Hacker News Reader

Comment by jcnnghm | Hacker News Reader

Considering they grossed $550 million on this, it's kind of hard to justify not doing it, if it tests better.

But didn't the movie gross $550 million with the original look?

This is the thing I always wonder. Did they change it because it test better, or does it test better because there is already a girl culture of cute pinkness.

Nature vs nurture sort of thing.

ethics, maybe?

It's unethical to give people what they say they want?

In many possible cases: Yes.

Who wanted this, though? All I see is backlash, not praise.

Chapman fumed. "When little girls say they like it because it's more sparkly, that's all fine and good but, subconsciously, they are soaking in the sexy 'come hither' look and the skinny aspect of the new version. It's horrible! Merida was created to break that mold — to give young girls a better, stronger role model, a more attainable role model, something of substance, not just a pretty face that waits around for romance."

That seems to indicate they tested it, and it performs better. The pushback seems to be from people whose agendas aren't being served.

The pushback doesn't come from "agendas," it comes from heated debate about the righteousness and morality of Disney's actions.

The notion that you would attribute the backlash to some sort of hidden agenda is preposterous.

Nothing hidden about Chapman's agenda. Nothing nefarious about it, either. It's an agenda I agree with. But the pushback definitely is coming from people whose agendas aren't being served.

Where did I say there's a hidden agenda? It's not hidden, it's front and center.

subconsciously, they are soaking in the sexy 'come hither' look and the skinny aspect of the new version. It's horrible! Merida was created to break that mold — to give young girls a better, stronger role model, a more attainable role model, something of substance, not just a pretty face that waits around for romance."

The silent majority who paid for the movie and didn't complain about it on the internet afterwards.

The depiction of the character in the movie is not what is upsetting people...

The whole point of ethics is to know when to say "no" to giving people what they say they want. It's kind of like a "constitutional democracy." The constitution exists to limit the things a people can say they want.

I assume by "people" you mean "marketing weasels" because everyone I've talked to about this either finds somewhere between incredibly tasteless and a sexist attack on women.

Sometimes, yes.

$550 million. Gross

And downthread you're all exercised about agenda while completely giving Disney a pass on pushing an agenda?

We get it. The "ethics" you're advocating argues for giving kids plates of sparkly sugar for dinner because it will "test better" and gross more.

Disney's agenda is to make money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com