• The new WDWMAGIC iOS app is here!
    Stay up to date with the latest Disney news, photos, and discussions right from your iPhone. The app is free to download and gives you quick access to news articles, forums, photo galleries, park hours, weather and Lightning Lane pricing. Learn More
  • Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.

SPOILERS: Snow White live action (March 21, 2025 release)

Disney Irish

Premium Member
Exactly! There's only 1 reason why they didn't go with their own version of the story.

They wanted to make a Modernized (aka Mary Sue) version of the movie. Where the female lead struggles early on, but very quickly becomes powerful. And is nearly unstoppable by the end of the movie, sometimes seemingly able to do anything. Like they've done with Star Wars and Marvel. They wanted to create a female character who doesn't need a man, not even a Dwarf man. The only reason to have one, is to be able own them and tell them what to do.

The Men and Dwarfs can no longer kill the big baddies. America Chavez fights Wanda, Ariel kills Ursula, Snow White kills the Queen. Rey Skywalker has seemingly every power, even ones made up on the spot like healing. She's like Luke Skywalker on fast forward. "You're an apprentice... (2 minutes later)... Now you're a Master."
I'm sorry but what on earth are you even talking about? This seemly doesn't have anything to do with this movie, as none of that is even part of this movie. For example Snow White doesn't kill the Evil Queen, no one does actually.
 

MickeyLuv'r

Well-Known Member
WWII ended the Depression, not a Disney movie.
Huh?

I didn't claim SW ended the Depression. I said it played a role in 'restoring hope and ending the GD.' (Just as FDR's "We have nothing to fear," speech helped to restore some hope, but didn't end it.)

Let me put it in a more personal context, Snow White was the reason my grandparents started liking Disney. The movie's songs were wildly popular. People just spontaneously enjoyed singing the songs together.

My grandparents were also impressed with the efforts Disney made to employ people to work on the film. Maybe that was part Hollywood spin, but they and their friends all felt inspired.

My grandfather owned a small business, and even though his business couldn't really afford it, he took on as many employees as possible during the Depression, just to give his friends some income. Meanwhile, my grandmother kept her job as a hairdresser, serving some customers for free, because she knew a haircut helped them feel better about themselves; maybe helped them to feel that they had value.
I should add, fifty years later, her clients were still wildly loyal to her. When her clients could no longer travel to the salon, she served them in their homes and even styled their hair for their wakes! They became her friends, and I recall several of them saying they would not let anyone else ever style their hair.

I had to do a research project on the GD/family impact, so I interviewed several of them. Decades later, many still struggled to talk about that time period, and could only describe it using expressions like, the "dark days."

My grandparents belonged to a generation that wasn't comfortable discussing personal tragedies, so that project was one of the few times they discussed it with me, but as they told it, the original Snow White was one of the few fond memories they had of that time period.
 

MickeyLuv'r

Well-Known Member
Are you suggesting the Walt Disney company (not Walt Disney World) intentionally manufactured the zelgar controversy’s to market the movie?
I wouldn't go quite that far, but Disney chose her for the role, and I can't imagine they didn't know how she felt about the character. They must've had some inking that she didn't like the original movie.

So let's turn the question around, are there times when Disney has courted social controversy to generate buzz?

Even if they haven't, the controversy has been the main discussion occurring here, and a good number of other Disney movie threads. (Which, I nearly 99% avoid, so it has not been my discussion.) I am sorry for contributing to it. I just feel like the original was something special and unique.

It is sad to see it not being held up as something special. A product of the time it was made, but still special. If Disney was going to make a new version, then the new version should remind us why we celebrated the original.
 
Last edited:

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
Generally, I could care less who plays most Disney princesses, but in this case, WDW so obviously and intentionally sought social controversy because divisive = free publicity. In 2025 though, using division for free publicity is a very stale formula. We're all suffering the consequences of this constant divisive manipulation.
Are you saying that Disney knew back when they cast Zegler that she would be a divisive figure? Could you clarify what you mean?

ETA: I see that @Agent H beat me to it.
 
Last edited:

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
They wanted to make a Modernized (aka Mary Sue) version of the movie. Where the female lead struggles early on, but very quickly becomes powerful. And is nearly unstoppable by the end of the movie, sometimes seemingly able to do anything. Like they've done with Star Wars and Marvel. They wanted to create a female character who doesn't need a man, not even a Dwarf man. The only reason to have one, is to be able own them and tell them what to do.
If you’d seen the movie, you’d know this doesn’t actually apply to Snow White. But facts often take a backseat to angry disinformation in this forum.
 

Agent H

Well-Known Member
I wouldn't go quite that far, but Disney chose her for the role, and I can't imagine they didn't know how she felt about the character. They must've had some inking that she didn't like the original movie.

So let's turn the question around, are there times when Disney has courted social controversy to generate buzz?

Even if they haven't, the controversy has been the main discussion occurring here, and a good number of other Disney movie threads. (Which, I nearly 99% avoid, so it has not been my discussion.) I am sorry for contributing to it. I just feel like the original was something special and unique.

It is sad to see it not being held up as something special. A product of the time it was made, but still special. If Disney was going to make a new version, then the new version should remind us why we celebrated the original.
to answer your question about Disney courting social controversy As far I know no. I believe Disney as a whole still respects the film. I bet plenty of actors who work for Disney don’t like Walt Disney animation movies.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
I posted something spoiler-free over in the box-office thread. Forgive me for being lazy, but this will be an expanded adaptation of that post.

Overall, I enjoyed it. Zegler is very good and Gadot, despite the criticisms that have been voiced of her acting, does a fine job overall—her character is meant to be stiff and haughty anyway. I thought the original songs were excellent, especially Waiting on a Wish, which, had the film not bombed, may well have joined the roster of Disney firework anthems.

The film is at its strongest when it does its own thing: the deviations from and elaborations of the original plot make a virtue of the remake’s existence (though I say this as someone who tends to dislike beat-by-beat remakes—what’s the point?). I especially liked the relationship between Snow White and Jonathan, but I’m a sucker for romance.

There is a certain tension between the film’s more original aspects and those that hew closer to the source material, I suspect because of all the revisions that the project went through. This is at its most apparent in relation to the dwarfs and the bandits. The latter were first made known to us through those infamous production photos. Based on what I can cobble together from the information we have at our disposal, these bandits were originally meant to be a parallel group to (and not a replacement for) Snow White’s companions, who were conceived of as magical beings of some sort. It’s possible that these magical beings were always going to be dwarfs, but I’m inclined to agree with the view that Disney changed them to bring them closer to their cartoon counterparts in the wake of all the criticism levelled at the leaked production stills. Regardless of how this state of affairs came about, what we have been left with is a group of bandits who have evidently been stripped of all their lines and character—it’s clear that they at one time had much more to say and do—and a CGI rehashing of the dwarfs, whose very traditional feel is somewhat at odds with the more novel elements of the film. I suspect the two groups as originally conceived—Jonathan’s bandits and Snow White’s magical companions—would have been more interesting and fleshed out than what we’ve ended up with.

On the issue of CGI, it doesn’t look as bad as I’d feared. The animals are actually very cute, and a few of the dwarfs, especially Doc, are passable. Dopey, however, takes us deep into Uncanny Valley territory! Whereas the original film portrays the dwarfs as little men (men who might be interpreted as human), this version presents them as magical nonhuman beings, which I think rather justifies the decision not to cast actors with dwarfism in these roles. Perhaps some of the criticism they’ve received could have been avoided if they’d been designed to look less human.

The messaging of the film is really very traditional: tyranny is bad, and benevolent monarchy is good, a trope that has been repeated time and again in Disney films. We also have a proper baddie in the form of the Evil Queen and a classic love story between a pretty girl and a handsome young man (Jonathan made my heart flutter, too). Contrary to my expectations, female empowerment is not really present as a theme (Snow White’s gender is barely commented on).

It should be clear from what I’ve written that this film is the furthest thing from how some have characterised it in the forum. There is no propaganda, there is no communism. This is most definitely a family film in the classic mould—not necessarily the best thing in terms of quality, but “safe”, traditional entertainment that is very unlikely to raise any parental hackles. The only thing I found remotely questionable from a child-friendly perspective was the inclusion of the words “where the sun don’t shine” in one of the songs. But other than that, this is one of the most traditional films Disney has come out with in years, complete with love’s kiss waking up a dead princess! It’s ironic, then, that those most loudly denouncing it as woke propaganda are the very people who would most approve of it were they actually to see it.

I thought it was miles better than the Lion King remake and more enjoyable than Moana 2. Its dreadful box-office performance (I was the only person at the screening I attended) is not a fair indicator of its quality.
@JAN J, why the laughter reaction? What did you find so funny about my review?
 

JAN J

Active Member
Plus she didn’t say she didn’t like the original film (not that I’d care if she had said it).

  • She said she watched it once and was scared of it.
  • She Said it was dated in a condescending tone.
  • That she fell in love with a guy that literally stalked her (weird/weird)
  • Once she got the role she said she wasn't going to bleach her skin
  • She said all the of the prince's scenes could be cut (it's Hollywood baby)
She may not have said "I don't like the original" but she absolutely took her time to bash on it.
 

JAN J

Active Member
@JAN J, why the laughter reaction? What did you find so funny about my review?
A few things but mostly how:
  • CGI was not bad (it is)
  • No progaganda (from the Communist utopia to the evil on the southern border... I don't know how you missed that)
  • That somehow the bandits were always bandits and just had their roles diminshed (Disney said they were "stand-ins" for the dwarfs - after saying they had nothing to do with them).
  • Some other stuff like how Waiting on a wish is fireworks material.
Don't take it personal, we can have different opinions. But with how I felt about it, I laughed.
 

Agent H

Well-Known Member
  • She said she watched it once and was scared of it.
  • She Said it was dated in a condescending tone.
  • That she fell in love with a guy that literally stalked her (weird/weird)
  • Once she got the role she said she wasn't going to bleach her skin
  • She said all the of the prince's scenes could be cut (it's Hollywood baby)
She may not have said "I don't like the original" but she absolutely took her time to bash on it.
1. So? I would argue that’s a testament to how well the film still works on a fundamental level. That’s not an insult. 2. I don’t agree with that. 3. Stalking is more extreme than I would put it. 4. Why on earth would anyone expect that? 5. I agree it could have been worded better but she was probably trying to drive home the point that the love story from the original would be improved. Which even as someone who’s been defending the original previously I find it hard to argue that it couldn’t be improved in a remake.
 
Last edited:

MickeyLuv'r

Well-Known Member
Are you saying that Disney knew back when they cast Zegler that she would be a divisive figure? Could you clarify what you mean?

ETA: I see that @Agent H beat me to it.
Reverse your question: do you think Disney has no contractual control over what their actors say about the Disney products they are promoting?



I just watched a great Paul Rudd interview from a few weeks ago, and he jokes that he's not allowed to say ANYTHING about the upcoming Marvel movie. ("You can't be frivolous with this kind of stuff. It's nothing like, you know, military secrets or anything. This is a major motion picture.")


Zegler aside, we all knew remaking a movie that originally had 7 dwarves would be controversial in 2025, because the original movie has long been criticized. No matter how Disney chose to depict, change, or remove them from the story.

and that is far from the only controversy lobbed against the original movie, dating back decades.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
Reverse your question: do you think Disney has no contractual control over what their actors say about the Disney products they are promoting?



I just watched a great Paul Rudd interview from a few weeks ago, and he jokes that he's not allowed to say ANYTHING about the upcoming Marvel movie. ("You can't be frivolous with this kind of stuff. It's nothing like, you know, military secrets or anything. This is a major motion picture.")


Zegler aside, we all knew remaking a movie that originally had 7 dwarves would be controversial in 2025, because the original movie has long been criticized. No matter how Disney chose to depict, change, or remove them from the story.

and that is far from the only controversy lobbed against the original movie, dating back decades.
Rudd is under a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) from Marvel that prevents him from talking about plot points of a movie. Even then actors let slip plot points all the time while still under an NDA, see all the times Tom Holland let things slip. So its not like they are going to get sued for it or fired for it.

Zegler, it depending on which comments you're talking about. Some of the comments was under the direction of Disney for talking points about the movie as part of her contractual obligation for the promotion of the movie. Other comments was her acting as a private citizen posting on her own personal social media account separate from Disney, which she is entitled to do and which Disney can talk to her about if it is in relation to their product and apparently did.

So you're conflating a couple different things here.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
A few things but mostly how:
  • CGI was not bad (it is)
  • No progaganda (from the Communist utopia to the evil on the southern border... I don't know how you missed that)
  • That somehow the bandits were always bandits and just had their roles diminshed (Disney said they were "stand-ins" for the dwarfs - after saying they had nothing to do with them).
  • Some other stuff like how Waiting on a wish is fireworks material.
Don't take it personal, we can have different opinions. But with how I felt about it, I laughed.
Laughing in someone’s face in real life because you happen to disagree with their assessment of a film would be very rude. It’s also rude here, not to mention against the rules, as @The Mom has made clear on numerous occasions.

As I’ve said before, I wish everyone here would treat their fellow posters with the same courtesy they (presumably) show to people when they’re not hiding behind the cloak of online anonymity.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
  • She said she watched it once and was scared of it.
  • She Said it was dated in a condescending tone.
  • That she fell in love with a guy that literally stalked her (weird/weird)
  • Once she got the role she said she wasn't going to bleach her skin
  • She said all the of the prince's scenes could be cut (it's Hollywood baby)
She may not have said "I don't like the original" but she absolutely took her time to bash on it.
Perhaps I’m unusual among the posters here, but I happen to have many people in my life who aren’t Disney fans and don’t really like Disney movies. If I’m OK with my close friends not having positive things to say about films that I personally love, I’m certainly not going to care if an actor holds similarly ambivalent or negative views.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
Reverse your question: do you think Disney has no contractual control over what their actors say about the Disney products they are promoting?
Short of muzzling her, they couldn’t have controlled everything Zegler said. It’s been confirmed that the studio (thorough the producer Marc Platt) did try to get her to walk back some of her political statements, so it’s clear they had only limited control over her statements in the first place.

Disney doesn’t like controversy and generally seeks to avoid it, so I’m very sceptical of the claim that they hired Zegler knowing she would say things that would rub some people the wrong way.
 

Agent H

Well-Known Member
Perhaps I’m unusual among the posters here, but I happen to have many people in my life who aren’t Disney fans and don’t really like Disney movies. If I’m OK with my close friends not having positive things to say about films that I personally love, I’m certainly not going to care if an actor holds similarly ambivalent or negative views.
I don’t think it’s unusual. My entire family is mostly apathetic if not occasionally annoyed by my Disney hyperfixation. My coworkers even more so.
 

JAN J

Active Member
1. So? I would argue that’s a testament to how well the film still works on a fundamental level. That’s not an insult. 2. I don’t agree with that. 3. Stalking is more extreme than I would put it. 4. Why on earth would anyone expect that? 5. I agree it could have been worded better but she was probably trying to drive home the point that the love story from the original would be improved. Which even as someone who’s been defending the original previously I find it hard to argue that it couldn’t be improved in a remake.
1. If that does not say "I did not like it" (at least as a child) I don't know what does
2. You have the right to be wrong
3. That one we might agree but I clearly disagree with her more. i don't think he stalked her, he was just smithen with her (and I guess at the tie is how they made the point, they did not have the same resources to use subtlety as we do today)
4. No one does, but it shows that from the beginning her reaction was "I will play snow white and I look nothing like her and I don;t care". It was clearly foreshadowing her reactions.
5. The best way to reword it was to not say it at all. Andrew got his role just like she did and I can't ever recall an actor saying that a colleague's scenes could get cut.

I will give it to her though, can't call her a liar or inconsistent. She shows disdain, dislike and despise for the film, the characters, the fanbase and her colleagues alike (and I haven't even mentioned Gal Gadot till now).
 

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

Back
Top Bottom