Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (Live-Action)

[ShyViolet]

I think it’s important to point out that a woman CAN experience a meaningful inner journey and still be in love at the same time. And as we’ve been saying, Snowy does much MORE than simply fall in love.

Why are they so intent on disrespecting Walt’s memory/mangling a classic?? .

[Dacey]

Well, let's be real here.

The girl did bite into a "magic wishing apple" given to her by a total stranger...after being warned over and over again not to speak to strangers.

I love Snow White, but she isn't the sharpest tool in the Disney Princess Shed.

[EricJ]

Well, let's be real here.

Okay, LET'S:
The character in the original tale was 12 years old. To avoid making the Prince creepy (yeah, rescuing her and making her a "ward", wink-wink ), Walt made her 15, but still with a childlike naivety and optimism, to think it was "fun" playing house on her own.

(Now that all the 80's Golan/Globus CannonTales are back out on streaming again, including their Snow White with Diana Rigg as the evil queen, they handled the difference a little more smoothly, with Snow running away as a little girl, and being raised by the Dwarves for seven years into something more prince-acceptable.)

[Farerb]

Her age is never mentioned in the original animated film.

[Dacey]

Thanks for spoiling the ending of a movie that hasn’t even been out for a week yet in an unrelated thread, Eric. Really appreciated.

[EricJ]

...You would RATHER have found out on your own?

[Dacey]

Amazingly, yes. Because that’s how I’m meant to watch the movie. Without the ending spoiled. Shocking, I know.

[Ben]

Yes, that’s actually ruined the "joy" of being angry at that ending for me too. I’d have much more been wanting to be outraged by my own discovery rather than have it spoiled here.

Thanks Eric. Real jerk move.

[EricJ]

So, um, cut it, and attached responses, and just leave the Snow commentary. Here, I helped.
Sheesh, the one time I'm ALLOWING you to make my comments go blinky-bye, and you're leaving the whole page up there?

Besides, thought you'd seen it already....Don't worry, though, there are many, many more "surprises" in store.

[Ben]

Er, "allowing"? The only one that’s allowing anything is us letting you stay on here, for whatever reason.

Yeah, I just hid your whole post rather than delete it outright, so that those that wanted to could follow the rest of the thread (wrong one, by the way). I didn’t have the time or the inclination to edit and fuff about with it.

And, no, whatever other surprises may be in store, the one you spoiled, and without any warning, is a pretty major change to the end of the whole story. Whatever I was feeling by the time we got to the end, that whole journey would have helped informed how I felt about that change, which may or may not have worked within the context of their version. Now I don’t get the chance to experience that and think, "wow, that was a cool, brave move", or "what? How dare they change the entire premise and point of Pinocchio's arc!"

And, whether I have seen it or not is irrelevant. The movie's been out a few hours short of a week at this point. That’s just a few days after release, when I’d suspect most folks were gearing up to see it maybe this weekend. To post that big of a spoiler in that timeframe is just pretty foolish, to use a politer word.

[Farerb]

Supposedly this is a leak of Gal Gadot as the Evil Queen:

[Dacey]

Looks legit. And not bad at all!

[Ben]

Yeah, that’s her. But she’s not evil, she’s just misunderstood.

[EricJ]

Whatever I was feeling by the time we got to the end, that whole journey would have helped informed how I felt about that change, which may or may not have worked within the context of their version. Now I don’t get the chance to experience that and think, "wow, that was a cool, brave move", or "what? How dare they change the entire premise and point of Pinocchio's arc!"

To try and rephrase my original point without spoilers:

I don't suppose anyone here's seen what Robert Zemeckis and Neil Gaiman's script did with "Beowulf", at the end?...Hmm, didn't think so.
But for those who did--That one actually makes sense. I mean, IF somebody set out to do a fancy-pants creatively deconstructive retelling of the original, it's actually pretty clever. Just would have been nice if somebody had warned us this wasn't the actual original story source.
The first reaction to Pinocchio is "This doesn't make sense... ", and that it must be Christmas and Crazy Uncle Bob's off his meds again. And then, as the ordered mind starts to look for explanations and theories, one starts to wonder whether it wasn't Bob's fault, but that the scriptwriter wanted to do the story this way, because they had certain, ahem, metaphors in mind, and thought that this "should" be the new improved version of the story for a more enlightened, accepting generation.
At which point, our reaction goes from "Huh??" to "Oh, lord..."

And that was why I tied it into the Snow White discussion:
Copyright wants Snow and the Queen to look like their best detailed cosplay, while the usual suspects of writers at the studio want to "fix" the "problems" of Snow's character, like they did with the Once Upon a Time version, or that crazy-eyed twittering version from Wreck-It Ralph 2.
And that only brings up the audience frustration that somebody needs to do an intervention with Disney at this point.

(I'm actually less annoyed about Diverse Black Ariel from the D23 trailers, as I am with seeing what guff they're going to put their Snow White grudges through--Since I know that the Little Mermaid remake isn't about cheap copyright extension, it's about that Sophia Coppola version, back from when they had an actual idea about why they were remaking them.)

[Daniel]

Sofia Coppola, it was Universal, we've been through this before.