3 ms·

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.

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.

abraininavat 14y ago
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.
- slantyyz 14y ago
  >> 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.
- pauljburke 14y ago
  >> 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.
  - abraininavat 13y ago
    I think your sarcasm detector is broken. She didn't actually mean she forgot that Disney is out to make money.
    - pauljburke 13y ago
      It's entirely possible for her to be sarcastic about it after the fact while recognising that's what she's done.

abraininavat 14y ago

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.

slantyyz 14y ago
>> 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.
pauljburke 14y ago
>> 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.
- abraininavat 13y ago
  I think your sarcasm detector is broken. She didn't actually mean she forgot that Disney is out to make money.
  - pauljburke 13y ago
    It's entirely possible for her to be sarcastic about it after the fact while recognising that's what she's done.