Disney is said to be delaying its upcoming Snow White remake in a bid to avert a “financial disaster”, with producers reportedly fearing its woke makeover will bomb at the box office and “cripple” any chance of future spin-offs. The Mail has the story.
Last week, the studio announced it had pushed back the film’s release until March 2025 – a whole year after the scheduled date – citing the ongoing SAG-AFTRA strike as the driving force behind the decision.
But an insider has exclusively told DailyMail.com that Disney is said to be “figuring out what to do” after making a $330 million turkey – and is looking to Tom Hooper’s widely panned Cats as a guide on what to avoid.
The decision comes after Rachel Zegler, 22, who plays the titular princess, launched a woke tirade at the original “weird” plot with a “stalker” Prince – despite having only watched the 1937 animation once as a child.
“Disney had to delay Snow White because they have spent so much money on it, and if it is a financial disaster at the box office, it might single handedly cripple future remakes and potential Snow White sequels that they have planned,” the insider claimed.
“They also have to remove themselves from the bad taste in the mouths of online critics and want to instead deliver a great film and get to a point where they get it right.
“They realise that they were overthinking things and are now reining it all in a little bit more.”
The upcoming production – the latest in a long line of Disney remakes – has been mired in controversy.
Bosses first came under fire for casting Colombian-American Zegler as the lead, despite the story being about a traditionally “fair” German princess with “skin as white as snow”.
They then announced that “magical creatures” would replace the seven dwarves to “avoid reinforcing stereotypes” after Game of Thrones actor Peter Dinklage criticized the “f***ing backwards story”.
Earlier this year a mix of men and women of different ethnicities, with a real dwarf among their number, were pictured filming [above] – but they appear to have now been replaced by seven CGI dwarfs [below].
Once again: go woke, go broke…
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
This “problem” is easily fixed. The same government that legislated/regulated subsidies to electric vehicles can legislate/regulate a new rule that vehicular insurance policies must not distinguish/discriminate between vehicles powered by petroleum products vs. re-chargeable batteries. Immediately getting better equity and all that in insurance products.
What, so that ICE drivers’ premiums can go up to make up the difference? Haven’t women been losing out WRT to insurance ever since the EU said it was discriminatory (or has that been repealed, post Brexit)?
Guess i was too subtle with my joke. Too close to reality perhaps.
Smiley face at the end next time.
No you weren’t – it’s the lazy-brain, dumb fraternity.
I blame the schools.
“has that been repealed, post Brexit”
hahahHaHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA!
HAHAHHAHAAAAA!
AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAAAAAH!
hah
Haha
It is indeed likely that this government (or the next one) will pass such rules – or more likely empower a pseudo-independent ‘watchdog’ to pass such rules. As Smotters points out this will raise the costs for ICE car owners. However, as such a rule will also add an extra compliance burden on the insurers, the overall cost of insurance will increase across all types of vehicle.
As a wholesale replacement of ICE cars with EVs is not achievable with the current electricity supply the increased costs associated with running personal transport will have the added ‘bonus’ of reducing car ownership – which will please those who run London and Oxford for example.
Putting up the cost of ICE cars is this government’s policy
The whole idea of insurance is to assess risk. Government interfering in determining that risk based on their desired political goals is why we are in this mess of government picking winners and losers. and the losers are almost always us.
“You’ve got length of repair times going up, you’ve got the cost of the component parts going up, and you probably see more EVs written off because residual values are particularly low at the moment.”
‘hybrid vehicles, which combine electric and internal combustion engines, present the highest fire risk. Autoweek reported that hybrid vehicles experienced the most fires per 100,000 sales, with 3,474.5 fires, compared to 1,529.9 for petrol or diesel vehicles’
How’s that whole nut zero hopey changey thing working out for y’all………
The irrepressible Sarah Palin quote. Highly apposite.
Mrs DickieA has to change her company car. She currently has a diesel Skoda which she loves but pays over £500 a month in tax. It does around 55MPG. On her car list is a Landrover Discovery petrol Hybrid. It has a nominal MPG figure of nearly 200 miles per gallon – but the electric range is only around 35 miles, so if on a long trip – when running on petrol – owners are reporting a MPG figure well south of 30. However, by choosing this car, she would save around £300 per month in tax.
Another classic example of government interference and the law of unintended consequences. In what perverse way is it a good idea to incentivise people to choose huge, heavy cars that use twice as much fuel?
If the argument is about “lower emissions”, then why is a petrol only car doing around 50 miles to the gallon taxed higher? And if someone is going to do mainly short journeys (and therefore run mainly on the battery) – why do they have a company car in the first place?
There you go again, DickieA, with your “logic”.
The premise (man made climate change) is FALSE, therefore everything which follows is ABSURD.
Yep. 100% agree. I studied climatology at university over 40 years ago. Of course, in those days, all the data showed conclusively that we were heading for a period of colder temperatures….
My son has a plug-in hybrid company car. He lives in a flat and can’t plug in at home so it runs almost entirely on petrol. But it’s tax efficient. The whole Net Zero scam is beyond ridiculous.
Quote: “The greatest thing that science teaches you, is the law of unintended consequences.” Ann Druyan, Co-writer of ‘The Cosmos’, presented by Carl Sagan.
If it’s twice the financial risk then why not twice the cost?
You sit on a huge battery and bide your time. You try to put out a fire of a lithium battery, Very difficult because smothering it doesn’t help as it reignites, Maybe you get insane accleration speeds with electric vehicles but believe me they are not well thought out and that is because they are not meant to endure for long.
Not so fast.
We insured our diesel car a month ago.
Last year £300 with full NCB.
This year the cheapest quote was £600.
Turns out insurers are loading the risk of electronic vehicles onto petrol and diesel cars.
Yet another cash grab by the Carbonocracy.
BEV insurance should be at least 4x as expensive as insurance for ICEs. At least.
For Teslas, make that 16x, what with all that Autopilot and phantom braking or not braking when it should, doors which can’t be opened from inside or out in the event of fire and/or electrical failure, over-the-air updates suddenly triggering causing the car not to start just when you need to drive somewhere, whompy wheels, huge recovery costs even if it’s just run out of charge (try walking to the local fuel station with a plastic bottle when you drive a BEV), the list goes on..
If you are unfortunate enough to collide with a EV and it is deemed your fault, then your insurer has to pay their costs. So it makes sense that some of the cost of EV repairs are passed on to non-EV owners in proportion to the relative number of EV’s on the road.
Just consider the energy that is coming off the battery and you’re sitting on it. Not to mention all the sensors and the necessity of being wired into an online grid. Is that really an improvement in the quality of life? Surely it is the opposite of the yearnings of the human spirit.
Insurance is the worst racket. I have family members who got into it and made a lot of money and now they are like shrivelled shells in their dotage, complete husks and sound frightened and destitute.Like they acknowledged too late that they were meant to apply their energies to other things.The issue of insurance raises a bigger question – is it even possible to organise human affairs optimally within large numbers of people? We wre designed to be in groups of about 50-300 in terms of our faculties and propensities.
Much sooner have the original! Wow, and, 100 miles on a single charge!
OK yes we get it, EVs are a scam, beg borrow, lease or steal one but never own one, they are expensive and an un-affordable liability. And so where does this all go? Will TPTB back down and abolish the Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) mandate? Or will they happily preside over the demise of private motoring and the UK motor industry?
This.
Read Black Diamonds, by Catherine Bailey.
The answer to your question is held within.
They just presided over the loss of 3000 jobs in the Welsh steel industry and the end of our ability to make new steel from ore.
Hardly a good advert for a “war footing”.
Maybe we will be able to buy our tanks and munitions from China?
The answer to your question – 15 minute cities.
How sad.
Nimblefins quote an average EV insurance cost of £654 as of 31-Dec-23, I wonder why Howdens are quoting double that.
“Nimblefins average cost of electric car insurance UK 2024”
My guess is that Howdens made this press release to get free advertising.