Hacker News Reader

Comment by slantyyz | Hacker News Reader

While I agree with the creator's point...

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.

View on HN

The fact that her negociating power wasn't strong enough to prevent this from happening doesn't mean she can't be loudly unhappy about it and try to protect her original vision in the press.

Well the ironic thing is that Zach Braff has taken a bit of heat for going to Kickstarter for "creative control". This story is a classic example of what happens when you give up creative control.

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.

Zach Braff has mostly taken heat because he's got the means to do it essentially alone (he kickstarted for $2m, he's worth >$20m, $2m is about half what he got for Scrubs S07)

What exactly do Zach Braff's finances have to do with how he funds a movie? This makes no sense. 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.

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.

> What exactly do Zach Braff's finances have to do with how he funds a movie?

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.

>> 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?

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)?

> 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.

What do you want crowdfunding to be? A "farm system" for talent that will move on to be financed by Big Content, or Big Content's inevitable replacement? Because the way you're framing it, you can't have it both ways.

I don't want anything, I don't care, I'm just trying to explain the issue people took with it.

Let's acknowledge that people are being idiots about this, then.

I can't understand this argument. If you have the means to fund something, your belief is that you're obligated to fund it yourself instead of financing it? How was anyone on Kickstarter harmed by being able to contribute to the funding a movie they wanted to see, rather than having a studio fund it start-to-finish?

It's just baffling.

She may have given up some (or all) control over the way Disney markets the character, that doesn't push the responsibility or blame onto her. What you've written is pretty much the same as any other 'blame the victim' excuse out there. Disney is the one in the position of power in this relationship (financing). The creator had the intention to create a non-stereotyped princess character. She created it, Pixar and Disney produced, released and marketed the movie. That character was highly praised in critiques, and now Disney has changed the character. She is now responding to their actions, as is her right,

I didn't say that Disney didn't do anything wrong.

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.

What makes you think she didn't see this coming? What makes you think she was naive about it? The article certainly doesn't suggest she was.

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.

>> What makes you think she didn't see this coming? What makes you think she was naive about it? The article certainly doesn't suggest she wasn't.

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.

>> What makes you think she was naive about it?

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.

I think your sarcasm detector is broken. She didn't actually mean she forgot that Disney is out to make money.

It's entirely possible for her to be sarcastic about it after the fact while recognising that's what she's done.

I don't see how you leap from "She didn't have the power to stop Disney doing this" to "She had a small part in letting this happen." The only part she had is making a movie with Merida in it. The rest of it is 100% Disney's call.

While it's not her fault that Disney decided to make stupid changes, she did give them those rights when she signed her contract with them. That's the small part I'm talking about.

Yes, as I said: She made a movie with Merida in it. That did not in any way push Disney in this direction. They made that choice all on their own. Her part was putting Merida in the movie — she had no part in the decision to change Merida.

No, but she could have shopped her project at Dreamworks or Fox and said "I'll give you my project instead of to Disney if you let me have some say with how you use my characters after the movie is made".

-- 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.

Brenda Chapman was fired from the directing role for this movie. It isn't unreasonable to try and make a compromise to create a work for a mass audience, but it is laughable to say that she has had control over anything since she was let go (the rights were already signed away at that point).

I don't think the point is that Disney has the right to do it (in fact, this director was booted midway through production), but that what Disney is doing is stupid and disheartening. And before anyone jumps to say "duh, his is what corporates do", I would say that Disney is actually a usually a pretty good steward of creative vision and characterization.

>> I would say that Disney is actually a usually a pretty good steward of creative vision and characterization.

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.

Point taken, however, would you say the same if your client, who has some programming experience, takes your code, mucks it up and deviates from the original vision? I don't think so. Especially when this is a moral issue more than it is a visionary issue.

While legalities are always complex, you can't push the blame on her for not expecting Disney to screw it up.

>> Point taken, however, would you say the same if your client, who has some programming experience, takes your code, mucks it up and deviates from the original vision?

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".

>> Point taken, however, would you say the same if your client, who has some programming experience, takes your code, mucks it up and deviates from the original vision?

> 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.

Since this is a hacker forum, I wanted to use an analogy that many could relate to here, although it seems not to have worked.

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 the chosen analogy: Fair enough, it does however present the problem of many engineer/programmer types taking such analogies a bit too literally.

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.

>> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com