this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2025
46 points (91.1% liked)

movies

3331 readers
776 users here now

Matrix room: https://matrix.to/#/#fediversefilms:matrix.org

Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.

🔎 Find discussion threads

A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome

Related communities:

Show communities:

Discussion communities:

RULES

Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.

Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title’s subject matter.

Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.

2024 discussion threads

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] hesusingthespiritbomb@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This article almost feels like gaslighting.

Disney has put out a ton of content that follows the same power. It generally can be summarized as "put out overpriced mediocre garbage, hamfist some culture war stuff in there, and then imply anyone who doesn't like it is some sort of deplorable.

This movie:

  • Had a budget of at least 270 million, meaning that it would have to make like 700 million to be considered a success
  • Looks mediocre as all hell regardless
  • The Dwarves are CGI monstrosities that feel more at home in a horror movie. This is because Disney kept pivoting to dumber decisions based off petty internet drama.
  • The decision to cast a Latina in a movie where the actress is explicitly white is on some level a deliberate decision to start culture war drama. Disney has had multiple WoC as princesses for over twenty years now, so it's not like they didn't have other movies they could have adapted
  • They made Zegler look a lot less attractive than she is IRL via poor wardrobe choices, while managing to capture Gadot's beauty.
  • Israel aside, I have zero idea why Gadot is cast in this. She's like the female version of the rock in that she's only really good in stupid action movies that take absolutely minimal acting abilities
  • I understand Lemmy is super pro-Palestinian. However the general viewing public is a lot more divided, and many people simply don't want modern politics in a movie they take their small children too. This is the kind of shit you say at a premier of a small budget film, not something that has to gross hundreds of millions of dollars
  • Zegler also harassed Gadot on set, despite the fact that she was trying very hard to not bring politics into the workplace. Again I understand Lemmy might think that's amazing, but most working people recognize that as the kind of shit they put in an HR training video
  • Zegler also seemed to go out of her way to insult hardcore fans of the show. This is especially egregious because hardcore fans are the type of people to see an IP no matter how bad this is.
  • Unlike Joker where you can just dodge criticism by calling fans of the original incels, hardcore fans of Snow White tend to be gay men and white women. The end result was a lot of the outrage came in the form of gossip influencers throwing shade, which the Disney PR machine was not prepared to counter.

The most ridiculous part of this is the trailer for Lilo and Stich, a movie that is a million times more minority forward than the Snow White remake, dropped to largely positive reception. 2024 is going to be simultaneous "Snow White failed because of bigotry" and a movie centered around two woman of color, and unconventional definition of family, and Hawaiian culture prints money hand over fist.

[–] Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee 1 points 22 hours ago

Gal Gadot would be better cast AS A rock; her acting sucks.

[–] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 35 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

I mean casting her is obvious bait by the producers. But the BBC calling her comments "controversial"? That's problematic at least. She opposed genocide and illegal occupation and opposed an authoritarian strongman gaining power. That is not a controversial comment in a liberal democracy and the founding values of the western democracy. That BBC article is garbage.

[–] Ilandar@lemm.ee 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

But the BBC calling her comments “controversial”? That’s problematic at least. She opposed genocide and illegal occupation and opposed an authoritarian strongman gaining power. That is not a controversial comment in a liberal democracy and the founding values of the western democracy. That BBC article is garbage.

They are objectively controversial positions, though. It doesn't matter how much you agree with them, others clearly do not and it has led to heated public debate. That is literally the definition of controversial:

causing disagreement or discussion

The so-called "liberal democracy" in which she lives is currently being run by the "authoritarian strongman" whose mission is seemingly to disrupt and dismantle many of those "founding values". So again, reality is quite different to how you are presenting it. Calling the article garbage because it stated basic facts instead of subscribing to your fantasy land interpretation of current events is very silly.

[–] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

That is not how "controversy" is used in the article though. The way the article phrases it "Zegler also stoked controversy..." frames it as a valid point of her doing something controversial - or problematic.

I'd bet you could find actual historic precedence for this. Imagine a german actress making her voice heard in the weimarer republic about the rising power of the NAZI party. Back then, people didn't know where hate speech would lead. But now we know.

Hate speech must be opposed (see Paradox of Tolerance). If you accept it you help the fascists. There is no valid opinion except opposing it, so it is not controversial. There was no discussion that can be called a discussion. It's just an attack by fascists.

At least on those two points. It is absolutely VITAL that we call out news media that are supposedly neutral like the BBC. If they accept fascist talking point as a valid opinion in discussion, we have already lost.

[–] Ilandar@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It is absolutely VITAL that we call out news media that are supposedly neutral like the BBC. If they accept fascist talking point as a valid opinion in discussion, we have already lost.

Again - this is netural reporting. The "fascists" won the election with a majority in Zegler's country. The first step towards dealing with this societal problem is accepting that is not just some tiny fringe movement that will disappear if you close your eyes hard enough.

[–] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So if some actor complains about something deplorable, and then there is a huge manufactured fake backlash, is it always ok to write "The actor created controversy by..."?

Lets make your argument more absurd and say there is a hypothetical problem with boots stomping on faces. All day and night these people would randomly pick certain people and start to stomp on their faces. Hypothetically it's recently been legalized by Trump via executive order.

Is complaining about that creating controversy? Is there any line of deplorable, morally unacceptable behavior that would shift the framing from "creating controversy by complaining" to "spoke out and became a victim of a manufactured outrage by fascists"?

My problem is with the framing and how we're accepting fascism as legitimate, while hiding the backlash is fake, immoral and baseless. This is the opposite of accepting reality and fighting back. It's accepting fascism as something that we must respect and tolerate.

[–] Ilandar@lemm.ee 0 points 19 hours ago

So if some actor complains about something deplorable, and then there is a huge manufactured fake backlash, is it always ok to write “The actor created controversy by…”?

It is objectively controversial. People were offended by the things Zegler said - the film was being relentlessly mocked online years before its release. The backlash to the film isn't just about it being Disney live action remake slop and you haven't been paying attention at all if you think this is the case.

[–] Eyck_of_denesle@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The article is not loading for me. But I thought the controversy was about her constantly throwing shade at the classic movie.

[–] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

This is what I was referring to:

Zegler also stoked controversy with her views after the 2024 US presidential election. Writing on Instagram, she said she hoped "Trump voters and Trump himself never know peace".

BBC simply shouldn't take the critique coming from fascists seriously, it legitimizes it as two valid viewpoints.

The article mentions the "shade" but it seems she only commented on the elements of stalking and I guess you can also throw in the somewhat necrophiliac element of the prince kissing her presumably dead corpse lol.

But Snow White is based on a Grimm's fairy tale anyway, which are quite bloody and cruel and far from the sweet Disney movies, and they also contain centuries of storytelling condensing a cultural subconsciousness and dreams. Disney was always more shallow entertainment going with the times. Enchanted is completely bonkers too but really amazing movie. So it's all bullshit asking a remake to "stay true".

PS: Holy shit 1.6/10 on IMDB, the trolls are really mobilizing. It's like a weird "undead internet" where a large enough mass of people have been taken over by a hivemind to make things like democratic ratings irrelevant.

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 3 points 1 day ago

IVE SEEN propaganda against her on youtube daily, wtf i dont need to see that all the time. apparently its all driven by right wing sources.

[–] lordnikon@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

It's never going away there is a lot of money to be made on both sides. If the movie flops the studio can point to the racists and see it was them that tanked our movie. They can also point to progressives and say if you don't watch our Comercial product your not supporting the insert minority group.

The right wing content farms have something to make content about. The left wing content farms have content based on the right wing content. Regular people just wanted a original movie that was good.

Some people don't want minority groups to have rights and some people do and most people don't care about anything that's not directly in front of them.

[–] afronaut@slrpnk.net 6 points 2 days ago

Yea, well it makes no sense to blame progressives for “not supporting a minority group” when the movie got rid of its dwarf actors for CGI or when they punished Zegler for supporting Palestine or when they cast an IDF soldier who can’t act.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 17 points 2 days ago

She took a dump on source content... That's just bad PR IMHO

Her job is to sell holly creep slop to the plebs, not piss off the biggest fans

With that being said, her Palestine commentry brought out the elements who are trying to destroy her for speaking out and the Zionist parasite will be win this one.

[–] Ledivin@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I'd argue that it's not really Zegler's fault... Not that there's anything special about her performance, but there isn't really anything wrong with it, either.

It's an adaptation that never had to get made, doubled up with with weird changes for a nostalgia bomb, poor writing, forgettable songs, and mediocre acting. It's less that it's a bad movie and more that there's just literally nothing good about it, either - it's a solid 5/10 all the way down, in every category.

[–] Ilandar@lemm.ee 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I’d argue that it’s not really Zegler’s fault… Not that there’s anything special about her performance, but there isn’t really anything wrong with it, either.

What's not her fault? The article isn't about her performance in the film, it's about the pushback and resulting pile-on from conservatives to her casting and public comments prior to release.

[–] Ledivin@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Except all of the pushback is actually against casting/writing/changes, she simply answered questions honestly. I would argue that those who made the decisions are the source, not her relaying of them.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 7 points 2 days ago

Did she single handedly tank the performance of the film? No

Did her activities outside of the film help the film get good pr and positive buzz? Also no