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

[JAN J]

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.

I laughed because I thought it was funny based on my opinions. It has nothing to do with my opinion of you (I don't have one and certainly not a negative one). I laughed at other posts and had people laugh at mine too (when I tried to be funny or when they disagreed with me). This is an online forum that will have no influence on real life and people you talk to here you will likely never meet in person (and if you did cordiality would be a lot more prevalent in real life).
I will change as I have no intention of upsetting you. My only point was to show I disagreed with some statements.

 

[DKampy]

I laughed because I thought it was funny based on my opinions. It has nothing to do with my opinion of you (I don't have one and certainly not a negative one). I laughed at other posts and had people laugh at mine too (when I tried to be funny or when they disagreed with me). This is an online forum that will have no influence on real life and people you talk to here you will likely never meet in person (and if you did cordiality would be a lot more prevalent in real life)

Just wow…. Imagine talking to someone in real life…. Giving a review…. That person said nothing in response only laughed in your face and walked away…cannot get much ruder then that

 

[LittleBuford]

I laughed because I thought it was funny based on my opinions. It has nothing to do with my opinion of you (I don't have one and certainly not a negative one). I laughed at other posts and had people laugh at mine too (when I tried to be funny or when they disagreed with me). This is an online forum that will have no influence on real life and people you talk to here you will likely never meet in person (and if you did cordiality would be a lot more prevalent in real life).
I will change as I have no intention of upsetting you. My only point was to show I disagreed with some statements.

I absolutely don't mind being disagreed with, but I don't think laughter is the appropriate way of signalling such a sentiment. At any rate, I'm grateful for your understanding response.

 

[DKampy]

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.

Being that most of us on these forums are adults who are Disney fans…. I am sure this is not unusual…. My wife did not get it at first when we were dating…. But once we went on our first WDW trip together… she began appreciating Disney as well

 

[Giss Neric]

Rachel Zegler should be given an honorary Disney Legend award for making Disney postpone making future live actions.

 

[WorldExplorer]

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.

Based on how the finished product contradicts what she said and there were confirmed reshoots, he probably got more scenes after her completely unnecessary comment about him potentially getting all his scenes cut. Including the kissing scene she clearly doesn't like.

Aside from the whole "potentially historic levels of bomb" thing, that's my favorite part of this whole saga. It just warms your heart, doesn't it?

 

[LittleBuford]

Including the kissing scene she clearly doesn't like.

It’s not clear to me she doesn’t like it.

The scene is foreshadowed in the love song they sing together:

And maybe I'm dreaming​

Well, I'd like to stay just like this​

But if there's a world where you wake me​

Promise to wake me with a kiss​

 

[Phroobar]

Rachel Zegler should be given an honorary Disney Legend award for making Disney postpone making future live actions.

More likely be sued for breach of contract.

 

[LittleBuford]

That's what 3 years of reshoots are for. They had to sprinkle in some stuff that was actually in the original.

It’s not “sprinkled in”, though. The very premise of the film is that she believes her father to be alive and wants him back on the throne. It’s only towards the end that she learns of his death and steps into his shoes. It is a far less “feminist” film than Frozen or even the Aladdin remake.

 

[DKampy]

More likely be sued for breach of contract.

Have you read the contract?

 

[Disstevefan1]

No one knows how much Disney spent on Snow or how much of the movie is re shoots or how much the reshoots cost or how much they spent on marketing; I am still seeing commercials on cable and streaming.

No one will know how much money Disney actually lost on Snow. Any number I come up with would be a guess. I can only guess its A LOT!

 

[JAN J]

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.

The difference is that the opinion of your family, friends, acquaintances or even critics has no bearing on the film, they are just opinions.

Her voicing her disdain for the original many times came with "so we're not gonna do that".
It is therefore taking a "live action adaptation" that the vast majority of people love (sure, some don't, but I digress), and therefore have positive expectations and feelings towards, and completely ruins the "adapatation" aspect of it to pander for a small minority that is always angry.

 

[LittleBuford]

The difference is that the opinion of your family, friends, acquaintances or even critics has no bearing on the film, they are just opinions.

Her voicing her disdain for the original many times came with "so we're not gonna do that".
It is therefore taking a "live action adaptation" that the vast majority of people love (sure, some don't, but I digress), and therefore have positive expectations and feelings towards, and completely ruins the "adapatation" aspect of it to pander for a small minority that is always angry.

The leads of both the Cinderella and Beauty and the Beast remakes likewise (albeit much less clumsily) indicated that their renditions of the characters would be updated in keeping with modern sensibilities. No-one flipped out.

Those of us able to keep things in perspective didn’t take Zegler to be saying that Snow White or the overall film would be transformed beyond recognition; we were expecting a portrayal of the heroine and her story that accorded in tone with what Disney has been releasing since at least Frozen. Indeed, we ended up with something rather more traditional even than that.

To judge by the posts here, the constant anger is coming from those railing against the film, not the people it’s supposedly pandering to.

 

[JAN J]

No one knows how much Disney spent on Snow or how much of the movie is re shoots or how much the reshoots cost or how much they spent on marketing; I am still seeing commercials on cable and streaming.

No one will know how much money Disney actually lost on Snow. Any number I come up with would be a guess. I can only guess its A LOT!

You can ball park estimate by taking the film's budget, adding another 50% for marketing, and then take the box office and divide it by two.

So based on available data and some estimates:
Budget: $250m (read between $240m-$270m)
Marketing: $125m (budget/2)
Total cost: $375m

Box office: $200m (est.)
Revenue: $100m (BO/2)

Total loss: $275m

There may be some incentive that we don't know about that could lower the budget and the box office breakdown changes depending on the week but that's a ballpark.

Which shows that they would have been better off if it wasn't even made in the first place....

 

[JAN J]

The leads of both the Cinderella and Beauty and the Beast remakes likewise (albeit much less clumsily) indicated that their renditions of the characters would be updated in keeping with modern sensibilities. No-one flipped out.

Those of us able to keep things in perspective didn’t take Zegler to be saying that Snow White or the overall film would be transformed beyond recognition; we were expecting a portrayal of the heroine and her story that accorded in tone with what Disney has been releasing since at least Frozen. Indeed, we ended up with something rather more traditional even than that.

To judge by the posts here, the constant anger is coming from those railing against the film, not the people it’s supposedly pandering to.

The other lead actress that got to play the princesses always voiced how excited they were and how much they loved the original and how they studied it to create their performance. You can pretend all you want that Rachel's attitude and behavior were extremely normal and on par with everyone else, with maybe a little more excitement that got out of hand. But that's only true on your own private bubble. The facts (and footage) don't leave a lot of room for interpretation.

No one expects these films to be a frame for frame reshoot of the originals.
Even they had behaviors and attitudes that were more in tandem with the time that they were made (specific decades in the 90s) than the time frames the stories take place in (in some cases several centuries ago).
It is also why the newer Disney princesses tend to be more vocal, independent and hands-on than their pre-renaissance counterparts.

But adjusting their reactions to their environments (a.k.a. modernizing them) is one thing. It's something else entirely when you take the characters and the names (because it's easier to publicize) and then make up a story and change everything about the characters (even the good things) because you think the source material is "bad and outdated".

Finally, other than us Disney fans that go to forums and talks, to vast majority of the population is not angry, they simply voted with their wallets and chose not to watch it (judging by the box office).
It also forced Disney to pull the plug on at least one live action remake (Tangled). Maybe they are finally seeing that losing money is not a good business model.

 

[LittleBuford]

The other lead actress that got to play the princesses always voiced how excited they were and how much they loved the original and how they studied it to create their performance. You can pretend all you want that Rachel's attitude and behavior were extremely normal and on par with everyone else, with maybe a little more excitement that got out of hand. But that's only true on your own private bubble. The facts (and footage) don't leave a lot of room for interpretation.

No one expects these films to be a frame for frame reshoot of the originals.
Even they had behaviors and attitudes that were more in tandem with the time that they were made (specific decades in the 90s) than the time frames the stories take place in (in some cases several centuries ago).
It is also why the newer Disney princesses tend to be more vocal, independent and hands-on than their pre-renaissance counterparts.

But adjusting their reactions to their environments (a.k.a. modernizing them) is one thing. It's something else entirely when you take the characters and the names (because it's easier to publicize) and then make up a story and change everything about the characters (even the good things) because you think the source material is "bad and outdated".

Finally, other than us Disney fans that go to forums and talks, to vast majority of the population is not angry, they simply voted with their wallets and chose not to watch it (judging by the box office).
It also forced Disney to pull the plug on at least one live action remake (Tangled). Maybe they are finally seeing that losing money is not a good business model.

I don’t have a “private bubble” other than my own mind. I don’t discuss Disney films with anyone except you guys.

I am a huge fan of the original film. My Disney collection includes Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs objects dating back to the thirties. Try as I might, I really can’t bring myself to care what Zegler has to say about the character she was employed to play. Indeed, this indifference extends to pretty much all actors; I care about their performances, not their personal opinions on entirely innocuous matters. Before all this discussion about Zegler, I would have said my attitude was pretty universal—I honestly cannot remember any other actor’s (apolitical) comments ever generating such anger. The reaction has been surreal and shocking to watch unfold.

 

[Chi84]

The other lead actress that got to play the princesses always voiced how excited they were and how much they loved the original and how they studied it to create their performance. You can pretend all you want that Rachel's attitude and behavior were extremely normal and on par with everyone else, with maybe a little more excitement that got out of hand. But that's only true on your own private bubble. The facts (and footage) don't leave a lot of room for interpretation.

No one expects these films to be a frame for frame reshoot of the originals.
Even they had behaviors and attitudes that were more in tandem with the time that they were made (specific decades in the 90s) than the time frames the stories take place in (in some cases several centuries ago).
It is also why the newer Disney princesses tend to be more vocal, independent and hands-on than their pre-renaissance counterparts.

But adjusting their reactions to their environments (a.k.a. modernizing them) is one thing. It's something else entirely when you take the characters and the names (because it's easier to publicize) and then make up a story and change everything about the characters (even the good things) because you think the source material is "bad and outdated".

Finally, other than us Disney fans that go to forums and talks, to vast majority of the population is not angry, they simply voted with their wallets and chose not to watch it (judging by the box office).
It also forced Disney to pull the plug on at least one live action remake (Tangled). Maybe they are finally seeing that losing money is not a good business model.

No one wanted to see Snow White. Didn’t matter which version or what anyone said.

Most Disney IP is generations old and likely dying off. There may still be some hits that modernize with music (Moana, Encanto) but I doubt there’s much appetite for the really old stuff.

 

[Alice a]

No one wanted to see Snow White. Didn’t matter which version or what anyone said.

Most Disney IP is generations old and likely dying off. There may still be some hits that modernize with music (Moana, Encanto) but I doubt there’s much appetite for the really old stuff.

When I was a child in the 80s, I found the classics (Snow White, Cinderella, Pinocchio, Sleeping Beauty, Fantasia, etc.) incredibly boring. I still do. Pretty, but meh.

I much preferred The Rats of NIMH, An American Tale, The Rescuers, Robin Hood, Sword in the Stone, etc. and loved Danny Kaye movies like Hans Christian Andersen and Connecticut Yankee.

I can see all of the above not connecting with modern kids, and I’m cool with that.

Adding extra plot to the overarching story can work well to flesh out a classic.

For instance, I think Ever After is a far better Cinderella remake than the Disney live action Cinderella that came a few decades later, even if Drew Barrymore’s accent makes me cringe a bit.

 

[JAN J]

When I was a child in the 80s, I found the classics (Snow White, Cinderella, Pinocchio, Sleeping Beauty, Fantasia, etc.) incredibly boring. I still do. Pretty, but meh.

I much preferred The Rats of NIMH, An American Tale, The Rescuers, Robin Hood, Sword in the Stone, etc. and loved Danny Kaye movies like Hans Christian Andersen and Connecticut Yankee.

I can see all of the above not connecting with modern kids, and I’m cool with that.

Adding extra plot to the overarching story can work well to flesh out a classic.

For instance, I think Ever After is a far better Cinderella remake than the Disney live action Cinderella that came a few decades later, even if Drew Barrymore’s accent makes me cringe a bit.

I found Bambi pretty boring (still do). Liked the classics as a kid and as an adult I find them very endearing (let's call it Nostalgia). In contrast, my kids don't like watching any of the 2d films (The Princess and the Frog being the one big exception), which is a pity cause I really like Hercules and Mulan and they never want to watch them with me .

With that being said, I agree that some extra plot can elevate a classic and bring out some new and renewed interest.

Side note: Other than Disney I am huge fan of games as well (video games mostly but also board games, puzzles...).

I can tell you that when they remake an old game (which has been a thing lately), the best results come when they take the original, re-do all the core locations, artifacts and events, but then expand and update some aspects to make them more challenging, engaging and interesting (the 2002 remake of Resident Evil is imo the gold standard). Playing a remake version that basically has improved graphics and less bugs/glitches may be enjoyable for nostalgia, but I'm never paying full price for that.
But if you use the name and change the characters, plots etc in a way that makes super different from the source material... It will flop, to no one's surprise.

 

[mickEblu]

I found Bambi pretty boring (still do). Liked the classics as a kid and as an adult I find them very endearing (let's call it Nostalgia). In contrast, my kids don't like watching any of the 2d films (The Princess and the Frog being the one big exception), which is a pity cause I really like Hercules and Mulan and they never want to watch them with me .

With that being said, I agree that some extra plot can elevate a classic and bring out some new and renewed interest.

Side note: Other than Disney I am huge fan of games as well (video games mostly but also board games, puzzles...).

I can tell you that when they remake an old game (which has been a thing lately), the best results come when they take the original, re-do all the core locations, artifacts and events, but then expand and update some aspects to make them more challenging, engaging and interesting (the 2002 remake of Resident Evil is imo the gold standard). Playing a remake version that basically has improved graphics and less bugs/glitches may be enjoyable for nostalgia, but I'm never paying full price for that.
But if you use the name and change the characters, plots etc in a way that makes super different from the source material... It will flop, to no one's surprise.

I grew up in the 80s and 90s and loved almost all the classics. So this is always an interesting topic for me as I was enjoying them 40-50 years after they were released. With that said, I’d say the 40s / 50s were much more similar to the 80s than the 80s are to the 2020’s. Especially in terms of content and the sheer abundance available to kids now.

I did find Bambi and Fantasia boring but even as a kid I was already a completionist so I watched them anyway and appreciated them for what they were and for the music. Always loved the “April Showers” song too. It’s very charming/ classic/ nostalgic for me for some reason. Just really encapsulates the classic Disney charm of that era. Another reason it remains special is that you never hear it playing anywhere unless you re watching the movie. It’s not on Disneys playlist and they haven’t burned us out on it. With that said I’d like to hear a snippet of it played on Storybookland canal boats or in the queue.