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.

PR expert Nick Ede has similar thoughts. He told Daily Mail that the film�s
star has proven she �isn�t the best person to promote the film.�

�Rachel is a big-named star playing one of the world�s most famous fairytale
characters immortalized by Disney, but instead of taking the lead of �The
Little Mermaid�s� Halle Bailey and embracing her role, Rachel has actively
chosen to spoil the narrative and express the new direction she has taken
Snow White in,� Ede said.

�This is by no means a wrong move and Snow White, and other stories, if they
were written today would have very different nuances and narratives but the
fact that she�s actively being negative about the source material and
laughing off the old Disney film and the fairytale makes her look too eager
to show off the new version and shows little or no respect for the previous
version and other iterations,� he added.

�I am sure Disney executives must be having crisis talks and thinking perhaps
their new Snow White isn�t the best person to promote the film and ensure it
is a box office success.�

He mentioned that �Snow White� has a �negative narrative� surrounding it,
meaning Disney will have to work overtime to create �magical and positive
hype� ahead of the film�s 2024 release date.

--
Let's go Brandon!

On 8/18/23 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:

> 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.”

The studios would be smart if they'd stop allowing *any* of their
actors, but particularly the younger ones, from saying *anything* "off
script"!

> 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.

You know, if they want to "update" "Snow White", turning it into a
bloody "revenge flick" is one way that would be certain the get me to
watch!! :)

> 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.
>
> PR expert Nick Ede has similar thoughts. He told Daily Mail that the film’s
> star has proven she “isn’t the best person to promote the film.”
>
> “Rachel is a big-named star

No she's not. How many people actually saw the "West Side Story" remake?...

> playing one of the world’s most famous fairytale
> characters immortalized by Disney, but instead of taking the lead of ‘The
> Little Mermaid’s’ Halle Bailey and embracing her role, Rachel has actively
> chosen to spoil the narrative and express the new direction she has taken
> Snow White in,” Ede said.
>
> “This is by no means a wrong move and Snow White, and other stories, if they
> were written today would have very different nuances and narratives but the
> fact that she’s actively being negative about the source material and
> laughing off the old Disney film and the fairytale makes her look too eager
> to show off the new version and shows little or no respect for the previous
> version and other iterations,” he added.
>
> “I am sure Disney executives must be having crisis talks and thinking perhaps
> their new Snow White isn’t the best person to promote the film and ensure it
> is a box office success.”
>
> He mentioned that “Snow White” has a “negative narrative” surrounding it,
> meaning Disney will have to work overtime to create “magical and positive
> hype” ahead of the film’s 2024 release date.

Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
> On 8/18/23 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>
>> 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.”
>
> The studios would be smart if they'd stop allowing *any* of their
> actors, but particularly the younger ones, from saying *anything* "off
> script"!
>
>> 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.
>
> You know, if they want to "update" "Snow White", turning it into a
> bloody "revenge flick" is one way that would be certain the get me to
> watch!! :)
>
>> 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.
>>
>> PR expert Nick Ede has similar thoughts. He told Daily Mail that the film’s
>> star has proven she “isn’t the best person to promote the film.”
>>
>> “Rachel is a big-named star
>
> No she's not. How many people actually saw the "West Side Story" remake?...
>

She was also in the Shazam sequel that people stayed away from in droves.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

In article <ubnud6$9e4l$1@dont-email.me>,
"Ian J. Ball" <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:

> On 8/18/23 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>
> > 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".
>
> The studios would be smart if they'd stop allowing *any* of their
> actors, but particularly the younger ones, from saying *anything* "off
> script"!
>
> > 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.
>
> You know, if they want to "update" "Snow White", turning it into a
> bloody "revenge flick" is one way that would be certain the get me to
> watch!! :)

Like the recent WINNIE THE POOH horror movie!

> > "Rachel is a big-named star
>
> No she's not. How many people actually saw the "West Side Story" remake?...

> > "I am sure Disney executives must be having crisis talks and thinking
> > perhaps their new Snow White isn't the best person to promote the film
> > and ensure it is a box office success."

Maybe they should have considered that their new Snow White isn't the
best person to be playing Snow White in the first place. You know, a
character described as "the fairest of them all" and whose skin color is
in her name, for gawd's sake.

It's as stupid as it would be to cast a white guy to play BLACK Panther.

> > He mentioned that SNOW WHITE has a "negative narrative" surrounding it,
> > meaning Disney will have to work overtime to create "magical and positive
> > hype" ahead of the film’s 2024 release date.

I don't personally know anyone-- including some Disneyphile relatives--
who's going to see this movie. Everyone I know who has expressed an
opinion on it has basically said, "Pass."

On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 04:30:49 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:

>“This is by no means a wrong move and Snow White, and other stories, if they
>were written today would have very different nuances and narratives but the
>fact that she’s actively being negative about the source material and
>laughing off the old Disney film and the fairytale makes her look too eager
>to show off the new version and shows little or no respect for the previous
>version and other iterations,” he added.

If you were a Disney exec you might be grateful you were not doing a
woke remake of Mary Poppins with its sexist, classist plot. And were
there ANY BIPOCs in Mary Poppins at all? I don't remember any which
surely must condemn it particularly since Julie Andrews; NEXT picture
was the Sound of Music which so far as I recall had an all white cast
as well.

(But then the Best Picture Oscar the year before Mary Poppins was the
misogenist epic Tom Jones and the year before that by even more
un-woke Lawrence of Arabia so surely the Oscars were condemned
throughout the 60s right?)

On 8/18/2023 3:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <ubnud6$9e4l$1@dont-email.me>,
> "Ian J. Ball" <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 8/18/23 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>
>>> 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".
>>
>> The studios would be smart if they'd stop allowing *any* of their
>> actors, but particularly the younger ones, from saying *anything* "off
>> script"!
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> You know, if they want to "update" "Snow White", turning it into a
>> bloody "revenge flick" is one way that would be certain the get me to
>> watch!! :)
>
> Like the recent WINNIE THE POOH horror movie!
>
>>> "Rachel is a big-named star
>>
>> No she's not. How many people actually saw the "West Side Story" remake?...
>
>>> "I am sure Disney executives must be having crisis talks and thinking
>>> perhaps their new Snow White isn't the best person to promote the film
>>> and ensure it is a box office success."
>
> Maybe they should have considered that their new Snow White isn't the
> best person to be playing Snow White in the first place. You know, a
> character described as "the fairest of them all" and whose skin color is
> in her name, for gawd's sake.
> ...

S'NO WHITE ...and she's very equitable.

In article <enkvdid0hshs8rds69m4fjrdihiodi7f5u@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
<lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 04:30:49 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
> wrote:
>
> >“This is by no means a wrong move and Snow White, and other stories, if they
> >were written today would have very different nuances and narratives but the
> >fact that she’s actively being negative about the source material and
> >laughing off the old Disney film and the fairytale makes her look too eager
> >to show off the new version and shows little or no respect for the previous
> >version and other iterations,” he added.
>
> If you were a Disney exec you might be grateful you were not doing a
> woke remake of Mary Poppins with its sexist, classist plot. And were
> there ANY BIPOCs in Mary Poppins at all? I don't remember any which
> surely must condemn it particularly since Julie Andrews; NEXT picture
> was the Sound of Music which so far as I recall had an all white cast
> as well.
>
> (But then the Best Picture Oscar the year before Mary Poppins was the
> misogenist epic Tom Jones and the year before that by even more
> un-woke Lawrence of Arabia so surely the Oscars were condemned
> throughout the 60s right?)

I think this is a little misguided. Julie Andrews was rewarded for
Mary Poppins because the Academy resented that she hadn't been cast in
Camelot by that idiot Jack Warner, who was generally despised. I also
think the Academy just plain loved Julie.

It also wasn't the most significant year for great drama. The four
other nominees for best actress that year:

Anne Bancroft ­ The Pumpkin Eater
Sophia Loren - Marriage Italian Style
Debbie Reynolds ­ The Unsinkable Molly Brown
Kim Stanley ­ Séance on a Wet Afternoon

Julie wasn't swimming against the current there.

On 8/18/2023 6:39 PM, A Friend wrote:
> In article <enkvdid0hshs8rds69m4fjrdihiodi7f5u@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
> <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 04:30:49 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> “This is by no means a wrong move and Snow White, and other stories, if they
>>> were written today would have very different nuances and narratives but the
>>> fact that she’s actively being negative about the source material and
>>> laughing off the old Disney film and the fairytale makes her look too eager
>>> to show off the new version and shows little or no respect for the previous
>>> version and other iterations,” he added.
>>
>> If you were a Disney exec you might be grateful you were not doing a
>> woke remake of Mary Poppins with its sexist, classist plot. And were
>> there ANY BIPOCs in Mary Poppins at all? I don't remember any which
>> surely must condemn it particularly since Julie Andrews; NEXT picture
>> was the Sound of Music which so far as I recall had an all white cast
>> as well.
>>
>> (But then the Best Picture Oscar the year before Mary Poppins was the
>> misogenist epic Tom Jones and the year before that by even more
>> un-woke Lawrence of Arabia so surely the Oscars were condemned
>> throughout the 60s right?)
>
>
> I think this is a little misguided. Julie Andrews was rewarded for
> Mary Poppins because the Academy resented that she hadn't been cast in
> Camelot by that idiot Jack Warner, who was generally despised. I also
> think the Academy just plain loved Julie.
>
> It also wasn't the most significant year for great drama. The four
> other nominees for best actress that year:
>
> Anne Bancroft ­ The Pumpkin Eater
> Sophia Loren - Marriage Italian Style
> Debbie Reynolds ­ The Unsinkable Molly Brown
> Kim Stanley ­ Séance on a Wet Afternoon
>
> Julie wasn't swimming against the current there.

Not CAMELOT, but it's a suitable typo.

In article <180820231839146402%nope@noway.com>,
A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:

> In article <enkvdid0hshs8rds69m4fjrdihiodi7f5u@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
> <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 04:30:49 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >"This is by no means a wrong move and Snow White, and other stories,
> > >if they were written today would have very different nuances and
> > >narratives but the fact that she's actively being negative about
> > >the source material and laughing off the old Disney film and the
> > >fairytale makes her look too eager to show off the new version and
> > >shows little or no respect for the previous version and other
> > >iterations," he added.
> >
> > If you were a Disney exec you might be grateful you were not doing a
> > woke remake of Mary Poppins with its sexist, classist plot. And were
> > there ANY BIPOCs in Mary Poppins at all? I don't remember any which
> > surely must condemn it particularly since Julie Andrews; NEXT picture
> > was the Sound of Music which so far as I recall had an all white cast
> > as well.

Not only did it have an all-white cast, it had Nazis!

> > (But then the Best Picture Oscar the year before Mary Poppins was the
> > misogenist epic Tom Jones and the year before that by even more
> > un-woke Lawrence of Arabia so surely the Oscars were condemned
> > throughout the 60s right?)
>
> I think this is a little misguided. Julie Andrews was rewarded for
> Mary Poppins because the Academy resented that she hadn't been cast in
> Camelot by that idiot Jack Warner, who was generally despised. I also
> think the Academy just plain loved Julie.
>
> It also wasn't the most significant year for great drama. The four
> other nominees for best actress that year:
>
> Anne Bancroft � The Pumpkin Eater
> Sophia Loren - Marriage Italian Style
> Debbie Reynolds � The Unsinkable Molly Brown
> Kim Stanley � S�ance on a Wet Afternoon
>
> Julie wasn't swimming against the current there.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <180820231839146402%nope@noway.com>,
> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <enkvdid0hshs8rds69m4fjrdihiodi7f5u@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
>> <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 04:30:49 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "This is by no means a wrong move and Snow White, and other stories,
>>>> if they were written today would have very different nuances and
>>>> narratives but the fact that she's actively being negative about
>>>> the source material and laughing off the old Disney film and the
>>>> fairytale makes her look too eager to show off the new version and
>>>> shows little or no respect for the previous version and other
>>>> iterations," he added.
>>>
>>> If you were a Disney exec you might be grateful you were not doing a
>>> woke remake of Mary Poppins with its sexist, classist plot. And were
>>> there ANY BIPOCs in Mary Poppins at all? I don't remember any which
>>> surely must condemn it particularly since Julie Andrews; NEXT picture
>>> was the Sound of Music which so far as I recall had an all white cast
>>> as well.
>
> Not only did it have an all-white cast, it had Nazis!

I hate those guys.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

A Friend wrote:
>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

>>>. . .

>>If you were a Disney exec you might be grateful you were not doing a
>>woke remake of Mary Poppins with its sexist, classist plot. And were
>>there ANY BIPOCs in Mary Poppins at all? I don't remember any which
>>surely must condemn it particularly since Julie Andrews; NEXT picture
>>was the Sound of Music which so far as I recall had an all white cast
>>as well.

>>(But then the Best Picture Oscar the year before Mary Poppins was the
>>misogenist epic Tom Jones and the year before that by even more
>>un-woke Lawrence of Arabia so surely the Oscars were condemned
>>throughout the 60s right?)

>I think this is a little misguided. Julie Andrews was rewarded for
>Mary Poppins because the Academy resented that she hadn't been cast in
>Camelot by that idiot Jack Warner, who was generally despised. I also
>think the Academy just plain loved Julie.

Julie Andrews had played Eliza Doolittle in My Fair Lady on both
Broadway and in the West End. We won't discuss the movie adaptation of
Camelot. barf

Audrey Hepburn was cast because the movie adaptation was one of the most
expensive movies being made in that era and Warner Bros. couldn't afford
for the movie not to find its audience. Julie Andrews was not known to
American movie goers.

I will defend Hepburn's performance; she was wonderful. Also I love
Marni Nixon, who got screwed over once again. The only reason why we
know her name is that Deborah Kerr disobeyed studio orders and told
every interviewer when publicizing The King and I that "the wonderful"
Marni Nixon was the character's singing voice. She was just class.

Warner tried the same stunt with The Music Man but too many stars had seen
Robert Preston on stage as Harold Hill and did not want to commit career
suicide by being compared unfavorably to him. Warner relented and cast him.

It is said that Warner kept much of the Broadway cast in the movie
adaptation of 1776 (plus a few actors from one of the road shows)
because he still felt guilty about not casting Julie Andrews.

Disney wanted Andrews for Mary Poppins and was willing to remain in
second position in case Warner relented and Andrews got the call.

btw, she's also wonderful in The Americanization of Emily, which was
released between Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music, and proved she
could act in other kinds of roles as well.

>It also wasn't the most significant year for great drama. The four
>other nominees for best actress that year:

>Anne Bancroft � The Pumpkin Eater
>Sophia Loren - Marriage Italian Style
>Debbie Reynolds � The Unsinkable Molly Brown
>Kim Stanley � Seance on a Wet Afternoon

I like this movie a lot.

>Julie wasn't swimming against the current there.

In article <ubph24$kjq1$1@dont-email.me>, Adam H. Kerman
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> Julie Andrews had played Eliza Doolittle in My Fair Lady on both
> Broadway and in the West End. We won't discuss the movie adaptation of
> Camelot. barf
>
> Audrey Hepburn was cast because the movie adaptation was one of the most
> expensive movies being made in that era and Warner Bros. couldn't afford
> for the movie not to find its audience. Julie Andrews was not known to
> American movie goers.
>
> I will defend Hepburn's performance; she was wonderful. Also I love
> Marni Nixon, who got screwed over once again. The only reason why we
> know her name is that Deborah Kerr disobeyed studio orders and told
> every interviewer when publicizing The King and I that "the wonderful"
> Marni Nixon was the character's singing voice. She was just class.
>
> Warner tried the same stunt with The Music Man but too many stars had seen
> Robert Preston on stage as Harold Hill and did not want to commit career
> suicide by being compared unfavorably to him. Warner relented and cast him.
>
> It is said that Warner kept much of the Broadway cast in the movie
> adaptation of 1776 (plus a few actors from one of the road shows)
> because he still felt guilty about not casting Julie Andrews.
>
> Disney wanted Andrews for Mary Poppins and was willing to remain in
> second position in case Warner relented and Andrews got the call.
>
> btw, she's also wonderful in The Americanization of Emily, which was
> released between Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music, and proved she
> could act in other kinds of roles as well.

Thanks for all of this.

On 8/19/23 5:30 AM, A Friend wrote:
> In article <ubph24$kjq1$1@dont-email.me>, Adam H. Kerman
> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> Julie Andrews had played Eliza Doolittle in My Fair Lady on both
>> Broadway and in the West End. We won't discuss the movie adaptation of
>> Camelot. barf
>>
>> Audrey Hepburn was cast because the movie adaptation was one of the most
>> expensive movies being made in that era and Warner Bros. couldn't afford
>> for the movie not to find its audience. Julie Andrews was not known to
>> American movie goers.
>>
>> I will defend Hepburn's performance; she was wonderful. Also I love
>> Marni Nixon, who got screwed over once again. The only reason why we
>> know her name is that Deborah Kerr disobeyed studio orders and told
>> every interviewer when publicizing The King and I that "the wonderful"
>> Marni Nixon was the character's singing voice. She was just class.
>>
>> Warner tried the same stunt with The Music Man but too many stars had seen
>> Robert Preston on stage as Harold Hill and did not want to commit career
>> suicide by being compared unfavorably to him. Warner relented and cast him.
>>
>> It is said that Warner kept much of the Broadway cast in the movie
>> adaptation of 1776 (plus a few actors from one of the road shows)
>> because he still felt guilty about not casting Julie Andrews.
>>
>> Disney wanted Andrews for Mary Poppins and was willing to remain in
>> second position in case Warner relented and Andrews got the call.
>>
>> btw, she's also wonderful in The Americanization of Emily, which was
>> released between Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music, and proved she
>> could act in other kinds of roles as well.
>
>
> Thanks for all of this.

This is good, none of the usual Vermanisms.

anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
> Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>> On 8/18/23 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:

>>> 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.
>>
>> You know, if they want to "update" "Snow White", turning it into a
>> bloody "revenge flick" is one way that would be certain the get me to
>> watch!! :)
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> PR expert Nick Ede has similar thoughts. He told Daily Mail that the
>>> film's star has proven she “isn’t the best person to promote the
>>> film.”
>>>
>>> “Rachel is a big-named star
>>
>> No she's not. How many people actually saw the "West Side Story" remake?...

Yeah, I wondered about that as well.

> She was also in the Shazam sequel that people stayed away from in droves.

Wasn't the Shazam Family in the first movie too. or did she replace someone?

--
Let's go Brandon!

Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
>> Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 8/18/23 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> You know, if they want to "update" "Snow White", turning it into a
>>> bloody "revenge flick" is one way that would be certain the get me to
>>> watch!! :)
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> PR expert Nick Ede has similar thoughts. He told Daily Mail that the
>>>> film's star has proven she “isn’t the best person to promote the
>>>> film.”
>>>>
>>>> “Rachel is a big-named star
>>>
>>> No she's not. How many people actually saw the "West Side Story" remake?...
>
> Yeah, I wondered about that as well.
>
>> She was also in the Shazam sequel that people stayed away from in droves.
>
> Wasn't the Shazam Family in the first movie too. or did she replace someone?
>

AFAIK she’s a new character in the sequel.

> --
> Let's go Brandon!
>
>

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 8/21/23 6:03 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:

> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>> anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
>>> Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 8/18/23 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> You know, if they want to "update" "Snow White", turning it into a
>>>> bloody "revenge flick" is one way that would be certain the get me to
>>>> watch!! :)
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> PR expert Nick Ede has similar thoughts. He told Daily Mail that the
>>>>> film's star has proven she “isn’t the best person to promote the
>>>>> film.”
>>>>>
>>>>> “Rachel is a big-named star
>>>>
>>>> No she's not. How many people actually saw the "West Side Story" remake?...
>>
>> Yeah, I wondered about that as well.
>>
>>> She was also in the Shazam sequel that people stayed away from in droves.
>>
>> Wasn't the Shazam Family in the first movie too. or did she replace someone?
>
> AFAIK she’s a new character in the sequel.

But they did replace (sort of) Michelle Borth between movies, which is
one reason I have almost no desire to watch the sequel...

Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
> On 8/21/23 6:03 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>
>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
>>>> Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 8/18/23 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> You know, if they want to "update" "Snow White", turning it into a
>>>>> bloody "revenge flick" is one way that would be certain the get me to
>>>>> watch!! :)
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PR expert Nick Ede has similar thoughts. He told Daily Mail that the
>>>>>> film's star has proven she “isn’t the best person to promote the
>>>>>> film.”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “Rachel is a big-named star
>>>>>
>>>>> No she's not. How many people actually saw the "West Side Story" remake?...
>>>
>>> Yeah, I wondered about that as well.
>>>
>>>> She was also in the Shazam sequel that people stayed away from in droves.
>>>
>>> Wasn't the Shazam Family in the first movie too. or did she replace someone?
>>
>> AFAIK she’s a new character in the sequel.
>
> But they did replace (sort of) Michelle Borth between movies, which is
> one reason I have almost no desire to watch the sequel...
>
>
>

So Mary grows up, but Billy doesn’t?

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.