Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

Snow White Sequel Ditches Snow White

by Inkoo Kang
June 30, 2014 12:04 PM
  • |

Where a poisoned apple failed, Hollywood sexism will succeed.

News arrived last week that a sequel to Snow White and the Huntsman, the 2012 action-oriented feminist revision of the fairy tale, will go on without its heroine protagonist. 

It's safe to say that SWATH's box-office performance depended greatly on Kristen Stewart, then still under her Twilight contract. Simply put, without her participation in the movie, that film would not have sold enough tickets to warrant a second-parter. 

Like her Twilight director Catherine Hardwicke before her, then, Stewart has been pushed out of the franchise she made happen. The spinoff will simply be called The Huntsman, centering on Chris Hemsworthy's blank hunk. Charlize Theron will reportedly reprise her role as the evil queen. Director Rupert Sanders will be replaced by another male director, Frank Darabont.

In the post-Katniss, post-Frozen, post-Gravity era, one would hope that Hollywood learn to stop worrying and love action heroines already. As for the tabloid scandal tying Stewart to SWATH, well, stardom and infidelity have never been strangers in Hollywood. Whether actresses are branded more often with a scarlet letter is a discussion for another time.  

[via She Knows]

Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    


  • concerned | July 6, 2014 4:08 AMReply

    Chris "blank hunk" bit insulting, Kristen / media usually defend her at his expense( discredit)of Rob, now Chris ? if you feel she deserves defending that up to you but it shouldn't be at the expense of others, trying to discredit someone and their career to support someone else is wrong,if the next story isn't developed well or he does give ablank performance fair enough, but articles like this will encourage people not to support the film to be negative to him, other actors thinking it supports Kristen , not fair to do this, she messedup as most people have done s messed up personaly,but like everyone else she has to get on with it, and took on a role that maybe was out of her depth, for me Robs performance that got me through Twi,
    STOP with making excuses, and blaming everyone else, and discrediting everyone else for her choices

  • Mona | July 2, 2014 8:05 PMReply

    Kristen Stewart didn't carry Snow White and The Huntsman. The movie was horrible and everyone in it was horrible. She received a worst actress Razzie for this along with her equally bad performance in Twilight. In the wake of better actresses in her age group like Shailene Woodley and Jennifer Lawrence, why would any studio put faith in Kristen Stewart? She's a really bad actress AND she sleeps with her married bosses. You could cite sexism if Rupert Sanders were returning but as I understand it he's off this movie too. Good riddance to them both. Theron and Hemsworth along with an engaging story directed by Frank Darabont can draw a crowd.

  • Moe | July 2, 2014 6:31 AMReply

    Speaking as a parent, who was took her teens to Snow White and The Huntsman three times, Kristen was indeed the draw. I was surrounded by teen girls in that theater and the talk in line and the theater was about Kristen Stewart. She was the reason my teens wanted to see the movie three times. And Kristen is the reason they bought the DVD, watch it on cable. And Kristen was the reason they wanted a second movie.

  • Joy | July 2, 2014 7:08 PM

    FYI, I took my son to see SWATH because he wanted to see Hemsworth and the battle scenes. He liked the fantasy elements and thought Charlize was "cool" as the evil queen. He had zero interest in Kristen, he didn't find her engaging or warm or attractive.

    He thought the queen was much prettier than Snow, and he will be thrilled to hear about a sequel that doesn't include her.

  • Mr. Anderson | July 1, 2014 3:18 PMReply

    If you're going to decry sexism in Hollywood, it would help if you could at least present a well-presented argument and a worthwhile example. Kristen Stewart certainly was riding a high due to her Twilight role, but that supposed bump never brought up the box office totals of Adventureland, The Runaways, or On the Road. The marketing barely focused on her at all, focusing on the alternate fairy tale story and Charlise Theron's evil turn. In essence, not only is it unlikely that SWATH benefited from having her in the lead, it did well almost IN SPITE of the young actress's involvement. Two years later, and Stewart's career stability is quickly dissolving, while Theron and Chris Hemsworth are among the biggest stars out there, making sense to bring them back. Also, with the first movie being so poorly received, it makes sense to shake things up for a sequel, as a Stewart-led sequel would likely be a relative disappointment at the box office, which sadly is the bottom line. And replacing that hack Sanders with Frank Darabont? Well, you can argue about female directors not being given shots in Hollywood, and I'd absolutely, no-joking, agree that's a problem that needs to be addressed. But Darabont is still a proven, quality director, which is absolutely a step-up from his predecessor. But your argument seems to be that the studio should keep Stewart for the sole purpose of retaining a female lead, but that's just silly, and essentially the same problem Hollywood is said to have when it advocates so many sequels and remakes that are no different from the originals. Sexism is a real problem in the studio system, but you took the stupidest argument available to try and illustrate that. Cutting Stewart wasn't sexist; it was a sensible decision.

    And Catherine Hardwicke? Have you even SEEN Red Riding Hood??

  • confused | July 1, 2014 11:14 AMReply

    not sure about "without her name it wouldnt have made enough money to warrent a second "
    plenty of dark style fantasy films that have done quite well and Kristen wasnt in them, it seems odd her films outside of Twi since panic room have not done well overall have lost money, so I assume they were mainly reliant on her bringing the Twi/ fantasy audience, but the trailors didnt focus on her you wouldnt know she was the lead, the trailors did look fantastic, the effects were briliant, I didnt like the film, the style,pace by the time it got going Id gone passed caring if snow white was saved, or had a happy ending,
    "only " kristen sold tickets is a bit insulting to the others as well as "blank hunk" yeah because she brought a much stronger performance, no

  • confused | July 1, 2014 10:53 AMReply

    an actor/actress has nailed the part when you can't image anyone else playing the character, I have to agree with the comments a lot of actresses could have played SW, she played it ok but as the same as Bella you, I feel she going through the motions, the intensity and emotion doesnt come accross as Ive seen with other actresses,
    the affair confuses the arggument if its the reason she was not re hired or not , I don't know ,the affair wasnt known until after it went to cinema, didnt effect the BO, but shes made a film about having an affair with her boss the following year after having an affair with her boss(different circumstances) which seems really odd to me, the interviewers/ media could have been nasty but they werent they didnt make any reference that I saw, it probably would only have effect with commentators on boards but some times that creates support out of sympathy so I dont know
    but im sure they would have been unsure of her, $170m budget and it only made $220m profit , they would have expected at least double the budget
    its likely the first film would have had more support, twi/ fans wanting to support her next big film, and expecting the twi fans to support a fantasy film, they probably worried if they didnt double they're budget , profit on the first they will loose on the second
    what would the next film be, just a love story? I dont think it would have worked well,

  • Kyle | June 30, 2014 11:20 PMReply

    Stop trying to make everything a sexist issue. It's not, get over it.

  • Felicity | June 30, 2014 4:55 PMReply

    The choice not to bring her back had nothing to do with sexism - it had to do with deals, schedules, and a conflict of interest. I am all for the feminism in Hollywood conversation and I encourage it - however this was not the case.

  • Emi | July 2, 2014 12:35 AM

    Save your sympathy for someone who deserves it, like Liberty Ross.

    I don't hate Kristen. I'm commenting on her actions. You might condone them, I don't. I also see people like you using the "hate" term as a means to make folks feel bad when they express their opinions because you don't want her scandal and its effect on her career to be mentioned.

    You want everyone to pretend it didn't happen and it doesn't matter, but it did and it does. She did it and it was done in public. She issued a public apology, do it's all fair game. And you might as well get used to it, since it will cling to her forever and no one is going to get amnesia. She would probably be starring in SW2 if she hadn't trashed her brand in the road with Rupert. They both would be doing a big budget film instead of small parts in little indies.

  • @EMI aka copy/paste troll | June 30, 2014 8:39 PM

    Yup, you are more obsessed with her than any of her fans. You wrote 2/3 of the lame comments on The Wrap article. I pity you and the fact that you have nothing in your life, that you are so consumed by someone you say you hate. How sad.

  • Emi | June 30, 2014 7:39 PM

    As long as Stewart's delusional fans keep spinning fairy tales about her, someone will be here to inject a dose of reality. Universal dropped her because they know her participation isn't needed. She has more negatives than positives at this point.

    She got the worst reviews of her life for SWATH, and she won another Razzie for Worst Actress. Why would the studio want her back? The part could have been played by any number of actresses, the film's draw was the fantasy elements and evil queen Charlize. She stole every scene she was in and made the film bearable. Universal knows what it's doing and it has nothing to do with sexism.

  • @EMI aka Copy/Paste Troll | June 30, 2014 7:19 PM

    Ah, here you are. Wouldn't be a comment section without you showing your obsession for Kristen Stewart, now would it? Copy/Paste, Copy/Paste, Copy/Paste.

  • Emi | June 30, 2014 6:19 PM

    Oh please, don't try to make it sound like Stewart is too busy with her micro budget indies to have time for a big budget studio film. Her ambition outstrips her talent by a mile, that's why she employs a full time PR rep to keep her name in the media. She would give her eye teeth to be in this sequel.

    As for being a female action hero, did you see SWATH? She wandered through the forest frolicking with CGI mythical creatures for half the film, spent no time getting fight training, donned some amour and made the lamest "rousing" speech ever and then swung into an unbelievable battle. She would have had no idea how to fight and would have been killed within two minutes if this wasn't a fantasy. At least Katniss and Tris had training and knew how to fight. They are believable female heroines, Stewart wasn't. It might as well have been Bella and the Huntsman.

    We don't need more movies with "heroines" like her. She's no role model for anything. Darabont has the potential to make a dark and compelling tale with The Huntsman and I'd rather see that than another lame fantasy with Stewart moping and mouth breathing her way through it.

  • Ellie | June 30, 2014 6:00 PM

    Schedules? What schedules?

  • Christy | June 30, 2014 4:23 PMReply

    She was atrocious in the first one, I'm not surprised. Who even wants to see a second one anyways? The first one sucked, this second one will suck too.

  • Mark | June 30, 2014 4:12 PMReply

    How is this sexist? The first film underperformed due to lack of enthusiasm for Stewart outside of the Twilight movies. And it's not just her, but her male co-stars as well. Pattinson and the werewolf guy are finished too. Hemsworth's career is still very strong, so why would they waste franchise potential by backtracking with a new female lead when they can have Hemsworth and Theron fulfill their multi-picture contract with the studio and continue the story that way? Also, it's not like Stewart was booted and Sanders was kept on. Both of them are off the project for their behavior (among other reasons). I still think the issues you're talking about exist, but with the casting for this movie methinks not. I think the word (or two) you're looking for is Business Savvy.

    What's with the hate for Darabont? He's a more than fine director who's involvement with this series puzzles and intrigues me.

  • Jordan | June 30, 2014 6:29 PM

    @Mark - You're entitled to your ill informed opinion, but you're also laughable. While Stewart trashed her brand and relegated herself back to the little indies she sprang from, Pattinson is far from "over." All 3 of his post-Twilight films have premiered to fantastic critical reception, and he's working with the most respected directors in the world.

    Pattinson has two big budget projects coming up, Lost City of Z for Brad Pitt's Plan B company, and Idol's Eye with Robert DeNiro, the biggest budget film Assaysas has ever made. He has films with Herzog and Anton Corbjin that will likely premiere at TIFF, he has the career that any actor of his generation would envy. Just thought I'd fill you in since your comment is so far off base.

  • Arnold | June 30, 2014 4:03 PMReply

    That's a shame. They were finally free of the Grimm's tale and could explore the character of Snow White and they decide to go for a typical american white male lead blockbuster. There are enough movies with male super heroes...Marvels/Avengers and pretty much all the big action blockbusters involve male leads. That's really a shame. Kristen Stewart was an asset to the project because of her starpower but also because she is a surprising actress that is established in independent movies and who showed she can carry big franchises with Twilight and Snow White & The Huntsman. Only fools would deny that.

  • January | July 3, 2014 1:31 AM

    Stewart didn't carry the Twilight franchise. The books had a built in audience, all female, that wanted to see Edward on the big screen, not Bella. She could have been played by a cardboard cut out, it wouldn't have made any difference. Summit put Fast Forward Edward on the DVDs because they knew exactly what the audience wanted -- versions of the films with just Edward in them. He was the engine that drove that franchise, not her. She didn't cause any riots at malls, the way Pattinson did. Summit also didn't pay her any bonus, they way the did him.

    As far as Stewart's indie career goes, she never had a hit. None of her indies ever showed a profit, she went from flop to flop, until she fell into Twilight. Even after she had that name recognition, she still couldn't attract an audience for her indies like The Runaways, WTTR, or On The Road. They all flopped, too. She's has no power, she didn't even make it on Forbes' list of 100 Most Powerful Actresses this year. Her glory days are over, and Universal dropping her from this sequel proves it, if there was any doubt left.

    She's now making the kind of little indies that don't get a wide release and don't find an audience. She didn't seem to handle success very well, so this return to obscurity is probably better for her.

  • Jay | July 2, 2014 7:57 PM

    FYI Hemworth is Australian not American

  • Doc | July 1, 2014 1:59 PM

    I think the Twilight franchised carried itself. The books (and Stephanie Meyers) had huge fan following even before the movies were made. SWATH piggybacked off the twilight fans.

  • MMM | June 30, 2014 3:15 PMReply

    No Stewart - no money. Who will pay money for poor version of Thor and Maleficent?

  • Typical | June 30, 2014 3:07 PMReply

    This is classic sexist behavior, and so typical. There's no other way to dress this Snow White news up, no grounds with which to justify it. One of the things I find (sadly) compelling about Stewart is what a lightning rod she is for sexism in Hollywood, it's quite remarkable. The misogyny of the studios, well near the entire press, it's all a breathtaking pile-on considering the foil for the imposition of these social norms is 1 young woman, just 24. It's even apparent in all the Pattinson-obsessed that haunt this comments section and every single other one like it to post their hate everyday. I like her movies, like her quiet acting style, and appreciate that out of the 30 odd movies she's made -- not one is sexist. She doesn't pick crap and I respect that.

  • Stewart | June 30, 2014 4:29 PM

    To "TYPICAL", regarding your thoughts on 'social norms' -though I basically agree with your outrage, it would be nice that those like you who decry sexism and misogyny in media would be also quick to point out the pervasive myth of white supremacy and the role in which Hollywood plays in it as they keep pushing out these gentrified, archetypical so called 'leading men' types.
    (There is a subtle hypocrisy in todays women's movement that really isn't so subtle with those who want to get behind it).

  • Ellie | June 30, 2014 2:33 PMReply

    I'll start off by saying that I am a big Kristen Stewart fan (not of the crazy variety). I never wanted this sequel to happen. In fact, the reaction to the shortlist of directors that was announced several weeks ago was met with a resounding "Does anyone even need or want this sequel to happen?" I've seen those thoughts echoed with this latest announcement. And numerous outlets have noted, like here, that the first one's success was largely due to her involvement. The first one was a success, but a small one considering its massive $170 million budget. Now that Kristen is no longer attached to the sequel, Universal will be hard-pressed to fill seats, I imagine, since they have lost out on her fanbase, which seemed to be the only segment of the movie-going world that had been clamoring for a sequel.

    That being said, I am relieved that she will not be a part of this since I think it's best for her to put SWATH behind her. Considering the raves she has received for her last two movies, Camp X-Ray and, most recently from Cannes (and more resoundingly), Clouds of Sils Maria, I'm glad she will be able to focus her attentions on those character-driven indie movies where she seems to thrive most.

  • @Cal | June 30, 2014 4:33 PM

    Those are good points. Check out Scott Mendelson's article on Forbes if you haven't already. This was indeed the plan all along. Before the first one was even released, Universal indicated that the potential sequel would be huntsman-oriented. But what's strange is how they denied that ever since, perhaps because they feared the allegations of sexism following the cheating scandal.

    As for the box office, maybe you're just a little more optimistic than I am. But there seems to be a very lukewarm, if not outright cold, reaction to this sequel concept. We'll see what happens.

  • Cal | June 30, 2014 4:04 PM

    People say that all the time. But when the movie makes it to the theater its makes millions. People crap on the Transformers franchise online all the time, but look how well the last movie performed at the box office.

    I think its a good thing that she is away from this movie. If she did the next movie and it didn't perform well she would have taken all the blame. And if it did perform well everybody else would get credit but her.

    Yes, people are going to say that she is out because she is a bad actress or because of the cheating, but before the movie was in theaters Universal was planning a huntsman spin off. From the start, the female lead was going to be pushed out of her own franchise. People might not like Kristen, but that just screams Hollywood is old boy's club.

    I'm just waiting for Hollywood to realize that fairytales don't make good movies. They make money and they are pretty to look at, but they have no substance. I'm also waiting for a shift away from superhero movies, but that doesn't look like its happening any time soon.

  • Tara | June 30, 2014 2:12 PMReply

    I went to see SWATH because of Hemsworth. I liked how Snow handled herself in the movie, but Stewart's lack of chemistry with both Sam Claflin AND Chris Hemsworth left me at a loss. Was she even looking at them??

  • Anna | June 30, 2014 2:05 PMReply

    I think it has more to do with Stewart's atrocious 'acting'. I thought SWATH was incredibly boring, but I'd watch a movie just with Charlize Theron's Queen.

    I'd feel angry as a woman and feminist if it were say, a movie led by Jennifer Lawrence or Emma Stone and they did the same thing. They can act. Kristen Stewart cannot. I can't find one good reason to watch a movie featuring Stewart, but a million to watch a movie - even in a franchise I have no interest in - with Charlize Theron. The Hunger Games and Gravity were amazing because they were led by incredible actresses, it was bad enough that the world has already had to suffer through one franchise led by Stewart.

    And in regards to the Stewart/Sanders affair, do we know if that had any impact on DVD sales? Because I'm sure most of Stewart's rabid fanbase wouldn't want a memento of all that happened that summer... Maybe that influenced the studio's decision in firing both of them.

  • Doc | July 1, 2014 1:53 PM

    I agree with you in regards to Stewarts acting. I am not a fan after seeing a few of her movies (including the first Twilight movie) but the trailers looked interesting, so I went to the theatre to watch it. She brought nothing to the character. Hemsworth was the best. I think it made the modest profit it did because of the Twilight fans.

  • simon | June 30, 2014 1:37 PMReply

    I'm sorry, people went to see that movie Charlize Theron, not Kristen Stewart's "barely awake" performance.

  • NK | June 30, 2014 12:51 PMReply

    I'm pretty sure her poor choices put her in this situation. The whole franchise was slightly tainted by her. It's too bad and I am all for women in film as a female in film myself. However she brought some shame to a lot of hardworking females and therefore there are consequences.

  • Beth | June 30, 2014 1:15 PM

    But if she were a man, no one would say, "...he brought some shame to a lot of hardworking males..." Why is she responsible to all women? The double standard is so apparent.

  • MD | June 30, 2014 12:23 PMReply

    Too bad. But I don't see how you can discuss her lack of involvement in the movie without discussing her affair with the director. I think the two are very much linked. I'm sure the studio wasn't too happy with her, or the director for that matter, for their tryst.

  • Jan | June 30, 2014 4:10 PM

    Can't be that mad, at least not mad at the man. I know its not set in stone, but Universal gave Rupert the new Van Helsing movie to direct with Tom Cruise.

Email Updates

Most "Liked"

  • Guest Post: Film Fatales Give Back: ...
  • 'Abuse of Weakness' Director Catherine ...
  • Chelsea Handler Planning a Live, Star-Studded ...
  • Only Three Women-Directed Films Scheduled ...
  • Venice Film Fest to Honor Frances M ...
  • Weekly Update for August 15: Women Centric, ...
  • The Impossible Girl: 'Doctor Who' and ...
  • Gloria Estefan Musical Coming to Broadway ...
  • 'Outlander' Renewed After One Episo ...
  • Trailer Watch: Acrobats Fly and Crash ...