Disney's SNOW WHITE starring Rachel Zegler, Gal Gadot (2024) 3 3

[drotto]

On 7/25/2023 at 11:45 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

I saw that yesterday, and my first thought was: If you're going to change the whole story, why use the story's title and character...? It's ultimately not Snow White or her story...

At least not Disney's version.  Apparently, Disney had changed parts of the original story, most importantly she was not saved by a kiss.  In the original, the Prince apparently became obsessed with the girl in the glass coffin and made his servents carry the body around with him at all times.  At some point a servant opened the coffin and smacked Snow White on the back, because he was sick of toting around a dead girl, dislodged the apple she had choked on, and she came back to life.

 

Also, the Evil Queen died after being made to endlessly dance on hot pokers.

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 7/25/2023 at 12:56 PM, drotto said:

At least not Disney's version.  Apparently, Disney had changed parts of the original story, most importantly she was not saved by a kiss.  In the original, the Prince apparently became obsessed with the girl in the glass coffin and made his servents carry the body around with him at all times.  At some point a servant opened the coffin and smacked Snow White on the back, because he was sick of toting around a dead girl, dislodged the apple she had choked on, and she came back to life.

 

Also, the Evil Queen died after being made to endlessly dance on hot pokers.

Disney made changes to all of the originals, AFAIK, since they typically end in tragedy rather than happiness. I guess they're going back to tragedies and travesties...

[drotto]

On 7/25/2023 at 1:09 PM, theCapraAegagrus said:

Disney made changes to all of the originals, AFAIK, since they typically end in tragedy rather than happiness. I guess they're going back to tragedies and travesties...

And the real Ariel dies, and turns into seas foam. Yes, Disney wanted uplifting, happy, and moral tales, based mainly on European lore.

 

Just so happens much European lore was originally writen to scare the snot out of kids.

Edited July 25, 2023 by drotto

[Larryw7]

Jiminy Cricket gets squashed by Pinocchio very early in Carlo Collodi's book.

The wicked stepsisters in Cinderella cut off their toes so that they can try to fit into Cinderella's slipper.

 

[Bosco685]

On 7/26/2023 at 2:50 AM, Larryw7 said:

Jiminy Cricket gets squashed by Pinocchio very early in Carlo Collodi's book.

The wicked stepsisters in Cinderella cut off their toes so that they can try to fit into Cinderella's slipper.

 

Please, Pappa. Read me another comforting bedtime story before I go to sleep.

[Straw-Man]

On 7/26/2023 at 1:50 AM, Larryw7 said:

Jiminy Cricket gets squashed by Pinocchio very early in Carlo Collodi's book.

The wicked stepsisters in Cinderella cut off their toes so that they can try to fit into Cinderella's slipper.

 

in the book, it wasn't his nose that grew when he lied; all the girls urged on his mendacity.

[drotto]

On 7/26/2023 at 5:28 AM, Bosco685 said:

Please, Pappa. Read me another comforting bedtime story before I go to sleep.

Medieval life in central and northern Europe was unpleasant and parents seemed very happy to share that with their kids.  The moral lessens were things like, don't go into the woods or you will die, don't trust a stranger or you will die, don't lie to people or you will die.  The you will die was a recurrent theme.  

[namisgr]

On 7/17/2023 at 4:03 PM, CAHokie said:

Exactly. Maybe not made for them, but the Gen Xers might control the purse strings. White Males are not the only demographics cutting Disney movies out.

Good writing can include plenty of diversity, not offend the vast majority not looking to be offended, and still make money.

Disney last made a version of this movie 85 years ago.  Times have changed.  Girls have changed.  Opportunities for women have changed.  The nature of empowerment for young people has changed.  The subjects that young people care about and their frames of reference have changed.  Comic book collectors of all people should be fully aware of how the times, culture, storytelling, and target audiences have changed since the days of Action #1.  

It's not the least bit surprising that a remake of this movie title would include different storyline, approach, and cultural references.  Beyond that, the original version remains available for any and all wishing to take a nostalgic trip back to the Disney storytelling magic of nearly a century ago.

 

Edited July 26, 2023 by namisgr

[theCapraAegagrus]

People will always make excuses for a lack of creativity.

[media_junkie]

On 7/26/2023 at 8:17 AM, namisgr said:

Disney last made a version of this movie 85 years ago.  Times have changed.  Girls have changed.  Opportunities for women have changed.  The nature of empowerment for young people has changed.  The subjects that young people care about and their frames of reference have changed.  Comic book collectors of all people should be fully aware of how the times, culture, storytelling, and target audiences have changed since the days of Action #1.  

It's not the least bit surprising that a remake of this movie title would include different storyline, approach, and cultural references.  Beyond that, the original version remains available for any and all wishing to take a nostalgic trip back to the Disney storytelling magic of nearly a century ago.

 

That didn't work out to well for them with the remake of "The Little Mermaid".  Budget of $250million + $100 Million marketing for an all in of $350 million (that we know of).  Little Mermaid had a WW gross of $560 million, so split that in half, Disney received $280 million back, still $70 million short of break even.

If Disney wants to make an empowering movie, that is awesome, go with something new like "Barbie".  That movie is going to blow away the reboot of the Little Mermaid, and yeah it will blow away this reboot of Snow White.  Make new stuff and leave the classics alone.  

Edited July 26, 2023 by media_junkie

[namisgr]

On 7/26/2023 at 9:02 AM, media_junkie said:

Make new stuff and leave the classics alone.  

Think of a new version of Snow White as a new movie.  Problem solved.  

The classic will not cease to exist.  Same as the comic book industry has for the past 50 years re-imagined titles and characters that first saw the light of day in the 1930s and '40s.

Edited July 26, 2023 by namisgr

[drotto]

On 7/26/2023 at 8:17 AM, namisgr said:

Disney last made a version of this movie 85 years ago.  Times have changed.  Girls have changed.  Opportunities for women have changed.  The nature of empowerment for young people has changed.  The subjects that young people care about and their frames of reference have changed.  Comic book collectors of all people should be fully aware of how the times, culture, storytelling, and target audiences have changed since the days of Action #1.  

It's not the least bit surprising that a remake of this movie title would include different storyline, approach, and cultural references.  Beyond that, the original version remains available for any and all wishing to take a nostalgic trip back to the Disney storytelling magic of nearly a century ago.

 

But that is not what they are doing, and you could do everything you have stated by telling new stories.  If they truly wanted to convey these ideas, it would actually be done best through new stories, rather then mangling old ones. What they are doing, I see very cynically.  They are using the general public's knowledge of a known IP and nostalgia for that story as a lore to get attention and a shortcut in marketing.  It is also a shortcut in the creative process, because it is easier and quicker to alter an existing property rather than creating something from scratch.  It also requires less talent. Furthermore, creating something new that becomes part of culture, part of everyone's mindset, and is widely loved and popular, is extremely difficult. This method attempts to bypasses all of that.

 

Most people are not like us, and do not follow pop culture like we do. So when the general public sees they are making a live action Snow White, the response is, I loved that movie as a kid, you have my attention.  They are then expecting to see something very close to what they are familiar with. Then they do a bait a switch essentially.  That then leads to divided opinions on the final product.  Usually, these altered stories do not become part of culture and fade away quickly. The original remains more popular and loved.  The remake is therefor nothing more than a corporate cash grab. 

[namisgr]

On 7/26/2023 at 9:23 AM, drotto said:

Most people are not like us, and do not follow pop culture like we do. So when the general public sees they are making a live action Snow White, the response is, I loved that movie as a kid, you have my attention.  They are then expecting to see something very close to what they are familiar with. 

Given that the original was made in 1938 and is widely accepted as a classic, why would the studio choose to make it again very close to the original?  Particularly when in the past 85 years the times have changed, the culture is vastly different, and the target audiences have completely different frames of reference?

When you read Superman comic books in the 1970s and later, did you do so expecting them to have tone, characterization, storyline, and cultural reference nearly the same as when Siegel and Shuster created and first developed the character?

Whether a re-imagining of a classic movie is as big of a hit as the original is neither here nor there.  But from a creative standpoint, slavish adherence to an 85 year old story is going to be lacking in creativity and originality for sure.

Edited July 26, 2023 by namisgr

[theCapraAegagrus]

What Disney did with the original stories was adapt them; Closely enough that they maintained the narrative that the original story intended but with a happy ending. The 'remakes' have little in common, conveying a sense of laziness and alienating those who wished to see a true live-action adaptation of a story that maintained a relative closeness with the source material.

This all echoes my previous post.

[theCapraAegagrus]

It's also a mistake to compare a contained story to an ongoing serial...

[drotto]

On 7/26/2023 at 9:29 AM, namisgr said:

Given that the original was made in 1938 and is widely accepted as a classic, why would the studio choose to make it again very close to the original?  Particularly when in the past 85 years the times have changed, the culture is vastly different, and the target audiences have completely different frames of reference?

When you read Superman comic books in the 1970s and later, did you do so expecting them to have tone, characterization, storyline, and cultural reference nearly the same as when Siegel and Shuster created and first developed the character?

Then tell an original story for todays people, values, and culture. Again, the studios are trying to change original stories to the point they are arguably no longer that story.  The only reason to do that is to take advantage of the name and story recognition. It is shallow and lazy.  Classic stories do not necessarily need updating, and people still connect to those stories, and often do not want hem changed.  You can reinterpret to an extent, even better be courageous and tell a new story.  Something new and impactful, and from now has a much more of a chance to stand on it's won as a new classic.

[namisgr]

On 7/26/2023 at 9:40 AM, drotto said:

Then tell an original story for todays people, values, and culture. Again, the studios are trying to change original stories to the point they are arguably no longer that story.  The only reason to do that is to take advantage of the name and story recognition. It is shallow and lazy.  Classic stories do not necessarily need updating, and people still connect to those stories, and often do not want hem changed.  You can reinterpret to an extent, even better be courageous and tell a new story.  Something new and impactful, and from now has a much more of a chance to stand on it's won as a new classic.

Don't go to see those movies if you don't want to.  But, as perceptively pointed out earlier in the thread, you're hardly the target audience.  And given the raging box office success that Barbie is experiencing, there's new target audiences out there waiting for material re-imagined from a bygone era.  Just like there were over the past 50 years of comic book storytelling in comparison to source material from the Golden Age.

I agree with you to an extent, but don't know that shallow and lazy fully captures the motivation for remakes.  Or endless sequels.  Sometimes, it's simply that it's hard to create a megablockbuster, and the remakes and endless sequels are ways to keep the business churning, the tickets selling, and SAG members working.

Edited July 26, 2023 by namisgr

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 7/26/2023 at 9:02 AM, media_junkie said:

That didn't work out to well for them with the remake of "The Little Mermaid".  Budget of $250million + $100 Million marketing for an all in of $350 million (that we know of).  Little Mermaid had a WW gross of $560 million, so split that in half, Disney received $280 million back, still $70 million short of break even.

As perceptively pointed out earlier in the thread... There isn't much of a "target audience" for these projects.

[Dr. Love]

Zegler's disdain for the source material, heard in the interview, tells you all you need to know.  Its not laziness or a con job to make some cash. Obliterating the values of the classic is the purpose of the project.

Soon the original will have a cultural warning attached to it for the future viewer. It will be held up, not as a classic, but a classic example of misogyny and body mocking from a hateful bygone era.

[Artboy99]

they already made crappy re-imaginings with the Snow White and the Huntsman films