Tiana . A Disney Princess?

[ajmrowland]

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.

missing the point. Rapunzel was getting desperate enough, she would've taken just about anyone. the first victim of her skills with a frying pan just so happened to be a man.

Belle's actions towards Gaston spoke volumes.

Yeah, she made fun of him. You go, girlfriend!
[/quote]not to mention she humiliated him at his own wedding.

[BellesPrince]

1. I think the thread was originally intended to be about Tiana but ended up being hijacked by a few and turned into a rant on everything they hate about the Disney Princess line.

2. I have no problem with the likes of Pocahontas (Chief's daughter), Megara (married Zeus' son), Esmeralda (Gypsy Princess perhaps?), Kida, heck, even Mulan, being included in the Princess line - technically, most of them aren't Princesses, and it's just merchandising - but I think even at Disney, most of the time the core Princesses are considered to be Snow, Cinders, Aurora, Ariel, Belle, Jasmine and now Tiana and Rapunzel too.

3. Absolutely no doubt about it that Tiana is now considered 100% a Disney Princess. It will be interesting to see how that goes in the future - I hope she stays there.

4. I think the staff at Disneyland Paris still have alot of restrictions imposed upon them. They still have very strict approval processes for people to do different characters. In terms of face characters, there are some who you regularly see as a number of characters, there are others who seem to get stuck as one character. I think by their own admission, things probably work differently at Paris sometimes - I remember someone once telling me that jobs tend to get shared around a lot more at Paris, rather than them being employed to play just a specific character, and many of them seem to enjoy the variety that gives them. In terms of how they act, I've seen the odd person break character slightly when I've visited, but, that's been when I've met someone who's gotten to know me, and they've reacted to seeing me again - it's always been when other guests haven't been close by - and whenever I see people in the park, I always refer to them as the character they're playing, which can be a bit strange, but it's all part of the magic. But they have all kinds of rulings that they aren't supposed to be friends with guests, they aren't supposed to have character profiles on facebook profiles and things like that. From what I understand though, Tokyo is much more strict about these kind of things.

5. I think it's a bit unfair to level all this criticism against Disney merchandise. Yes, there is a lot of rubbish out there, but that's the same of any successful franchise.

I generally collect Princess merchandise, but I try and be particular about what I collect. I have things like figurines from the parks, a few WDCC sculptures and Armani statues, Disney Traditions, pins, books, snowglobes, I have a lot of glass items from DLRP, a few PVC sets, the odd cushions and soft toys, lots of mugs and glasses. I think there are a lot of nice collectibles out there. I really don't have a problem with Disney grouping characters together, that's only marketing, and I don't see it having any negative impact on how those characters are portrayed in their films. With a line of female characters, you're always going to see a skew towards young girls in the merchandising, but as an adult, straight male who enjoys these movies, I can see that there is also plenty of stuff which caters towards my tastes too.

[Wonderlicious]

4. I think the staff at Disneyland Paris still have alot of restrictions imposed upon them. They still have very strict approval processes for people to do different characters. In terms of face characters, there are some who you regularly see as a number of characters, there are others who seem to get stuck as one character. I think by their own admission, things probably work differently at Paris sometimes - I remember someone once telling me that jobs tend to get shared around a lot more at Paris, rather than them being employed to play just a specific character, and many of them seem to enjoy the variety that gives them. In terms of how they act, I've seen the odd person break character slightly when I've visited, but, that's been when I've met someone who's gotten to know me, and they've reacted to seeing me again - it's always been when other guests haven't been close by - and whenever I see people in the park, I always refer to them as the character they're playing, which can be a bit strange, but it's all part of the magic. But they have all kinds of rulings that they aren't supposed to be friends with guests, they aren't supposed to have character profiles on facebook profiles and things like that. From what I understand though, Tokyo is much more strict about these kind of things.

5. I think it's a bit unfair to level all this criticism against Disney merchandise. Yes, there is a lot of rubbish out there, but that's the same of any successful franchise.<snip>I really don't have a problem with Disney grouping characters together, that's only marketing, and I don't see it having any negative impact on how those characters are portrayed in their films. With a line of female characters, you're always going to see a skew towards young girls in the merchandising, but as an adult, straight male who enjoys these movies, I can see that there is also plenty of stuff which caters towards my tastes too.

On Disneyland Paris:
I was actually just referring to general castmembers, not so much the actual character performers. I understand that the character performers are types of actors, so auditions and strict guidelines to do with height, appearance and so on are inevitable. Sharing character roles, I can understand as well; it makes perfect sense for them to spice the roster up a bit, and most people casually visiting the parks are probably not going to see Alice and suddenly cry "hey, weren't you Tinker Bell in the parade?". I understand that sharing roles happens all the time with the fur characters as well.

On merchandise:
As I hoped to imply, not all the Disney merchandise is bad, but the fact is that a good majority of the stuff aimed at kids, which makes up most of the output, is ultimately tacky, and a great chunk of it can't exactly be labelled Fairtrade. Granted, as I said, the adult-orientated collector stuff (the type of stuff we both listed) is by far better in terms of quality, but if you were to walk into the Disney Store (which tends to sell the best readily available Disney merchandise), you'd see that it is far eclipsed by non-adult stuff. And practically no adult-orientated stuff is available outside of Disney's own establishments.

I also don't have a problem with ensemble merchandise per se; I've always loved the novelty of seeing a variety of different characters existing alongside each other, such as in Who Framed Roger Rabbit or House of Mouse. It's just that I don't like seeing Disney branding things off and making their characters seem like part of nothing more than glorified toy lines, with the films as minor notes, when it should be the other way round. The same can be said not just for the princesses, but for Winnie the Pooh, Mickey and pals, various Disney Channel stuff and possibly Toy Story/Cars.

[BellesPrince]

Sharing character roles, I can understand as well; it makes perfect sense for them to spice the roster up a bit, and most people casually visiting the parks are probably not going to see Alice and suddenly cry "hey, weren't you Tinker Bell in the parade?". I understand that sharing roles happens all the time with the fur characters as well.

if you were to walk into the Disney Store (which tends to sell the best readily available Disney merchandise), you'd see that it is far eclipsed by non-adult stuff. And practically no adult-orientated stuff is available outside of Disney's own establishments.

It actually took me a good few visits before I did realise that roles were being shared. I obviously realised that different people were playing particular characters, but I didn't immediately realise that a person was playing the same character. It happened once I started meeting the Princesses regularly. I'd met a girl playing Cinderella back in September, 2007. The following March, I met a girl playing Aurora, then the next day, met Belle, and it was obviously the same girl. But I didn't realise until I got home and I was going through photo's that she was also the Cinderella I'd met the previous trip. As things went on over the next couple year or so, I started to recognise more and more people, but, as you say, for most people, it's something that they would never really consider.

I'm not sure as to whether I've misunderstood your comment about merchandise. I think it's only reasonable to expect that generally Disney Store's will cater more towards the non-adult market, that is after all the biggest part of their market share. You then go on to say that no adult orientated stuff is available outside of Disney establishments - well, I disagree really there - aside from the parks, I think most of the adult orientated stuff is available from non-Disney establishments, for example - online retailers selling all manner of merchandise, jewellers like H Samuel selling Disney Traditions, Swarovski stores, book shops.

[pinkrenata]

I think the staff at Disneyland Paris still have alot of restrictions imposed upon them.

Yes, but in the states, you see, cast members (characters or not) practically have breathing dictated to them. I worked at The Disney Store a while back and the rules there were strict enough (all while earning close to minimum wage), so I can only imagine what it must be like at the parks. I mean, I think the truth is that Disney cast members are so happy to work in a Disney park (or, in my case, The Disney Store), that they will gladly make do with the rules and poor pay.

Now, keep in mind, I am only speaking about the U.S. Disney parks and stores. I won't pretend to be an expert on how things are elsewhere.

[Disney Duster]

we still don't know whether or not Ariel would have struck a deal with Ursula 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.

Just wanted to say that there is no evidence that confirms it was all only for the man of her dreams. To not consider that she may also have done it all to have a life where she was happier and also experience the human world she thought she should be in would be to ignore other parts of the film. Working off just the film does not confirm it is all just for the man, or rather, romantic love.

[Disney's Divinity]

Just wanted to say that there is no evidence that confirms it was all only for the man of her dreams. To not consider that she may also have done it all to have a life where she was happier and also experience the human world she thought she should be in would be to ignore other parts of the film. Working off just the film does not confirm it is all just for the man, or rather, romantic love.

I think the problem is that the two dominant factors in the deal scene do revolve around men:

1. Get away from Triton.
2. Get with Eric.

It’s likely that her dream to be part of the human world ultimately made the deal seem like a good choice (in essence, the deal seems to promise everything she wants), but it’s treated as a lesser point in that scene. What Goliath was saying is that Ariel didn’t make the deal with Ursula until she’d met Eric (and after Triton had gone psycho-blitz on her), and that is true.

Ultimately, Ariel didn’t (and I doubt she would have) made the deal with Ursula if Eric wasn’t in the picture and Triton hadn’t been an xenophobic, authoritarian lunatic. Otherwise the movie would’ve skipped to the deal after “Part of That World” (I always insist on calling it this, because she doesn’t ever sing “your” world ‘til the reprise). That is what happens in the movie. As Lazario said, that might just be because audiences tend to think that--when a character is motivated by love--bad choices are more excusable.

Plus, I think there was definitely an emotional factor in what happens. If Ariel hadn’t just had an argument with Triton, she probably would’ve stuck to her guns and never went to see Ursula.

[Disney Duster]

“Part of That World” (I always insist on calling it this, because she doesn’t ever sing “your” world ‘til the reprise).

I know, right? I agree!

Anyway, yes, but I was more directly talking about Goliath saying she sacrifices everything for a man, when in reality, she could be, and seems to be, sacrificing everything for a man+what she's always loved and been interested in. Ariel's eyes light up when she hear she can become a human, and says "You can do that" like it means quiet a lot to her in itself, and then she stares at the vision of herself as a human with obvious interest.

So even though everything you said was true or I agree with, I was mainly arguing that it cannot be definately said that she sacrifices everything only for a man.

And yes, if her dad wasn't like he was, she may have tried to get him to make her human or not needed to be on a human and live on the land or she may not even have pined for the human world as much as she did, for her life under the sea would seem better. I'm thinkin' she still would have pined about the same though.

Oh wait a minute, the line, "flippin' your fins you don't get too far; legs are required for jumping, dancin'" has me realize she did think about wanting to be human before Ursula. And before Triton's explosion. Hm.

[Goliath]

Anyway, yes, but I was more directly talking about Goliath saying she sacrifices everything for a man, when in reality, she could be, and seems to be, sacrificing everything for a man+what she's always loved and been interested in. Ariel's eyes light up when she hear she can become a human, and says "You can do that" like it means quiet a lot to her in itself, and then she stares at the vision of herself as a human with obvious interest.

When Ariel is doubting whether or not she will make the deal, she says: "I'll never be with my father or sisters again". Ursula then says: "But you'll have your man." She lets an image of Eric appear, to which Ariel is attracted. The whole segment is about Ariel wanting to be with Eric. Ariel is wondering how she will seduce Eric without her voice, to which Ursula says: "You have your body, right? Your sweet face. And don't underestimate the importance of a bodylanguage!" The whole song is about transforming Ariel into a human so she can be with a man.

I can't believe we're even debating this. Have you *seen* the film?

Oh wait a minute, the line, "flippin' your fins you don't get too far; legs are required for jumping, dancin'" has me realize she did think about wanting to be human before Ursula. And before Triton's explosion. Hm.

Yes, obviously we all know she wanted to be part of the human world. That's what that whole song was about, not just that line. What we're saying is that it's highly unlikely she would have gone as far as to make a deal with Ursula (whom she knows is dangerous, as she calls her "the seawitch"). Triton's outburst is instrumental in the story. Had it not been for that, she wouldn't have gone with Ursula's sidekicks.

[Disney Duster]

Okay, yea...but...

Basically, you are saying that the scene clearly shows that Ariel is doing it for Eric, but just like the parts you mentioned, there is still Ariel's gasp at becoming human, her joy at seeing a vision of herself human, her saying "legs are required for jumpin', dancin'" and her joy at checking out her own legs, wiggling her toes, seeing the sights of the kingdom, etc.

So there's the evidence. What you said was that the movie says that Ariel risked it all just for a man. But that can't be said as fact, because that would be ignoring other parts and other evidence in the film. The film shows us other reasons why she made that deal, and so you can't say it is fact that she did it only for Eric.

Now if you said that you felt there was too much focus on the man that it's harmful for little girls, alright, but that still can't be said as fact, either.

I also don't believe that Ariel would ever risk her life/happiness like that just to hurt her dad. To get away from him, yes, but it wouldn't make any sense to make the deal just to hurt him. If she became human permanently, she wouldn't see him again, to either really get a kick out of hurting him, to say she was right, or to really feel anything for him at all because he'd be out of her life. She couldn't see him again mostly because he wouldn't know where she was, and he also would be incredibly even more pissed at her, and I don't know if she could find him again since he probably wouldn't visit the surface. And if she didn't get kissed and was Ursula's prisoner, that wouldn't make her feel like she won or got back at her dad at all, she wouldn't want him to see her like that. To risk one's life just to hurt another is just not a sense-making decision for any person.

Also, before Ariel makes the deal with Ursula, she says that she wants to visit Eric's palace and get Flounder to splash to get his attention. She said she had to see him again and was trying to plan it. So she would have already tried somehow to see him.

But the fact is she also wanted to become human, and she needed magic for that. She needed either her dad or Ursula, and if she got desperate enough, longing for so long, she may have gone to Ursula. Either that or she would have forgotten about Eric, lol.

Which brings me to wondering if she knew he loved her or not. She obviously thought that he could love her, and played the "he loves me, he loves me not" game, but I do feel a little uneasy that she took the deal when she wasn't sure if he loved her or not.

This perhaps could have been fixed if they had Eric say "I love her!" or "I think I love her!" to Grimsby on the beach, and Ariel hears him from the rock.

Otherwise, I'm thinking Ariel's undersea life, and her life without Eric, must have been so, so painful, that it was worse to live that way than not take a chance on love and happiness by taking Ursula's deal. Otherwise, I still don't think I'd take that deal. But you know, love is the most wonderful thing in the world (that's why it can be the most painful), so one little mermaid decided the one true love she felt, even with someone she may not really know loves her back, is worth risking one's life and happiness for in such a deal. And hey, maybe she was very sure Eric loved her, it is a fairy tale. I just wish we had more clear confirmation of that in the film if it is true.

So, yea, I did watch the movie, it's my second favorite Disney movie, ya know.