Live-Action ‘Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs’

Status
Not open for further replies.
Californian Elitist

Californian Elitist

Well-Known Member
TP2000 said:
It's a simple thing. I'll ask it again...

By what scenario in the latter years of the Great Depression, leading directly into World War II, does Disney become an American cultural powerhouse without Snow White's massive box office of 1937-38 building the Burbank studio campus in 1939?



Don't worry, almost no one saw Shazam, but it was Rachel Zegler's most recent flop. Just after West Side Story.



It will be fascinating to watch how Disney retrains and rebrands and rescripts Miss Zegler for her media appearances next February and March. If her tone and messaging changes dramatically, the film may be saved at the box office.

But if she is unable, or unwilling, to change that tone and messaging, then....
Click to expand...
And imma just refer you to my original response, as it’s the same. Feel free to read it again.

Addressing the relevant things, she will still be getting paid, regardless of her tone. And she’ll still be getting paid, despite others being offended about what she said.
 
TP2000

TP2000

Well-Known Member
Californian Elitist said:
And imma just refer you to my original response, as it’s the same. Feel free to read it again.
Click to expand...

Well, because you are unable to answer it, I will refer you to actual history and a real sense of how things evolve.

Without a huge first hit to build his studio upon and to create an entirely new industry from, Walt Disney remains a cartoon guy. Doing cartoon shorts for movies, back when movies had shorts playing in front of them. And he makes some money but offers up just different versions of Daffy Duck and Bugs Bunny through the War Years and mid 20th century. He dies of lung cancer in 1966.

There is no Disneyland in 1955. Thus there is no Disney World in 1971. Thus there is no Renaissance in the 1980's. Thus there is no company left to remake it's original masterpieces in the 21st century.

But the opposite happened, thank God. And thus Rachel Zegler owes her 2024 paycheck to Walt and the artists of 1937.

Californian Elitist said:
Addressing the relevant things, she will still be getting paid, regardless of her tone. And she’ll still be getting paid, despite others being offended about what she said.
Click to expand...

She's had a starring role in two big movies so far; West Side Story and Shazam. Both of those were disastrous box office flops.

Her next movie is Snow White. It will be interesting to see if that one flops as well, making it her third flop in a row.

Initially, her marketing tactic for her third big movie of her career has been to criticize its original Walt Disney source material from 1937 and claim the new version she stars in will be much better than the original.

That's an interesting tactic for a young person with no prior box office success to take, don't you think?
 
Last edited:
TP2000

TP2000

Well-Known Member
LittleBuford said:
It's the latest tactic (only a few days old, at least in this thread): to imply that Zegler, as well as being terribly smug and unlikeable, is untalented because the films she has starred in thus far haven't been box-office successes.
Click to expand...

That argument can and will be silenced when Rachel Zegler stars in a movie that isn't a disastrous box office bomb.

That hasn't happened yet. But, in her defense, she is only 22 years old and has only starred in two movies so far.

Miss Zegler's Entire Career Thus Far.jpg
 
Last edited:
LittleBuford

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
TP2000 said:
That argument can be silenced when Rachel Zegler stars in a movie that isn't a disastrous box office bomb.

That hasn't happened yet. But, in her defense, she is only 22 years old and has only starred in two movies so far.
Click to expand...
One cannot argue she is untalented simply because she's starred in two movies that haven't done well at the box office. By that absurd standard, Stephen Spielberg is untalented because he directed one of those two movies.

You can't make any meaningful claims about how talented she is because you haven't seen her in anything. Nor have I, which is why I've offered no assessment of how well she can act or sing. I assume she's pretty good given that she landed the role of Snow White and won a Golden Globe for her performance in West Side Story, but, as is my general (seemingly outlier) policy, I won't commit myself to opinions on things I have no first-hand knowledge of.
 
TP2000

TP2000

Well-Known Member
LittleBuford said:
If experience is anything to go by, I fear we'll be stuck with this new refrain for some time yet.
Click to expand...

Just until Snow White shows up in theaters in 2024.

I could care less about her "Hunger Games" gig. I don't watch those movies, and know nothing about them.

But if I was the starring actress in only two movies that both flopped theatrically, I might try being a little less smug. ;)
 
TP2000

TP2000

Well-Known Member
Californian Elitist said:
We’ve already been stuck with it. This is why I post for as long as I can take it, then I dip. I haven’t clicked on TLM thread in well over a month, and didn’t intend to.
Click to expand...

I'm here. I can see what you're typing. 🤣

Don't worry, I've mostly avoided the Mermaid thread. Princess movies generally aren't my scene. This one is an exception because Rachel Zegler's media interviews have been so disastrously hilarious to watch play out, how can you not comment?
 
Californian Elitist

Californian Elitist

Well-Known Member
TP2000 said:
I'm here. I can see what you're typing. 🤣

Don't worry, I've mostly avoided the Mermaid thread. Princess movies generally aren't my scene. This one is an exception because Rachel Zegler's media interviews have been so disastrously hilarious to watch play out, how can you not comment?
Click to expand...
I know you’re here. You’re always here. I was talking to @LittleBuford about the current deal with these film threads. You’re not the only one ruining any kind of fun and entertainment for me in these threads, trust me.
 
TP2000

TP2000

Well-Known Member
Californian Elitist said:
I know you’re here. You’re always here.
Click to expand...

Since October 11th, 2003. I'm planning a huge 20th Anniversary party as I type.

Californian Elitist said:
I was talking to @LittleBuford about the current deal with these film threads. You’re not the only one ruining any kind of fun and entertainment for me in these threads, trust me.
Click to expand...

I think your concern should be forwarded to Rachel Zegler. She's the one that caused this big media dust up.

The good news is, assuming they can retrain her and rescript her, they have plenty of time to be silent and then relaunch this movie and its approved studio Talking Points late next winter. Rachel Zegler can then show up on The Tonight Show and Good Morning America with all new Talking Points and media soundbites to explain how magical and fabulous this movie is for audiences to choose to go see with their own money.

If this had happened in February '24 instead of August '23, they'd be screwed. Luckily, they have plenty of time to fix it. :)
 
Californian Elitist

Californian Elitist

Well-Known Member
TP2000 said:
Since October 11th, 2003. I'm planning a huge 20th Anniversary party as I type.



I think your concern should be forwarded to Rachel Zegler. She's the one that caused this big media dust up.

The good news is, assuming they can retrain her and rescript her, they have plenty of time to be silent and then relaunch this movie and its approved studio Talking Points late next winter. Rachel Zegler can then show up on The Tonight Show and Good Morning America with all new Talking Points and media soundbites to explain how magical and fabulous this movie is for audiences to choose to go see with their own money.

If this had happened in February '24 instead of August '23, they'd be screwed. Luckily, they have plenty of time to fix it. :)
Click to expand...
Yeah, sure.
 
Willmark

Willmark

Well-Known Member
Counter factual history is a fascinating thing. It’s not unheard of pondering history and how things might have turned out, but with one caveat: only plausible changes and never more than one big one.

Examples:
- what if there wasn’t fog at the Battle of Long Island allowing Washington to escape?

- what if the US Navy doesn’t surprise the Japanese at Midway in WW II?

- what if Hitler was killed in the Fall of 1914 while in France? (It nearly happened in our own history.)

There are many, many more.

@TP2000 Lhas a very valid point. The 1937 version of Snow White IS that point in history where what we know could have easily diverged. Using the idea of only one plausible change outlined in most counter factual history: what if Snow White bombs in 1937? History as we know it will be different, likely radically so. Take the actress out of the equation prompting this idea: If Snow White bombs in 1937, we’re likely not conversing with each other right now.

For those interested in the topic this explains it at the high level: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_history?wprov=sfti1

Historians tend to not be fans of it, all the while missing the point IMO.
 
Last edited:
LittleBuford

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
Willmark said:
Counter factual history is a fascinating thing. It’s not unheard of pondering history and how things might have turned out, but with one caveat: only plausible changes and never more than one big one.

Examples:
- what if there wasn’t fog at the Battle of Long Island allowing Washington to escape?

- what if the US Navy doesn’t surprise the Japanese at Midway in WW II?

- what if Hitler was killed in the Fall of 1914 while in France? (It nearly happened in our own history.)

There are many, many more.

@TP2000 Lhas a very valid point. The 1937 version of Snow White IS that point in history where what we know could have easily diverged. Using the idea of only one plausible change outlined in most counter factual history: what if Snow White bombs in 1937? History as we know it will be different, likely radically so. Take the actress out of the equation prompting this idea: If Snow White bombs in 1937, we’re likely not conversing with each other right now.

For those interested in the topic this explains it at the high level: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_history?wprov=sfti1

Historians tend to not be fans of it, all the while missing the point IMO.
Click to expand...
I'm not someone who needs convincing of the original Snow White's significance. I adore the film, don't find it creepy or boring, and have (if I say so myself) a rather impressive collection of Snow White merchandise (some of it dating back to the 1930s) displayed in my apartment. I mention this only because too many in this thread (not you) have framed the issue as a sort of battle between those who understand and respect classic Disney and those who don't. It's only a conflict if you make it one. When you step back to look at the "controversy", you realise how low the stakes really are.
 
erasure fan1

erasure fan1

Well-Known Member
LittleBuford said:
This. Absolutely this. She is under no obligation to feel indebted to the 1937 film, and I'm still not sure why anyone would really care what her views on it are.
Click to expand...
Of course she has no obligation. Just go and read how Tony Gilroy talked about Star wars. He had no real connection to it and didn't really seem to care about it. What he did do is make the best of the Disney star wars movies by most peoples account. The difference is I don't recall him saying any of that before the movie came out. So by the time he started talking, the movie was already very successful with the audience. So while she has no real obligation to the film, the fans have no real obligation to her either.

If the movie is good and she does a great job, no one remembers but those who have an axe to grind with Disney. If the movie is terrible, she's the one who thought she new better than Walt. And yes, I know, it isn't really her decision how the story goes. I would doubt she had any real input into the characters arc. But she's the face of the film so fair or unfair, that's just how it goes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom