Snow White 2025 — Page 2

joevitus said: "I don't have much of a dog in this fight--I don't see the point of making these kinds movies (live action remakes of cartoons)"

I thought the point of all the live action remakes was the keep the IP under some form of copyright and sell more merchandise. The films don't have to be good to achieve that. Disney won't be able to extend their copyright on the original 1937 film forever, but certain elements like the design and colors of Snow White's dress, new songs and new orchestrations of the old songs could theoretically remain under copyright for another 95 years now?

CATSNYrevival said: "joevitus said: "I don't have much of a dog in this fight--I don't see the point of making these kinds movies (live action remakes of cartoons)"

I thought the point of all the live action remakes was the keep the IP under some form of copyright and sell more merchandise. The films don't have to be good to achieve that. Disney won't be able to extend their copyright on the original 1937 film forever, but certain elements like the design and colors of Snow White'sdress, new songs andnew orchestrations of the old songs could theoreticallyremain under copyright for another 95 years now?"

Exploiting the IP is definitely the goal, but I don't think anything about this film keeps elements of the 1938 film in copyright longer than it currently is set for. But I could be wrong about that. Maybe rather than "I don't see the point of making these kinds of movies" I should have said "I don't think there's good enough reason to make these movies."

Updated On: 3/19/25 at 08:29 PM

I will say I went into this with a very open mind, I’m not a fan of Rachel and thought disregard that and have the film weave its magic. The opening flew by, and I thought this is ok. Even recreating the entire beauty and the beast opening. But than it just stopped and got bogged down in a very uninteresting way, no joy, no magic, no humor. The evil queen was not evil, nor camp enough to overcome. Snow White was bland, the dwarves, that dead looking cgi ( dopey was the worst ) Sondheim was right “dwarves are very upsetting”. The band of merry man ( plus one woman ) added nothing to the story. The songs bland, stopped the film dead. One was a Tony winning actor ( so i found out from this board ) I thought he was an actor trying to sing.
The ending was meh.

joevitus said: "Did they replace the original score, or just add additional songs to it?"

Both. They've kept three songs from the original (Silly Song (just its yodels), Heigh Ho, Whistle While You Work) but removed all the operetta-style ones.

joevitus said: "The last thing a live-action Snow White remake needs to be is "socially relevant." Yes, the story is antiquated. It's a fairy tale at least 300 years old. It happens the originalstill holds up, not because it is still timely but because it is in all important waystimeless (and why would we expect characters living in some vaguely Middle Ages setting to have "socially relevant" lives????).

I don't get the point of any of these live-action remakes, beyond exploiting an IP."

Right here. I agree.

Snow White is a classic. And if you're putting the title Snow White on a movie with all the elements that are clearly the Disney version, just remade, the audience wants to see Snow White in its revived incarnation.

The audience knows it will probably be antiquated, and I doubt they want to see Snow White with some modern, socially relevant message. As much as the lady playing the lead may want it to be.

If she, or others want a movie where the prince (or a man in general) doesn't save the day, where true love is found by a kiss, or whatever, then make your own movie. It's silly to take a classic and try to make it something it's not. That would be like saying let's take down the Mona Lisa at the Louvre and improve it by making her eyes a little different, or changing the structure of her nose. Nobody wants that, and it's an insult to the creator.

I know that SW was not a Disney original. He took a fairy tale from long ago and made it his own. And frankly, many didn't like how Walt changed fairy tales.

But this movie is Disney's Snow White. So it should remain faithful to what Walt did with the story, since his name is still on it. And it's his version that they're recreating.

And I doubt that Walt, and I'm sure most Hollywood moguls, would be pleased with their lead performer going out and pushing her personal beliefs on various and sundry topics (which she has a right to do), and then following it up with 'If you don't agree with me, suck it; I don't want your business' (which her bosses, and the public in general, have a right to respond to in their own way as well). We'll say which way it plays.

While she might not want their business, I'm sure the producers and the company behind this movie will take all the business they can get. And having the lady who is playing the lead out there making comments like that wouldn't come off as a real positive thing to them I would think.

“But this movie is Disney's Snow White. So it should remain faithful to what Walt did with the story, since his name is still on it. And it's his version that they're recreating.”

Walt Disney has been dead for almost 60 years at this point. The company is no longer his nor are any of the works or products put out since then. Let’s not act like Walt was a saint, the man had his own moral issues - he personally sought after the rights to Uncle Remus stories so he could produce “Song of the South”. Are we defending that film, too? Do you actually think Walt would tolerate and create a Black princess like Tiana in Princess and the Frog? Let’s be serious.

Disney themselves wanted a new take. Rachel Zegler is not the executive producer nor screenwriter of this reboot, she was cast in it. She puts her foot in her mouth, absolutely, but she’s just a lead actress who doesn’t actually have control over the direction or focus of the entire film. That was done by the creatives and executives AT Disney. It’s very obvious who your issue really lies with here.

If people want the original, it’s still widely available and was just remastered & rereleased for its 85th anniversary. It’s not going anywhere. Clearly society’s interest have changed or they would just make all of these shot-for-shot remakes or not do them at all. Children today are not as entertained or have the same regard for the animated films the way previous generations have.

Do you also find the 1939 Wizard of Oz film to be “an insult” to L Frank Baum? Or the same for Wicked to MGM? Is Black Ariel a slap in the face to Disney’s 1989 animated classic? How about Disney’s Descendants series?

There’s no issue in them remaking and updating these films for a new audience/generation, they just haven’t done a great job of it thus far.

It is no longer aspirational to sit around waiting for man to come sweep you off your feet and change your life. We as a society have evolved and progressed past that, and there’s no issue in a separate interpretation reflecting that. This movie is by no means replacing the original, it’s simply a new option of the same story.

Updated On: 3/20/25 at 01:34 PM

Just saw this and thought it was absolutely magical.
I can't remember the last time I ugly-cried as badly as at the end of this movie.
It might be the themes of people caring about and and being kind to each other or the idea of good people rising up against an evil empress, but something completely struck a nerve in me in the current political climate.

This movie truly reminded me of one of those tacky fairytale movies from the 90s, but in the best possible way.
It stayed true to the original movie while still adding wonderful new ideas.
And the new songs are stunning. I have no idea how you could compare the opening in any way to the opening of Beauty and the Beast. There is literally not the slightest connection between the two.

I'm honestly baffled by the vitriol towards this.
Is it perfect? No.
I'd still watch it again in a heartbeat.

CATSNYrevival said: "joevitus said: "I don't have much of a dog in this fight--I don't see the point of making these kinds movies (live action remakes of cartoons)"

I thought the point of all the live action remakes was the keep the IP under some form of copyright and sell more merchandise. The films don't have to be good to achieve that. Disney won't be able to extend their copyright on the original 1937 film forever, but certain elements like the design and colors of Snow White'sdress, new songs andnew orchestrations of the old songs could theoreticallyremain under copyright for another 95 years now?"

That's not how copyright works.

UWS10023 said: "I love Andrew! He is a good actor and a handsome one at that!I I liked him in Camelot and he was on his game in Dear Edward.I keep kicking myself for missing his performance in TheInheritance. I am sure he is quite happy being absent from the Snow White public relations nightmare."

joevitus said: "GiantsInTheSky2 said: "
Do you also find the 1939 Wizard of Oz film to be “an insult” to L Frank Baum? Or the same for Wicked to MGM? Is Black Ariel a slap in the face to Disney’s 1989 animated classic? How about Disney’sDescendants series?"



Tremendously bad analogies. Neither of those movies was a live action remake of a beloved cartoon reproducing the look of said cartoon. The point is, this movie's whole reason for being is people's love for the original, and seeing that original "come to life" in live action. That's the point behind each of these live-action remakes. So to radically change the meaning isn't just to come up with a variation on the Grimm's Brothers' tale (as Sondheim did with various stories inInto the Woods) but to hold out the promise for one kind of thing and replace it with another.

"

I agree. If I am seeing the live action version of Disney's Snow White, I want to see Disney's Snow White. In live action.

I don't want to see Snow White, Part Deux, "with a modern 2025 sensibility." In other words, Snow White, with the subscript "Without the Romance (we don't need it, it's 2025), Without the Kiss (we don't need it, it's 2025), and No Prince Need Apply (he isn't needed, it's 2025)."

It's no longer Disney's Snow White then.

If you want a story like that, create a different movie with an empowered princess. And make it your own. Don't sell something as the beloved classic, tied specifically to a beloved and known Disney product, and then change the story around. If someone wants to go back to the original fairy tale and make it their own with no allusions to the Disney version, go for it.

It will be interesting to see how this movie fares. It might do okay. But if it doesn't, it will be ironic to see that while the original was being mocked by the woman playing the lead in this "refreshed" version of the movie, it will be the one that still lasts. It will be the present one that doesn't stand the test of time.

And the former, which had that "weird" and "stalking" prince (who the actress currently playing the role noted could have been left on the cutting room floor, along with the actor playing him, and it wouldn't have been a big deal) was made almost 90 years ago.

Which is a true testimony to the "dead for 60 years" Walt, and how ingenious his products really were. Despite his flaws.

And yes, we know, he had them. So do all of us.

To inject race into the discussion on Snow White though is irrelevant. But if it does need to come into play, Walt did employ diversity at his studio, including Blacks, Latinos, Jews and women. Were the numbers disproportionate to the number of white men and women working for him? Yes. But he didn't exclude people. As Floyd Norman, a Black animator who worked for Walt noted, " “Walt Disney was a man of his time, but he was determined not to be imprisoned by it. He dreamed of a better world and had the audacity to try to build it.”

I worked for Disney for ten years and met many people who had worked for and with Walt while he was still alive. A truly diverse group of people. And all of them had nothing but praise for him. There will always be those who can find faults in him, just as faults and flaws lie within all of us. That doesn't change my feelings for the man. He was human.

Updated On: 3/21/25 at 01:02 PM

UWS10023 said: "I love Andrew! He is a good actor and a handsome one at that!I I liked him in Camelot and he was on his game in Dear Edward.I keep kicking myself for missing his performance in TheInheritance. I am sure he is quite happy being absent from the Snow White public relations nightmare."

He is probably wise to PR and image, and how it impacts things, including companies for which he is working.

He does stick to the modern take spiel on the movie, which I know he's supposed to parrot since that's what the movie is trying to do, but leaves it at that.

I'm not sure how he would feel about his leading actress saying he could have been left out of it and it wouldn't have mattered to the movie.

But he will be savvy enough not to remark on it.

Though if I'm an actor, and the actress I'm playing opposite refers to me by name and said I could have just as well been left out of the movie, that would be an odd feeling, to say the least. I wouldn't comment on it either though.

This is an easy movie to take a pass on. The most prominent reason being the way the story is being retold though.

44% on Rotten Tomatoes. Oof.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/disneys_snow_white

Some of you are being bitches just to be bitches, and you’re succeeding