Anyone else getting tired of the Disney Princesses?

[The_Iceflash]

I don't mean the timeless classic Disney films but it seems like Disney is taking it too far. IMO, they are doing too much of it and doing too much with it. I think we're seeing too many Disney Princess-related films as of late. (5 New Princesses in under 5 years is a bit much, IMO. Anna and Elsa are said to be add this year to the line up giving us a whopping 13 Princesses!!!). Plus in New Fantasyland in Walt Disney World, too much of the new space is used up with meet and greets for the Princesses. Epcot, though it makes sense, has Princess meet and greets in the respective countries (or similar region to) where they are from. I just think we're getting too much "Disney Princess" and they need to give it a rest for a LONG time. Is it just me or does anyone else feel this way too?

[Vlad]

I'm not bothered by it at all. They're an important franchise for the company, and one of their best moneymakers, IMO.

[disneyprincess11]

1990s: Ariel, Jasmine, Belle, Pocahontas, Mulan, and Kida (Membership cancelled).
2010s: Giselle (Membership cancelled), Tiana, Rapunzel, Merida, Anna/Elsa, Angelina (Possibly), and Moana

Technically, we are getting as many princesses as we did in the 90s with Elsa being the extra baggage. So, they're really not overdoing it. It'll die out soon. But, if they keep on making more princesses in the 2020s, then yes, they'll be overdoing it.

[moviefan12]

No, I can't say that I am. There are characters that I like more than others and I think we won't be getting our next princess character until Giants come out but I can understand growing tired of them because Disney does love promoting them like crazy.

[DisneyFan09]

I'm not exactly tired, but I do think the focus has turned the wrong direction. It seems as Disney wants to give princesses mainly to fill their Princess franchise. It's not that their movies lately haven't been good, on the contrary. I'm glad that Princess franchise has done well, but it has been overexposed.

[DancingCrab]

As much I love the movies and characters themselves, I've always turned a blind eye to the group franchise that is targeted to little girls.

I eat up merchandise that is based off the films and am grateful the two things feel separate enough for me to keep them in two categories as it's clear when you're dealing with Disney Princess Ariel...


and Walt Disney Pictures' The Little Mermaid

[Atlantica]

I agree with DancingCrab; there is a difference between the characters featured in the films to the girls that grace the merchandise. Some bare little or even no resemblance to each other; but as long as there are little girls in the world, the Princesses will loved and cherished and adored in all their formats. It's just the older group of us that can maybe tire of the Princess franchise as a whole, but not the characters. And for little ones, there isn't any difference between the two.

I think that I could never tire of the Princesses myself; they are my favourite characters to come from Disney as each in turn have been either wonderfully written or have a beautiful song, or embody a fantastic spirit …. all qualities I love.

I do think though, with children growing up so fast now, and being able to access so much more than I ever did growing up, I would want my children to be absorbed into the fairytale world the girls make up, as its a wonderful place to be compared to some things you see now for children.

So in conclusion, I'm not getting tired of it at all. If they did ever get rid of them, Disney would be extremely male dominated, no ? What with Cars / Planes / Marvel / Star Wars ? The only other female franchise would be Disney Fairies !

[moviefan12]

Atlantica, it's funny you say that because I once remember hearing someone say that Disney was mostly dominated by female fans in an interview. I know this not to be true and I also agree with DancingCrab, there is a difference between how they are in the movies, when compared to the franchise. And I really don't have much of an issue with the franchise other than including Elsa but they are going to stick around for a long time because little girls love them.

[Miss Manday]

I'm not bothered by it at all. They're an important franchise for the company, and one of their best moneymakers, IMO.

This, exactly. Not to mention little girls (and big girls) love the Disney Princesses. As long as the intended demographic still loves them, that's all there is to it.

[Dr Frankenollie]

If they did ever get rid of them, Disney would be extremely male dominated, no ? What with Cars / Planes / Marvel / Star Wars ? The only other female franchise would be Disney Fairies !

Ew, gender roles.

It's a shame that the princess movies dominate Disney feature animation, but at this point its unavoidable, considering the cliché goes hand-in-hand with the Renaissance nostalgia that powers Tangled, Frozen, et al. Films like Wreck-It Ralph and Big Hero 6 seem promising on paper, but there's always this sense that they're just catering to other demographics, rather than genuinely experimenting artistically. Disney animation under Walt was consistently much braver at attempting different styles and stories. He didn't immediately follow Snow White with Cinderella, but an adaptation of a relatively recent (as far as Disney's source material generally goes) adventure serial, followed by an attempt at a brand new art form, followed by a feature-length silly symphony with elements of surrealism, and then by a dark film just featuring animal characteristics in a realistic depiction of woodlands...

Point is, he went to all sorts of diverse places. And even during the 50s, there was a lot more variety than in the Renaissance. Certainly, the Renaissance gradually began to adapt unusual pieces of source material, but generally the films were told in the same repetitive formula, tone and style. They recently seem to be adopting the same pattern again, at least for every other movie. So it will be princess/weird/princess/weird, etc.

The funny thing is, although this is being heralded as a new Golden Age for Disney, the so-called Dark Ages are always more interesting. The period between Xerox and Ashman in the 70s and 80s is regarded by many as being the period where Disney struggled to find their identity and didn't know what they were doing, and the period after Tarzan up to around 2009 (or perhaps as early as Disney's acquisition of Pixar) echoes this era. Sure, they never settle on a particular formula to recycle five times over and there are many mistakes made, but being hit-and-miss is integral to experimentation. And because they're more willing to try on completely alien moods, atmospheres and ideas, sometimes the products of these eras end up so much richer. So yes, Dark Age I has Black Cauldron, which to me is somewhat underrated and unfairly marginalised, but undeniably...flawed. But it also has The Rescuers and The Great Mouse Detective, the former of which is a bloody masterpiece. Dark Age II errs many a time, yet the occasional masterstroke like Lilo & Stitch and The Emperor's New Groove demonstrate that the mistakes were worth it.

Sadly, perpetual pessimist that I am, modern Disney doesn't have the same exciting feel that the Dark Ages did.

[Walter]

Well, I am tired of the overexposure of the Princess Line, as I sometimes feel like it leads to the stereotype that the Disney name is more of a girly thing. But I don't mind the princess characters, and in fact, I enjoy the actual films. And in one case, I can definitely relate to one of them, even if I am male.

[ce1ticmoon]

I'm not a fan of the franchise and I suppose you could say I'm "getting tired" of it, though I wasn't really on board since the get go. Not that I mind that there is children/little girl-centered merchandise based on the princess characters.

However, like many, I am not particular happy with the treatment of the characters--the manner in which they take the characters out of context really betrays the spirit of their characters (not to mention those recent horrifying redesigns). I recall looking through a Disney Princess storybook, and on a page regarding Tiana, I remember the text blurb saying something to the effect of "Tiana always wished to be a princess, and now she is!" That is about as out-of-character as they could get...

I'm also a bit irked by the way that any film that stars one of the Disney Princesses is now effectively labelled a "Princess film" as if that is now some sort of genre. I think it really does the films a disservice, and perhaps even degrades the perception of those movies in the eyes of general audiences. Many people think Snow White, Cinderella, and Sleeping Beauty are films for little girls, and I think that is a travesty. I mean, they are films for little girls, of course, but are also films for little boys, grown adults, and everyone else.

[ce1ticmoon]

It's a shame that the princess movies dominate Disney feature animation, but at this point its unavoidable, considering the cliché goes hand-in-hand with the Renaissance nostalgia that powers Tangled, Frozen, et al. Films like Wreck-It Ralph and Big Hero 6 seem promising on paper, but there's always this sense that they're just catering to other demographics, rather than genuinely experimenting artistically. Disney animation under Walt was consistently much braver at attempting different styles and stories. He didn't immediately follow Snow White with Cinderella, but an adaptation of a relatively recent (as far as Disney's source material generally goes) adventure serial, followed by an attempt at a brand new art form, followed by a feature-length silly symphony with elements of surrealism, and then by a dark film just featuring animal characteristics in a realistic depiction of woodlands...

Point is, he went to all sorts of diverse places. And even during the 50s, there was a lot more variety than in the Renaissance. Certainly, the Renaissance gradually began to adapt unusual pieces of source material, but generally the films were told in the same repetitive formula, tone and style. They recently seem to be adopting the same pattern again, at least for every other movie. So it will be princess/weird/princess/weird, etc.

The funny thing is, although this is being heralded as a new Golden Age for Disney, the so-called Dark Ages are always more interesting. The period between Xerox and Ashman in the 70s and 80s is regarded by many as being the period where Disney struggled to find their identity and didn't know what they were doing, and the period after Tarzan up to around 2009 (or perhaps as early as Disney's acquisition of Pixar) echoes this era. Sure, they never settle on a particular formula to recycle five times over and there are many mistakes made, but being hit-and-miss is integral to experimentation. And because they're more willing to try on completely alien moods, atmospheres and ideas, sometimes the products of these eras end up so much richer. So yes, Dark Age I has Black Cauldron, which to me is somewhat underrated and unfairly marginalised, but undeniably...flawed. But it also has The Rescuers and The Great Mouse Detective, the former of which is a bloody masterpiece. Dark Age II errs many a time, yet the occasional masterstroke like Lilo & Stitch and The Emperor's New Groove demonstrate that the mistakes were worth it.

Sadly, perpetual pessimist that I am, modern Disney doesn't have the same exciting feel that the Dark Ages did.

+1 Many great points.

I also enjoy the so-called Dark Ages for their experimentation and reaching outside the standard formula. I especially think the early 2000s had some interesting stuff going on, and while I do think many of their safer, more formulaic films have been stronger films overall, I really appreciate the ambition and artistry that has gone into such films. (And I agree that Lilo & Stitch and The Emperor's New Groove were high points during that period, and that those films rival some of the best work from the more successful periods.)

That said, I do like the current period. I do think the current films are the strongest string of films since... perhaps the early Renaissance. They are "safe," to be sure. Tangled and Frozen go without saying, but take Wreck-It Ralph, for example. I don't feel it was experimental at all. There were many areas where they could have played with the concept... The entire game-hopping concept could have lended itself to playing with all sorts of visual design and animation styles. And while each world did have a unique sense of physics and design, I think they could have pushed the envelope a lot further (and that is what I was hoping for before the release of the first trailer). I also think it was a huge missed opportunity to not incorporate live-action footage for the "real world" portion of the film. It was a bit disheartening to read that Lasseter rejected Moore's proposal regarding that, and I think it really shows how reluctant Disney is to truly experiment with a feature film. That said, the story-telling was tight, the characters charming, and the visuals were still quite a delight, and I think it's a great film.The same is (mostly) true regarding their other recent films. Still, I do long for Disney to take some risks, as unrealistic as that might be.

[unprincess]

However, like many, I am not particular happy with the treatment of the characters--the manner in which they take the characters out of context really betrays the spirit of their characters (not to mention those recent horrifying redesigns). I recall looking through a Disney Princess storybook, and on a page regarding Tiana, I remember the text blurb saying something to the effect of "Tiana always wished to be a princess, and now she is!" That is about as out-of-character as they could get...

this...

I like the Princess films & characters but the problem is the franchise takes them & generisizes(yeah thats probably not a real word) them into borimg Princess tropes. Also the exclusion of less Princessy but interesting characters like Alice, Meg & Esmeralda is a detriment to the line.

[Semaj]

Not so much the princesses themselves, but the fact that they are being over-marketed. Having them all together undermines their individuality, and their "palace pets" is completely unnecessary.

There's also a slight problem where Disney can't seem to market their non-princess heroines, since I'm sure there are female Disney fans who are not interested in the sparkly pink and purple stuff. Alice in Wonderland and Peter Pan's Tinkerbell only seem to be marketed to a small crowd, usually your nearest Hot Topic.

[Disney's Divinity]

So in conclusion, I'm not getting tired of it at all. If they did ever get rid of them, Disney would be extremely male dominated, no ? What with Cars / Planes / Marvel / Star Wars ? The only other female franchise would be Disney Fairies !

I agree. We should just be glad there are any movies with female leads at all, rather than complain about it.

[Atlantica]

Exactly, I didn't even think of it in that respect, but you're completely right; it's nice to have a female lead who's intelligent and fun and who's inspiring, which is what I think each Princess is.

Nice to see women who aren't completely sexualised all the time as well, thats a huge point for me. Maybe Elsa could be / should be viewed as 'sexy' but Princesses on the whole is what I mean.

[FlyingPiggy]

^ this sums up how I feel about them in pop culture. I lothe that.


As for the princesses themselves, no, I like them; in there movies. But I am so very, very tried of vanilla stories about royalty. Which just so happen to be any film with a female lead

[Mooky]

^^ LMAO at that pic!

[Dr Frankenollie]

We should just be glad there are any movies with female leads at all, rather than complain about it.

But why do they all have to be princesses?