Disney delay Snow White for another year.

Agreed. Not a fan of the CGI as is. At that point might as well just make an animated version

I think they would have done well had they gone for a similar style of Dwarves that are in the Hobbit

Agreed! This wasn't nuclear physics; respect the original, hire the proper actress and seven dwarfs actors...that's it, that's all.
But nooooooo:rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Disney's live action remakes (re-imagining) of their previous animated films, so far:

1) 101 Dalmatians (and its sequel); essentially the same story, but expanded. It's prequel (Cruella) was an original story.
2) The Jungle Book; essentially the same story
3) The Lion King ( "live action" only insofar as it was CG characters made to LOOK real); essentially the same story
4) Beauty and the Beast (basically the same story, although Belle is definitely a feminist now, and they add the side-story of her mother's death by plague, and make Gaston's sidekick LeFou seemingly gay)
5) Maleficent; a significantly altered version of Disney's Sleeping Beauty in which Maleficent is just a misunderstood fairy, and was abused/assaulted by her once love, King Stefan (Briar Rose aka Sleeping Beauty's father) who himself is now the enemy and must be killed. Also, the "prince" doesn't save Sleeping Beauty with a kiss; Maleficent does, as she develops a motherly love for the teenage beauty.
6) The Little Mermaid; some PC alterations but basically the same story
7) Snow White; TBD, but from what we have heard so far, SW is "destined to be a leader" and is not looking for some prince to save her. And the dwarves are not dwarves or "little" people in the traditional sense
 
Agreed. Not a fan of the CGI as is. At that point might as well just make an animated version

I think they would have done well had they gone for a similar style of Dwarves that are in the Hobbit

Then they would have gotten bashed for not hiring little people to play the roles. Of course, if they try, then they get activists like Peter Dinklage who then rail against them for even considering casting little people actors to play dwarves. So damned if they do, damned if they don't. Given that it was probably filmed, as an earlier leak suggests, with non dwarf actors, using CG to replace the live action actors is really the only way they could replace the actors.
 
5) Maleficent; a significantly altered version of Disney's Sleeping Beauty in which Maleficent is just a misunderstood fairy, and was abused/assaulted by her once love, King Stefan (Briar Rose aka Sleeping Beauty's father) who himself is now the enemy and must be killed. Also, the "prince" doesn't save Sleeping Beauty with a kiss; Maleficent does, as she develops a motherly love for the teenage beauty.

The key here is that they changed the title, it's not really a remake of Sleeping Beauty, it's a new story inspired by it.

Don't forget Cinderella (2015)!
and:
Pete's Dragon
Dumbo
Mulan
Alice in Wonderland
Pinocchio
Lady and the Tramp
Peter Pan & Wendy
Christopher Robin
Aladdin
 
CGI-erasing seven larger characters out of the frame, and then fabricating & adding seven new smaller ones? That's liable to cost more (and still look worse) than re-shooting everything with real little people.

If they are swapping in CGI dwarves then maybe it's to avoid Peter Dinklage's criticism. I can't see it being any cheaper.
 
At a guess, this is probably a financial decision, as with several other delayed projects. I wouldn't be surprised if they "Bat-Girl" this film, either, simply for the tax break. Nothing to do with how good or bad it is; just a financial decision and perhaps weighing it against whether they expect it to do great business or just "meh" business. There could be all manner of concerns with foreign markets being inaccessible or currently hostile or whatever, concerns about inflating or deflating assets/value given some of the behind-the-scenes financial stuff going on with Disney generally, etc. They shelved a Jonathan ("Kang") Major film, too, in the same announcement, and everyone assumed it was because of his trial coming up. But again, I suspect this is more down to some deeper financial consideration. His film was apparently a story about a bodybuilder who wants to get noticed or something.

Basically, I think the safe bet in most of these cases is that the studio is doing something in response to background financial pressures, rather than the more obvious "IT'S BECAUSE OF XYZ CONTROVERSY!!" Those things might not help the films, but I'd bet it's more that the studio stands to make/lose less money/alter its asset profile or value by shelving the project in question.
 
Basically, I think the safe bet in most of these cases is that the studio is doing something in response to background financial pressures, rather than the more obvious "IT'S BECAUSE OF XYZ CONTROVERSY!!"
Now! Now! You are being too logical, and looking at things in a rational way. ;)

There are too many people on this forum who won't want to hear that, they want to blame any decision on the controversy, so they can thow around their "I hate Disney" rhetoric. :lol:
 
Last edited:
The key here is that they changed the title, it's not really a remake of Sleeping Beauty, it's a new story inspired by it.


and:
Pete's Dragon
Dumbo
Mulan
Alice in Wonderland
Pinocchio
Lady and the Tramp
Peter Pan & Wendy
Christopher Robin
Aladdin
Yep!
 
The dwarves look like they were made with AI.

The stuff of nightmares…

IMG_1774.jpeg


…nightmares…

IMG_1773.jpeg
 
Now! Now! You are being too logical, and looking at things in a rational way. ;)

There are too many people on this forum who won't want to hear that, they want to blame any decision on the controversy, so they can thow around their "I hate Disney" rhetoric. :lol:
It's not simply that. I mean, people were also jumping to conclusions about Jonathan Major's film being pulled because of his upcoming trial (not so much here, but elsewhere).

I think folks are prone to thinking that the most obvious reason for a film being pulled is something other than "pure financial considerations," when it's almost always purely about the $$$.

I don't think studios really care that much about controversies among fans in most cases, especially among hardcore fans. They might change some stuff at the margins, but that's about it. They don't really care whether people like a movie or talk badly about the movie in and of itself. They care about whether the movie will make money and they know from past experience that people can hate on a film and still go pay to see it.

Like, I don't Colin Trevorrow was fired from TROS because of backlash about TLJ. I think he was fired because they wanted someone to do exactly what JJ did: deliver a film that was, for the most part, just a pretty safe, pretty tame retread of ROTJ that they figured audiences would go for, which would track perfectly with how JJ had handled TFA. And I think that, after they revisited the film, they figured "Wait, this isn't really that after all," and Trevorrow wouldn't change it for them to be what JJ ultimately turned in (which is ultimately what they wanted).

But it wasn't a "reaction against TLJ" per se. It's more "We want this film to be this way, and this guy isn't willing to do that, so we got back the guy who did it before." And that's it. And they wanted that, because they always figured that approach would make the most money worldwide.
 
But can't a controversy impact the bottom line?

Like, make no mistake, I harbor no illusions that The Last Jedi backlash had much to do with Solo flopping. But this is different; this is a case where the leaked dwarves became the butt of the joke across the entire internet for a day or two. Remember Snow White and the Seven Diverse Portland Hipsters?

This is a case where their lead actress has gone so far as to eviscerate the original film, a film which more or less made Disney's name in animation. Zegler's already turning into an issue. When it emerged that the Puerto Rican community was unhappy that she was cast as Maria in West Side Story, saying they didn't feel represented by an actress of Colombian and Polish descent, she made some comments in an interview about "Does it matter?"

I think there's plenty of irritation about the star acting like a spoiled brat, combined with the Dinklage controversy, combined with the ridiculous leaked images of the original cast. And sure, maybe most moviegoers aren't aware of this stuff, like they weren't aware of how Star Wars fans felt about TLJ, but this is two or three controversies in a row before the movie ever came out.

Combine that with the general lack of interest in the soulless remakes (did Mermaid ever make back its budget?) and the general attitude toward Disney's uninspired output over the last couple of years, and maybe the higher ups are thinking to themselves, "Fine, they don't want this movie anyway, it's not worth the heat to release."

If the movie's not forecasted to make back its budget, could that not be ascribed to both the handful of controversies and general audience fatigue with declining Disney quality? I don't know that it can't very well be both.
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top