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

[Farerb]

I don't care about her views on the original film or her political opinions. I also don't condone people making fun of her appearance. But there's legitimate criticism to be made about her behavior that is just lumped together with everything else. Jonah Platt shouldn't have made that public post of his, but he was absolutely correct. If I had to market my company's products and I had attached controversial statements just because I feel like it, I would have been fired. That would have happened to everyone. Rachel isn't a child and adults are expected to behave professionally and respectfully when they are doing their job, especially towards their colleagues.

 

[Farerb]

The box office has spoken. People aren't going to see her movies. Everyone (West Side Story, Shazam 2, Y2K, Snow White) has bombed. Except for her Hunger Games prequel, which may have made a very small profit.

It made approximately half of what Jennifer Lawrence's last Hunger Games movie did.

 

[Disstevefan1]

In my opinion, with the rise of relatively short waits for movies being available at home to stream, plus the super clear and relatively cheap big screens we can have at home, plus the sharp rise in theater tickets, this has created the "perfect storm" for movie theaters.

At least for my family we have to be really interested in a movie to go to the theater.

During Christmas time last year, my kid really wanted to go see Sonic and Mufasa so it became an event for us; we went to the 4D theater with the moving seats, spent an insane amount of money for all the movie related cr@p etc. It was fun, but it was an event for us.

I think the walk up movie viewings of the past for us is gone forever.

 

[LittleBuford]

Who are the alphas? Can’t be the grown men throwing toddler-like tantrums because a young woman said something that hurt their feelings and made them sad.

I don’t much like the alpha/beta framing, but it does seem to me that many adults in this forum behave in ways that they wouldn’t or couldn’t in their real lives.

 

[Farerb]

I don’t much like the alpha/beta framing, but it does seem to me that many adults in this forum behave in ways that they wouldn’t or couldn’t in their real lives.

Some people here claim to be in their '60s-'70s but for some reason they write (their speech) is more similar to what I expect from usual Gen Z people on Twitter, so I pretty much have suspicion that not everyone here are honest about their age.

 

[LittleBuford]

Some people here claim to be in their '60s-'70s but for some reason they write (their speech) is more similar to what I expect from usual Gen Z people on Twitter, so I pretty much have suspicion that not everyone here are honest about their age.

I’m not so sure. In any case, I wish everyone here would behave as if their posts were visible to their family members and friends. That would do much to curtail the trolling and name-calling.

 

[Chi84]

DH and I are nearing 70 and it's our experience that men and women who love each other protect each other using their own unique abilities. And this is done with respect, not because the other gender is weak but because that person is important to us.

DH and other men his age tend to be very protective of their daughters, which is why the live action Little Mermaid felt so true to me. The relationship between father and daughter was beautifully portrayed.

This stuff about Zegler is internet driven. Real adults, men and women, are not obsessed with beating up on young women for their mistakes. It doesn't happen in real life.

This nonsense didn't start with Zegler. The same thing happened with Halle Bailey, including people posting pictures of her wearing a revealing swimsuit, which (you know) young women sometimes do.

 

[Chi84]

What ever happened to the old saying "consider the source?" It seems to have gone out the window with the internet. Now all opinions, regardless of how unfounded or ill-informed, are treated equally.

The attacks on this actor came well before she made any statements at all. Then everything she said was used to ramp up the attacks. I posted an article earlier about the internet outrage against young women of talent and I see this with more than Zegler.

A 23-year-old actor expressed a political opinion. My first thought was that she probably didn't have the knowledge to back it up (although that could be wrong, it's my experience that young people often speak from feelings rather than knowledge when it comes to politics).

Save the outrage for the politicians and others who have power over these situations; if you're hurt to the point of outrage by the words of someone who has no connection to you and no power to do anything whatsoever, maybe examine why. That's my entire point. Not what she said, but why the broad-based attack on everything she is and says exists in the first place.

 

[Tha Realest]

“these statements aren’t a big deal - move on!” when, obviously, Disney appreciated it *at the time* they were causing problems (dispatching a producer to talk her into taking the “free Palestine” post down), and hiring a social media screener for her afterwards), and drastically shaking up the standard marketing/PR rollout. And, in the days since the film’s release, stories in mainline trade publications about how her conduct affected the film’s release and marketing.

It seems one of the largest, most powerful multinational media companies cared very much about the personal opinions of a 23-year-old actress.

 

[DKampy]

How is any of this pertinent to Snow White spoiler discussions?

 

[mickEblu]

How is any of this pertinent to Snow White spoiler discussions?

Nobody has spoilers because nobody has seen it. So we’re talking about these things instead.

 

[Ayla]

How is any of this pertinent to Snow White spoiler discussions?

My post asking the same was deleted.

 

[MoonRakerSCM]

Nostalgia Critic has a great take on the film. He also has a follow up vid talking about how Disney has a emotional storytelling problem.

 

[MoonRakerSCM]

The followup video more broad about emotional storytelling. I think he's spot on with snow white and wizard of oz... and I get what he's saying about Where the wild things are though i think there are much better examples-

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

Oh yeah, I figured that's what you meant. I'm just curious if a general majority check that (like, do they check the Rotten Tomato scores to determine their expectations), or if it's just not really a factor.

And unless the previews capture things very differently from the actual movie, it's just not really different for me. The ones that I seem to enjoy are the ones that go from a different perspective (ala Wicked or Maleficent). Even retold, I'm just bored of similar stories. And I know it's been discussed elsewhere, but I just don't give the benefit of the doubt on films (especially when I am going to be shelling out a good deal of money for them nowadays). Lastly, I'm really over the remakes, so I just refuse to go to them at this point. Lilo and Stich has everyone (including my kids) SUPER excited, but I will absolutely not go see it out of principle. One ticket I'm sure makes no difference, but I'm standing by it.

Well said.

For me, with all remakes (not just Disney), I ask the question why?
Why should this story be retold/revised?

If, for example, the original story was told in ancient Greek, then retelling the story in a modern setting/context can shed light on how the characters still hold meaning in today's world. That's valuable.

Once in a while, it is fun to reimagine a story from an alternate point of view, which often changes a static character into a dynamic character, and that generally = a new story, IMO. A new story via an older framework has value, if not overused.

I'm less enthusiastic when a classic movie is still exceptional. IMO, the 1966 version of the Grinch is superb. It employs tiny bits of classic offstage storytelling. The original is so good that retellings are almost certainly doomed to inferiority.

So WHY? WHY did Disney retell this story?

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.

We're like the dog in Up. "SQUIRREL!" Allowing ourselves to be perpetually distracted by the latest manufactured outrage means we aren't paying attention to the real problems in our society. alas, we have collectively become as shallow as Mildred Montag in Fahrenheit 451.

Mind the 1937 Snow White has room to be revised/retold/expanded, but what makes me a little sad is that Disney missed out on retelling a great story. The story they missed was reminding the world of the great historical significance of the original movie. The original movie played a real role in restoring hope and ending the Great Depression.

So again, I come back to WHY? Why did Disney favor cheap manipulation over restoring hope?

 

[Tha Realest]

Well said.

For me, with all remakes (not just Disney), I ask the question why?
Why should this story be retold/revised?

If, for example, the original story was told in ancient Greek, then retelling the story in a modern setting/context can shed light on how the characters still hold meaning in today's world. That's valuable.

Once in a while, it is fun to reimagine a story from an alternate point of view, which often changes a static character into a dynamic character, and that generally = a new story, IMO. A new story via an older framework has value, if not overused.

I'm less enthusiastic when a classic movie is still exceptional. IMO, the 1966 version of the Grinch is superb. It employs tiny bits of classic offstage storytelling. The original is so good that retellings are almost certainly doomed to inferiority.

So WHY? WHY did Disney retell this story?

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.

We're like the dog in Up. "SQUIRREL!" Allowing ourselves to be perpetually distracted by the latest manufactured outrage means we aren't paying attention to the real problems in our society. alas, we have collectively become as shallow as Mildred Montag in Fahrenheit 451.

Mind the 1937 Snow White has room to be revised/retold/expanded, but what makes me a little sad is that Disney missed out on retelling a great story. The story they missed was reminding the world of the great historical significance of the original movie. The original movie played a real role in restoring hope and ending the Great Depression.

So again, I come back to WHY? Why did Disney favor cheap manipulation over restoring hope?

The irony is that the Snow White story is in the public domain: you, me, or any other studio can make their own version and take on it. What is *not* in the public domain are certain intrinsic artistic choices deployed in the animated film; Disney and Disney alone (for now) can use them. Which makes their revulsion to certain iconic songs and components of their work a little baffling.

 

[Ayla]

Well said.

For me, with all remakes (not just Disney), I ask the question why?
Why should this story be retold/revised?

If, for example, the original story was told in ancient Greek, then retelling the story in a modern setting/context can shed light on how the characters still hold meaning in today's world. That's valuable.

Once in a while, it is fun to reimagine a story from an alternate point of view, which often changes a static character into a dynamic character, and that generally = a new story, IMO. A new story via an older framework has value, if not overused.

I'm less enthusiastic when a classic movie is still exceptional. IMO, the 1966 version of the Grinch is superb. It employs tiny bits of classic offstage storytelling. The original is so good that retellings are almost certainly doomed to inferiority.

So WHY? WHY did Disney retell this story?

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.

We're like the dog in Up. "SQUIRREL!" Allowing ourselves to be perpetually distracted by the latest manufactured outrage means we aren't paying attention to the real problems in our society. alas, we have collectively become as shallow as Mildred Montag in Fahrenheit 451.

Mind the 1937 Snow White has room to be revised/retold/expanded, but what makes me a little sad is that Disney missed out on retelling a great story. The story they missed was reminding the world of the great historical significance of the original movie. The original movie played a real role in restoring hope and ending the Great Depression.

So again, I come back to WHY? Why did Disney favor cheap manipulation over restoring hope?

WWII ended the Depression, not a Disney movie.

 

[Agent H]

Well said.

For me, with all remakes (not just Disney), I ask the question why?
Why should this story be retold/revised?

If, for example, the original story was told in ancient Greek, then retelling the story in a modern setting/context can shed light on how the characters still hold meaning in today's world. That's valuable.

Once in a while, it is fun to reimagine a story from an alternate point of view, which often changes a static character into a dynamic character, and that generally = a new story, IMO. A new story via an older framework has value, if not overused.

I'm less enthusiastic when a classic movie is still exceptional. IMO, the 1966 version of the Grinch is superb. It employs tiny bits of classic offstage storytelling. The original is so good that retellings are almost certainly doomed to inferiority.

So WHY? WHY did Disney retell this story?

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.

We're like the dog in Up. "SQUIRREL!" Allowing ourselves to be perpetually distracted by the latest manufactured outrage means we aren't paying attention to the real problems in our society. alas, we have collectively become as shallow as Mildred Montag in Fahrenheit 451.

Mind the 1937 Snow White has room to be revised/retold/expanded, but what makes me a little sad is that Disney missed out on retelling a great story. The story they missed was reminding the world of the great historical significance of the original movie. The original movie played a real role in restoring hope and ending the Great Depression.

So again, I come back to WHY? Why did Disney favor cheap manipulation over restoring hope?

Are you suggesting the Walt Disney company (not Walt Disney World) intentionally manufactured the zelgar controversy to market the movie?

 

[Agent H]

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 don’t think you know what Mary sue means.

 

[Chi84]

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."

Prince Charming is back!