Disney's SNOW WHITE (2025) first trailer

[Willie Oleson]

Statistics, Facts, Data and information matter.
Otherwise, there is no objective standard

But what exactly is the point of these objective standards in discussions like these? I mean, should I care? I'm not Disney.
Furthermore, it's followed by your subjective conclusion that the facts prove that it's a bad film.
Using that logic, every commercially successful film with all the fabulous stats is a good film.

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

But what exactly is the point of these objective standards in discussions like these? I mean, should I care? I'm not Disney.
Furthermore, it's followed by your subjective conclusion that the facts prove that it's a bad film.
Using that logic, every commercially successful film with all the fabulous stats is a good film.

My conclusion is not subjective.
I have formed conclusions based on multiple facts.
You choose to ignore them and "...know lots of people who will tell you things. That will do"
instead of doing some research to verify? Wow
Clearly you don't understand the difference between a fact based conclusion and an opinion

You are mixing up comparisons and making errors of logic
No, a film that does well at the box office and makes a profiit is a successful film, not necessarily a great work of art
A film that loses in excess of $100 million dollars is a major flop, and in this case not a good film according to many, many reviews.
Your logic doesn't work


And at least be accurate about what I said which that the MOST PROBABLE reason for the film's catastrophic flop
is that it is not a good movie

 

[Willie Oleson]

You choose to ignore them and "...know lots of people who will tell you things. That will do"

Oh...that was something off-topic. Not a real argument or anything.

And at least be accurate about what I said which that the MOST PROBABLE reason for the film's catastrophic flop
is that it is not a good movie

But how many not-good movies flop catastrophically?
If your facts indicate the quality of this film then Snow White is not "a bad movie", it's the f*cking worst movie ever made.
Don't get me wrong, I have no reason to believe that it's a good remake...but SO bad that it makes a Neil Breen project look like a masterpiece?
Wow, I really need to see that for myself!

 

[Willie Oleson]

Show business is one that depends on consumer preferences and goodwill

If show business means "financial investment" then I guess you're right.
But when we're talking about good films (or good music or any kind of art) then history shows - and forgive me for not including the precious statistics - that we often got the films we didn't know we wanted or needed. Just think of the New Hollywood wave of the 1970s, and all those great films based on consumer preferences that didn't exist yet.
I don't think it's supposed to be some kind of Burger King where the fan can yell his order and the producer gives him what he wants.

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

If show business means "financial investment" then I guess you're right.
But when we're talking about good films (or good music or any kind of art) then history shows - and forgive me for not including the precious statistics - that we often got the films we didn't know we wanted or needed. Just think of the New Hollywood wave of the 1970s, and all those great films based on consumer preferences that didn't exist yet.
I don't think it's supposed to be some kind of Burger King where the fan can yell his order and the producer gives him what he wants.

?

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

Oh...that was something off-topic. Not a real argument or anything.

But how many not-good movies flop catastrophically?
If your facts indicate the quality of this film then Snow White is not "a bad movie", it's the f*cking worst movie ever made.
Don't get me wrong, I have no reason to believe that it's a good remake...but SO bad that it makes a Neil Breen project look like a masterpiece?
Wow, I really need to see that for myself!

What the facts indicate is that Snow White is a financial disaster,
and many, many reviews have been unfavorable.
Just in general, financial disasters are not good films
Neil Breen? I never heard of him

 

[Willie Oleson]

What the facts indicate is thatr Snow White is a financial disaster.

It sure looks like it, but that also has everything to do with the money that went into it.
I mean, a film on a 10.000 dollar budget with a 200.000 dollar profit could be considered a triumph but that doesn't necessarily make it a worldwide hit.

Just in general, financial disasters are not good films

There are several beloved classics that only made money because of a re-release, theatrical or otherwise. According to wiki (however reliable it may or may not be) THE WIZARD OF OZ lost money during its initial release. Admittedly, it doesn't compare to the numbers of the Disney flopbuster but it does show that first impressions aren't always everything. It only indicates that people didn't show up.
Apparently, people showed up for DEADPOOL (2016) which is absolute garbage.

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

It sure looks like it, but that also has everything to do with the money that went into it.
I mean, a film on a 10.000 dollar budget with a 200.000 dollar profit could be considered a triumph but that doesn't necessarily make it a worldwide hit.

There are several beloved classics that only made money because of a re-release, theatrical or otherwise. According to wiki (however reliable it may or may not be) THE WIZARD OF OZ lost money during its initial release. Admittedly, it doesn't compare to the numbers of the Disney flopbuster but it does show that first impressions aren't always everything. It only indicates that people didn't show up.
Apparently, people showed up for DEADPOOL (2016) which is absolute garbage.

No it does not have everything to do with the financing.
It seems that a lot of finances went into a not-so-good project
There are always other factors
IE A bad script is a bad script, no matter what the budget is.
Any number of elements - writing, directing, acting, effects just to name some - could be a factor no matter what the costs are.
A movie can appeal or not appeal to people for any number of reasons, that is subjective.
When a movies flops this badly, the MOST PROBABLE reason is simply that it is not good
and it has nothing to do with the budget
That is an application of the principle known as Occam's Razor, which in simple terms
is described as" the simplest answer is most often correct"

Any number of successful films (financially) may not be artistically great - that is another topic

Occam's Razor - The Simplest Answer is Usually Correct

Occam’s razor is the process of paring down information to make finding the truth easier.

explorable.com

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Occam's Razor is a conspiracy.

 

[Willie Oleson]

No it does not have everything to do with the financing.
It seems that a lot of finances went into a not-so-good project
There are always other factors
IE A bad script is a bad script, no matter what the budget is

So now it's a financial disaster because it's a bad movie, not because of the amount of money being lost?

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

So now it's a financial disaster because it's a bad movie, not because of the amount of money being lost?

Both actually
Please read what I actually said.
I was addressing your erroneous assertion that the financing alone, due to a large budget, constituted a flop
The movie has been reviewed unfavorably, and a financial flop of this magnitude
suggests that the movie is not good, and I indicated some possible reasons why it might not be good
It is a financial disaster because it is losing a lot of money
and I said that it is PROBABLY NOT A GOOD MOVIE, which is consistent with it being a financial disaster
Please read - the words financial disaster indicate LITERALLY that it lost a lot of money
And it is the opinion of many, many reviewers that it is not a good movie.

your "logic" is illogical and totally inconsistent
You started this by dismissing actual facts, numbers on cost and revenues as nonsense,
despite source links which diirectly support the catastrophic failure of this movie.
Please learn to understand what is actually said, rather than state an erroneous opinion as fact

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

Occam's Razor is a conspiracy.

How so?

It is a problem solving principle that may have some commonalities with probability theory.
It is certainly not an exact science, but rather one option for explanation

 

[Willie Oleson]

Please read what I actually said.

I do, it's just that you ignore everything else that's being said.
But I don't think you're doing it on purpose.

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

I do, it's just that you ignore everything else that's being said.
But I don't think you're doing it on purpose.

No, when what is posted is innaccurate, erroneous, and out of context, I address it

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

How so?

It is a problem solving principle that may have some commonalities with probability theory.
It is certainly not an exact science, but rather one option for explanation

How is Occam's Razor a science at all? If anything, it's anti-analytical.

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

How is Occam's Razor a science at all? If anything, it's anti-analytical.

I didn't say it was a science. Perhaps I misstated it.
It would be more accurate to call it a problem solving principle

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I didn't say it was a science. Perhaps I misstated it.
It would be more accurate to call it a problem solving principle

But how is it a principle which solves problem?

Occam's Razor is unproven. It's not even a guideline -- it's an intellectually lazy conspiracy, about conspiracies theories!

Thus permitting those who subscribe to the policy of under-thinking to posture as the adult-in-the-room as they do so.

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

But how is it a principle which solves problem?

Occam's Razor is unproven. It's not even a guideline -- it's an intellectually lazy conspiracy, about conspiracies theories!

Thus permitting those who subscribe to the policy of under-thinking to posture as the adult-in-the-room as they do so.

There is no need to be so "snarky"

First of all, you have not answered why it is a conspiracy

Secondly from Wiki:

"In philosophy, Occam's razor (also spelled Ockham's razor or Ocham's razor; Latin: novacula Occami) is the problem-solving principle that recommends searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements. It is also known as the principle of parsimony or the law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae). Attributed to William of Ockham, a 14th-century English philosopher and theologian, it is frequently cited as Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, which translates as "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity",[1][2] although Occam never used these exact words. Popularly, the principle is sometimes paraphrased as "of two competing theories, the simpler explanation of an entity is to be preferred."[3"

I was only using it as a possible explanation, not as a definitive event

Occam's razor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

There is no need to be so "snarky"

Actually, I wasn't being snarky.

First of all, you have not answered why it is a conspiracy

Did you ask why?? It's an anti-conspiracy argument, encouraging people to not look past their noses, and to feel like they're mature and rational for doing so.

Also, I've read Occam was a slut.

Secondly from Wiki:

"In philosophy, Occam's razor (also spelled Ockham's razor or Ocham's razor; Latin: novacula Occami) is the problem-solving principle that recommends searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements. It is also known as the principle of parsimony or the law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae). Attributed to William of Ockham, a 14th-century English philosopher and theologian, it is frequently cited as Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, which translates as "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity",[1][2] although Occam never used these exact words. Popularly, the principle is sometimes paraphrased as "of two competing theories, the simpler explanation of an entity is to be preferred."[3"

I was only using it as a possible explanation, not as a definitive event

Wikipedia -- at least you admit to using it.

 

[Angela Channing]

Judging the success of a film purely by the business it does at the box office for its cinema release is an outdated metric. Many successful films are never screened at cinemas.

So far Snow White is the fifth most popular film released in 2025 and has taken $168 million. This is likely to increase as we move into the Easter holidays. It will then make more money when it goes to video on demand, streaming, DVD sales and eventually TV rights. Disney will be disappointed that it didn't do better but it won't be overly concerned as I suspect it will eventually become profitable.