‘Snow White’ Not The Fairest Of Them All — How The Film’s Rotten Tomatoes Score Compares To Disney’s Other Live-Action Remakes

Forbes - Mar 20th, 2025

Disney's live-action remake of 'Snow White,' starring Rachel Zegler, has sparked significant controversy and is receiving poor critical reviews ahead of its release. The film, directed by Marc Webb, has been criticized for its lackluster storytelling and performances, with notable exceptions like Zegler's praised portrayal. The decision to alter the original plot, including the depiction of the prince and use of CGI dwarfs, has added to the divisiveness. Despite Zegler's standout performance, the film currently holds a low Rotten Tomatoes score of 46%, signaling potential box office challenges.

The remake fits into a broader pattern of Disney's live-action adaptations, which have often been accused of being uninspired cash grabs. The backlash and poor reception of 'Snow White' highlight growing fatigue among audiences and critics regarding Disney's reimaginings of classic animated films. Critics argue that the film exemplifies a lack of creativity and originality, raising questions about the future direction of Disney's adaptation strategy. As the film prepares for its theatrical release, its performance may influence Disney's approach to similar projects in the future.

Disney Rotten Tomatoes Rachel Zegler Snow White Live Action Remake Film Controversy Box Office

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a comprehensive overview of the Snow White remake, focusing on the controversies and criticisms it has faced. It accurately reports key facts, such as the Rotten Tomatoes score and Rachel Zegler's role, while engaging with broader cultural debates about representation and adaptation. However, the article leans heavily on criticism, with limited representation of positive perspectives or insights from those involved in the film's production. While the article is timely and relevant, its impact is primarily in reinforcing existing debates rather than introducing new insights. The readability and engagement potential are strong, though greater transparency and source diversity could enhance credibility. Overall, the article effectively captures the current discourse surrounding the film, though it could benefit from a more balanced approach.

Accuracy

The story accurately reports Rachel Zegler's role as Snow White and the associated controversies, including her comments about the prince and the film's departure from traditional plotlines. It correctly cites the Rotten Tomatoes score, which was around 46% at the time of writing, aligning with the sources. However, some claims, such as box office predictions and the film's potential impact on Disney's strategy, are speculative and require further verification. The story's references to other Disney remakes and their scores are consistent with available data, supporting its factual accuracy.

Balance

The article predominantly focuses on the negative aspects of the Snow White remake, highlighting controversies and criticisms. While it does mention positive reviews about Rachel Zegler's performance, the overall tone leans towards criticism. The perspectives of those who might support the changes or appreciate the film's modern approach are underrepresented, creating an imbalance. The article could benefit from including more diverse viewpoints, such as interviews with supporters of the remake or those involved in the production.

Clarity

The article is well-structured, with a logical flow that guides the reader through the main points and supporting details. The language is clear and accessible, making it easy for a general audience to understand. However, the intermingling of factual reporting and personal opinion could be more distinctly separated to enhance clarity. Overall, the article effectively communicates its message despite some areas where clarity could be improved.

Source quality

The article references credible sources such as Rotten Tomatoes and critics from various publications, which lends reliability to its claims. However, it lacks direct quotes or interviews from primary sources like the filmmakers or Disney representatives, which would enhance its credibility. The reliance on secondary sources and aggregated reviews limits the depth of insight. Including more authoritative voices or firsthand accounts could improve the source quality.

Transparency

The article does not clearly disclose its methodology for selecting reviews or determining the film's reception. While it mentions various critics and their opinions, it lacks transparency about how these were chosen or weighted. The author's personal opinions are interwoven with factual reporting, which could be more clearly delineated. Greater transparency about the author's perspective and potential biases would improve the article's trustworthiness.