Onward, Pixar’s latest film, is set to release in March. On the surface, it seems promising: it’s a mythological movie, it’s set in modern times, it’s starring two teenaged mages and it’s a road trip movie. This has Pixar’s stamp of brilliance written all-over it. Sufficed to say, I’m really excited to watch it.
Unfortunately, reality’s making me feel a little guilty about that. The Hollywood Reporter recently posted an article suggesting that Pixar committed plagiarism with its van design. And not only that, but they didn’t credit the original artist. And not only that, but now the artist, a unicorn aficionado named Sweet Cecily Daniher, is taking Pixar and Disney to court. Yikes!
I’ve made it no secret that I’m a Disney fan, but not an uncritical one. I’ve written about James Gunn, the 20th Century Fox merger and Pixar’s issue with sexism. I like their work, but even I know when to draw the line. This is one of those moments. Say what you will about Gunn and 20th Century Fox (and possibly even the misogyny), but none of it, I’d hope, was illegal. Maybe it was “wrong” ethically, but a case could made in defence of it. If Daniher’s lawsuit checks out, and I see no reason why it wouldn’t, then this is both illegal and disappointing.
“It has drawn ‘considerable press attention,’ according to Daniher, who says a San Francisco Magazine piece sparked Pixar's attention and the company reached out about renting her vehicle for a special event in September 2018. She says she was told 'the Vanicorn would be used for an event limited to 'a one day music festival/activity day for Pixar employees and families' and that the Vanicorn 'would just be a show piece and not used in any way other than a visual prop…’
…In the complaint, Daniher says Rae apologized and admitted they intentionally didn't inform her that they intended to use the Vanicorn as a character in Onward because, at the time, the film didn't have a title and without a title they couldn't have her sign a non-disclosure agreement.”
There you have it: a full-on admission of guilt!
Unfortunately, such is the case. And it sucks because Onward’s future is now uncertain. This film could potentially be shelved, like Newt was almost a decade ago. Except that, unlike Newt, Onward’s finished and ready for release. This’d be like that important research paper you’ve been promising getting scrapped months before publication because one of the sources was in dispute. Even if the disputation is valid, it’s still a shame.
So what now? I don’t know. I’m aware that Daniher’s original design and the vehicle in the film have differences, but so what? Pixar’s admitted fault here, and that’s pretty terrible from a PR point-of-view. It doesn’t help that Daniher’s story’s pretty telling of the creative field in general: people make works of art, only to have bigger names take it as their own and not credit them. It’s happened before, and it’ll happen again. If you want proof, look no further than Eric Carter.
I get it: Daniher was wronged by a studio that knew better. And she deserves a happy ending. I know that NDAs are tricky, so I’ll side-step that altogether, but Pixar can try extending an olive branch and making this right. It’d be petty to let it slide.
I also want to remind people to credit artists when you incorporate or use their work. Please. We already struggle feeding ourselves in a world that treats us like rugs while expecting gold, so having our labour be stolen without recognition wounds the heart. It pisses on our contributions and tells us we don’t matter. It also robs us of our voices.
No comments:
Post a Comment