Live-Action ‘Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs’

[LittleBuford]

My mistake, I had always assumed the entire moderator staff was British.

There is no "staff". From what I know, all the moderation falls on the shoulders of @wdwmagic and @The Mom, with the latter bearing most of the burden. It's a thankless task, and I believe they do a remarkably good and fair job overall.

 

[wtyy21]

Could you clarify what you mean here?

View attachment 738174

 

[wtyy21]

Could you clarify what you mean here?

 

[doctornick]

What examples do you have in mind other than Ariel?

I don’t think anyone ever answered this, but the Blue Fairy from Pinocchio and Tinkerbell from Peter Pan & Wendy are other recent examples of Disney race swapping established characters. plus we have the upcoming changes to the Dwarfs (er, Magical Creatures) in gender/race/general concept as we’ve been discussing.

 

[LittleBuford]

View attachment 738175

I recognised her from the leaked pictures, but the descriptions you shared make it seem as if she’s Snow White’s elven sidekick rather than one of the seven bandits (or whatever they’ve rebranded the dwarfs as).

 

[LittleBuford]

I don’t think anyone ever answered this, but the Blue Fairy from Pinocchio and Tinkerbell from Peter Pan & Wendy are other recent examples of Disney race swapping established characters. plus we have the upcoming changes to the Dwarfs (er, Magical Creatures) in gender/race/general concept as we’ve been discussing.

Thank you for sharing further examples. I’m still unclear as to how the casting of actors of colour in those roles is an impediment to the creation of new roles in original films. (I’m not attributing that argument to you, but it’s one that’s been made or implied a few times.)

 

[doctornick]

Thank you for sharing further examples. I’m still unclear as to how the casting of actors of colour in those roles is an impediment to the creation of new roles in original films. (I’m not attributing that argument to you, but it’s one that’s been made or implied a few times.)

That’s fine, I just wanted to point out that it wasn’t a single isolated example to help illustrate why people view it as a trend from Disney

 

[WorldExplorer]

I just searched for, and found, reviews of the original film here in the forum. This is what one member wrote in a thread they started on the topic:

Snow White's problem, as the presenter of Mousterpiece Cinema (a Disney film podcast) points out, is that she is completely passive throughout. She never seems to consider the Queen's threat seriously beyond her initial freak out in the forest and, at the beginning of the story, doesn't seem even slightly bothered that she has been demoted to a servant in her own castle! Watching these films with my 2 year old daughter has really made me think about the role models being presented by the Disney princesses. Snow White is an appalling role model for young girls. She is a servant in her own castle; she goes off with the first man who shows an interest in her and she spends her spare time cooking and cleaning for a group of lazy, self-centred men.​

​

The Prince is pretty much a minor character. He appears briefly at the beginning and end of the film. He seems rather opportunistic, climbing over the castle wall and almost accosting Snow White. He then disappears and then at the end of the film is apparently searching for Snow White and finds her glass coffin Weirdo that he is he decides to kiss the (supposedly) year long dead Snow White and then, when she miraculously revives, takes her away to his castle in the clouds (or at least that is how the final scene is painted). The Prince has the good looks needed to be a Disney Prince (along with Charming, Philip, Eric etc) but has no character and even less purpose other than take Snow White away to whatever life he has planned for her.​

I don’t think these words are any kinder to the film than Zegler’s; indeed, they are considerably harsher. Yet none of the other participants in the thread (who were admittedly very few) took exception to the OP’s opinion, even though they had more positive things to say. It’s remarkable (and depressing) how much the tenor of such debates has changed in the last several years.

Stuff like this is why people didn't respond to your "I really want examples" post.

This shows a total lack of even trying to understand people's complaints if you seriously think people are just upset at the concept of any random person disliking Snow White and/or can't see any difference between an Internet post from a nobody and someone being paid by Disney to represent a remake.

I sure you'll keep bringing it up, so please remember that it's really not the gotcha you seem to think it is.

 

[LittleBuford]

Stuff like this is why people didn't respond to your "I really want examples" post.

This shows a total lack of even trying to understand people's complaints if you seriously think people are just upset at the concept of any random person disliking Snow White and/or can't see any difference between an Internet post from a nobody and someone being paid by Disney to represent a remake.

I sure you'll keep bringing it up, so please remember that it's really not the gotcha you seem to think it is.

It wasn’t meant as a gotcha; that’s not my style. It was meant as an illustration of the sort of thing that was accepted as a harmless difference of opinion in the recent past but would get pounced on today even if uttered by one of us here (witness someone in this very thread accusing me of having “gross” views on femininity based on a kneejerk misinterpretation of my words). Things have got to such an ideologically tense point that people are looking to be aggrieved and seem to enjoy the sense of righteous anger that ensues. I sincerely believe that had Zegler made these statements ten years ago, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

 

[LittleBuford]

Stuff like this is why people didn't respond to your "I really want examples" post.

Oh, and I still do really want examples.

 

[WorldExplorer]

It wasn’t meant as a gotcha; that’s not my style. It was meant as an illustration of the sort of thing that was accepted as a harmless difference of opinion in the recent past but would get pounced on today even if uttered by one of us here (witness someone in this very thread accusing me of having “gross” views on femininity based on a kneejerk misinterpretation of my words). Things have got to such an ideologically tense point that people are looking to be aggrieved and seem to enjoy the sense of righteous anger that ensues. I sincerely believe that had Zegler made these statements ten years ago, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Again. You are not reading what people are saying. That is why people did not respond to your question that you have repeatedly brought up as "I still haven't gotten an answer". At least not me. Which is what I was referring to with that comment.

No one wants the "oh why can't everyone get along by not doing things I don't like" loop with someone who's repeatedly shown to not accept any views but their own and thinks "if you take things completely out of context maybe it would be calmer" is anything but worthy of a footnote (even just in forum posts that's still taking all context away). There's no reason to even bring this up except for more telling people their reactions to things are wrong. I feel like an idiot for even responding to begin with because the loop has clearly started already.


And frankly, I disagree. The internet was a cesspool ten years ago, too. People would have been mad at her then, too. I would argue the change is that now people inexplicably feel that basic decorum about the projects you're publicly attached to is optional.

 

[LittleBuford]

No one wants the "oh why can't everyone get along by not doing things I don't like" loop with someone who's repeatedly shown to not accept any views but their own

Oh, the irony! Thanks for giving me a chuckle.

I feel like an idiot for even responding to begin with

Then by all means don’t respond to me.

 

[The Mom]

I don’t think anyone ever answered this, but the Blue Fairy from Pinocchio and Tinkerbell from Peter Pan & Wendy are other recent examples of Disney race swapping established characters. plus we have the upcoming changes to the Dwarfs (er, Magical Creatures) in gender/race/general concept as we’ve been discussing.

I don't think that, as you call it, race swapping, should be an issue for characters whose race is not an issue. I mean, The Blue Fairy was supposed to have turquoise hair, not blonde and Tinkerbell's or The Little Mermaid's race is never mentioned in the original tales. Disney frequently altered traditional fairy tales to make them more acceptable to their audience. Peter Pan was actually based on a play, and Tinkerbell was never seen, she almost dies (The audience has to assert their belief in fairies to save her) and she betrays Peter and the Lost Boys because of her jealousy.

Disney was not retelling a stories word for word; neither were the original Fairy Tales as they themselves as they were written versions of older oral tales. The Little Mermaid, Peter Pan, etc are exceptions as they were originally written rather than collected - but may still have been inspired by older tales. Just as casting a blue-eyed white skinned blonde in a live remake of Pocohantas, Mulan, Lilo and Stitch would be "race swapping."

But Snow White and the Seven Dwarves is very specific in the written retelling of an older tale. "Skin as white as snow, hair as black as ebony, and lips as red as blood" . And 7 dwarves is self explanatory. They don't have to be the same race or gender, and having them work and live together should be enough of a modern update, since females living with unrelated men and working in a mine (working with and guarding precious metals and jewels has been a traditional roll for dwarves in multiple stories) would not have been socially acceptable in the original movie. If they want to do a revised remake of the animated story without following the original movie, they should go the Huntsman, Tangled, Cruella, Maleficent, Hook, etc route. A movie inspired by an original story/movie but not an actual remake.

But that's just my opinion, and the movie could very well have a new title on release. Which would be one way for Disney to deal with the controversy.

 

[LittleBuford]

But that's just my opinion, and the movie could very well have a new title on release. Which would be one way for Disney to deal with the controversy.

I think the dropping of “and the Seven Dwarfs” is meant to indicate that it’s more of an adaptation than a remake.

 

[The Mom]

There is no "staff". From what I know, all the moderation falls on the shoulders of @wdwmagic and @The Mom, with the latter bearing most of the burden. It's a thankless task, and I believe they do a remarkably good and fair job overall.

And I don't get a salary! Just a nice thank-you gift at Christmas. This isn't a forum where "the staff" gets any profit - just enough to keep things up and running but not enough to turn it into a business. It's a hobby. A fun place (or should be) for people to discuss all things Disney, and many other mutual interests. When it isn't fun anymore I, and perhaps even @wdwmagic , will just walk away. Many posters seem to forget that.

 

[The Mom]

I think the dropping of “and the Seven Dwarfs” is meant to indicate that it’s more of an adaptation than a remake.

Now they just have to drop the Snow White part and come up with a better name.

 

[Tha Realest]

I mean it’s Disney’s IP and they’re free to strip mine it as they see fit. That’s their choice and prerogative.

But we, the potential viewing audience, also have our own choice and agency to choose to (or choose not to) see this movie if we perceive that the end product (based on these changes) is worth our money and time.

Again, Disney seems to be playing at the tremendous brand identity of these films and generations of goodwill in choosing to offer a “live action” remake. It’s free to change it up as they see fit. If those changes for whatever reason diminish the box office, that’s ultimately on them.

 

[erasure fan1]

If they want to do a revised remake of the animated story without following the original movie, they should go the Huntsman, Tangled, Cruella, Maleficent, Hook, etc route. A movie inspired by an original story/movie but not an actual remake.

Yup, I said the same thing a few pages back. Hopefully you don't get the angry faces like I did. Lol

 

[The Mom]

I mean it’s Disney’s IP and they’re free to strip mine it as they see fit. That’s their choice and prerogative.

But we, the potential viewing audience, also have our own choice and agency to choose to (or choose not to) see this movie if we perceive that the end product (based on these changes) is worth our money and time.

Again, Disney seems to be playing at the tremendous brand identity of these films and generations of goodwill in choosing to offer a “live action” remake. It’s free to change it up as they see fit. If those changes for whatever reason diminish the box office, that’s ultimately on them.

Exactly. They took something that is in the public domain, changed it slightly, and then trademarked it.

 

[LittleBuford]

Now they just have to drop the Snow White part and come up with a better name.

I know you’re half joking, but it’s not like she isn’t still being played by someone with a light complexion.