Photos have emerged from the next Disney live action remake of one of their classic animated films, “Snow White.” You know, the one about the Germanic princess with skin so white it looked like snow, who ended up running around with seven dwarves? Well… about all that, Disney has decided to continue the unprofitable trend of de-whitening European folk tales.
There are claims that these *aren’t* the actual “dwarves.” But given that “Snow White” is to be played by a Hispanic woman… why assume that these *aren’t* an accurate depiction? And remember, Hollywood is hardly above lying to the public’s face. Remember when Benedict Cumberbatch *wasn’t* playing Khan? Or when all the remakes and reboots of classic animated series were supposed to be faithful continuations that the existing fans would recognize, love and appreciate? Yeah… lying liars who lie have a tendency to lie.
And… it turns out that those claims of “fake” are probably themselves fake:
‘Snow White’ Set Pics Stir Anti-Woke Criticism
Asked for comment on the brouhaha, a Disney spokesperson initially told The Daily Beast “the photos are fake and not from our production” and added that the Mouse House wanted a correction from the Mail.
Hours later, however, Disney’s PR shop completely backtracked and said the photos were from the production but were not official “photos”—chalking up the earlier statement to a misunderstanding.
Dear readers, consider this: somewhere out in the multiverse there’s a version of the Disney corporation that decided to do a live action remake of “Snow White,” and decided to try their hardest to make it look like the original animated classic. And somewhere else out there is another Disney that decided to do a “Snow White” remake that was faithful to the Grimm tale as written. And somewhere further down the multiverse line is a version of Disney that decide to say “Fark it” and make a truly messed-up remake that swaps out all the “disneyfication” for hard-core “let’s make this thing like Germans a thousand years ago would have made it, with friggen’ terrifying monsters and death and horror straight out of Teutonic legends and myths and folk tales,” likely directed by del Toro with the aid of the ghosts of Lovecraft and Giger.
Any one of those is something I would have been interested in. *This* worlds Disney? Nah.
Note: the “dwarves” from Norse/Germanic folk tales weren’t just short humans. They were a different order of being entirely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_(folklore)
Anyway, Hollywood is basically on strike now, with writers and actors on the picket line. I imagine this might effect “Snow White,” as well as every other movie and TV show out there. But you know what? Who friggen’ cares. Things have gotten so slow in Hollywood that people have come to expect *years* between seasons of shows… seasons with a tiny number of episodes. long gone are the likes of *good* Star Trek series where you could expect 20+ episodes every year. now… Eight? Ten? And with many shows, the gap between seasons lasting a number of years. When did season 3 of “The Orville” end? When will season 4 start… if it ever does? And let’s face it: there are a metric fark-ton of old movies and shows available for streaming, more than enough to tide most people over for the most extended of strike. And beyond even that… YouTube and the like are loaded to the gills with lone creators who are far more entertaining than quarter-billion-dollar productions. So you go right ahead and shut down production, Hollywood. if it strangles nonsense like “Snow White,” so much the better.
How long before I’m able to say “Hey, AI, make me a four-hour faithful adaptation of ‘Snow White’ Using the production team from “The Lord Of The Rings” and starring Marylin Monroe as Snow White’?” Because that’ll be the end of Hollywood.
7 responses to “Disney must hate money”
The Little Mermaid remake’s half-billion dollar gross has offset the unprofitability of de-whitening of European folk tales. I see it even made $1.6M in Denmark.
Entertainment geared towards children doesn’t have to be any good to be profitable. Adding to the profitability are the tickets sold to accompanying adults, many of whom are happy to get a $15 nap.
But gone are the halcyon days of the ’90s, when my wife and I didn’t have any kids yet and went to see Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, Toy Story anyway, and loved those movies.
Yeah,
The little mermaid was not as profitable as expected but “was not a huge disappointment.” In fact the live action remakes are generally profitable to very profitable.
The urban public doesn’t seem to care. If the movie is not inherently terrible.
“not as profitable.” Apparently the budget was $250 million. According to Box Office Mojo, it’s made about $290M domestic, $250 foreign. Sounds good. But Disney gets only 1/2 of domestic ($145M) and about 1/4 of foreign ($62.5M) for a total of $207.5M, or a current loss of $42.5M. But then you have to add in the cost of marketing, which is reportedly $140M. So TLM has lost Disney $182.5 M. That number will go down as the box office continues to tick by and then as DVD/Blu Ray/4K sales rack up. But so far it’s not “disappointing,” it’s “tragic.”
That made me smile. Thank you
Nothing makes people happier than accounting.
I myself stay awake at night wondering why there aren’t more Eskimos in Mariachi bands.
Give Nanook a chance!
maybe they’ll use the writers strike as an excuse to just dump the whole thing like what was done to Batgirl..show it once to the cast, then shred all evidence of it and use it as a tax write off.
we can only hope…