Snow White (2025) is flopping. With an IMDb score of 1.5/10, 42% on Rotten Tomatoes, and 2.1/5 stars on Letterboxd, critics and audiences alike are displeased. However, live-action remakes are often met with a rage far superseding displeasure. People are disgusted, insulted even, by the very existence of the thing. All manner of individuals emerge from various societal pockets to voice their irritation at the never-ending production of regurgitated remakes.
Unlike prior remakes, Disney’s new Snow White was met with a unique vitriol. There has been an unrelenting tide of criticism hurled at it since its casting announcements in 2021. Criticism about the cast and the decision to exclude actors with dwarfism. Further upset about updates to the story, and aesthetic choices. Every detail was a topic of wrathful debate. The lead actresses’ conflicting politics midst global conflict further fanned the flames.
In spite of the pessimistic aura surrounding it, not all reviews are negative. Critics are largely praising the film’s Snow White, actress Rachel Zegler. Many claim her performance is the film’s strongest asset. Others are pleased to write off the film as passive entertainment, admitting it doesn’t leave much to be remembered.
There is much to say in regards to how the film’s exterior controversies have or have not affected its box office performance. Today I want to focus only on the peculiar detestation live action remakes are met with, Snow White being exemplar.
One enraging fact of live-action remakes is their inflated budgets. Production for the 2025 feature landed around $270 million before an additional $100 million for marketing. According to The Hollywood Reporter, COVID-19 precautions and post-production creative changes are largely to blame for blowing up the budget. However, the initially earmarked pool still sat at a whopping $210 million.
Where the offense bubbles is the recognition that a budget can be grossly, unthinkingly misused. A common point against the film is its flagrant CGI and puzzling production design details. The film was shot on location in the UK. It would be nice to see the natural landscape utilized and reflected in practical effects. To echo a popular opinion, casting little person actors instead of opting for nightmare-inducing CGI creatures might have grounded the visual experience.
If filmmakers sought to recreate a storybook aesthetic instead of a hyper-saturated universe, its narrative re-imagining may have been more profound.
This is to say there are certainly formal components of the film lacking in a clear and original artistic vision. If the studio insists on recycling existing stories, unexpected and well structured design and narrative elements should be a priority.
However, genuine commentary about writing, design, cinematography, and performance do not satiate the live-action critics. And this fixation on Disney films in particular is odd for one glaring reason: children are their intended audience. We absolutely should be critical of children’s media. Well-produced, thoughtful art created for children is valuable in affirming their growth, teaching lessons, and providing new worldviews.
Unfortunately, the conversation around Snow White seems less concerned with how the film affects children positively or negatively. Rather, it was co-opted by adults, including many loud adult male influencers, who believe themselves to be the arbiters of what kinds of ideas and stories children are shown.
Do children deserve meaningful, original content? Yes. But Snow White’s naysayers are not joining a movement for better children’s media. They advocate for more faithful adaptations, down to often inconsequential details. They want an adaptation where the titular character is literally white as snow, where she is kissed while asleep, and where she rides off into the sunset with her prince. What this “criticism” fails to acknowledge is that:
1) Such a film does exist. It is called Snow White (1937), and it is free to stream with a Disney+ subscription.
2) There are dozens of films for children with similar narratives available to view.
3) A remake should aim to embellish its source material. Particularly when that source material has a poor chance of captivating modern audiences accustomed to more energetic pacing.
4) Lastly, they fail to imagine that there is any benefit in children viewing a story about a young woman as a kindhearted leader.
Media criticism is flooded by bad-faith reviews. Voices who have no interest in stimulating conversations about how to make better work for children. They only care to preserve some traditional, fairy-tale archetype. Even that goal is unfounded; traditional fairy tales were far too gritty and dark for modern pearl-clutches to handle.
As long as these films remain a topic of debate across the media landscape, they will keep making them. In instances of good-faith criticism, the unusual degree of rage towards live-action remakes regards them as an affront to creativity itself. It opens up a conversation about how the industry spends its money, and how audiences are ready for more honest, earnest work. In that sense, the anger is at least understandable, albeit overdone. However, to those interested in perpetuating an archaic Disney ideal, it’s a colossal waste of energy.