19,651 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jan 9, 2022 10:44:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Jan 9, 2022 14:14:47 GMT
Rachel Zegler - yes please!!! Wonderful performer.
|
|
|
|
Post by marob on Jan 12, 2022 21:53:20 GMT
Just read that Andrew Burnap (from The Inheritance,) will be playing the male lead, a new character created for this remake.
|
|
2,047 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Jan 12, 2022 22:00:26 GMT
Gal Gadot as the Wicked Queen: it’s the casting of the dwarves that is making me feel a bit doubtful about this.
|
|
2,047 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Jan 26, 2022 9:02:52 GMT
Peter Dinklage is less than impressed (to say the least) with this: Disney have wheeled out the usual PR guff about how it’s going to be an amazing representation but he has a point: just like the crows in Dumbo they should just say the film was of its time and leave it on the shelf for people to seek out if they want to see it, not milk it by making an unneeded live action remake.
|
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Jan 26, 2022 11:18:55 GMT
Can't wait for this! Rachel Zegler was so darn good in West Side Story, can't wait to see her get her teeth into something else!
Re: Dinklage's comments on Disney, they honestly can't win. If they adapt the film to not feature the dwarves as characters, they will be criticised for nixing the casting opportunity for seven little people actors in a major feature film. Cue protests on Twitter about how Disney hate little people, make no opportunities for minorities etc.
If they *do* cast little people actors as the dwarf characters, there will be protests on Twitter that they are perpetuating dated and no doubt offensive stereotypes unfit for 2022.
If they don't make the film at all, there is a very serious and real danger they will lose their copyright on the IP in 2033, as under American copyright law (which is extremely complicated and I'm certainly no expert in), there is a requirement to protect copyrighted work. A new release could, in theory, extend the original 95 year copyright (see the Copyright Term Extension Act).
In short, if they don't make a film they lose a very valuable IP. If they do make a film, they are attacked by a minimum of one offended group of minorities on Twitter.
|
|
|
|
Post by sph on Jan 26, 2022 11:20:13 GMT
Peter Dinklage is less than impressed (to say the least) with this: Disney have wheeled out the usual PR guff about how it’s going to be an amazing representation but he has a point: just like the crows in Dumbo they should just say the film was of its time and leave it on the shelf for people to seek out if they want to see it, not milk it by making an unneeded live action remake. I wonder where he would stand on the dozens of panto productions every year? |
|
7,050 posts
|
Post by Jon on Jan 26, 2022 15:08:24 GMT
Can't wait for this! Rachel Zegler was so darn good in West Side Story, can't wait to see her get her teeth into something else! Re: Dinklage's comments on Disney, they honestly can't win. If they adapt the film to not feature the dwarves as characters, they will be criticised for nixing the casting opportunity for seven little people actors in a major feature film. Cue protests on Twitter about how Disney hate little people, make no opportunities for minorities etc. If they *do* cast little people actors as the dwarf characters, there will be protests on Twitter that they are perpetuating dated and no doubt offensive stereotypes unfit for 2022. If they don't make the film at all, there is a very serious and real danger they will lose their copyright on the IP in 2033, as under American copyright law (which is extremely complicated and I'm certainly no expert in), there is a requirement to protect copyrighted work. A new release could, in theory, extend the original 95 year copyright (see the Copyright Term Extension Act). In short, if they don't make a film they lose a very valuable IP. If they do make a film, they are attacked by a minimum of one offended group of minorities on Twitter. Don't Disney still own trademarks to their Snow White which unlike copyright doesn't expire? Even if the film goes into the public domain, nobody would be able to sell it without facing the wrath of Disney lawyers. It applies to other characters like Mickey Mouse, Batman and to a lesser extent Winnie the Pooh, something going into the public domain doesn't give anyone free access to that property if the trademark is still active. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2022 15:09:28 GMT
They are going ahead with it, it's already in pre-production at the studio. It's my understanding that the film will be called Snow White and The Seven Miners. Maybe they're holding that back to make a big announcement about how they have 'listened' and don't want to offend....
|
|
|
|
Post by sph on Jan 26, 2022 15:16:19 GMT
They are going ahead with it, it's already in pre-production at the studio. It's my understanding that the film will be called Snow White and The Seven Miners. Maybe they're holding that back to make a big announcement about how they have 'listened' and don't want to offend.... I think the new title might be a little too on the nose. Too "look what we're doing!" which comes across as patronising. Why not simply call it Snow White? Also, surely complaints of stereotypes can only be made after we see how the characters are actually written? |
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Jan 26, 2022 15:17:59 GMT
Can't wait for this! Rachel Zegler was so darn good in West Side Story, can't wait to see her get her teeth into something else! Re: Dinklage's comments on Disney, they honestly can't win. If they adapt the film to not feature the dwarves as characters, they will be criticised for nixing the casting opportunity for seven little people actors in a major feature film. Cue protests on Twitter about how Disney hate little people, make no opportunities for minorities etc. If they *do* cast little people actors as the dwarf characters, there will be protests on Twitter that they are perpetuating dated and no doubt offensive stereotypes unfit for 2022. If they don't make the film at all, there is a very serious and real danger they will lose their copyright on the IP in 2033, as under American copyright law (which is extremely complicated and I'm certainly no expert in), there is a requirement to protect copyrighted work. A new release could, in theory, extend the original 95 year copyright (see the Copyright Term Extension Act). In short, if they don't make a film they lose a very valuable IP. If they do make a film, they are attacked by a minimum of one offended group of minorities on Twitter. Don't Disney still own trademarks to their Snow White which unlike copyright doesn't expire? Even if the film goes into the public domain, nobody would be able to sell it without facing the wrath of Disney lawyers. It applies to other characters like Mickey Mouse, Batman and to a lesser extent Winnie the Pooh, something going into the public domain doesn't give anyone free access to that property if the trademark is still active. It hasn't actually been "tested" properly in court. Whilst "Mickey Mouse Law" was heavily lobbied for by Disney and achieved in 1998, trademarks, like copyright, have to be actively used by the owner. This is because with the advent of the trademark, many publishers went around applying for trademarks on any and all "names" and "brands" with no intention of ever actually using them, but knowing they could sue if others do for a payday. The original story of Snow White based off the German fairytale is naturally public domain, but all the Disney stuff (eg the dwarves names) is IP Disney will keen to assert continued ownership of. |
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Jan 26, 2022 15:21:58 GMT
They are going ahead with it, it's already in pre-production at the studio. It's my understanding that the film will be called Snow White and The Seven Miners. Maybe they're holding that back to make a big announcement about how they have 'listened' and don't want to offend.... Interesting. I'm assuming it will be a mix of genders, races and sizes personally, if they are going for "miners". Works for me. I'll only be there for Ms. Zegler anyway... |
|
7,050 posts
|
Post by Jon on Jan 26, 2022 16:02:23 GMT
It hasn't actually been "tested" properly in court. Whilst "Mickey Mouse Law" was heavily lobbied for by Disney and achieved in 1998, trademarks, like copyright, have to be actively used by the owner. This is because with the advent of the trademark, many publishers went around applying for trademarks on any and all "names" and "brands" with no intention of ever actually using them, but knowing they could sue if others do for a payday. The original story of Snow White based off the German fairytale is naturally public domain, but all the Disney stuff (eg the dwarves names) is IP Disney will keen to assert continued ownership of. Mickey Mouse is still being used by Disney through TV and merchandise so there's no chance that when Steamboat Willie which is the first short with Mickey goes into the public domain, anyone will be able to sell it for profit. |
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Jan 26, 2022 16:05:37 GMT
They are going ahead with it, it's already in pre-production at the studio. It's my understanding that the film will be called Snow White and The Seven Miners. Maybe they're holding that back to make a big announcement about how they have 'listened' and don't want to offend.... I think the new title might be a little too on the nose. Too "look what we're doing!" which comes across as patronising. Why not simply call it Snow White? Also, surely complaints of stereotypes can only be made after we see how the characters are actually written?[/b] I think one of the points of contention was the premise that the Dwarves live in a cave. It’s possible PD even saw a script/audition info etc for casting from pre-pros to have formed an opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Jan 26, 2022 16:07:00 GMT
It hasn't actually been "tested" properly in court. Whilst "Mickey Mouse Law" was heavily lobbied for by Disney and achieved in 1998, trademarks, like copyright, have to be actively used by the owner. This is because with the advent of the trademark, many publishers went around applying for trademarks on any and all "names" and "brands" with no intention of ever actually using them, but knowing they could sue if others do for a payday. The original story of Snow White based off the German fairytale is naturally public domain, but all the Disney stuff (eg the dwarves names) is IP Disney will keen to assert continued ownership of. Mickey Mouse is still being used by Disney through TV and merchandise so there's no chance that when Steamboat Willie which is the first short with Mickey goes into the public domain, anyone will be able to sell it for profit. Precisely, but Snow White has hardly been touched since 1937. Anyway, the film is getting made so at least the option is there to watch it, even if it turns out dreadful.  |
|
7,050 posts
|
Post by Jon on Jan 26, 2022 16:13:45 GMT
Precisely, but Snow White has hardly been touched since 1937. Anyway, the film is getting made so at least the option is there to watch it, even if it turns out dreadful.  The film hasn't been touched but the characters have been used in other media. Disney did a TV series called The 7Ds back in 2014. A great example of trademarks preventing free for alls is Tarzan. The books have been public domain in the US for years but the Edgar Rice Burroughs estate owns the trademark to the name Tarzan as well as the iconic yell so if you want to make a new film or TV series, it has to be licensed from the estate. |
|
|
|
Post by sph on Jan 26, 2022 16:23:49 GMT
Precisely, but Snow White has hardly been touched since 1937. Anyway, the film is getting made so at least the option is there to watch it, even if it turns out dreadful. The film hasn't been touched but the characters have been used in other media. Disney did a TV series called The 7Ds back in 2014. A great example of trademarks preventing free for alls is Tarzan. The books have been public domain in the US for years but the Edgar Rice Burroughs estate owns the trademark to the name Tarzan as well as the iconic yell so if you want to make a new film or TV series, it has to be licensed from the estate. And interestingly, I think I read somewhere that Tarzan is second only to Dracula in terms of the number of film appearances the character has made. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2022 17:59:42 GMT
Like sph says, why not just call it Snow White. Should they decide to use the word 'Miners' then it gives them more scope for casting. But Disney are screwed either way. If the dont only cast actors with Dwarfism, someone will say its not right, if they cast others they'll be taken jobs away from real dwarfs. |
|
7,050 posts
|
Post by Jon on Jan 27, 2022 0:11:52 GMT
Like sph says, why not just call it Snow White. Should they decide to use the word 'Miners' then it gives them more scope for casting. But Disney are screwed either way. If the dont only cast actors with Dwarfism, someone will say its not right, if they cast others they'll be taken jobs away from real dwarfs. Surely Disney could get around the dwarf issue by making the Seven Dwarves visually like mythological dwarves as the characters aren't meant to be humans with dwarfism. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2022 19:18:43 GMT
Has John Bercow been cast as one of the magnificent 7.
|
|
|
|
Post by theatrelover97 on Jul 15, 2023 18:06:56 GMT
I have a feeling this will bomb at the cinema after The Little Mermaid through i am looking forward to it myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by sukhavati on Jul 21, 2023 6:50:13 GMT
There was already the 2012 alternative version called "Mirror Mirror" starring Julia Roberts as the stepmother and a very young Lily Collins as Snow. I remember my costuming circle looking at the Eiko costume designs thinking, wow. OTT. Clearly, Disney doesn't have a monopoly on the Grimm storybook, and as long as the songs, character names aren't obviously used, it's legal.
|
|
4,171 posts
|
Post by anthony40 on Aug 4, 2023 9:56:59 GMT
Slightly off topic but as we're talking fairy tales and dwarfs, I m surprised to date that Disney hasn't adapted Rumpelstiltskin.
|
|
7,050 posts
|
Post by Jon on Aug 4, 2023 12:59:57 GMT
Slightly off topic but as we're talking fairy tales and dwarfs, I m surprised to date that Disney hasn't adapted Rumpelstiltskin. Rumpelstiltskin is one I'm not sure how you'd adapt it. |
|
343 posts
|
Post by Sam on Aug 4, 2023 14:09:20 GMT
There was sort of an adaptation of Rumpelstiltskin in Once Upon a Time, but he was also {Spoiler - click to view}
beast, and Peter Pan's son/the crocodile... |
|
