Live-Action ‘Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs’

[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?

 

[BuddyThomas]

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

Yup.

 

[Disney Irish]

What I find funny is that no one is calling out other studios for retelling the same story as Disney classics with modern twists. I mean there have been like 50 retellings of Pinocchio since Disney's original version.

Same with Snow White, there have been multiple iterations of Snow White done. All with a different take on the story.

I don't know how this movie will be, but if we're calling out Disney we should be calling out any studio that remakes classic movies from the past.

 

[erasure fan1]

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?

It kind of works both ways right? If you are going to fundamentally change the story, why remake it? Just make an inspired by story like how west side story was, at the time, a modern take on Romeo and Juliet.

 

[BuddyThomas]

It kind of works both ways right? If you are going to fundamentally change the story, why remake it? Just make an inspired by story like how west side story was, at the time, a modern take on Romeo and Juliet.

And they did not “fundamentally change the story” of The Little Mermaid. Or if you are talking about Snow White, we don’t know much yet.

 

[erasure fan1]

What I find funny is that no one is calling out other studios for retelling the same story as Disney classics with modern twists. I mean there have been like 50 retellings of Pinocchio since Disney's original version.

I wouldn't say no one. I've given my fair share of dislike to the other studios for laziness. You just don't hear it as much here because it is a Disney forum after all.

Same with Snow White, there have been multiple iterations of Snow White done. All with a different take on the story.

And they were all terrible. The other studios are in no way exempt from the same criticism that Disney gets.

 

[erasure fan1]

And they did not “fundamentally change the story” of The Little Mermaid. Or if you are talking about Snow White, we don’t know much yet.

I'm talking about snow white. I would say we do know enough. They've verified no dwarfs. And Zegler has given plenty of insight into how they've changed Snows character. That's why I keep saying, hopefully the trailer is fantastic, or it's going to be a rough go for the film.

 

[BuddyThomas]

I'm talking about snow white. I would say we do know enough. They've verified no dwarfs. And Zegler has given plenty of insight into how they've changed Snows character. That's why I keep saying, hopefully the trailer is fantastic, or it's going to be a rough go for the film.

I’m not too worried about it.

 

[Disney Irish]

I wouldn't say no one. I've given my fair share of dislike to the other studios for laziness. You just don't hear it as much here because it is a Disney forum after all.

And they were all terrible. The other studios are in no way exempt from the same criticism that Disney gets.

I'm not talking about just this site, or even any specific posters. I'm talking in general.

The point is that many studios retell these stories. Some are panned, others are praised. But Disney is the one that gets the most criticism for the retellings, and terms like "cash grab" are thrown around.

Beyond that we don't know how this will turn out. Hopefully its better than some are claiming its going to be.

Anyways just my two cents.

 

[erasure fan1]

The point is that many studios retell these stories. Some are panned, others are praised. But Disney is the one that gets the most criticism for the retellings, and terms like "cash grab" are thrown around.

Well that's a pretty simple answer. Because they are considered #1, the highest profile studio. It doesn't make it fair, it doesn't make it right, but that's how it goes. It's why I've brought up McDonald's when this comes up. None of the other fast food burger chains were healthier than McDonald's. But when the poop hit the child obesity fan, McDonald's was the one who got pounded. Even Disney broke ties with them.

 

[Disney Irish]

Well that's a pretty simple answer. Because they are considered #1, the highest profile studio. It doesn't make it fair, it doesn't make i right, but that's how it goes. It's why I've brought up McDonald's when this comes up. None of the other fast food burger chains were healthier than McDonald's. But when the poop hit the child obesity fan, McDonald's was the one who got pounded. Even Disney broke ties with them.

With regards to McDonald's overall nothing really changed other than some marketing and a slight change to the happy meal. It was something that got blown over when the next news cycle came about.

Will the same happen with Disney, maybe....

 

[LittleBuford]

And they did not “fundamentally change the story” of The Little Mermaid.

Well, they did in 1989, when she didn’t just disintegrate into foam as in the original story. But people seem to be very selective in what narrative changes they disapprove of.

 

[BuddyThomas]

Well, they did in 1989, when she didn’t just disintegrate into foam as in the original story. But people seem to be very selective in what narrative changes they disapprove of.

Sorry- forgot about that. Absolutely correct.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

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.

Let's try it another way.

There are many hit songs about men being in love with underage girls.

Do you think if someone had occasion to do a remake or sample Ringo Starr's "You're Sixteen" (you're beautiful, and you're mine) in 2023, they might change it to 18 or 19?

(I mean, unless it were being sung by another 16 year old.)

Sensibilities change. They have changed, consistently from decade to decade. Why would you stick to the old way of thinking when you do a remake? Why not make it make more sense to a current audience, and leave out the cringe?

The original still exists. It's not taken off the market. It might not be played on radio so much, but it's available for purchase.

And clearly, it was fine at the time it was originally released, because it was a big hit. Sensibilities change.

Why in the world would we stay true to the sensibilities of a girl/woman from 1937 when retelling the story in 2023? To be quaint? Unrealistic? Oblivious? To shock today's women? (They can be shocked just by watching reruns of the Dukes of Hazzard or old movies on TCM to see how women were treated in the not so distant past.) Why would we perpetuate that when we have different societal sensibilities today?

Watch the original for what it is. Enjoy it for what it is. Appreciate it. Cool. I love to watch reruns of All In The Family but the language is even more jarring today than it was back then. If they did a reboot of the series today, I guarantee you they wouldn't use the racial slurs they used in the 70's.

There's nothing wrong with appreciating the original. There's also nothing wrong with making it more current, and having two or more versions available. Then people (including parents) have choices.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Well, they did in 1989, when she didn’t just disintegrate into foam as in the original story. But people seem to be very selective in what narrative changes they disapprove of.

I haven't researched this, but someone told me in the original story, the mermaid was translucent and ate people (?)

 

[CJR]

There's also nothing wrong with making it more current, and having two or more versions available. Then people (including parents) have choices.

I don't disagree with what you're saying, choices are a great thing. If I were to make an adaptation of this movie, I would make changes myself. It's a healthy thing to do with any adaptation, I don't see the point of shot for shot remakes. Cinderella remains my favorite of the remakes so far and a great example of a well done adaption, in my opinion.

However, to take it back what the lead actress talked about, I don't think there is anything wrong with a young woman falling in love. Women still fall in love today and many today don't try to be a hero or care to be one, some do, some don't. BUT if you watch most of Disney's recent movies, you'd think no young women today would want to be a homemaker. That's just not true and there's nothing wrong with the idea that a woman would want to fall in love, settle down, have a family, and take care of them. Not all women want to explore the world, fight a foe, become an important leader, etc.

Not every story with a female lead needs that same narrative of the girl having big goals and saving the day at the end. While it's an OK story to tell, it's pretty much every single one (and not just in movies by Disney). What should be a good amount of choices (in story) is turning into a single repetitive story with different names for the characters.

From what I've heard from a few people (young women) regarding this matter, they feel like it's big corporations (think Disney and others) telling them what they should want. With them acting like it's a problem if they don't have big goals or don't aspire to save the day or the world. They happen to love men and enjoy when men get the opportunity to show their strength. That's not to say, that it's a one way ordeal, but that when you're being inclusive, you don't need to constantly push away what you've done before. There wasn't really anything wrong with it then (1937) and there's nothing wrong with it now. That's basically what I was told by them. And, I think they're right too. Some good perspective.

Now, what I find funny about the criticism is that while Rachel Zegler does not appear to like the Walt Disney version of the film, which is humorous to me personally since I think she should if she's taking the part in this specific adaptation; she isn't the one in charge of the film. She's playing a part established by producers, writers, and a director who decided this is the story that they wanted to tell. If people want to criticize this direction, that's one thing, but I don't like that seemingly all attention is put on her almost exclusively. Even if they fired her and reshot her scenes, it'd still be that same story with the same messages and themes. It's from something on the creative level, which most actors don't participate in.