UK censor’s list of objectionable moments from Animal. SPOILERS!! - Page 7

Why can’t people just be honest? Just directly say that you’re going to alter and adjust your views on violence cuz you like Ranbir and are a biased fan? Be shameless and open about it. No one asked for justification essays.

Originally posted by: Agni_Jytsona

It's like watching a movie about Ted Bundy and expecting Ted Bundy to not behave like Ted Bundy

How does that make sense?

This is the Indian Version of TED BUNDY/Joe Goldberg

The movie has been very clear right from the announcement that it's about A psychopath

Anil's character has been shouting right from teaser to trailer, that his SON is bloody CRIMINAL

Also, the spoilers say that rape was "IMPLIED" NOT SHOWN. Both of those things are different

You can appreciate a movie for a lot of things and still hate the Main character. It's not necessary that the main character has to be a saint. They can be psychopaths

There is a reason why this movie has been rated "A" because as adults your actions are your own and have nothing to do with movies you watched to books you read

A person's actions have more to do with their mentality than anything else

Sandeep Vanga is controversial. But so JK Rowling

That does not mean everyone should stop reading Harry Potter

If Movies/Books really shaped personalities everyone watching Ramayan would have turned into a saint.

I don’t think anyone has ever made a movie about Ted Bundy and glorified Ted Bundy in the process or shown him as the hero of the story. That’s the part everyone is concerned about. How has Vanga treated this story? Will Ranbir’s character be shown as the psychopathic criminal that he is or will his behavior and action be excused and glorified? The trailer already shows how he’s always craved his father’s love and never got it. Is that part of the story told just as a backdrop to show what makes the character tick? Or as a way to make the audience sympathize with him and “understand” where he’s coming from?

Issue here is given Vanga’s words and how doubled down after receiving criticism for Kabir Singh a lot of people don’t have any faith in him that he’s handled this story and character the right way.

Last point. JK Rawling is controversial for her bigoted stance on transgenders. And that started after Harry Potter became the worldwide phenomenon that it is now. Severely problematic yes but not the same as saying being in love means freedom to hit your partner.

Originally posted by: Newbird

@bold

All rapists are psychopaths but all psychopaths may not be Rapists, so I was bit heartbroken to read Animal is going to have a hero committing a rape which I have not expected at all, so I was kinda shocked.

Thanks for the info.

This is what I’m talking about. Ranbir’s character has already been seen choking Rashmika’s character and yet he’s still the “hero”.

Originally posted by: Clochette

Well, actually Vanga only made two, ArjunReddy/Kabir Singh and Animal. My feeling tells me, that Animal isn't a justified title except if the gangster-son is called by others Animal...

The world "lives & breathes" a lot of things...violence is part of it...but humans have a choice, they could choose to use something else than violence.

The title is simply a metaphor

Originally posted by: Shaitan-Haiwan

And this is the problem with the world

I disagree on this. I don't think we should be shaming anyone for watching this movie. Let them watch it. I blame the director for creating this content. I do think it will take another 50 years for Bollywood to stop showing domestic violence.

Originally posted by: Bekind

but can you eat a rotten or burned omlette?

If one is starving ... then yes

Then it should be "Rabid Animal"...

Originally posted by: Clochette

Then it should - maybe - "Rabid Animal"...

Saber Tooth Tiger

Originally posted by: IAmLuvBolly

This is what I’m talking about. Ranbir’s character has already been seen choking Rashmika’s character and yet he’s still the “hero”.

If this is mocking at me.. Then listen, "Hero" here I meant "Main lead" of the movie not "heroic" character!

. I really thought to stop talking about Animal movie in this forum at all as definitely people take the comments out of context here if they feel someone is interested in watching the movie for its technicalities or actors they like, I'm not talking about you in this Para, I'm talking in general.

I will wait for the movie without making any judgements about the movie for now, I'm not stopping anyone from making any judgements about the movie too, i:m just saying stop judging the people who want to watch the movie for its technicalities. And this Para is also not at you, I felt bit irritated to read comments getting personal on whoever want to watch the movie by using words "shameless" and thinking that they altered or adjusted the opinion on violence while people clearly stated that they want to watch it for Ranbir, at the same time when they are not justifying the violence.

Originally posted by: IAmLuvBolly

I don’t think anyone has ever made a movie about Ted Bundy and glorified Ted Bundy in the process or shown him as the hero of the story. That’s the part everyone is concerned about. How has Vanga treated this story? Will Ranbir’s character be shown as the psychopathic criminal that he is or will his behavior and action be excused and glorified? The trailer already shows how he’s always craved his father’s love and never got it. Is that part of the story told just as a backdrop to show what makes the character tick? Or as a way to make the audience sympathize with him and “understand” where he’s coming from?

Issue here is given Vanga’s words and how doubled down after receiving criticism for Kabir Singh a lot of people don’t have any faith in him that he’s handled this story and character the right way.

Last point. JK Rawling is controversial for her bigoted stance on transgenders. And that started after Harry Potter became the worldwide phenomenon that it is now. Severely problematic yes but not the same as saying being in love means freedom to hit your partner.

JK Rowling didn't question the existence or the freedom of trans-people to live as they please and love as they please.

She pointed out there are certain things in life that are zero-sum games.

Sports is one. Any sport that involves physical prowess necessarily means those who went through male puberty have advantage over biological women. That is a scientific fact. If that doesn't matter, then why have women's sports to begin with? Martina Navartilova says that, too. A pioneer in LGBTQ issues. The Williams sisters are not as vocal, but Serena I believe, said she would never win against a male. Imagine that! Perhaps the most powerful female tennis player ever saying that.

Safety of women in shelters and prisons and bathrooms is another zero-sum game. Female-only spaces were created precisely because of safety issues.

Children's safety is another. Children are suggestible. Which is why there is a movement to raise age of criminal penalties to 26 because the brain doesn't fully mature until then. A non-parental person in authority, such as a teacher or a mentor, talking up what is gender dysphoria will definitely impact a child. Such an adult should be looked on with suspicion because yeah grooming. Pedophilia is a reality.

For the same reason of brain maturity, there cannot be irreversible procedures done on children without significant clinical/psychological/legal/ethical review. Scandinavian countries, which regressives like to cite as examples, are reversing course on this because they are finding the risk/benefit ratio is not favorable.

Finally, the sheer hatred directed toward biological women from the incels pretending to be trans. Western regressives are merely dressing up misogyny in drag.