The last thing we need are role models that pride appearance over substance. We have too many victims of that pseudo-culture already in the present day.
Taking a step back from this, you have to ask "how could this have happened?"
Chances are that her original contract lets Disney do this. I wouldn't be surprised if she signed away the rights (for sequels and merchandise) to the movie's characters to Disney/Pixar in her contract. Several years ago, Disney dangled the fact that they could release crappy Toy Story sequels over Pixar when they were renegotiating the renewal of their deal.
In fact, I doubt this movie would have been made had she not signed away those rights, and I assume her lawyer let her know what the real-world implications of that would have been.
In other words, I don't know how she couldn't have seen this coming. While she might have assumed the best in Disney, she had a small part in letting this happen.
Being loudly unhappy when you're not a powerhouse like Steven Spielberg is not a good career move, because her next contract will likely have the same terms, and a big studio might think twice about hiring someone who will say negative things publicly after a movie is released.
The whole Braff kerfluffle seems so aggressively cut- off- nose- to- spite- face stupid; that somehow it's a bad thing when mainstream artists use crowdsourcing platforms as a substitute for the studio system, when in fact that's exactly what we need to have happen to disentangle content from holding companies and studios.
That if his motivation is the desire to retain creative control he does not need crowdfunding to do so.
> It argues either that Braff's fans would be somehow better off if he didn't make the new movie at all, or that Braff is somehow obligated work on projects for his fans.
It argues neither. It asks the question: you apparently want to do this, you seem to have the means to do it, why do you go through a crowdfunding site? The move also sends the message to potential funders that the creator doesn't really believe in the project so he wants others to bear the risks of it.
Which is (at least in part) incorrect since Braff contributes funds to it[0], sadly there's no more details and it's easy to miss it even when looking for the info. And of course the vultures who want to make copy will avoid asking this question and go for the outrage instead. But I don't see the issue with asking about it if it's done in good faith. I'm happy to know e.g. Brian Fargo is putting 100k of his own money into Torment, that tells me he believes in the thing.
[0] > I am absolutely contributing my own money to the funding of the film, but I actually can't afford to cover the entire cost of production. With a combination of my own personal funds, backing from my fans and the sale of some of the film's foreign rights, I will be able to make the film I intended to make which I am hoping is a film you want to see.
Isn't the standard operating procedure for making movies to go out and find other people to finance the bulk of your project, whether it be private investors or a big studio? A lot of rich stars/producers/directors get financing even though they could afford to do it all by themselves.
>> Why do you go through a crowdfunding site?
Because it's trendy and has worked for some other projects (i.e., Veronica Mars)?
Right, and that's the other thing people can take offense to. Many early "big" crowdfunding project had a feeling of "you're making it possible at all", that makes people think they can have an impact. "I heard there's free money to be had"... not so much.
It's just baffling.
But it's naive to assume that the corporation you're dealing with won't use the contract to their advantage. You have to assume that it's going to happen.
You can say that I'm characterizing it as "blame the victim", but the creator is not a victim here. The movie that she created is intact. The likeness of a character that she in essence sold to Disney has changed. And I'm sure she still makes money from sales of this modification.
She's well within her rights to speak out against this change, but like I said, she signed away those rights. I'll concede that she probably had no choice in the matter, but let's not pretend that this was some unpredictable act by Disney.
You seem to be arguing against someone who would ask "how could this have happened?" You're the only person who brought up that question, two posts up.
Actually I read the line "I forget that Disney's goal is to make money without concern for integrity. Silly me."
as implying exactly that.
Personally, I think she knew it could happen but hoped it wouldn't. But she made her deal with the devil - make the movie and lose the rights, or not make the movie at all.
Also, let's not forget that she will still make money from the changes to the character -- if Disney's research proves to be right, she'll actually be making more money from those changes than she would have pre-change.
The creator's actually in a pretty good position, she can complain about the change while potentially making more profits from them.
-- edit response below was to some text that appears to now have been deleted from the parent
>> You're essentially saying, "Well, she shouldn't have been walking alone at night if she didn't want the consequences."
This again? Come on. When you sign a contract most of what can or can't happen is already spelled out. You don't sign a contract unless the stuff you're getting back in return outweighs or balances with the stuff you're willing to giving away. A reasonable person walks into a contract like this with a lawyer and knows exactly what they're getting into. This isn't the same as signing some credit card application where you don't get to make modifications to the contract.
IIRC, right before they bought Pixar, Disney's animation division was a mess. It was releasing crappy direct-to-video sequels one after another, and their deal with Pixar was the only thing producing high quality content.
While legalities are always complex, you can't push the blame on her for not expecting Disney to screw it up.
If my contract with them allows them to do that, then I don't really care. I do make sure that client contracts prevent them from touching code until it has been officially handed off, however.
I only said she had a small part in allowing it to happen. Corporate behaviour changes with executive turnover. The next CEO of a company may not honor promises made by previous CEOs.
I consider it naive to put any amount of trust in a corporation to rise above the wording in the contracts when it comes to "doing the right thing".
> If my contract with them allows them to do that, then I don't really care. I do make sure that client contracts prevent them from touching code until it has been officially handed off, however.
Code is rarely intended to convey an artistic vision or social message. These kinds of analogies are not very effective. A better comparison would be something like if The Jungle had been madeover to suggest that immigrants had it easy and there were no problems in the meatpacking industry. It's a whitewashed, unnuanced version of a fantasy, and largely antithetical to the original creators intent.
The problem with your reasoning, however, is that Sinclair had the choice of several publishers, and could have chosen to publish the book at a later date had no publisher respected the source material. The creator of Merida had no publishers; she had to submit to Disney and keep her fingers crossed, and they betrayed her anyway.
Combine that with the deadlines that she probably had to face for the character itself, and you end up with a decision by Disney that really deserves reprimanding.
Re Sinclair: I agree, probably not the best example, but when trying to think of a book with an intended social commentary it was the first that popped into my head. There are almost certainly better examples.
How about V for Vendetta then, the original book had a much clearer idea of anarchy, totalitarianism and the consequences of each than that watered down movie.
This is why Salman Rushdie sold the movie rights to Midnight's Children for only $1. On the Daily Show, he said he wanted to maintain creative input into how the movie was made. I'm sure he gets compensated by being a producer, but it shows how much he was willing to give up in terms of money in exchange for this ability.
To be honest, I don't think she's that much thinner if at all in the after image excusing the fact that the before image is enlarged slightly to make a point (her head goes higher and her feet go lower).
If someone is claiming that a girl that likes the dress on the left couldn't possibly like the dress on the right, I think they're the ones with a serious holdup of appearance over substance.
They did clearly make the new her paler though. Maybe that will help prevent girls from falling victim to skin cancer.
This makes me wonder if you've watched the movie at all. It has nothing to do with arbitrary beliefs of people on the internet and everything to do with Merida in the movie fighting against wearing a similar dress.
In fact said dress was part of my second favorite scene in the movie, and one of the first available clips before the movie's release: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taIFiRD18jM