Live-Action ‘Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs’

[Disstevefan1]

Great…so no need for these remakes

To be honest I wish they would stop. They would save hundreds of millions of dollars. That said, when the make these movies that lose 100 million dollars, they do employ a lot of folks, so there is the bright side.

 

[LittleBuford]

Can anyone here describe a specific way in which they have felt alienated or excluded by one of Disney’s recent films? I’m genuinely trying to understand what people mean when they claim that the movies are no longer being made with “traditional” audiences in mind.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

(and they will continue to do remakes until they run out of movies to remake)

Confirmed - round 3!

 

[TP2000]

This is just not true. Disney made original films like Lightyear and Strange World which featured supporting LGBTQ and the rage machine exploded - posters here were vicious. But that reality is momentarily inconvenient so it’s ignored, to be acknowledged again only as needed

There's about two dozen of us core posters here in this backwater sub-forum, from several different opinion perspectives. We do not control the free market of 330 Million American consumers any more than we control the weather.

Both Lightyear and Strange World flopped hard at the box office. Disney lost at least $300 Million combined off of those two films.

Is your argument that Disney should continue making family movies like Lightyear and Strange World until the free market audience finally cries uncle and starts buying tickets again to Disney's family movies in big numbers? Because that strategy of "Keep Doing What We've Been Doing" seems self-defeating and a great way to cause Disney to go bankrupt.

Next up... Snow White's Professional Leadership Adventure With Seven Magical Creatures???

 

[Disstevefan1]

As long as there’s a market for them, Disney will continue producing such remakes. It’s consumer demand

Well there is a "market" and there is a "demand", but just not enough to make their investment back, at least not for many years optimistically.

 

[LittleBuford]

There's about two dozen of us core posters here in this thread, from several different opinion perspectives.

Both Lightyear and Strange World flopped hard at the box office. Disney lost at least $300 Million combined off of those two films.

Is your argument that Disney should continue making family movies like Lightyear and Strange World until the free market audience finally cries uncle and starts buying tickets again to Disney's family movies in big numbers? Because that strategy of "Keep Doing What We've Been Doing" seems self-defeating and a great way to cause Disney to go bankrupts and shut down.

View attachment 737897

Next up... Snow White's Professional Leadership Adventure With Seven Magical Creatures???

None of this has anything to do with his point, which is that several posters here—you loudest among them—repeatedly criticised the very mild LGBTQI representation in those two films as inappropriate.

 

[BuddyThomas]

Can anyone here describe a specific way in which they have felt alienated or excluded by one of Disney’s recent films? I’m genuinely trying to understand what people mean when they claim that the movies are no longer being made with “traditional” audiences in mind.

They don’t like it when there is a gay character in the films. Shhhhh. Don’t tell anyone.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Can anyone here describe a specific way in which they have felt alienated or excluded by one of Disney’s recent films? I’m genuinely trying to understand what people mean when they claim that the movies are no longer being made with “traditional” audiences in mind.

They can’t - but I can: every single time there is the most insignificant clip barely acknowledging the existence of gay people, some folks I thought were normal lose their minds over it.

 

[LittleBuford]

Well there is a "market" and there is a "demand", but just not enough to make their investment back, at least not for many years optimistically.

Most of the remakes have been profitable. Some have done very well indeed financially.

 

[Andrew C]

This is a cute response that pretends there is no need for ads or market outreach, by sheer force of virtue a good product will reach all consumers.

You really read things that aren’t there, eh?

 

[TP2000]

None of this has anything to do with his point, which is that several posters here—you loudest among them—repeatedly criticised the very mild LGBTQI representation in those two films as inappropriate.

Yes, I did. Because I felt it was inappropriate to put in a same-sex kiss into a children's movie, marketed at and aimed at children.

It was cringey and not needed and did nothing for the plot apparently. It was only to satisfy a vocal minority of cubicle employees in Burbank, almost all of whom are childless adults and far removed from Disney's core audience of middle-class suburban families living in unstylish places. (AKA, the boring people who take their kids to cartoon movies).

So the issue is... what does Disney do with that situation? Do they just keep putting background Lesbian kisses and teenage boys holding hands into all their future cartoon family movies until the core audience finally returns to the multiplex in big enough numbers to turn a profit on these mega-budget Disney movies?

Or does Disney course correct, and realize the core audience of American families (and an even bigger portion of the overseas audience) is not ready or willing to pay for that product?

I'm hoping Disney course corrects here. For the sake of the Company that I've been a lifelong fan of.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Most of the remakes have been profitable. Some have done very well indeed financially.

To be honest, I have not looked at the historical data to confirm, I just started to look at that stuff for the more recent stuff, that but I will take your word for it.

I sincerely hope they can stop making movies that lose so much money at the box office.

Like it or not, the box office is still the industries key measurement of success.

 

[networkpro]

Can anyone here describe a specific way in which they have felt alienated or excluded by one of Disney’s recent films? I’m genuinely trying to understand what people mean when they claim that the movies are no longer being made with “traditional” audiences in mind.

Oh, you don't need to coach your market segmentation to specific groupings, we're talking about art house films vs commercial successful movies. Critics rave about art house films "being brave", "addressing topics", etc, but that's not the point of commercially viable movies. It's only about getting paying customers into seats at least one time (preferably multiple times if possible) and talking others into spending their own dollars as well.

The jist of the argument you're failing to digest is that the money spent to produce and advertise these presentations is insufficient to be commercially viable. The "but, but, but" list of redeeming qualities and nuances doesn't pay any bills.

 

[LittleBuford]

They can’t - but I can: every single time there is the most insignificant clip barely acknowledging the existence of gay people, some folks I thought were normal lose their minds over it.

I’m trying to get away from the contentious discourse that surrounds this topic and refocus our attention on the films themselves. Has anyone here who has actually watched one of the movies in question felt excluded by it? If so, in what specific way(s)? The claim is repeatedly made that Disney is alienating its traditional fanbase, yet no-one seems willing or able to describe how they have personally experienced such alienation while watching Disney’s recent output.

 

[LittleBuford]

Oh, you don't need to coach your market segmentation to specific groupings, we're talking about art house films vs commercial successful movies. Critics rave about art house films "being brave", "addressing topics", etc, but that's not the point of commercially viable movies. It's only about getting paying customers into seats at least one time (preferably multiple times if possible) and talking others into spending their own dollars as well.

The jist of the argument you're failing to digest is that the money spent to produce and advertise these presentations is insufficient to be commercially viable. The "but, but, but" list of redeeming qualities and nuances doesn't pay any bills.

None of this has anything to do with what I wrote.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

To be honest, I have not looked at the historical data to confirm, I just started to look at that stuff for the more recent stuff, that but I will take your word for it.

I sincerely hope they can stop making movies that lose so much money at the box office.

Like it or not, the box office is still the industries key measurement of success.

This is why the post Covid Disney movies have been such a hot topic, prior to covid Disney felt untouchable, they had a long streak of billion dollar box offices, now they’re on a huge losing streak.

If they were still raking in billions I don’t think half these threads would exist beyond a couple pages, we’re all searching for answers, whether it’s the D+ affect, DEI, political, unappealing stories, the theater business in general, bloated budgets, etc, etc, etc. We’ve discussed it all in search of “why?”.

 

[Disstevefan1]

None of this has anything to do with his point, which is that several posters here—you loudest among them—repeatedly criticised the very mild LGBTQI representation in those two films as inappropriate.

For the record, it appeared they only minutely represented L and G. None of the others, unless I missed something.

 

[TP2000]

For the record, it appeared they only minutely represented L and G. None of the others, unless I missed something.

Thank you. That's always bugged me. There was a Lesbian kiss in Lightyear, and a gay teen romance/crush in Strange World.

Just say that, instead of pretend there's some broad 2SLGBTQQIA+ "representation".

Disney has never had a T in its family movies, and certainly none of the other letters and numbers and symbols and click sounds.

 

[LittleBuford]

For the record, it appeared they only minutely represented L and G. None of the others, unless I missed something.

I use the terminology that feels right to me. Others may do as they please, but I will continue to employ the initialism “LGBTQI” in reference to such topics.

 

[GhostHost1000]

I use the terminology that feels right to me. Others may do as they please, but I will continue to employ the initialism “LGBTQI” in reference to such topics.

Oh wait now we added an “I”

What is that?