I wouldn't say very little. The fact that the movie was delayed what, a year? That's fairly strong evidence they did something. Movies very rarely get delayed that long and nothing was changed. As for the why, you're right, we don't know why. All we have is assumptions.
Just Snow White.
It’s a very current word in my circles and never used pejoratively.
The same reason I post about EPCOT Center even though it's a shell of itself circa-1991. I have nostalgia and respect for what I once loved, even if the people who control it today have no nostalgia and respect for it.
If they're not going in anyway for realism, why not embrace the fun stuff you can do with animation?A broad audience showed up for Barbie….it would not of become a billion dollar film without it
A comment on Bluesky that's stuck with me called it cheap, and I think that's valid no matter what the budget actually is on this. It seems incredibly cramped too, in a way even previous remakes didn't.
I didn't get to see it, but assumed that any face actor's performance would have been used as a model for the facial expressions of the CGI characters. So agree it explains why the comments were made.
Probably nothing. If you hate remakes, it doesn't matter if it's CG or actors. The people who don't mind the live action remakes I'd think would want, I don't know, live action? I won't see this in a theater but if I had to go, I'd rather it be live action not CG.
They’re probably aiming it more toward the people who are open to seeing it in a theater.
I would think then they'd go the live action route, no? The cartoon looking dwarfs (and animals) make it seem they're trying to aim squarely at the younger kids in my opinion.
It seems they are going the live-action route. But they don’t want to stray so far from the original dwarfs that the story becomes unrecognizable. So a blend makes sense.
