Tangled Discussion Part VI: Let the Drama continue...

[LySs]

And could somebody please explain to me why it's good news that Rapunzel is getting robbed from her identity to feature among other off-model princesses on second-rate clip-art decorating the abysmal kiddie-oriented, Disney-brand destroying Princess merchandise?

Oh, it's not.

What bugs me the most from that picture is Pocahontas. That dress goes against everything she said in the movie. It's sad that Disney feels the need to cheapen their characters and movies like this.

I agree, yet at the same time, it's actually not that far off from the real-life Pocahontas.



Sure its not a sparkly dress, but did she wear english clothes. Then again, we are talking about the Disney version so my point is pretty much moot.
But I definitely agree with you about the Princess line cheapening the legacy of their movies.

Oh to remember a time when Disney princesses were seen as just main characters and not as an icon for little girls to play dress up.

[Semaj]

And yeah, pretty bloody sparkly. Looks like the fairy godmother threw up on them or something ...

Someone at Deviantart made fun of something like this.

[phan258]

This whole "her dress isn't Native American enough" vibe is weirding me out. If I said "Tiana's green dress isn't African/Black enough" there'd be a sh!tfit. Why can't Pocahontas wear an English style dress in England?

Anyway that movie is terrible, so honestly she can wear whatever she damn well pleases---I won't see it regardless

[sunhuntin]

OMG, that drawing is priceless!

[WarriorDreamer]

To be honest I don't really have a problem with the whole 'princess line' thing. If we're honest little girls LOVE the princesses and they would be in love with them regardless of whether there's a princess line or not. Having a ton of merchandise and pictures doesn't take anything away from the movies at-all.

If they started changing the characters, drew them differently and started making them wear clothes they would never wear it'd be a problem. So far I haven't seen them do that....

[Scarred4life]

To be honest I don't really have a problem with the whole 'princess line' thing. If we're honest little girls LOVE the princesses and they would be in love with them regardless of whether there's a princess line or not. Having a ton of merchandise and pictures doesn't take anything away from the movies at-all.

It's because people now associate Disney with little kids merchandise and bad-quality movies geared towards making money. They cheapened the Disney brand. It's no longer associated with quality films, it's associated with cheap, sparkly princess merchandise.

[Sotiris]

What bugs me the most from that picture is Pocahontas. That dress goes against everything she said in the movie. It's sad that Disney feels the need to cheapen their characters and movies like this.

Is this better?




More 'Rapunzel' merchandise






I also found this:

[pinkrenata]

This whole "her dress isn't Native American enough" vibe is weirding me out. If I said "Tiana's green dress isn't African/Black enough" there'd be a sh!tfit. Why can't Pocahontas wear an English style dress in England?

To me, Pocahontas would only considered a princess when she is associated with the Powhatan Tribe. In England, the real Pocahontas may have been respected in some circles, but she would have been considered to be far from royalty. Sure, she may have posed for a portrait in a pretty dress, but she still would have been a second-class citizen, if even that. Obviously we don't have enough documentation to know for sure but, realistically, by marrying an Englishman, she went from being a "princess" (or, daughter of a chief) to a white man's wife.

And THAT'S why the Pocahontas vs. Tiana argument doesn't work. As far as we are told, Tiana was born in the U.S., not Africa.

[phan258]

This whole "her dress isn't Native American enough" vibe is weirding me out. If I said "Tiana's green dress isn't African/Black enough" there'd be a sh!tfit. Why can't Pocahontas wear an English style dress in England?

To me, Pocahontas would only considered a princess when she is associated with the Powhatan Tribe. In England, the real Pocahontas may have been respected in some circles, but she would have been considered to be far from royalty. Sure, she may have posed for a portrait in a pretty dress, but she still would have been a second-class citizen, if even that. Obviously we don't have enough documentation to know for sure but, realistically, by marrying an Englishman, she went from being a "princess" (or, daughter of a chief) to a white man's wife.

And THAT'S why the Pocahontas vs. Tiana argument doesn't work. As far as we are told, Tiana was born in the U.S., not Africa.

Wait......we're going to discuss people being treated as second-class citizens, yet Tiana's exempt because she was born in America? Not to be obvious, but.....the movie itself hints VERY strongly that Tiana was NOT equal in the eyes of the "white upper class." As far as the rascist folks in that film were concerned, Tiana was playing at a life she didn't belong in/deserve/so on. She was NOT a true citizen to them, regardless of her being born here or in Africa. Perhaps her being born in America means she'd be less likely to dress in traditional African style, but that's probably because she'd be tormented further by racist neighbors for doing so and/or she simply has no interest in doing so.

Also I'm not really sure what we're arguing, because as far as I intended in my quoted post, I was wondering why it's so wrong to dress in the manner the locals dress--and at the time, Pocahontas is in England. I never even mentioned her "princesshood." Personally, I see all Disney females as heroines, some of whom are royal within their respective film's plotlines by blood or marriage.

I guess the bottom line is that I think it's unfair to get on Pocahontas for wearing something other than deerhide and beads. Isn't the whole point of her film to accept other people/cultures? It'd be a little bass ackwards for her to turn around and refuse to at least explore English culture, through manner of dress or whatever. And don't you think Pocahontas would be seen as even LESS of a citizen, on top of being both Native American and a woman, if she walked around an English ballroom in her tribal dress?

Although really I think that's giving a crappy sequel more consideration than it's due.

[Scarred4life]

Is this better?

Ah yes, much better.

[pinkrenata]

To me, Pocahontas would only considered a princess when she is associated with the Powhatan Tribe. In England, the real Pocahontas may have been respected in some circles, but she would have been considered to be far from royalty. Sure, she may have posed for a portrait in a pretty dress, but she still would have been a second-class citizen, if even that. Obviously we don't have enough documentation to know for sure but, realistically, by marrying an Englishman, she went from being a "princess" (or, daughter of a chief) to a white man's wife.

And THAT'S why the Pocahontas vs. Tiana argument doesn't work. As far as we are told, Tiana was born in the U.S., not Africa.

Wait......we're going to discuss people being treated as second-class citizens, yet Tiana's exempt because she was born in America? lol:

I'm totally just talking about types of clothes people from said time periods/classes might wear and nothing else. The glittery mess was not intended to start a civil rights debate. My bad.

[WarriorDreamer]

It's because people now associate Disney with little kids merchandise and bad-quality movies geared towards making money. They cheapened the Disney brand. It's no longer associated with quality films, it's associated with cheap, sparkly princess merchandise.

Do people? What bad quality films? Maybe it's just a select few people but I personally associate Disney with high quality films. I find all the original Disney films high quality and it makes no difference to me if there's merchandise for princesses or not. If it makes them more popular, why not? Some people are acting as if they loved the princess movies but having some merchandise makes them look bad.... how does that work exactly??

There's also merchandise for Pixar, Winnie the Pooh, Disney fairies, Disney Villains, etc, what is so wrong with having extra merchandise to go with certain 'Disney product lines.'

And no, I associate Disney with their 51 animated films, their Mickey mouse cartoons, their live action films, the theme parks, etc.

[disneyprincess11]

What bugs me the most from that picture is Pocahontas. That dress goes against everything she said in the movie. It's sad that Disney feels the need to cheapen their characters and movies like this.

Is this better?




More 'Rapunzel' merchandise






I also found this:

Hahaa I love the Jessica picture! And I love the merchanidise too!

[disneyboy20022]

(re-created from an avatar I saw years ago, because I have no idea where I saw it. )

I was wondering who did that to Newt Gingrich and other politicians latley

[ajmrowland]

It's because people now associate Disney with little kids merchandise and bad-quality movies geared towards making money. They cheapened the Disney brand. It's no longer associated with quality films, it's associated with cheap, sparkly princess merchandise.

Do people? What bad quality films? Maybe it's just a select few people but I personally associate Disney with high quality films. I find all the original Disney films high quality and it makes no difference to me if there's merchandise for princesses or not. If it makes them more popular, why not? Some people are acting as if they loved the princess movies but having some merchandise makes them look bad.... how does that work exactly??

There's also merchandise for Pixar, Winnie the Pooh, Disney fairies, Disney Villains, etc, what is so wrong with having extra merchandise to go with certain 'Disney product lines.'

And no, I associate Disney with their 51 animated films, their Mickey mouse cartoons, their live action films, the theme parks, etc.

Is this the only website you've been on?

[Scarred4life]

Do people? What bad quality films? Maybe it's just a select few people but I personally associate Disney with high quality films. I find all the original Disney films high quality and it makes no difference to me if there's merchandise for princesses or not.

The sequels are bad quality films. Not the originals, the sequels.

[SWillie!]

Do people? What bad quality films? Maybe it's just a select few people but I personally associate Disney with high quality films. I find all the original Disney films high quality and it makes no difference to me if there's merchandise for princesses or not. If it makes them more popular, why not? Some people are acting as if they loved the princess movies but having some merchandise makes them look bad.... how does that work exactly??

There's also merchandise for Pixar, Winnie the Pooh, Disney fairies, Disney Villains, etc, what is so wrong with having extra merchandise to go with certain 'Disney product lines.'

And no, I associate Disney with their 51 animated films, their Mickey mouse cartoons, their live action films, the theme parks, etc.

Is this the only website you've been on?

Haha seriously...

The idea of "Disney Product Lines" is not a bad one in and of itself. But with such as strong push for products that do not live up to the original, quality movie, the general public realized that Disney has become more about the money than about creating content. Yes, us "fans" that actually spend our time on a Disney forum understand that Disney should be associated with the things you mentioned. But the general public does not think that way. To the general public, Disney's 51 animated films are just more cartoons in a highly over-saturated market... Mickey Mouse is an icon, not a cartoon character... and the parks are a place where little girls can meet the princesses.

The general public does not see Disney in the same light it used to. Regardless, that's the way it is and it isn't going to change anytime soon. Money talks.

[ajmrowland]

^Boy, do I love hearing painful truths.

I think I'm just gonna ignore that like everyone who hears what they dont wanna hear does.

Just kidding.

[WarriorDreamer]

Haha seriously...

The idea of "Disney Product Lines" is not a bad one in and of itself. But with such as strong push for products that do not live up to the original, quality movie, the general public realized that Disney has become more about the money than about creating content. Yes, us "fans" that actually spend our time on a Disney forum understand that Disney should be associated with the things you mentioned. But the general public does not think that way. To the general public, Disney's 51 animated films are just more cartoons in a highly over-saturated market... Mickey Mouse is an icon, not a cartoon character... and the parks are a place where little girls can meet the princesses.

The general public does not see Disney in the same light it used to. Regardless, that's the way it is and it isn't going to change anytime soon. Money talks.

Well to each his own or her own. Everyone is different and everyone sees things differently. I don't quite understand what you mean about 'how the general public looks at Disney' at what point was the switch made from quality films to just poor quality and money grabbing? I must have been in la la land if Disney became a different company than it used to be when I was a child.

To me personally, I always follow their films, from Snow White to the recent Tangled, I love them ALL and see them as classic films. There's nothing that could be said to take that away, I see them as classics. Full stop. Whatever Disney does, be it a new movie, or changes they make to the company I'm always with them 100% because they always make good choices.

I hate this idea of 'money grabbing' and 'cash cow' to me that only applies when no-one likes a product but they're just milking it for all it's worth with no quality. People love all the Disney characters so that doesn't apply. Now I understand alot of people don't like the sequels, but how much does it bother you really that they made a cheaper sequel? There is a simple solution: don't watch it.

If the sequels are really ruining it for you then don't watch them or even acknowledge they exist.

As for the product lines, they are merchandise that is highly in demand for children and Disney fans. Should they stop making backpacks, bed sheets and lunchboxes with Disney's characters faces on them? No, I don't see how it tarnishes the image of the original film.

There's a reason they make product lines and a ton of merchandise, because people LOVE the film. It's a GOOD sign that each movie made a big impact.

Now I understand there are some people who would rather go back to when it was just the feature animation and no product lines and merchandise (that must of been in like, the 50's or 60's) but you can easily IGNORE it if it's causing such a problem.

[Scarred4life]

I love them ALL and see them as classic films. There's nothing that could be said to take that away, I see them as classics. Full stop. Whatever Disney does, be it a new movie, or changes they make to the company I'm always with them 100% because they always make good choices.

Are you kidding me? How can you possibly say that the Hunchback of Notre Dame II was a classic film? It's very hard for me to think of a film that's worse than that right now.

People love all the Disney characters so that doesn't apply. Now I understand alot of people don't like the sequels, but how much does it bother you really that they made a cheaper sequel?

Yes, we like the characters. But the characters in the sequels are not the same characters that we fell in love with. They are cheaply animated shadows of the originals. It may be easy for us to not watch the sequels, but other people do. And they're the ones who think Disney is a cheap company, and all about the princess merchandise and cheap films.

EDIT: Okay, here is a quote from a website reviewing the movies coming out this weekend, and here's what they ad to say about Cars 2

“Cars 2:” This one hurts. It had to happen sometime, I suppose: the first bad movie to come out of Pixar. It feels like Disney said to them. “Okay, we get it, you can craft deep emotional stories and all that happy horse s**t, but we’d really like to sell some toys.”

See? This is what people think of Disney.