Live-Action ‘Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs’

[easyrowrdw]

Its currently listed at $209M, I don't know if that is before or after its round of reshoots. I suspect we won't get that number until closer to release, if its changed.

Thanks!

 

[CaptinEO]

Sorry but TMZ is not some beacon of truth, also their article is based on the original Daily Mail article, both are tabloids. So I wouldn't take anything what either publications publish as some true reporting of events. Its sensationalized reporting specifically designed to stoke the flames of discontent that was happening at the time, ie its clickbate.

TMZ is a trashy news site but it is very much accurate in its reporting. Believe it or not they are the most common truth source used for confirming celebrity deaths.

 

[Disney Irish]

TMZ is a trashy news site but it is very much accurate in its reporting. Believe it or not they are the most common truth source used for confirming celebrity deaths.

And if we were talking about a celebrity death I might be inclined to believe it. But they get this information straight from the Daily Mail, they don't even change much of any of the substance. There is no independent verification done, no quote from anyone, heck there is not even an author listed and they don't even have their own pictures, just using copies from a hosting site. It is a unadulterated tabloid clickbate article written to stoke the flames of discontent about Disney at the time, and you fell hook, line, and sinker for it.

Sorry but its not some evidence of anything. If you had something from a major news outlet that had independent verification done, and not just some copy of the Daily Mail, I might be willing to entertain such a claim. But until then throw this in the waste bin just like all other tabloid "news".

 

[Disstevefan1]

TLM lost money especially when you add the marketing costs and SW will for sure lose money.

We all must remember, in Disney's movie business, making money is not important, its all about their art and their message.

Disney uses their theme park business to pay for their money losing movies.

If they can make money on a movie here and there, like Inside out 2, that's gravy.

 

[CaptinEO]

And if we were talking about a celebrity death I might be inclined to believe it. But they get this information straight from the Daily Mail, they don't even change much of any of the substance. There is no independent verification done, no quote from anyone, heck there is not even an author listed and they don't even have their own pictures, just using copies from a hosting site. It is a unadulterated tabloid clickbate article written to stoke the flames of discontent about Disney at the time, and you fell hook, line, and sinker for it.

Sorry but its not some evidence of anything. If you had something from a major news outlet that had independent verification done, and not just some copy of the Daily Mail, I might be willing to entertain such a claim. But until then throw this in the waste bin just like all other tabloid "news".

Well stated and I agree.

 

[BasiltheBatLord]

I have full confidence that this film will be absolutely horrendous.

 

[Chi84]

I have full confidence that this film will be absolutely horrendous.

So you’re not planning to see it?

 

[Disney Irish]

Can't link her posts due to political rules but it was more than just distaste for a candidate.

I just think it's interesting as Disney usually likes a squeaky clean image (or at least they used to in the past). Guess it shows how much the company (or maybe all of entertainment) has changed.

The era of Social Media has changed the landscape of Hollywood and the entertainment industry as a whole, and really the world. The last 10-15 years or so has shown that many studios don't shy away from this stuff anymore, not even Disney. They still try to control the narrative of course, but actors/actresses are their own people essentially their own brand. The days of a studio contract where an actor/actress is tied to one studio long term and the studio controls everything are gone, and it hasn't been that way for a very long time. If an actor/actress goes too far a studio will distance themselves from them, just as Disney has done with others, but by and large they will stay out of an actor/actresses personal life including their social media posts.

 

[CaptinEO]

The era of Social Media has changed the landscape of Hollywood and the entertainment industry as a whole, and really the world. The last 10-15 years or so has shown that many studios don't shy away from this stuff anymore, not even Disney. They still try to control the narrative of course, but actors/actresses are their own people essentially their own brand. The days of a studio contract where an actor/actress is tied to one studio long term and the studio controls everything are gone, and it hasn't been that way for a very long time. If an actor/actress goes too far a studio will distance themselves from them, just as Disney has done with others, but by and large they will stay out of an actor/actresses personal life including their social media posts.

Very interesting, guess a lot has changed since the days of Annette Funicello and even Hillary Duff. On one hand it's good these actors have more freedom but on another hand it can't be helping these films/brands that have so much invested already.

 

[Tom P.]

I honestly cannot find the post in question.

 

[Disney Irish]

Very interesting, guess a lot has changed since the days of Annette Funicello and even Hillary Duff. On one hand it's good these actors have more freedom but on another hand it can't be helping these films/brands that have so much invested already.

In those examples you're talking about child actresses when they worked for Disney. Disney is known for being very strict with their child actors. And yes things have changed, even from 20 years ago when Hilary Duff worked for the Mouse, as there was no social media.

So there is a difference here, as we're talking about an adult actress who has more control over their own career than a child actor/actress under a Disney contract does.

 

[Disney Irish]

I honestly cannot find the post in question.

It was a social media post made a week ago via an Instagram reel that is only available for 24 hours or less. Someone took a screenshot and that is what is being reported on, the screenshot of the post.

 

[Cliff]

The First Amendment gives Burbank the right to fire any employee who makes any public comment that Burbank feels makes the company look bad. The First Amendment also gives Burbank the right to harass that employee in ANY way they see fit. Including the ability to call business affiliates of that fired employee and harass them to not work with that fired employee any longer. The First Amendment gives Burbank the ability to publicly slander and mock that fired employee and the right to try and shut down and black-list that person's career if they deem so necessary.

Yes,..the First Amendment is THAT powerful folks. And, "your" current employer can use it against "you" in exactly the same way Burbank did to that employee they didn't like.

The First Amendment is an enormously powerful tool for employers to defend themselves and their actions with.

All good people agree on that.....right?

 

[MagicHappens1971]

The First Amendment gives Burbank the right to fire any employee who makes any public comment that Burbank feels makes the company look bad. The First Amendment also gives Burbank the right to harass that employee in ANY way they see fit. Including the ability to call business affiliates of that fired employee and harass them to not work with that fired employee any longer. The First Amendment gives Burbank the ability to publicly slander and mock that fired employee and the right to try and shut down and black-list that person's career if they deem so necessary.

Yes,..the First Amendment is THAT powerful folks. And, "your" current employer can use it against "you" in exactly the same way Burbank did to that employee they didn't like.

The First Amendment is an enormously powerful tool for employers to defend themselves with.

All good people agree on that.....right?

The first amendment doesn’t do any of these things. The Bill of Rights protects you from the government. The government CAN NOT censor your speech, but your employer could. It’s that simple. Have we all passed our 6th grade civics class?

 

[Cliff]

The first amendment doesn’t do any of these things. The Bill of Rights protects you from the government. The government CAN NOT censor your speech, but your employer could. It’s that simple. Have we all passed our 6th grade civics class?

Yeah,...I don't think you get what I just wrote. I'm giving you Burbank's defense. (in "their" mind)

 

[Cliff]

Which employee(s) did Burbank publicly slander and mock?

The case has already been determined that she has standing. Disney lost that initial fight. Now we are in Discovery and the receipts are being collected and the people and executives involved will be called to testify on the stand.

"If" she is telling the truth and the evidence and testimony is there for all to see? She is winning and winning fast.

You can fire somebody,...no problem there. But, you can't harass them and deliberately try to ruin their career. If your current employer did that to you over a tweet? You would also have a great case against them.

Again,.."firing" you is not a problem so much. It's all the OTHER malicious stuff Burbank did that will burn them

 

[Disney Irish]

I wouldn’t be surprised if Disney avoided working with her again in the future; contrary to what people are implying here, they try to skirt controversy as much as possible. But what are they to do now the filming has wrapped up? Reshoot the whole thing with a different actress? I know some here would love that, but it’s hardly realistic.

As you even mentioned though in another post they have no issues with working with actors/actresses that have controversial pasts. So while I could see them not using her again immediately for some projects, I doubt they will avoid her completely long term.

 

[Disney Irish]

I’m making no predictions, just speculating! I imagine Disney isn’t pleased about her social media, even if it’s not a deal-breaker as such.

I'm sure that someone including maybe even Iger is not happy to have her back in the media for a post. But as you said its likely not a deal-breaker, and just like last time they won't likely comment much if at all on it. I just doubt they will put her on a no-hire list.

 

[Disney Irish]

Eggg-zactly. The defense that Burbank will try to use did not,...and will not work. That is why the California judge already told Burbank: "Nope" and were completely rejected.

I think clearly Burbank is screwed but we'll see.

Wooof,...wait till the executives get called to testify! Wow...I think Kathleen Kennedy will be whitness#1. Iger very possibly is next if Discovery shows he was in on it all.

Whether or not any of that happens, it really has nothing to do with this issue.

 

[Cliff]

Carano herself made multiple controversial comments before the one that got her fired. Have you considered that she may have gone too far in the company’s eyes with her Holocaust comparison, or are all controversial statements equally bad in your opinion?

Besides, I’m not sure how you’d have Disney punish Zegler at this stage: shooting is all wrapped up.

Yes!!,...Burbank CAN fire Zegler....they just can't shame her, slander her, harass her and try to ruin her career in Hollywood.

A simple cut and dry firing is no problem. It's all the OTHER stuff that makes it bad for Burbank.