Live-Action ‘Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs’

[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.

 

[Chi84]

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.

TLM remake had a really sweet love story. It fleshed out the characters more and made it more realistic.

 

[CJR]

TLM remake had a really sweet love story. It fleshed out the characters more and made it more realistic.

It did, although Ariel played a bigger role in Ursula's demise, but I don't know if the people I talked to have seen TLM yet. They mentioned seeing Barbie, so they weren't necessarily talking about just Disney movies.

 

[Chi84]

It did, although Ariel played a bigger role in Ursula's demise, but I don't know if the people I talked to have seen TLM yet. They mentioned seeing Barbie, so they weren't necessarily talking about just Disney movies.

I thought it was more a combined effort the way it was presented, with the prince swimming down to save Ariel first, then her killing Ursula. Also, didn't it end with the prince fulfilling his lifelong dream of exploring the world to bring new cultures and trade to his kingdom with Ariel accompanying him and supporting him? I thought the entire movie treated both characters beautifully.

 

[CJR]

I thought it was more a combined effort the way it was presented, with the prince swimming down to save Ariel first, then her killing Ursula. Also, didn't it end with the prince fulfilling his lifelong dream of exploring the world to bring new cultures and trade to his kingdom with Ariel accompanying him and supporting him? I thought the entire movie treated both characters beautifully.

I'm glad you enjoyed the film, I did as well.

The issue at hand is that there was nothing wrong with the way it was originally either. Both endings are acceptable, even today.

It's OK if a woman doesn't want or feel the need to be a hero. There's nothing wrong with the way TLM went about it, it's just collectively, something along those lines is being pushed into every film.

I do feel like how TLM handled Eric went very well and kept him looking heroic while giving Ariel a much stronger impression to the viewer (Rob Marshall did great), but if Eric had saved the day and rescued Ariel, followed by them simply moving into the palace, there'd be nothing wrong with that. The general feeling is that filmmakers are feeling the need to avoid that setup in ALL of their films, such as Jasmine eyeing Sultan in Aladdin. It's OK for women to have smaller, more simple dreams and goals too.

Now, in the case of TLM, sorry for any spoilers, I do believe them going on an adventure at the end was much more fun and came more from Eric's desire than Ariel's, although both were obviously on board with the idea.

 

[Chi84]

I'm glad you enjoyed the film, I did as well.

The issue at hand is that there was nothing wrong with the way it was originally either. Both endings are acceptable, even today.

It's OK if a woman doesn't want or feel the need to be a hero. There's nothing wrong with the way TLM went about it, it's just collectively, something along those lines is being pushed into every film.

I do feel like how TLM handled Eric went very well and kept him looking heroic while giving Ariel a much stronger impression to the viewer (Rob Marshall did great), but if Eric had saved the day and rescued Ariel, followed by them simply moving into the palace, there'd be nothing wrong with that. The general feeling is that filmmakers are feeling the need to avoid that setup in ALL of their films, such as Jasmine eyeing Sultan in Aladdin. It's OK for women to have smaller, more simple dreams and goals too.

Now, in the case of TLM, sorry for any spoilers, I do believe them going on an adventure at the end was much more fun and came more from Eric's desire than Ariel's, although both were obviously on board with the idea.

I don't suppose there would be anything wrong with it, but the ending was a heck of a lot better in the live-action remake, with Ariel's dad speeding them along their way. Wasn't it cool for them to go on a sea adventure with the king of the seas watching over them? They better incorporated Ariel's beautiful relationship with her father in my opinion. You have to admit that maybe the original ending was not chosen simply based on modern society and how it generally goes these days. There's nothing wrong with it; it's just not what Disney chose to portray.