javajaws said:

---

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.

---

Uhhhh... Yeah.

Welcome to the world of marketing and advertising.

I mean, it seems like this boils down to:

Company owns IP.
Company decides they might be able to make some money off of modifying this IP to appeal to a brand new demo.
People complain that the IP that they didn't create is being changed by a company in the name or profits.


So yeah, the people up-in-arms are not going to go see the new movie. But the new demo that is intrigued by it will.

People are mad that their fantasy character that they remembered from their childhood is changing.

Quote:

---

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.

---

What "culture" is being "appropriated" here?

Proposition Joe said:

---

javajaws said:

---

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.

---

Uhhhh... Yeah.

Welcome to the world of marketing and advertising.

I mean, it seems like this boils down to:

Company owns IP.
Company decides they might be able to make some money off of modifying this IP to appeal to a brand new demo.
People complain that the IP that they didn't create is being changed by a company in the name or profits.


So yeah, the people up-in-arms are not going to go see the new movie. But the new demo that is intrigued by it will.

People are mad that their fantasy character that they remembered from their childhood is changing.

---

This is true generally. But I think there's been enough said and done out of Disney the last few years to suggest that it's more than just chasing dollars and cents and they're often trying to get a particular political point of view across as well. I consider the South Park guys pretty astute observers of culture and they clearly see it that way and completely lampooned the lady in charge of Star Wars.

It's their IP and they're free to do with it what they want. But I think the pushback is not so much this one film, but the perception that Disney has been trying to promote certain political viewpoints in many if not most of their works for the last 5-10 years. And, right or wrong, this is the perception of a lot of people.

JCA1 said:

---

It's their IP and they're free to do with it what they want. But I think the pushback is not so much this one film, but the perception that Disney has been trying to promote certain political viewpoints in many if not most of their works for the last 5-10 years. And, right or wrong, this is the perception of a lot of people.

---

I agree with this 100 percent. And related to that ...

Under Iger, it feels like Disney is embarrassed of its past and is actively seeking to shed itself of Walt's contributions to the cultural landscape.

It's not just movies, either. You see it in the parks and resorts, too. Bit by bit, theming is being destroyed in favor of bland design and random IP placement.

There is a very strong rumor at present that Disney wants to rename the Main Streets at WDW and Disneyland to Mickey Avenue, to remove the connection to Americana that was so important to Walt -- just as it is dismantling Frontierland.

Times change, it's true. But when the people doing the changing lack vision, you eventually reach a tipping point where the paying customer can see the decline.

aTmAg said:

---

20ag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

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

---

And this year they've got the highest box office market share of any studio, with some big ones left to come.

Studios have had good and bad years since the dawn of time.

---

What movies?

---

Deadpool and Inside Out 2 have made over half a billion each domestic.

Moana 2 and Mufasa coming out later this year.

So 2 non-woke movies.

JCA1 said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

javajaws said:

---

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.

---

Uhhhh... Yeah.

Welcome to the world of marketing and advertising.

I mean, it seems like this boils down to:

Company owns IP.
Company decides they might be able to make some money off of modifying this IP to appeal to a brand new demo.
People complain that the IP that they didn't create is being changed by a company in the name or profits.


So yeah, the people up-in-arms are not going to go see the new movie. But the new demo that is intrigued by it will.

People are mad that their fantasy character that they remembered from their childhood is changing.

---

This is true generally. But I think there's been enough said and done out of Disney the last few years to suggest that it's more than just chasing dollars and cents and they're often trying to get a particular political point of view across as well. I consider the South Park guys pretty astute observers of culture and they clearly see it that way and completely lampooned the lady in charge of Star Wars.

It's their IP and they're free to do with it what they want. But I think the pushback is not so much this one film, but the perception that Disney has been trying to promote certain political viewpoints in many if not most of their works for the last 5-10 years. And, right or wrong, this is the perception of a lot of people.

---

Yeah, but I would assume that all of it is done in the name of the bottom line as well.

And I think people often confuse a "promotion of certain political viewpoints" with simply what the creative talent / director may favor. If the same political extreme of "my team vs your team" existed back in the 50/60's along with a global up-to-the-second megaphone, then I'm sure many of those "classic" movies would have been attacked by one side for how they handled this or that.

Nothing has really changed, there's just a lot more people hyper-sensitive to it now.

AGC said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

javajaws said:

---

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.

---

Uhhhh... Yeah.

Welcome to the world of marketing and advertising.

I mean, it seems like this boils down to:

Company owns IP.
Company decides they might be able to make some money off of modifying this IP to appeal to a brand new demo.
People complain that the IP that they didn't create is being changed by a company in the name or profits.


So yeah, the people up-in-arms are not going to go see the new movie. But the new demo that is intrigued by it will.

People are mad that their fantasy character that they remembered from their childhood is changing.

---

This is a sanitized, business take on IP and art. When you release something into the wild, you give up some of the rights to it. People publish garbage books all the time that no one reads. You need an audience to accept and embrace it in order for it to be meaningful culturally and economically. It's a shared experience and much as you may dislike it, others have some ownership and say over it. It's not your work anymore to do with as you please. It's not rocket science.

---

Ok?

If there's enough backlash, people will no longer support the new work.

Roland Deschain of Gilead had no business being black. It undercut several key aspects of the novel. But the movie didn't suck because he was black, it sucked because it was a poorly written and directed piece of crap.

But that doesn't make me love The Dark Tower novel any less.

It's Snow ****ing White. You can still load up your classic VHS and watch the story you know and love over and over again. Disney trying to tap into a new demographic doesn't involve them breaking into your home and stealing your VHS and memories from you.......



<cue Orwellian music>.... YET.

Proposition Joe said:

---

AGC said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

javajaws said:

---

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.

---

Uhhhh... Yeah.

Welcome to the world of marketing and advertising.

I mean, it seems like this boils down to:

Company owns IP.
Company decides they might be able to make some money off of modifying this IP to appeal to a brand new demo.
People complain that the IP that they didn't create is being changed by a company in the name or profits.


So yeah, the people up-in-arms are not going to go see the new movie. But the new demo that is intrigued by it will.

People are mad that their fantasy character that they remembered from their childhood is changing.

---

This is a sanitized, business take on IP and art. When you release something into the wild, you give up some of the rights to it. People publish garbage books all the time that no one reads. You need an audience to accept and embrace it in order for it to be meaningful culturally and economically. It's a shared experience and much as you may dislike it, others have some ownership and say over it. It's not your work anymore to do with as you please. It's not rocket science.

---

Ok?

If there's enough backlash, people will no longer support the new work.

Roland Deschain of Gilead had no business being black. It undercut several key aspects of the novel. But the movie didn't suck because he was black, it sucked because it was a poorly written and directed piece of crap.

But that doesn't make me love The Dark Tower novel any less.

It's Snow ****ing White. You can still load up your classic VHS and watch the story you know and love over and over again. Disney trying to tap into a new demographic doesn't involve them breaking into your home and stealing your VHS and memories from you.......



<cue Orwellian music>.... YET.

---

What, the "girl boss" demographic?

Proposition Joe said:

---

AGC said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

javajaws said:

---

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.

---

Uhhhh... Yeah.

Welcome to the world of marketing and advertising.

I mean, it seems like this boils down to:

Company owns IP.
Company decides they might be able to make some money off of modifying this IP to appeal to a brand new demo.
People complain that the IP that they didn't create is being changed by a company in the name or profits.


So yeah, the people up-in-arms are not going to go see the new movie. But the new demo that is intrigued by it will.

People are mad that their fantasy character that they remembered from their childhood is changing.

---

This is a sanitized, business take on IP and art. When you release something into the wild, you give up some of the rights to it. People publish garbage books all the time that no one reads. You need an audience to accept and embrace it in order for it to be meaningful culturally and economically. It's a shared experience and much as you may dislike it, others have some ownership and say over it. It's not your work anymore to do with as you please. It's not rocket science.

---

Ok?

If there's enough backlash, people will no longer support the new work.

Roland Deschain of Gilead had no business being black. It undercut several key aspects of the novel. But the movie didn't suck because he was black, it sucked because it was a poorly written and directed piece of crap.

But that doesn't make me love The Dark Tower novel any less.

It's Snow ****ing White. You can still load up your classic VHS and watch the story you know and love over and over again. Disney trying to tap into a new demographic doesn't involve them breaking into your home and stealing your VHS and memories from you.......



<cue Orwellian music>.... YET.

---

Yes, we're back to the original point - they changed the movie and delayed it because it was rejected by people they considered to be their audience. So much for the 'new demo'!

aTmAg said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

AGC said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

javajaws said:

---

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.

---

Uhhhh... Yeah.

Welcome to the world of marketing and advertising.

I mean, it seems like this boils down to:

Company owns IP.
Company decides they might be able to make some money off of modifying this IP to appeal to a brand new demo.
People complain that the IP that they didn't create is being changed by a company in the name or profits.


So yeah, the people up-in-arms are not going to go see the new movie. But the new demo that is intrigued by it will.

People are mad that their fantasy character that they remembered from their childhood is changing.

---

This is a sanitized, business take on IP and art. When you release something into the wild, you give up some of the rights to it. People publish garbage books all the time that no one reads. You need an audience to accept and embrace it in order for it to be meaningful culturally and economically. It's a shared experience and much as you may dislike it, others have some ownership and say over it. It's not your work anymore to do with as you please. It's not rocket science.

---

Ok?

If there's enough backlash, people will no longer support the new work.

Roland Deschain of Gilead had no business being black. It undercut several key aspects of the novel. But the movie didn't suck because he was black, it sucked because it was a poorly written and directed piece of crap.

But that doesn't make me love The Dark Tower novel any less.

It's Snow ****ing White. You can still load up your classic VHS and watch the story you know and love over and over again. Disney trying to tap into a new demographic doesn't involve them breaking into your home and stealing your VHS and memories from you.......



<cue Orwellian music>.... YET.

---

What, the "girl boss" demographic?

---

Sure? I dunno... It's obviously not meant for me so... get this... I won't go see it.

I think the same people complaining about this would have had a similar thread 20 years ago when Wicked came out about how "Hollywood is now even trying to re-frame The Wizard of Oz and how the witch wasn't actually bad!"

So many people just looking for things to get triggered over. Get a hobby.

The "tap into a new demographic" thing doesn't really pass scrutiny.

Disney's "Frozen" and "Frozen 2" are both beloved the world over and they feature all white characters in a Scandinavian setting.

If you ever saw little kids lining up to meet Elsa at WDW, you saw people of all nationalities and backgrounds. A well-done movie with strong storytelling and catchy music transcends demographics.

Disney does great when it fully explores different cultures and characters, like with "Coco" or "Moana." They've proven they can reach different demographics with real stories that resonate. They don't need every movie to be based on European folklore, but at the same time, it's okay if one is. Especially if you are telling stories from other cultures, too.

Do a live action remake of "Snow White" and stay true to the original. If it's well done, it will be successful.

https://instagr.am/p/C-3n7yHSp3O

Im at the point where I am seriously wonder if Disney just likes burning cash to piss off their customers.


Maybe they are pulling off some sort of insurance fraud?

EclipseAg said:

---

Disney does great when it fully explores different cultures and characters, like with "Coco" or "Moana." They've proven they can reach different demographics with real stories that resonate. They don't need every movie to be based on European folklore, but at the same time, it's okay if one is. Especially if you are telling stories from other cultures, too.

Do a live action remake of "Snow White" and stay true to the original. If it's well done, it will be successful.

---

This.

I've always actually enjoyed movies from Disney when they are bringing folklore and stories from other cultures to the screen. Hell, Mulan may be my favorite Disney movie from the 90's. Aladdin is a classic.

Moana was a great idea by Disney, and it made them heaps of money. Good for them! You also had movies like Coco and Encanto... great! Show other cultures and let us get to know them. Raceswapping a Grim Fairy Tale? We're all gonna roll our eyes because it's an obvious shallow attempt of forcing inclusion. But again, that's the least of my criticism of this Snow White movie.

If they made a movie set in modern day US, I would expect to see multiple races everywhere. If they made a movie based on some African tale, I would expect all the character to be black. It's the obvious race swapping just to make a statement that so many of us think is stupid. It's ham-fisted and obvious.

I actually really enjoy movies that attempt to give the audience a deep look at another culture and its history. I don't need to see my "identity" in the characters. Part of the interesting aspect to those stories is being exposed to characters very different from me and my experience, but generating empathy and understanding of those characters, despite our differences.

ETA: Said it a million times, a great example of "inclusion" done right is the Spiderverse movies. Still hold both of those to be the best Spider-Man movies of the lot. Absolutely fantastic. Did we get a race-swap on Peter Parker and force him to black? No. Miles Morales is a different person with his own family and motivations. Fantastically done.

Proposition Joe said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

AGC said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

javajaws said:

---

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.

---

Uhhhh... Yeah.

Welcome to the world of marketing and advertising.

I mean, it seems like this boils down to:

Company owns IP.
Company decides they might be able to make some money off of modifying this IP to appeal to a brand new demo.
People complain that the IP that they didn't create is being changed by a company in the name or profits.


So yeah, the people up-in-arms are not going to go see the new movie. But the new demo that is intrigued by it will.

People are mad that their fantasy character that they remembered from their childhood is changing.

---

This is a sanitized, business take on IP and art. When you release something into the wild, you give up some of the rights to it. People publish garbage books all the time that no one reads. You need an audience to accept and embrace it in order for it to be meaningful culturally and economically. It's a shared experience and much as you may dislike it, others have some ownership and say over it. It's not your work anymore to do with as you please. It's not rocket science.

---

Ok?

If there's enough backlash, people will no longer support the new work.

Roland Deschain of Gilead had no business being black. It undercut several key aspects of the novel. But the movie didn't suck because he was black, it sucked because it was a poorly written and directed piece of crap.

But that doesn't make me love The Dark Tower novel any less.

It's Snow ****ing White. You can still load up your classic VHS and watch the story you know and love over and over again. Disney trying to tap into a new demographic doesn't involve them breaking into your home and stealing your VHS and memories from you.......



<cue Orwellian music>.... YET.

---

What, the "girl boss" demographic?

---

Sure? I dunno... It's obviously not meant for me so... get this... I won't go see it.

I think the same people complaining about this would have had a similar thread 20 years ago when Wicked came out about how "Hollywood is now even trying to re-frame The Wizard of Oz and how the witch wasn't actually bad!"

So many people just looking for things to get triggered over. Get a hobby.

---

I was here on TexAgs 20 years ago. I didn't involve myself in any threads about Wicked. You know why? Because Wicked wasn't trying "flip gender roles", push 3rd wave feminism, or any of that nonsense.

These movies ARE trying to do that. And that is why people are complaining. I don't want to take my daughter/granddaughter to a movie that teaches her that being a complainy beotch is good. I don't want them to grow up to be insufferable.

Quote:

---

I don't want to take my daughter/granddaughter to a movie that teaches her that being a complainy beotch is good. I don't want them to grow up to be insufferable.

---

And where exactly did you see that happen in this trailer?

aTmAg said:

---

iThese movies ARE trying to do that. And that is why people are complaining. I don't want to take my daughter/granddaughter to a movie that teaches her that being a complainy beotch is good. I don't want them to grow up to be insufferable.

---

Because you heard no interview that said that said the character was going to be an "insufferable complainy beotch", or anything of the sort.

You just went off jumping to conclusions because you already had a built in preconception.

Quote:

---

They themselves were insufferable complainy beotches in the interview and it's pretty clear they are going to inject that into the movie. And the little clip they have already released shows that I'm right. Making the dwarfs clean their own damn house? WTF?

---

That's what acting is. You've seen plenty of interviews from a large percentage of actresses who are insufferable and acted in charming performances that have nothing to do with Disney.

Insufferable princesses is not what Disney does.

You have no idea what context the movie is going to give on why she's living with them, based on a 10 second clip.

Delightfully dancing around, singing, and making everyone's mood happy, which is what's shown, is not what you'd consider an "insufferable complainy beotch".

20ag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

They themselves were insufferable complainy beotches in the interview and it's pretty clear they are going to inject that into the movie. And the little clip they have already released shows that I'm right. Making the dwarfs clean their own damn house? WTF?

---

That's what acting is. You've seen plenty of interviews from a large percentage of actresses who are insufferable and have nothing to do with Disney.

Insufferable princesses is not what Disney does.

You have no idea what context the movie is going to give on why she's living with them, based on a 10 second clip.

Delightfully dancing around, singing, and making everyone's mood happy, which is what's shown, is not what you'd consider an "insufferable complainy beotch".

---

In her interview she was talking the content of the movie:

Quote:

---

"I just mean that it's no longer 1937," Zegler said. "We absolutely wrote a 'Snow White' that ... she's not going to be saved by the prince, and she's not going to be dreaming about true love; she's going to be dreaming about becoming the leader she knows she can be and that her late father told her that she could be if she was fearless, fair, brave and true."

---

Feminist girl boss BS. And the clip that has been released shows that to be accurate.

aTmAg said:

---

In her interview she was talking the content of the movie:

Quote:

---

"I just mean that it's no longer 1937," Zegler said. "We absolutely wrote a 'Snow White' that ... she's not going to be saved by the prince, and she's not going to be dreaming about true love; she's going to be dreaming about becoming the leader she knows she can be and that her late father told her that she could be if she was fearless, fair, brave and true."

---

Feminist girl boss BS. And the clip that has been released shows that to be accurate.

---

Next thing you know she's going to want a job, to open her own checking account...where does it end?!

(Also, how exactly did you determine that from a 60 second tease whose only dialogue is word for word from the original film?)

Quote:

---

Feminist girl boss BS. And the clip that has been released shows that to be accurate.

---

Like if you want to teach your daughters that they can't lead, and only a man can save their life by kissing them if they eat a poisoned apple, go for it.

The original film shows that the dwarves don't have their stuff together to the extent that their house is a pigsty. Obviously needed some help from somebody getting it together.

Helping them get it together isn't "feminist" or "girlbossing".

fig96 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

In her interview she was talking the content of the movie:

Quote:

---

"I just mean that it's no longer 1937," Zegler said. "We absolutely wrote a 'Snow White' that ... she's not going to be saved by the prince, and she's not going to be dreaming about true love; she's going to be dreaming about becoming the leader she knows she can be and that her late father told her that she could be if she was fearless, fair, brave and true."

---

Feminist girl boss BS. And the clip that has been released shows that to be accurate.

---

Next thing you know she's going to want a job, to open her own checking account...where does it end?!

(Also, how exactly did you determine that from a 60 second tease whose only dialogue is word for word from the original film?)

---

In the original film, she was telling animals to help her clean FOR the elves. She wasn't telling the elves themselves to clean their own house. This is how I know you are a liar. There is no way you didn't understand that difference.

And if my daughter (who has a checking account and her own job) goes into somebody else's house and starts telling them to clean it, then she would be a beotch. Strange how you don't understand this sort of thing.

20ag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

Feminist girl boss BS. And the clip that has been released shows that to be accurate.

---

Like if you want to teach your daughters that they can't lead, and only a man can save their life by kissing them if they eat a poisoned apple, go for it.

The original film shows that the dwarves don't have their stuff together to the extent that their house is a pigsty. Obviously needed some help from somebody getting it together.

Helping them get it together isn't "feminist" or "girlbossing".

---

Again, from the interview:

Quote:

---

"I just mean that it's no longer 1937," Zegler said. "We absolutely wrote a 'Snow White' that ... she's not going to be saved by the prince, and she's not going to be dreaming about true love; she's going to be dreaming about becoming the leader she knows she can be and that her late father told her that she could be if she was fearless, fair, brave and true."

---

Aka.. girl boss.

They took a movie that had nothing to do with girl-bossing and turned her into one. The fact that you are trying to deny it is hilarious.

You realize, that in both films, that she is the bloodline to being the ruler of a country, right?

Her dad King dies, her power hungry stepmom is next, but she'd be the bloodline heiress of this fictional land. Of course she should be a leader.

And I'd love it if my 8yo daughter manages to become a CEO one day.

That's not "feminism" or "girlbossing".

See, most people would watch that clip and assume Disney changed it because having a woman tasked with cleaning up the house probably wouldn't sit well with today's youth/women... but would probably wait to see the context.

But I guess if you're walking into something wanting to be triggered, you'll find something to be triggered about that.

Just absolutely bonkers to me that grown men could be watching a youtube breakdown of a Snow White trailer and forming opinions on it.

Proposition Joe said:

---

See, most people would watch that clip and assume Disney changed it because having a woman tasked with cleaning up the house probably wouldn't sit well with today's youth/women... but would probably wait to see the context.

But I guess if you're walking into something wanting to be triggered, you'll find something to be triggered about that.

Just absolutely bonkers to me that grown men could be watching a youtube breakdown of a Snow White trailer and forming opinions on it.

---

Bonkers to me that grown men are getting triggered over other people's thoughts about a Snow White movie on a college sports board yet here we are.

Seriously though - literally EVERY thread on this forum is about people commenting on some movie or another. If you don't agree just give your thoughts and move on. Why all of this trying to convince people to think like you or telling them how wrong they are again and again? Stop beating this dead horse at least until the race starts.