Disney (and others) at the Box Office - Current State of Affairs

[Chi84]

I’m confused. As opposed to using robot actors?

Don’t go down this road. The whole thing is so far fetched and ridiculous it’ll make your head spin.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

I’m confused. As opposed to using robot actors?

As opposed to using voice actors and CGI animated characters.

 

[Disney Irish]

It set the release of the film back a year and undoubtedly caused the production budget to balloon (re-shoots). And it prevented them from using human actors in the lead roles.

But wouldn't that put more credence into your idea that a closer remake is better overall?

So even if the original idea was to have something other than the dwarfs, which there is no actual proof of other than some hack tabloid site, they obviously went in a different direction to be more faithful to the original. So what is your gripe here, you're getting a more closely faithful adaptation to the original.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

But wouldn't that put more credence into your idea that a closer remake is better overall?

So even if the original idea was to have something other than the dwarfs, which there is no actual proof of other than some hack tabloid site, they obviously went in a different direction to be more faithful to the original. So what is your gripe here, you're getting a more closely faithful adaptation to the original.

First, which hack tabloid site?

Second, while the decision to use CGI dwarfs is closer to a faithful adaptation, the adaptation does not appear to be faithful (based on everything we've been told about the film, including from its lead actress).

 

[Disney Irish]

First, which hack tabloid site?

I mean you obviously know about the story, so you should know where it came from. I don't want to give them oxygen, so I rather not post its name here, but its easy to find if you look and really want to know the original source of the story.

Second, while the decision to use CGI dwarfs is closer to a faithful adaptation, the adaptation does not appear to be faithful (based on everything we've been told about the film, including from its lead actress).

The original was 83 minutes long, they obviously have to pad the story and update it a bit to make it a modern 2+ hour long movie. So yes its not going to be a shot-by-shot remake from start to finish, but enough of it should be that it'll be a fairly faithful adaptation based on just what we see in the trailers alone.

 

[Chi84]

First, which hack tabloid site?

Second, while the decision to use CGI dwarfs is closer to a faithful adaptation, the adaptation does not appear to be faithful (based on everything we've been told about the film, including from its lead actress).

This stuff got the Snow White thread shut down, so it's probably not a good idea to start rehashing it here.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

I mean you obviously know about the story, so you should know where it came from. I don't want to give them oxygen, so I rather not post its name here, but its easy to find if you look and really want to know the original source of the story.


The original was 83 minutes long, they obviously have to pad the story and update it a bit to make it a modern 2+ hour long movie. So yes its not going to be a shot-by-shot remake from start to finish, but enough of it should be that it'll be a fairly faithful adaptation based on just what we see in the trailers alone.

It doesn't need to be a 2 hour movie. They could make the movie an hour and a half and theater owners (and parents) would be thrilled because it means they'd get extra showings per day.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

This stuff got the Snow White thread shut down, so it's probably not a good idea to start rehashing it here.

*shrugs shoulders*

I wasn't aware the Snow White thread was shut down and I can't spend all day trying to figure out what discussion topics are verboten and which ones may grace the delicate eyeballs of the forum regulars.

 

[Chi84]

It doesn't need to be a 2 hour movie. They could make the movie an hour and a half and theater owners (and parents) would be thrilled because it means they'd get extra showings per day.

You mean extra empty seats.

 

[Disney Irish]

It doesn't need to be a 2 hour movie. They could make the movie an hour and a half and theater owners (and parents) would be thrilled because it means they'd get extra showings per day.

Would they be thrilled, either parents or theater owners, that is an assumption you're making without any proof. I don't see many if any theater owners actually complaining that they can't sell more showings because modern movies are now longer than in 1937.

Also even at 90 minutes that is still an extra 7 minutes that wasn't in the original that has to be added to the story, thereby still making its not a true shot-for-shot remake. But this movie will be, based on reports, 110 minutes just short of 2 hours, making it only 27 minutes longer than the original. So they aren't going to be adding too much more to the story anyways, so yeah will likely still be more of a faithful adaptation than what you're thinking.

 

[Chi84]

Would they be thrilled, either parents or theater owners, that is an assumption you're making without any proof. I don't see many if any theater owners actually complaining that they can't sell more showings because modern movies are now longer than in 1937.

Also even at 90 minutes that is still an extra 7 minutes that wasn't in the original that has to be added to the story, thereby still making its not a true shot-for-shot remake. But this movie will be, based on reports, 110 minutes just short of 2 hours, making it only 27 minutes longer than the original. So they aren't going to be adding too much more to the story anyways, so yeah will likely still be more of a faithful adaptation than what you're thinking.

I’m hoping they cut down on the floor-sweeping, dish-washing, bed-making etc. and replace it with some new content. Like maybe a good-looking prince with actual lines and screen time.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

You mean extra empty seats.

I mean more ticket sales per day.

 

[Disney Irish]

I’m hoping they cut down on the floor-sweeping, dish-washing, bed-making etc. and replace it with some new content. Like maybe a good-looking prince with actual lines and screen time.

We'll see what the extra ~27ish minutes entails, but I can't imagine its going to be much more than to fill out "fairest of them all" aspect to modernize it so we get the local villagers overthrow Queenie stuff.

 

[Chi84]

We'll see what the extra ~27ish minutes entails, but I can't imagine its going to be much more than to fill out "fairest of them all" aspect to modernize it so we get the local villagers overthrow Queenie stuff.

My thought is that there are only about 50 usable minutes from the original (which moves at a snail’s pace), so there may be more time to add some interesting story.

 

[Disney Irish]

My thought is that there are only about 50 usable minutes from the original (which moves at a snail’s pace), so there may be more time to add some interesting story.

Possible, they appear to be doing at least all the major story beats, so we’ll see what they cut, if anything, and what they add.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Would they be thrilled, either parents or theater owners, that is an assumption you're making without any proof. I don't see many if any theater owners actually complaining that they can't sell more showings because modern movies are now longer than in 1937.

Long movie runtimes are great for streamers — but they're bad for movie theaters

In a streaming landscape that measures minutes watched, long movies and TV shows have an advantage. But the time bloat is hurting movie theaters' bottom lines.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Disney Irish]

Long movie runtimes are great for streamers — but they're bad for movie theaters

In a streaming landscape that measures minutes watched, long movies and TV shows have an advantage. But the time bloat is hurting movie theaters' bottom lines.

www.businessinsider.com

That is primarily an article taking about even longer run times of 160-180 minutes, not the average of just over 120 minutes. They even say "A long movie that's a box-office smash is still financially worth it for a movie theater to show." And "I think the audiences have generally proven that if it's the right case or the right filmmaker, they don't care about the length"

So your point here is not even a thing with regards to this movie being talked about. Snow White 2025 being ~110 minutes is actually what theaters owners are looking for and what the article is talking about. No where does it say that owners want ~90 minute movie or under 90 minutes like in 1937.

 

[Chi84]

That is primarily an article taking about even longer run times of 160-180 minutes, not the average of just over 120 minutes. They even say "A long movie that's a box-office smash is still financially worth it for a movie theater to show." And "I think the audiences have generally proven that if it's the right case or the right filmmaker, they don't care about the length"

So your point here is not even a thing with regards to this movie being talked about. Snow White 2025 being ~110 minutes is actually what theaters owners are looking for and what the article is talking about. No where does it say that owners want ~90 minute movie or under 90 minutes like in 1937.

Well that’s not fair. You read the article.

 

[DKampy]

I’m hoping they cut down on the floor-sweeping, dish-washing, bed-making etc. and replace it with some new content. Like maybe a good-looking prince with actual lines and screen time.

Oh boy that might upset some hack YouTubers if they can’t watch the girl clean

 

[LittleBuford]

To me, it seems unnecessary to keep painting the animated film in a bad light just to vindicate the live-action version. Of course sensibilities have changed since the ’30s; that doesn’t mean the original hasn’t held up beautifully in the eyes of many of us. Taste is too personal a matter to be reduced to the kinds of assumptions and blanket statements being voiced here.