In the book witches have claws that they hide with gloves. Maybe because the witch characters otherwise look so normal on screen the filmmakers tried to really step up the details of what was underneath the gloves?

They were wrong to depict the witch hands the way that they did when they could have exaggerated the claws (as per the original text). It's sad to think a person with a physical disability would feel shame for this depiction.

That being said, I'm not sure what the options are now that the movie is out.

I have a permanent, physical disability that causes deformities. I have very noticeable length differential, must wear corrective shoes that are obvious, have severe scoliosis that I try to hide but I’m sure people can tell. I hate being in a bathing suit around people I don’t know or even in warm weather clothes.

It’s not easy being disabled. In fact it really sucks. I’m not here to make you feel comfortable for the weird way I look and I cannot stand how disabled people are portrayed in entertainment (people to be pitied, as inspirations, oddballs, outcasts, charity cases, villains). Never just a regular person. So you can save your eye rolls and how it annoys you that people like us have a voice and we use it. I find this kind of stuff super offensive.

And remember, unlike other marginalized groups, the disability community is something anyone can sudden find themselves being a part of, just like that.

It’s always something. She’s also bald and looks burned (from the promo pics), does that offend women with alopecia or burn victims?

I'm offended by Anne Hathaway and her bad acting.

It's very disappointing to see the responses here. Adding that physical change to the character was absolutely unnecessary. It's very, very past time to stop being ignorant about disabilities. The pain that families experience with social isolation and bullying is enough without the entertainment industry adding to it.

How many of you thought the skit on SNL with the singing sisters which included a sister (Kristin Wiig) with obvious physical and intellectual disabilities was funny. Those shows still air and they are incredibly offensive and should never be shown.

There is so much bad in this country and it truly is time to be better. This isn't hard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is a classic example of barriers being invisible to those who don’t face them.

Can you see the people you are responding? Or are you just making assumptions? Not everyone wants to be offended by everything. Not everyone looks at everything has an offense to them. You have no idea what everyone faces. You just assume everyone should think like you. I don’t for one second believe WB intentionally set out to hurt people with a disability.

NP. I think the poster makes a good point (which is rife on DCUM generally) your failing to see from her / his perspective enforces what he / she has actually said.

Of course they didn't do it intentionally. That's the point. But perhaps the people who came up with the idea are less defensive than you, and now that it's been pointed out to them, recognize that they might do better next time.

Nonesense. there are enough checks and balances integrated into the making of any movie or tv show (literally lawyers who sit during filming and take notes) that this would have been flagged numerous times. They just decided to carry on regardless.

Uh, I work in a similar industry and promise you this is not something the lawyers are working on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is a classic example of barriers being invisible to those who don’t face them.

Can you see the people you are responding? Or are you just making assumptions? Not everyone wants to be offended by everything. Not everyone looks at everything has an offense to them. You have no idea what everyone faces. You just assume everyone should think like you. I don’t for one second believe WB intentionally set out to hurt people with a disability.

NP. I think the poster makes a good point (which is rife on DCUM generally) your failing to see from her / his perspective enforces what he / she has actually said.

Of course they didn't do it intentionally. That's the point. But perhaps the people who came up with the idea are less defensive than you, and now that it's been pointed out to them, recognize that they might do better next time.

Nonesense. there are enough checks and balances integrated into the making of any movie or tv show (literally lawyers who sit during filming and take notes) that this would have been flagged numerous times. They just decided to carry on regardless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the 90s version with a passion.

+1 this was an unnecessary remake and AHathaway is no AHouston

Agree! Angelica was amazing in the 90s version

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is a classic example of barriers being invisible to those who don’t face them.

I understand what you're saying.

I don't know this movie/show. Is Hathaway's character a main character, a good guy or a bad guy, redeemed or redeemable? I think it makes a difference.

I follow this blogger who I used to know IRL, with ectrodactyl and they didn’t like that they gave the character a limb difference to make her scary - they don’t want people to be afraid of people with limb differences. That “problem” was invisible to the movie creators who have since apologized and I think we should accept the apology.
I don’t know anymore that I think this quote applies to those who didn’t see this as an issue, had it pointed out, and then doubled down. That’s something worse.

I don’t think it’s a huge deal to be corrected and learn from your mistakes. I used to use the R word and someone nicely told me it was offensive and I said - yikes - I didn’t realize - thanks for pointing it out and I won’t use it that way again.

Exactly - the "eye rollers" are just digging in deeper despite being told it was offensive. No one cares if it's not offensive to you. You don't have the disability that's at issue. Sit down.

I agree. This is like people who don't know why they can't use the N-word. "It's just a word!" "But they use it!" Or just can't understand why the Washington Football Team former name was offensive.

I agree that this was un-necessary.

Why can't they stick to the book?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will the Citizens for Square Toes be up in arms?

I was all set to roll my eyes until I saw the images. I had a friend born with this birth defect and his hands looked exactly like what they designed for the character, which is not even close to what was described in the original book. If they were going to make something up, why make something up to match an actual physical defect that people are born with? Why not give her scales like a lizard or something else completely non-human. I totally agree that if I had a kid with this it would be very upsetting if this movie ended up being a big hit and all her peers were terrified of 3-fingered hands. It’s not the worst thing in the world but it’s definitely thoughtless. The good news is that so far the reviews have been bad some it’s likely it won’t have a big audience.

+1
Come on, this isn't so rare that no one shouldn't have stopped to say "wait, would we make any other disability be an evil/scary element?" Like we don't do this with facial deformities in villains anymore because its freaking cruel- its for KIDS for god's sake. It would have taken literally nothing away to keep her hands her own

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is a classic example of barriers being invisible to those who don’t face them.

I understand what you're saying.

I don't know this movie/show. Is Hathaway's character a main character, a good guy or a bad guy, redeemed or redeemable? I think it makes a difference.

I follow this blogger who I used to know IRL, with ectrodactyl and they didn’t like that they gave the character a limb difference to make her scary - they don’t want people to be afraid of people with limb differences. That “problem” was invisible to the movie creators who have since apologized and I think we should accept the apology.
I don’t know anymore that I think this quote applies to those who didn’t see this as an issue, had it pointed out, and then doubled down. That’s something worse.

I don’t think it’s a huge deal to be corrected and learn from your mistakes. I used to use the R word and someone nicely told me it was offensive and I said - yikes - I didn’t realize - thanks for pointing it out and I won’t use it that way again.

Exactly - the "eye rollers" are just digging in deeper despite being told it was offensive. No one cares if it's not offensive to you. You don't have the disability that's at issue. Sit down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is a classic example of barriers being invisible to those who don’t face them.

I understand what you're saying.

I don't know this movie/show. Is Hathaway's character a main character, a good guy or a bad guy, redeemed or redeemable? I think it makes a difference.

I follow this blogger who I used to know IRL, with ectrodactyl and they didn’t like that they gave the character a limb difference to make her scary - they don’t want people to be afraid of people with limb differences. That “problem” was invisible to the movie creators who have since apologized and I think we should accept the apology.
I don’t know anymore that I think this quote applies to those who didn’t see this as an issue, had it pointed out, and then doubled down. That’s something worse.

I don’t think it’s a huge deal to be corrected and learn from your mistakes. I used to use the R word and someone nicely told me it was offensive and I said - yikes - I didn’t realize - thanks for pointing it out and I won’t use it that way again.

Anonymous wrote:This thread is a classic example of barriers being invisible to those who don’t face them.

I understand what you're saying.

I don't know this movie/show. Is Hathaway's character a main character, a good guy or a bad guy, redeemed or redeemable? I think it makes a difference.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is a classic example of barriers being invisible to those who don’t face them.

Can you see the people you are responding? Or are you just making assumptions? Not everyone wants to be offended by everything. Not everyone looks at everything has an offense to them. You have no idea what everyone faces. You just assume everyone should think like you. I don’t for one second believe WB intentionally set out to hurt people with a disability.

NP. I think the poster makes a good point (which is rife on DCUM generally) your failing to see from her / his perspective enforces what he / she has actually said.

Of course they didn't do it intentionally. That's the point. But perhaps the people who came up with the idea are less defensive than you, and now that it's been pointed out to them, recognize that they might do better next time.