Talk:Snow White (2025 film)

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Disney Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Cinema Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Why are we not showing that what she said about Trump was adequately obscene for MAGA supporters to criticize her? Because it sure looks like we are antagonizing MAGA for criticizing her without revealing their side to the story?

Why did we exclude "May they never know Peace. F*** Trump" part?

Why are we showcasing her entire paragraph-long apology instead?

Is Disney handling this Wikipedia page or what? 117.198.52.102 (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point the page is more of a political article than a film article. Messy. Messy. Mike Allen 22:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's reminds me of the article of Most vagy soha! where 2/3 of the content is political controversy TarMilán (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The words, “F*** Donald Trump,” was originally excluded in the Wikipedia article due to the vulgarity of the “F” word, when it is spelled out. Easeltine (talk) 08:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Way to hide the truth. Wikipedia BEGS for money while proclaiming their neutrality: meanwhile in the real world the following commentary succinctly summarizes how the film has actually been received:

The news represents another setback for the film that had a dismal opening weekend last month. After earning only $43 million domestically, the film dropped out of the No. 1 spot in its second weekend after earning just $14.2 million domestically, according to Variety — a 66% decline from its opening weekend.  24.224.71.156 (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to add these cast credits to this page: Hadley Fraser as The First King Lorena Andrea as The First Queen XF1998 (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This entire section doesn't need to exist, in my opinion. It is not a controversy that is directly related to the film itself, which is what this page is supposed to be explaining. It is political and seems to violate WP:NPOV. I think it should be deleted. Please respond with REMOVE if you believe it should be removed or DO NOT REMOVE if you disagree and feel free to provide your explanation on it's relevance to the facts surrounding the film. ^🥑GUACPOCALYPSE^🥑 23:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - OpalYosutebito (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Partial remove. The fact that idiots are calling for a boycott of the film as part of their incessant "culture war" nonsense needs to be mentioned but we should make this about the boycotts not about Zegler. It is clear that they are all over her, trying to find anything that they can use as an excuse to pretend to be angry about. It is a racially motivated vendetta. We should cut down our coverage of this to the basic facts, get rid of the awful section heading, and reframe it more accurately taking the focus off Zegler. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielRigal: You are talking about this section right? There are plenty of things that Zegler has said about this film that aren't related to her race in any way. In my personal opinion, she is her own worst enemy. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that the racists decided to attack her, and the film, because they didn't feel that she was white enough and because they already believed Disney to be their enemy in the culture wars. They went looking for pretexts, racial and otherwise, to use for insincere controversy. They decided to try to tank the film as a demonstration of their power. --DanielRigal (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it's pretty amazing how absolutely terrible she is at dealing with media and promoting her film. I don't think anyone could have done more self inflicted damage if they were trying. Weird weird. Disney isn't keeping her from talking or promoting the film because she's Hispanic. They are doing that because she actively tries to destroy any hope people will pay to see the movie. 2600:1010:B167:F3CC:3578:7835:A766:5C0E (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s weird that this even a discussion on a SNOW WHITE page. Wow. Mike Allen 08:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"to use for insincere controversy" As per usual with the culture war, "controversies" are mainly used to generate publicity for each faction's propaganda. I would not expect to find many truths in their manufactured controversies anyway. Don't get upset about it.

Partial remove Starying into politics while making a major film never turns out well. Some of the excess fluff can be trimmed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Section trimmed. At the bare minimum the basics should stay as media sources keep referencing these as controversial. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for editing the section. It might need a bit more work but it's definitely a lot better than it was. I think that some of the sources are guilty of taking some of the culture war nonsense at face value but there's not much we can do about that. The British media in particular needs to be a bit less gullible. --DanielRigal (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe remove the section entirely and include a "Further Reading" section with articles from sources like Page Six, Time, or Vulture that cover the political aspects in more detail. Some Wikipedia readers might be interested in checking those out! Lililolol (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: unrelated to the political part, but why not include the actors who played the dwarfs in the infobox? They probably appear in about 40% of the movie, meaning they are important, so why not include them? Lililolol (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lililolol: There have been only two political sticking points which involve boycotts which are now in a short summary. If no affect to the movie is attributed to them after the fact, then I would favor a complete removal. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input and for the adjustment of the section. I think it makes a lot more sense now. ^🥑GUACPOCALYPSE^🥑 19:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why not include the actors who played the dwarfs in the infobox? They probably will appear in roughly 40% of the movie, making them significant, so it makes sense to list them, right? Lililolol (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only starring cast goes in the infobox and the production company determines who is starring, not us. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Geraldo Perez: "Starring cast goes in the infobox" No, not really, at least until the official post or credits are officially released per Template:Infobox film Lililolol (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See instructions for the attribute at Template:Infobox film/doc. Fallback to not having official list or reliable sourcing is discussion and consensus in article talk page as to who is listed. We definitely don't list the complete cast in the infobox and who is actually starring cast is usually fairly obvious. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a hobby-horse of mine...

The 'standard' plural of the word 'Dwarf' in English is 'Dwarfs', which is why the original cartoon is 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs'.

JRR Tolkien chose to use the spelling 'dwarves' in his books for his own reasons, as explained in foreword to 'The Lord of the Rings'. He knew full well that the 'correct' spelling is 'Dwarfs'.

For some reason The Guardian uses, as its house style, the spelling with a v. So congratulations to the contributors of this page for getting the spelling accurate throughout – normally 'Dwarfs', but 'Dwarves' when quoting The Guardian. Scaramouche (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin S Taylor Dwarf - Dwarves; Thief - Thieves! What's there to discuss?? Why do americans always ruin the English language?? 95.93.9.66 (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are an expert on the English language, I suspect you mean "Americans" with a capital "A". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am a MAGA guy. We do not have all the Americas as states…yet. Easeltine (talk) 07:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it's significant to mention the film's premiere in Israel at Planet Cinema in Rishon LeZion considering one of the stars, Gadot, is Israeli and the premiere was attended by a notable figure in her honor. Should I add this?

Ref Lililolol (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should mention that it has received positive to mixed reviews from critics, rather than just "mixed," based on Rotten Tomatoes (46% positive from 127 critics) and Metacritic (mixed reviews from 40 critics). Since Rotten Tomatoes, with over 100 reviews, leans toward positive, while Metacritic, with around 50 reviews, reflects mixed reviews, combining both sources should state "positive to mixed reviews from critics." Let's reach a consensus and not change this part of the lead. Shall we? Lililolol (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed means "positive and negative", it doesn't mean neutral. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere, not just on Rotten Tomatoes, does 46% of something lean toward positive. Tomatometer rating is "Rotten", not positive. Also, there is no such thing as "positive to mixed reviews" and even if there were, you would need multiple reliable sources that clearly state the same term. ภץאคгöร 23:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm entirely baffled as to how User:Lililolol reached a conclusion that Rotten Tomatoes "leans toward positive" with a 46% positive review score. Maybe it's a failure to understand that when 46% of reviews are positive on RT, it automatically means that 54% are therefore negative or otherwise non-positive, which would actually mean that RT leans negative. It should also be noted that RT's criteria for what would be considered a positive (or non-rotten) score from their perspective is 60%, not 50 or 51%. So it would still have a long way to climb before RT's score would be considered to "lean toward positive". McRandy1958 (talk) 04:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@McRandy1958 Its score is 5.something out of 10, so technically it isn't negative based on the score alone Lililolol (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, it is 45% on RT. Metacritic, where it is 5 out of 10, seems like a perfect example of "mixed" to me.--MattMauler (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, 45% ain't positive. That's mixed.

To be honest I see a fair amount of pro-Zegler padding and a bit of a lack of neutrality in coverage of positive versus negative critical reviews on this page. TradingSpousesWelsch (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the major publications panned it, even the Guardian and BBC, mixed is generous as it is.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Curious: will this page be getting the Velma treatment?

It's atypical for Wikipedia pages about movies and TV shows and other fictional media to make any major note of the opinion divide between professional critics versus the general public, but for anyone who doesn't know, Velma was a recent television show that received mixed reviews from critics. Pretty normal, however, the show got a very different response from the broader viewing audience, becoming so heavily panned by big-name YouTubers and so poorly-rated overall in terms of audience scores on IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes and Google that it received its own "Audience Response" section on Wikipedia where it was quoted as being considered one of the worst shows of all time. The Velma situation is one of the few times I've seen a section included separately to discuss the show's perception from ordinary viewers.

Er... Snow White it looks like might be running into the same thing. I don't know if anyone's done a bit of checking around, but the general audience does not like this film at all, with not just random viewers but also notably very famous and popular YouTubers posting videos discussing how awful it is. I'm not here to make personal judgments on the film, and it's way too early to be considering adding a section like this when the film was literally only released to the North American box offices yesterday, but so far the only video I've found not calling Snow White a total dumpster fire is one by Doug Walker of Nostalgia Critic, and his review wasn't particularly positive, just mixed. Matt Walsh and Michael Knowles of The Daily Wire roasted it completely, Amala Ekpunobi was heavily critical of the film's underlying communist themes and how overcomplicated the plot concepts were for young viewers, Misha Petrov (along with every other name I just mentioned) has been especially critical of the dwarf character designs as looking extremely creepy, and so-on. I mentioned these names because these are famous (on an influencer-level tier) individuals but are not professional film critics. Would these types of criticisms be considered non-notable or irrelevant? TradingSpousesWelsch (talk) 11:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"character designs as looking extremely creepy" Let me guess, another example of the uncanny valley?: "The uncanny valley hypothesis predicts that an entity appearing almost human will risk eliciting eerie feelings in viewers." Dimadick (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you've hit the nail on the head. These influencer reviewers have noted that the CGI used is often poorly-placed; one of them even presents a screenshot where the mouths on one of the characters is a perfect circle of skin with thin lips placed slightly askew over prominent human-esque teeth. That'd give me nightmares as a child. TradingSpousesWelsch (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that "famous and popular YouTubers" should be identified with the "general audience". They may not be professional film critics, but they are not a representative sample of the public, either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those YouTubers are professional film critics in the sense that they run a channel focused on film critisism, create content regularly and make enough money from that for it to be a full-time job for them. They just don't meet reliable source guidelines as they don't work for a Wikipedia vetted publication with a reputation for fact checking. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White_(2025_film)#German_Folklore Awful spelling/grammar, no citations, and improperly added as a subsection to the 'Gadot and Zegler's political views' subsection of Controversies... This entire subsection should probably be removed:

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, like Hansel and Gretel were just two of many Fairytales ,adapted from older Folklore or mythologies passed down through time in Germanic and Scandinavia culture.

The Brothers Grimm (Wilhelm and Jacob Grimm) ,began romanticizing the older folklore ,from 1812-1857 ,into the modrn stories we know today.

Present-day Disney however, has chosen to politicize and change the fables to meet modern 'social justice movements' demands. Effecfively removing the original message and feel of the fairy tales.

In Nazi Germany between 1933-1945, the Nazi regime weaponized the fables for propaganda purposes.

Newstarshipsmell (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it was removed while I was adding this here, haha. Newstarshipsmell (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly original research, there is nothing on the source claiming that. 2804:389:B134:B5F6:1:0:807E:DBC7 (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply]

As stated above on the talk page, this is not a discussion forum, so please refrain from personal comments, remain neutral regarding opinions of the film, and be respectful. BrookTheHumming (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Free speech warrants review aggregations to be shared, whether positive or negative. Glazing the film with only positive reviews on the page while *many* people are negatively reviewing the film is a disservice to the integrity of Wikipedia. 2601:4C4:4000:4980:98AD:15D0:9825:DF0B (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review aggregators such as Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes are already in the article, and many negative reviews are quoted as well.--MattMauler (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the last sentence of the "Box office" paragraph, change "in it's opening weekend" to "in its opening weekend". CrisantemoFlor (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done LizardJr8 (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add the IMBD score! 2601:4C4:4000:4980:98AD:15D0:9825:DF0B (talk) 05:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: IMDb scores are not typically cited in movie or television articles. The movies IMDb page is linked on the bottom of the page if one would want to find the score that way. cyberdog958^Talk 09:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth citing audience reviews from notable figures such as Michael Knowles, Doug Walker (who was actually neutral in his views on Snow White), Amala Ekpunobi and Matt Walsh, or not relevant enough? I feel like the audience opinion is very important but that it won't necessarily be worth including it until the film has had a bit more time at the box office. Still, audience reviews from notable figures seem significant, but then this might risk oversaturating the page in opinions from varied sources. I don't want to request that they be added if they're not considered relevant by Wikipedia's standards. TradingSpousesWelsch (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MOSFILM#Critical_reception. Walsh and Knowles are not professional film critics, so they would not fit. I'm not very familiar with Walker, but I would suggest not him either. According to the MOS, print reviews are preferred. Regarding YouTube specifically, Wikipedia film articles generally do not include any YouTube critics because everything on YouTube is self-published, so there's almost no editorial oversight. If a mainstream critic who produces content in multiple media (articles, TV show, etc.) created a YouTube channel, then perhaps it could be used, but I don't think that's the case with Walker.--MattMauler (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, thanks for the help. TradingSpousesWelsch (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the movie's incredibly low IMDB score it should be considered as noteworthy under Wikipedia:Notability.

But would require the condition of 3rd party citations. 58.96.61.222 (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Current:

As of March 26, 2025, Snow White has grossed $44.7 million in the United States and Canada, and $43.9 million in other territories for a worldwide total of $88.6 million. The Hollywood Reporter surmised that the film would need to gross $500 million to reach its "box office safety net," according to box office analysts and industry executives. For reference, 25 to 40% of the total revenue of a film comes during the opening weekend.

Proposed change:

As of March 26, 2025, Snow White has grossed $44.7 million in the United States and Canada, and $43.9 million in other territories for a worldwide total of $88.6 million. Since 25 to 40% of the total revenue of a film comes during the opening weekend, the Hollywood Reporter surmised that the film would need to gross $500 million to reach its "box office safety net," according to box office analysts and industry executives.

--

The "for reference" felt a bit out of place, rephrasing the idea improves readability. Marveloushistorian (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that your proposed changed is a better option for this section. The previous revision seems just to be stating facts and not as readable. Good work! ^🥑GUACPOCALYPSE^🥑 22:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that readability is improved but I'm a little slow so I don't understand what is trying to be conveyed.

$88.6M is 25% of $354.4M or 40% of $221.5M, where does the $500M number come from? Also, what is a box office safty net? Are not the cost estimates in the $3-400M range?

Can someone help me understand? 2600:1700:9CF0:F60:972B:7FD6:5AAF:9486 (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change march 28 to march 26 under the reception section. First sentence 2600:1001:A010:FD59:D81E:B569:96B3:3A1F (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the controversies section, there's a whole lot more focus on Rachel Zegler than on Gal Gadot, to the point where more than one direct quote of Zegler's beliefs are added, while the only reference to Gadot is her Israeli nativeness. This needs to be improved, as Gadot is the main controversial figure among worldwide audiences.

It also appears that only "Arab organizations" are mentioned as actors of the anti-zionist boycott. Does that mean that the BDS movement is classified as exclusively Arab? Why so? What about the Israeli supporters of BDS? Not to mention, that entire paragraph (and therefore subsection) is only cited by pro-israeli websites.

Lastly, it is strange to see Zegler's statements be nitpicked like that. It seems like something more appropriate in her article rather than this movie's article. There are plenty other quotes from her that have more to do with the topic at hand. — Snoteleks (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy is purely that there is an Israeli actress in the movie. This has nothing to do with Godot herself or anything she has done. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, as far as I can see from researching, Gadot has only made sparse comments advocating for peace for both sides, which have not received even a fraction of the amount of discourse that Zegler has. It would be UNDUE 58.96.61.222 (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bad faith assumption. Just being Israeli would not have gotten that much criticism towards her. She is a proud former IDF agent and has broken friendships with other celebrities over her pro-Israel military stance [1][2]. She has continuously posted in social media about the Israeli hostages while completely ignoring the mass murders of Palestinians. She helped organize an IDF propaganda screening in LA and NY called "Bearing Witness" [3][4]. — Snoteleks (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Military service is compulsory for all Israeli adults. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Geraldo Perez You know what they say, "Denial is a river in Egypt." Lililolol (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is stating a verifiable fact about Israeli citizenship denying anything. Point is the issue is soley about her being Israeli. Mandatory military service is part of that so saying the issue is she was in the Israeli military covers all Israelis. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Key word: proud. We're talking apples and oranges here. Yes, they're both fruit to you. — Snoteleks (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are conscience objectors. ProudWatermelon (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Snoteleks I agree, but unfortunately, where are the sources? provide them, and I can write a section about it or help with that. Lililolol (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding "Arab organizations," sources indicate it applies exclusively to screenings of the film in the "Arab world." They seem to oppose screenings, issuing "joint statements"; however, nothing has been said about BDS. Lililolol (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should we make a separate article for the soundtrack album? Info that was there for it including tracklisting was removed. HM2021 (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NALBUM for what is needed for an album article to exist. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Geraldo Perez Hi, I guess it should be a subsection under the Production section. No? Lililolol (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a music section in the article now. Usually WP:NALBUM isn't difficult to meet with popular soundtrack albums so I expect one soon. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can the imdb rating be added on the introductory paragraph? Because it got a rating of 1.5/10, which is some of the lowers ever recorded. Saptajit D (talk) 10:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As other users have pointed out, IMDb ratings are somewhat irrelevant, as they can be rated by people using multiple accounts; and the exaggeratedly high number of people who have given a rating in just one week after the release may lead one to suspect that this is the case. (And, by the way, it's starting to get annoying how this film's IMDb rating is constantly mentioned as if it were the only website in the world.) It's as if Wikipedia were creating a poll on some topic, and any user using sock puppet accounts to repeatedly vote on the same thing. So it doesn't matter if there's a film or other production on that website with a low rating or an extremely high rating, since it's not a reliable site. BrookTheHumming (talk) 10:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While what you are saying is normally true, if one looks at the ratings from the other countries, one finds their ratings lower than the United States: India, Brazil, U.K., Canada, all lower than U.S. with almost all a rating of 1.0. Other countries are not fans of President Trump or MAGA supporters, due to tariffs right now, so a logical conclusion is that this is a movie people do not like. Easeltine (talk) 07:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can’t call it one of the biggest box office flops after only a week lmao 2601:CD:D001:6142:C18:B3D6:6E4:F710 (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the first time this has happened in a Wikipedia article about a newly released film, mainly with films that people already decided they "didn't like" even before the release (in this case, this film having attracted many people against it months before its release, mainly due to the controversies mentioned in the article). When a large number of people aren't attracted to a film in theaters, they immediately dismiss it as a "box office bomb" as if the few days after its release were the only time the film was shown.
As I said, this has happened before in other articles about films in the past that earned little in their first few days and were immediately considered box office flops by some people who only counted what was earned in the first few days (some films later earned more, others not so much...). As you say, it's only been a week; we have to wait until the film is out of theaters (which could be around three months from now) to see if it becomes a "sleeper hit", or if it is actually a "box office bomb" if it doesn't exceed its budget. BrookTheHumming (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would need to do 500 million just to cover its initial production budget that disney will admit to. It's currently at 100 million with a overall negative critic reviews along with negative audience reception. Is it possible in the next month it does another 600 million and barely breaks even. It's not theoretically impossible. Is by far the most likely outcome it loses 100s of millions for Disney as an absolute mega box office bomb. Yes. It's just a matter of time until some sources say that. And how much certain editors want to argue semantics and wiki rules about calling it a bomb 2601:204:F182:FA80:C75:AB8:D910:4C09 (talk) 03:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a matter of time means WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. We don't lead sources, this isn't a matter of semantics. Nil Einne (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ever since 41% on Rotten Tomatoes has meant positive reviews? Is the editor biased? This film should have at least a mixed or negative review clasification 189.28.91.133 (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It says "mix" in the lead. Lililolol (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten Tomatoes isn't the only site that exists. The Critical reception section displays several sites with different scores, along with reviews from journalistic sources, both positive and negative, and several diverse reviews with mixed opinions, which can be considered mixed on average. And please, in the future, try to speak respectfully without being rude if you want to give your opinion on something. BrookTheHumming (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BrookTheHumming Hi, I’ve also started to think that the lead should go beyond just saying "mix," as it feels too brief. However, I’m unsure what to add and whether my edit will be reverted, since this seems to be a controversial change. Lililolol (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, shouldn't the article class be B rather than C? Lililolol (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the lead would be enhanced by that. However, it has been reverted a few times (correctly I think) in order to avoid WP:SYNTH. From MOS:FILMLEAD: "Any summary of the film's critical reception [in the lead] should avoid synthesis, meaning it should reflect an overall consensus explicitly summarized by one or more reliable sources." Basically, if more is added than just "mixed" (e.g. "praise for Zegler's performance, criticism for _____"), it would have to come from a secondary source that is explicitly attempting to summarize the overall critical reception, so that we as WP editors don't have to come up with our own synthesis, which would involve too much interpretation, according to the guidelines.--MattMauler (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "praise for Zegler, criticism for the visuals" statement that keeps getting removed from the lead without explanation is directly based on the film's Rotten Tomatoes consensus and shouldn't be considered controversial. Additional sources could be found and added but the RT consensus should be probably be sufficient. --Jpcase (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but did not know that's where it came from. Also, at least a few times there was sometimes verbiage about criticism of Gadot's performance, which did not come from RT consensus. Anyway, if that info you mention is re-added with an inline citation to the RT consensus, I think that would be fine.--MattMauler (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The RT critic's consensus mentions praise for Zegler and criticism of "stylistic choices" which could mean a lot of different things, not necessarily visuals (?). Almost too vague to use IMO but still could be used for the Zegler praise I guess.--MattMauler (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MattMauler Gadot's performance did receive criticism in quite a lot of reviews, but I don't personally consider those criticisms to be as defining to the film's reception as some of the other criticisms, such as those centering on the film's visuals. And the statement that I was trying to have included in the lead didn't say anything about Gadot (others were adding references to her, but I didn't agree with those additions). I feel pretty confident that "stylistic choices" was primarily intended as a reference to the film's visuals but can see how there's some vagueness there. How would you feel about something along the lines of "It received mixed reviews from critics, who praised Zegler's performance but criticized the directing and screenplay." While "stylistic choices" could perhaps be interpreted in a variety of different ways, I feel like anything it could mean would ultimately fall under the umbrella of directorial choices. And the RT consensus does explicitly reference criticism of how the source material was approached, which = criticism of the screenplay. --Jpcase (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A 1.6 out of 10 on IMBd makes this film one of the 10 worst film ratings in IMBd’s entire Database. Look up the ratings from other countries, even worse than the U.S. Easeltine (talk) 07:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I took some time to write a new lead that I believe follows MOS:LEAD. I tried to maintain GA quality and draw inspiration from similar GA articles, perhaps for future nomination? So, here is my proposal;

Snow White is a 2025 American musical fantasy film directed by Marc Webb and produced by Walt Disney Pictures as part of its series of live-action reimaginings of classic animated films.^[1] A remake of Disney’s 1937 animated Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, this adaptation retells the 1937 animated film based on the Brothers Grimm fairy tale of the same name.^[2] Starring Rachel Zegler as the title character, a resilient princess who escapes assassination by her stepmother, the Evil Queen (Gal Gadot), and forms an alliance with seven dwarfs and a rogue bandit named Jonathan (Andrew Burnap) to reclaim her kingdom. Plans for a remake were confirmed in October 2016, with Wilson announced as a screenwriter. Webb entered talks to direct in May 2019 and was announced as director in September 2019. Principal photography took place in the UK from March to July 2022, with additional reshoots in 2024, and faced disruptions due to the SAG-AFTRA strike. With a production budget of $240–270 million, Snow White is among Disney’s most expensive films. Prior to its release, the film generated significant controversy regarding its color-blind casting, changes to the story, and the reimagining of the Seven Dwarfs. Additional backlash stemmed from lead actress Zegler’s public critiques of the original film, as well as her and Gadot’s opposing views on the Israel-Gaza conflict, leading to calls for boycotts. Snow White premiered at at Alcázar of Segovia in Segovia, Spain, on March 12, 2025, before its theatrical release in the United States on March 21. The film received mixed reviews, some critics praised its retelling and Zegler's performance, while others criticized its CGI dwarfs, weak direction, and predictable script.^[3] It grossed $143 million worldwide against its substantial budget. Lililolol (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, what do you all think of this version?

@MattMauler, @BrookTheHumming @Jpcase. Lililolol (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. Its nice and balanced and showcases the controversies. Geraab (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see the lead expanded with more detail about the film's reception but feel that the Rotten Tomatoes consensus may be a better source in this situation than the BBC article. I've suggested my own version above. It's a little simpler. If you and MattMauler don't have any issues with it, then I'll incorporate my version into the article sometime today. I don't really have any opinions about the other changes you've suggested for the lead - feel free to work those in if you'd like. --Jpcase (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I used BBC because, as MattMauler suggested, reception should come from a "secondary source explicitly attempting to summarize the overall critical reception," which I think the BBC did best. But I am unsure; do you have a better suggestion? Lililolol (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My concern with the BBC is that it doesn't actually summarize the critical reception so much as it just compiles a bunch of individual reviews. The RT consensus is an actual summary. --Jpcase (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RT says, "Snow White is hardly a grumpy time at the movies thanks to Rachel Zegler's luminous star turn, but its bashful treatment of the source material, along with some dopey stylistic choices, won't make everyone happy, either." It sounds vague; it doesn't match your wording, especially regarding the criticism of the directing and screenplay. RT doesn't specify what they mean by "stylistic choices" Are they referring to the CGI, the director, the story, or what exactly? The BBC’s summary isn’t a full consensus review like RT, as you said; it just compiles a bunch of individual reviews, but at least they’re clearer about what they’re criticizing and praising. That’s just my opinion, though. Lililolol (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC is clear in quoting what individual critics praised and criticized but never attempts an actual summary of what the consensus was among those critics. So I'm worried that using the BBC to summarize the reviews would verge on WP:SYNTH. I don't personally have a huge issue with it, but it's not ideal.

The RT consensus does offer an actual summary. I acknowledge that "stylistic choices" is somewhat vague - but anything it could refer to would fall under the umbrella of directorial choices. Is it referring to the film's use of CGI? That's a directorial choice. Is it referring to other aesthetic aspects of the film? Those would also be directorial choices. Is it referring to the film's tone or pacing? Those are directorial choices too. I can't think of anything that could be defined as a "stylistic choice" that isn't a result of how the film was directed. --Jpcase (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not responding sooner. Unfortunately, I also think that it is a stretch to use the RT summary to support "directorial choices" and "screenplay." I haven't intentionally looked for a suitable summary in secondary sources, but it might be out there! I do think that RT could support praise for Zegler. Sample/rough wording: "The film received mixed reviews, but Zegler's performance as Snow White received consistent praise." Something like that--MattMauler (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be okay with the wording you've suggested. Unfortunately there aren't any alternative summaries at the moment (I've looked), though it's still early, so maybe something else will be published eventually.

If we want to add specific criticisms to the lead, then I can think of other possible ways of rephrasing the RT consensus (and admittedly am still not sure what is objectionable about equating stylistic choices with directorial choices, but I won't push the matter). I'm also okay with just saying that Zegler's performance was praised while the rest of the film's reception was mixed. --Jpcase (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lililolol How would you feel about adding MattMauler's suggested phrasing to the lead? The film received mixed reviews, but Zegler's performance as Snow White received consistent praise. Or something along those lines. Ideally, we would say something specific about the film's negative reviews as well, but I'm not sure we're gonna come up with phrasing that everyone here agrees on, unless a better source turns up. I'd still like to have the lead say a little more about the film's reception than it currently does and simply singling out the praise for Zegler's performance shouldn't conflict with a neutral, balanced tone so long as the film's overall mixed reception is also still mentioned in the lead. --Jpcase (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpcase MattMauler's suggested phrasing looks good to me, but maybe add "criticism was made about stylistic choices; it would look like;

The film received mixed reviews, but Zegler's performance as Snow White was consistently praised, while critics took issue with some of the film's stylistic choices.

Or maybe my original suggestion; The film received mixed reviews, some critics praised its retelling and Zegler's performance, while others criticized its CGI dwarfs, weak direction, and predictable script.

What yall vote for? Lililolol (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lililolol I still have reservations about using the BBC source for this. Even if we did use the BBC source, I would want to suggest some alternations to how you've summarized it. But I do think that the Rotten Tomatoes consensus is the best source that we have for this at moment. Ideally, I'd want to come up with our own way of expressing what the consensus says instead of simply repeating RT's exact phrasing. But in this situation, since we can't all agree on exactly what "stylistic choices" means, what you've suggested - The film received mixed reviews, but Zegler's performance as Snow White was consistently praised, while critics took issue with some of the film's stylistic choices. - probably is going to be our best option. --Jpcase (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpcase Yeah, but I'm unsure how else to phrase it without deviating from the RT consensus. Do you have a different phrasing in mind? Lililolol (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lililolol Well...I feel very confident that "dopey stylistic choices" was intended as a reference to the film's visuals, which is why my original attempt at summarizing this in the lead singled out criticism of the visuals. My personal view is that just because "stylistic" is a vague term doesn't mean we aren't allowed to use common sense and context to infer what it means. But I recognize that objections have been raised against equating "stylistic choices" with visual choices, and I understand the reasoning behind that objection even if I don't completely agree with it. So I'm not sure that there really is any way to rephrase "stylistic choices". --Jpcase (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI - People will only get notifications if you mention them while adding your signature in the same edit, so I didn't actually get a notification when you went back and added my username after your initial edit. I'd already seen your reply though, so all good. Jpcase (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote for the second one based on the RT consensus. After reading the BBC article, I was sure it had summarized the overall reception, but I went back and looked, and there are hardly any summative statements on the overall reception, just the one about Brits and Americans having differing reactions.--MattMauler (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Received mixed Reviews from critics but Backlash from Audience's and Fans while their reviews was divided to panned. 2603:6011:4602:8D50:3883:68CB:65EA:C5B1 (talk) 02:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Warriorglance(talk to me) 04:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I believe audience reviews are irrelevant. I’m sure there’s a policy that classifies them as user-generated content, like IMDb, but I don’t recall the specific name. Lililolol (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are looking for WP:USERG Warriorglance(talk to me) 06:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this mentioned anywhere? Should it? https://www.the-independent.com/arts-entertainment/films/news/snow-white-producer-son-rachel-zegler-disney-b2723102.html MaximumLux (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nooooooo. Mike Allen 11:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it does get mentioned on the Snow White Wikipedia page (although it would make more sense to quote the more notable producer rather than his son on Zegler's politics), it should be directly attributed to the son and very clear that this was his statement of opinion, not an objective fact (seriously though, shut up already Zegler, we get it, "free palestine", lol). The trouble with adding this directly to the Snow White article is more that I'm not sure the producer's son's opinion is considered notable enough to add in here. If it's cited, it should also include Zegler's counter-opinion (presuming she responded) for the sake of neutrality; I'm guessing Zegler has her own opinion herself on whether her "personal politics" is causing this train wreck to tank. Without a secondary analysis of viewers' opinions to see if Zegler's "personal politics" are off-putting or annoying to audiences, it remains purely an allegation at this time, and one not hugely relevant to the overall Snow White production. Either way, if it's added in there ideally it should include a counter-response from Zegler herself if she gave one (from a credible source; beware of libellous tabloids and AI-generated material!), and it should be framed as pure opinion and not a fact that Zegler's political views are tanking the film, since it's not been established by any credible sources as an objective fact. Having a response from Disney itself or its officials would be ideal, but of course I'm sure that's not going to happen in this situation. Just from personal observation viewers are definitely put off by Zegler's "free palestine" shtick and her nasty remarks about Republicans (which happens to be like half of America), but they're more put off by the poor production quality, the ableism towards Little Persons (dwarfism), the godawful CGI, the poor acting, the dated, generic musical numbers (was that seriously a ukulele she was holding!?) and Gal Gadot's cheap jewellery, not to mention that Zegler physically looks like Lord Farquaad for much of the film's running time and it's so bad that it's become a meme at this point. None of this is really political in nature and within a few months I'm sure more credible analysts will point this out. Yes there are radical right-wingers and left-wingers picking Zegler's political views apart, but for the most part the complaints seem to be more about the low quality of Snow White in general. It has poorer ratings than that Gloria Tesch Maradonia and the Shadow Empire thing. No, I'm dead-serious, like a 1.6/10 on IMDb. It's by no means just Zegler's politics turning people off. If that were true, than neutral and pro-palestine viewers would have been able to grab the film by the wrist and heave it up to maybe a 4/10 or a 5/10. Go figure even most palestine supporters on YouTube hate Snow White too, it looks visually ugly as sin. At this point focusing on Zegler's politics is just a way to deflect from how horrendously bad the Snow White film is, but until credible analysts have had time to explore the phenomenon - and it is quite a big one; as fellow film buffs know, this bomb is a first for Disney going this low - there's not much of a way to point this out on Wikipedia, either. TradingSpousesWelsch (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TradingSpousesWelsch: please keep your comments on-topic. Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum for you to rant about your personal opinions about the actors in this or any other film, and it is not at all helpful for you to reply to every comment thread with reasons why you personally feel that the film may be failing. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with Ivanvector. I would also like to point out that TradingSpousesWelsch seems to be editing in bad faith and is also biased against Zegler. Lililolol (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And about "and her nasty remarks," isn't that a biased tone? Lililolol (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lililolol: The answer to gossip on Talk pages is a notice that it is not forum and removal on repeated violation. Please do directly or inadvertently not contribute to it. Gotitbro (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

False. I haven't made any edits to the Snow White article. Surely you can check that. TradingSpousesWelsch (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, quite a few WP:WALLOFTEXT in almost every section despite the galring notice at the top to not use Talk pages as a WP:FORUM. Might need to start removing the comment clutter if this continues. Gotitbro (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TradingSpousesWelsch: Going through your comments on the Talk page, quite a few contained WP:PERSONALATTACKS (remember "Comment on content, not on the contributor") [some worthy of WP:ANI review] and almost all turn to gossip. I've either removed these or collapsed them. This has tended towards WP:DISRUPTION. If you want to dicuss something specific in our article, do; but this is definitely not a place for a running commentary on the film, editors and the related. Please desist. Gotitbro (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted multiple comments from this user on this talk page precisely for these reasons. I figured it's better than to derail the talk page. I was reverted by other users who insisted that the comments are not disruptive. Twice. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 10:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already stopped commenting here over a month ago because the racism and antisemitism made me uncomfortable, so I don't know what you're talking about now. I rarely use Wikipedia anymore because of some of the disturbing remarks I was seeing here from editors. Remove or block my edits if you think it's appropriate. Ain't my website, ain't my authority. For the record, I don't appreciate being falsely accused by another editor in this talk page of making "bad faith edits" on the page for Snow White; you can check my activity log and that for the film's page and see that this isn't true, I've never made any bad faith edits to the Snow White film page in my life. I see there's a bit of two-tier moderation going on here though, so I'll step out of the club. I'm Jewish. I don't belong here and y'all have already made that quite clear. TradingSpousesWelsch (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but don't use the "racism and antisemitism" card when people disagree with you; that's not productive Lililolol (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm Jewish," that's amazing! But what does that have to do with Snow White? Lililolol (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in my opinion, you're overreacting. Like, okay, people disagree with you on Snow White, so what? Go edit other pages! Lililolol (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. He's just one random person with an opinion, among hundreds of random people with opinions. In no way is his opinion any more important or relevant than that of anybody else. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that it is necessary to include this item to the article, but this is not just "one random person with an opinion" since he has a connection with the producer of the film, and more importantly his opinion has been reported in multiple reliable sources. Rlendog (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlendog Hi, just because something has been reported doesn't mean it must be included (WP:ONUS). His connection to the producer is irrelevant to the film itself, it's simply his son's publicized personal opinion, with no impact on the movie whatsoever. Lililolol (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This had already been included in the article for a few days before it was ever brought up here on the talk page... it's now in the article twice... Jpcase (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous news sources are now describing the movie as a "box office bomb"

https://deadline.com/2025/03/snow-white-bombs-rachel-zegler-1236354912/

At what point can this be added to the lead? I note it was previously added but removed? 182.172.103.25 (talk) 02:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some guidance at WP:LEAD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the film's release, it's been like this: The very day after its release, "It's grossed $4 million, it's a box office bomb"; a few days later, "It's grossed $90 million, it's a box office bomb"; now, "It's grossed $140 million, it's a box office bomb"... It seems the world is obsessed with immediately declaring it a box office bomb as if their lives depended on it. The film will be in theaters for about three months after its release, and it's going to continue to gross at the box office. It may end up grossing a lot, it may end up grossing just a little more than what it have now... But until it's out of theaters, it can't really be said to be a box office bomb. Once that time passes and it doesn't actually gross twice its production budget, then it will officially be considered as such. (WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL) --BrookTheHumming (talk) 08:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BrookTheHumming Contributor19 (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BrookTheHumming Can you cite a Wikipedia rule that supports your claim? "until it's out of theaters, it can't really be said to be a box office bomb"

We literally quote leftist, reliable sources that clearly state the movia is a box office bomb 80.99.163.48 (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@80.99.163.48 What's your hurry? Contributor19 (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia which should be edited according to the available facts. So can you cite a Wikipedia rule that supports your claim? "until it's out of theaters, it can't really be said to be a box office bomb"?

Or are you just trying to exclude this information from the article? 80.99.163.48 (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CONCENSUS. This is an ongoing discussion about what goes in this article. So far most editors support adding the info but after the theater run is complete and final conclusions about the box office are appropriate. WP:NOHURRY also talks to general editorial issue here too. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree its definitely sourced well to say its a "box office bomb" and something should be added to the lead indicating better detailage of this later. However, I also think it would be ok to add to the load something indicating that it did lose money upon release: adding the value later. DuneEnjoyer333 (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One could simply say it "significantly underperformed" what the return would have been needed to break even, sourced with almost any article because they all agree on that point. DuneEnjoyer333 (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a partisan reporter with an anti-Palestinian agenda. Her article consists almost entirely of off-the-record Disney executives blaming Rachel Zegler's single pro-Palestine tweet - with no evidence - for the failure of the film and for supposed death threats made against Gal Gadot (whom, the article notes, is "a mother of four," as if that detail is relevant in any way to the backlash she's incurred for her vocal support of a genocide). Obviously I'm on one lol but come on guys. This is not an encyclopedic source and it should not be cited here. 184.149.39.124 (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Lililolol (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're referring to the Variety article "Inside Disney's 'Snow White' Fiasco: Death Threats, Beefed-Up Security and a Social Media Guru for Rachel Zegler", which caused quite a bit of controversy - a lot of people feel that the article was essentially a hit piece against Zegler, used by Disney executives who want to blame her for the film's poor box office performance. Over 180 professional film journalists signed an open letter condemning the Variety article. The open letter received a decent amount of news coverage - see these articles from The New Yorker and Vanity Fair. Something could perhaps be said in the article about the open letter, but I don't necessarily see an issue with continuing to use the Variety article as a source, so long as it is used judiciously. Currently, it's only being used for two brief statements, one about Gadot receiving death threats, the other about Gadot and Zegler having a positive working relationship during the film's production. Neither of those statements should be controversial, but using the source to make any further statements might be inappropriate. --Jpcase (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that allowing the "death threats" claim to stand is inappropriate. This is the context in which the article presents it:

That addendum, which amassed 8.8 million views, nearly four times the number for the initial post, quickly made the rounds, with many inside the studio expressing shock that the “Snow White” star would commingle the promotion of its $270 million tentpole with any kind of political statement. A Disney executive raised the studio’s concerns with Zegler’s team, while the film’s producer Marc Platt flew to New York to speak directly with her. But the actress, whose relationship with the studio began to unravel in 2022 during a contentious “West Side Story” awards season campaign and continued as she trashed the beloved original “Snow White,” stood her ground, and the post remained. Behind the scenes, death threats toward Zegler’s co-star Gal Gadot, who is Israeli, spiked, and Disney had to pay for additional security for the mother of four.

The article's facially absurd insinuation is that Zegler's single "free palestine" tweet drove a "spike" in death threats toward Gal Gadot, a long-controversial figure who is presented here as an utterly sympathetic "mother of four" compared to Zegler, who "shocks" the studio, whose relationship with Disney is "unraveling," who "trashes" a "beloved" film. This article is not an encyclopedic source and the Wikipedia entry should not uncritically repeat its claims. 184.145.106.248 (talk) 01:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That Gadot received death threats is a simple statement of fact. That Zegler's comments had anything to do with a supposed increase of death threats against Gadot is sort of loosely implied in the Variety article but never outright stated in that article. All that we've said on Wikipedia is that the death threats happened; we haven't drawn any connection between them and Zegler's comments, and I agree that doing so would be entirely inappropriate. --Jpcase (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the movie is out of theaters tomorrow in the US, is it safe to consider it a box-office bomb since it lost Disney almost $100-130 million dollars? It might be okay to add it now then. Trixielulamoon32 (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for your claim that the film is out of US theaters tomorrow? Contributor19 (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Wikipedia does not judge when something can be considered a "box office bomb", we go by how reliable sources describe the film's success. If the common view of independent reliable sources is that the film is a "box office bomb", then we could add that to the article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but on that note, many reliable sources have already been calling it a box office bomb. That said, I don't think we need to rush to add it quite yet. But by the looks of it now, this will be the biggest box office bomb ever for Disney, surpassing even John Carter.McRandy1958 (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there's a double "at" in the last paragraph of the intro Boywithoutafairy (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.  Done--MattMauler (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

> The seven characters known as the Seven Dwarfs in the original film are never referred to as "dwarfs" in the film's dialogue, nor in any official capacity by Disney.

The original film is literally called "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs", how is that not a form of official capacity by Disney?!?! 2600:1700:B7B0:4D70:9DB7:FF8A:396F:A56B (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you have misread the sentence. The seven characters are called "dwarfs" in the original film, but in this film, they are not referred to as such in any official capacity by Disney. NealCruco (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like this added to the beginning of the article regarding the film's box office performance:

"Snow White premiered at Alcázar of Segovia in Segovia, Spain, on March 12, 2025, before its theatrical release in the United States on March 21. It received mixed reviews from critics and underperformed at the box office, grossing $147.2 million worldwide against a $240–270 million. It is also one of Disney's most expensive films."

Source: https://variety.com/2025/film/box-office/minecraft-movie-box-office-opening-day-1236360109/ WakeFan1991 (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, not yet, at least. Lililolol (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deadline have reported the film is projected to lose $115 million and this has been added to the article.

https://deadline.com/2025/03/snow-white-bombs-rachel-zegler-1236354912/

However, this figure relies on some pretty hefty assumptions. That the film will eventually take $225 million at the box office (currently $150 million) and that streaming/home media will provide an extra $192 million in revenue.

I think these assumptions should be noted in the article as it is currently unclear that the $115 million figure includes nearly $200 million in yet to happen projected streaming/home media income. 195.99.42.18 (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The report mentions a box office that doesn't correspond to the current figure, so it would be misinformation to add something outdated. BrookTheHumming (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your revenue numbers, especially the home media one, is assumption itself.

Plus the numbers reported for the budget rely on 2023 data. The actual budget has yet to be reported. 68.234.73.58 (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's my entire point...

The $115 million loss (that's in the wiki article) is dependent on assumed home media revenue.

I think a line should be added to the wiki article explaining that this loss figure is after projected home media sales. 195.99.42.18 (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think (and correct me if I'm wrong), but the music section seems strong enough to be its own article. Maybe some interested editors could work on creating it? Lililolol (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We still require a music section in this article as it is a musical film. The soundtrack album itself looks like it meets WP:NALBUM now and info in the music section related only to the album could be moved to the album article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Nyxaros, so how is CBR not reliable? Could you direct me to any other discussions about its reliability that I might have missed? I did check WP:RSP, and it seems fine. Also, my mention of RT was clearly about the lead. I believe it was three people who agreed on adding it to the lead, and the rest didn't seem to have an issue, actually. Lililolol (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"And you just thought CBR was RT? " Like? Isn't it obvious I'm talking about the lead?Lililolol (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one stated RT is unreliable. CBR's post-2016 content is unreliable (due to content farming, churnalism, regurgitation of statements from social media outlets etc.) and the info is about IMDb ratings, which is against what MOS:FILMAUDIENCE states: "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database [...] as these are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." Using CBR or WP:FORBESCON does not validate the IMDb rating inclusion. ภץאคгöร 18:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyxaros Yes, you may be right, but in this case, the IMDb ratings are relevant because the website issued a "rare warning" due to abnormal activity, which is part of the film's controversies. It was also reported by The Independent, which I believe is more reliable. Also, how can you determine whether CBR is reliable or not? You still haven’t answered my question :) Lililolol (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Using CBR or WP:FORBESCON does not validate the IMDb rating inclusion." Yes, actually, Forbes was originally used, which I changed to CBR; it still seemed fine, but I have now changed it to The Independent. Lililolol (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About CBR, see WP:RSP/VALNET. Mike Allen 19:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should've pointed this out in my edit summary, but if we are to readd any mention of someone playing the anti-Palestinian antisemitism card, we have to do so in a way that doesn't give that conflatory, bigoted shutdown any validation. That was my most aggressive edit summary for a reason. If someone said criticism of the Ukraine war was Russophobic, no editor on Wikipedia would dare explain it in a way that gives it validation; but because the aggressor is Western-backed it's more nuanced somehow. GOLDIEM J (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lililolol: No trouble if I request your comment, would it please? GOLDIEM J (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GOLDIEM J Yeah, I see your point and I agree, but I feel like on Wikipedia it should somehow be "neutral" meaning we shouldn't take sides.(WP:NPOV & WP:TONE) We should just include both perspectives without using a biased tone. I've noticed the tone myself, especially in the wording of the "Political views" subsection, which I tried to change. That's just my opinion. The point is just to put the info out there and let readers make up their own minds. And about what you said "we have to do so in a way that doesn't give that conflatory, bigoted shutdown any validation" I get that, but I don't think the current version actually validates anything bigoted or whatever. Right? Lililolol (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the tone is biased, then Idk. I still think it should be included (the claims of antisemitism, or are we talking about something else?). Either way, do you have a better suggestion for how to phrase it without sounding biased? Lililolol (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lililolol: I don't mean to be hyperbolic here, but to me that sounds like we should be neutral on whether or not the Holocaust happened due to the mere presence of deniers. It objectively did, so would the neutral point of view not be to give what the objective facts actually are before anyone's personal views on them? Maybe we should also be neutral on whether or not Holocaust denial is antisemitic? Similarly, calling for boycotts based on a cast member's IDF service is objectively motivated by opposition to a political entity that's actively oppressing them and not hatred towards an ethnoreligious group, so why is it one rule for them one rule for us? Why is it one definition of NPOV for them one definition for us? Would we not be calling for boycotts of a film released while the Nazis were still in power that starred an actor with Nazi military service, and would it be Germanophobic to do so? I seriously don't understand how you could find it acceptable to give credit to the opinion that the boycotts could be motivated by hatred towards Jews, which is obviously going to feed millions of confirmation biases, when it's clear that the real motives are quite the reverse. How is this neutral point of view?

Now, to solve the problem, that's really where the easy part ends I will admit. The easiest option would be to remove the sentence altogether as I did, because let's face it, it's extremely obvious by this point that conservative media are going to misrepresent any political action against Israel as being motivated by antisemitism, and there's really no need to keep parroting a statement that's so clichéd that it doesn't mean anything anymore. But if we are to keep it, i still insist on rewording it in such a way that it does not imply at all that the accusations may be valid. The best I can come up with is to replace "viewed" with "characterised" so that it reads "this stance has been characterized by some as antisemitic," and I'd personally be comfortable leaving it with that for now, although it still feels like a bit of a stretch for me. But then again, I could be overreacting. Let me know what you think. GOLDIEM J (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the anti-Israel sentiment in indeed antisemitism. No misrepresentation in any of this. It'll be repeated because it is true. Case in point: Snow White film banned in Lebanon for Jewish woman Gal Gadot's support for Israel. 69.118.244.151 (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@69.118.244.151: Watch this video and tell me again how criticism of Israel's treatment of Palestinians is motivated solely by hatred of the world's Jews and how Palestinians are all fucking fine😡https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3dBulN9-wc GOLDIEM J (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, of course, you went straight for the Holocaust comparison. Not exactly surprising, though still not a great one. The Holocaust is a well-documented historical atrocity, not up for debate outside of fringe conspiracy circles, and Wikipedia, being a neutral platform, is required to document it as such. Full stop. On the other hand, your commentary on the Israel-Hamas conflict seems to come with a noticeable slant, especially regarding Palestinians, where opinions vary widely and yours, clearly, isn’t the only valid one (despite how confidently you present it). That explains why both Zegler and Gadot stirred controversy, it’s not exactly a mystery.

And as for the profanity? Might want to save the “fucking” for Twitter. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for your emotional outbursts. 2A01:CB09:D01F:FDD4:91B5:AEEC:BAF7:F44E (talk) 07:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@2A01:CB09:D01F:FDD4:91B5:AEEC:BAF7:F44E: Ok then, if you want something less extreme, is it NPOV to declare that Obama's birthplace is not definitively known just because the movement that thinks all his birth records are forged has enough common ground? Now, let me make clear what and what only we're discussing: the motives behind the boycotts in the Middle-East. You have to hear it from them themselves, and we have time and again. Their opposition to Israel is based solely on the way they treat Palestinians as well as neocolonialism more generally, and has nothing to do with religion or race or even Hamas. How is it NPOV to declare that we don't know what their motives are based on opposing WESTERN factions fighting over what they are when THEY THEMSELVES have repeatedly declared them? This is not NPOV; this is false equivalence and indefensible. Oh, and sorry if my profanity upset your sensitivities, but bullshit like this makes me angry, and maybe you might want to rack up a few edits before lecturing an experienced editor on how to behave. GOLDIEM J (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia shows neutral information covered by reliable sources; and not any editors personal opinions. Also, be civil. Vestrian24Bio 10:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vestrian24Bio: So you're saying that the reason for the boycotts being Israel's treatment of Palestinians and not at all religion or race is entirely an opinion and not at all a fact despite the individuals behind it having repeatedly clarified it time and again? I will not stand for Wikipedia tolerating false equivalences😡 GOLDIEM J (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just go with whatever the source says... Vestrian24Bio 02:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vestrian24Bio: Answer my question. Is it a yes or no? GOLDIEM J (talk) 12:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's due to Gal Gadot's role and her perceived support for Israel.[5] Vestrian24Bio 14:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading the article few days ago and just moved away for a few hours and came back to see "Box office bomb" was deleted. Today in morning that "box office bomb" was back and just like before, gone in a few hours. That "bombing" being a fact or not is irrelevant to me, but edit war isn't. There is already a list for such movies and I've not been to that edit but guessing similar war is going on there. Please can someone with locking ability, lock the page for about 6 six months, then later it can be labelled a bomb (if still is) and added to that list or whatever. Just save the sanctity of Wikipedia, please. Fwd079 (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fwd079 You can request that here Lililolol (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you have problem to call it box office bomb? Wikipedia should inform about facts. If the movie failed after so long time in cinema, we should write it, it is fact with source. Or, do you expecting, the movie will made another 300 million next month? I have no idea, why someone always remove this fact, is this some censorship from Disney or what? I had no idea about ongoing edit war on this page, it was my first edit here, but, it is riddiculous someone still remove facts about this movie even with source. Dasomm (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with your point. I find it incredibly annoying that there's a community bias and creating a back and forth edit war about the undisputable fact that this film is a flop. Many cinemas are slimming down to just one screening per day, and IMDb Box Office MoJo shows a little change in the amount of revenue (as it currently stands at approx $185 million). I can offer my personal opinion on this: I've been reading articles about biases on specific Wikipedia articles (whether its about US politics that favour "woke cultre", or certain film articles being 'policed' (aggressively micromanaged) by one or two 'hardcore' individuals who despise any edits that change the article against their own personal belief or perception, even if it's factual). I think this is what's happening here. I've stuck the edit in one last time and added a couple of references, plus a sidenote telling editors not to remove it without consensus. Geraab (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Geraab There is no bias. From what I've seen in discussions on this page, the only reason why some editors want to hold off on calling the film a "bomb" is to wait until the film is finished with its theatrical run and the final box-office numbers are known.Contributor19 (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to wait until the film is finished with its theatrical run and the final box-office numbers are known, since credible websites call it box office bomb:

"As Snow White heads for $115m loss, how can Disney recover?" The Times

"Yes, ‘Snow White’ Is Bombing At The Box Office" Forbes. Plus, the movie is pretty long time in cinemas, so we can see already, if it is financial success or not. Dasomm (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BrookTheHumming @Geraldo Perez; Perhaps you could offer your thoughts on this?Contributor19 (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will the film end up being a box office bomb? Well, it certainly seems likely, as it's very likely to gross much more at the box office. Whether people aren't attracted to going to see the film... Or there are people who prefer to wait to see it on DVD or Disney+... But we can't just say "it's a box office bomb" when it's still grossing in theaters (WP:NORUSH), or things like "it's expected to end up being a box office bomb", which are speculative. (WP:SPECULATION)
Since the film's release, there have been many people who seem to desperately need to immediately add that it's a box office bomb as if mentioning that is essential for their lives. Which, let's admit it, is not to provide information, or to "show facts", as they say as an excuse, but because they want to view the film from a negative perspective. (WP:NPOV)
I try to speak neutrally and calmly, but in a month this will cross the line. So let's stop pretending that we don't know the true intentions of these users, and admit that people who want to add things like calling it a box office bomb immediately (from the very day of the release) are just hater movements who have focused their lives on making sure the world doesn't like the film because they have made the decision that: "Since I have decided that I don't like it, no one else should like it". BrookTheHumming (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but why do you call me hater if I adding sourced information? Or do you think all the media just decided to hate this movie? Look at numbers, and look how long the movie is in cinemas. Dasomm (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about the media. I talked about the users in Wikipedia. And, yes, the insistence that several users have been making over the past month on "I've added this source to be considered this way because I want it to be considered this way immediately" is a testament to what I said.
Because, as I said, it's not a question of "These sources prove what I'm saying", but rather a question of "I want to include any possible negative information about the film", which is what has been demonstrated over the last month by several users' insistence on adding things like "it's a box office bomb", "it's received only negative reviews and we are going to pretend that the good and mixed ones mentioned in the article do not exist", "let's add that it has a low rating on IMDb and pretend they're not haters who created accounts solely to rate it one star"...
And don't tell me that's not the case, because I don't believe it after seeing people on Wikipedia, social media and other sites on the internet who seem obsessed with going against this film for the last month as if it was the only thing they have in their lives. (Which I don't understand. Why so much drama just because of the existence of a film? Hakuna Matata, guys, Hakuna Matata...) --BrookTheHumming (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Snow White (upcoming American film) 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/2025 April 21 § Snow White (upcoming American film) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Snow White (upcoming film) 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/2025 April 21 § Snow White (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (upcoming film) 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/2025 April 21 § Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]