Disney Debates: #3 Disney Princesses, long term damage?

[ichabod]

Well here we go with a new series which intende to provoke thought and discussion about an all aspects of Disney. Each week an issue will be brought up which hopefully will allow members to voice their opinions.

The subjects for discussion may be debates relating to all aspects of the company. When I bring up a subject it may be my opinion, or it may not be. I may just be playing devil's advocate and trying to provoke a reaction. Who knows.

Debate: #3 Disney Princesses, short term profit, long term damage?

A number of Disney's animated films have relied upon classic fairy tales as source material. And classic fairy tales usually come with a princess as part of the package. Therefore Disney has acquired a number of Princesses along the way. It should be pointed out however that the majority of Disney films feature no princess whatsoever, but still Disney has a reputation for making fairy tales and princess movies.

With the Disney princess franchise this link has been made more apparant, and the Disney=Princesses mindset is seemingly now ingrained upon the public mindset.

There have been a number of direct to video sequels, prequels, midquels and other packages of princess material which usually is made on a shoestring budget.

Disney's upcoming projects have "Rapunzel" and "The Princess and the Frog" and "Enchanted". It seems Disney's desire to swell its Princess ranks is quite large and one would question whether these upcoming films are being made out of artistic development and creativity or whether Disney are just making them because in turn they know they can flog the merchandise to little girls and also because Disney thinks that it is the only way they'll have a successful film by giving the public the thing they expect from Disney.

So whilst Disney in the short term can make substantial profit from banging out DVDs and dolls, what will the long term effects be? If people begin to associate Disney with nothing but princesses, mostly direct to video with sub par animation and threadbare storylines, will there come a point when Disney will realise that they'd hammered their nails in their own coffin? Will the public one day one day think of Disney as "That cheap studio that makes all the princess crap". Will the upcoming princess films offer something new and creative to the Disney cannon, expand their reportoire, or just be generic boy meets girl, insert fluffy animal here and "Poor me, I wish life could change" musical number here, films which show the stale state of success/money hungry Disney? Will creativity and diversity in animation, live action, television and the parks have a place?

So Disney princesses, short term profit, but long term damage?

Your thoughts.

Oh and p.s.,
Let's just try to stick to the topic shall we. Let's not turn this into a "We hate Cinderella II club" or a "I don't know squat about animation and think that Enchanted Tales had better animation than Atlantis" madhouse. We get the fact that some of you like the direct to video stuff. Oh and anyone who makes a post less than 20 words is officially giving me permission to mock them in my signature as a "pointless posting waste of space".

________________

Other Disney Debates
Disney Debates: #1 Snow White should be redubbed for blu-ray started by Ichabod
<a href="http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... t=">Disney Debates: #2 Are People too accepting of Pixar films?</a> started by 2099net

[blackcauldron85]

Will the public one day one day think of Disney as "That cheap studio that makes all the princess crap". Will the upcoming princess films offer something new and creative to the Disney cannon, expand their reportoire, or just be generic boy meets girl, insert fluffy animal here and "Poor me, I wish life could change" musical number here, films which show the stale state of success/money hungry Disney?

Well, I think that Disney's reputation, overall, hasn't been too tarnished by the direct-to-video movies. Overtime, especially in a few years once they aren't making anymore direct-to-video sequels of the DACs, people will remember Disney's quality and not just think of the DTVs.

As far as the "generic"-type movies you mentioned, some people feel that way about Disney movies, regardless of if there's a princess in them. My parents are coming down for Thanksgiving, and I told my mom all about "Enchanted", since I want to see it. She's interested in seeing it, and I think my husband is interested in seeing it. So, I figured that the four of us could go to the theater. My mom said that my dad "hates" Disney movies and that Disney movies are like Broadway shows, and my dad complains when my mom plays Broadway music. I said that watching a Disney movie is different than just listening to a random Broadway soundtrack. Anyhoo, my dad told me that he doesn't "hate" the Disney movies, but that he only went to see my enjoyment of them, and that he'll see "Enchanted" to see my happiness, too. So, all my life I thought that my dad liked Disney movies, but in reality, he only saw them because of me. So, my point is that, regardless of the princesses, some people think that all the Disney DACs are generic and fluffy, with random songs thrown in. So, the princesses won't tarnish that reputation even more.

I think that the Disney Princess line is so popular because all little girls like to pretend, and all little girls should feel like princesses. The Disney Princess line didn't exist when I was growing up (in the mid-1980s and 1990s), and I never liked the princesses more than the furry creatures. I've always had a soft spot for the songs that the princesses sing, though. Little girls now are bombarded with Princess merchandise, though, so they grow up with that and always have liked the princesses best. If there was a Disney Woodland Creatures line, then maybe Bambi and Thumper would be more popular than Cinderella and Ariel.

I have a feeling that the Disney Fairies line won't be quite as popular as the Disney Princesses line. The princesses have so many different movies (not including sequels!) and so many different songs, so, even if little girls only watched movies with the princesses in them, they'd still have a good chunk of movies to choose from. But, most kids don't just watch the princess films (I'm going by my nieces-and-nephew-in-law)- they also watch the other DACs (well, maybe not "The Black Cauldron" or the package films). Especially the ones with the cuddly creatures.

The latest Disney Renaissance has been due, in great part, to the princess films- namely "The Little Mermaid", "Beauty and the Beast", and "Aladdin". Those films were successful and popular. I don't think their popularity necessarily had to do with the fact that there are princesses in those films, but what little kid didn't grow up with a book of fairy tales? A bunch of fairy tales have had princesses in them, so it only makes sense that, if Disney makes films of classic fairy tales, many of the films will have princesses in them. So many people like a good love story, and maybe people relate better to human characters, so for mushy girls like myself, they like the romance aspect that a good princess movie brings to the table.

Not to mention that little girls can braid their princess dolls' hair. That was always a plus for me when I was little!

Let me just note, though, that my 7-year-old niece-in-law has already outgrown the princesses, thanks to "High School Musical". I'm not sure if that matters in this dicussion, but maybe it'll inspire someone to say something.

[Ariel'sprince]

And the answer is-NO!!!!!!!!!!!.
Why? becouse there's nothing worng in my opinion with the princesses and insted of Enchanted or The Frog And The Princess we whould see more movies like Chicken Little or The Wild.
Exept the fact that they think that Princess movies are for girls only (bunch of stupit nonsense,for example-they say that Kim Possible and Hannah Montana are for little boys,too so it's just nonsense) i don't have any problem with the franchise,exept when they make foolish stuff (Disney Princess as babies (not the little Princess,babies,with the diper and all,can you imagin Mulan as a baby?),when they call Aurora "Sleeping Beauty" insted of Aurora and etc.) and that's all pretty much.
Can i open the next Disney debate?.

[reyquila]

Well, a company's success is measured by it's finances. If the shareholders are happy, there is success!!! If the company loses money you have the damage!!! It is as simple as that!!!

PS. These are my twenty something words!!! Pure wisdom!!!

[Ariel'sprince]

If there was a Disney Woodland Creatures line, then maybe Bambi and Thumper would be more popular than Cinderella and Ariel.

Actually,there's a line called Disney Animale Friends with Bambi,Tumper,Dumbo,Simba,Baloo,Lady,Tramp,the 101 Dalmations,Timon,Pumbaa,Marie and lots of more animales but it's not popular like the Disney Princess franchise.
And i agree about the Disney Fairies-the Disney Princess line is about heronies from different films,the Disney Fairies franchise is about TinkerBell and a bunch of fairies that Disney made and it's more looks like W.I.T.C.H,Bratz or Winx Club then the Disney Princess franchise.

[Disney's Divinity]

If people begin to associate Disney with nothing but princesses, mostly direct to video with sub par animation and threadbare storylines, will there come a point when Disney will realise that they'd hammered their nails in their own coffin?

If they begin to? I thought they already did.

Will the upcoming princess films offer something new and creative to the Disney cannon, expand their reportoire, or just be generic boy meets girl, insert fluffy animal here and "Poor me, I wish life could change" musical number here, films which show the stale state of success/money hungry Disney?

Funny, I remember The Lion King, Pocahontas, Hunchback, Mulan and Hercules all having that, too.

I don't think Disney is planning to make only Princess films. They're simply beginning with them because Princess films always seem to be successful for them and they need a safe start back into 2D. As for movies in the works, those films seem to be very divided in their differences. Enchanted is a comedy (something that most likely won't be watched 10 years from now), Rapunzel is 3D (which never stands side by side with 2D) and The Princess and the Frog is the actual return to 2D. And there are rumors of another 2D film following Frog that I doubt is a Princess film.

[Someday...]

Enchanted is a comedy (something that most likely won't be watched 10 years from now),

How so?

[Ariel'sprince]

Enchanted is a comedy (something that most likely won't be watched 10 years from now),

How so?

Agreed,Enchanted will be a memroble movie for years that's lots of people will remember it.

[Disney's Divinity]

How so?

Agreed,Enchanted will be a memroble movie for years that's lots of people will remember it.

Yeah, if lots of people see it. Which they most likely won't. In commercials, it comes off as another movie with the same general Shrek premise (even if it is with better quality). It has a mixed audience, and movies like that usually fail.

[Ariel'sprince]

Agreed,Enchanted will be a memroble movie for years that's lots of people will remember it.

Yeah, if lots of people see it. Which they most likely won't. In commercials, it comes off as another movie with the same general Shrek premise (even if it is with better quality). It has a mixed audience, and movies like that usually fail.

It's not Shrek,it's homage to the classic movies,unlike Shrek who cruelly laugh on them.

[Disney's Divinity]

It's not Shrek,it's homage to the classic movies,unlike Shrek who cruelly laugh on them.

Except the general public would never know that and commercials usually affect the outlook on a film.

[Simba3]

Oh boy- this is certainly a loaded topic, one that should definitely bring fourth a lot of discussion, especially in this forum - great topic! Do I think that Princess movies will have a long term damage for Disney - No, not really! Like it or not, the Princess movies have had a huge influence on where the Disney studios is today. For starters, Disney Animated Feature Films were born with a princess movie, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Also, there are princess movies that have been instrumental in reviving the Disney studios, like Cinderella and The Little Mermaid. It has been said that if Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs did have the success that it did, the Disney studios could have shut down for good. The same has been said for Cinderella too after the Disney studios struggled through the war years. And we all know that The Little Mermaid was the spark that reignited the Disney fire in the late 80's and led to what we now know as the "Fab Four" or Disney films.

Princess films in the Disney line have been very important in many different ways. Their films are very successful and also have brought in a lot of money for Disney, not only with movie sales but with products as well.

However, I do believe that sometimes Disney can be too reliant on the princess line. I actually like most of the films that feature a Disney princess, but sometimes I do feel that there are too many. I feel like Disney thinks that developing a Princess movie is the best formula to provide themselves with a sure-fire hit - and I don't think that is true. There are so many wonderful, successful Disney films that do not feature a Disney princess: Peter Pan, 101 Dalmatians, The Jungle Book, The Lion King and so fourth. I do wish that Disney would stray away from the Princess formula a little bit and come up with new, creative stories that don't necessarily need/have a princess at the center.

All this talk about Disney Princess movies has me thinking about something, perhaps even an untapped resource. Why don't we have any Disney PRINCE films. Why aren't there any Disney films that center on the Disney Prince, rather than the Disney Princess. Yes, obviously a movie like that could be classified as a princess film, since it would undoubtedly spawn another Disney princess. But, wouldn't it be interesting to see a story than centers on the Prince, rather than the Princess? I've been thinking - and let me start by saying that I don't really consider Aladdin a Princess movie - that Aladdin sort of follows this formula. However, obviously Aladdin isn't really a Prince, but still the film is about the boy/man who eventually becomes the Princess' "Prince". Also, The Lion King follows this formula to some extent, with Simba becoming the King of Pride Rock. However, we still have yet to see a Disney animated feature that revolves around a human Prince. I think this would be a really cool idea for Disney and it would definitely provide a creative twist.

So in a word, no, I don't think Princess films will have a negative long term effect for Disney. However, I do feel that they could turn out other great and successful films that don't center around a Princess.

[2099net]

I think that Disney is in danger of becoming too closely associated with the Princess line (something I also feel about Winnie the Pooh incidently). Both of these are heavily marketed – you could say aggressively – and such marketing is affecting how the public view Disney and their expectations of Disney product. I don't think this affect is company wide, just with Disney's animation films.

As many people will know, I'm not, um… how can I put this… I'm not the biggest fan of the Pirates movies, but regardless of the entertainment I get out of them, they do broaden and embold the Disney brand. It's been a long time since Disney was so closely identified with pure "adventure" movies and it's good that they are again now.

I do think that the coming threesome of movies Enchanted, Rapunzel and Princess and the Frog will be a mistake. I do actually want Enchanted to do well. In fact, in the Pridict the 2007 Box Office thread, I stated something along the lines of "I hope this will be the surprise hit of the year" and I still do. I can accept arguments that Enchanted is not a Princess movie.

But I think two animated Princess movies in close succession is wrong. I don't accept the argument one is CGI and the other not. Both are animated, both are Disney (and fully Disney branded, with presumably the new Mickey Mouse WDFA opening from Meet the Robinsons) and both (as far as I'm aware, but I've not been keeping that up to speed so I'll be happy to be corrected) feature a "show tune" musical styling.

I think this is going to cause more trouble for WDFA in the future. If the films are both successful, it will validate the public's perception of Disney animation to princess/fairytale films and make the bond even stronger and thus harder to diversify from in the future. Whereas if they fail, it will give more ammunition to critics to declare WDFA to be well passed its prime.

Historically there's been a huge cultural shift between the 1930's – 1950's and today. If you look at the fiction kids were reading in those days, traditional fairytales were more prominent than they are today. Walt Disney's three fairytale films (Snow White/Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty) as well as the fairytale-like Pinocchio and Peter Pan are just as much because of that then any other reason. These days, there's much more innovative – and arguably – exciting stories for children, especially those who are ten years or older. Look at the books selling to children today… Harry Potter, His Dark Materials, Alex Rider (and in the UK) Tracy Beaker. All are so much more complex than fairytales and most people would say more exciting or emotional too. These days Disney should be looking to replicate those stories, not fairytales exclusively. I'm not saying Princess films cannot be more modern or exciting – Aladdin probably being the best example of one that was, but I do think its harder to do so. Especially if the creators feel they're doing a Princess film because the studio wants a princess film (which may or may not be happening, but you must admit it is possible).

[Super Aurora]

I agree with 2099net. This is why I figure making an exciting action/epic movie would be far more interesting and captive grabbing movie. espcially nowaday. You can still have a princess in the movie and not be the main focus of the movie like Aladdin did. And it can be original too like Lion King did(Let's not go into Kimba debate here).
Both of those were successful movies, right?

With those two elements, you can still create an exciting and wonderful movie for the family.

This was an idea I always had for Disney if I ever work for them.

It would be a movie about a young celtic boy who wish of an exciting adventure(and to get out of his boring life). he meets fate that turns him toward an adventure[finding a princess of magical powers, of a Celtic king, who ran away]. He along the way meets an vetern warrior(around 40's) with big sword and mascot character, an fairy elf. Eventually the find princess, the three together set out to go back to castle. Suddenly evil warlord demon ambush kingdom. The three must go his lair to fight him. they won. everythign set back again. happily ever after.

What's great about this type story is this:
1 It has a interesting ethnic setting and time: Ancient celtic
2 Based on type of story: Celtic folk lore
3. Has bit of originality without actually baseing it on something directly(Lionking)

4 Contain three major characters and a mascot: A young hero guy(for young boys to like), Loving magical powered princess( for young girls to like), An older warrior vetern (something adult mostly will like), and fairy elf( for kids and all ages to adore).

With those 4 together you create a core group of people to make each solid and fresh as characters with an adventure to follow.

5 Has a thematic storyline that runs well as a classic family feature film, plus holds the epicness that many books nowadays injoy like Harry Potter and such.

If disney when something like this(and it does include a princess) I bet they would of been more successful and yet went something new as well as retaining back to it's classical formula that so many people use to adore.

[Disney Duster]

Good debate, Ichabod,and good ideas everyone! I'm so glad no one's bashing the princesses so far!

Anyway, I'll just reply to one aspect for now: the creativity and diversity.

Enchanted is a move where a princess and all her fairy tale conventions are matched against the real world, so it's rather creative and not really a princess movie, it's a princess move combined with live-action comedy to sort of give all princess cliches a new look, and see if they can exist in the real world.

Rapunzel is definately going to growth in Disney's visual department, as the animators try to make CGI resemble hand-drawn, and perhaps create a whole new look for animation, or at least, some new standards or better looking animation. That's definately artisticly moving forward. As for the story itself, I believe Lasseter has insisted on trying to make this a fairy tale that is more complex and developed and emotional than the past fairy tales, so that is creative and new and diverse.

Finally, The Frog Princess is an original story, semi-based on a fairy tale (unsure whether it's the Frog Prince or some less familiar Frog Princess story), with the first African American princess, a new location different from the usual European middle ages, in New Orleans, which recently got attention for Hurrican Katrina. It's certainly an update and moving forward, even though it has princess and fair tale elements.

Now, like Simba3 said, a film about a prince would be interesting, which is actually why I'm very mad that Disney is not doing The Frog PRINCE! It would be from the man's perspective, and it could include how he got to be a frog, how he tried to solve his problem of breaking the curse, and what he learned in his time being a frog, and all his frogg adventures. And it would actually be a fairy tale where the princess, the girl, saves the man! So all those feminists might be happy. That said, I have thought for a long time that Aladdin is Cinderella with the genders reversed. A poor boy down on his luck is transformed through magic into a prince to win the heart of a girl, who "saves" him from his miserable life by marrying him. And actually, Cinderella wasn't really trying to get a prince and she had a hand in saving herself, but that's for some other debate...

I think the fact that they are doing The Frog Princess instead of The Frog Prince proves that they want to be creative and diverse and move forward, but still have a princess to sell to little girls. So, is that okay? Maybe someone else can answer that.

Oh, and yea, I actually, I only feel Rapunzel should be the princess movie made. I'm worried that Enchanted could be like Disney saying their own movies can't exist in the real world, or are out-dated, or are too cheezy, or something negative. And like I said, I would rather have The Frog Prince. Maybe my mind will change later if I realize The Frog Princess is brilliant and they couldn't do it any other way...

[Aladdin from Agrabah]

Now I don't see why the Princesses would be a threat to Disney. This is comletely crazy, people crave for Princesses: and something is popular always for a reason. Princesses are popular because they make people dream, because they are beautiful and attractive, because they live in a fairy tale world, because, in a few words, they can move certain parts of your soul. That's why they are irresistible, because they are your dreams actually.

Will the upcoming princess films offer something new and creative to the Disney cannon, expand their reportoire, or just be generic boy meets girl, insert fluffy animal here and "Poor me, I wish life could change" musical number here, films which show the stale state of success/money hungry Disney?

What exactly means "new and creative"? Do you really think there are a lot of new things in this world we live in? Believe me, human soul can only be moved by very few and certain emotions. That's how it works. We may think that we are complicate but I think we are rather simple. Mr Disney was the man who realized it quite early and that's how his films-mostly princess films- became so popular, by being simple, touching and lovable. So I hope that the "boy meets girl" thing will continue, simply because I need it. I don't care if the film will bring money to Disney or become successful, if it gives me goosebumps, then, to me, it is successful. There are no new ideas any more, just new ways to tell the same, old but always touching story. Tales as old as time are the most powerful ones and that's a fact.

[Ariel'sprince]

[quote="Disney Duster"]I'm worried that Enchanted could be like Disney saying their own movies can't exist in the real world, or are out-dated, or are too cheezy, or something[\quote]
Don't worry,i think that this movie is saying that life can be a fairy tale,maybe a different fairy tale but still a fairy tale (like they're saying in the details of the book "You don't a fairy godmother\prince charming to live happily ever after").
By the way-i wonder if Giselle will be a Disney Princess (i think that she's going to be my favorite Disney character with Ariel and this movie will be my favorite Disney with The Little Mermaid).
And Aladdin From Agrabah-you said exactly what i think and what i feel about the Princess-they are beautiful characters and make people dream,and made me dream,too.

[blackcauldron85]

I do think that the coming threesome of movies Enchanted, Rapunzel and Princess and the Frog will be a mistake...But I think two animated Princess movies in close succession is wrong...If the films are both successful, it will validate the public's perception of Disney animation to princess/fairytale films and make the bond even stronger and thus harder to diversify from in the future.

I totally understand what you're getting at, but what about "The Little Mermaid", "Beauty and the Beast", and "Aladdin"? Then came "The Lion King", "Pocahontas", THoND, etc., so Disney did diversify its releases after the release of three back-to-back princess movies (if we're considering "Aladdin" to be a princess movie). And, we can't forget about "Bolt", which is coming out between "Enchanted" and "The Princess and the Frog" (if that does come out before "Rapunzel).

It would be a movie about a young celtic boy who wish of an exciting adventure(and to get out of his boring life). he meets fate that turns him toward an adventure[finding a princess of magical powers, of a Celtic king, who ran away]. He along the way meets an vetern warrior(around 40's) with big sword and mascot character, an fairy elf. Eventually the find princess, the three together set out to go back to castle. Suddenly evil warlord demon ambush kingdom. The three must go his lair to fight him. they won. everythign set back again. happily ever after.

That sounds a lot like "The Black Cauldron". I totally applaud your creativity, and I'm not bashing you at all, but that's what was in my head while reading that.

I wonder if Disney is focusing on "girl" movies because their latest "boy" movies (well, "Atlantis" and "Treasure Planet") didn't do so well...

[Disney Duster]

Don't worry,i think that this movie is saying that life can be a fairy tale,maybe a different fairy tale but still a fairy tale (like they're saying in the details of the book "You don't a fairy godmother\prince charming to live happily ever after").

As long as you are right, then I will be happy with Enchanted. So, in the books based on Enchanted they say you don't need a fairy godmother or prince? That's very good! Because little girls should be taught they don't need certain things to be happy.

[Ariel'sprince]

Don't worry,i think that this movie is saying that life can be a fairy tale,maybe a different fairy tale but still a fairy tale (like they're saying in the details of the book "You don't a fairy godmother\prince charming to live happily ever after").

As long as you are right, then I will be happy with Enchanted. So, in the books based on Enchanted they say you don't need a fairy godmother or prince? That's very good! Because little girls should be taught they don't need certain things to be happy.

Yep,here some quote:

a princess discovers that "happily ever after" doesn't have to be picture perfect!

.

she quickly learns that you don't need a fairy godmother to live "happily ever after."

.

the movie pays tribute to classic fairy tales and the never-ending belief by girls of all ages that Prince Charming truly does exist.