That photo of her is definitely filtered. At least get a true to life image for your argument.

I'll bite. And probably regret it, especially since all this has been mentioned previously but some insist critics are "running and hiding" from specifics.

If initial reports -- many from the stars' own comments -- are true, then:

1) Snow White is now a girl boss. She don't need no man. Ziegler even commented during initial press events that the Prince might be edited out completely and it wouldn't matter because he isn't integral to the story. She called him a "stalker." Yet the romance between the Prince and Snow White is one of the story elements that attracted Walt Disney to the idea.

2) "Fairest of them all" no longer means beauty. It refers to leadership. I guess that was a necessity because, I mean, Gal Gadot is the witch.

3) Snow White originally believes the cabin she takes refuge in belongs to orphans. She cleans up because she is kind and gentle and willing to help others. She takes care of the dwarves, cooking and cleaning for them, and in turn they protect her and give her a home. She's not the boss; she's a guest. In a key sequence in the new version, Snow White orders the dwarves to clean up themselves. it appears to change one of the underlying themes of the original -- that Snow White's inner beauty is as powerful as her looks.

4) Visually, the overabundance of CGI is unsettling to lots of viewers, at least in the short trailers. The dwarves look awkward and out of place. Perhaps in the full movie the "uncanny valley" will disappear, but the initial impression isn't good.

5) Snow White's very name is derived from her "skin as white as snow." Casting an actress of Colombian descent is just so typical of modern Disney. Anything to create controversy and thumb their nose at convention.

6) The whole dwarves thing is an another example of how Disney is willing to quickly bend the knee to criticism from a so-called "enlightened" point of view but not from a traditional one.

Of course, there are always people who don't care about tradition and who don't mind these types of changes if it makes the film more palatable to "MODERN AUDIENCES."

But this isn't any film. It's an historic film, the first full-length animated movie, Disney's Folly, the movie everyone said couldn't be done. It not only saved the studio, it brought new technology, new animation techniques and modern merchandising to the industry.

It's also one of the most critically acclaimed films of all time, ranking 49th on the AFI's list of the Top 100 films and earning an honorary Academy Award.

In other words, it didn't need Disney's weird brand of modernization, but anything for a buck, right?

Perhaps the film will be so good that these changes will be unnoticeable. But given Disney's recent track record, I wouldn't bet on it.

Point 5 is the one that seems like a dumb decision.

It's not about "OMG I want a white person to be cast as the lead!!!"

It's "the very description of the character is in the name of the character". They have strayed from the source material.

Finn and the others on this board that blindly defend every Disney move want to call racism on any person that brings it up, when they should be calling out Disney for trying to make changes just for the sake of change.

To sum up the thread.

maroon barchetta said:

---

Point 5 is the one that seems like a dumb decision.

It's not about "OMG I want a white person to be cast as the lead!!!"

It's "the very description of the character is in the name of the character". They have strayed from the source material.

Finn and the others on this board that blindly defend every Disney move want to call racism on any person that brings it up, when they should be calling out Disney for trying to make changes just for the sake of change.

---

I disagree. Of the 6 points the poster made, it's the one that I think doesn't matter at all. The color of Snow White's skin doesn't change the story at all. If you put an Indian in the place of Snow White, the exact same story can still be told. If you can tell the same story, regardless of the characters race/nationality, then I don't have a problem with them swapping out the race.

They really should have gone all in with a Zack Synder version of this film. If they're going to make Snow White a girl boss, they should have just gone ahead and made her the general of a Dwarf army and had her lead the Dwarfs in a full on assault of the Queen's castle. I can picture her screaming, "Who's the fairest of them all?!?!" just before she kicks the Queen in the stomach knocking her backwards over the castle wall.

AustinAg2K said:

---

maroon barchetta said:

---

Point 5 is the one that seems like a dumb decision.

It's not about "OMG I want a white person to be cast as the lead!!!"

It's "the very description of the character is in the name of the character". They have strayed from the source material.

Finn and the others on this board that blindly defend every Disney move want to call racism on any person that brings it up, when they should be calling out Disney for trying to make changes just for the sake of change.

---

I disagree. Of the 6 points the poster made, it's the one that I think doesn't matter at all. The color of Snow White's skin doesn't change the story at all. If you put an Indian in the place of Snow White, the exact same story can still be told. If you can tell the same story, regardless of the characters race/nationality, then I don't have a problem with them swapping out the race.

---

Would the same apply for Black Panther?

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

maroon barchetta said:

---

Point 5 is the one that seems like a dumb decision.

It's not about "OMG I want a white person to be cast as the lead!!!"

It's "the very description of the character is in the name of the character". They have strayed from the source material.

Finn and the others on this board that blindly defend every Disney move want to call racism on any person that brings it up, when they should be calling out Disney for trying to make changes just for the sake of change.

---

I disagree. Of the 6 points the poster made, it's the one that I think doesn't matter at all. The color of Snow White's skin doesn't change the story at all. If you put an Indian in the place of Snow White, the exact same story can still be told. If you can tell the same story, regardless of the characters race/nationality, then I don't have a problem with them swapping out the race.

---

Would the same apply for Black Panther?

---

Well, you have to make pretty large changes to the story since Black Panther in integrally tied to Wakanda, which is an African Nation in the Marvel stories. I have no idea what country Snow White is supposed to be from.

AustinAg2K said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

maroon barchetta said:

---

Point 5 is the one that seems like a dumb decision.

It's not about "OMG I want a white person to be cast as the lead!!!"

It's "the very description of the character is in the name of the character". They have strayed from the source material.

Finn and the others on this board that blindly defend every Disney move want to call racism on any person that brings it up, when they should be calling out Disney for trying to make changes just for the sake of change.

---

I disagree. Of the 6 points the poster made, it's the one that I think doesn't matter at all. The color of Snow White's skin doesn't change the story at all. If you put an Indian in the place of Snow White, the exact same story can still be told. If you can tell the same story, regardless of the characters race/nationality, then I don't have a problem with them swapping out the race.

---

Would the same apply for Black Panther?

---

Well, you have to make pretty large changes to the story since Black Panther in integrally tied to Wakanda, which is an African Nation in the Marvel stories. I have no idea what country Snow White is supposed to be from.

---

We know.

Edit: so it's not all snark, our family has the brothers Grimm tales, Hans Christian Andersen, an old collection of Russian fairy tales, Scandinavian tales, and good ole racist Rudyard Kipling stuff. We believe it's important to be well read if you want to understand literature and the general culture we're born into. This story is a specific type of literature from a catalogue of stories specific to Europe.

"Snow White" is a German folktale popularized by the Grimm Brothers.

Walt Disney saw a silent film version of the story in 1916 and it stuck with him because he liked the interplay between good and evil and the romance of the prince and Snow White.

fig96 said:

---

AGC said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

maroon barchetta said:

---

Point 5 is the one that seems like a dumb decision.

It's not about "OMG I want a white person to be cast as the lead!!!"

It's "the very description of the character is in the name of the character". They have strayed from the source material.

Finn and the others on this board that blindly defend every Disney move want to call racism on any person that brings it up, when they should be calling out Disney for trying to make changes just for the sake of change.

---

I disagree. Of the 6 points the poster made, it's the one that I think doesn't matter at all. The color of Snow White's skin doesn't change the story at all. If you put an Indian in the place of Snow White, the exact same story can still be told. If you can tell the same story, regardless of the characters race/nationality, then I don't have a problem with them swapping out the race.

---

Would the same apply for Black Panther?

---

Well, you have to make pretty large changes to the story since Black Panther in integrally tied to Wakanda, which is an African Nation in the Marvel stories. I have no idea what country Snow White is supposed to be from.

---

We know.

Edit: so it's not all snark, our family has the brothers Grimm tales, Hans Christian Andersen, an old collection of Russian fairy tales, Scandinavian tales, and good ole racist Rudyard Kipling stuff. We believe it's important to be well read if you want to understand literature and the general culture we're born into. This story is a specific type of literature from a catalogue of stories specific to Europe.

---

While you're not wrong, most fairy tales are adaptable to pretty much any setting without affecting the story.

---

Yes and no, there's obviously a limit. There's a cultural memory that's part of the tale and there's where it collides with reality too. Taking stories about remarried woodcutters and setting them in Bedouin landscapes and culture doesn't make a lot of sense to anyone.

AGC said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

maroon barchetta said:

---

Point 5 is the one that seems like a dumb decision.

It's not about "OMG I want a white person to be cast as the lead!!!"

It's "the very description of the character is in the name of the character". They have strayed from the source material.

Finn and the others on this board that blindly defend every Disney move want to call racism on any person that brings it up, when they should be calling out Disney for trying to make changes just for the sake of change.

---

I disagree. Of the 6 points the poster made, it's the one that I think doesn't matter at all. The color of Snow White's skin doesn't change the story at all. If you put an Indian in the place of Snow White, the exact same story can still be told. If you can tell the same story, regardless of the characters race/nationality, then I don't have a problem with them swapping out the race.

---

Would the same apply for Black Panther?

---

Well, you have to make pretty large changes to the story since Black Panther in integrally tied to Wakanda, which is an African Nation in the Marvel stories. I have no idea what country Snow White is supposed to be from.

---

We know.

Edit: so it's not all snark, our family has the brothers Grimm tales, Hans Christian Andersen, an old collection of Russian fairy tales, Scandinavian tales, and good ole racist Rudyard Kipling stuff. We believe it's important to be well read if you want to understand literature and the general culture we're born into. This story is a specific type of literature from a catalogue of stories specific to Europe.

---

I am fully aware of that Snow White is a German fairy tale. My point wasn't that I don't know where the story is from, my point is that the location of the character in context to the story doesn't matter. She could be from Germany or China or from Brazil. It doesn't change the story itself. The story itself is very generic and can be applied to just about anywhere. That's why a lot of these fairy tales get adapted to modern stories, because they are very malleable. You can change the setting, the time, the character's races and still have it be the same story.

fig96 said:

---

AGC said:

---

fig96 said:

---

AGC said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

maroon barchetta said:

---

Point 5 is the one that seems like a dumb decision.

It's not about "OMG I want a white person to be cast as the lead!!!"

It's "the very description of the character is in the name of the character". They have strayed from the source material.

Finn and the others on this board that blindly defend every Disney move want to call racism on any person that brings it up, when they should be calling out Disney for trying to make changes just for the sake of change.

---

I disagree. Of the 6 points the poster made, it's the one that I think doesn't matter at all. The color of Snow White's skin doesn't change the story at all. If you put an Indian in the place of Snow White, the exact same story can still be told. If you can tell the same story, regardless of the characters race/nationality, then I don't have a problem with them swapping out the race.

---

Would the same apply for Black Panther?

---

Well, you have to make pretty large changes to the story since Black Panther in integrally tied to Wakanda, which is an African Nation in the Marvel stories. I have no idea what country Snow White is supposed to be from.

---

We know.

Edit: so it's not all snark, our family has the brothers Grimm tales, Hans Christian Andersen, an old collection of Russian fairy tales, Scandinavian tales, and good ole racist Rudyard Kipling stuff. We believe it's important to be well read if you want to understand literature and the general culture we're born into. This story is a specific type of literature from a catalogue of stories specific to Europe.

---

While you're not wrong, most fairy tales are adaptable to pretty much any setting without affecting the story.

---

Yes and no, there's obviously a limit. There's a cultural memory that's part of the tale and there's where it collides with reality too. Taking stories about remarried woodcutters and setting them in Bedouin landscapes and culture doesn't make a lot of sense to anyone.

---

Sure, but you could probably change a few details and make the story work pretty easily. There's no true original version of a lot of these stories, they span across cultures in a variety of similar narratives.

---

Right but now we're into ship of Theseus territory. At some point it ain't the same ship.

I'd also reject that there's no true original version. There is a temporal point of reference to all of them that's distinct (brothers Grimm, for instance, or the Russian tales which reference Kiev and the founding of their country). We have markers for the stories. When you try to separate or distill elements of stories and generalize them across time you don't make them meaningful but meaningless and it undercuts the production itself: why not just get one of those generalized stories from somewhere else where you don't have to contend with the Disney legacy?

AustinAg2K said:

---

AGC said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

maroon barchetta said:

---

Point 5 is the one that seems like a dumb decision.

It's not about "OMG I want a white person to be cast as the lead!!!"

It's "the very description of the character is in the name of the character". They have strayed from the source material.

Finn and the others on this board that blindly defend every Disney move want to call racism on any person that brings it up, when they should be calling out Disney for trying to make changes just for the sake of change.

---

I disagree. Of the 6 points the poster made, it's the one that I think doesn't matter at all. The color of Snow White's skin doesn't change the story at all. If you put an Indian in the place of Snow White, the exact same story can still be told. If you can tell the same story, regardless of the characters race/nationality, then I don't have a problem with them swapping out the race.

---

Would the same apply for Black Panther?

---

Well, you have to make pretty large changes to the story since Black Panther in integrally tied to Wakanda, which is an African Nation in the Marvel stories. I have no idea what country Snow White is supposed to be from.

---

We know.

Edit: so it's not all snark, our family has the brothers Grimm tales, Hans Christian Andersen, an old collection of Russian fairy tales, Scandinavian tales, and good ole racist Rudyard Kipling stuff. We believe it's important to be well read if you want to understand literature and the general culture we're born into. This story is a specific type of literature from a catalogue of stories specific to Europe.

---

I am fully aware of that Snow White is a German fairy tale. My point wasn't that I don't know where the story is from, my point is that the location of the character in context to the story doesn't matter. She could be from Germany or China or from Brazil. It doesn't change the story itself. The story itself is very generic and can be applied to just about anywhere. That's why a lot of these fairy tales get adapted to modern stories, because they are very malleable. You can change the setting, the time, the character's races and still have it be the same story.

---

Generally successful adaptations doing something like this would then adjust the setting and other aspects of the story to fit the change rather than just race swapping. See Yojimbo vs A Fistful of Dollars or any of Kuroswawa's adaptations of Shakespeare.

To take 20ag's favorite argument in this thread, it would be the equivalent to making Hamlet a lion for Lion King but changing nothing else.

I'm too lazy to read through all the nonsense of this thread but … Snow White just in general is a boring as hell animated movie.

I don't know why anyone would care for a remake of a pretty outdated and boring story in the first place.

You guys are all correct in that the story could be told with any race/nationality. But you would need to change the name of the main character( and make her better looking than the queen)

I don't know what name to go with for a non-white character though. Or the fact no one would realize it was the Snow White story, which is why Disney won't change it.

Beauty and The Beast could be any race. Just the don't put her in medivial France. Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, all could be done, just put them in the correct place/location in time to make it make sense.

Quote:

---

Generally successful adaptations doing something like this would then adjust the setting and other aspects of the story to fit the change rather than just race swapping.

---

You understand, right, that any fictional version of Snow White was set-up in an imaginary world that didn't exist?

There's not any world where a "sorceress" queen takes over the land from the king she barely knew before she married, talks to a magic mirror, can change her appearance, etc. It's always been an imaginary story in a totally imaginary place that doesn't exist. Certainly wasn't anywhere in Europe.

So who cares if things look different in this imaginary world than the previous imaginary worlds?

20ag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

Generally successful adaptations doing something like this would then adjust the setting and other aspects of the story to fit the change rather than just race swapping.

---

You understand, right, that any fictional version of Snow White was set-up in an imaginary world that didn't exist?

So who cares if things look different in this imaginary world than the previous imaginary worlds?

---

I would argue that Disney should care enough about its own IP -- and the imaginary world that the company's founder and namesake visualized and created -- to respect and protect it.

If someone else wants to produce a version of "Snow White" set in India or Nigeria where the main character bosses around CGI dwarves and doesn't care about the prince, more power to 'em. But Disney shouldn't be actively working to undermine Walt's legacy, or that of its animators and creators.

20ag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

Generally successful adaptations doing something like this would then adjust the setting and other aspects of the story to fit the change rather than just race swapping.

---

You understand, right, that any fictional version of Snow White was set-up in an imaginary world that didn't exist?

There's not any world where a "sorceress" queen takes over the land from the king she barely knew before she married, talks to a magic mirror, can change her appearance, etc. It's always been an imaginary story in a totally imaginary place that doesn't exist. Certainly wasn't anywhere in Europe.

So who cares if things look different in this imaginary world than the previous imaginary worlds?

---

I think the argument that Disney movies are purely fictional and not at all based on some historical real world locations and cultures is a difficult one to buy. First of all they've historically taken great care to replicate those cultures on at least a basic level. Secondly, if I take that argument, then the stories of Paul Bunyan and John Henry must not take place in a fictional America because giants with blue oxes and a man so strong he could beat a steam powered drill in a tunneling race as those are totally imaginary.

Sure there isn't a reason you cannot put a person of color or sexual orientation or gender in any specific role. People can do whatever they want when creating something I suppose. Doesn't mean it's a particularly meaningful change nor is it likely done for the betterment of the story. There is no real reason that people can't question why there are blue haired genderfluid they/them in a clearly medieval European inspired setting even though that setting is apparently purely imaginary in your argument. You could easily make this story, it just makes more sense and causes less dissonance when the expectation of characters and the setting match.

AustinAg2K said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

maroon barchetta said:

---

Point 5 is the one that seems like a dumb decision.

It's not about "OMG I want a white person to be cast as the lead!!!"

It's "the very description of the character is in the name of the character". They have strayed from the source material.

Finn and the others on this board that blindly defend every Disney move want to call racism on any person that brings it up, when they should be calling out Disney for trying to make changes just for the sake of change.

---

I disagree. Of the 6 points the poster made, it's the one that I think doesn't matter at all. The color of Snow White's skin doesn't change the story at all. If you put an Indian in the place of Snow White, the exact same story can still be told. If you can tell the same story, regardless of the characters race/nationality, then I don't have a problem with them swapping out the race.

---

Would the same apply for Black Panther?

---

Well, you have to make pretty large changes to the story since Black Panther in integrally tied to Wakanda, which is an African Nation in the Marvel stories. I have no idea what country Snow White is supposed to be from.

---

Why does an African nation in film have to be full of black people? Why couldn't it be full of whites? Or Hispanics? Why even one color at all?

20ag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

But Disney shouldn't be actively working to undermine Walt's legacy, or that of its animators and creators.

---

What is Walt's legacy? Or that of "his"animators and creators?

That he was making movies for a US audience only until he died in 1966? Long before the international market, that is crucial for any big budget movie, existed?

OK.

Disney's been focused on getting as much money from as many people as it can for as long as it has existed.

---

Do you honestly think they'd have made less money with a white Ariel or white Snow White and struck exactly to the script of the originals?

Teslag said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

maroon barchetta said:

---

Point 5 is the one that seems like a dumb decision.

It's not about "OMG I want a white person to be cast as the lead!!!"

It's "the very description of the character is in the name of the character". They have strayed from the source material.

Finn and the others on this board that blindly defend every Disney move want to call racism on any person that brings it up, when they should be calling out Disney for trying to make changes just for the sake of change.

---

I disagree. Of the 6 points the poster made, it's the one that I think doesn't matter at all. The color of Snow White's skin doesn't change the story at all. If you put an Indian in the place of Snow White, the exact same story can still be told. If you can tell the same story, regardless of the characters race/nationality, then I don't have a problem with them swapping out the race.

---

Would the same apply for Black Panther?

---

Well, you have to make pretty large changes to the story since Black Panther in integrally tied to Wakanda, which is an African Nation in the Marvel stories. I have no idea what country Snow White is supposed to be from.

---

Why does an African nation in film have to be full of black people? Why couldn't it be full of whites? Or Hispanics? Why even one color at all?

---

As a Latino, I'm annoyed they are screwing this one up...And they messed it up with Kristen Stewart too who (while white) was nowhere near hot enough to be in that role. It's just really stupid casting IMO b/c they want to make a point. That's what it feels like anyway.

And thank God they didn't F up Coco which is a total classic IMO. They would have destroyed it by trying to force in a bunch of characters that don't belong there.

Quote:

---

20ag07

-A $200M+ budget movie can't make a profit if it isn't doing ~50%+ international box office. Simply can't happen. The original Snow White made $35K international, which was 0%. So "tradition" and whatnot aside, it simply can't be made if you can't court an international audience.

---

If this was a factor, should have made the character Chinese.

EclipseAg said:

---

20ag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

Generally successful adaptations doing something like this would then adjust the setting and other aspects of the story to fit the change rather than just race swapping.

---

You understand, right, that any fictional version of Snow White was set-up in an imaginary world that didn't exist?

So who cares if things look different in this imaginary world than the previous imaginary worlds?

---

I would argue that Disney should care enough about its own IP -- and the imaginary world that the company's founder and namesake visualized and created -- to respect and protect it.

If someone else wants to produce a version of "Snow White" set in India or Nigeria where the main character bosses around CGI dwarves and doesn't care about the prince, more power to 'em. But Disney shouldn't be actively working to undermine Walt's legacy, or that of its animators and creators.

---

And obviously Disney has done their market research and decided that it's more profitable to "reframe" these old stories.

And I imagine they have more data and market research than we do to know if that will be long-term profitable for them.

Doesn't mean they aren't making an error -- plenty of large companies do... but like with a lot of things that people don't seem to "get" -- it's not necessarily for them anymore. The demographics of the country have changed, meaning what companies make the most money marketing to has changed.

A lot of people have a hard time wrapping their mind around that when it comes to media. For decades it catered towards a certain demo, because that was the market they were trying to capture. Companies have now decided that market is more or less "captured" and are going after new demos.

Proposition Joe said:

---

And obviously Disney has done their market research and decided that it's more profitable to "reframe" these old stories.

And I imagine they have more data and market research than we do to know if that will be long-term profitable for them.

---

Last year 7 of their 8 movies severely underperformed. Doesn't seem like their market research team is doing a great job.

Proposition Joe said:

---

EclipseAg said:

---

20ag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

Generally successful adaptations doing something like this would then adjust the setting and other aspects of the story to fit the change rather than just race swapping.

---

You understand, right, that any fictional version of Snow White was set-up in an imaginary world that didn't exist?

So who cares if things look different in this imaginary world than the previous imaginary worlds?

---

I would argue that Disney should care enough about its own IP -- and the imaginary world that the company's founder and namesake visualized and created -- to respect and protect it.

If someone else wants to produce a version of "Snow White" set in India or Nigeria where the main character bosses around CGI dwarves and doesn't care about the prince, more power to 'em. But Disney shouldn't be actively working to undermine Walt's legacy, or that of its animators and creators.

---

And obviously Disney has done their market research and decided that it's more profitable to "reframe" these old stories.

And I imagine they have more data and market research than we do to know if that will be long-term profitable for them.

Doesn't mean they aren't making an error -- plenty of large companies do... but like with a lot of things that people don't seem to "get" -- it's not necessarily for them anymore. The demographics of the country have changed, meaning what companies make the most money marketing to has changed.

A lot of people have a hard time wrapping their mind around that when it comes to media. For decades it catered towards a certain demo, because that was the market they were trying to capture. Companies have now decided that market is more or less "captured" and are going after new demos.

---

Don't disagree. But why didn't they go with a new title and character name to match their vision instead of re-using a classic title and character name? I'll tell you why - because they wanted to culturally appropriate what used to make them money...to make them money again with a new demographic.

You make this movie under a different title and character name as sort of an alt-reality version of its previous self and I don't think people complain near as much.