Jump to content

Talk:Snow White (2025 film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Title change on IMDb.

The IMDb site changed the title again from 'Snow White' to 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs'. Should we move the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chucheraya20 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

No, since IMDb is not considered a reliable source, and nothing in recent news shows that a title change has happened. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
But IMDb is the one that keeps all the info we get for upcoming TV/film projects, so I think is a reliable source. Chucheraya20 (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Please read WP:IMDB for a detailed explanation. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
IMDb is fine for general use as it usually 'follows what happens or is announced in the world. But if the title changes on IMDb and no one else is talking about it, that does not mean IMDb is trailblazing with this latest news. IMDb is often user-submitted, and thus it is not authoritative in regard to these updates. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Should we move the page?

I think we should move the page because according to sources, the dwarves are coming back with the announcement of Martin Klebba playing Grumpy Chucheraya20 (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Most sources still refer to the film as Snow White. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
The "7 dwarves" are now 6 regular sized people of various race and one little person, and the film is indeed called "Snow White" for unconfirmed reasons. Disney is denying their set photos are real because they are losing money on every project and starting to panic. -- Sleyece (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Oh you just posted for clout. Gotcha. Nothing substantial to see here, but we will leave it up to show what kind of editor you are. Mike Allen 14:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
How is the Box Office for "The Little Mermaid", "Dial of Destiny" and "Elemental" going again? -- Sleyece (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't see how this adds onto OP's original question BrotherhoodOfSalami (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Guaranteed Box Office BOMB

Is it premature to be placing in the lede or body of this article that this is a Box Office Bomb? There is zero chance of this film making a profit. -- Sleyece (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Are you new here? Mike Allen 14:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I've been here for years. Disney's last several projects have lost money. This one is not going to be any different. It's following the same general synopsis they've been using to lose money consistently. -- Sleyece (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Um ... WP:OR, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V? InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
This one literally put a {{more citations needed}} on top of the page while simultaneously adding an uncited claim in the lead. But when I revert, I'm doing it for "political reasons". They don't care about Wikipedia guidelines/policy. Mike Allen 12:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Your "revert" was a violation of 3RR and an abuse of your rollback access. -- Sleyece (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Please report me. Mike Allen 18:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't want to. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
In all fairness, MikeAllen did violate 3RR: 1, 2, 3, 4. However, so did Sleyece: 1, 2, 3, 4. Those edits also contravened WP:OR, WP:BURDEN, WP:V, and WP:CRYSTAL. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
InfiniteNexus So, it's WP:OR to say anything about the financial status of related projects, but it's totally fine for 33% of the article to be an unrelated Peter Dinklage quote???? -- Sleyece (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Apples and oranges. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
It's not. This article has a lot of sources, but little encyclopedic content. I'm not going to fool with it, though. I can tell when an article is being bum rushed with immediate reversion of any constructive edits. -- Sleyece (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Why would you put up a template asking for more citations if you thought there were already a lot of sources? Closhund (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I put it up because nearly 1/3 of the article is a Peter Dinklage quote unrelated to the actual movie. The whole "Seven Dwarfs Controversy" section barely qualifies as trivia. -- Sleyece (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC) (Edited: -- Sleyece (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC))
That is unrelated to the template you placed. But I guess it doesn't matter since you're not adding it back. Closhund (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The appropriate template for what I meant to covey would be suggestive of eliminating the page entirely, and I didn't want to do that. Really, I just placed the template I did for lack of a better option. -- Sleyece (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Might as well lock this page

The upcoming film is controversial, and there's a lot of racist, anti-woke hate comments on Facebook. I'll be attacked and bullied for this, but it would be best to have this page locked to admins only as a precaution against serve vandalism. 2001:8003:AD13:F800:A192:5B97:F5C1:AFFB (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

We don't do preemptive page protection, see WP:PREEMPTIVE for an explanation. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Okay then. Enjoy the mass vandalism from the anti-wokers looking to exploit your outdated policy. 2001:8003:AD13:F800:A192:5B97:F5C1:AFFB (talk) 08:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Fired up a fresh IP for this, huh? Feel better do ya? -- Sleyece (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Lmao, I don't think even a gold lock is enough to protect this precious page from the unwashed masses. Probably best to lock it all the way up and only allow the foundation to edit it.. -- Sleyece (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Guaranteed Box Office BOMB

Is it premature to be placing in the lede or body of this article that this is a Box Office Bomb? There is zero chance of this film making a profit. -- Sleyece (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Are you new here? Mike Allen 14:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I've been here for years. Disney's last several projects have lost money. This one is not going to be any different. It's following the same general synopsis they've been using to lose money consistently. -- Sleyece (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Um ... WP:OR, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V? InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
This one literally put a {{more citations needed}} on top of the page while simultaneously adding an uncited claim in the lead. But when I revert, I'm doing it for "political reasons". They don't care about Wikipedia guidelines/policy. Mike Allen 12:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Your "revert" was a violation of 3RR and an abuse of your rollback access. -- Sleyece (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Please report me. Mike Allen 18:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't want to. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
In all fairness, MikeAllen did violate 3RR: 1, 2, 3, 4. However, so did Sleyece: 1, 2, 3, 4. Those edits also contravened WP:OR, WP:BURDEN, WP:V, and WP:CRYSTAL. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
InfiniteNexus So, it's WP:OR to say anything about the financial status of related projects, but it's totally fine for 33% of the article to be an unrelated Peter Dinklage quote???? -- Sleyece (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Apples and oranges. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
It's not. This article has a lot of sources, but little encyclopedic content. I'm not going to fool with it, though. I can tell when an article is being bum rushed with immediate reversion of any constructive edits. -- Sleyece (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Why would you put up a template asking for more citations if you thought there were already a lot of sources? Closhund (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I put it up because nearly 1/3 of the article is a Peter Dinklage quote unrelated to the actual movie. The whole "Seven Dwarfs Controversy" section barely qualifies as trivia. -- Sleyece (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC) (Edited: -- Sleyece (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC))
That is unrelated to the template you placed. But I guess it doesn't matter since you're not adding it back. Closhund (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The appropriate template for what I meant to covey would be suggestive of eliminating the page entirely, and I didn't want to do that. Really, I just placed the template I did for lack of a better option. -- Sleyece (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Language

I am a new user and made an account for this, but I can't edit it yet. Can someone PLEASE edit the language out of the page!? Isn't this supposed to be a family friendly website!? Minortimbo12 (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure which language you are referring to, but this is an encyclopedia, not a "family friendly website". Please see WP:NOTCENSORED EvergreenFir (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Still a “remake”?

The animated movie is described as “loosely based on” the book. That seems like a fitting description of the live action film. At what point would it not be a “remake” of the cartoon, but an entirely separate work “loosely based on” the original story? 2600:1700:343A:9250:ED17:2247:1C54:81BD (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Rachel Zegler controversy

Rachel's past comments about Snow White should be included as its received sustained coverage among reliable sources:

~Last 24 hours

Days old

- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok. A sentence of her response is all that is needed. Remember we aren't a news service where we have to add in breaking news as it happens. Mike Allen 14:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
@MikeAllen: This isn't breaking news though, its WP:SUSTAINED coverage and commentary about Zegler's past remarks about Snow White. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Hardly. And wikipedia shouldn't even be treating the continued whining of a very small, very vocal minority of sexist and racist reactionary youtubers as if they were a legitimate position. We should've learned something when this happened with Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, She Hulk, the Little Mermaid, or literally any piece of media produced in the past 10 years that doesn't feature a white male protagonist.
In addition, this: Others criticized her for misinterpreting feminism, with accusations of promoting the girlboss archetype or maligning women that seek traditional feminine roles uninterested in power or leadership roles. Aside from being a case of WP:WEASEL, it echoes talking points of Individualist feminism which hasn't been a mainstream feminist position for decades, and is only popular with a very fringe minority of conservative leaning TERFs. To say nothing of the fact that it appears uncited, but I wouldn't be surprised if the "others" in question is youtuber Authentic Observer, or an editor working for Bounding into Comics, Geeks and Gamers or Pirates and Princesses. It sounds like something they would say. 46.97.170.235 (talk) 09:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
It's cited with the source at the end of the paragraph, and the criticism is coming from people on TikTok, not YouTubers or websites. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Coming from people on TikTik is even worse. Mike Allen 18:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
How so? Like it or not, Tiktok is essentially THE central hub for youth culture now. Most young adult trends, memes, etc. all emerge from there.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 21:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Really, a personal attack? Please do not undo my edits. If you feel I have personally attacked you, then take it to the appropriate notice board. If you keep removing my comments, I will take it there. Mike Allen 00:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
It's well within any editor's right to remove comments constituting a personal attack on another editor, I did nothing wrong. Keep your comments about the topic at hand, not the people editing it. There would've been no way to respond to that attack other than to try to defend one's own character, or to offer a counter-personal attack. It's not productive, and it's not civil.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 00:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
What exactly is the personal attack? That I was legitimately shocked that you were advocating the use as TikTok as reliable source for a controversy section on a person's comments, when you seem like a seasoned editor. We will let the admins decide. This is outrageous. Mike Allen 00:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Crumpled Fire should not have undone your edits, although I suspect you and Crumpled Fire have a bit of a misunderstanding that led Crumpled Fire to believe it was a personal attack. I don't think Crumpled Fire was advocating using TikTok as a source (which would have been a violation of SOCIALMEDIA in this case), but rather suggesting that reliable sources are reporting on criticism coming from TikTok, which may or may not be worth including in the article, but is not a violation of SOCIALMEDIA. Rlendog (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, your suspicion is correct. Thank you for your input and deescalation.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 01:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
They literally asked "How so?" after I said TikTok was even worse (to cite). Either way, we would need significant coverage of TikTok comments in highly reliable sources to be included in a controversy section. Mike Allen 01:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Rlendog. You are correct in saying that the question is, whether it's worth including the criticism covered by reliable sources. In my initial comment I was specifically explaning why I don't think it's worth including. Cries about "girlbosses" and "race-swapping" by known internet hate-groups whenever a new piece of media comes out is just business as usual. It's like going out of our way to cover the opinions of flat-earthers, antivaxxers or climate deniers, every single time there's a hot-topic issue relevant to their conspiracy theories. In the case of The Last Jedi or Rings of Power, there has been a widely reported, racist and sexist harrassment campaign by internet hate groups against people involved, and in the case of She Hulk, the main antagonists of the series were one such internet hate group, as the series itself anticipated and accurately predicted the kind of stink that these people raise on a regular basis. Unless something similar happens here, the so called "Rachel Zegler controversy" shouldn't even be mentioned. 46.97.170.235 (talk) 09:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't think this is just being slammed by "hate groups" per the sources I found below. The backlash appears to be receiving more broad support from women and those who are involved in the industry. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
People in the industry being concerned that Rachel Zegler is making blunders in her interviews due to lack of experience is not "backlash". As for the opinions of the women in question, see my post above. It is not uncommon for the Fandom Menace to signal-boost TERFs who still believe in individualist feminism 30 years after it has run it's course (or in general, using women as mouthpieces, even way back when they were still called Gamergate). There was a whole talk about how Galadriel's portrayal in Rings of Power is a "desecration of femininity" (lol). This is in no way different from that. 46.97.170.235 (talk) 10:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Additional sources to be discussed

I just wanted to drop some sources here for balanced coverage to offset those that are critical:

Coverage is continuing though, most notably with remarks by the son of David Hand.

It doesn't matter if you support or oppose this upcoming remake, the sources are there per WP:SUSTAINED to warrant the "Controversies" section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Move

Bentkey just released plans to make their own Snow White film in 2024. This article's title should be changed to avoid confusion. Maybe to Snow White (2024 Disney film). - Burner89751654 (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Zegler was dropped

See this: google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.sportskeeda.com/amp/pop-culture/was-rachel-zegler-dropped-snow-white-viral-article-claim-explored&ved=2ahUKEwijmvfslcmBAxVsL7kGHZuSBYQQ0PADKAB6BAgYEAE&usg=AOvVaw0b9yek0Eh-LJzPOq2dWTSM 164.77.161.26 (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC) https://insidethemagic.net/2023/09/snow-white-star-rachel-zegler-dropped-from-film-will-be-recast-ld1/ 3:https://www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture/was-rachel-zegler-dropped-snow-white-viral-article-claim-explored — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.77.161.26 (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Inside the Magic is a notoriously and outrageously unreliable blog that runs entirely on clickbait content. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
And what about the other sourcces? 201.188.151.218 (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
[1]https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/zegler-fired-snow-white/ 201.188.151.218 (talk) 02:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
The Sportskeeda source cites Inside the Magic, so WP:FRUIT. Not sure what your point is with the Snopes fact-check (which concludes the rumor is "unfounded"). InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
There are more sources here; [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G61VSXE25ow [3]https://www.disneydining.com/snow-white-star-rachel-zegler-axed-from-movie-after-backlash-bwb1/ [4]https://moviechat.org/nm10399505/Rachel-Zegler/65136b1e93f4d42b33bfe5b9/Snow-White-Star-Rachel-Zegler-Dropped-from-Film?reply=6513736c93f4d42b33bfe625 [5]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=475N7RNmAnU 164.77.161.26 (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
You can find a list of acceptable, reliable sources at WP:FILMRS and WP:RSPS. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I know that there are sources more reliable than other ones, but it is clear, Zegler was removed. Here there are more sources; [6]https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2023/09/27/debunked-rumor-rachel-zegler-has-been-fired-from-snow-white/ [7]https://insidethemagic.net/2023/09/disney-fires-rachel-zegler-snow-white-ad1/ [8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmUYXnMQ0x0 [9]https://www.piratesandprincesses.net/rumors-claim-rachel-zegler-is-fired-as-snow-white-but-is-it-true/ [10]https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/has-rachel-zegler-been-fired-from-snow-white-the-online-rumors-explained/ 201.188.150.201 (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
As I have explained, none of those are reliable sources. If you are unable to tell what sources are reliable, please consult WP:RSPS; if it is not listed there, it is most likely that your source is unreliable. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
It's a hoax. She was recast for Paddington 3 because of the strikes, and Disney would've said something by now if Zegler had been fired from the role. Yet the neo-Nazis on Facebook and Twitter continue to spread this false information as if it's actually real. 2001:8003:AD13:F800:2791:E749:3543:BC9F (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
hey while you're calling people neo-nazis tell us about your opinions on the state of israel right now. Just curious. 2600:1700:9366:E040:E8ED:8423:81AA:4830 (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Note on the official title

As I had guessed since a few months ago, the official title has been confirmed to be Disney's Snow White. However, please do not move this page or start an RM to Disney's Snow White, due to the ambiguity of the term (which most commonly refers to the franchise). InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Budget

Although the reported budget so far is $209.3 million (£150.5 million)[11][12] this figure is at best a minimum. It seems unlikely that the costs declared in the UK for tax rebates are the full and complete costs. It is difficult to believe that the film did not also have any USA studio costs or post production costs in various other countries. (Marketing costs are a whole other matter too.) Caveat lector. -- 109.79.74.100 (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Add these actors


152.230.125.226 (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. RudolfRed (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

"Snow White remake" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Snow White remake has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 11 § Snow White remake until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

"Snow White (live action)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Snow White (live action) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 11 § Snow White (live action) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2024

It should be Walt’s Disneys animated film not disneys animated film so I’d like to edit that bit of the page if that’s okay not to sound rude Polywog701 (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done The production credit in the 1937 film itself is "A Walt Disney Feature Production" but I think Disney's animated film is a reasonable short form description for it. I don't think it needs changing as the 1937 film is linked for more into on it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Slight issue with that is all the ones that are based on the animated films that Walt Disney produced are credited as based on Walt Disney’s animated film I.e dumbo, Cinderella, the jungle book etc so I think it’s because you think it’s reasonable I think it’s cos you’re lazy and you hate others being right but that’s on you anyway have a good one Polywog701 (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Read about WP:OTHERCONTENT. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 10:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
When Walt Disney is used by itself it generally refers to the person, not the company. Disney by itself refers to his company. The company Walt Disney Productions made the film. For the purposes of this article, in the context of this article about the 2025 Disney film, and solely to identify the 1937 film "Disney" by itself is sufficient and correct. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Snow_White_(2025_film)/Archive_1&oldid=1259558315"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy