After years of controversies and tepid results at the box office, Disney’s 2025 live-action “Snow White” remake has reportedly netted an approximately $170 million loss.

Forbes reported on Tuesday that filings indicate the recent controversial live-action “Snow White” remake cost a whopping $336.5 million, yet met with low returns after years of controversy.

The outlet explained that this can be discerned thanks to the fact the movie was filmed in the United Kingdom. The U.K. has local laws which benefit films with a generous reimbursement, but come with heavy rules. As a result, Disney had to create a subsidiary company, Hidden Heart Productions, in order to film there. As a result of these local U.K.-based rules, showing expenditures that otherwise remains a closely-guarded secret for films made in the United States, Disney’s massive expenses were revealed.

“In 2023 this author revealed in Britain’s Daily Mail newspaper that by July 31, 2022 Disney had already spent a staggering $183.3 million on making Snow White even though principal photography had only just wrapped,” contributor Caroline Reid wrote. “The latest set of filings are for the year to December 31, 2024 which was less than three months before the movie debuted so should give an almost-complete picture of its costs.”

HOLLYWOOD KEEPS MAKING MOVIES FAMILIES WON’T WATCH WHILE ‘LORD OF THE RINGS’ RERELEASE RAKES IN MILLIONS

The writer went on to emphasize, “The $336.5 million spent on Snow White is higher than the cost of Disney’s Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, its Guardians of the Galaxy Marvel movie and its live action version of Beauty and the Beast which grossed a staggering $1.3 billion in 2017.”

The United Kingdom indeed came through with a reimbursement for Disney, but the writer argued this was not enough to redeem the production.

“The U.K. government also gave Snow White a magic touch as it reimbursed $64.9 million (£52.3 million) of the movie’s costs. This brought its net expenses down to $271.6 million but even that wasn’t enough to give it a happy ending in theaters,” Reid quipped.

Then, with the costs of bringing the movie to theaters themselves, a new level of complexity was added to the expenses.

“The amount that theaters pay to studios is known in the trade as a rental fee and an indication of the typical level comes from film industry consultant Stephen Follows who interviewed 1,235 film professionals in 2014 and concluded that, according to studios, theaters keep 49% of the takings on average,” Reid summarized. “This research lends weight to the widely-established 50-50 split which would give Disney just $102.9 million from Snow White yielding a $168.7 million loss at the box office after deducting the $271.6 million net spending on the movie.”

“One of the biggest box office bombs in the history of the movie business, in pure dollar value terms,” OutKick reported.

But beyond financial woes, the remake of the iconic film has had its fair share of cultural controversies.

DISNEY’S ‘SNOW WHITE’ IS TOP CONTENDER FOR RAZZIE AWARD FOR WORST FILM OF 2025

In 2022, Peter Dinklage criticized Disney for remaking a “f—— backwards story about seven dwarfs living in a cave together,” while being progressive with its casting of lead actress Rachel Zegler.

Disney then reportedly responded in 2023, at least temporarily, by replacing the dwarfs with multiracial and gender-mixed “magical creatures.” This plan was later scrapped in lieu of using computer-animated mythological dwarfs who looked like those featured in the original animated film. 

Zegler also stirred controversy by speaking ill of the original 1937 film, criticizing Israel, and posting on social media, “May Trump supporters and Trump voters and Trump himself never know peace,” adding, “F— Donald Trump.”

CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF MEDIA AND CULTURE

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

Disney didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Shares of FMCG bellwether Hindustan Unilever slipped 2.5% to Rs 2,351.40 on Friday after it reported a 30% decline in consolidated net profit from continuing operations for the third quarter of FY26, to Rs 2,188 crore. In the same quarter last year, the company’s net profit was Rs 3,027 crore.

The company’s net profit for the period, however, came in at Rs. 6,603 crore, up 121% year on year, primarily driven by one off impacts from its portfolio transformation actions, HUL said.

The company’s revenue from continuing operations came in at Rs. 16,441 crore, marking a 5.6% year on year jump from Rs. 15,556 crore reported in the corresponding quarter of the previous financial year, HUL said in a regulatory filing.

Earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation for continuing operations stood at Rs. 3,788 crore, higher by 3% from the same quarter last year. However, the EBITDA margin declined by 70 basis points YoY to 23.3%. One basis point is equal to 0.01% one hundredth of one percent.

For the quarter under review, HUL reported underlying sales growth of 5%, supported by underlying volume growth of 4%.

Also read: Risk-on trade back? Smallcap stocks rally up to 28% in 2026, but market breadth stays weak

Outlook

The company expects macro stability along with supportive policy measures to create a favourable environment for consumption going ahead. It anticipates FY27 to be stronger than FY26, driven by continued portfolio optimisation and channel transformation initiatives.Priya Nair, CEO and Managing Director, said that demand trends reflected early signs of recovery, underpinned by supportive policy measures. “We continued to build desirability at scale with our brands, accelerate market development in high growth demand spaces and strengthen our capabilities to scale Channels of the Future with a dedicated organisation for Quick commerce.”

Following the earnings release, HUL shares traded 3% lower to Rs. 2,396 apiece.

Sensex, Nifty today: Catch all the LIVE stock market action here

(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of The Economic Times)