Live-Action ‘Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs’

[Tony the Tigger]

He's explained before that he thinks it should be left to parents to decide when their children learn about same-sex attraction. The problem with this line of thinking is that we now live in a society where same-sex relationships aren't supposed to be taboo anymore (though they clearly remain so in the eyes of many) and where gay marriage has been legal for some years. It's simply impossible to "protect" children from knowing about the reality of the world around them (which is to say nothing of the fact that gay children deserve to see this kind of representation).

Today is the 16th anniversary of our wedding. I guess that’s not long enough for some to get used to it.

We’ll be going to see Barbie this evening.

And we have been representing a healthy example of marriage all this time - to gay and straight, adults and children.

That absolutely should be represented in a movie for children.

 

[Andrew C]

Today is the 16th anniversary of our wedding.

Happy anniversary! Enjoy the movie!

 

[Heppenheimer]

You're selling it a bit short. They did a jungle book remake in 1994 and I think they did Dumbo drop in 1995. So we're going on almost 30yrs. The remakes are completely on brand for Disney, unfortunately.

Operation Dumbo Drop had nothing whatsoever to do with the original Dumbo, other than they both featured an elephant. Oh, and they used "When I See an Elephant Fly" at the end. That's it, really.

The 1994 Jungle Book was hardly a remake either, since it took the story in a completely different direction. The plot had more in common with 1999's Tarzan than it did with Disney's 1967 animated version.

I would argue that the first real "live action remake" that kept relatively close to the plot and spirit of the original was 101 Dalmations from 1996, but this was somewhat of a one-off. The trend really didn't start until the 2010s, with Alice in Wonderland and Cinderella.

 

[LittleBuford]

Operation Dumbo Drop had nothing whatsoever to do with the original Dumbo, other than they both featured an elephant. Oh, and they used "When I See an Elephant Fly" at the end. That's it, really.

The 1994 Jungle Book was hardly a remake either, since it took the story in a completely different direction. The plot had more in common with 1999's Tarzan than it did with Disney's 1967 animated version.

I would argue that the first real "live action remake" that kept relatively close to the plot and spirit of the original was 101 Dalmations from 1996, but this was somewhat of a one-off. The trend really didn't start until the 2010s, with Alice in Wonderland and Cinderella.

I largely agree with this, though Alice in Wonderland does not, to my mind, keep relatively close to the plot and spirit of the original. I don’t recall that particular remake coming up in this thread before, which is weird given that one of the complaints about Snow White is that it (partially) retains the title of the original and therefore sets false expectations.

 

[erasure fan1]

Operation Dumbo Drop had nothing whatsoever to do with the original Dumbo, other than they both featured an elephant. Oh, and they used "When I See an Elephant Fly" at the end. That's it, really.

The 1994 Jungle Book was hardly a remake either, since it took the story in a completely different direction.

As far as Dumbo drop goes, could be, I never watched it. Jungle book on the other hand, I'd say is a remake. It's just a different interpretation. So I'll stand by my they've been doing it for nearly 30yrs statement. You could still say close to 30yrs if you start with dalmatians. I guess either way, live action remakes are completely on brand for Disney and it's been that way for a long time.

 

[DKampy]

So there were some posts I made last night in response to a poster that I probably should of ignored and moved along… and perhaps this will be deleted too… just wanted to show where I was coming from

I have a Nephew on my wife’s side who came out about a year and 1/2 ago whose some of his own family does not accept him… with a couple who act as they accept him but then ridicule and make fun of him behind his back including his own mother…and if his own mom can behave like that… it has caused myself to be protective of him

He also was dating someone who he was crazy about at the time who wanted to stay in the closet at the time,.. that was not good enough for my nephew as he did not want to hide who he is

I just think being inclusive of everyone(including in Disney films) will only help other people to being more accepting… people are afraid of who they don’t know or jump to conclusion on negative stereotypes being presented by people with an agenda

By the way my nephew has since met a great guy and they are engaged

 

[Disstevefan1]

So there were some posts I made last night in response to a poster that I probably should of ignored and moved along… and perhaps this will be deleted too… just wanted to show where I was coming from

I have a Nephew on my wife’s side who came out about a year and 1/2 ago whose some of his own family does not accept him… with a couple who act as they accept him but then ridicule and make fun of him behind his back including his own mother…and if his own mom can behave like that… it has caused myself to be protective of him

He also was dating someone who he was crazy about at the time who wanted to stay in the closet at the time,.. that was not good enough for my nephew as he did not want to hide who he is

I just think being inclusive of everyone(including in Disney films) will only help other people to being more accepting… people are afraid of who they don’t know or jump to conclusion on negative stereotypes being presented by people with an agenda

By the way my nephew has since met a great guy and they are engaged

I am very happy for your nephew, but what does this have to do Disney making a movie they say is a live action remake that does not resemble the classic.

All Disney needs to do is give this new movie its own unique title, and if they must, add "inspired by Snow White and the Seven dwarfs", that's all.

 

[TP2000]

I am very happy for your nephew, but what does this have to do Disney making a movie they say is a live action remake that does not resemble the classic.

All Disney needs to do is give this new movie its own unique title, and if they must, add "inspired by Snow White and the Seven dwarfs", that's all.

Bingo.

I came up with the lame title "The Fairest" a few days ago for that scenario.

Or maybe, seeing how great Gal Gadot looked in some of those preview clips, they should have focused this new story on her character arc and background instead? I thought Maleficent did that wonderfully.

And that "Apple???..." scene in the Disney dark ride scarred so many American children that it would've been an obvious hook for the marketing.

But the movie is already shot and in editing and headed to theaters next March. It's too late to redo it. Their best bet now is to simply retitle it and not call it "Snow White".

 

[LittleBuford]

To ask explicitly something I only alluded to earlier: Did people have a problem with the remake of Alice in Wonderland being thus titled when it strayed so far from the cartoon?

 

[TP2000]

To ask explicitly something I only alluded to earlier: Did people have a problem with the remake of Alice in Wonderland being thus titled when it strayed so far from the cartoon?

I doubt it. That was a movie vehicle for both Johnny Depp's and Tim Burton's signature styles, not the girl.

It was Johnny Depp starring in a Tim Burton film, from conception to marketing. Who even was the actress who played Alice in that film? Can anyone even remember? Mr. Depp got top billing and was clearly the star of the show.

 

[LittleBuford]

I doubt it. That was a movie vehicle for both Johnny Depp's and Tim Burton's signature styles, not the girl.

It was Johnny Depp starring in a Tim Burton film, from conception to marketing. Who even was the actress who played Alice in that film? Can anyone even remember? Mr. Depp got top billing and was clearly the star of the show.

Your argument appears to be that people were accepting of the identical name because they were already primed to expect something very different from the original. In other words, no-one went to the cinema with the notion that they would see a faithful remake of the animated feature whose name the film had borrowed (and it is borrowed directly from the cartoon, since Lewis Carroll's story is titled Alice's Adventures in Wonderland).

Why doesn't the same apply to Snow White? It's already out there that the film will be taking an approach unlike that of the original, so why are people so hung up over the title, which is, in fact, different from that of the 1937 film anyway? Put another way, if the things that are supposedly objectionable about the remake would be neautralised by a simple name change, perhaps they're not that objectionable to begin with.

 

[TP2000]

Your argument appears to be that people were accepting of the identical name because they were already primed to expect something very different from the original. In other words, no-one went to the cinema with the notion that they would see a faithful remake of the animated feature whose name the film had borrowed (and it is borrowed directly from the cartoon, since Lewis Carroll's story is titled Alice's Adventures in Wonderland).

I really can't speak for how people reacted 13 years ago to the Johnny Depp Alice In Wonderland remake. I don't remember anyone even talking about it, to be honest. I don't even remember a movie preview for it in the parks.

Thinking back to 2010, I remember us being really annoyed with the ugly new fall-protection fencing on the exterior of the Alice In Wonderland ride at Disneyland. But chatter about that movie? No clue. My guess is that because it was marketed as a "Johnny Depp Movie", no one cared who the girl playing Alice was or if she was now on a Leadership Journey instead of just a pretty girl who fell down a rabbit hole into Wonderland.

What was the new plotline for that remake? I assume Johnny Depp got most of the new plot's attention? He was the star.

Why doesn't the same apply to Snow White? It's already out there that the film will be taking an approach unlike that of the original, so why are people so hung up over the title, which is, in fact, different from that of the 1937 film anyway? Put another way, if the things that are supposedly objectionable about the remake would be neautralised by a simple name change, perhaps they're not that objectionable to begin with.

Who knows how or why things go viral like this? Would it have gone differently if Rachel Zegler hadn't been so smirky and immature with her "Weird, WEIRD" commentary on Walt's work that plays well in Faculty Lounges and DEI Workgroups but not in the actual fanbase of paying customers?

However it got started, it has clearly caught the attention of many people as those critical TikTok videos commenting about Zegler and Disney have racked up tens of millions of views now. It's a thing. It happened. Now Disney has to figure out how to respond to it by next March.

 

[LittleBuford]

I really can't speak for how people reacted 13 years ago to the Johnny Depp Alice In Wonderland remake. I don't remember anyone even talking about it, to be honest. I don't even remember a movie preview for it in the parks.

Thinking back to 2010, I remember us being really annoyed with the ugly new fall-protection fencing on the exterior of the Alice In Wonderland ride at Disneyland. But chatter about that movie? No clue. My guess is that because it was marketed as a "Johnny Depp Movie", no one cared who the girl playing Alice was or if she was now on a Leadership Journey instead of just a pretty girl who fell down a rabbit hole into Wonderland.

What was the new plotline for that remake? I assume Johnny Depp got most of the new plot's attention? He was the star.



Who knows how or why things go viral like this? Would it have gone differently if Rachel Zegler hadn't been so smirky and immature with her "Weird, WEIRD" commentary on Walt's work that plays well in Faculty Lounges and DEI Workgroups but not in the actual fanbase of paying customers?

However it got started, it has clearly caught the attention of many people as those critical TikTok videos commenting about Zegler and Disney have racked up tens of millions of views now. It's a thing. It happened. Now Disney has to figure out how to respond to it by next March.

You wrote all that and still didn't really respond to my post!

I think it's pretty apparent at this point that the "They should have called it something else" argument does very little to explain all the anger and outrage that people are expressing, especially given that they did call it something else.

 

[TP2000]

You wrote all that and still didn't really respond to my post!

I think it's pretty apparent at this point that the "They should have called it something else" argument does very little to explain all the anger and outrage that people are expressing, especially given that they did call it something else.

Anger and outrage are human emotions that are triggered naturally, and I doubt there's a scientific formula for them.

Two things angered and outraged Disney fans about this new Snow White movie; it started with that hilariously cringey photo of the Seven Hipsters, and then took off into viral-land with Rachel Zegler's smug and dismissive comments from last year's D23 Expo that she made about Walt's original 1937 work.

Why are fans of Walt's original Snow White story angered and outraged at it? Because... they are. It happened.

Disney needs to figure out how to fix this. They have six months. Perhaps one of the ways they fix it is by not calling the movie Snow White. According to Rachel Zegler, this new movie has a plot and character arcs that are very different from the 1937 movie that she herself finds so distasteful. So maybe don't call it Snow White?

If it's as new of a story as Rachel Zegler and Gal Gadot said it is, perhaps it should have a new name?

Or... just barrel ahead without changing course, call it Snow White and claim in PR that it's the upgraded version, and when it flops blame the audience for being ists and phobes. But that seems like the riskier option, especially financially.

 

[LittleBuford]

Anger and outrage are human emotions that are triggered naturally, and I doubt there's a scientific formula for them.

Two things angered and outraged Disney fans about this new Snow White movie; it started with that hilariously cringey photo of the Seven Hipsters, and then took off into viral-land with Rachel Zegler's smug and dismissive comments from last year's D23 Expo that she made about Walt's original 1937 work.

Why are fans of Walt's original Snow White story angered and outraged at it? Because... they are. It happened.

Disney needs to figure out how to fix this. They have six months. Perhaps one of the ways they fix it is by not calling the movie Snow White. According to Rachel Zegler, this new movie has a plot and character arcs that are very different from the 1937 movie that she herself finds so distasteful. So maybe don't call it Snow White?

If it's as new of a story as Rachel Zegler and Gal Gadot said it is, perhaps it should have a new name?

Or... just barrel ahead without changing course, call it Snow White and claim in PR that it's the upgraded version, and when it flops blame the audience for being ists and phobes. But that seems like the riskier option, especially financially.

Were they to change the title, the reaction would be only be further anger and outrage: "They hate the original movie so much that now they're erasing its name!"

Nothing Disney does will win over those who have chosen to feel this way (and it absolutely is a choice). All they can hope to do is minimise the bad PR among the larger cinema-going public, for whom this "controversy" is not nearly as emotionally charged.

For my part, all I'm hoping for is a film that's enjoyable to watch, regardless of how it does at the box office (and I don't think it'll do well).

 

[TP2000]

Were they to change the title, the reaction would be only be further anger and outrage: "They hate the original movie so much that now they're erasing its name!"

Well, that's a valid point. The horse seems to have left the barn on this one, so perhaps there's nothing they can do to fix it.

Still, I think changing the movie's name is still an available option for them. But, as you say, it could trigger further anger.

Nothing Disney does will win over those who have chosen to feel this way (and it absolutely is a choice). All they can hope to do is minimise the bad PR among the larger cinema-going public, for whom this "controversy" is not nearly as emotionally charged.

And that's the silver lining here, and reminds me that this was not some big conspiracy planned in advance. It was a viral sensation that was purely organic, like all real viral things are on Social Media. When you've got hundreds of millions of people involved on Social Media, you can't plan that or guide it. It's something that just goes all on its own.

They've got six months to recover, regroup, and relaunch this mega-budget movie next March. I wish them luck.

 

[Tha Realest]

Were they to change the title, the reaction would be only be further anger and outrage: "They hate the original movie so much that now they're erasing its name!"

Nothing Disney does will win over those who have chosen to feel this way (and it absolutely is a choice). All they can hope to do is minimise the bad PR among the larger cinema-going public, for whom this "controversy" is not nearly as emotionally charged.

The inherent problem is they want it both ways.

They want the benefit of a century’s worth of awareness and love for a certain IP, but then want to shoehorn in a modernist approach that some of the creators themselves view as a way to improve on the story that changes some of the fundamental aspects of the Disney film.

Will the end product balance this potential tension well? Who knows? Again, Disney owns Snow White and the Seven Dwarves.. That’s fine. They can do what they want with it. Based on how it’s potential audience perceives these changes, it too can make its own decision whether or not to pay to see it.

If WB decided to make a Batman film where his parents were never gunned down and he instead develops superpowers…cool? But you could see how audiences may not respond well.

 

[LittleBuford]

They want the benefit of a century’s worth of awareness and love for a certain IP, but then want to shoehorn in a modernist approach that some of the creators themselves view as a way to improve on the story that changes some of the fundamental aspects of the Disney film.

Which is no different from how they've framed a number of their other remakes, none of which have provoked this kind of reaction.

 

[Tha Realest]

Which is no different from how they've framed a number of their other remakes, none of which have provoked this kind of reaction.

I don’t believe many of their remakes were filmed out in the open, or had the sort of production leak that set them up for this sort of ridicule. Hard to get those photos in a green screen warehouse.

 

[HoustonHorn]

To ask explicitly something I only alluded to earlier: Did people have a problem with the remake of Alice in Wonderland being thus titled when it strayed so far from the cartoon?

My problem with Alice in Wonderland is that it was absolutely atrocious. Went with my wife and a buddy, and we walked out and each one of us wanted to leave half an hour in, but we all thought the others were enjoying it. It was a cathartic moment for all of us, and now if we hate something, we just leave.