SNOW WHITE | 03.21.2025 | Disney

[Liiviig 1998]

5 hours ago, WittyUsername said:

There always seems to be some new “quirky” actress who it’s cool to hate on. It was Anne Hathaway for a while, then it was Jennifer Lawrence and now I guess it’s Rachel Zegler.

J law did have those stupid takes that she was there were no big Female before her " LMAO.

 

She pretty much zoned out of the mystique role and sort of hard to work with which I guess sort of pissed of some fans.

 

And yeah she says alot of dumb shit all the time.

 

Wouldn't really put her in this category.

[Ipickthiswhiterose]

I think elements of the personal aside, it does sound like they're struggling to know what to do with this film and what identity they want it to have.

 

Tale of Terror had a very clear identity of being Snow White as spooky.

Mirror, Mirror not quite as much of an identity but still really leaned heavily into it being a teen drama.

Huntsman obviously leaned hard into nature iconography and certain elements of the aesthetics.

 

But none of them were saddled with the Disney film tag and were working with the Grimm template.

 

This is still trying to be the 'Disney Snow White' while also not being the Disney Snow White. I mean, other than the visual of the costume what does it sound like they still have that's still Disney Snow White and not just any generic Snow White - or even something that isn't Snow White at all?

 

I think it's Dan Murrell who says....You can just not make the movie. 

[SpiderByte]

Honestly with the release date I'm surprised we don't have a trailer or something. Maybe they're waiting for the actual 100th anniversary in October?

[Jonwo]

1 minute ago, SpiderByte said:

Honestly with the release date I'm surprised we don't have a trailer or something. Maybe they're waiting for the actual 100th anniversary in October?

The anniversary is 16th October so a trailer that day makes sense,

[WittyUsername]

8 hours ago, Liiviig 1998 said:

J law did have those stupid takes that she was there were no big Female before her " LMAO.

 

She pretty much zoned out of the mystique role and sort of hard to work with which I guess sort of pissed of some fans.

 

And yeah she says alot of dumb shit all the time.

 

Wouldn't really put her in this category.

Pretty sure that wasn’t actually what she meant, and she even clarified it later, but regardless, people were hating on her before that. 

[Ryan Reynolds]

 

[ChipDerby]

9 minutes ago, Ryan Reynolds said:

 

 

Yes, we know, Walt was a Nazi.

[Ozymandias]

8 hours ago, Ipickthiswhiterose said:

I think it's Dan Murrell who says....You can just not make the movie. 

 

wheres that money in that bro?

[Ipickthiswhiterose]

8 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

 

wheres that money in that bro?

 

I get that, of course, but there's far more money in not making a movie than making a movie that loses money because it doesn't know what it is.

 

All of this is happening because Disney have blown their BATB, TLK, Aladdin and TLM sure-thing, renaissance cash cow wad and are now left with properties that clearly involve rolling the dice much more. 

 

Depp-as-Mad Hatter and Jolie-as-Maleficent are performances I absolutely hated, but I could still 100% make sense of in terms of iconography. Stone-as-Cruella made the trifecta of films where they hung actors on roles above featuring the branding of a remake. That approach was also reasonably successful. Maybe that's what they're going for.

 

But that's where the Gadot casting really comes in. Whether one likes Depp, Jolie or Stone they are at least very seasoned and established actors. Gadot seems like an icon-casting attempt. But it's an icon casting attempt with someone who has never appeared to have anything like the chops required.

 

I mean she's getting the Cleopatra thing at the same time. Maybe she drastically improves very quickly - such things have happened before. But it seems like a hell of a gamble. 

Edited August 18, 2023 by Ipickthiswhiterose

[Morieris]

8 hours ago, Ipickthiswhiterose said:

I think elements of the personal aside, it does sound like they're struggling to know what to do with this film and what identity they want it to have.

 

This is still trying to be the 'Disney Snow White' while also not being the Disney Snow White. I mean, other than the visual of the costume what does it sound like they still have that's still Disney Snow White and not just any generic Snow White - or even something that isn't Snow White at all?

 

I think it's Dan Murrell who says....You can just not make the movie. 

 

Basically. "We're badassifying Snow White!" -- Cool but she'd be the 5th (6th) LA Disney Princess in that lineup. If they want to be subversive, still have her rely on others for help and be smart and capable.  There's more than one way for a female character to be strong that Disney won't lean into because they're still trying to shake the cultural mindset of "All the heroines they have are weak" from 2013, even if the cultural mindset has moved on.

Edited August 18, 2023 by Morieris

[dudalb]

3 hours ago, Morieris said:

 

Basically. "We're badassifying Snow White!" -- Cool but she'd be the 5th (6th) LA Disney Princess in that lineup. If they want to be subversive, still have her rely on others for help and be smart and capable.  There's more than one way for a female character to be strong that Disney won't lean into because they're still trying to shake the cultural mindset of "All the heroines they have are weak" from 2013, even if the cultural mindset has moved on.

Trying to make a story into something it simply is not seldom works.

Making Snow White into a Eowyn /Zena wannabe (if the story about filming one ending which has Snow and the Evil withc going mano a mano in a fight scene) simply will not work.

[dudalb]

3 hours ago, Ipickthiswhiterose said:

 

I get that, of course, but there's far more money in not making a movie than making a movie that loses money because it doesn't know what it is.

 

All of this is happening because Disney have blown their BATB, TLK, Aladdin and TLM sure-thing, renaissance cash cow wad and are now left with properties that clearly involve rolling the dice much more. 

 

Depp-as-Mad Hatter and Jolie-as-Maleficent are performances I absolutely hated, but I could still 100% make sense of in terms of iconography. Stone-as-Cruella made the trifecta of films where they hung actors on roles above featuring the branding of a remake. That approach was also reasonably successful. Maybe that's what they're going for.

 

But that's where the Gadot casting really comes in. Whether one likes Depp, Jolie or Stone they are at least very seasoned and established actors. Gadot seems like an icon-casting attempt. But it's an icon casting attempt with someone who has never appeared to have anything like the chops required.

 

I mean she's getting the Cleopatra thing at the same time. Maybe she drastically improves very quickly - such things have happened before. But it seems like a hell of a gamble. 

To be fiar, the writers of Burtons "ALice" and Maleficnet are as much to blame as the actresses.

 

[Torontofan]

Yeah Disney needs to have the lead actress stop talking about the movie.

 

Each time she talks there millions going down the drain lol 

[Deep Wang]

3 hours ago, Torontofan said:

Yeah Disney needs to have the lead actress stop talking about the movie.

 

Each time she talks there millions going down the drain lol 

Anyone that says they aren’t going to see this movie specifically because of the things she has said probably weren’t going to see the movie in the first place. 
 

[PlatnumRoyce]

11 hours ago, WittyUsername said:

Pretty sure that wasn’t actually what she meant, and she even clarified it later,

Those sorts of takes annoy me (it's always year zero and the new film in theaters is the most important thing in the world) and I was inclined to dunk on it but when I crunched some numbers...she kinda had a point. Hunger Games very clearly . Sure, you need to adjust for inflation and market growth but Hunger Games pretty clearly causes a spike in female lead action/action&adventure genre films. 

 

 

Quote

but regardless, people were hating on her before that. 

 

Yeah, this little minor internet controversy was years after "the internet" had turned on JLaw

[filmlover]

11 hours ago, Ryan Reynolds said:

 

First Leonard Bernstein's children having to defend BCoop's nose in the biopic saying "he would've been fine with it" and now this in the same week. It's become popular to dunk on nepo babies for entirely silly reasons when the reality is that we should be jealous of them when being part of that exclusive club apparently gives them exclusive contact with the spirit realm.

[grim22]

3 hours ago, Deep Wang said:

Anyone that says they aren’t going to see this movie specifically because of the things she has said probably weren’t going to see the movie in the first place. 
 

She's just got major annoying theater kid energy, kind of like the female @Blankments

[Ipickthiswhiterose]

7 hours ago, PlatnumRoyce said:

Those sorts of takes annoy me (it's always year zero and the new film in theaters is the most important thing in the world) and I was inclined to dunk on it but when I crunched some numbers...she kinda had a point. Hunger Games very clearly . Sure, you need to adjust for inflation and market growth but Hunger Games pretty clearly causes a spike in female lead action/action&adventure genre films. 

 

 

Yeah, this little minor internet controversy was years after "the internet" had turned on JLaw

 

 

 

It is correct that she had something of a point (how much is to her credit and how much to Susan Collins is perhaps contestable, nevertheless...)

 

It points to one of the more annoying arguments of the online types when it comes to female characters. Because the same names always get trotted out as the supposed excuse for disliking the female characters du jour: "It's not a general thing, I LOVE x female characters!" when x characters are.... Ellen Ripley, Sarah Connor, maybe Leia, maybe Lara Croft etc.

 

Pretty much all those "But I like female characters" can be fit into two categories:

 

1. Horror and horror-aligned characters: (Ripley, Connor, Laurie Strode etc) - the threat of physical mutilation and death is universal. It isn't gendered. As such, primarily identifying with a character on the basis of fear, threat and the dynamics of death/survival isn't especially representative of being empathetic of the female experience, just of the universal survival instinct.

 

2. Well executed two-dimensional and non-empathetic characters (Leia, Lara Croft, The Bride) - Characters that are not really meant to be empathised with in the first place and are just well executed versions of standard storytelling functional characters. Leia is very well done, but Luke is the only over-the-shoulder character in the OT and the only character not just based on a standard 2-d framework. 

 

Katniss does outstrip both of those types even if there is a touch of both those elements in her character design.

[Liiviig 1998]

20 hours ago, Morieris said:

 

Basically. "We're badassifying Snow White!" -- Cool but she'd be the 5th (6th) LA Disney Princess in that lineup. If they want to be subversive, still have her rely on others for help and be smart and capable.  There's more than one way for a female character to be strong that Disney won't lean into because they're still trying to shake the cultural mindset of "All the heroines they have are weak" from 2013, even if the cultural mindset has moved on.

"Strong female character trope" has become so cliche  at this point.  

 

Wonderwoman and BW definitely categories as really strong characters. They still kick ass and yet still vulnerable ,have flaws and seek help or guidance. 

Mulan 2020  was just so awful ,the animated one had a good ripe story to adapt . She was never  strong but she used her wits,confidence and resilience   to get her through situations and it was fun then the live action we get a bland actress who can do everything with chi and the whole point of the story is that she was holding herself back  ,boring and lame  AF .

 

Sitting and watching barbie absolutely throwing  shade and criticizing aspects to do with this whole trope was hilarious.

 

They want to create strong independent female characters but they forget to make them relatable or give them personal  flaws to go past and most times they are already the best and the story tries to tell us there are not and by the time we roll credits , the character hasn't changed much, hasn't learned anything new or anything much about themselves whether positive or negative .

 

Yeah you can still have you female character just be ordinary ,no place of leadership ,desire romance, be an average home Mom and still make her a compelling and interesting character who is relatable and yeah they can still be strong and independent.

 

Whether strong or your average ordinary  female character if you can't write a compelling  or relatable or good enough  character it's all pointless.

 

Current Hollywood is so fixated on just the idea of the strong female character but don't understand what it takes to create one and just focus on the superficial attributes 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 19, 2023 by Liiviig 1998

[PlatnumRoyce]

4 hours ago, Ipickthiswhiterose said:

It points to one of the more annoying arguments of the online types when it comes to female characters. Because the same names always get trotted out as the supposed excuse for disliking the female characters du jour: "It's not a general thing, I LOVE x female characters!" when x characters are.... Ellen Ripley, Sarah Connor, maybe Leia, maybe Lara Croft etc.

 

Pretty much all those "But I like female characters" can be fit into two categories:

On the other hand, this pretty much explains why it's annoying: the critique lobbied against this sort of person is both morally weightily and almost always so lazily constructed as to be obviously refutable by reference to such characters as you mention. The whole discourse is poisoned by shitposting instead of laying out more complicated by robust conceptual frameworks/mental models (that are still pretty morally salient)