Snow White is now brown according to Hollywood

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: AlienBorg
Try watch the video I linked with Piers Morgan interviewing a woke activist and a dwarf actor who is well known for his role in movies.

I'm not giving Piers Morgan any clicks, but I searched and found out who the actor is. He's played a Leprechaun and voiced a Muppet. That's it lol. "Well known". He may not mind being called a dwarf, but many of them do. It is very much considered derogatory in this day and age.

Too bad!

You missed out on the great debate where the dwarf actor refutes all the arguments made by the woke activist and exposes further Disney and the woke culture.

Stereotyping dwarfs now.

One speaks for all?

I kinda think they are individuals.

You don't like what he said?!
I think he speaks for all other dwarf actors who have their jobs taken by woke Disney.

Do you also mourn all the stunt persons who lost their jobs to CGI?

Being an actor of any kind is risky. It’s not a guaranteed profession — for anyone.

Do you know the meaning of the word whataboutism?

Better stick to the the story and the facts.
So I will ask you again, don't you like what he said? Because I think he speaks for all dwarf actors who had their work taken away by Disney and their woke ideas.

a reply to: AlienBorg

in reality most people disagree with this change.

Nobody can know what most people feel about anything.

Personally i don't care at all about any changes that they make to any movies.

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: AlienBorg
Try watch the video I linked with Piers Morgan interviewing a woke activist and a dwarf actor who is well known for his role in movies.

I'm not giving Piers Morgan any clicks, but I searched and found out who the actor is. He's played a Leprechaun and voiced a Muppet. That's it lol. "Well known". He may not mind being called a dwarf, but many of them do. It is very much considered derogatory in this day and age.

Too bad!

You missed out on the great debate where the dwarf actor refutes all the arguments made by the woke activist and exposes further Disney and the woke culture.

Stereotyping dwarfs now.

One speaks for all?

I kinda think they are individuals.

You don't like what he said?!
I think he speaks for all other dwarf actors who have their jobs taken by woke Disney.

Do you also mourn all the stunt persons who lost their jobs to CGI?

Being an actor of any kind is risky. It’s not a guaranteed profession — for anyone.

Do you know the meaning of the word whataboutism?

Better stick to the the story and the facts.
So I will ask you again, don't you like what he said? Because I think he speaks for all dwarf actors who had their work taken away by Disney and their woke ideas.

Do you?

You’re using the opinion of one dwarf.

Again — you choose acting as a career — you get what you get.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: AlienBorg

in reality most people disagree with this change.

Nobody can know what most people feel about anything.

Personally i don't care at all about any changes that they make to any movies.

The only people who agree with this change are those who align with the radical left and the woke culture.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: AlienBorg
Try watch the video I linked with Piers Morgan interviewing a woke activist and a dwarf actor who is well known for his role in movies.

I'm not giving Piers Morgan any clicks, but I searched and found out who the actor is. He's played a Leprechaun and voiced a Muppet. That's it lol. "Well known". He may not mind being called a dwarf, but many of them do. It is very much considered derogatory in this day and age.

Too bad!

You missed out on the great debate where the dwarf actor refutes all the arguments made by the woke activist and exposes further Disney and the woke culture.

Stereotyping dwarfs now.

One speaks for all?

I kinda think they are individuals.

You don't like what he said?!
I think he speaks for all other dwarf actors who have their jobs taken by woke Disney.

Do you also mourn all the stunt persons who lost their jobs to CGI?

Being an actor of any kind is risky. It’s not a guaranteed profession — for anyone.

Do you know the meaning of the word whataboutism?

Better stick to the the story and the facts.
So I will ask you again, don't you like what he said? Because I think he speaks for all dwarf actors who had their work taken away by Disney and their woke ideas.

Do you?

You’re using the opinion of one dwarf.

Again — you choose acting as a career — you get what you get.

I use facts and not hypothetical scenarios.
The dwarf actor didn't have any problem with anyone calling him a dwarf but had a huge problem with Disney taking away his work.

Are you trying to justify Disney's gaffe and wokeness?!

www.disneydining.com...

Disney+ was supposed to revolutionize how we viewed Disney films and shows. It was supposed to be a Disney lover’s dream come true: the entire Disney catalog all in one place for one price. It didn’t work out that way, though. Many have been disappointed to find their favorite movie or show isn’t available

Disney has reported a 4 million subscriber loss to Disney+ this quarter. CEO Bob Iger and CFO Christine McCarthy were incredibly guarded when discussing the loss during yesterday’s earnings call. They claim it was the introduction of the ad tier and associated price increases. That may indeed have had much to do with it, but it cannot be discounted how many people expressed disapproval for Disney’s recent content either.

Disney corporate president Karey Burke said that she would like to see at least 50% of Disney’s characters in the future identify as LGBT or a racial minority. Proud Family: Louder and Prouder producer and director Latoya Raveneau is on
record saying, “Our leadership … has been so welcoming to my not-at-all secret gay agenda. I don’t have to be afraid to, like, let’s have these two characters kiss in the background. I was just, wherever I could, just basically adding queerness [to projects]. … No one would stop me, and no one was trying to stop me.”

This has led to much outrage amongst many Disney fans. Critics claim Disney has “gone woke” and have even accused Disney of pandering and/or grooming children. Even Florida politicians have gotten involved, calling for fans to boycott. Could this be partly to blame for the massive Disney+ subscriber loss?

Disney had some serious box office failures last year. Light Year and Strange World were both massive failures. It could be that Disney+ subscribers just weren’t excited about what Disney had to offer. Then again, these two films, in particular, were heavily criticized for their “woke ideology,” so perhaps it comes full circle.

They have set up themselves for another failure after they've gone woke in the recent past. They ve lost customers and income but they still think wokeness will bring them prosperity and good profits... Most likely it will bring them bankruptcy in the future.

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: AlienBorg
Try watch the video I linked with Piers Morgan interviewing a woke activist and a dwarf actor who is well known for his role in movies.

I'm not giving Piers Morgan any clicks, but I searched and found out who the actor is. He's played a Leprechaun and voiced a Muppet. That's it lol. "Well known". He may not mind being called a dwarf, but many of them do. It is very much considered derogatory in this day and age.

Too bad!

You missed out on the great debate where the dwarf actor refutes all the arguments made by the woke activist and exposes further Disney and the woke culture.

Stereotyping dwarfs now.

One speaks for all?

I kinda think they are individuals.

You don't like what he said?!
I think he speaks for all other dwarf actors who have their jobs taken by woke Disney.

Do you also mourn all the stunt persons who lost their jobs to CGI?

Being an actor of any kind is risky. It’s not a guaranteed profession — for anyone.

Do you know the meaning of the word whataboutism?

Better stick to the the story and the facts.
So I will ask you again, don't you like what he said? Because I think he speaks for all dwarf actors who had their work taken away by Disney and their woke ideas.

Do you?

You’re using the opinion of one dwarf.

Again — you choose acting as a career — you get what you get.

I use facts and not hypothetical scenarios.
The dwarf actor didn't have any problem with anyone calling him a dwarf but had a huge problem with Disney taking away his work.

Are you trying to justify Disney's gaffe and wokeness?!

Here’s facts.

Dinklage took issue with Disney for touting diversity in casting Rachel Zegler, a Latina actress, as Snow White, but keeping dwarfs in the film, which Dinklage says can continue stereotypes that are harmful to people with dwarfism.

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: Encia22

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: AlienBorg

Is "White" not her second name.

What does it matter what colour she is?

Andy, as an adaptation of the Brothers Grimm's fairy tale, this is how snow-white was described (my bolding):

It was the middle of winter, and the snow-flakes were falling like feathers from the sky, and a queen sat at her window working, and her embroidery-frame was of ebony. And as she worked, gazing at times out on the snow, she pricked her finger, and there fell from it three drops of blood on the snow. And when she saw how bright and red it looked, she said to herself, "Oh that I had a child as white as snow, as red as blood, and as black as the wood of the embroidery frame!" Not very long after she had a daughter, with a skin as white as snow, lips as red as blood, and hair as black as ebony, and she was named Snow-white.

www.grimmstories.com...

Hmm, nowhere in the Grimm's fairy tale are the dwarfs names given as Happy, Doc, Grumpy, Dopey, Bashful, Sleepy, and Sneezy, so I guess Walt Disney was a woke commie pinko social justice warrior as well for having strayed from the canon of the story. Never mind all the songs that weren't in the original story.

Don't know why people get so butt hurt when revised versions of fictional stories come out that don't comport with their take on things. That said, the unnamed king, Snow White's/Brown's father should be of a similar hue to Snow White/Brown. Got to agree, though, that the name of the story should change or it won't make sense, but then when did fairy tales ever make complete sense?

This issue, however, is a problem I had with the House of the Dragon series having the blood line being brown/black. There were black and brown people in the books, but they were from specific places like The Summer Islands. But way worse than that is there is a big issue in the narrative over the question of the patriarchal lineage in the children by a royal Targaryen mother. Given the supposed husband and supposed father is a mixed-race Velaryon, the fact that the kids are clearly full-on caucasian would be a red flag pointing to the children not being the husband's children, which is a glaring plot hole just to add diversity to the cast. In fact, the scenes with the ostensible father and the children together are so risible that it reminds of some comedy involving false parentage.

Edit:

Whoah, just saw the Critical Drinker's review, including how the seven dwarfs have become seven magical forest creatures. Now this does bother me. And have to agree with the folk here complaining about Disney's descent into politically correct madness.

Are you trying to defend Disney's gaffe and wokeness?

Perhaps you should take a look at this video where Piers Morgan interviews a woke activist and a well known dwarf actor who has had many roles in the past and worked in films because he is a dwarf.

The actor hammers the woke ideology and the activist and argues what Disney tries to do is idiotic by presenting the well known story in a completely different way to satisfy the demands of the woke.

He makes comments on the choice of the cast and how his employment and the employment of other dwarf actors have been affected because Disney tries to be 'politically correct' choosing the elves in a way that only one is a dwarf and the rest are some weird creatures of different heights, race, genders.

Disney wants to present the dwarfs as not being dwarfs but some non binary gender queer creatures. We still don't know whether any of them are trans but it should be made clear imo...

The woke activist asks Piers Morgan not to call the person a dwarf but someone with dwarfism... At which point the dwarf actor laughs and say I don't have a problem because I am a dwarf. I have a problem with Disney trying to change a well known story as they are going woke.

This story, other stories, fiction, novels, plays, books, myths, and so on, are part of human history. The woke ideology is trying to alter or even erase human history.

I said earlier, we don't want superman to be some gender queer creature but the way he has been presented! A white male heterosexual middle class humanoid.

youtu.be...

Evidently you didn't bother reading my final paragraph, which I put in immediately after posting my comment. I said I am bothered by what Disney is doing with the dwarfs in this movie, i.e. removing most of them. Are you upset because I didn't include the tired and vague term "woke" to register my disapproval as well?

As for the dwarf interviewed by PM, he doesn't have the gravitas of Peter Dinklage, who apparently weighed in and was against casting all dwarfs for the seven little folk. I'm not saying that Dinklage is right in the matter, just that his opinion holds more weight. I would think that given the limited number of roles for dwarfs, that any dwarf actor should be in favor of giving more dwarf actors roles. Guess when one is Peter Dinklage, getting roles is not so hard; seems he is not thinking of his fellow dwarfs.


But puh-leeze, don't make the BS claim that Snow White is part of history. It's literature. It's part of literature and literary history. That is not human history.

Myths, plays and all sorts of other fiction are regularly revamped. Don't know how old you are, but did you also have a problem with all of the old Mr. Magoo Literary Classics, such as Mr. Magoo playing Gunga Din, Paul Revere (real history!), Long John Silver, etc, etc? I saw a horrible production of a Midsummer Night's Dream by Kenneth Branagh, which had a barbershop quartet singing the musical parts. I don't know whether arts critics panned it or not, but they didn't claim it was an abomination, and neither would I.

Just so there is no confusion for anyone reading this post, I have no problem with whom they cast to be Snow White; she looks fair skinned enough for the title to still make sense; and if she were of a darker complexion, they really should rename this version of the story on account of that fact.

My problem is with the morphing of the dwarfs into a bunch of wierd-@ss forest creatures, WHICH I WILL NOT STAND FOR!!!. Not only is it a great departure from the original storyline, but it also takes away acting roles from dwarfs. They could've even made half of the dwarfs women, and cast a couple of dwarfs of color. Wouldn't that have been diversifying enough?

However, I'm just shaking my head at this thread already being 24 pages long. Seems there is no end to the high dudgeon and anger regarding this Disney travesty in the making. LOL. Good people, don't you have something better to bellyache about?

And @AB, are you even capable of writing a post without the word "woke" or "wokeness" in it?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

Or is it just a brown Snow White?

I really don't see why the colour of the character should matter in this day of age.

Imagine you wrote a story you were perfectly happy with. Then someone else comes along and changes your characters race and sexual preference with out your permission. Not because it makes the story better in some way, but solely for the purpose of making a political statement. Your work, your creation, has been hijacked by an activist group to project a set of characteristics/values you never intended your character to have or portray. You would be okay with that???

Consider the opposite happening. Someone from the left writes a story with multi-racial families, black lead characters, and gay characters. Some group with traditional values comes along and completely rewrites it with heterosexual single-race couples and white lead characters because they think that is how it should be. Are you okay with that too? Or is it only okay if it happens to straight white characters?

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

Or is it just a brown Snow White?

I really don't see why the colour of the character should matter in this day of age.

Imagine you wrote a story you were perfectly happy with. Then someone else comes along and changes your characters race and sexual preference with out your permission. Not because it makes the story better in some way, but solely for the purpose of making a political statement. Your work, your creation, has been hijacked by an activist group to project a set of characteristics/values you never intended your character to have or portray. You would be okay with that???

Consider the opposite happening. Someone from the left writes a story with multi-racial families, black lead characters, and gay characters. Some group with traditional values comes along and completely rewrites it with heterosexual single-race couples and white lead characters because they think that is how it should be. Are you okay with that too? Or is it only okay if it happens to straight white characters?

Call me a radical marxist, but I believe in poetic license. I would, however, be pissed-off if after I died, someone tried to re-publish my work but edited some of the language in it. Two different things however.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

Are you trying to excuse Disney and their gaffe?
Are you trying to say what the dwarf actor said is less credible because he isn't the most famous of the dwarf actors?

Snow White, stories, books, novels, myths, fairy tales, poetry, are all part of human history and culture. History of art, poetry, literature, fantasy, and so on. It cannot be altered or erased to satisfy the demands of the woke ideology.

My problem is with the morphing of the dwarfs into a bunch of wierd-@ss forest creatures, WHICH I WILL NOT STAND FOR!!!. Not only is it a great departure from the original storyline, but it also takes away acting roles from dwarfs. They could've even made half of the dwarfs women, and cast a couple of dwarfs of color. Wouldn't that have been diversifying enough?

We agree on this.
You can't have the replacement of dwarfs by weird non binary gender queer creatures because you want to satisfy the ridiculous theories of the LGBTQ ideology.

You may want to read my replies about the impact wokeness has had on the reputation and income of Disney. I ve given a few links .They went woke and lost. They seem to want to insist by they will go broke.

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

Or is it just a brown Snow White?

I really don't see why the colour of the character should matter in this day of age.

Imagine you wrote a story you were perfectly happy with. Then someone else comes along and changes your characters race and sexual preference with out your permission. Not because it makes the story better in some way, but solely for the purpose of making a political statement. Your work, your creation, has been hijacked by an activist group to project a set of characteristics/values you never intended your character to have or portray. You would be okay with that???

Consider the opposite happening. Someone from the left writes a story with multi-racial families, black lead characters, and gay characters. Some group with traditional values comes along and completely rewrites it with heterosexual single-race couples and white lead characters because they think that is how it should be. Are you okay with that too? Or is it only okay if it happens to straight white characters?

Call me a radical marxist, but I believe in poetic license. I would, however, be pissed-off if after I died, someone tried to re-publish my work but edited some of the language in it. Two different things however.

Radical left is bad and dangerous as an ideology.
We all know this.

The reason this thread is going on and it's in page 24 is because the only people who don't find anything wrong with the changes Disney made, by butchering the story and replacing the entire cast, are the radical left wingers who usually can't concede their ideology is in big trouble and they have lost this argument.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

I always love your posts. And I really do see all sides of this.

I understand what Dinklage is saying. He wants dwarfs to have rolls, he just wants them to play regular every day people.

Why should a dwarf only play a stereotype character (other than a paycheck).

Same with a disabled actor. They get up, go to work, pay bills, have families.

I don’t have a problem with creative license in replacing dwarfs with different characters. It doesn’t really change the story, because there was nothing really making the dwarfs special. They just dwelled in the forest.

But they are looking for voice actors. All dwarfs should apply.

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: MrInquisitive


You can't have the replacement of dwarfs by weird non binary gender queer creatures because you want to satisfy the ridiculous theories of the LGBTQ ideology.

Why not?

Because YOU don’t like it?

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: MrInquisitive

I always love your posts. And I really do see all sides of this.

I understand what Dinklage is saying. He wants dwarfs to have rolls, he just wants them to play regular every day people.

Why should a dwarf only play a stereotype character (other than a paycheck).

Same with a disabled actor. They get up, go to work, pay bills, have families.

I don’t have a problem with creative license in replacing dwarfs with different characters. It doesn’t really change the story, because there was nothing really making the dwarfs special. They just dwelled in the forest.

But they are looking for voice actors. All dwarfs should apply.

Dwarf roles for dwarfs.
Not for weird non binary forest creatures.
LGBTQ paranoia infecting hollywood.
They're going woke and broke.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: MrInquisitive


You can't have the replacement of dwarfs by weird non binary gender queer creatures because you want to satisfy the ridiculous theories of the LGBTQ ideology.

Why not?

Because YOU don’t like it?

The only people who like it and approve of are the radical left and woke ideologues. Every one else says NO to the change and erasure of history.

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

Or is it just a brown Snow White?

I really don't see why the colour of the character should matter in this day of age.

Imagine you wrote a story you were perfectly happy with. Then someone else comes along and changes your characters race and sexual preference with out your permission. Not because it makes the story better in some way, but solely for the purpose of making a political statement. Your work, your creation, has been hijacked by an activist group to project a set of characteristics/values you never intended your character to have or portray. You would be okay with that???

Consider the opposite happening. Someone from the left writes a story with multi-racial families, black lead characters, and gay characters. Some group with traditional values comes along and completely rewrites it with heterosexual single-race couples and white lead characters because they think that is how it should be. Are you okay with that too? Or is it only okay if it happens to straight white characters?

Call me a radical marxist, but I believe in poetic license. I would, however, be pissed-off if after I died, someone tried to re-publish my work but edited some of the language in it. Two different things however.

As a writer I am fully invested in artistic license. But artistic license does not include changes made for political purposes. Artistic license can be changes in grammar, adding elements to a story that would otherwise have not been included, any deviation from fact or form purely for artistic purposes. For example, in making a movie about a real life event, creative license may add a romantic element to the film that did not exist in real life to make it more appealing to a broader audience. Hamlet performed entirely on horseback is artistic license. Shouting, "Save the whales", while doing so is not.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

Or is it just a brown Snow White?

I really don't see why the colour of the character should matter in this day of age.

Imagine you wrote a story you were perfectly happy with. Then someone else comes along and changes your characters race and sexual preference with out your permission. Not because it makes the story better in some way, but solely for the purpose of making a political statement. Your work, your creation, has been hijacked by an activist group to project a set of characteristics/values you never intended your character to have or portray. You would be okay with that???

Consider the opposite happening. Someone from the left writes a story with multi-racial families, black lead characters, and gay characters. Some group with traditional values comes along and completely rewrites it with heterosexual single-race couples and white lead characters because they think that is how it should be. Are you okay with that too? Or is it only okay if it happens to straight white characters?

Call me a radical marxist, but I believe in poetic license. I would, however, be pissed-off if after I died, someone tried to re-publish my work but edited some of the language in it. Two different things however.

As a writer I am fully invested in artistic license. But artistic license does not include changes made for political purposes. Artistic license can be changes in grammar, adding elements to a story that would otherwise have not been included, any deviation from fact or form purely for artistic purposes. For example, in making a movie about a real life event, creative license may add a romantic element to the film that did not exist in real life to make it more appealing to a broader audience. Hamlet performed entirely on horseback is artistic license. Shouting, "Save the whales", while doing so is not.

You're bringing up a very good point and my comments which are relevant to the conversation.

In the last few pages some members claimed because the story was slightly changed in 1937 this justifies the current changes. But in 1937 Disney made a choice to remove one or two scenes that were deemed too violent and brutal for kids to watch. It has nothing to do with current attempts to change the entire cast and story for political and ideological reasons. Clearly it has nothing to do with artistic license but with the woke madness.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Well, i would need to "imagine" because it's ""fictional"" character's skin tone, from a ""fictional"" story, also known as a fairy tale.

Faries are not real nether by the way.

You get that "The Brothers Grimm" are well planted by now, it's not like they are apt to have a problem.

Again anyone with a problem that "Snow" is not quite white enough should also have a serious issue with a white Jesus.

And why are you asking me whats ok?

It's not me that rattled your cage, but Hollywood and Disney.

And by the looks of things, 24 pages deep, with people screaming about how "Snow" is not white, and how this is a travesty, tells them everything they need to know.

a reply to: andy06shake

Whataboutism for once more.
Avoiding the issue.

24 pages because the radical left can't accept they've lost the argument and can't defend their radical views and the fact the woke ideology is in big trouble.