
'Brave' creator blasts Disney for 'blatant sexism' in princess makeover - DiabloD3
http://www.marinij.com/millvalley/ci_23224741/brave-creator-blasts-disney-blatant-sexism-princess-makeover
======
kunai
I agree completely with the creator. The movie's ethos, its own theme lambasts
this sort of behavior.

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.

~~~
slantyyz
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.

~~~
AceJohnny2
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.

~~~
slantyyz
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.

~~~
masklinn
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)

~~~
tptacek
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.

~~~
masklinn
> 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.

~~~
slantyyz
>> 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)?

~~~
masklinn
> 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.

~~~
tptacek
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.

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

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

------
mixmastamyk
I'm not a fan of Disney princess line and cringe when friends get our daughter
gifts from it. However, the kids seem to like it and I don't worry much
otherwise, as we keep contact limited.

So I tend to understand the aggravation of the author. But, it feels like an
over-reaction here (though it may be the article's tone). I didn't feel
outraged despite the article and comments here expecting/demanding me to be.

I had to look hard at the picture. Looks like they threw Merida in the
bathtub, and put her in a nice dress and eye-color for the "ball." But, when
the Princesses get together that's how they get dressed up, for a party, no?
Evening wear is expected and appropriate in that situation. Is Merida supposed
to show up for the Oscars in riding-chaps and bow?

If this is the only representation of Merida from now on, I'd agree with the
anger. But, even tomboys would dress up for a ball, even if they felt a bit
itchy. They would get a lot of compliments too. That's how the world works,
folks. Men have to fit into expectations too--the suit/tuxedo is ridiculous at
< 35 degrees latitude.

So, I feel no outrage for her to have a bit of range. From the fox-hunt to the
royal ball. Even if she'd be a bit uncomfortable, we all have obligations to
society.

~~~
sp332
I don't think the photo they show is very clear. The waist is now impossibly
thin, the boobs are more up-front and perky. Also the dress is not just pretty
but sultry, which seems inappropriate for a young girl (this character
especially). I don't know if you've seen the movie, but the character
specifically acts against conventions that don't suit her. Dressing her up
this way implies that the style suits her, and her creator disagrees.

~~~
mixmastamyk
I did a google search and found some other pictures. It's true, she's a touch
more conventionally attractive, but the rendering seems pretty conservative to
me. In the realm of having her fit in with the others, artistic license, etc.

Teenage girls actually do have shoulders and breasts and the original seems to
have neither.

~~~
sp332
I think the problem with the new version is that it's too specifically
designed to be attractive to men at the expense of every other aspect of the
character.

------
blhack
Something that has bothered me for a long time about this attitude:

People don't realize that some girls, in fact lots of girls, in fact I would
say most of the girls I know _like_ stereotypical "girly" things. They would
_like_ to have a dress that is sparkly like the one in the photo.

The idea that who they are is somehow shameful is disgusting, and it's
disgusting to me that the third-wave feminists, or whatever the group is that
is pushing this rhetoric, seems to get a free pass on it.

I have five sisters. Do you know what most of them love? Baking, taking care
of my nieces, dressing in sparkly clothes, the color pink, etc. etc.

One of my sisters recently took up woodworking. She went to the store, she
bought a table saw, and now she makes things for one of her kids.

Know what she still loves? Know which version of this princess she would
prefer?

Should she be ashamed of herself for that? Is she not a _real_ woman, is she
weak? Is she submitting to the evil male patriarchy every time she puts on a
pink t-shirt or does something sterotypically girly?

Because THAT is what people like this are making them feel like. Like they're
failures as women because of the things that they like.

\--

And as long as we're talking about gender roles, let's reverse it.

I _like_ being manly. I like wearing flannel, I like chopping wood, I like
welding, I like using a band saw, I like having a beard, I like having a big
knife strapped to my belt when I'm camping, and I like building things out of
wood.

Can you _imagine_ if there was a large group of people labeling themselves as
progressive intellectuals who went out of their way to decry this "manly"
behavior as somehow shameful? Every time I fire up a welder, I'm failing the
rest of my gender for it. Every time I light a camp fire, I'm pushing my
gender back.

I should get rid of my stereotypically mannish flannel, and get something more
progressive. A beard? What, so that people can look at me as some sort of
manly _object_? Shave it off! Don't let them hold you down!

The most jarring thing about this entire subset of discussions is that it
seems to happen in communities that otherwise consider themselves
intellectual.

Please help me understand why. Why is okay to tell my sisters that they should
all be ashamed of themselves?

~~~
silencio
There is nothing wrong with liking stereotypical "girly" things, or ten of the
eleven Disney Princesses being stereotypical girls.

There is also nothing wrong with being a tomboy, or having one of the eleven
Disney Princesses being a tomboy.

While I'm sure there are some extremists out there that want to see nothing
but tomboys and hate pink colored things, I think (and hope) most people are
just outraged that the only tomboy Princess was changed into something that
she clearly didn't want in the movie. This isn't saying that being
stereotypically "girly" is bad, but that being a tomboy is. Nobody's asking
for the likes of Snow White or Cinderella to become a tomboy 'cause fuck being
a girly girl.

As someone that grew up as a tomboy but likes baking and knitting and dressing
up, I would vastly prefer a Merida that stayed true to the movie rather than
yet another girly Princess because goodness knows there are enough of those.
And I don't think protesting Disney for this change to Merida is saying that
being girly is a bad thing.

~~~
blhack
I haven't seen this movie, only the previews...

Isn't the princess in the movie an archer? Why can't giving her a sparkly
dress mean: "It's okay to wear a sparkly dress and do archery at the same
time! Do whatever you want!"

That seems...more in line with the idea of liberating people from binary
gender roles.

~~~
silencio
As much as I now want to see the Disney Princesses do that while in their
finest dresses...

In the movie, she objects to the sparkly dress because it's too confining and
isn't anything like what she wants to wear. In the archery scene where she
does wear the sparkly dress, she causes a mini uproar because you can see her
corset and underthings as she rips the dress in the process of showing
everyone up. Speaking of which, it's the same corset that her mother helps her
put on in a painful scene before the archery one and she's told she has to
conform to a specific set of beauty "ideals" to be a fitting princess and heir
to the throne.

So, seeing Merida in the sparkly dress she hated so much and without her bow
and arrows is pretty distressing to me.

------
tptacek
The worst part about the makeover is that Merida's hair was a huge technical
achievement for Pixar (watch a clip carefully to see why), and Disney
airbrushed it out.

~~~
macspoofing
Who cares if it was a huge technical achievement? Why should that make a
difference to Disney or kids who love Brave?

~~~
tptacek
I can see it now: "Girl With The Pearl Earring: Bratz Doll Edition".

------
revelation
I'm having a hard time to even see the difference. That is, they both seem
impractical.

If you want your character to be a "strong role-model", maybe try
communicating that through actions, not clothes and hair styles? I thought
that kind of obsession is what we were trying to fix?

~~~
dasil003
Well there _is_ a movie in which actions take place that actually involve the
clothes, so there is a legitimate context for the whole discussion.

------
bsimpson
Both the Disney store and her Disneyland costume portray Merida as depicted in
the film:

\- <http://princess.disney.com/merida>

\- [http://blog.disneystore.com/blog/2013/05/merida-
officially-b...](http://blog.disneystore.com/blog/2013/05/merida-officially-
becomes-disneys-11th-princess-with-royal-celebration.html)

Though I take issue with the Disney Princesses brand for many other reasons, I
can't find evidence of the allegations in this article.

------
king_jester
Is anyone surprised? Disney isn't exactly known for representations of women
that don't fall into standard sexist tropes:
tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Franchise/DisneyPrincess

------
nsxwolf
Hair is not as good as original. Dress is more ornate. So what?

That's offensive? That the girl might sometimes wear a more expensive dress?
Maybe it's a special occasion.

~~~
mcherm
Do you remember that one movie where Richard Stallman gets up and makes a
speech about how once in a while people need to set aside their ideals so we
can actually make a real profit?

If they DID make such a movie, would it bother you?

It would bother me, because the while POINT of Richard Stallman (as far as I
can tell) is to be stridently opposed to ever bending on these principles. I
don't have a problem with people who put profits above principle, it's that I
have a problem with Richard Stallman doing it -- it suggests that EVERYONE
should put profits above principle.

~~~
nsxwolf
I see a couple minor stylistic changes made to what a character is wearing.

I guess I need to see the movie, and the part where it's made obvious that
"this girl would never wear anything other than a black burlap sack, ever,
ever in her life, even in the future after the story ends. Ever." But I still
don't think it would constitute some offensive sexist outrage. It would just
be an inconsistent portrayal.

~~~
itsybitsycoder
Er, her original dress is a floor-length green velvet one. You're exaggerating
more than a bit. And maybe you do need to see the movie, since there are
multiple scenes about how much she hates wearing dresses like this.

------
rubinelli
Disney pasteurizes another princess before adding her to its roster. How is
that news?

~~~
rz2k
So they pastoralized the archetype for the movie, then pasteurized the
iteration for later marketing?

------
ajanuary
Apparently they've changed it back and apologised, but I can't find a source
for it. Anyone have any better luck finding it?

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

~~~
djKianoosh
ethics, maybe?

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

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

~~~
jcnnghm
_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.

~~~
kunai
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.

~~~
function_seven
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.

------
im3w1l
So if you don't try to manipulate girls into being tomboys, then you are a
sexist.

~~~
EliRivers
You (deliberately contrarian for the sake of it?)dickhead. The character
already was a tomboy (or rather, a female wanting to control her own outcomes
in life).

Normally I try not to insult people, and just attack their argument, but
sometimes it's just really justified.

Edited: To insert "deliberately contrarian", to specify the behaviour
prompting the insult. It's not the person, it's the action. All happy now? :)

~~~
phaus
It's actually not justified. There's always a way to let someone know that
they are wrong without resorting to childish name-calling.

Hell, I'm autistic and even I know that.

~~~
EliRivers
Ah, I suspect you have learned a set of social rules that allow you to
function in society despite your autism, and one such rule is "don't insult
people".

I applaud your efforts and I nonetheless disagree. Sometimes, it's justified.

~~~
scott_s
It makes good discussion less likely. Please don't do it.

~~~
illuminate
The initial poster made "good discussion" impossible with that post.

~~~
scott_s
Yes. But insulting him makes it worse. It's toxic, and adds to the noise.

~~~
illuminate
Agreed. But where there's so little signal to the noise, there's generally not
going to be much to debate, just heckling back and forth :p

