Live-Action ‘Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs’

[Tony the Tigger]

With all due respect, it’s up to Disney to make and market something I’m inspired to see not for me to buy a ticket just because.

If people aren’t going to be open minded, what’s the point?

For those who don’t like the live action remakes, don’t watch them. Get over it. They’re happening.

Those who are open minded to them are not snorting fairy dust, are not less discerning fans, are not blindly accepting anything just because it’s Disney.

More likely, folks like some better than others. I certainly haven’t watched all of them - not because I have anything against live-action remakes - I’m just not interested, or not bored enough to seek it out on D+ yet.

*I take no personal offense when a movie doesn’t appeal to me* because I have no reason to think every movie is aimed squarely at me. They remade Willy Wonka with Johnny Depp. I’ll never watch it. I’m not angry at the studio about it. I just watch the version I want.

But if the fans have pre-made up rules in their heads about who can be what color, gender, or sexual orientation, then why bother trying to appeal to that set?

The movies are being modernized to appeal to current and future times. Too soon? Hardly. And “modern” means, just like in real life, all kinds of people live all kinds of places - and there’s no reason to resent or feel threatened by that, or to hide anyone because of who they are.

Of course they can (and do) write new stories, and those still get trashed for a bit of reality. They are appropriately updating their catalog - perhaps to head off the knockoffs that will happen as copyrights expire.

They’ve hardly been at the forefront on social issues; but they’re apparently OK leaving those who are stuck in the past, squarely there - no matter how many fits they throw.

 

[Alanzo]

That’s fine so my answer would be “why remake it at all?” Just leave it alone and create (or adapt) a new story to tell the story you want? Why even bother “remaking” something if you have to do wholesale changes?

It just feels like a setup for failure.

Two reasons:
#1) To make money - for these big tentpole remakes, this accounts for probably 95% of the reasoning. (I don't know how this is measured in Disney+ terms)
#2) So Disney can be on the right side of history, or at least appear that way which helps their brand (but can also hurt their brand with forever online folks). Regardless, this probably only accounts for 5% of their reasoning, and only after #1 seems pretty secured.

 

[Trauma]

Disney, and most other major companies, have grown on social issues like the majority of the country - especially since laws changed.

The entitled minority who lost and can’t handle it are taking it out on a company they apparently thought would remain backwards with them.

The later generations will reward Disney for this. They are playing the not-even-that-long game.

Go ahead - delete it.

The entitled minority?

You realize this country is split down the middle right?

As a matter a fact 51% percent of the country is currently saying they will vote against “The Big Guy”.

It’s just BAD business to put yourself in the middle of this poop storm.

 

[Andrew C]

With all due respect, it’s up to Disney to make and market something I’m inspired to see not for me to buy a ticket just because.

“Evidently so”

 

[erasure fan1]

#2) So Disney can be on the right side of history, or at least appear that way which helps their brand

I would say that the original snow white is in no way on the wrong side of history.

 

[Tha Realest]

I would say that the original snow white is in no way on the wrong side of history.

It’s endured like few films of its era, or even more recent animated “classics.”

 

[Alanzo]

I would say that the original snow white is in no way on the wrong side of history.

I would say you're replying to a point I didn't make about the original Snow White. It is what it is, a relic of 1937 and cultural attitudes of its time. The two female characters are a teenage girl so innocent and naive that she needs to be rescued three times by men (but at least she can cook and clean) and a mean old step mom witch who is furious that Snow White is prettier than her.

 

[Tha Realest]

I would say you're replying to a point I didn't make about the original Snow White. It is what it is, a relic of 1937 and cultural attitudes of its time. The two female characters are a teenage girl so innocent and naive that she needs to be rescued three times by men (but at least she can cook and clean) and a mean old step mom witch who is furious that Snow White is prettier than her.

It seems like we’ll know in a few months whether a retelling with more modern sensibilities surpasses the original!

 

[erasure fan1]

I would say you're replying to a point I didn't make about the original Snow White.

The question was if you are going to change snow white so much, why remake it at all. And that was in response to your comments about snow white. And your response was then

#2) So Disney can be on the right side of history

So it was exactly to your point. I don't believe the film is on the wrong side of history.

 

[Disstevefan1]

This tread is much more interesting than the one about plastic lids and straws.

 

[Alanzo]

The question was if you are going to change snow white so much, why remake it at all. And that was in response to your comments about snow white. And your response was then

So it was exactly to your point. I don't believe the film is on the wrong side of history.

Lol. My response to why "make it at all" was "to make money" (attributing 95% of the reason being this) and to at least appear to be on the side of (implied: current) history (as viewed from the future) that thinks Snow White, as a woman (I guess? Teenager?) can be more than an innocent little waif who needs to be rescued all the time by men (5%). Absolutely insane take to believe I was saying that the original film was on the wrong side of history, especially after clarifying the first time.

Leave the context-free chop jobs to the professionals.

 

[HoustonHorn]

Lol. My response to why "make it at all" was "to make money" (attributing 95% of the reason being this) and to at least appear to be on the side of (implied: current) history (as viewed from the future) that thinks Snow White, as a woman (I guess? Teenager?) can be more than an innocent little waif who needs to be rescued all the time by men (5%). Absolutely insane take to believe I was saying that the original film was on the wrong side of history, especially after clarifying the first time.

Leave the context-free chop jobs to the professionals.

But that's the rub - Snow White is a fairy tale that is hundreds of years old, and the 1937 film was based on that fairy tale. That movie helped establish Disney, and is an incredibly valuable IP that is used throughout the parks and the company.

If you don't like the fairy tale or the 1937 version, you are absolutely entitled to have that opinion, and you're absolutely entitled to tell a new story about new characters that fit what you're trying to do. But to "remake" Snow White into something it's not is just a cynical way to trade on the name of a fairy tale that is hundreds of years old.

I could write a movie starring a petite girl who loves unicorns and rainbows and spends her days in the fields playing with bunnies and call it Rambo, but that does not mean it will have any relation to the Stallone pics. And while that is an absurd example, what Disney appears to be doing here is more insidious - making a movie that can be marketed as being an "updated" Snow White to pull in the people who actually enjoy Snow White just to spring a subversive retelling upon them.

Make that movie, just don't call it "Snow White."

 

[Chi84]

But that's the rub - Snow White is a fairy tale that is hundreds of years old, and the 1937 film was based on that fairy tale. That movie helped establish Disney, and is an incredibly valuable IP that is used throughout the parks and the company.

If you don't like the fairy tale or the 1937 version, you are absolutely entitled to have that opinion, and you're absolutely entitled to tell a new story about new characters that fit what you're trying to do. But to "remake" Snow White into something it's not is just a cynical way to trade on the name of a fairy tale that is hundreds of years old.

I could write a movie starring a petite girl who loves unicorns and rainbows and spends her days in the fields playing with bunnies and call it Rambo, but that does not mean it will have any relation to the Stallone pics. And while that is an absurd example, what Disney appears to be doing here is more insidious - making a movie that can be marketed as being an "updated" Snow White to pull in the people who actually enjoy Snow White just to spring a subversive retelling upon them.

Make that movie, just don't call it "Snow White."

If it's as different as your example, then I would agree it would be inappropriate. But I like the idea of using the same basic familiar fairytale, updating it and fleshing it out with live actors. It worked great in TLM.

I have no idea of whether the Snow White remake will be good or not, but very little is known about it so I'm keeping an open mind.

 

[GimpYancIent]

If it's as different as your example, then I would agree it would be inappropriate. But I like the idea of using the same basic familiar fairytale, updating it and fleshing it out with live actors. It worked great in TLM.

I have no idea of whether the Snow White remake will be good or not, but very little is known about it so I'm keeping an open mind.

No, the live action remake concept Disney is determined to stay with, and push has not and is not working well for any of them (to varying degrees), including TLM. Have to admit it provides work for actors and rather than to actually create fresh material the no talent writers simply poorly massage existing material. To the general public these live action remakes are now a big yawn, as in not interesting or particularly entertaining.

 

[Chi84]

No, the live action remake concept Disney is determined to stay with, and push has not and is not working well for any of them (to varying degrees), including TLM. Have to admit it provides work for actors and rather than to actually create fresh material the no talent writers simply poorly massage existing material. To the general public these live action remakes are now a big yawn, as in not interesting or particularly entertaining.

I was talking about my own opinion about the quality of the films.

I’m not as worried about Disney’s overall health as some are here. If they go out of business, the untouched classics will remain. As far as original content goes, it doesn’t seem people like what Disney is doing on that front either.

 

[JenniferS]

“Evidently so”

What, this doesn’t inspire you?

Makes me think of Men Without Hats’ “Safety Dance” video.

 

[BuddyThomas]

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.

This is bonkers. A gay man is advocating for gay people to be non-existent in Disney movies. Forget the fact of how many gay people have worked on Disney films in the past. They should be non-existent within the films. Bonkers.

 

[Ghost93]

This is bonkers. A gay man is advocating for gay people to non-existent in Disney movies. Forget the fact of how many gay people have worked on Disney films in the past. They should be non-existent within the films. Bonkers.

Internalized homophobia is a thing.

 

[BuddyThomas]

Fixed your post

Why remake a movie unless you are going to bring new things to it? Why remake a movie if you are going to do it exactly the same as the original?

 

[Chi84]

This is bonkers. A gay man is advocating for gay people to be non-existent in Disney movies. Forget the fact of how many gay people have worked on Disney films in the past. They should be non-existent within the films. Bonkers.

You know you don't have to take the bait, right?