Live-Action ‘Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs’

[Chi84]

This is a great point. It’s a bit of recency bias to complain the film was short. For reference, few modern animated films are that much longer than Snow White’s runtime, and falls well within the mean of WDAS output over the decades:

View attachment 807970

There is length and there is length. What I’m saying is a modern audience would not sit through 80 minutes with so little plot or action.

That’s probably more an indictment of the attention spans of current audiences than the original film, but having recently watched the original I’m confident in my opinion.

 

[LittleBuford]

From what I’m seeing they are the original dwarves with a different job (bandits) and that’s why they’re hiding from the queen.

I doubt they’ll be called dwarves.

That’s a valid take. The report does, however, refer to their face-acting, which means that its author must have been seeing live actors. My interpretation of the tweet that @Disney Irish shared is that CGI was being used to enhance these actors rather than to create the characters from scratch, but obviously I can’t be sure of anything.

I think I’ve proven quite convincingly that I’m not among those rooting for this project to fail, nor am I a conspiracy theorist by nature, so I’ve no ideological reasons to subscribe to the belief (or at least strong suspicion) that the classic-looking dwarfs that were ultimately unveiled were a panicked response to all the criticism. I’ll happily accept my mistake if there is definitive evidence to the contrary.

 

[Disney Irish]

That’s a valid take. The report does, however, refer to their face-acting, which means that its author must have been seeing live actors. My interpretation of the tweet that @Disney Irish shared is that CGI was being used to enhance these actors rather than to create the characters from scratch, but obviously I can’t be sure of anything.

I think I’ve proven quite convincingly that I’m not among those rooting for this project to fail, nor am I a conspiracy theorist by nature, so I’ve no ideological reasons to subscribe to the belief (or at least strong suspicion) that the classic-looking dwarfs that were ultimately unveiled were a panicked response to all the criticism. I’ll happily accept my mistake if there is definitive evidence to the contrary.

Except what the author of the run down of the screening from the second post saw was incomplete, which was confirmed by the twitter thread from your own post. So that indicates that any face actor, was either A. not the "dwarfs" or B. a pre-VFX version of the "dwarfs".

But what is clear is the early screening 100% confirms there were always dwarfs, even if they maybe called something else like "bandits" within the story of the movie. So this idea that there was to be no dwarfs originally and its only Disney reacting to negative mob feedback and quickly putting in dwarfs is 100% debunked.

Now the only thing I cannot confirm based on these tweets of the early screening is if all 7 dwarfs were to be CGI or not. Its seems like there is conflicting stories that some were to be CGI and some were to be live-action, but cannot say 100%. That might have been something that was listed as a possibility within the discussions of the early screenings. So that is the only thing that may have changed, is Disney might have gone back and decided to make all 7 CGI to avoid any further negativity.

 

[Chi84]

Except what the author of the run down of the screening from the second post saw was incomplete, which was confirmed by the twitter thread from your own post. So that indicates that any face actor, was either A. not the "dwarfs" or B. a pre-VFX version of the "dwarfs".

But what is clear is the early screening 100% confirms there were always dwarfs, even if they maybe called something else like "bandits" within the story of the movie. So this idea that there was to be no dwarfs originally and its only Disney reacting to negative mob feedback and quickly putting in dwarfs is 100% debunked.

Now the only thing I cannot confirm based on these tweets of the early screening is if all 7 dwarfs were to be CGI or not. Its seems like there is conflicting stories that some were to be CGI and some were to be live-action, but cannot say 100%. That might have been something that was listed as a possibility within the discussions of the early screenings. So that is the only thing that may have changed, is Disney might have gone back and decided to make all 7 CGI to avoid any further negativity.

When people read “the dwarfs are now like the merry men” they may have interpreted the word “like” as filler rather than a preposition meaning “similar to.” Get rid of that pesky word and the dwarves become something else lol.

 

[brb1006]

Is nobody going to mention that Dopey has hair now?

He now looks... weirdly attractive which I'd never thought I would say about Dopey of all things!

 

[Disney Irish]

When people read “the dwarfs are now like the merry men” they may have interpreted the word “like” as filler rather than a preposition meaning “similar to.” Get rid of that pesky word and the dwarves become something else lol.

It shows how much the internet for all its advancements has really done a disservice to our society.

 

[LittleBuford]

Except what the author of the run down of the screening from the second post saw was incomplete, which was confirmed by the twitter thread from your own post. So that indicates that any face actor, was either A. not the "dwarfs" or B. a pre-VFX version of the "dwarfs".

But what is clear is the early screening 100% confirms there were always dwarfs, even if they maybe called something else like "bandits" within the story of the movie. So this idea that there was to be no dwarfs originally and its only Disney reacting to negative mob feedback and quickly putting in dwarfs is 100% debunked.

Now the only thing I cannot confirm based on these tweets of the early screening is if all 7 dwarfs were to be CGI or not. Its seems like there is conflicting stories that some were to be CGI and some were to be live-action, but cannot say 100%. That might have been something that was listed as a possibility within the discussions of the early screenings. So that is the only thing that may have changed, is Disney might have gone back and decided to make all 7 CGI to avoid any further negativity.

Your second and third paragraphs are in conflict with each other, because if Disney did indeed overhaul the characters to look like classic cartoony dwarfs (which you acknowledge they may have), then they are indeed guilty of doing exactly what people (myself included) accused them of.

Either way, this isn’t something I’m particularly concerned about. The only point I wanted to make is that one doesn’t have to be an anti-Zegler conspiracy theorist to believe that Disney may have made some pretty drastic changes to the dwarf characters in response to all the bad publicity.

 

[LittleBuford]

When people read “the dwarfs are now like the merry men” they may have interpreted the word “like” as filler rather than a preposition meaning “similar to.” Get rid of that pesky word and the dwarves become something else lol.

You really think I’m incapable of comprehending written English?

 

[Disney Irish]

Your second and third paragraphs are in conflict with each other, because if Disney did indeed overhaul the characters to look like classic cartoony dwarfs (which you acknowledge they may have), then they are indeed guilty of doing exactly what people (myself included) accused them of.

Either way, this isn’t something I’m particularly concerned about. The only point I wanted to make is that one doesn’t have to be a anti-Zegler conspiracy theorist to believe that Disney may have made some pretty drastic changes to the dwarf characters in response to all the bad publicity.

No they aren't conflicting at all. If the intent was always to have dwarfs, whether all CGI or a combination of live-action/CGI, then I don't see how Disney is guilty of anything as there was always dwarfs. As the whole rage, was that Disney was removing the dwarfs completely and replacing them with a group "7 friends/bandits", which is now 100% confirmed to be debunked.

 

[Chi84]

You really think I’m incapable of comprehending written English?

I wasn’t responding to you and my comment was pretty clearly meant to be funny. Thus the lol on the end.

 

[LittleBuford]

No they are conflicting at all. If the intent was always to have dwarfs, whether all CGI or a combination of live-action/CGI, then I don't see how Disney is guilty of anything as there was always dwarfs. As the whole rage, was that Disney was removing the dwarfs completely and replacing them with a group "7 friends/bandits", which is now 100% confirmed to be debunked.

Not sure why this is failing to get through, so let me try one last time to be absolutely clear:

I have never had any rage towards this film.

I do not have any ideological or personal issues with Disney or any of the people involved in the project.

Notwithstanding these statements, if, as may indeed have been the case, Disney overhauled the dwarfs to look more like their classic cartoony selves, they are in my eyes guilty of something that I personally regard as unfortunate. You may have no problem with it, but I would have preferred that they pursue the fresh approach they (apparently) had planned.

None of this means I am now opposed to the film. I will still watch it and assess it on its own merits.

 

[Chi84]

Not sure why this is failing to get through, so let me try one last time to be absolutely clear:

I have never had any rage towards this film.

I do not have any ideological or personal issues with Disney or any of the people involved in the project.

Notwithstanding these statements, if, as may indeed have been the case, Disney overhauled the dwarfs to look more like their classic cartoony selves, they are indeed guilty of something thst I personally regard as unfortunate. You may have no problem with it, but I would have preferred them to pursue the fresh approach they (apparently) had planned.

None of this means I am now opposed to the film. I will still watch it and assess it on its own merits.

Don’t filmmakers often respond to things like test screenings? If they didn’t, why have them?

There’s very little evidence changes were made and, if they were, no evidence as to why.

 

[LittleBuford]

Don’t filmmakers often respond to things like test screenings? If they didn’t, why have them?

There’s very little evidence changes were made and, if they were, no evidence as to why.

And people are at liberty to respond to those (perceived) changes as they wish. I personally don’t like the way the dwarfs have turned out. They don’t look good to me and they don’t seem consistent in tone with what the early reporting about the film suggested would set it apart.

I may well be wrong. Perhaps the dwarfs were always going to look as they now do. Perhaps they are in no way a product of Disney’s response to the backlash they were receiving. But since there is no clear evidence one way or the other, all I can do is go on my own gut feelings. I don’t expect others to agree with me and am not out to convince anyone that they are wrong.

 

[Disney Irish]

Not sure why this is failing to get through, so let me try one last time to be absolutely clear:

I have never had any rage towards this film.

I do not have any ideological or personal issues with Disney or any of the people involved in the project.

Notwithstanding these statements, if, as may indeed have been the case, Disney overhauled the dwarfs to look more like their classic cartoony selves, they are indeed guilty of something thst I personally regard as unfortunate. You may have no problem with it, but I would have preferred them to pursue the fresh approach they (apparently) had planned.

None of this means I am now opposed to the film. I will still watch it and assess it on its own merits.

Please note my replies are not specifically toward you, and never claimed you personally had any rage toward this movie. Any rage I'm talking about is the "internet" rage toward the film.

Sorry but I disagree that Disney is guilty of something. There is confirmation that dwarfs were always intended to be part of the film, this is confirmed by your own "evidence". That is what the internet rage was all about, that the dwarfs were replaced completely by Disney, and is now debunked.

Now you might have personally wanted something else, as I recall and correct me if I'm wrong, but you wanted a modern take where the dwarfs were replaced by that "merry band of friends" of regular folks. But I don't see how Disney changed from that as it appears that was never a movie that was planned or going to be made. Any assumption made by you based on unsubstantiated reports are just that, assumptions. The early screenings confirm that the dwarfs were always planned as either all CGI or a combination of live-action/CGI, but dwarfs were always there.

 

[LittleBuford]

Please note my replies are not specifically toward you, and never claimed you personally had any rage toward this movie. Any rage I'm talking about is the "internet" rage toward the film.

Sorry but I disagree that Disney is guilty of something. There is confirmation that dwarfs were always intended to be part of the film, this is confirmed by your own "evidence". That is what the internet rage was all about, that the dwarfs were replaced completely by Disney, and is now debunked.

Now you might have personally wanted something else, as I recall and correct me if I'm wrong, but you wanted a modern take where the dwarfs were replaced by that "merry band of friends" of regular folks. But I don't see how Disney changed from that as it appears that was never a movie that was planned or going to be made. Any assumption made by you based on unsubstantiated reports are just that, assumptions. The early screenings confirm that the dwarfs were always planned as either all CGI or a combination of live-action/CGI, but dwarfs were always there.

This will be my last response to you on this particular topic.

No, I did not necessarily want the dwarfs to be replaced. I had no strong feelings one way or the other. Disney could have explored any number of options that I would have been open to, including a traditional band of companions played by actors with dwarfism. As more details emerged, I was left with the impression that they would be taking an entirely new approach, and I was curious to see what that might be.

What I didn’t want is an ugly CGI rehashing of the original cartoon characters, and that’s what Disney suddenly unveiled after all the backlash. Whether the characters were reshaped by that backlash none of us knows, but I suspect they were. Regardless, I don’t like them and think Disney could and should have done better.

 

[erasure fan1]

Barbie is definitely a girls brand and I'd guess that helped it. I don't believe Disney wants a film of this profile and budget to be labeled a "girl" film. I can't see a scenario where this budget isn't massive. So it's probably going to need a fairly broad audience to show up.

As far as the strong female characters go. I have two daughters and there is no shortage of female characters for them to latch on to.

 

[Disney Irish]

This will be my last response to you on this particular topic.

No, I did not necessarily want the dwarfs to be replaced. I had no strong feelings one way or the other. Disney could have explored any number of options that I would have been open to, including a traditional band of companions played by actors with dwarfism. As more details emerged, I was left with the impression that they would be taking an entirely new approach, and I was curious to see what that might be.

What I didn’t want is an ugly rehashing of the original cartoon characters, and that’s what Disney suddenly unveiled after all the backlash. Whether the characters were reshaped by that backlash none of us knows, but I suspect they were. Regardless, I don’t like them and think Disney could and should have done better.

Well I disagree with the assessment that it'll be a "ugly rehashing", but you are certainly entitled to that opinion.

I think if it was anything other then a retelling that is close to the original that it would get panned by the audience and critics alike. And judging just on the thread alone, and other comments on this site, that is 100% a fair assessment. So if Disney is guilty in your mind of making changes to sooth whatever negative feedback, so be it. But its also that audience that pays the money for the tickets. Now with that said it doesn't mean they won't make updates to the story to be more modern, they obviously have to increase the run time and that will be to include more story. So you may just get more of what you want without the changes to the dwarfs.

 

[LittleBuford]

Not if they aren’t called dwarfs/dwarves.

They’re only “dwarves” in Tolkien! Otherwise, it’s with an F.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

They’re only “dwarves” in Tolkien! Otherwise, it’s with an F.

Thanks. I was too lazy to look it up.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Regarding the history of the project, from what I remember ...

Very early (before Gerwig was even announced as having involvement), Dinklage made his comments and Disney responded by saying they had spoken to the little person community (I have no idea what is the current politically correct language) and was taking a "different approach" to the seven characters. Shortly after that, the guy playing the love interest was announced and the rumors were that he wasn't a prince, but instead a Robin Hood-like character and that his seven companions would be stand-ins for the role the Seven Dwarfs played in the animated film. Then the infamous photo leaked of the Seven Hobos of Benetton (which featured six full sized persons and one little person) - receiving a ton of ridicule. Shortly after that, the actor who played the little person in Captain Jack's crew in the Pirates movies made a comment at a comic con that he was playing Grumpy in the new film. Then Disney, who originally said the infamous photo was not real, backtracked and said it wasn't an official production photo and that the image was featuring stand-ins. Then there was anonymous rumors that the film did not have seven dwarfs, but instead, there would be seven non-dwarfs who each would turn into one of seven "magical creatures." Then the actress made her stupid comments and there was the really bad backlash. And then maybe like a month later (it could have been longer) Disney came out with the image of the actress dancing with some CGI dwarfs.

All of this could be researched in this very thread. The infamous image popped up on like Page 5 or 6.

EDIT:
So, to summarize ... I personally believe that after Dinklage talked them out of having Seven Dwarfs, Disney's compromise position was to have seven companions who become magical creatures (of whom one would be a little person, Grumpy). Also, the idea was that there would be no prince and instead a Robin Hood-type character who led the seven magical creatures. Robin Hood-light and Snow White would lead some sort of rebellion against the Queen (because that's what feminists do). Then after the massive backlash, some executive at Disney decided the whole thing was absurd and that the film would have seven dwarfs. So I believe the decision was made that the seven CGI dwarfs would replace the seven magical creatures. I have no idea if this means they also scuttled the concept of freedom fighter Snow White, but the trailer makes me think they did because there was nothing I saw in it that made me think this was anything other than a fairly straight-adaptation of the 1937 film.