Looks to me like more pandering by casting a lead that in no way resembles the character in the source material.

Ghostbusters
The Little Mermaid

We have seen this before. We will see it again.

If it works for them, great. I would prefer they get an original story and go from there. That doesn't seem to fit the narrative these days.

I literally agreed that this movie looks bad, that most of the discourse is ridiculous, and that the people involved with the movie are being annoying, etc. My only "controversial" take is that yet another one of these live-action Disney movies is going to make bank regardless, just like so many of them have before, which is somehow a problematic or annoying opinion to some of you. There's an objective pattern here, one that I'm simply drawing attention to, and I'm sorry if that rubs you the wrong way/punctures the narrative. You'll get over it.

Now who's playing thread police?

I swear to God if these chronically online grown ass men don't learn their lesson and stop talking about a movie being ****ty when it's still gonna make some money. ****.

I have a couple of kids who have fit into the demographic that Disney targets for these remakes, and I have to say that while they didn't complain about Mulan, Aladdin, or Beauty and the Beast, they liked the cartoon versions a lot better. There was no interest in seeing Little Mermaid.


It's not because of who starred in these movies, but there is a magic to those Disney cartoons that just can't be replicated with actual people, and some of the special creatures just aren't there. I know Moana is coming up, but I just don't think there will be a version where the coconut crab singing "Shiny" is as good as what the cartoon had. Ditto on how cool Maui was. Those original cartoon movies can be watched over and over. The remakes are sometimes hard to make it through the first time. Even now when we are traveling and in a hotel room, if Brave or Tangled come on Freeform or Disney, they'll pause from looking at their phones and still watch. I don't think they would do that with those live-action versions.


We haven't pushed going to the theater to see any of these more recent ones because the kids haven't loved them enough to care and they were willing to wait until they came on Disney+, and I felt like they were such a cash grab that paying for Disney + was enough of a payment for me. We'll probably end up watching the Lilo & Stitch movie again before we ever see the remake.

I definitely agree with this. The live-action versions don't have half the charm of the animated versions.

The only live-action takes I've even remotely liked are The Jungle Book and Cruella.

[We're cleaning up this thread and your consistent pattern of insulting other posters is out of bounds. Disagreeing over a movie is one thing. Making it personal is another. Take a break -- Staff]

It's 2024, not the 1930's. Girls aren't supposed to be kind and caring, they're supposed ruthless feminist girlbosses who put chauvinistic men in their place.

AustinAg2K said:

---

jokershady said:

---

one commentator online described the trailer as if it was Zack Snyder's take on Snow White...

---

A Zack Snyder "Snow White" would be awesome!

---

I'll wait for the Zack Snyder director's cut version which he says is his true version of the movie.

TCTTS said:

---

How many more threads like this are there going to be, where a bunch of grown ass men complain about a Disney movie for kids (little girls, specifically), say it's going to bomb, only for it to eventually make a **** ton of $$$. This has to be, like, the fourth or fifth time we've done this, and no one has learned their lesson yet.

---

Ooooo a bunch of em!

Just wait till they decide to remake Bambi as a girl and spend 30 minutes on the back story of the Hunter as a child being influenced to hate anything with 4 legs and fur by his drunk MAGA uncle and then later have him kill Bambis mother and father only to have Bambi grow old and lead a legion of male deer to destroy every Gander Mountain ever built.

TC and Friends always act like a movie making *any* money means any complaining about it on Texags is ludicrous. A lot of times they miss the point that in different hands with no bizarre horse**** it could have made A LOT more money.

It would be like if I had a 4 bedroom house in the suburbs to sell and before putting it on the market I painted it purple, stopped mowing, and put up wood paneling in the living room, then when someone tells me those were all horrible ideas, I get weirdly defensive and tell them the house WILL sell for a little over what it was worth 20 years ago.

https://babylonbee.com/news/prince-immediately-regrets-waking-rachel-zegler-with-a-kiss-after-she-starts-ranting-about-the-patriarchy?fbclid=IwY2xjawEtl29leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHXvVC-QHdRwwGdaN_apbh1R5gt1oEG8qoe4nRhhNg91rsmzqwPXQYR6TIA_aem_rG7sFqN0lyOuMPtkIcLbUQ

TCTTS said:

---

I definitely agree with this. The live-action versions don't have half the charm of the animated versions.

The only live-action takes I've even remotely liked are The Jungle Book and Cruella.

---

Here we go.....

I don't understand why this looks so bad when the animals in the lion long looked incredible.

Quote:

---

If it works for them, great. I would prefer they get an original story and go from there. That doesn't seem to fit the narrative these days.

---

This is hilarious, because almost every "classic Disney" animated movie wasn't an original story.

Snow White was based from the Brothers Grimm, published in the 1800s- German.

The Little Mermaid (complained about here), published by Hans Christian Andersen in the 1800s-Danish.

The Lion King, was Hamlet, written by Shakespeare in the 1600s, and replaced animal for people.

You could go on all day.

Disney has made an empire repurposing old stories for a century. Nobody complained when Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were replaced as people by a meerkat and a warthog in The Lion King, but by all means, get upset if Snow White looks different than the last one you were familiar with.

A little different than repurposing a literary work from the 19th century and bringing it to the silver screen in the 20th century.

This is taking something more recent and changing it to pander to a different audience in hopes of getting their money. It's misappropriation to earn a profit.

Sorry you support misappropriation to pull money out of minorities.

It looks like they put a ******ed chimp in charge of making this movie

I love these threads. So fun.

Content with minorities is not a big deal. I miss a lot of the content that used to get made back in the 80s and 90s that were black focused/forward. Doesn't seem like we get much of that anymore.

The obvious argument here is that the industry keeps hijacking historical or previously made content for the express purpose of shoving a black or gay person into it to prove a point that has nothing to do with entertainment value. And never mind the complete and utter hijacking of tv commercials with mixed race couples and black families that approaches 1984 level propaganda. I don't get how this is lost on so many when it's a stated goal and right in front of you.

Speaking of non-white people in movies, go look at the top rated action movies in IMDB and about half that list are Indian movies. Some of them look really good and I would kindly like to watch several of those.

I will wait until the actual movie comes out before I pitch a review on it.

Isn't that what we usually do? Watch the movie, rate the acting and performance. Listen to the film score and how it's placed into the movie. Do a solid analysis on character and plot development, then a final judgement call of the movie?

Sometimes it feels as if users here have a narrative already dialed in and won't even give the movie a chance.

It's a Disney Princess movie. I'm going to take my two little girls to go watch it at Alamo Drafthouse for a dinner, a movie and some quality father-daughter time.

It's a fictional fairytale for children.

No, it isn't. It's a forum to discuss entertainment content and people make threads for movies sometimes years in advance of them hitting theaters. People nitpick and discuss whatever stuff is happening relating to what it being rumored about production and/or what the cast is saying at promotional events etc. Kinda like asking the Zoo why they're talking about the upcoming season in June. It's a place for people to waste time speculating and shooting the *****

Sea Speed said:

---

Saw this and seems like a pretty significant change

Here I made a side by side comparison of the OG Snow White 'Whistle While You Work' song VS Disney's new version with Rachel Zegeler...see if you can spot the glaring differences for an "updated modern audience" pic.twitter.com/qdfXwsRH4Z

— thatstarwarsgirl (@thatstarwarsgrl) August 14, 2024

Snow White was led to the house because she needed a place to stay. But the reason she cleaned the house was because she thought orphaned children lived there, and felt bad they didn't have a mother. So she would clean the house and surprise them.

To take this out and have the… pic.twitter.com/EwdOOpntx3

— Steph Anie (@mynerdyhome) August 15, 2024

---

Girlboss don't do no chores

Another Doug said:

---

Lathspell said:

---

That looks so laughably bad... I can't believe that is a legit Disney movie release. How far that company has fallen from the greatness of 90's animation, Pixar greats, and the first 3 phases of the MCU.

---

The two biggest box office his this year are an animated Disney movie and a Disney Marvel movie.

---

LOL Coming off of 4 or 5 of the biggest flops in 2023

It's perfectly fine to speculate on this movie and others like it, especially since we've seen clips and heard directly from the actors. Anyone saying otherwise is just goaltending to protect ... the biggest, most powerful entertainment conglomerate on the planet?? Hmmm ...

If the movie were "Spiderman vs. Antman" or some other comic book-based story, people on here would be going nuts. But somehow, if it's a remake of a classic -- even historic -- Disney movie, we're not supposed to have opinions??