Tiana . A Disney Princess?

[Lazario]

I take it that it wasn't a character costume, as rules are pretty stringent for those, and I've never seen any character acting out of character - of course some are better at their jobs than others, but I've never seen any of the characters do anything wrong.

I actually assumed it was a character costume... I'm just naive enough to think most women who want to work at a Disney park playing a character would rather be someone who didn't have to wear a sweaty Pooh head, etc.

What is it with people wanting to be confrontational here?

Me? I'm a teddy bear. Ask anyone.

I just thought what you said was shocking and was hoping you'd understand how I could. You're so passionate about what you're saying, you seem to want that to override the negative thing someone else has to say.

All I'm saying is I've never seen any behaviour like that at Disneyland Paris and I think I've probably been there more than he has. If indeed a person has acted in that way, then I'm sure it would have been dealt with.

Well, you know just because he saw one person doing wrong doesn't necessarily mean he's saying the whole place is tainted. Although, if he had suggested the whole place were, would you take that personally? (As- how could someone suggest I would go somewhere like that?)

It does annoy me that there is this elitist view that the castmembers in American parks are somehow better than the other parks.

If I thought that's what he was saying- yes, that would be shocking to read. But no reason to jump to conclusions.

[BellesPrince]

I actually assumed it was a character costume... I'm just naive enough to think most women who want to work at a Disney park playing a character would rather be someone who didn't have to wear a sweaty Pooh head, etc.

I'd say that it's nigh on impossible to see one of the girl's playing a face character doing this, because they all go off backstage in costume, and always have to be in character when they're seen in the park.

The only example I've ever seen of them being out of character, is when they get to know you, and they perhaps drop the character a little bit, but this is only if there isn't anyone else about.

They do have costumed people working around the park though, and you do see them coming and going off shifts during the day around the park. But, they have had a strict no smoking rule for the last couple of years, and at one time, you used to get a lot of guests smoking around the park, but you hardly ever see this now.

[DisneyAnimation88]

I wasn't trying to be elitist, as I said BellesPrince has been to Paris more than myself so he probably has a better idea of the staff there than I do. Having been to Florida and experiencing the staff there, it was simply a surreal thing to see an employee smoking and using a mobile phone in front of guests. To balance it out, on 3 of our trips to Florida someone (we and the hotel presumed it was the maids) rang up hundreds of dollars in phone calls to Mexico and South Africa and then charged it to our room bill. I'm not saying all of the staff in Florida are perfect it's just the stranger experiences, like the woman in Paris, stick out more clearly in my mind.

The woman in question wasn't a character, she worked in one of the shops on Main Street. As I said in a previous post, I'm not generalising all of the staff in Paris based on one woman, there were plenty of courteous and helpful staff there during that week.

[Goliath]

People who say that obviously did not understand the movie. Ariel did not sacrifice everything for a man. That was the point of the Part of Your World sequence. Her dream was not to marry a prince but to become a part of the world above. Falling in love with a human was merely the icing on the cake or rather the extra motive she needed to pursue her dream.

You're totally right about that last part: Ariel wanted to be human/live in the human world long before she got into contact with Eric. But had she not met Eric, I seriously doubt she would ever made a deal with Ursula to become a human being. Plus, the fact that she dreamed about going into the human world before, doesn't negate the fact that Ariel *did* want to sacrifice being with her family and even her voice to be with a man. I'm not saying she's a bad character because of that, but feminist film scholars who have pointed this out, are right.

Flynn didn't rescue Rapunzel. Rapunzel was the one who forced him to guide her to the lanterns. She was the one who had the upper hand and took charge of her life despite Flynn's reluctant assistance.

I'm not putting down the character, but she could only do that because Flynn was there in the first place. Had he not come along, what would she have done? Even though she forced him to take her with him, it still means she needed a man to accompany her. Again, not a bad thing, but it is a fact.

You forgot Pocahontas, who along with Mulan, is the most undervalued in the Princess line [...]

You sure she's part of the 'official' Princess Line? I can't recall ever seeing her in any of the merchandise.

Indeed, their personalities have become homogenized and trivialized in the Princess line.

I'm glad you agree.

Video was very funny!

[BellesPrince]

Ah, I'm relieved it wasn't a character - I couldn't see how that could be possible.

I have become friendly with a lot of the castmembers over the years, and I can really vouch for their dedication. I'm not saying all the castmembers are 100% perfect, but for the most part, they do an incredible job - not just the characters, but castmembers throughout the park.

I'm almost always at the park on my own, but I never really feel alone because of the castmembers - and because there are some who I've seen several times, I actually tend to look forward to going back to see people more than anything else. It's not unusual for me to spend a day there without going on any rides, because I'm busy meeting people and watching shows and parades and taking photographs.

[Elladorine]

You're totally right about that last part: Ariel wanted to be human/live in the human world long before she got into contact with Eric. But had she not met Eric, I seriously doubt she would ever made a deal with Ursula to become a human being. Plus, the fact that she dreamed about going into the human world before, doesn't negate the fact that Ariel *did* want to sacrifice being with her family and even her voice to be with a man. I'm not saying she's a bad character because of that, but feminist film scholars who have pointed this out, are right.

I hope you don't mind me adding my two cents here. It's obvious that seeing/falling in love with Eric propelled the story, but I also believe if Triton hadn't lost his temper and destroyed all of Ariel's human trinkets, she wouldn't have been compelled to make that deal with Ursula. A good part of her decision was made in order to defy daddy, to feel grown up in making her own decisions (although she failed to realize she was Ursula's pawn in the process).

Sacrificing things to get what you want is just part of life, and I cringe at the fact that when a female is in a coming of age story and meets a man that changes her life, somehow it's automatically spun into some feminist BS. I know you're not trying to put a negative slant on the character here, but knowing that some feminine scholars out there claim that Ariel's sacrifices somehow dictate she can't be a good role model just because she "fell for some guy" . . . well, that just drives me nuts. I mean, am I bad role model since I moved away from my family and sacrificed a hell of a lot just because I fell for some guy? Feminists are against women being objectified, but they in turn tend to objectify men as if they believe they can't be as caring or even as human as women are.

Of course, we could also look at Ariel sacrificing her voice as a metaphor; how often in history did women have to sacrifice their "voices," or rather, who they were once they married and settled down? Until relatively recent times women weren't allowed to own property, to vote, and yes, were expected to give up everything for their men . . . I've wondered if Hans Christian Andersen was trying to make a point with that. But if we think of Disney's Ariel in more modern sensibilities (after all, even though it doesn't take place in current times she's considered a "modern" heroine), the story is about sexual awakening. Part of that is letting go of one's childhood, home, and even family (in a sense that most move out of their childhood home in order to start a life/family of their own), all the while with parents that are often struggling to come to terms with the fact that their little baby isn't exactly a baby anymore. I do think it's interesting that Ariel gets her voice back and has a happy, but bittersweet ending, which I believe represents finding her maturity. Not only for herself, but her father's acceptance of it. Um, that obviously differs a bit from the original religious aspects of the story.

Flynn didn't rescue Rapunzel. Rapunzel was the one who forced him to guide her to the lanterns. She was the one who had the upper hand and took charge of her life despite Flynn's reluctant assistance.

I'm not putting down the character, but she could only do that because Flynn was there in the first place. Had he not come along, what would she have done? Even though she forced him to take her with him, it still means she needed a man to accompany her. Again, not a bad thing, but it is a fact.

Gothel manipulated with Rapunzel's emotions and confidence so much that she became agoraphobic. She needed *someone* from the outside world for guidance and reassurance as a companion to explore that outside world, and it just happened that it was a man that climbed the tower. I don't think gender is an issue.

You forgot Pocahontas, who along with Mulan, is the most undervalued in the Princess line [...]

You sure she's part of the 'official' Princess Line? I can't recall ever seeing her in any of the merchandise.

Here is a screencap of the official Disney Princess site (I'm providing a screencap instead of a link since it can't be accessed from all countries):


[click for the full-sized version]

Those are all the "official" princesses, minus Rapunzel (since she's new and simply hasn't been added yet).

[Margos]

And I just got a little Disney Princess page-a-day calendar that has images of all of the princesses from Snow to Tiana (again, Rapunzel is too new), and Pocahontas is definitely on there. (And actually, they snuck in a few Giselle pages, too, for some reason).

It's a pretty nice calendar, really, even though it is so very tiny. It isn't all clip art, and there's plenty of film stills and interesting stylized images.... Now I'm ranting, but I have much love for this little thing.

[Sotiris]

It's obvious that seeing/falling in love with Eric propelled the story, but I also believe if Triton hadn't lost his temper and destroyed all of Ariel's human trinkets, she wouldn't have been compelled to make that deal with Ursula. A good part of her decision was made in order to defy daddy, to feel grown up in making her own decisions (although she failed to realize she was Ursula's pawn in the process).

Of course, we could also look at Ariel sacrificing her voice as a metaphor; how often in history did women have to sacrifice their "voices," or rather, who they were once they married? Until relatively recent times women weren't allowed to own property, to vote, and yes, were expected to give up everything for their men[...]

It's a coming-of-age story; letting go of one's childhood, home, and even family (in a sense that most move out of their childhood home in order to start a life/family of their own), all the while with parents that are often struggling to come to terms with the fact that their little baby isn't exactly a baby anymore. I do think it's interesting that Ariel gets her voice back and has a happy, but bittersweet ending, which I believe represents finding her maturity. Not only for herself, but her father's acceptance of it.

Gothel manipulated with Rapunzel's emotions and confidence so much that she became agoraphobic. She needed *someone* from the outside world for guidance and reassurance as a companion to explore that outside world, and it just happened that it was a man that climbed the tower. I don't think gender is an issue.

I concur with the above

[Goliath]

@ enigmawing: I don't really agree with feminist film scholars who have made such analysis of Ariel and The Little Mermaid, but I do recognize a good point when I see one --and they have one. Their explanation is plausible enough, even if I don't agree. It all depends on the theoretical point of view which you use to analyse a film. I wouldn't go so far as to generalize all feminist analyses of Disney films, and I wouldn't call the bullshit. Your explanation of the film is very good (especially the symbolism in Ariel giving up her voice), but we still don't know whether or not Ariel would have struck a deal with Ursual if it had not been for Eric. We just have the film to work with --and the film confirms she sacrifices everything to be with the man of her dreams.

[Elladorine]

We just have the film to work with --and the film confirms she sacrifices everything to be with the man of her dreams.

Can't say I blame her for that.

[Disney Duster]

I think Ariel would have become human without Eric if her father got to the level he got to in her grotto, to escape the ruler of the ocean and her life that she thought was so terrible to her. If that didn't happen, I don't think she would be as willing to actually enter the human world because, she really would need a friend, a guide, or yes, a lover, in that world to help her through.

Cinderella, Belle and Jasmine were all as passive as Snow White and Aurora. Because what did they really do? Cinderella sat around crying until the Fairy Godmother and her animal friends helped her out.

Erm, Cinderella did do something; she believed. How many times do we have to go through this motion?

That and she tried to get her stepfamily to let her get to the ball. She thought she would do all the work, but it turned out she couldn't, and the mice happened to do it, she wasn't waiting for them. Also, she cried in the garden because at that point there was no way for her to get to the ball, so she really did need a miracle, but it was a reward for her trying.

[Disney's Divinity]

we still don't know whether or not Ariel would have struck a deal with Ursual if it had not been for Eric. We just have the film to work with --and the film confirms she sacrifices everything to be with the man of her dreams.

I agree.

The only problem I have with many feminist reviews--of any Disney film--is that they assume that, of course, this is Disney, this is mainstream media, it must be sexist. And they don't question that. Worse, Ariel kind of carries the weight of Disney's somewhat sexist history on her shoulders--she's going to be judged more harshly because of it. If the film wasn't attached to the Disney name, Ariel would likely be considered a middle-of-the-road role model. Instead, following films like Sleeping Beauty (or even something like TF&TH), she can in some ways seem like an example of "fake feminism," in which the character makes a lot of fuss and makes actions of their own, but they ultimately settle into passivity and whatever actions they make are usually bad ones.

I think, from a personal stance, the only thing that keeps me from viewing Mermaid that way is that "PUS" is portrayed to the audience (and that includes the impressionable children!) as a con deal. Even the villain herself says all the sexist dialogue in a tongue-in-cheek way--and it clearly doesn't describe her at all. In fact, an article I was reading the other day actually talks about how "PUS" depicts the ways in which gender is nothing but an act, to be performed. That act, in the end, isn't what gets Ariel anything--it's the voice. But most of these feminist critics see the deal, hear Ursula tell Ariel to use "body language," and then they skip off to write their condemnatory review. They've already made their mind up without critically analyzing anything (if it wasn't already made up before they started the movie).

I also think in a lot of ways, feminist reviews don't like to see any relationships depicted at all. Is it such a crime that a woman could love a man? *sigh* I for one am glad the movie goes about trying to show an egalitarian relationship to children (especially boys), where a woman's voice is the centerpoint rather than try to pretend women are going to live eternally single.

[Lazario]

The only problem I have with many feminist reviews--of any Disney film--is that they assume that, of course, this is Disney, this is mainstream media, it must be sexist. And they don't question that. Worse, Ariel kind of carries the weight of Disney's somewhat sexist history on her shoulders--she's going to be judged more harshly because of it. If the film wasn't attached to the Disney name, Ariel would likely be considered a middle-of-the-road role model. Instead, following films like Sleeping Beauty (or even something like TF&TH), she can in some ways seem like an example of "fake feminism," in which the character makes a lot of fuss and makes actions of their own, but they ultimately settle into passivity and whatever actions they make are usually bad ones.

I think, from a personal stance, the only thing that keeps me from viewing Mermaid that way is that "PUS" is portrayed to the audience (and that includes the impressionable children!) as a con deal. Even the villain herself says all the sexist dialogue in a tongue-in-cheek way--and it clearly doesn't describe her at all. In fact, an article I was reading the other day actually talks about how "PUS" depicts the ways in which gender is nothing but an act, to be performed. That act, in the end, isn't what gets Ariel anything--it's the voice. But most of these feminist critics see the deal, hear Ursula tell Ariel to use "body language," and then they skip off to write their condemnatory review. They've already made their mind up without critically analyzing anything (if it wasn't already made up before they started the movie).

I also think in a lot of ways, feminist reviews don't like to see any relationships depicted at all. Is it such a crime that a woman could love a man? *sigh* I for one am glad the movie goes about trying to show an egalitarian relationship to children (especially boys), where a woman's voice is the centerpoint rather than try to pretend women are going to live eternally single.

That's mighty harsh. Any kind of person can be wrong clearly, but I think I'd like to see an example of the kind of feminist you're talking about. Do you have any links to a feminist review of The Little Mermaid? I assume you've come across one recently.

I've also heard of the feminist who prefers a woman to have no romantic relationship with a man in a movie and to most people that viewpoint might seem shocking. But, considering the huge amount of movies that force a woman into a relationship with a man, what's the problem with that viewpoint? I've even heard men being critical of this same thing in movies and... why shouldn't they be? In addition to the overwhelming insert-romance-here nature to movies, the majority of these romances end happily. But what about reality? Don't the latest figures indicate that at least 50% of marriages end in divorce or lead to separation, cheating, self-abuse, etc? I'm the first person who will tell you (as a gargantuan horror fan) that entertainment isn't always meant to be taken seriously, but they sure feel they're drawing upon real life for inspiration. I think the feminist perspective you might be talking about isn't advocating an embargo on portraying relationships so much as it is questioning why we need so many love relationships in our entertainment in the first place.

As for sexism, I think maybe they're just saying that Disney doesn't help the culture out by doing what they've done. It could be said that Disney teach us morals and train our thinking patterns to an extent. And regardless of whether that isn't true in anyone's opinion, taken at face value- Disney's films are incredibly naive. It most certainly is not enough to have Jasmine simply say "I'm not a prize to be won" or for Belle to say she doesn't want to be with a man who is "positively primeval." The actions have to speak along with the words. And in almost every Disney film dealing with the individualism of female characters or with scenes of "girl power," they don't. They lay on a forward gesture with nothing to back it up. They seem to believe the old saying- love makes us do foolish things, and expect us to subconsciously and psychologically, as children no less, think the gesture is enough. I guess it's worked because thousands (if not millions) of families have never or will never complain that they think Disney are sending kids bad messages. But, the films are plenty open to interpretation for people to easily get their messages wrong. I think anyone knows this.

[Disney's Divinity]

That's mighty harsh. Any kind of person can be wrong clearly, but I think I'd like to see an example of the kind of feminist you're talking about. Do you have any links to a feminist review of The Little Mermaid? I assume you've come across one recently.

You could probably Google and find any number of feminist reviews that examine TLM in this way--this kind of criticism happens more often when they're focusing on a wide array of Disney films, where I don't think any one movie gets a large share of analysis. My intention wasn't to generalize, because, for one, I support feminism and, two, I've read many strong and well-made feminist reviews (and, no, I don't consider them good just if they agree with me). I didn't mean to throw down the gauntlet either. I just find many reviews to be extreme or to some extent unfair in their assessments of most Disney films.

I've also heard of the feminist who prefers a woman to have no romantic relationship with a man in a movie and to most people that viewpoint might seem shocking. But, considering the huge amount of movies that force a woman into a relationship with a man, what's the problem with that viewpoint? I've even heard men being critical of this same thing in movies and... why shouldn't they be?

The problem I have is that this isn't an exclusively female thing. Nearly every "boy's" film ends with the man/boy in or pursuing a romance. It's not something they've only done to their women characters.

I can understand why this would be more of an objective for feminists, so that female characters (and the girls who grow up with them) don't define themselves by the man they marry. But I think they ignore that often times heteronormativity is spoonfed to boys as well as girls, and they end up casting too harsh judgment on a film with a female protagonist because of it.

I think the feminist perspective you might be talking about isn't advocating an embargo on portraying relationships so much as it is questioning why we need so many love relationships in our entertainment in the first place.

And I would generally agree with that. But to hold that against a movie--especially a Disney film, where nearly every main male and/or female character is married off by the end--is going too far. More specifically, they identify it as a huge flaw with the "girl's" movies, and seem to ignore that this happens in the boy's films, too. It wouldn't irk me nearly as bad if they identified SW, Cinderella, et al as more flawed because they often make love/marriage the driving force of the narrative (where most films geared to boys end with a de facto marriage, that was never a huge focus). Still, I would find it hard not to disagree with that at this point in Disney's history, considering newer movies like Aladdin, Hercules, Hunchback, B&tB, and TP&TF with male protagonists that are driven by love/marriage. But at least that criticism would be something more fair.

It most certainly is not enough to have Jasmine simply say "I'm not a prize to be won" or for Belle to say she doesn't want to be with a man who is "positively primeval." The actions have to speak along with the words. And in almost every Disney film dealing with the individualism of female characters or with scenes of "girl power," they don't. They lay on a forward gesture with nothing to back it up. They seem to believe the old saying- love makes us do foolish things, and expect us to subconsciously and psychologically, as children no less, think the gesture is enough.

I agree that they should take a more conscious effort to back up what they say about female empowerment (your example with Jasmine is something I've always found problematic with that character), but, at the same time, I think they already have started to back up their statements of female individualism. With characters like Pocahontas, Esmeralda, Mulan, Kida, and Tiana, I think they've taken huge steps forward. That doesn't change the past (and films like Aladdin, TLK, B&tB, and Mermaid), but I think they've definitely improved. To some extent, I feel that this progress is ignored in most critiques; I've even read some reviews lately that put down Tiana, an extremely strong heroine who pays for her dream out of her own pocket. Of course, I also feel that not every female character should have to be a mary sue--some women are flawed, like Ariel or Megara (or Rapunzel), and requiring that all female characters are superwomen would only restrict them from fleshing out future characters. Most children would, I'm guessing, grow up with many of these movies. As long as they're shown the multiple roles a woman can have, I can't really think there would be negative effects for a girl to watch Cinderella if she's also watching Mulan.

Overall, I agree with what feminism is trying to do, but I think critics often take it to the extreme and lambaste movies that are honestly very innocent.

[Jackoleen]

Dear Disney's Divinity,

I realize that most Americans, etc., tend to believe that EVERY woman desires, both civilly and primalistically, a marriage, and children, etc., but I know that that's not entirely true for everybody.

There are women who never desire marriage, or children, etc. There are also women who choose to marry only for money, and there are those women who would prefer to live with a wealthy man, so that there are no permanent commitments involved, relationship-wise.

I personally believe that even though The Disney Company's first order of business IS business, they have too often forced their most independent female characters to conform to "The Stick-O-Butter Disney Heroine Archetype" (Ie: Eglantine Price may not be an animated character, but she starts out being as cold as a frozen stick of butter, and then, she is forced to melt, as though she should only be around to top an English muffin/ submit to tradition; there is not necessarily a "happy medium" for her, although she doesn't make any matrimonial promises to anybody.)

I realize that Walt himself conformed to the stereotypes of his day, but I also know that he was not above taking gambles in the name of slightly careful novelty. I think that if The Disney Company is willing to create a frying pan- wielding heroine, they should be willing to create a heroine whose main mission may be aided by, but is not related to, the hero who desires her. Why shouldn't both proud single guys AND girls be represented by animated and/ or live-action Disney characters who don't necessarily choose love/ a relationship even AFTER they've achieved their goals?

I don't believe that love relationships SHOULDN'T be featured in Disney movies ever again, but I do think that different types of relationships should be featured, so that kids will be able to learn that they CAN choose between many different paths once they are grown up.

Since parents wouldn't be FORCED to take their children to every Disney movie, those parent who might be offended by certain movie plots could tell their kids "Sorry", while those parents who would prefer that their kids were presented with a more broad view of the world could take their kids to a variety of new Disney movies.

I think that The Disney Company might be surprised by the number of satisfied movie-goers that would show for their new movies.

I also think that a ton of "not so average" movie-goers would be a great deal more happy.

I mean, pretend that you were the parent of a little kid who was terminally ill. For THAT child, the possibility of "Happily Ever After" might pale in comparison to the realities of medical advancements. Or let's say that your kid had accidentally been burned, badly, and that no amount of makeup would ever make the right side of their face look any type of ideal; that kid might feel emotionally ill after trying to idolize "Cinderella" after "Cinderella" after "Cinderella", because their maturation process would cause them to realize that THEY'D never be able to look that good, and that "Prince Charming" DIDN'T actually choose "Cindy" because of her pure-heartedness, but because she had the "normal" face that women are "supposed" to sport. Let's say that your teen daughter knew that she'd never be able to have children; if she was a Disney fan, she might want to turn into Regan McNeil after hearing one too many animated Disney cupcake babe crowing about true love and a bright, perfect future.

I can say that my personal life really caused me to react negatively to one aspect of "The Princess and the Frog". Due to some traumatic news that I'd received early during 2009, I truly wanted to attack the movie screen when Tiana's mother said that she wanted to see her grandchildren. I did not need that stereotype to be reiterated one more time. As nice as Eudora was, I was angry with her when she made that remark.

Thank you in advance for your reply.

I for one am glad the movie goes about trying to show an egalitarian relationship to children (especially boys), where a woman's voice is the centerpoint rather than try to pretend women are going to live eternally single.

[ajmrowland]

Flynn didn't rescue Rapunzel. Rapunzel was the one who forced him to guide her to the lanterns. She was the one who had the upper hand and took charge of her life despite Flynn's reluctant assistance.

I'm not putting down the character, but she could only do that because Flynn was there in the first place. Had he not come along, what would she have done? Even though she forced him to take her with him, it still means she needed another human being to accompany her. Again, not a bad thing, but it is a fact.

fix'd.

now, as for feminism.........we cant really deny that Ariel was a big stride away from all her predecessors.

Jasmine mostly talked, but she escaped the palace...................and got caught. not a great moment for feminism. but that can be assumed it was her sheltered life as an inactive royal that caused her to be so naive. Girl Power got pwnd by experience.

Belle's actions towards Gaston spoke volumes.

[Wonderlicious]

Erm, Cinderella did do something; she believed. How many times do we have to go through this motion?

That and she tried to get her stepfamily to let her get to the ball. She thought she would do all the work, but it turned out she couldn't, and the mice happened to do it, she wasn't waiting for them. Also, she cried in the garden because at that point there was no way for her to get to the ball, so she really did need a miracle, but it was a reward for her trying.

Dude, I was only messing, hence the ";)" emoticon. I understand that the film has a sort of karma philosophy. Anyway, this thread is about Tiana, The Princess and the Frog and the general Princess merchandise line, not about Cinderella.

A few proper points I'm going to add to this discussion:

1. The Disney Princess line-up is basically the Disney Pretty and Popular Heroine line-up, generally comprised of pretty animated female protagonists between the ages of 15 and 25 whose films were popular. That rules the likes of Kida and Eilonwy out (since their films tanked big time), and other heroines from other popular films who make casual dips into the universe as forms of padding (songs to put on CDs, park meet-and-greets) don't quite fit the niche; Tinkerbell is an inch high, Alice is still a child and Mary Poppins is a flesh-and-blood human (and around 30 at that). The term Princess doesn't necessarily mean royalty, it means a sense of idealism.

2. Pocahontas is very much a princess in my eyes, if only as the equivalent in her own society.

3. Tiana has appeared everywhere on Disney Princess merchandise, as far as I've encountered, anyway. Whether or not she'll continue to do so over the next few years is another matter.

4. The staff at Disneyland Paris, from my personal experience, seem to have more freedom to relax and be themselves than at the American theme parks. I think part of the reason is just due to European tendencies. The idea of having to put on a complete and utter façade would be considered unnatural, superficial and downright creepy by both worker and customer, especially in France, where the subject of workers' rights is always an issue. The "Have a nice day" culture is ultimately still observed, just not to the point where the castmembers appear to have a coat-hanger shoved down their throat.

5. Most Disney merchandise, especially stuff ultimately aimed at children, is cheap crap, poorly designed and often made in dodgy factories in poor countries. It doesn't matter whether it's to do with Mickey, Cinderella, Pooh or Buzz Lightyear, it'll most likely be mass produced plop intended to make a quick buck, not really featuring any originality or adhering to the artistic integrity of the original films. There will be exceptions, of course. The Disney Store and the theme parks in fairness carry better quality Disney merchandise than anywhere else; this is particularly true with stuff aimed at adult fans, such as the Snow White bag that enigmawing posted, or these type of mugs, which while family-orientated, tend to respect the source films (by the way, I have all the mugs posted there). Needless to say, this type of stuff tends to be few and far between.

[Goliath]

@ Disney's Divinity: Well, I think you're a bit too harsh on feminist critics. You say they generalize all mainstream media outlets, yet you're generalizing all feminist critics. And that's how the circle got complete.

I think they would have a very good case to describe Ariel and The Little Mermaid as 'feminist in name only', for the obvious reasons I described. The article you mentioned has a good point about Ursula and how she *is* the real feminist of the film. But maybe she gets overlooked because she's not the main character? In my opinion, Ursula's behavior should definitly be taken into account when 'judging' the film. Ariel is presented as a feminist, but she's more a rebellious teenager than anything else. This goes even moreso for Jasmine, who's ultimately even more passive --but then again, it's not her own film.

In general, I don't think feminist critics have "already made up their mind" about the media they're trying to analyse. I think we (men *and* women alike) tend to ignore many instances of (subliminal) sexism in media/pop culture, because we have been conditioned to accept it as 'normal'.

Even though she forced him to take her with him, it still means she needed another human being to accompany her. Again, not a bad thing, but it is a fact.

fix'd.

Uhm... no, you didn't fix anything, you just messed up my quote. She needed a man to guide her. Flynn is a man. You can dislike it all you want, but it is what it is.

Belle's actions towards Gaston spoke volumes.

Yeah, she made fun of him. You go, girlfriend!

I realize that most Americans, etc., tend to believe that EVERY woman desires, both civilly and primalistically, a marriage, and children, etc., but I know that that's not entirely true for everybody.

Well, biologically speaking, 99% of women do desire offspring. If they weren't 'programmed' that way, we would've been extinct as a species a looooong time ago. Forget marriage. Marriage (and monogamy) is an invention by men in order to do business and secure property.

[...] I think that if The Disney Company is willing to create a frying pan- wielding heroine, [...]

As an aside: I'm surprised that this element of Rapunzel hasn't been criticized yet. Of all the weapons the makers could give her, what did they decide on? The frying pan, *the* number one stereotype associated with (bossy, unsympathetic) women. Of course they give the woman a piece of kitchen equipment! Not saying that it bothers *me*, but this is a perfect example of subliminal sexism in mainstream media (I don't even think the makers were conscious of this fact).

[...] they should be willing to create a heroine whose main mission may be aided by, but is not related to, the hero who desires her. Why shouldn't both proud single guys AND girls be represented by animated and/ or live-action Disney characters who don't necessarily choose love/ a relationship even AFTER they've achieved their goals?

That's why I always hated the fact that. in the tv series Kim Possible, main characters Kim and Ron end up in a romantic relationship after they've been just friends for three seasons --and, as we've been told, after having been just friends since kindergarten! I thought: finally, a tv show that won't go the clichéd route of making the best friends into lovers. Unfortunately, they did and that's one of the reasons the fourth season was so bad.

[...] Or let's say that your kid had accidentally been burned, badly, and that no amount of makeup would ever make the right side of their face look any type of ideal; that kid might feel emotionally ill after trying to idolize "Cinderella" after "Cinderella" after "Cinderella", because their maturation process would cause them to realize that THEY'D never be able to look that good, and that "Prince Charming" DIDN'T actually choose "Cindy" because of her pure-heartedness, but because she had the "normal" face that women are "supposed" to sport. [...]

But that goes for almost every movie, not just Disney movies. (Notable Disney-exceptions are Beauty and the Beast and, of course, Hunchback of Notre Dame.) Would you expect Disney, or all of Hollywood, to make films with 'deformed' (sorry for the word) characters? I think it wouldn't be fair to ask this of Disney, since their theatrical output is so small and there would be simply too many issues to cover. However, they could inject some of what you mentioned in their saccharine-sweet tv shows aimed at tween girls. I've seen some of them and their godawful 'perfect', overly happy worlds could use a healthy dose of realism.

I have learned that, if you're looking for realism in film, don't look to Hollywood. There are many excellent films being made all over the world (from Korea to New Zealand; from Uzbekistan to Burkino Faso) that often do depict reality in a truthfull manner --and they're no less good because of it.

[Disney's Divinity]

@ Disney's Divinity: Well, I think you're a bit too harsh on feminist critics. You say they generalize all mainstream media outlets, yet you're generalizing all feminist critics. And that's how the circle got complete.

I know I generalized:

My intention wasn't to generalize, because, for one, I support feminism and, two, I've read many strong and well-made feminist reviews (and, no, I don't consider them good just if they agree with me). I didn't mean to throw down the gauntlet either. I just find many reviews to be extreme or to some extent unfair in their assessments of most Disney films.

And yet that generalization isn't going to cast bad light on a bunch of films for a wide number of viewers (and it's not going to go that far on the internet to cast bad light on feminist critics either).

In general, I don't think feminist critics have "already made up their mind" about the media they're trying to analyse.

That's where we disagree. I think that, in general, with feminist critiques of Disney films, they have. With exceptions, of course.

[Goliath]

In general, I don't think feminist critics have "already made up their mind" about the media they're trying to analyse.

That's where we disagree. I think that, in general, with feminist critiques of Disney films, they have. With exceptions, of course.

But do you think that's only true of feminist critics, or of *all* critics? I'm no feminist, but as a film scholar myself, I find that presumption a bit 'offensive'* to our occupation.

* For lack of a better word. I'm not really offended, of course. But a bit bewildered, I am.