Ah, Hollywood.

The glitz.

The glamour.

And… the lectures?

People want popcorn, not politics.

Movie night? A break from the real world.

But what are we getting? Sermons.

Onscreen and off.

Disney’s taking a classic and turning it into woke propaganda.

“Snow White.”

We all know it.

A tale as old as time. Well, maybe not that tale. But you get it. Yet, this isn’t the Snow White of yesteryears.

This time? It’s different. Rachel Zegler, the lead? She promises changes. Big ones. The prince? A stalker, she says. The love story? “Weird,” according to her.

Why can’t we just have a story?

Why the need for revisions?

Updating? Sure.

But flipping everything? Hmm.

Experts warn: this could backfire.

Big time.

People want tales. Not takes. Carla Speight, a branding pro, hits the nail on the head.

If you play too fast and loose? Disaster looms.

Hollywood’s track record? Not so hot lately.

Bud Light.

Others.

Failed attempts at wokeness.

Bad business.

More details below:

And this?

It feels too familiar.

If the stars can’t love the story, how can we?

Here’s a tip, Disney.

Let stories be stories.

Save the commentary.

Before the screen lights up, people have voted.

With their wallets. Hollywood, pay attention!

It’s showtime, not lecture time.

The Daily Wire confirms that the movie could potentially fail:

Branding experts warn that Disney’s live-action “Snow White” remake could become a colossal failure based on comments made by the lead actress, Rachel Zegler.

The 22-year-old star has been making headlines recently for her comments regarding the original 1937 film’s storyline, which is based on a German fairy tale. Zegler said she “hated” the classic love story and thought it was “weird,” plus labeled the prince as a “stalker.”

As for the new live-action version, the “Snow White” star alluded to some major updates.

“She’s not going to be saved by the prince and she’s not going to be dreaming about true love,” the actress promised.

Branding expert Carla Speight predicted Zegler’s highly publicized comments could hurt ticket sales. She told the Daily Mail that even though old Disney movies “hold old values,” taking revisions “to the opposite extreme” in an effort “to inflict strong and loaded messaging on the viewers” is a mistake.

Speight said, “Disney will need to be careful with how they have portrayed Snow White and what they do and don’t allow their actors to say about it going forwards. They simply cannot repeat the same mistakes and allow their actors to be so vocal in their own personal opinions during promotions.”

“It can have a huge impact on ticket sales, especially with the amount of negative backlash so early in the promo trail,” she continued. “They need to get the key messaging and strong selling point into a brief for the cast of the film and ensure they stick to it. If they don’t, it’s a disaster waiting to happen and the backlash will keep growing.”

She recommended Zegler “clarify” her comments.

It’s simple, isn’t it?

If you don’t like the blueprint, why rebuild the house?

Disney, a brand woven into our collective memories, is rewriting history.

The upcoming live-action seems less homage, more rewrite.

Sure, times have changed since 1937.

We all get that.

But some truths persist: heritage matters. Our cultural memory matters.

Rachel Zegler, the rising star of this reboot, finds the original “scary.”

But here’s a question: If it’s so problematic, why adapt it?

If there’s a fresh story to be told, craft a new one. Don’t tarnish a classic under the guise of modernity.

Sure, there’s room to reimagine.

But reimagine isn’t rewriting.

The line? Thin.

Greta Gerwig’s on board, known for weaving feminism into narratives.

A new twist?

Great. B

ut the underbelly of these revamps is fraught.

Disney navigates a treacherous path: Stay true to the original and face redundancy, or stray too far and risk the ire of lifelong fans.

The Telegraph has excellent insight into the strategic blunder by Disney:

Snow White has given “heigh-ho” the heave-ho. In newly resurfaced interviews, the star of Disney’s upcoming live-action remake of the Brothers Grimm classic has described Walt Disney’s 1937 original as “scary” and a poor fit for modern audiences.

“I just mean that it’s no longer 1937,” said Rachel Zegler, who comes to the dark fairytale after a triumphant debut in Steven Spielberg’s West Side Story. “She’s not going to be saved by the prince, and she’s not going to be dreaming about true love.”

Nothing wrong with a fearless Snow White sticking it to the patriarchy: the new Snow White is co-scripted by Greta Gerwig, whose pink-emblazoned Barbie cleverly blended feminism and brand extension. And Zegler is correct about Disney’s classic 1930s and 1940s animations making for sometimes uncomfortable watching today. See adorable Jiminy Cricket salivating over scantily clad showgirls in 1940’s Pinocchio.

But the backlash against Zegler’s comments confirms Disney’s strategy of remaking its classic animations using flesh and blood actors as a moviegoing mine-field. Often, these projects can only seem worth the effort by distancing themselves from the original; which, in turn, carries the risk of Disney tarnishing its legacy and triggering the fanbase. But if a new version stays slavishly true to the original, why does it even need to exist?

Disney’s live-action remakes of beloved cartoons are an ambitious feat of cinematic necromancy. And until recently, they proved supremely lucrative. Jon Favreau’s The Lion King remake from 2019 cleared $1.6 billion at the box office (largely rendered in CGI, it barely even counted as live-action). Even more extraordinarily, the disposable Tim Burton/Johnny Depp tilt at Alice in Wonderland surpassed a billion.

Let’s not forget. Disney’s live-actions?

A goldmine.

The Lion King? $1.6 billion.

Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland? Over a billion.

The formula is lucrative.

But at what cost?

Change for the sake of change is risky.

Disney’s magic? Timeless.

Shouldn’t it stay that way?

After all, if it ain’t broke… Why rewrite it?

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.