Live-Action ‘Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs’

[LittleBuford]

I think the phrase “free Palestine” is open to a broad range of interpretations, at least one of them being anti-Israel.

We shouldn’t slur people as antisemites or opponents of Israel based on one possible interpretation. There are millions of people out there, Jews included, who believe in Israel’s right to existence while also believing that the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination. Those are not mutually exclusive positions; on the contrary, they’re the basis of the Two-State Solution, an idea that was, until relatively recently, a widely shared and uncontroversial matter of consensus.

 

[LittleBuford]

It's not the statement itself. It's the context in which it was written and the likes to posts that disparage Gadot.

This accusation has more weight to it. It does seem that she is treating her costar as a target of her messaging, which is wrong and problematic.

 

[Brian]

That’s objectively wrong.

You can argue it was not advisable, but “wrong” is subjective.

It is objectively wrong to goad your Israeli and Jewish co-star when you're the leading lady of a hundreds of millions of dollars film. Why? As to the former, you should have respect for your co-star to not goad them publicly during a time when their fellow countrymen are under attack, and as to the latter, it does nothing but create animosity with those who find your position to be wrong, which harms the film and the studio.

For the purposes of this discussion, I am not saying that her position is objectively wrong. I'm saying that her publicly stating it in the context of her co-star is objectively wrong.

 

[Brian]

Those are not mutually exclusive positions; on the contrary, they’re the basis of the Two-State Solution, an idea that was, until relatively recently, a widely shared and uncontroversial matter of consensus.

If only Palestinians didn't use the land they want statehood for to wage the deadliest attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust, that would still be the case.

 

[LittleBuford]

If only Palestinians didn't use the land they want statehood for to wage the deadliest attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust, that would still be the case.

I don’t conflate the Palestinian people with Hamas. Hamas is abhorrent. What they did on October 7 is inexcusable on every level, and I condemn it unequivocally.

Detesting and criticising Hamas need not and should not entail slandering all Palestinians as terrorists. Ordinary people of all nationalities and ethnicities deserve to have their humanity recognised. (Oh, and Gadot is in agreement with me.)

 

[Brian]

I don’t conflate the Palestinian people with Hamas. Hamas is abhorrent. What they did on October 7 is inexcusable on every level, and I condemn it unequivocally.

Some of my relatives are Palestinian, which is perhaps why I’m able to recognise their humanity rather than slander them all as terrorists. (Oh, and Gadot is in agreement with me.)

I also recognize their humanity. But at the end of the day, if the territory is controlled by Hamas, they can't have a state. That is why the war is, quite sadly, necessary for future Palestinian and Israeli prosperity and safety.

 

[LittleBuford]

I also recognize their humanity.

Then perhaps you should be more considerate and specific in the language you use. After all, isn’t the issue of brash and reductive rhetoric what started this whole conversation off?

 

[Chi84]

It is objectively wrong to goad your Israeli and Jewish co-star when you're the leading lady of a hundreds of millions of dollars film. Why? As to the former, you should have respect for your co-star to not goad them publicly during a time when their fellow countrymen are under attack, and as to the latter, it does nothing but create animosity with those who find your position to be wrong, which harms the film and the studio.

For the purposes of this discussion, I am not saying that her position is objectively wrong. I'm saying that her publicly stating it in the context of her co-star is objectively wrong.

Still subjective - even if almost everyone agrees with you.

 

[TP2000]

I just want to point out again that Disney cannot fire Zegler at this stage.

I'm not an expert on this (as you know, I've made it very clear that I'm not an expert on anything except cocktail recipes and Disneyland trivia), but how does it work when a studio is launching/premiering a big movie and needs to use its starring actress in that publicity?

Rachel Zegler is the star of the upcoming tentpole movie Snow White. She is, literally, Snow White. There will be a press tour, endless interviews on TV and websites, a big splashy premiere and party at the El Capitan or Chinese Theater. Rachel Zegler will be the star of the show this February and March. So how does Miss Zegler not still work for Disney? Can Disney uninvite her to the premiere? Can Miss Zegler refuse to attend? And at what point do Disney's lawyers get involved in forcing her to be a part of the movie's publicity tour and marketplace launch?

I'm trying to imagine a Jungle Cruise Skipper who has a social media presence and/or podcast where he talks about working for Disneyland and being a CM and doing his gig of Jungle Cruise Skipper. And everyone knows his real name and who he is outside of work, and Disneyland fans get their picture taken with him when he's at work at Disneyland. And then on November 6th he posts to his popular Jungle Cruise themed Instagram feed “May Trump supporters and Trump voters never know peace.”

How would Disney and Disneyland management react to that? Does that Skipper get to keep his job? If not, why?

I'm struggling to see how Rachel Zegler ever gets another gig with Disney after the multiple messes over several years she has created for herself and her generous employer. But that she will likely still be involved in the publicity and premiere of this upcoming tentpole movie in March really confuses me. How? Why? And why can't these movie studios control their paid talent better?

If it can't be done by a Jungle Cruise Skipper, why can Rachel Zegler get away with it?

 

[LittleBuford]

If it can't be done by a Jungle Cruise Skipper, why can Rachel Zegler get away with it?

Good old capitalism.

 

[Brian]

Still subjective - even if almost everyone agrees with you.

Almost everyone agrees that 2 + 2 = 4. There are some who believe that is not the case. That doesn't mean that 2 + 2 = 4 is anything other than objectively true. At what point does consensus become reality?

 

[Brian]

Then perhaps you should be more considerate and specific in the language you use. After all, isn’t the issue of brash and reductive rhetoric what started this whole conversation off?

Palestine is governed by Hamas, as they were elected by the Palestinian people in 2006 after Israel pulled out of the Gaza strip. Therefore, I think it's fair to at least refer to Hamas as Palestinian, much in the same way that you would refer to Republicans and Democrats as Americans, since they are both American by allegiance.

If a country controlled by a particular political party/entity does something, it's not generally the political party that is cited, it's the country.

 

[TP2000]

Good old capitalism.

I'm not sure what that would have to do with it.

The answer seems to lie within employment policies that are either purposely inequitable, or simply ignored, at will by Disney's senior leadership teams.

Is there even a social media policy for movie stars in Disney's tentpole films? There's got to be a social media policy for Park CM's and the custodians that clean the Burbank campus and the cubicle drones that push out TPS reports every Thursday.

But there's also the issue that Miss Zegler will still be working for Disney this February and March as part of the publicity and global launch of the $350+ Million investment the company made in Snow White. Disney has simply got to rethink how they control their "stars", because whatever the current agreement is with Rachel Zegler isn't working.

 

[donaldtoo]

See, they let us wear ourselves out…!!!

 

[Chi84]

Almost everyone agrees that 2 + 2 = 4. There are some who believe that is not the case. That doesn't mean that 2 + 2 = 4 is anything other than objectively true. At what point does consensus become reality?

We're talking about opinions. Totally different. Let's just say it's your strongly held opinion.

 

[LittleBuford]

Palestine is governed by Hamas, as they were elected by the Palestinian people in 2006 after Israel pulled out of the Gaza strip. Therefore, I think it's fair to at least refer to Hamas as Palestinian, much in the same way that you would refer to Republicans and Democrats as Americans, since they are both American by allegiance.

If a country controlled by a particular political party/entity does something, it's not generally the political party that is cited, it's the country.

At least get your facts straight. The West Bank, by far the largest of the Palestinian Territories, is not governed by Hamas.

I don’t go in for disingenuous word games. When did I ever say that Hamas should not be considered Palestinians?

My position has been very clear: it is wrong to conflate a whole people with the vicious group that rules over a portion of them. None of us should have a problem with drawing a distinction between ordinary Palestinians and a group of fanatical terrorists, yet here we are debating the matter.

 

[LittleBuford]

I'm not sure what that would have to do with it.

Disney wants to make money from Snow White. As others have already explained, they’re not going to get drawn further into the controversy by firing its leading actress, who will presumably be called upon to promote the film. She is not expendable in the way that your hypothetical Jungle Cruise CM is.

Now clearly there’s a point at which Disney would have to cut ties with her. Perhaps she was close to reaching that point with her latest remarks, but she has since issued an apology, perhaps (and probably) under some pressure from Disney. For now, it seems, Disney thinks she is less of a liability than she is a potential asset to their efforts to promote the film. That may well change—for example, if she says something even more ill-advised in the next few months—in which case perhaps Disney will “fire” her. As things stand, however, Disney has made a different (financial and PR) calculation.

 

[Brian]

At least get your facts straight. The West Bank, by far the largest of the Palestinian Territories, is not governed by Hamas.

Is it only the so-called West Bank that wants statehood, or is it all of Palestine, including the Gaza strip?

It's the latter.

I don’t go in for disingenuous word games. When did I ever say that Hamas should not be considered Palestinians?

My position has been very clear: it is wrong to conflate a whole people with the vicious group that rules over a portion of them. None of us should have a problem with drawing a distinction between ordinary Palestinians and a group of fanatical terrorists, yet here we are debating the matter.

You responded to my post:

If only Palestinians didn't use the land they want statehood for to wage the deadliest attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust, that would still be the case.

saying:

I don’t conflate the Palestinian people with Hamas. Hamas is abhorrent. What they did on October 7 is inexcusable on every level, and I condemn it unequivocally.

Detesting and criticising Hamas need not and should not entail slandering all Palestinians as terrorists. Ordinary people of all nationalities and ethnicities deserve to have their humanity recognised. (Oh, and Gadot is in agreement with me.)

Perhaps you misspoke in the above quote, but the Palestinian people includes Hamas, not only as a governing entity, but also as inhabitants of Palestine, making them Palestinian. My statement was that Palestinians used "the land they want statehood for to wage the deadliest attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust", which is true by your own admission. It is just not worded how you'd like.

That's not to say that all Palestinians are Hamas. That's would be an outrageous assertion. But the fact remains that Palestinians did commit the 10/7 attacks.

 

[LittleBuford]

Is it only the so-called West Bank that wants statehood, or is it all of Palestine, including the Gaza strip?

It's the latter.



You responded to my post:

saying:



Perhaps you misspoke in the above quote, but the Palestinian people includes Hamas, not only as a governing entity, but also as inhabitants of Palestine, making them Palestinian. My statement was that Palestinians used "the land they want statehood for to wage the deadliest attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust", which is true by your own admission. It is just not worded how you'd like.

That's not to say that all Palestinians are Hamas. That's would be an outrageous assertion. But the fact remains that Palestinians did commit the 10/7 attacks.

You’re playing disingenuous word games, and I’m not interested in participating.

 

[Willmark]