Disney To Create New "Enhanced" Princess Web-Site

[musicradio77]

I guess they should stick with the Disney Princess like Snow White, Cinderella, Ariel, Aurora, Jasmine and Belle for a long time. Today, they are 6 princesses, if they adding additional ones like Tiana, Giselle, Rapunzel and the first Pixar Princess is Merinda, they'll be 10 except for Pocahontas and Mulan, they'll be 12 princesses altogether.

[Mooky]

Isn't it funny how Disney Princesses come in threes?

- Classic Princesses - Snow White, Cinderella, Aurora
- Renaissance Princesses - Ariel, Belle, Jasmine
- New Age Princesses - Tiana, Rapunzel, Merida

and it may even be applied to Pocahontas, Mulan and Giselle, they could be called "The In-between Princesses" .

[Ariel'sprince]

Kinda .
Walt Era Princesses-Aurora,Cinderella and Snow White.
Morden Princesses-Ariel,Belle and Jasmine.
New Princesses-Giselle,Tiana and Rapunzel.
Different Princesses-Pocahontas,Mulan and Merida.
Or-
New Princesses-Merida,Tiana and Rapunzel.
Side/Underrated Princesses-Giselle,Pocahontas and Mulan.
It can also be-
Main 6 Princesses-Aurora,Cinderella,Snow White,Ariel,Belle and Jasmine.
Side Princess-Pocahontas,Mulan,Merida,Giselle,Tiana and Rapunzel.

[Fantasmic]

what the crap, they can't add a Pixar character. Oh my lanta... if they need 3 new ones, just use Giselle! She's amazing and fantastic and everyone loves her. Everyone I know whose seen the movie fell in love with her, who cares if they need to pay more for the rights to Amy Adams' image? In an article it said that the reason she's not a princess is because they've discovered it will cost ALOT to merchandise her image forever... but I think it would be well worth it.

[Ariel'sprince]

Yeah,Giselle is wonderful .
They should pay Amy Adams thought only animated Giselle is a Disney Princess.
Tiana (Thought they made her movies only to add a black girl to the line) and Rapunzel are good but Merida? Disney should give her a line based on her movie like all the Pixar movies,they shouldn't add her! she's Pixar!.

[Fantasmic]

how do you know they only made her so they'd have a black princess? thats a really stupid thing to say. we've been begging for a return to hand-drawn musical fairytales, and just because she's African American, you assume they have an agenda.

[Ariel'sprince]

Well,It's seems very much that,this movie is promoted as "The first black Disney Princess" and why they"re releasing it now? when the Princess is so sucessful? and Disney said a lot that they"re making a Frog Prince for the Princess line.

[Fantasmic]

yea well people are gonna talk when it's a black disney princess, that's the press, not Disney.
the artistic process doesn't stop just because they have a franchise with princesses viewed as "classics", when the same thing couldve been said bfore the little mermaid came out "oh, theyre just trying to copy cinderella but making it a mermaid".

[Ariel'sprince]

But Disney themselfs are promoting it as "The first black Disney Princess",you can see it for yourself.
And I don't really think The Little Mermaid is like Cinderella,I don't know,before this line nobody said that Ariel is like Walt era characters like Aurora,Cinderella and Snow White,they"re Disney Princesses but still,you see what I"m getting at? (Maybe Belle is more like a Walt era Princess but I"m not sure).

[bruno_wbt]

New Disney Princess website!!!!!!!

http://disney.go.com/princess/princess.html

[Neal]

Nice enough. The characters on the main page kind of creep me out. Like Aurora's flourish. Yick.

Darn...I was hoping Poca and Mulan would have been dropped. I don't agree with their addition for the mere sake of diversity. They are quite simply NOT princesses. Make a new asian princess if you want to have diversity, but don't stretch the definition of princess like that for mere PC reasons.

Woah, it must know my ID from somewhere else...like the Movie Rewards site because the top of the page says "Welcome, Princess Neal"

The whole site loads really slow for me.

So issues I have with the site:

Games:

I really like the backgrounds they have for each character's "world".

Videos:

It's no longer "The Little Mermaid III" ... the 'III' got dropped from the title, but apparently marketing didn't care.

The song is "Part of Your World" they listed it as "Part of That World".

It's nice they didn't try to bury Enchanted Tales. I'm (dare I say it) not opposed to those films.

Movies: Wow, they really are pushing the princesses! They even list the sequels as princess movies!

Except the site is kind of convulted right now. A Poca pic with Snow descrip and Cindy cover art. Weird.

[Neal]

Here’s the true ‘Disney Princesses’, according to the fact they are shown being/becoming princesses in the canon films and the canon film derivatives:

Princess by Blood:

Princess Adella (The Little Mermaid 3: Ariel's Beginning)
Princess Alana (The Little Mermaid 3: Ariel's Beginning)
Princess Andrina (The Little Mermaid 3: Ariel's Beginning)
Princess Aquata (The Little Mermaid 3: Ariel's Beginning)
Princess Ariel (The Little Mermaid)
Princess Arista (The Little Mermaid 3: Ariel's Beginning)
Princess Atta (A Bug's Life)
Princess Attina (The Little Mermaid 3: Ariel's Beginning)
Princess Aurora (Sleeping Beauty)
Princess Dot (A Bug's Life)
Princess Eilonwy, daughter of Angharad, daughter of Regat of the Royal House of Llyr (The Black Cauldron)
Princess Jasmine (Aladdin)
Princess 'Kida' Kidagakash (Atlantis: The Lost Empire)
Princess Melody (The Little Mermaid 2: Return to the Sea)
Princess Merida (The Bear and the Bow)
Princess Snow White (Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs)
Princess Su (Mulan 2)
Princess Ting-Ting (Mulan 2)
Princesses Mei (Mulan 2)

Princess by Marriage:

Princess Cinderella (Cinderella)
Princess Nala [a Lion] (Lion King)
Princess Nancy Tremaine (Enchanted)
Princess Rapunzel (Rapunzel)
Princess Tiana (The Princess and the Frog)

Pretend Princess:

Minnie Mouse (Mickey, Donald, Goofy: The Three Musketeers)

Here’s what shouldn’t technically count:

? Princesses:

Princess Belle (Beauty and the Beast) – WHAT?! Yeah, so she never actually marries the Beast, so is she a princess, really? We just assume she ties the knot.
Mulan – Marries a general, not royalty.
Princess [technically Chieftess] Pocahontas (Pocahontas) – Is called a Princess in Pocahontas II, does that count?
Princess [technically Chieftess] Tiger Lily (Peter Pan) – Is a Princess in the source material. Heck, let’s add her for more diversity!
Giselle – Never marries a prince. Is just a forest maiden.

[Mooky]

I know I'll get bashed for this, but I don't care.

I said this before: being a princess in a Disney film doesn't make you a Disney Princess (notice the capital P). Disney Princess is just a title given to characters with certain qualities that make them worthy of being called Princesses. They may or may not be actual royalty. After all, the motto of the line is "Every girl can be a princess".

The name of the line implies that it features (or should feature) only royal characters. It even started out that way, back when it featured only six characters, all of whom were royal. As the line grew in popularity, Disney realized that they needed to make it racially diverse. The problem is that other than Jasmine, there weren't many (if any) non-caucasian royal female Disney characters. That's why they put Pocahontas and Mulan (objectively, the most questionable choice) in it and changed the line's motto to "Every girl can be a princess", probably to justify their addition. What Disney should have done was to change the name of the line to Disney Heroines (or Disney Ladies or Disney Dames or something like that) the moment they added those two, but I can see why they didn't. It just doesn't sound as magical as Disney Princesses.

As for Belle's inclusion in the line, I used to think the exact same thing as you: we never saw her getting married. However, recently someone pointed out to me that she wears a crown in the final shot of "Beauty and the Beast". So I guess that settles it.

http://magicalscreencaps.com/images/bat ... b_2308.jpg

http://magicalscreencaps.com/images/bat ... b_2310.jpg

And as for sequels being considered Disney Princess films: why not? They feature the same characters as the original films.

[Neal]

My post was just to show that there are true princesses they could tap into rather than fudge. We have three asian princesses if they want to consider sequels canonical rather than 'lying' about Mulan. I know, it's all just a marketing scheme. I don't care THAT much. I just think some characters get the shaft while others are wrongly promoted.

In the end, it's all just a matter of some posters, toys and DVDs. It doesn't matter.

I actually like the sequels being included. I'm just surprised. Sometimes Disney tries to bury them. They aren't all bad.

I just don't like that it switched. If they wanted diversity, they should have tapped into their more obscure films/sequels for true princesses to add some color to the line, not changed the definition of a Disney Princess to accomplish their goal.

"Disney Heroines" or something along that line would make more sense. There are characters who are good role models for girls who never get noticed.

Hm, guess I forgot that they showed that in the stained glass. That would settle it, then.

[Mooky]

My post was just to show that there are true princesses they could tap into rather than fudge. We have three asian princesses if they want to consider sequels canonical rather than 'lying' about Mulan. I know, it's all just a marketing scheme. I don't care THAT much. I just think some characters get the shaft while others are wrongly promoted.

Sorry if I seemed a bit ticked off in my post, it wasn't directed at you.

I know what you mean. The line just isn't defined as it should be. I mean, if Mulan is there, why isn't Esmeralda? They both married an army captain. Not to mention, it would make the line more racially diverse, which Disney obviously wants.

In the end, it's all just a matter of some posters, toys and DVDs. It doesn't matter.

I agree. It's nice to look at them as a group, but the line has no meaning other than being a vehicle for selling merchandise. The characters lost that special spark that made people fell in love with them in their original films. They are nothing more than pin-up girls.

I actually like the sequels being included. I'm just surprised. Sometimes Disney tries to bury them. They aren't all bad.

I'm glad someone else is giving DTV sequels a chance .

I just don't like that it switched. If they wanted diversity, they should have tapped into their more obscure films/sequels for true princesses to add some color to the line, not changed the definition of a Disney Princess to accomplish their goal.

You mean Eilonwy and Kida? They're just not marketable: their films failed with both critics and the audience, they don't have songs, they don't wear nice dresses, they don't have animal friends accompanying them. It all comes down to popularity and marketability.

"Disney Heroines" or something along that line would make more sense. There are characters who are good role models for girls who never get noticed.

Agreed. IMHO, Meg, Kida and Jane are better role models than Aurora or Snow White.

Anyway, you wrote something that summarizes this whole debate and with which I completely agree:

[They] changed the definition of a Disney Princess to accomplish their goal.

I have nothing else to add.

[Chernabog_Rocks]

I stick by what I said on page 1. I don't see why the princess line should get a new enhanced site while all the other characters get the shaft If marketing is the reason why not start marketing villains towards boys?

Between Disney Channel/Family Channel being crap and the messed up princess line I'm starting to wonder if it's time to let Walt out of the freezer

[singerguy04]

Between Disney Channel/Family Channel being crap and the messed up princess line I'm starting to wonder if it's time to let Walt out of the freezer

I dunno, he might get scared back into it! I think we should save him for that post apocolyptic period when all life will be crap and we'll need some entertainment again.

All in all, I really don't understand why people get so uptight about the princess line. All in all it's just a franchise and in no way takes away from the original films. Sure it might cheapen a character in some way by putting it's image on a kleenex box, but come on people look above that. It's not like many children are looking at these characters and seeing them as pieces of art.

[BelleGirl]

I stick by what I said on page 1. I don't see why the princess line should get a new enhanced site while all the other characters get the shaft If marketing is the reason why not start marketing villains towards boys?

Between Disney Channel/Family Channel being crap and the messed up princess line I'm starting to wonder if it's time to let Walt out of the freezer

I don't see any logic in marketing villains towards boys. There's nothing sex-specific about them, and not merely because lot of them are female. Certainly you cannot marked them as figures for boys to identify with?

But I suppose your are only jesting, Chernabog

I'm all for a Disney heroin line to replace the Princess line (if there has to be a 'line', I don't care much for it really). Then at least you can have the seemingly necessary 'ethnic diversity' without the endless discussions about who is a real princess.

Is there no "Disney -hero line" by the way?

[Mooky]

There were two, I think. "Disney Heroes" and "Disney Adventurers". Or maybe it was the same line, but with two different names. I'm not sure if it still exists.

Anyway, it featured Peter Pan, Aladdin, Hercules, Phillip, Robin Hood, Wart/Arthur and Tarzan. The characters had a slightly different design than usual. Here, I found this review:

http://www.mwctoys.com/REVIEW_111405b.htm

and this article of how it all should have looked:
http://maskedavengerstudios.blogspot.co ... gures.html

There was also a R2 DVD called "Disney Heroes: Volume 1" which featured 4 episodes of "Hercules" and "Tarzan" TV shows.

[Chernabog_Rocks]

I don't see any logic in marketing villains towards boys. There's nothing sex-specific about them, and not merely because lot of them are female. Certainly you cannot marked them as figures for boys to identify with?

But I suppose your are only jesting, Chernabog

Yup just jesting. However there could be some logic in marketing villains towards boys, I mean how many girls actually care about villains or would choose them over the princess merchandise?

I've never considered how many female villains there are but surely it's rather close in terms of number of male vs female villains? But that's for another topic I guess

There is also another Disney Heroes "line" that Mooky forgot, or perhaps never knew about. Here in Canada (and perhaps the USA) there was a release of a Disney version of Kinder Eggs (hollow chocolate eggs with a small toy inside, usually assembly required) there were several sets of them including:

2 Winnie the Pooh sets
1 or 2 Princess sets
Disney Heroes and Villains
Mickey and the Gang (which included Scrooge, Horace and Clarabelle!)

Anyways the Heroes and Villains set had a hero and their rival the set included:

Peter Pan and Hook
Tarzan and Sabor
Robin Hood and the Sheriff
Hercules and Hades
Aladdin and Jafar