE gay people in this world. Depicting that truth is not promoting it. It is just making a film that reflects true life.
Click to expand...
That’s fairly true. By and large, the depictions of same sex relationships portray them as inherently good; treat a same sex marriage as great news. But this positive portrayal is not limited to such relationships. The media portray sex between acquaintances as being a normal standard of behaviour, often preceding a steady relationship - certainly being an integral part of one. So normalised is all of this that it is commonplace in prime time tv and yes, even in Disney movies! It seems pretty much a reflection of society and a reinforcement of it.
 
flamingpuppet said:
Incest exists. Should Disney portray that too?
Click to expand...
Given essentially no part of society finds incest a good thing, Disney would likely find no support for including it in a children’s program - regardless of whether it was portrayed as good or bad.
 
F_Marturana said:
When I was growing up it was common for women to refer to their female friends as girlfriends.
Click to expand...
Me too. Nothing sexual was implied back then, but that was 25 years ago. Things have changed. . . .
 
Last edited:
Long ago, I do remember a few people claiming “Beauty and the Beast” promoted…take a guess.
Just as ridiculous. To take a story that teaches good and twist it to what their mind sees is the issue. Their thoughts seem the deciding factor. People looking hard enough for “The devil behind every tree” will find him. Before someone mentions, “His control over minds is so complete that you don’t even notice the evil,” I say, “Poo!”
It is strange though that men don’t refer to their friends in the same way. It’s only a woman thing I guess.
Dominus vobiscum
 
Last edited:
I’ve noticed that Lifesite has a tendency to over credit themselves or their causes for victory, where other powerful forces are at play. The virus and daily changes in response is the major factor in reducing movie goers. This doesn’t mean petitions didn’t have an impact, but they shouldn’t claim victory with that virus growing in impact daily
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top