Disney's Disastrous 'Snow White' Remake Lost Them An Absolute Fortune, New Filings Reveal

When you look up "cautionary tale" in the dictionary, from now on, there's going to be a poster for "Snow White" listed. 

Disney Studios under CEO Bob Iger decided that they would essentially no longer make original content. Instead, they'd focus exclusively on franchises, remakes, and existing intellectual property under their control. That led to a full slate of "live action" films based on classic animated Disney stories. The first few movies made a profit, as the novelty factor papered over a lack of creativity, originality, and often poor execution. 

That was bad enough. But Disney, like almost every other studio, had become overrun with progressives throughout the executive and creative ranks. So when it came time for "Snow White" to get the remake treatment, the film that essentially made Disney Studios back in the 1930's, those involved took it in the worst possible direction. They tried to appeal to nonexistent "modern audiences." 

Instead of the classic fairytale, the Snow White character would become a rebellious leader. Set photos leaked that seemed to show that the iconic dwarfs would be replaced with an extremely modern set of diverse hipsters. And star Rachel Zegler fulfilled nothing of the character's original description, then spent her time on red carpets criticizing the original as "weird," outdated, and no longer relevant to today's world. 

RELATED: 'Snow White' Box Office Run Is Almost Over, Cementing All-Time Flop For Disney

When the film finally hit theaters a year later, thanks to frantic attempts to salvage what was clearly a disaster in the making, it was a spectacular box office bomb. And now we know the true scale of just how big a bomb "Snow White" was.

SEGOVIA, SPAIN - MARCH 12: Rachel Zegler at the European event for Disney’s "Snow White" at Alcazar de Segovia on March 12, 2025 in Segovia, Spain. (Photo by Pablo Cuadra/Getty Images for Disney)

‘Snow White’ Lost Disney An Astonishing Amount Of Money

When the film neared the end of its theatrical run, most estimates suggested that "Snow White" would lose Disney somewhere between $115-140 million. An insane number, considering its budget, star power, and the number of theaters showing it.

Well, we have new numbers, and somehow, their losses are even higher. 

Thanks to the UK's film production credit rules, we can get a full picture of the cost of "Snow White," and shocker, it ran way over budget. Forbes calculated that even after accounting for gigantic incentives from the UK government, DIsney's total outlay on the film was over $271 million. 

Based on the industry standard 50/50 revenue split, where studios take home just about half of a film's total box office, that would put "Snow White's" total losses at nearly $170 million. One of the biggest box office bombs in the history of the movie business, in pure dollar value terms. 

To be fair to the film and to Disney, there are other sources of revenue besides box office figures. But that's the primary source of income for most major movies, and with a film this unpopular with audiences, there's likely little in the way of merchandise or other ancillary sales to help out. It's completely disappeared from Disney theme parks, for example. 

That is an enormous amount of money to lose, even for a studio at Disney's level. And it's a self-inflicted wound. Yes, there is audience fatigue from "live action" remakes. But "Lilo & Stitch" took in roughly $1 billion at the global box office, not long after "Snow White's" release. That's a clear indication that the film's obvious motives were directly responsible for the scale of its failure. And it didn't have to be this way. 

All Disney had to do was put out a competent remake. One that honored the original, while maybe adding a few new songs or updating visuals. Instead, they completely changed the character, the plot, and turned the dwarfs into a CGI nightmare. And it bombed, in spectacular fashion. Will they learn their lesson? Who knows, they never have before. But losing $170 million might be a bridge too far, even for Hollywood's richest company. Let's hope so.