I'm so glad that Rapunzel certainly seems as if she wont be sticking out like a sore thumb from the rest of the ladies on various toys etc, and especially on books where her transition into 2D seems to have been a very smooth one.
What is strange for Disney is the fact they havnt stuffed her into a big, poofy dress .... I think that is what makes her stand out the most at the moment, is her 'simple' attire compared to the other Princesses being very OTT .....
*********** 'TANGLED' SPOILERS AHEAD **************
....I dont know how to do the white text, sorry guys.....
I must question though, regarding Rapunzel ... due to the ending of the movie, where her appearance is so altered, do we think she will appear on merchandise in this manner ? Or will she stay forever blonde and long haired? I think we could see the altered Rapunzel appear when the film makes its DVD/Blu debut, when her tale is more familiar.
Disney Princess Merchandise (Thread 2)
-
singerguy04
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2591
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:40 pm
- Location: The Land of Lincoln
Regarding your question...
I believe that Rapunzel will always be represented with her long blonde hair, if only because as Rapunzel the long hair is the only thing that makes her THAT noticeable as a character. Perhaps after the film has been released on DVD/Blu we'll see some dolls or something of the sort that has her short brown hair. Maybe they'll create some sort of doll that changes hair lol.
I believe that Rapunzel will always be represented with her long blonde hair, if only because as Rapunzel the long hair is the only thing that makes her THAT noticeable as a character. Perhaps after the film has been released on DVD/Blu we'll see some dolls or something of the sort that has her short brown hair. Maybe they'll create some sort of doll that changes hair lol.
-
Linden
- Special Edition
- Posts: 672
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:24 am
- Location: United States Gender: Female
Bravo, Wonderlicious! I completely agree with you. I do have a kind of fondness for the Disney Princess line (especially after I wrote a paper in Freshman Comp. defending it 
), but I know deep down that it encourages girls to be superficial and pushes boys away from great, classic films. You won't be getting any death threats from me. On another topic, they have a ballerina Snow White? 
Horrors!
), but I know deep down that it encourages girls to be superficial and pushes boys away from great, classic films. You won't be getting any death threats from me. On another topic, they have a ballerina Snow White? Horrors!
I definitely agree with the fact that it cheapens the Disney legacy as well as the appeal of the characters. I've said before that Disney stops trying to make merchandise out of everything, and Disney Princess is an example. It's just so very cheap! I don't mind the occasional poster, doll, clothing accessories and the like, but now it is getting ridiculous!Wonderlicious wrote:Well, as chief, Powhatan was a monarch-like leader, albeit in a social structure different to the regimes akin to what would have been found in Europe at the time (which in turn influenced the kingdoms in the European fairy tales). Thus, Pocahontas can be described as at least a sort of princess, more so than Mulan at least; she was classed as an Indian princess back in the 1600s when she grew in fame, and most versions of her legend (which inspired the Disney film more than real facts) tend to call her a princess. We could get into a huge needless debate over types of society and whether or not she could be classed as a princess; no form of society is the same, and one will ultimately end up making approximations to try and make things easier to understand. And let's not forget that the Disney Princess line is basically "Disney's Pretty and Popular Heroines" line; many of the popular heroines are or become princesses, so I'd see it as a fairly snappy umbrella term.Disney Duster wrote:Pocahontas was in a DEMOCRACY I'm not sure if she can be called a princess.
Oh, and for the record, a monarchy can be democratic, just as a republic doesn't necessarily mean an equal regime (such as is the case with various communist countries past and present).The Queen of England doesn't have absolute power; if they'd clung onto it long ago, they'd have all gone the way of Marie Antoinette.
Anyway, away from the anthropological/political rambling...
Some people know me as the ultimate warrior against the Disney Princess line. I could explain where my disappointment lies in great detail, but I'll keep it to a few reasonably brief points.
1. It ostracises audiences away from the films; as opposed to twenty years ago, I doubt many young boys today would want to watch the likes of Sleeping Beauty and Snow White after being exposed to merchandise featuring the heroines against a pink backdrop and clad in diamonds.
2. It basically takes the term "Disney princess" as a means to brand otherwise isolated characters and sell them off as a generic toy line, sort of like a fairy tale version of the Cabbage Patch Kids or Bratz. Once again, it could make naive people assume that these films are basically toy advertisements (as opposed to the toys being advertisements for the film). I do feel a similar thing happens with a lot of other Disney characters and universes, in particular those of Pooh and Mickey, so I'll condemn Disney for that as well.
3. It's all reasonably sexist. I hate to sound overly politically correct, and it's my concerns with the merchandising line, and not so much the films themselves. As part of a society wide issue, the whole thing makes kids appreciate superficial things (hair, make-up, fine clothes, looking pretty, getting a hot boyfriend), and I worry it's sending out messages to young girls that looks can really matter; no wonder that in the Los Angeles Time article about Tangled that a psychologist stated that young girls are concerned with becoming hot and looking like Hannah Montana.
4. The obsessive purist and Disney fanboy in me gets annoyed by some of their decisions. Some of it is just related to preferring them look one way more than another, but I also hate the type of things they seem to make up. I saw "Disney Princess Babies" when out shopping for my cousin's daughter's birthday, and was horrified to see that they got the characters so wrong. Aurora, Cinderella and Belle were in baby versions of their ball gowns, when they would definitely not have done so in their film's respective universes. On the same shopping trip, I saw a ballerina Snow White; since when did she do ballet? And the diamond look that they're sometimes clad in is just creepy.(In case you're wondering, we weren't planning on getting her anything Disney related, rather we were just browsing. We got her a Jessie doll in the end, which she loves, and took along with her when she went to see Toy Story 3).
5. Related to all the last points (in particular 1, 2 and 4), the Disney Princess line doesn't really respect the legacy of Disney, or the universes created in the original films, which are all classics.
I'm not trying to troll by posting this; these are my genuine concerns with the line, all of which derive from my own appreciation of Disney and the company's standing. I'd rather see merchandise that is respectful to Disney's legacy than to the stuff we generally see; Disney can definitely do it. I will admit that the Disney Store doll set posted here looks quite pleasing, as it seems to celebrate the films and their legacy as much as it is an excuse to parade lovely females.
Anyway, I'm tired. Hopefully I won't receive death threats, or claims that my reasoning is completely bogus and that I shouldn't talk about classics on this forum.
