Talk:Snow White (2025 film)#Film may have been cancelled

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)

: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)

::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)

: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)

: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)

::To be fair, Wikipedia did add the wording to the article. They seem to be more neutral than they used to be. 2600:1702:51A0:8D70:C80:BA4:3121:D390 (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::To be precise, they're slightly neutral since January 20.213.230.92.106 (talk) 06:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:That part is already on her wiki. I think there's no reason to put that here because it doesn't have to do anything with the movie. And you and other MAGA members can stop acting like the victims of the story? Because you guys have done things worse for this country and for the democrats supporters. TomaNota (talk) 01:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::That sounds awfully political. The Snow White actress’s comments were quite relevant in the failure of this movie’s public image and marketing. 2601:4C4:4000:4980:7C31:962B:2145:6790 (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It wasn't tho. The people just didn't showed the interest for this movie since Disney announced it. TomaNota (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::That's absurd. There was not so much backlash for the film when it was announced. That came when Rachel Zegler entered the picture. 2600:387:15:4612:0:0:0:6 (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Or audiences are just bored with live action remakes. Mike Allen 12:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::See 2nd paragraph, Political Views 2600:1702:51A0:8D70:2968:58A6:5502:54A1 (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

:@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)

::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)

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

::I think the chieves of the Oxford English Dictionary would have a lot to discuss about these believes. Scaramouche (talk) 10:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

: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)

::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)

::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 [https://www.20minutos.es/noticia/5188769/0/ana-armas-deja-seguir-gal-gadot-por-su-apoyo-israel/][https://forward.com/culture/film-tv/706699/gal-gadot-snow-white-israeli-palestinian-conflict/]. 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" [https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-features/gal-gadot-bearing-witness-screening-los-angeles-hamas-massacre-october-7-israel-1234873701/][https://www.newsweek.com/gal-gadot-faces-backlash-over-reported-israel-hamas-film-screening-1841656]. — Snoteleks (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

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

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

:::::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)

::::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)

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

:Most of the controversy and almost all of the viral controversy had to do with Ziegler's comments, so its pretty safe to say that Godot didn't contribute nearly as much to the negative reception. Juju376 (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

{{collapse top|WP:NOTFORUM}}

:Y’all really seem extremely un-neutral and biased toward her. Like, yeah, she didn’t 💀 Brown-non-white children by herself, but she supports the party that does. And y’all acting like white activists wouldn’t boycott her over her past service. Just saying the truth. ("I'm saying "white" because, let's be honest, non-white presence has no weight on this matter) Lililolol (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::Gadot's personal history has like 0% to do with the actual film this article is based upon - keep in mind that, regardless of YOUR views on the Israel-Palestine conflict, this is a page for the film Snow White, not Gal Gadot. I don't care if she advocated stepping on live puppies in the past - if it has little to no direct relevance to Snow White, it has no place here. What's "biased" is a group of people yet again trying to turn Wikipedia into their own soapbox. If you want to talk about Palestine and Gadot, make a TikTok account and go over there to do it. This is a page for the film Snow White. The reason why so much focus is on Zegler's remarks is because she keeps running her mouth off and being explicitly public and using the film as a direct vessel to espouse her political views. If she had just shut up about that, her views wouldn't be so notable in direct relation to this film in the first place. That's her personal choice; we're supposed to be neutral editors making Wikipedia an accurate source - if Gadot starts using the film as such a prominent catalyst for her personal politics, maybe she'd get more attention on Wikipedia for it. Until then, it doesn't belong here, but judging by the long string of comments here, y'all have a pro-Palestine agenda that you should be leaving at the door when you make any edits to Wikipedia. Literally the only reason that these two actresses' political views have any place on the page for Snow White at all is because Zegler needs to put a cork in it. It's actually not common at all for personal political leanings of celebrities to have any place on a Wikipedia page for a film they starred in; that's usually relegated to their own respective biography pages. Zegler has been using things such as public press release events and her professional persona through which to attempt to link Snow White up as a platform for her "free palestine" advocacy. Gadot is Israeli ethnically and obviously supports Israel, but unlike Zegler, Gadot hasn't actually been attempting to affiliate her role the Snow White production with that. Because Wikipedia's Snow White page is - well, obviously, distinctly for Snow White - Zegler using Snow White directly as a platform makes her political views relevant here. If she simply happened to be pro-Palestine on the side while acting in Snow White, her views wouldn't even be cited on the Wikipedia Snow White page at all.

::An opposite example: Actress Jane Alexander is an outspoken anti-nuclear activist, ever since her main role in the 1983 film Testament (which is about a Californian family surviving the aftermath of a nuclear war). If you go to the Wikipedia page for the film The Ring, which Alexander had a prominent acting role in, you'll note that there's no section on the page for The Ring about Alexander's anti-nuke views. Why? Well, simply, Alexander never used any part of the production, release or promotion of The Ring through which to espouse her politics, so it has no relevance to the Wikipedia article for The Ring. Zegler is the opposite. Whether using her platform to encourage her fans to "vote blue" for abortion rights or having the producer and his son both needing to personally advise her to dial back the pro-Palestine shtick in publicity events promoting Snow White, there is no way to sidestep it that Zegler has been directly using the film as a platform for her views. Gadot, on the other hand, has been doing this sparsely, if at all. You don't have to agree with Gadot's views or be an Israel supporter, but if you're editing Wikipedia, you can't be simping for Zegler and annoyed at Gadot's Israelness when editing a page for a fictional Disney film. That risks bias getting in, which is already clearly visible from the talk page convo here. TradingSpousesWelsch (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::::"you can't be simping for Zegler and annoyed at Gadot's Israelness" By this logic, you also seem like a simp, but not for Zegler—rather for Gadot. It seems you're not any different from those you criticize, as you sound like you're just as biased 🫶 Lililolol (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Actually I think Gadot is a lousy actress without much stage presence, I have no real opinion on her political leanings - of course, I'm also not making or proposing massive edits to an article for a fictional fantasy film just so I can have my political views validated. It doesn't matter what I think about Gadot or Zegler, nor does it matter what you think. What matters is whether there are credible secondary sources or not, and if so, what relevance they have to the precise topic of the Snow White film. You clearly just want to make this into yet another "free palestine" soapbox - well, there's a nice crate of Irish Spring that you can stand on over at TikTok or Instagram to blather on about Palestine, but this isn't the space for it. This is a Wikipedia page for a film about a princess and an army of dwarf bandits targeted towards six-year-old girls, and essentially just a box office bomb by Disney, nothing more. Why are you so desperate to shoehorn in even more political garbage that has no actual relevance to Snow White? Slow news day over at your Tumblr blog or something? So far there's very little, if any, credible sources establishing the necessity of any of the information you are requesting be edited in, moreover it has no relevance to the topic of Snow White. If that changes and Gadot starts using the premiere of Snow White as a pro-Israel shelf like Zegler has been doing with Palestine, and you have credible, secondary sources to back that up, by all means... but it seems you don't, so sorry, not sorry. It's Wikipedia. Citing Gadot's personal political leanings with no relevance to Snow White has about as much relevance as throwing in what kind of coffee she drinks or who she dates. Are you going to dig into the social media accounts of literally everybody who worked on this production to see if you can find out what they think of the Israel-Palestine Conflict? Again, the only reason Zegler's own political views have any relevance to Snow White is because she is actively and directly using the film's premiere, as well as its namesake pre-release, to spew her political shtick. There are also plenty of credible secondary sources to back this up that don't involve original research. Otherwise, Zegler's views wouldn't be recorded on Wikipedia either, at least not on Wikipedia's page for Snow White. I mean, what do you honestly expect? The woman did give the metaphorical middle finger to half her viewing audience and told them that if they support Trump she hopes they "never know peace", all while using Snow White as a direct catalyst, so much so that now the producer has to keep telling her to tone the politics down... I know you don't want to hear this, but Gadot isn't doing that. And if you're waiting for her to suddenly slip up and let go a pro-IDF remark at a Snow White event, don't hold your breath. Zegler is a twenty-year-old woman who doesn't know any better. Most professional celebrities, with a few exceptions, are much smarter than to use the films and TV productions they appear in as their own soapboxes. Take a page out of their books, please. TradingSpousesWelsch (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

:@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)

::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)

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)

: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)

::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)

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)

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

: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)

::@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)

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

:::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)

::::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)

:::::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)

:::::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)

::::::{{U|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)

: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)

{{collapse top|WP:NOTFORUM, WP:PERSONALATTACK}}

::Just curious, how is it "rude" to point out editorial bias on Wikipedia? I'm actually sort of concerned about that myself; I'm not going to namedrop but let's just say a certain person on this talk page has a very prominent bias and has already had their racist comments that I won't repeat removed by mods. When you get an editor desperately trying to insert certain political views (in this case a hate-on for actress Gal Gadot's Israeliness specifically, which has no relevance to the Snow White film) and regular re-inserts of praise for a certain actress in a page for a fictional film that's bombing, also spreading racist and prejudiced rhetoric on the talk page for this film, it's not only disturbing and confusing but also questionable if they've been making any edits to the page itself, particularly since they've suggested inserting non-credible ideas and original research onto this page and material wholly irrelevant to the subject matter of the page's topic.

::I don't know why this site allows for political insult nonsense towards fellow editors on talk pages anyway. Seriously, it's inappropriate, off-putting and defeats the spirit of this site. I admit I myself sometimes let rude digs slip at people I'm annoyed with, but racism and bigotry shouldn't have a place here. I've never even made any edits to the Snow White page before in my life, but it's bizarre how inflammatory even just this talk page seems to be. TradingSpousesWelsch (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi TradingSpousesWelsch, I suggest you reflect on your tone and language to understand why it was received as "rude". I also believe it wasn't entirely in good faith. Lililolol (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

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;

::::{{green| 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.{{Cite web |title=See all 26 current (and future!) Disney live-action remakes side by side with the original animated films |url=https://ew.com/every-disney-live-action-movie-remake-11703023 |access-date=2025-03-31 |website=EW.com |language=en}} 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.{{Cite web |last=Singh |first=Olivia |title=The 11 biggest differences between the 'Snow White' remake and the animated movie |url=https://www.businessinsider.com/snow-white-original-remake-differences-live-action-animated-movie-2025-3 |access-date=2025-03-31 |website=Business Insider |language=en-US}} 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.{{Cite web |last=Rackham |first=Annabel |date=March 20, 2025 |title=Snow White film is both 'bad' and 'captivating' say critics |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0jvdg1y82o |access-date=March 31, 2025 |website=BBC |language=en-GB}} It grossed $143 million worldwide against its substantial budget.}} Lililolol (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:So, what do you all think of this version?

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

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

:::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 {{U|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)

::::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)

:::::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)

::::::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)

:::::::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)

::::::::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)

:::::::::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)

::::::::::{{U|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)

:::::::::::@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)

::::::::::::{{U|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)

:::::::::::::@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)

{{OD|13}} {{U|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)

::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)

::::::::::::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)

{{talk ref}}

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)

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

: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)

::{{yo|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)

:::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)

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

::::{{re|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)

::::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)

:::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)

::::{{re|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)

:::::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)

:::::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)

::::::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)

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

::::::::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)

: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)

:::::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)

::::::@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)

{{OD|6}}

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)

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)

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

: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)

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

::@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)

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

:::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)

::::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)

::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)

:::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)

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)

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

::They're referring to the Variety article "[https://variety.com/2025/film/news/snow-white-death-threats-zegler-social-media-guru-1236347433/ 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 [https://web.archive.org/web/20250402113111/https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-lede/the-snow-white-controversy-like-our-zeitgeist-is-both-stupid-and-sinister The New Yorker] and [https://web.archive.org/web/20250329152746/https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/story/snow-whites-failure-has-turned-rachel-zegler-into-a-scapegoat-and-an-icon 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)

:::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)

::::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)

{{edit semi-protected|Snow White (2025 film)|answered=yes}}

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)

: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)

:{{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)

::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)

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

:Thanks. {{done}}--MattMauler (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

> 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)

: 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)

::I tripped on the phrasing of this sentence as well.

::After looking back through each of the three cited sources, I remain in the dark as to how casting sheets for the new film that refer to the characters as 'magical creatures' can stand in for the entirety of Disney's official capacity. I cannot find any primary sources where Disney explicitly states what they will call the characters (other than their given names) in any official capacity.

::Could we rewrite this footnote for clarity and also fit the facts without taking on the responsibility of representing Disney in any official capacity? (I certainly do not represent Disney in any capacity whatsoever) 50.106.18.251 (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

: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)

: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)

::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)

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)

: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)

Hi, @Nyxaros, so how is [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snow_White_(2025_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1285246532 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)

:[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1285269364&markasread=335757715&markasreadwiki=enwiki&oldid=prev&title=Snow_White_(2025_film) "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)

::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)

:::@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)

:::"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)

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

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)

:{{Re|Lililolol}} No trouble if I request your comment, would it please? GOLDIEM J (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:@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)

::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)

::{{Re|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)

:::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)

::::{{Re|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)

:::::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)

::::::{{Re|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)

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

::::::::{{Re|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)

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

::::::::::{{Re|Vestrian24Bio}} Answer my question. Is it a yes or no? GOLDIEM J (talk) 12:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::It's due to Gal Gadot's role and her perceived support for Israel.[https://www.theguardian.com/film/article/2024/aug/25/snow-white-israel-gaza-rachel-zegler-gal-gadot] Vestrian24Bio 14:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biggest_box-office_bombs 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)

:@Fwd079 You can request that [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection here] Lililolol (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

:: 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)

::@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)

:::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:

:::[https://www.thetimes.com/us/movie-news/article/snow-white-rachel-zegler-disney-row-ncmm5g6z5 "As Snow White heads for $115m loss, how can Disney recover?"] The Times

:::[https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2025/03/25/yes-snow-white-is-bombing-at-the-box-office/ "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)

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

::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)

::: 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)

:::: 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)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snow_White_(upcoming_American_film)&redirect=no 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 {{section link|1=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)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snow_White_(upcoming_film)&redirect=no 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 {{section link|1=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)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snow_White_and_the_Seven_Dwarfs_(upcoming_film)&redirect=no 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 {{section link|1=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)

{{edit semi-protected|Snow White (2025 film)|answered=yes}}

Change „At least $70 million was spent on marketing, which, combined with the main production budget, gave Disney a total investment of $350 million for the film.“

to „Around $100 million was spent on marketing, which, combined with the production budget of $270 million, resulted in estimated total costs of $370 million for the film.“

Source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/is-snow-white-box-office-bomb-1236170816/?taid=67e2c54fa8a3ad000184f23e

(The cited Forbes article doesn't even mention the production budget.) Y2Ordi (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{not done}}: This source is already mentioned in the article. The source from The Hollywood Reporter has a lot of guessing on the numbers including marketing costs. It states "another $100 million or so in marketing costs". This could mean more or even less than $100 million (even $70 million) for marketing. Msw1002 (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::I disagree.

::The Hollywood Reporter gives an industry-based estimate of "around $100 million" for marketing, which is standard practice — marketing costs are almost always based on insider estimates, not official disclosures. The current Wikipedia claim of "at least $70 million" has no clear source and seems to have been invented.

::Worse, Screen Rant (https://screenrant.com/snow-white-2025-movie-200-million-box-office-disney-remakes-explainer/) repeated this figure after it appeared on Wikipedia, when no other source had mentioned it — strongly suggesting Wikipedia itself was the original (and unreliable) source.

::It is much better to cite a real estimate from a reliable industry outlet, even if phrased as "around," than to keep a completely unsourced and potentially fabricated figure. Accuracy should come first. Y2Ordi (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)=

Is the organizations really related to the movie somehow? It seems that Arab lobby in the United States is the more appropriate link in this context

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snow_White_%282025_film%29&oldid=prev&diff=1287826524

--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Bellerophon5685 Please use your comprehension skills. I definitely don't need to explain why, as the sources are clear and obvious about their meaning and the organizations involved. Lililolol (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::I still don't see the relevance of the Arab Organization for Industrialization. How is that specific group related to this film.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Bellerophon5685 And how is a political lobby group related to the film? Lililolol (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand that the film is still in theatres, but when are we putting this in the article? Cause lets be real, this thing is going to lose a lot of money. Juju376 (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:I understand that the film is going to end up being a box office bomb, but when are people going to stop insisting on adding it immediately as if their lives depended on it? Cause lets be real, these things is not to "add information" but rather a clear personal movement against the film. BrookTheHumming (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::I think there is a mix of people who are doing it in good faith and bad faith. Most of us are doing it in good faith because its not very often that a movie is projected to lose more than $100 Million. To break even, some esimates have said this movie would have to make over $450 Million, as of yet it hasn't broken $200 Million. So this could be a potential record when it comes to box office bombs, hence why the good faith editors are pushing for it. Also some of us saw this coming months in advance, so there us also the "I told you so" factor although that could be seen as bad faith Juju376 (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::What I see is that other films have been box office bombs, and there hasn't been as much emphasis on it. Mickey 17, to give an example of a recent film, grossed very little, and there's no continued insistence on calling it a "box office bomb" in its Talk page while the article has been on Wikipedia. The film will soon be released in home media, it's officially a box office bomb, and there's not even any mention of it in the article about the film. As I said, just to give an example, since there are other films that have been box office failures and there has been no insistence on immediately mentioning that in their Wikipedia articles. So, I think I'm right in saying that these insistences on wanting to write that in the Snow White article from the very day of its release are a kind of (obvious) "attack" on this specific film. BrookTheHumming (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I think the difference between this movie and that movie is that the producers had much higher expectations for Snow White, the movie also costed double mickey 17's cost. Snow White is also positioned to lose more money, hence why more people are interested in it. But you are correct, Mickey 17 did fail to break even and that should be mentioned in its article, you using it as an example is a "Tu Quoque" logical fallacy. Just because the editors paying attention to that film haven't put that in their article, doesn't mean we shouldn't put it in this. Juju376 (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::"is that the producers had much higher expectations for Snow White" I am not certain where these expectations were coming from. See List of Disney live-action remakes and adaptations of Disney animated films. With the exception of The Little Mermaid (2023), none of the live-action remakes released in the 2020s were box-office hits. The Mermaid was the only one with earnings of over 500 million dollars. I have personally noticed a decline in the enthusiasm of the audiences for these remakes in various websites, though I am far from certain for the reasons. Dimadick (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Juju376 You're getting off topic by mentioning producer decisions and things unrelated to the fact that I mentioned about people being obsessed with adding the "it's a box office bomb" to the Wikipedia article of this film, while with other articles of other films, they aren't. Having an excessive fixation on that for this specific film. BrookTheHumming (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Dimadick You're also going off topic by writing opinions about why a film is successful or not (remember this isn't a forum for debating opinions), which is irrelevant to the topic of what content to add to the article. BrookTheHumming (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::It seems rather disingenuous to choose not to include an obvious fact in a Wikipedia article because of a perceived notion of editors’ intentions. Who cares what the intentions are? Facts are facts, and it’s a relevant one for a film that released weeks ago.

::Or should we censor facts because we don’t like the reason why it’s included?

::Also, let’s be real, it was clear it was a box office bomb from the first day of its release. Saying people are rushing or trying to put the information in the article “immediately” when it has been literal weeks since that fact was clear is lousy and biased. 72.208.3.124 (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::This is exactly what I'm talking about: A user with only one IP address who logged into Wikipedia solely for this purpose. Claiming as an excuse that these are "facts", and similar things that people with this obsessive fixation are constantly saying, obviously not because they are "stating facts" or "telling the truth", which are typical phrases of internet trolls to say something negative about something they don't like, but because it has become a "trend" to go against this specific film (The typical social pressure: if many people do or say this, I should do it too, to feel part of it). As with other films in other articles (because, I remind you, there are other films that exist besides this one), its box office bomb status will be mentioned once it's out of theaters. If you can't spend a few weeks obsessing over whether that's added, because mentioning a film as a box office bomb has become the focus of your life, then I'll say: Hakuna Matata. Learn to relax and try to live without worry. Because the worry of "This film should already be mentioned as a box office bomb in a Wikipedia article" shows that you need to find inner peace. BrookTheHumming (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

On this talk page, there are already several sections with the same box office theme. As I said, the exclusive fixation on this film, as if there weren't any other films in theaters in recent months that have been box office bombs. Is it necessary to continually bring it up because some newcomer desperately needs to add that mention as if it were essential to their lives to mention it as soon as possible? BrookTheHumming (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::I agree that there is no hurry. The film will likely end up being a "box-office bomb" but we don't know the final box office numbers as the film is still technically playing in some theaters. Thus, it is still earning box-office revenue. It is also unhelpful to use sources with outdated box-office numbers to label the film a "bomb". Plus, regardless of the film's box office performance, there are also other ways that the film can earn revenue, such as streaming and merchandise.

:::I think we are past the point where the film will "likely" end up being a box office bomb. Per The Numbers it earned less than half a million dollars over the past weekend domestically and about $25,000 yesterday. It's box office revenues aren't going to change very much. As for the comparison with films like Micky 17, that one had less than half the budget and had box office revenue that exceeded its production budget. So while it clearly lost money, it is a far different situation than a film with a production budget over a quarter of a billion dollars that will probably earn less than $200 million (and if it earns more than $200 million it clearly will barely clear that threshold). Plus, I'm sure Snow White had a larger marketing budget than Mickey 17, and it certainly had much more press attention. Which all explains why this article might say that it was a box office bomb and films like Mickey 17 might not. Rlendog (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi @Rlendog, so

:::"Which all explains why this article might say that it was a box office bomb and films like Mickey 17 might not" I understand what you're trying to say, but it's not necessary for all wiki articles to follow the same structure. (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) Lililolol (talk) 02:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I agree. I think I was saying the same thing, especially since there is good reason why Wikipedia might say that this money-losing movie is a "bomb" but a different money-losing movie like Mickey 17 might not. But, yes, even if there wasn't a good reason for the two money-losing movies to use different terminology, there is no requirement that they use different terminology. Rlendog (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::The whole point is, as User:BrookTheHumming stated above, the film can be labeled a box-office bomb once it is out of theaters, that's all. There is really no hurry for this. BrookTheHumming also made a good observation about IPs who have been itching to call it a bomb ever since it opened just because they have a personal dislike of the film and are happy to see it fail. We are supposed to be professional.Contributor19 (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::So, when it's on Disney+ we can put that here? TomaNota (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Contributor19 yes, I agree with you. So don’t you think including this kind of info (like 'underperforming' or 'bombed') in the lead feels like it's coming from a place of bad faith? It would be better to keep it in the box office section. Not including it at all feels biased, but putting it in the lead also seems in bad faith. Do you all agree? Lililolol (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I am not sure where there is a rule that we can only label a film a box-office bomb once it is out of theaters, nor what makes that "unprofessional". Multiple reliable, professional sources have referred to it as a box office bomb. This past weekend it earned less than $300,000 domestically. It's box office figures are not going to change signifcantly at this point, even if it remains in theaters for another year. Personally, I don't care if we say it is a bomb or not, or whether we say so in the "box office" section but not in the lede, but the fact that it is still in theaters should have no bearing on the matter. Rlendog (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:I believe that despite the disagreement over including the bombed box office now or later down the line (when the film finally stops showing in theatres), we can all agree on one thing - the film is indeed underperforming to what Disney expected or hoped, and it's been six weeks since release and it hasn't even made back its main production budget (not including the extra $70 million + for marketing). For now I'm gonna put a quick sentenace about the film's current underperfoming financial revenue.Geraab (talk) 10:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::I disagree. Yes, it lost money, but calling it a 'box office bomb' or 'underperforming' in the lead feels like it's in bad faith. Instead, we could just mention the total gross compared to its budget in the lead. If it were officially listed as one of an underperforming or bombed film of the year, then maybe that would be fair. It is better to include that kind of detail in the box office section, where it feels more appropriate. Lililolol (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I am not sure where there is a rule that we can only label a film a box-office bomb once it is out of theaters, nor what makes that "unprofessional". Multiple reliable sources have referred to it as a box office bomb

::@Lililolol Given the fact that "box office bomb" is an industry term, I have always felt that, if "bomb" has to be used at all, then the most professional way of phrasing it should be "Analysts considered the film to be a box-office bomb". I am also in favor of the phrasing "box-office failure" or "underperformed". At the end of the day though, the "bomb" claim needs to be sourced with up-to-date numbers. I don't necessarily have an issue with it being stated in the lead, as long as the wording is professional.Contributor19 (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi there, I'm not sure how to structure the sentance that can be agreed. After all, I didn't put the box office bomb link (the square brackets). I rather intended for the revenue speed. Disney hoped to gross $80-120 million in its opening weekend, as they often do. But you see how slowly tickets were sold, and the numbers in each succeeding week keep declining quite considerably. If you have another idea on how to phrase this in the lead, please do let me know. I've given my phrase an update and inserted it back. Geraab (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

So it was tagged as undone Weight. Honestly, I'm not sure what to keep and what to remove, so help me out! Lililolol (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:Honestly, I don't agree with the view expressed in the GA review about that section being undue weight or bloated. Almost all news coverage about this film has discussed the various controversies surrounding it, so those controversies should be discussed at length in the article. I'm not opposed to potentially reworking how some things are presented but don't think that much, if anything, really needs to be outright cut from the article.

:I can't remember if Wikipedia has a policy against "Controversies" sections but I feel like I remember them at least being discouraged. So it might be advisable to move all of the information from that section into other sections. For example, Zegler's comments about the original film could go into the Marketing section, since they were made during a press interview. Dinklage's comments could maybe go somewhere in the Production section. Jonah Platt's comments could perhaps go under the Release section. Etc, etc.

:I'm not exactly sure how to best organize things. Some stuff that is currently grouped together under Controversies might have to be broken up and presented separately under multiple different sections of the article if it turns out that, say, some of the controversy about the dwarfs would work best under Production and some of it would work best under Marketing or somewhere else.

:I'm not going to take this on myself and agree with the reviewer that it is premature to be thinking about GA for this article. But if you wanted to try and rework how the article is structured, that might be something worth taking on. Jpcase (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:I removed it as the tagger gave no explanation here on what their issue was. Each "controversy" is addressed with both sides given due weight. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hi, so I don't think Wikipedia is against adding a Controversies section (per MOS:FILMCONTROVERSIES), but either way, I think Jpcase is right about moving infos from one section to another. For example, the Casting of Snow White subsection could be trimmed and merged into the Casting part of the Production section, similar to how it was done with Wonder Woman (its controversies weren’t as big, but it's still a useful reference). Zegler's criticism of the 1937 film could go into the Cast section, along with comments from other cast members, taking inspiration from Wonder Woman as well. As for the reimagining of the dwarfs, that content could be trimmed and placed under a new Writing section, and perhaps also mentioned in the Filming section. I think that approach makes sense. What do y’all think? Lililolol (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{re|User:Lililolol}} I really don't see how that would make a difference. People are still going to complain that the controversies give undue weight to certain ideas. The fact is that this movie did generate alot of controversy which is cited by numerous reliable sources. As long as we give the section due weight then it should be okay. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree with Knowledgekid87. Not only did each of the controversies get addressed in multiple reliable sources, but multiple reliable sources reported on the fact that the film generated multiple controversies. So a Controversies section is absolutely appropriate as a section to address the various controversies, and the suggestion of undue weight is unfounded. Rlendog (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Lililolol}} I think what you've suggested is probably the best way to go, although again, I'm not sure that much, if anything, really needs to be trimmed. The content can be kept, just organized a little differently. --Jpcase (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Done. check it out and give your thoughts. Lililolol (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Lililolol That looks better organizationally! Personally, I don't feel that anything really needed to be trimmed, so in some cases where you rephrased things to be more concise, I actually preferred the original longer sentences. But I don't think anything crucial was removed. It does look like you removed the list of visual effects companies though, and I'm not sure if that was intentional?

::::::I went ahead and finished moving everything else out of the Controversies section, since all of the information about boycotts is relevant to the Release section and Jonah Platt's comments on the film's box office performance fit well under the Box Office section. Jpcase (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::About visual effects, I will re-add it. As for the boycott, I originally moved it as a subsection under the 'Release' section titled 'Controversies', but another editor added it as a separate section. This version, though, looks good to me. Lililolol (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Im not sure why you did this as you hsd no consensus to do so. As I said multiple WP:RS have referred to "controversies" when describing the film. Getting rid of the section isn't going to change that. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Knowledgekid87 A GA reviewer suggested the removal. I supported it in a previous comment, and since my suggestion has been open for days without objections, I went ahead with it. Lililolol (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Forgive me for sounding upset, but nobody bothered to reply to the two editors who were against the idea and had legitimate feedback. Jpcase in fact ignored it and only replied to you. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Knowledgekid87 I replied directly to {{U|Lililolol}}, since they were the one who started the discussion and were asking for ideas, but apologies for not pinging you as well. Looking back through the discussion, I don't necessarily disagree with anything you said in your initial comments. We all agreed that the article, as it was written at the time, didn't have any meaningful issues with undue weight. You said that you didn't "see what difference" restructuring the article would make, and I guess Lililolol and I mistook that as meaning that you were more or less apathetic about the matter instead of outright opposed to it. Sorry for the misunderstanding. For what it's worth, no one is trying to "change" the fact that the film has been surrounded by controversies. We all acknowledge that the film has been controversial, and none of the information about any of the controversies has been removed from the article. The information has just been folded into the rest of the article, which is what WP:STRUCTURE advises. Jpcase (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone, as you might have heard, Disney finally launched the film on digitial streaming services. I've searched online and found that all major theatre companies have stopped screening the film. I believe the time has come to finally call it a box office bomb here on Wikipedia. Here are some reputable links that have been published within the last few days:

1) https://www.themirror.com/entertainment/movies/disney-snow-white-digital-release-1145408

2) https://www.forbes.com/sites/timlammers/2025/05/10/disney-flop-snow-white-debuts-on-digital-streaming-this-week/

3) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/disney-snow-white-rerelease-rachel-zegler/

Geraab (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:Now, with its digital download release marking the beginning of the home media releases, I think it wouldn't be a problem officially calling it a box-office bomb. (So... This will put an end to the flood of the same topic on half the Talk Page, and those who've been harping on about it these past few months will finally be able to sleep peacefully at night...) BrookTheHumming (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::I agree it can be called a box-office bomb. If it wasn't for the blown out budget, the box office numbers are pretty good. They are better than most movies for 2025. Msw1002 (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:Wikipedia has a policy that Forbes contributors aren't considered reliable sources, so I don't think this specific article should be used. I've removed it. Lililolol (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::Also, I disagree with that. Isn't it contradictory to call it a box office bomb while also saying it was ranked high as a top box office film for 2025? It doesn't add up. Sure, it may have fallen short of projected profits, but calling it a failure still feels off. Lililolol (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Oh for goodness sake why are you pretending that the film is a 'success'? This feels like gaslighting. Isn't it blatantly obvious that the film is a failure? Just look at the numbers - it's simple math. You don't need an elegent essay to know about its problems. And c'mon, Forbes is a reliable source. I don't understand why Wikipedia's continually evolving policy about 'reliable sources' is very discriminatory. Yeah sure Daily Mail seems off, but Forbes is one of the big magazines out there, and it is not the only source that describes the film's underperformance. Isn't that source you claim "Top box office film of the year" an unreliable source? We cannot keep going back and forth on this topic. Its very frustrating. I think its gone on far too long, and somebody has to put a stop to it. Geraab (talk) 10:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{u|Geraab}}, this will never change, unfortunately. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (my edits)} 14:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Umm @Geraab why are you taking this so personally? Also, I never claimed it was a successful film, but it was never close to being a failure like your guys claimed it was. Plus, the Forbes article was written by contributors (see WP:FORBESCON), and not all articles should be taken at face value. You need to evaluate which sources are reliable and which are not (And this isn't just about Forbes contributors; I'm talking about any other source, even if it were one of the "big magazines out there"). And my earlier questions about contradictions are valid, you just don’t want to acknowledge them. Because you apparently have "[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Contributor19&diff=prev&oldid=1290530952 some dispute vendatta against the obvious result]" not me tho.🫶 Lililolol (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::And an important note: just because people disagree with you does not mean they are "[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snow_White_(2025_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1290530605 ridiculous and gaslighting]" that just dismissive. Lililolol (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Okay fine, I'm not gonna argue about this anymore. I will admit: yes, this film feels personal to me, because even though I'm British, I'm also a Trump supporter. I've been drawn to this film purely due to its stirred up backlash and controversy before its release (especially Zegler and her 'woke' comments). I'm relatively inexperienced (new) to Wikipedia and I do find the complex maze of guidelines and policies confusing and hard to find or even know where they are. I'm not usually open about my personal life, but I've experienced gaslighting growing up and occaisionally in my adult life. I know what it feels like. It's a horrible feeling - where some people deny simple and obvious facts and somehow get the upper hand when a fierce argument ensues. Its upsetting to me. It's also one of the reasons why I have little tolerence to those who are woke or outspoken left leaning, just like how the Biden administraiton repeatedly gaslight the American public about his health and speech problems. Sorry for going off on this political tangent, but I feel like I just had to get this off my chest and calm down. The controversies surrounding this film included political comments. Lastly, I admit to feeling pleased that the film flopped. Seeing edits on the article citing the contrary come across to me like "woke editors are trying to make it sound like Snow White is a success and a superb film" and that ticks me off. Anyway I hope my honest remarks are not received badly. I'm gonna step back from this and just stick to editing film articles that I truly love, such as The Fugitive, Top Gun: Maverick, and others alike. Thank you for understanding. Regards Geraab (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::: Your own personal opinions should have nothing to do with this - this is a Wikipedia page centred around a children's film. Your own comments display why you shouldn't have edited the article in the first place. I happened to be reading the Wikipedia page and saw the lead was worded in a very strange way. I've now just changed it in a manner that I think accurately reflects the outcome of the box office performance of the film, that also isn't written in a very biased way. Calm down honestly. Jasp7676 (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Lililolol I just came here to say that at this point, I think it is perfectly fine to say "Analysts considered it to be a box-office bomb". After all, it's not the article calling the film a bomb, we're just saying that box office analysts considered it to be a bomb. I also think it is fair to keep the note about the film being ranked a top box office film for 2025. Both statements are true.Contributor19 (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with this. While its box office numbers may not have represented a "bomb" if it was a it was an indie release with a budget of $50 million, at a budget over a quarter of a billion dollars there is no reason to deny the reliable sources calling it a bomb. Rlendog (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Reliable sources calling it a bomb? Like who, aside from Forbes contributors and other media outlets, such as the Daily Mail, that just repeat Forbes contributors? Lililolol (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Hot take, but ScreenRant.com doesn't strike me as an authentic or reliable source; can we replace it with something stronger, or just remove it? Also, I'm sorry, but saying a film was both "top of the box office" and a "bomb" is contradictory. Yes, it underperformed; Business Insider reported this based on analytics, and that feels more accurate, but calling it a bomb? doesn't seem a fair assessment given some editors' comments and the film topping box office chart. Just my opinion. Lililolol (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::: Okay I completely agree, saying it is a "bomb" and "top of the box office" is completely contradictory, and it doesn't read right. I've just changed the sentence above box office bomb to this - "It has grossed $204.2 million worldwide to date, topping the international box office during its opening week". I think this sentence is a really good compromise as it acknowledges that the film was no 1 in its opening week, but also keeps the next sentence about analysts calling it a box office bomb. In terms of whether it actually was a bomb that seems like a separate debate, but I think I've at least temporarily fixed the contradictory sentences, before we decide on the "box office bomb" issue. If you have any thoughts on the rewording please do write below! Jasp7676 (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::References and link were not looked at?? This is the US and all other countries and continues to be at this time one of the (scratching head) highest grossing films at this time. Not just the premiere week. Not sure how this is confusing. The film was way over budget and even though it made fairly decent box office totals, it did not make enough to even break even. The extra information is important to list due this fact (blown out budget vs rank in terms of revenue). Nowhere is this mentioned without this in the article. It is all reliably sourced as well as a Wiki link. Msw1002 (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::As I already said in another section where I put Mickey 17 as an example, one of the ridiculously many sections on the same topic about the "Box-office bomb" on a single Talk Page... Isn't this topic too much of an obsession regarding THIS specific film with the "Box-office bomb" thing? That is to say, those who I see constantly insisting on this on the Snow White Talk Page, I do not see them doing the same on the article or the talk page for The Day the Earth Blew Up: A Looney Tunes Movie, to give another example of a film that has been a box office failure, and in this example on a large scale. I think it's another example of the lack of impartiality regarding the issue of insisting on "it's considered a box-office bomb", since many seem to apply it exclusively to this film as if no other film existed. BrookTheHumming (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@BrookTheHumming So? I really don't see a problem. Mickey 17 didn't get the same coverage as this film, and even if it did, what's the issue? Let people have their discussion and 'obsession.' Lililolol (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::And my mention of The Day the Earth Blew Up: A Looney Tunes Movie is ignored, without admitting the lack of impartiality and neutrality, and ignoring that, aside from the two films I've mentioned, which were only examples, there are many others that have been box office flops, but because of this... 'obsession', as it has been said, it is only essentially essential to mention it for this film. I just want to make it clear so that when similar cases occur in other films in the future, this kind of spam doesn't appear on another Wikipedia Talk Page about the same topic. BrookTheHumming (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::"And my mention of The Day the Earth Blew Up: A Looney Tunes Movie is ignored" So what? I view it as I view Mickey17; both are equally insignificant, unlike this film, as I said, even if they are significant, what about it?

::::::As for the statement: "I just want to make it clear so that when similar cases occur in other films in the future, this kind of spam doesn't appear on another Wikipedia Talk Page about the same topic", I don’t really understand the issue with such discussions. Just because a topic was brought up a few times doesn’t mean it should be considered a problem or "spam." Sure, it might sound annoying to some, but if you find it irrelevant/ spam, you can simply ignore it instead of engaging, especially if you don’t see any value in it. Lililolol (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Therefore, based on what we've seen here, it's a good example of something that should be avoided on Wikipedia, and left to Talk Pages for topics that are necessary for the articles. Don't constantly insist on a topic that's already been discussed in several sections, because, yes, that's spam, flooding a Talk Page with the same topic just because people are, indeed, obsessed with add a sole thing to the article. - BrookTheHumming (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Edit semi-protected|Snow White (2025 film)|answered=yes}}

There's a repeated phrase: "It has grossed $204 million worldwide. It has grossed $204 million worldwide,", one needs deleting Wobbulax (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{already done}} M.Bitton (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Once again the term "box-office disappointment" is in the lead despite the cited source saying: "Unfortunately for Disney, the film failed to earn back its massive production budget in theaters, so it can be considered a box office bomb at this point." [https://screenrant.com/snow-white-box-office-disney-remakes-beat-bigger-disappointment/] There are other sources also using "bomb" to describe Snow White: [https://www.cbr.com/biggest-disney-box-office-bombs-almost-ruined-studio/ (CBR)], [https://www.ign.com/articles/disney-is-so-confident-in-the-live-action-lilo-stitch-movie-that-its-already-considering-sequels (IGN)]. So my question is why are we not acknowledging what the sources are saying? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:Agree, sources have been explicitly calling it a "bomb" since its release, and the encyclopedia regularly labels films as such (as per sources) that were nowhere near the level of financial disaster that this film has been. Using "disappointment" feels like a case of MOS:EUPH / WP:SPADE to me. McRandy1958 (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:The problem is if it wasn't for the blown out, careless budget for this film, it had to make more revenue (and it did not) way more than a normal film with lower budget. It did well in the box office numbers in the US and worldwide (which should not be removed from the article). However, it didn't have a prayer to even break even with the poor out of control, misguided budget. I think some reliable sources miss this fact, while others look at everything from budget to revenue numbers. Just my observation.... Msw1002 (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{re|User:Msw1002}} The same can be said about Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny which had a crazy budget of $295–387 million. Believe it or not that film is still considered to be a "Top Grossing Movie" of 2023 using the SAME sources as we are using here for Snow White. [https://www.the-numbers.com/market/2023/top-grossing-movies], [https://www.the-numbers.com/box-office-records/international/all-movies/cumulative/released-in-2023]. Yes other stuff exists, but some of it exists for a reason. Indiana Jones is not called "one of the top grossing films of 2023" even though the sources clearly say otherwise. This is a problem as it runs into a WP:BIAS issue for movie articles in general which use The Numbers. I can name more films that have a crazy budget, and I just want to know what makes this film unique among the others? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I don’t have an issue with the box office bomb label for this film as I mentioned. It is a box office bomb. However, compared to other films so far for 2025, the film is a top box office film for 2025 and only 2025. Probably the only reason this title is unique and why it is a top box office film is that there have been very limited good movies for 2025 or a lack of audiences attending other films, more than likely for obvious reasons besides the title itself. I'm just defending the interesting fact that it is ranked high in terms of 2025 box office and that is important in the article. Not defending the box office bomb label. Msw1002 (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Edit semi-protected|answered=yes}}

Change "It has grossed $205.4 million worldwide becoming one of the top box office films of 2025 in the United States and worldwide"

To "It has grossed $205.4 million worldwide.

While the film was one of the highest grossing films earlier this year it is now 9th highest in the US and 10th highest globally.

No other film in the top ten box office list uses this language, either mentioning it's specific place in the list or just the box office dollar amount. Box office dollar amount seems to be preferred for a film in the lower end of the list.

{{reftalk}} 195.99.42.18 (talk) 08:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:It's been updated. Thanks for pointing out how ridiculous it sounded. Cheers! Mike Allen 12:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::Please read other discussions in this Talk page. Obviously you didn't, just the article. Msw1002 (talk) 17:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Well it appears obviously I am not the only editor that feel this way. Mike Allen 20:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)