'Brave' creator blasts Disney for 'blatant sexism' in princess makeover(marinij.com)
marinij.com
'Brave' creator blasts Disney for 'blatant sexism' in princess makeover
http://www.marinij.com/millvalley/ci_23224741/brave-creator-blasts-disney-blatant-sexism-princess-makeover
13 comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
>> 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.
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.
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.
-- 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.
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.
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".
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
What about all the victims of our gun/weaponized culture? Maybe the move away from violence is a blessing.
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.
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.
> 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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Teenage girls actually do have shoulders and breasts and the original seems to have neither.
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.
"we all have obligations to society"
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?
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?
She's 4. If she were invited to a royal ball (at the appropriate age) I would expect (but not force) her to wear a pretty gown.
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.
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.
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?
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?
This has got to be flame bait. No one is this stupid.
If a woman is "typically" girly, that's fine. But saying a girl can't be anything else is wrong. This particular character was designed differently, and Disney is saying: no, girls can only be this way.
It's great that some children like sparkly princess phase type toys. The market is flooded with toys and films and characters for those children.
It's great that some children like tomboy style characters. There's now one less character.
It's great that some children like tomboy style characters. There's now one less character.
Look at how this discussion gets framed. I see it every single time.
It's not "oh, well now there is one less non-stereotypical character for me to idolize", it's "look at this regressive stuff! How dare they!".
How should girls that like sparkly things feel when they read this? Are they regressive? Should they be ashamed with themselves along with Disney?
It's not "oh, well now there is one less non-stereotypical character for me to idolize", it's "look at this regressive stuff! How dare they!".
How should girls that like sparkly things feel when they read this? Are they regressive? Should they be ashamed with themselves along with Disney?
Girls go through something called the princess phase.
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.
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.
Ok, so girls are genetically predisposed to a 'princess phase'? If so, I'd love to see the data backing that claim up. If not, then what is it that causing them to go through that phase (maybe the toy/entertainment companies you site as responding to the phase?)?
Wait, I didn't say "genetically predisposed"!!
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.
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.
They should just understand that other girls have different preferences and it's okay to be different and like what you want to like.
> "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.
> "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.
Why is that regressive? They presumably polled a test group and found that most people preferred a sparkly dress instead of a black one.
My niece will probably prefer the sparkly version of the princess. She's 10.
That's not regression, that's marketing.
My niece will probably prefer the sparkly version of the princess. She's 10.
That's not regression, that's marketing.
Why do you presume that? There's no basis to think that.
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.
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.
Presume that my niece will like the sparkly one?
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.
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.
Haha that's good :)
But you said They presumably polled a test group and I meant, there's no evidence to support that.
But you said They presumably polled a test group and I meant, there's no evidence to support that.
http://www.joeydevilla.com/2012/07/05/whoa-meridas-real/
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.
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.
There is a HUGE valley that separates the embraced traits you're describing about the women who surround you and the princess myth that Disney pushes on little girls (and boys!). The director is not attacking women who want to bake, dress in pink, or are nurturing. She is fuming because Disney doesn't want to allow that a female character might not want ANY of that and still be feminine.
> 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well... they took away the bow and arrow for one thing.
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.
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.
This movie presented a character who wanted to do her own thing, but because of societal conventions was being forced into her 'traditional' role. The movie (among other things) explores this and ultimately gives her the freedom she (and apparently you) desired. It doesn't say that not being a tomboy is shameful, it was intended to show that being a tomboy was not shameful.
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.
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.
There's no bow or arrows on the modified version. In that picture, she's been changed into a stereotypical Disney princess, and some other aspects of the original character design were also betrayed, like the hair and eyes.
> 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.
Is there a shortage of sparkly dresses in the Disney princess stable?
Is there a shortage of sparkly dresses in the Disney princess stable?
I think you're missing the point here. The creator of Merida designed here after a real person and didn't follow the standard Disney way of how a princess looks like. Now Disney gives here a makeover and thereby removes some of the attributes that the character and the movie was about. If I were in the position of the Merida creator I would be upset as well.
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.
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.
> Why is okay to tell my sisters that they should all be ashamed of themselves?
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.
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.
Wait, wait, stop everything.
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.
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.
Anyone who walks away from this article thinking that the above is a reasonable interpretation of what is going on here has completely missed the point.
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.
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.
No one should be saying that they should be ashamed of themselves. The problem is when people get the impression they should be ashamed of themselves for not filling these roles. This happens a lot more than the way around you are describing.
You should be ashamed of yourself for accessorizing with flannel and other manly interests precisely because you do understand the anti-intellectualism behind it. You know better, you know you could be spending time on wiser pursuits, and yet you do it. It's not the end of the world. You're not evil. We all need to try harder.
Of course, the crux of the matter is that these feminists still think Disney princesses are the most important role models for girls, thus confirming their own bias, and yet provide no alternatives of their own. Are girls supposed to look up to the shrieking harpies of Femen instead?
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.
Their movies are great as a computer person and moviegoer, since each usually contains at least one "wow, that must be really hard with computers" moment. Like the fur simulation in Monsters, Inc. or the crowd physics(ish) simulation in WALL-E, or Merida's hair as you mention. Not to mention the incredible render quality progression from Toy Story to Toy Story 3.
Who cares if it was a huge technical achievement? Why should that make a difference to Disney or kids who love Brave?
I can see it now: "Girl With The Pearl Earring: Bratz Doll Edition".
I watched the movie awhile ago, but I remember that you could really see how much effort and character they put into her hair. That and the bow are the most distinctive parts of her character design.
It's a cartoon rendering--a different canvas if you will. It wouldn't make sense to have 3d hair with inertia strapped to a painting. (Though there was some success in Treasure Planet).
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?
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?
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.
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...
Though I take issue with the Disney Princesses brand for many other reasons, I can't find evidence of the allegations in this article.
- 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.
[deleted]
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
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.
That's offensive? That the girl might sometimes wear a more expensive dress? Maybe it's a special occasion.
What the creator and others are finding offensive is that a character largely defined by her resistance to such things and a desire to be independent (in many senses) is being primarily presented by Disney in a typical stereotyped, dolled up fashion entirely contrary to that intent.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Dress is lower cut than original. Waistline is considerably smaller than original, which emphasises bust (which probably hasn't changed) and hips / ass (which also probably haven't changed).
Apparently they've changed it back and apologised, but I can't find a source for it. Anyone have any better luck finding it?
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.
Nature vs nurture sort of thing.
ethics, maybe?
It's unethical to give people what they say they want?
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.
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.
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.
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."
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."
[deleted]
In many possible cases: Yes.
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.
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.
[deleted]
So if you don't try to manipulate girls into being tomboys, then you are a sexist.
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? :)
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? :)
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.
Hell, I'm autistic and even I know that.
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.
I applaud your efforts and I nonetheless disagree. Sometimes, it's justified.
It makes good discussion less likely. Please don't do it.
The initial poster made "good discussion" impossible with that post.
Yes. But insulting him makes it worse. It's toxic, and adds to the noise.
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
I don't agree in this case, because OP is setting up a false premise: if you are opposed to corporate makeover, you're "manipulating girls to be tomboys" which is patently ridiculous. OP is in fact a dickhead this time.
Huh. I read the parent comment significantly different then you did. I thought he was saying that people shouldn't try to get real, living and breathing girls to be tomboys. If they want to be tomboy, that's cool. If they want to be a princess, that's cool too.
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.
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.
I'm suspecting that the comment you replied to was trolling. Something so outrageous and contrarian-for-the-sake of it doesn't really need a response.
It's that Merida (the character) is fiercely independent and as-drawn, is closer in appearance to a real girl. The "new" look trashes all that and is a retread of all the current Disney princess tropes.
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?"
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?"
None of those changes are particularly bothersome.
"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.
"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.
The idea that a girl is a tomboy if she's not wearing a sparkly girdle and makeup is the problem.
It's part of the problem. The other part is that "tomboy" 1. exists and 2. is an insult, as if girls are "doing it wrong" if they like to play in the woods or throw cow shit on the grumpy neighbor.
Opinions like yours make me sad for all of humanity. Have you read the article? And are you willing to elaborate on your views any more?
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.
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.
Nope. I think girls should be allowed to be tomboys if they want to. Or be girly girls if they want to.
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.
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.
I don't think that was the intent of the article. Rather, here was a potential _alternative_ role model which has been rolled back into the "princess" fold. The whole point of Merida, and the reason our family has loved her, is that she's a tomboy. She plays with bows and horses because she finds it _fun_. The message of her character isn't that it's bad to be a girly-girl, but rather that it's OK not to be.
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.
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 point of the article is not at all that it's immoral to portray girly-girls, but that it's immoral to set that archetype up as a universal ideal and try to force all female characters into that mold. I don't know how on earth you got the former interpretation.
I'm positively sure there are enough "girly girls" among the eleven Disney Princesses (read: ten Princesses) that one tomboy should not be a big deal.
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.
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.
"I read the article as saying that it is immoral to portray girly girls"
You should try reading the article when you claim you read something.
You should try reading the article when you claim you read something.
Sorry, as opposed to we must always show them princesses to give the girls the right role models?
You are for this?
You are for this?
Girls should be discouraged from being too feminine (princesses) just as boys should be discouraged from being too masculine (fighting, guns). Both are debilitating to children and childhood.
Are you arguing against strict gender roles or for them?
While not a big fan of the movie, my impression was the character trait expressed was self-determination. I'm not even sure what you mean by "tomboy" as she was still a feminine character.
And now I have no idea what you mean by tomboy, since it's definitely possible to be both a tomboy in some ways, but feminine in others.
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.
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.
'In an email to the Independent Journal on Saturday, she said she has given Bob Iger, president of Walt Disney International, "a piece of my mind" for the entertainment giant's decision to glamorize the tomboy character she envisioned.'
'"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.
'"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.
She was interested in traditionally masculine activities, such as shooting and fighting.
Manipulating girls into being princesses damages half of society. That's the only point.
The process damages more than half of society, though.
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.