Talk:Snow White (2025 film)

Rachel Zegler is being reduced in the movie

According to this YouTube user, she is being reduced and the movie will show more the younger version to "soften". Source:[1] 190.21.186.226 (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

A random YouTube video cannot be used as a reliable source. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

What about this video? Source:[2] 190.21.186.226 (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

While there are some minor exceptions, you're best off if you just assume all YouTube videos are unusable. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

There are more source here:[3]https://thatparkplace.com/exclusive-rachel-zegler-rumored-to-have-reduced-role-in-upcoming-disney-snow-white-live-action-remake/ [4]https://www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture/rumor-rachel-zegler-s-screentime-snow-white-cut-drastically-insider-leaks-suggest [5]https://www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture/rumor-rachel-zegler-s-screentime-snow-white-cut-drastically-insider-leaks-suggest 190.21.167.172 (talk) 05:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

None of those strike me as a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. If you think I am wrong, you can certainly seek other opinions at the reliable sources noticeboard, but I would be firmly opposed to citing any of those, especially as they all are based on rumors and suggestion by their own terms. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Anything coming out of the rumor mill is unreliable, and most likely fabricated. See WP:FILMRS for a list of reliable sources about film. But I'll save you the trouble for this case: there are no reliable sources that confirm this made-up story. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

These items can be added to the controversy section for now as long as they clearly state the information is still rumored and cited with several, not one or two, sources. Since the movie has not come out yet, this article can entirely be cast in the light that the movie direction can change at any time and any rumors can become reality, likewise, any supposed concrete facts can be later revealed to never have had a part in the production. You can expect this article to be fully rewritten once the movie is actually published along with "behind the scenes" documentaries.69.167.196.62 (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

We don't include baseless WP:RUMORS on Wikipedia just because some random people on the internet make claims up. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

There is also speculation saying that she will be replaced in the main role and that Disney wants to cast Lucy Hale. Sources:[6] [7] [8] 201.188.133.126 (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

One more time for the people in the back row: YOUTUBE. IS. WORTHLESS. ON. WIKIPEDIA. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not just YouTube. Some of the proposed sources have the word "rumored" in their headlines. If they feel the need to make it clear that it is idle chit chat in the headline then it takes some cast iron chutzpah to propose it for use as a source in an encyclopaedia. DanielRigal (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Weren't some of those Youtubers like Mike Zeroh confirmed to be just making things up out of the ether? If so, then no wonder why Wikipedia doesn't use random Youtubers as reliable sources. It'd be one thing if Mike Zeroh was shown speaking to these individuals, but he never is, we're just expected to listen and believe when he says something. 198.163.159.103 (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Film may have been cancelled

Accrording to this source. Is it reliable? Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 09:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

No. It’s a fan site blog. Mike Allen 12:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

No, in fact this source should be blacklisted for presenting information as if it were true. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

You need to read the article, not the clickbait headline that doesn't reflect it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2024

It should be Walt’s Disneys animated film not disneys animated film so I’d like to edit that bit of the page if that’s okay not to sound rude Polywog701 (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done The production credit in the 1937 film itself is "A Walt Disney Feature Production" but I think Disney's animated film is a reasonable short form description for it. I don't think it needs changing as the 1937 film is linked for more into on it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Slight issue with that is all the ones that are based on the animated films that Walt Disney produced are credited as based on Walt Disney’s animated film I.e dumbo, Cinderella, the jungle book etc so I think it’s because you think it’s reasonable I think it’s cos you’re lazy and you hate others being right but that’s on you anyway have a good one Polywog701 (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Read about WP:OTHERCONTENT. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 10:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

When Walt Disney is used by itself it generally refers to the person, not the company. Disney by itself refers to his company. The company Walt Disney Productions made the film. For the purposes of this article, in the context of this article about the 2025 Disney film, and solely to identify the 1937 film "Disney" by itself is sufficient and correct. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Controversies section split

At this point, I feel this should have its own article because of the amount of attention it gets. The information would of course be placed in a neutral point of view there and summarized up here in a section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Much of the "Controversy" section could simply be condensed down. A lot of what's featured there will become hugely insignificant once the film is actually released, as more relevant critical reviews and analysis will appear. A lot of the Rachel Zegler direct quotes are lengthy and could be paraphrased or reduced to the bare essence of what she is saying. I would argue it would be worth condensing it down to the bare points as well because much of the controversy is politically-charged and maintaining neutrality is going to be next to impossible if the section becomes so large that it warrants a separate page, especially when the film comes out next year. I can already see a glaring lack of neutrality in the section as it currently exists, with very little coverage of opposing viewpoints and an overwhelming coverage of Zegler's own views and opinions. The section on the cast's views about the Israel-Palestine Conflict could be significantly reduced and is largely irrelevant to the film itself. There are also a couple of grammatical errors, for instance quoting Zegler as stating, "and always remember, free palestine" (Palestine is a proper noun title, unless Zegler spelled it lowercase herself and it's a direct quote, in which case square brackets might be of use here).

There's a lot in this section that assumes the reader can infer where information is lacking. For example, "The casting of the Latina Zegler as Snow White, a character described in the original material as having skin "as white as snow", attracted some controversy." The singular source reference goes to yet another quote by Zegler herself, nobody else, and while it can be inferred that she is probably referring to racism, the controversy (researching it and looking at some of the high-profile figures who covered the film's casting and teaser trailer) actually stems from concerns over historical preservation; the original fairy tale of Snow White is German-based and the character is Caucasian (I mean, I'm guessing there's a bit of racism squeaking its way in there too...), but regardless readers can't know this if that information isn't there. Much of this criticism came from political pundits of The Daily Wire and Sky News Australia, and this can all be found online and sourced. As with Zegler's own direct quotes, I would recommend paraphrasing direct quotes or keeping the quotes concise.

Zegler is just a cast member (granted the film's lead star), but she doesn't have any hand in the writing, directing, promotion or ownership of the film, and she isn't an anchorperson, professional critic or film reviewer. This page's "Controversies" section is very heavily leaning on Zegler's own personal opinions in response to backlash, which is problematic.

The section on the casting of the dwarves in relation to Little Persons, dwarfism and ableism is well-written and fairly neutral, containing multiple solid sources and viewpoints from various actors with dwarfism, as well as views from Disney as a corporation in response.

A lot of political controversy can erupt before a film's release, especially nowadays in the age of social media. The trick to reigning it in on a Wikipedia page is to have editors weed out what isn't directly relevant to the page's main topic of discussion. The increased divisiveness of American party politics doesn't help.😅 It's easier with older media because it used to be seen as culturally vulgar and inflammatory for public figures to be overtly political in the manner that Zegler has been behaving, and the sheer amount of political material, both left-leaning and right-leaning, in connection with this film production is as difficult to make concise as it is utterly mind-blowing and bizarre. Disney has been generating hype by releasing production stills and teaser trailers/imagery, which doesn't make things any easier because it's generating mass controversy before the film has even come out.

TL;DR: I'd recommend condensing the section to only include relevant and significant information, making the section more neutral and looking for less Zegler-centric sources, and maybe even reaching out to some more seasoned Wikipedia editors who've been successful at balancing politically-charged Wikipedia content in the past. To make an entirely separate Wikipedia page for political controversy over a fictional film that doesn't even exist yet may be premature or unnecessary. TradingSpousesWelsch (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)