Live-Action ‘Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs’

[LittleBuford]

@Chi84, the Maleficent gif was meant to signal that Disney have actually had a number of successes reframing their classic stories. It was a cheeky way of making a genuine point, but I fear (based on your reaction) my intent wasn't clear.

 

[LittleBuford]

She’s alive. One can ask her.

I suppose those interested enough in her views could ask her to clarify what she meant. I myself am not.

 

[Disstevefan1]

I don't think TWDC cares about SW 2024 more than this thread does.

 

[TP2000]

@Chi84, the Maleficent gif was meant to signal that Disney have actually had a number of successes reframing their classic stories. It was a cheeky way of making a genuine point, but I fear (based on your reaction) my intent wasn't clear.

Oh, I get it now.

But that's not really the same sort of thing here.

If Disney released a movie called "The Evil Queen" starring Gal Gadot to tell the backstory of the the Evil Queen from the Snow White fairy tale and how she became so evil and even misunderstood, that would be something like Maleficent.

But that's not what this movie is. It's called Snow White, and then they cut off the "and The Seven Dwarves" because the PC police demanded that they not cast seven small people in those roles. So they put out a casting call for out of work baristas from Portland, instead.

This movie is a live action remake of "Snow White", not a new movie called "The Evil Queen".

 

[TP2000]

She’s alive. One can ask her.

I can confidently say that next February when the marketing ramps up on this mega-budget movie, that Rachel Zegler will be fully prepared with an entirely new set of Talking Points vetted by the studio to recite.

They're going to get her ready for the onslaught of media, because they certainly can't hide her like a secondary character.

I suppose those interested enough in her views could ask her to clarify what she meant. I myself am not.

Every media reporter and talk show host in the country is going to be ready with softball-yet-pointed questions referencing the dust up last August. She'll be talking about it all over again, whether we like it or not.

I fully expect to see her deliver a far more polished and reverential version of her original statements next February.

 

[Chi84]

@Chi84, the Maleficent gif was meant to signal that Disney have actually had a number of successes reframing their classic stories. It was a cheeky way of making a genuine point, but I fear (based on your reaction) my intent wasn't clear.

I’m sorry. My reaction wasn’t based on the content of your post at all. I removed it.

 

[LittleBuford]

I’m sorry. My reaction wasn’t based on the content of your post at all. I removed it.

I think I realised after replying to you what you were getting at, and you are right. I'm just not that good at self-control.

 

[LittleBuford]

Oh, I get it now.

But that's not really the same sort of thing here.

If Disney released a movie called "The Evil Queen" starring Gal Gadot to tell the backstory of the the Evil Queen from the Snow White fairy tale and how she became so evil and even misunderstood, that would be something like Maleficent.

But that's not what this movie is. It's called Snow White, and then they cut off the "and The Seven Dwarves" because the PC police demanded that they not cast seven small people in those roles. So they put out a casting call for out of work baristas from Portland, instead.

This movie is a live action remake of "Snow White", not a new movie called "The Evil Queen".

I doubt very much that all the outrage in this thread (pages and pages of it) would have been precluded had the film been called The Evil Queen. You would still be going on about how Zegler is a smug entitled brat trampling on Walt's legacy, how modern Disney hates True Love, and how activists are woking everything up.

And if you really are going to insist that a different title would have made all the difference, the ostensible reasons for the barrage of criticism that has been levelled at the film and Zegler lose all semblance of credibility. "I object to everything about this movie! But call it by another name and I'm suddenly OK with it!"

 

[TP2000]

I doubt very much that all the outrage in this thread (pages and pages of it) would have been precluded had the film been called The Evil Queen. You would still be going on about how Zegler is a smug entitled brat trampling on Walt's legacy, how modern Disney hates True Love, and how activists are woking everything up.

No, if the movie was called The Evil Queen (a la' Maleficent), the movie would have starred Gal Gadot in the title role and been all about her lifelong journey into evil before she even met Snow White. A completely new movie exploring the Evil Queen character and why she is so evil, and what she has against Snow White.

At least, that's what I got out of Maleficent from watching the movie preview in the Tough To Be A Bug theater at DCA a decade ago. It was a new movie based on the famous villain, instead of based on the famous heroine.

Regardless of what Talking Points and media training the studio gave to Gal Gadot to present that different film, the wiser and more mature Gadot would have likely handled her interviews with Variety and Extra far better than Rachel Zegler did.

 

[dreday3]

No, if the movie was called The Evil Queen (a la' Maleficent), the movie would have starred Gal Gadot in the title role and been all about her lifelong journey into evil before she even met Snow White. A completely new movie exploring the Evil Queen character and why she is so evil, and what she has against Snow White.

At least, that's what I got out of Maleficent from watching the movie preview in the Tough To Be A Bug theater at DCA a decade ago. It was a new movie based on the famous villain, instead of based on the famous heroine.

Regardless of what Talking Points and media training the studio gave to Gal Gadot to present that different film, the wiser and more mature Gadot would have likely handled her interviews with Variety and Extra far better than Rachel Zegler did.

Well I'm tired of villain backstories where we are supposed to now feel sorry for and "understand" the villain. I want my villains to be pure evil and that's it! (although I did like Maleficent, so sue me)



(except for Joker - I loved that origin story, seemed the most authentic of the Joker origins out there. actually didn't even need to be the Joker's story, it would have been a great movie about anyone)

 

[Chi84]

I just watched the original animated Snow White! It really clarified how I think about what's being said in this thread.

First of all, the movie was made in 1937, almost 20 years before I was born, which is startling in itself lol. It's not too far from being 100 years old.

I can't stress enough how much a movie made that long ago differs from what we see today. I'm sure the animation was ground-breaking at the time and the movie introduced the first Disney princess. But for someone who did not know those two things - it had almost nothing to it and was incredibly slow-paced. For someone looking at a historical piece of nostalgia, it's fine. But I'm fairly certain that it would be impossible to remake even the animated version now. It would be over in less than 30 minutes or the audience (even kids) would lose patience. If anyone wants to challenge this, all I ask is that you rewatch the movie before doing so.

That's why I don't think the live action remake is meant to be any more than a loose adaptation of the central plot line of the movie; the evil witch is jealous and tries to kill the heroine, who survives and forms a loving relationship with a band of odd little people in the forest; the witch finds out and tries again but is chased off by the dwarfs and killed (by her own evil actions it seems) and Snow White is awakened by love's first kiss. Not love's true kiss.

The characters are drawn in broad outlines - the prince, the dwarfs and even the princess are called by their characteristics. There is no way this movie from so long ago could be made again today and I don't think that's what Disney intends. Of course, they are going to use the name Snow White and the central story line - it's their IP and it's what sells movies. Or maybe not. It's Disney's call what they do with their property.

 

[dreday3]

I agree most people wouldn't watch it today, but I just re-watched it recently and I still enjoy it. It's a simple, sweet movie. Even the animation style is what I would describe as soft/gentle.
She's my favorite Princess. She has dark hair and animals love her, she's got me!

(also, I think Rachel Zegler looks SPOT ON as Snow White. Just gorgeous)

 

[LittleBuford]

I just watched the original animated Snow White! It really clarified how I think about what's being said in this thread.

First of all, the movie was made in 1937, almost 20 years before I was born, which is startling in itself lol. It's not too far from being 100 years old.

I can't stress enough how much a movie made that long ago differs from what we see today. I'm sure the animation was ground-breaking at the time and the movie introduced the first Disney princess. But for someone who did not know those two things - it had almost nothing to it and was incredibly slow-paced. For someone looking at a historical piece of nostalgia, it's fine. But I'm fairly certain that it would be impossible to remake even the animated version now. It would be over in less than 30 minutes or the audience (even kids) would lose patience. If anyone wants to challenge this, all I ask is that you rewatch the movie before doing so.

That's why I don't think the live action remake is meant to be any more than a loose adaptation of the central plot line of the movie; the evil witch is jealous and tries to kill the heroine, who survives and forms a loving relationship with a band of odd little people in the forest; the witch finds out and tries again but is chased off by the dwarfs and killed (by her own evil actions it seems) and Snow White is awakened by love's first kiss. Not love's true kiss.

The characters are drawn in broad outlines - the prince, the dwarfs and even the princess are called by their characteristics. There is no way this movie from so long ago could be made again today and I don't think that's what Disney intends. Of course, they are going to use the name Snow White and the central story line - it's their IP and it's what sells movies. Or maybe not. It's Disney's call what they do with their property.

I’m sorry you didn’t enjoy it more, but thank you for sharing this very thoughtful and perceptive commentary.

 

[dreday3]

Also I don't know what posts were discussing it - but no, Disney is not ruining any "princess love stories" with their new movies.

Frozen - it's a love between two sisters.
Moana - it's a love for her culture, her Island (and pua)
Disney is still making stories about love, just in a different way.

And I love old fashioned love stories like Cinderella and Beauty and The Beast as well as the new movies.

 

[Chi84]

I’m sorry you didn’t enjoy it more, but thank you for sharing this very thoughtful and perceptive commentary.

I wouldn’t say I didn’t enjoy it. It was cute and a definite product of its time.

It’s sad that I don’t foresee today’s audiences sitting through the charming scenes of Snow talking to the forest animals, getting the dwarfs to wash up before dinner and kissing them each on the head before they leave. But I just don’t.

 

[Chi84]

Also I don't know what posts were discussing it - but no, Disney is not ruining any "princess love stories" with their new movies.

Frozen - it's a love between two sisters.
Moana - it's a love for her culture, her Island (and pua)
Disney is still making stories about love, just in a different way.

And I love old fashioned love stories like Cinderella and Beauty and The Beast as well as the new movies.

For your sanity, I would suggest not going back to find them.

 

[LittleBuford]

I wouldn’t say I didn’t enjoy it. It was cute and a definite product of its time.

It’s sad that I don’t foresee today’s audiences sitting through the charming scenes of Snow talking to the forest animals, getting the dwarfs to wash up before dinner and kissing them each on the head before they leave. But I just don’t.

While I agree nothing like it would be made today, I think it still holds a great deal of appeal for modern audiences, including children. But I acknowledge that I’m letting my own relationship with the film colour my perception of how others feel about it (sorry to use that word again!). I’d be curious to know if DVD sales and streaming figures might shed any light on the matter.

 

[LittleBuford]

Also I don't know what posts were discussing it - but no, Disney is not ruining any "princess love stories" with their new movies.

Frozen - it's a love between two sisters.
Moana - it's a love for her culture, her Island (and pua)
Disney is still making stories about love, just in a different way.

And I love old fashioned love stories like Cinderella and Beauty and The Beast as well as the new movies.

Plus Frozen featured a more conventional love story anyway (Elsa and Kristoff).

 

[LittleBuford]

(also, I think Rachel Zegler looks SPOT ON as Snow White. Just gorgeous)

I’m looking forward to hearing her sing. I’ve actually not heard her singing voice!

 

[BuddyThomas]

It's the story that I've got a major problem with. The Classic Disney Princess stories are all supposed to be about love. They don't even have Prince Charming in the movie. He was replaced by some random guy named Jonathan.

How do you possibly know this film is not about love when the first teaser trailer has not even been released yet???