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

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.

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

How is it that you cringe when friends get your daughter princess gifts but feel your daughter has a social obligation to (at times) act like a princess whether she likes it or not?

Of course being a princess invited to a royal ball is not a frequent situation, so I don't want her spending much time focusing on it. In short, it isn't wrong just unrealistic.

There is some overlap and conflicting priorities there, I agree. Hence the itchiness.

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?

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.

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.

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.

It seems like you're over-analyzing this from an anti-political-correctness dogma. The fact is no girl is made to feel guilty for liking sparkly dresses just like no man is made to feel guilty for liking camping. Just because someone complains about the sexism of the stereotypical portrayal is not an attack against the existence of the base archetype, and you are quite frankly being way oversensitive to take it as such. It's the same reason that there's no such thing as "reverse racism": as a member of a privileged group, whatever indignation you feel pales in comparison to the that blacks / women / girls have had to deal with when they step out of accepted social norms.

What's wrong with having a choice? Should all movies show men only doing manly things? Is it shameful for men to be in less than stereotyped roles? The presentation shown to many girls is precisely that they are expected to fall into certain roles. Breaking that mold is not a bad thing.

You haven't seen the movie, so you have no first-hand knowledge of the relevant issues the co-director is trying to address. Specifically, the issue is not feminine identity as a whole (or the fact that Disney has 8-9 other princesses who have that demographic pretty much sewn up) but that one of the biggest themes in Brave is that Merida doesn't want to be the stereotypical princess that society says she has to be; she can and does choose to be the tomboy archer who goes her own way.

BUT NO! Intelligent discussion and on-topic conversation be damned, you have something to say about your five sisters and how they like to bake in sparkly clothes while you like to be manly! GREAT! GO DO THAT! NO ONE IS SAYING YOU CAN'T.

But that's not good enough. Instead, you create a contrarian strawman that has nothing to do with the OP but that riles up the internet masses who want to defend personal visions of gender identity which have never been in question. If internet comments mattered, I'd call your behavior shameful, but that'd be overselling it. Instead I'll just point out that you have no room to speak about intellectual communities if this is your modus operandi.

It's not that liking girly things is shameful or bad. People should be free to like whatever they want. The problem is that this character had design and writing elements that tried to make it different from that girly princess mold, but over time those facets of the character have been removed to make a more stereotyped character. Keep in mind the original director and originator of this character, Brenda Chapman, was fired from the director role of Brave (she was the first female director for Pixar).

> 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?

Not at all. However, it is good to have diverse representations and there is a significant lack of representations of women that don't fall into a particular set of stereotypes and tropes. That a character that was created to be different from those tropes is being forced back into them by a corporation known for not having diverse representations of women is the issue.

It's great that some children like tomboy style characters. There's now one less character.

Toy makers know this, and ruthlessly exploit it. That's why toy stores are chock a block full of that particular pink / purple combination. It has been tested.

Reader, you think you AB tested that signup button? Toys is a multi-billion dollar industry. They've tested those colours.

But then girls grow out of that phase. Some of them don't ever totally leave it. See Bic pens for women. (http://www.bicworld.com/en/products/details/420/bic-for-her) Some of them grow out of it early.

So here's an example where a strong character gets trimmed down a bit. Disney do this because they want to sell merch. There's nothing wrong with making (a lot of) money, but watering down creative vision to do so is probably bad. And people are criticising disney for making this character less special.

We'll see what happens next time this character is in a movie. Maybe Disney will create an awesome story with strong plot lines etc.

I didn't give any reason for cause.

In my opinion (and this is just me guessing) it's exactly because society dresses girls up in pink frilly stuff and every toy is pink and sparkly.

So it now becomes a self-reinforcing loop - they like pink and sparkly, people buy pink and sparkly, toy makers provide pink and sparkly, there are no other toys[1] to buy so they keep getting pink and sparkly.

[1] I remember when Lego was unisex. It was just blocks. Now it's STARWARS blocks, or pink and sparkly stuff blocks. Obviously boys and girls can play with whatever they like, but peer pressure is weird at that age.

There's a big niche in the market (it's being filled now) for toys that are great and unisex. You'll have plenty of examples, but check the age ranges, then check against the total toy supply.

There's also a need for clothing that doesn't say things like "Here comes trouble" for boys or "little princess" for girls. Something aspirational and fun and gender-neutral.

> "look at this regressive stuff! How dare they!"

In this case it's regressive because Merida was originally a tomboy changed into the stereotype of a Disney Princess. I would not be outraged about this if Merida was originally that way in Brave.

My niece will probably prefer the sparkly version of the princess. She's 10.

That's not regression, that's marketing.

Also: If Disney already has a dozen sparkly girly princesses, adding one with a different target market should expand their customer base. Adding another to the same group might just cannibalize sales of other existing sparkly princesses.

Because I spend a lot of time with her. Mostly at the hackerspace teaching her what a 3D printer is, how to make an arduino blink faster, and how to design files so that I can laser cut them.

But you said They presumably polled a test group and I meant, there's no evidence to support that.

I think the above costume was pretty tastefully "sparkled" up. If you want more, you could add the tiara from the movie or a more jeweled belt. Not even the Queen, mother of Merida and trying to shove the princess ideal down her throat, was _that_ dressed up for even the main event of the movie. I don't think this is any plainer or boring looking compared to some of the other Disney Princesses.

Also, not everything has to appeal to your niece or other girls or else we're telling them it's bad to be feminine. There's still a target audience for the Merida from the movie and it doesn't step on the toes of those that want a sparkly Princess.

Is there a shortage of sparkly dresses in the Disney princess stable?

Nobody seriously objects to lots of girls liking sparkling pretty things. Or to there being lots of role models for that.

The objection is to the complete lack of alternate role models for girls who don't fit into that mold. And for mutilating a character who emphatically was not of that mold.

To draw an ice cream analogy, this is chocolate lovers upset that they are being offered every variety of vanilla, and nowhere any chocolate.

I also have 2 daughters who are big fans of the Disney princesses, but I would very much like it if they at least had the option to chose a princess that doesn't follow the standard formula of the previous 10 Disney princesses.

That's begging the question. It isn't about telling people to be ashamed of themselves at all. It is about changing society to have more appreciation for people who don't fit the traditional stereotypes.

This stuff is all around us, it is the cultural equivalent of the air we breath - so omnipresent that we don't even notice it. When I looked at the before and after pictures, I didn't even notice anything particularly different between them. That sort of pervasiveness means lots of people have internalized it and will take it as an attack on their person, but that isn't the intent. It may be an unavoidable side-effect though, it seems like anytime social norms are challenged - gay marriage, ERA, miscegenation, universal suffrage, school integration, etc, there are people who take those challenges as a personal attack rather than a societal reform.

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?

- http://princess.disney.com/merida

- http://blog.disneystore.com/blog/2013/05/merida-officially-b...

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

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

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.

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.

Nature vs nurture sort of thing.

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

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."

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.

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? :)

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

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

I don't think he was talking about manipulating the character, but rather manipulating the young, impressionable girls watching said character.

Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know.

In other words, she now looks like she was designed by a committee.

"Need to lose the bow - we don't want to promote weapons." "Can we change her eyes to look more oriental? We need to appeal more to the Chinese market." "Why is her dress so dull? Can we liven it up with some sparkles & gold?"

"Cinch in the waistline; cut that top a bit lower" are a bit more worrying. The new character looks deformed. All cartoon characters do, but this one more so.

Are you actually arguing that eschewing the default generic social stereotypes that Disney seem determined to cram down everyone's throats is equal to manipulating girls into being 'tomboys'? Are you saying that girls shouldn't be allowed to choose anything other that 'girly' activities, opinions and clothes?

Because if you are then yes, you are sexist.

I read the article as saying that it is immoral to portray girly girls. Instead we must always show tomboys, to give girls the right role models.

I am against that.

Apparently, many families felt similarly about her character -- that she's a positive role model to have in addition to (not, IMO, in lieu of) the other Disney princesses. Disney changing that seems like a "missed the point" sort of issue -- I definitely had a "what the heck?" moment when I saw the Merida dolls that didn't have a bow, for example. However, I also see the merits of an older Merida as a princess figure. Perhaps she finds she likes dress-up more, in addition to wild rides with mud and bow, as she becomes a teen.

The only Princess that comes close to Merida in this regard is probably the one I grew up with: Mulan. But Mulan is portrayed as being so beautiful that it almost doesn't matter that she's clumsy and headstrong because her beauty alone would carry her a far way. To a very plain (then) girl this was still a pretty awful message and instead I resorted to reading books that didn't tell me that I had to fit a specific mold I wanted no part of. Now I get to watch Merida and watch my friends' kids watch Merida and I'm glad they have a mainstream choice that tells them it's okay not to be one of the other ten Princesses.

There is nothing wrong with giving kids a choice. If anything, changing Merida to fit the usual Princess mold is pushing girls to believe that "girly girl" is the norm and tomboys are unacceptable.

You should try reading the article when you claim you read something.

You are for this?

Anyway, the article characterizes her as a tomboy, and I think you'd find the word used often in reviews of the movie. Her enjoyment of archery and tramping through the outdoors over sewing and fancy dresses pretty clearly fits into any reasonable definition of the word.

'"There is an irresponsibility to this decision that is appalling for women and young girls," she said,'

'"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."'

'Signers variously described the new Merida as "vapid," "arm candy," "unrealistic" and "vacant looking."'

From the article.