DVDizzy Forum

You know Ariels'Prince, I know you are looking forward to Enchanted very much, but what you quoted sounds like an anti-princess movie. I hope it doesn't leave you disappointed.

Anyhow.

I'm happy to take Enchanted off the Princess movies list. But 'Bods post wasn't just about the actual movies, also the Princess line of toys, clothes, books and... well everything else.

These have a capability to harm Disney much more than any movie, because people see a movie once at the theater and a few times at home. But exposure to Princess t-shirts or whatever is much longer (and more subliminal too). They're not movies, but they associating Princesses with Disney in the eyes of the public. Every adult who sees a girl wearing a Princess backpack or Princess watch or T-shirt sees Disney and Princess.

I personally think the Disney Princess line is being marketed too agressively. You could argue it's popular, but then... shouldn't that mean there's less promotion and some of Disney's less popular "franchises" should be marketed more?

2099net wrote:You know Ariels'Prince, I know you are looking forward to Enchanted very much, but what you quoted sounds like an anti-princess movie. I hope it doesn't leave you disappointed.

Why? it's mean that you don't need a fairy godmother to live happily ever after,which means that fairy tale can by survive in the real world,and a happily ever after is a happy life.

Super Aurora wrote:It would be a movie about a young celtic boy who wish of an exciting adventure(and to get out of his boring life). he meets fate that turns him toward an adventure[finding a princess of magical powers, of a Celtic king, who ran away]. He along the way meets an vetern warrior(around 40's) with big sword and mascot character, an fairy elf. Eventually the find princess, the three together set out to go back to castle. Suddenly evil warlord demon ambush kingdom. The three must go his lair to fight him. they won. everythign set back again. happily ever after.

That sounds a lot like "The Black Cauldron". I totally applaud your creativity, and I'm not bashing you at all, but that's what was in my head while reading that.
[/quote]

LOL, well thing with Black Caldron was bad direction and timing. Yea I can see why you think that.

But if they were do what was done with Aladdin with adding songs and good intrumental music (celtic duh!) along with good solid story then it will work.

Problem that BC had was that the characters weren't memorable or solid. It fell flat.

blackcauldron85 wrote:I wonder if Disney is focusing on "girl" movies because their latest "boy" movies (well, "Atlantis" and "Treasure Planet") didn't do so well...

I think the reason is because Disney did some research which supposedly found that boys would be willing to watch shows with a female lead, but girls did not like watching shows with a male lead.

It was based upon this supposed research that Disney canned Christopher Robin and replaced with a female character for the new CGI series.

ichabod wrote:

blackcauldron85 wrote:I wonder if Disney is focusing on "girl" movies because their latest "boy" movies (well, "Atlantis" and "Treasure Planet") didn't do so well...

I think the reason is because Disney did some research which supposedly found that boys would be willing to watch shows with a female lead, but girls did not like watching shows with a male lead.

It was based upon this supposed research that Disney canned Christopher Robin and replaced with a female character for the new CGI series.

Oh,so Hannah Montana and Kim Possible are for boys and Disney Princess are for girls? such nonsense,no one should listen to this .

ichabod wrote: I think the reason is because Disney did some research which supposedly found that boys would be willing to watch shows with a female lead, but girls did not like watching shows with a male lead.

Disney probably drew this conclusion after lurking on this forum and seeing boys loving Princesses.

Are the shareholders happy? That's the only pertinent question!!!!

Ariel'sprince wrote:

ichabod wrote: I think the reason is because Disney did some research which supposedly found that boys would be willing to watch shows with a female lead, but girls did not like watching shows with a male lead.

It was based upon this supposed research that Disney canned Christopher Robin and replaced with a female character for the new CGI series.

Oh,so Hannah Montana and Kim Possible are for boys and Disney Princess are for girls? such nonsense,no one should listen to this .

Ariel's prince-Why must you, in EVERY debate topic,bring this up?
It is up to the individual what to watch/play with. Sure,millions of boys watch Hannah Montana,but do they go around telling their friends that? Not if they want to be made fun of! Most schooled-age children follow what stereotypes do. Which leads to the whole "Power Rangers are for BOYS! Barbies are for GIRLS!",when in fact,who the heck cares!?
Does it change who you truly are if you watch something "not meant for you"? I watch Hannah Montana occasionaly,and Desperate Housewives,but sure I still enjoy watching shows that are guy-orientated.

I know you're just trying to stick up for Disney. You just seem to state the same thing over and over..

Ariel'sprince wrote:

ichabod wrote:I think the reason is because Disney did some research which supposedly found that boys would be willing to watch shows with a female lead, but girls did not like watching shows with a male lead.

It was based upon this supposed research that Disney canned Christopher Robin and replaced with a female character for the new CGI series.

Oh,so Hannah Montana and Kim Possible are for boys and Disney Princess are for girls? such nonsense,no one should listen to this .

How did you someone get that I was saying Hannah Montana is for boys and the Princesses are for girls from what I posted?

Why don't you actually read what I posted.

And this is not nonsense, this was straight from the horses mouth. Disney said this is what they found from their research.

I agree with Netty about how aggressivley Disney's putting out Princess Merchandise, I think long term that could do a bit of damage because they're only catering to younger girls (and maybe some boys) instead of widening the range of characters. Personally I feel like the villains are long overdue for decent merchandise that doesn't solely involve Clothing (thats a different matter though).

If Disney was smart, they'd slow down the amount of princess merchandise and start putting out more stuff for the other characters I mean out of over 300 characters (very rough estimate) they're only able to focus on just the princesses? That's pretty pathetic Especially since not everyone likes the princesses so what are they left with to purchase?

Anyways I think I've gone off-topic slightly (oh well) long term...yes it could be a *tad* damaging but things can change. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing another princess movie thats along the lines of Sleeping Beauty, how instead of focusing solely on the Princess they show more of the prince and other characters let them have a chance in the spotlight.

Ok, I'm going to stop typing before I end up with another paragraph

ichabod wrote:

Ariel'sprince wrote: Oh,so Hannah Montana and Kim Possible are for boys and Disney Princess are for girls? such nonsense,no one should listen to this .

How did you someone get that I was saying Hannah Montana is for boys and the Princesses are for girls from what I posted?

Why don't you actually read what I posted.

And this is not nonsense, this was straight from the horses mouth. Disney said this is what they found from their research.

I wasn't talking about you,i was talking about Disney.
Anyway this is ridicoulse and i don't care what they think-anyone can love the Disney Princesses,and also anyone can love Hannah Montana and Kim Possible.

Chernabog_Rocks wrote: Personally I feel like the villains are long overdue for decent merchandise that doesn't solely involve Clothing (thats a different matter though).

exactly, the villains have quite a big fanbase, and yet all I'm really seeing merchandise-wise, is pins,clothing and expensive collectable things (well, at halloween there may be the odd different thing)

2099net wrote:I think that Disney is in danger of becoming too closely associated with the Princess line (something I also feel about Winnie the Pooh incidently). Both of these are heavily marketed – you could say aggressively – and such marketing is affecting how the public view Disney and their expectations of Disney product. I don't think this affect is company wide, just with Disney's animation films.

I think that this also reflects my view on the subject. I just looked up something that I wrote in a Princess thread a few months ago, which I'll quote from:

I wrote:Personally, I feel that the Princess line is essentially a glorified toy line aimed at a certain gender, in this case, girls. This is not something particularly harmful socially, as many girls who had grown up with Barbie and My Little Pony came out okay (as did the boys who grew up with Action Man and He-Man).

However, one thing that I feel harmful is to the value of the Disney films and the animated film canon. Like all toy lines directed at girls, it is made so feminine, that it would be hard for any boy to like it. This would make some kids miss out on Cinderella and the like, which whilst good films, could now easily be dismissed as tripe for seven year old girls. Equally, the connections between toy line (not just normal merchandise) and film could become blurred, and the originals could become viewed as extended advertisements.

http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... p?p=340502

I also went on to say that Disney could end up feeling that they have to include a princess in every single film, or something along those lines.

2099net wrote:Historically there's been a huge cultural shift between the 1930's – 1950's and today. If you look at the fiction kids were reading in those days, traditional fairytales were more prominent than they are today. Walt Disney's three fairytale films (Snow White/Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty) as well as the fairytale-like Pinocchio and Peter Pan are just as much because of that then any other reason. These days, there's much more innovative – and arguably – exciting stories for children, especially those who are ten years or older. Look at the books selling to children today… Harry Potter, His Dark Materials, Alex Rider (and in the UK) Tracy Beaker. All are so much more complex than fairytales and most people would say more exciting or emotional too. These days Disney should be looking to replicate those stories, not fairytales exclusively. I'm not saying Princess films cannot be more modern or exciting – Aladdin probably being the best example of one that was, but I do think its harder to do so.

What I've just bolded gave me an idea...I think that a good way to strike between the two different sides of "more fairy-tales" and "more modern fiction" would be to produce films based on the more exciting and adventurous stories (such as The Snow Queen, The Wizard of Oz, Sinbad, Ali Baba and The Firebird). Now, in all honesty, a lot of these that I can think of don't really contain princesses, but I think that some people wanting "more originality" could be easily pleased to see something that doesn't appear to be practically a remake of Sleeping Beauty (not saying that's how I feel about every fairy-tale film, but some do), whilst people wishing for more fairy-tales could easily be pleased as well, as whilst there might be no traditional princesses, there's a story that they already know getting the Disney touch.

Not everyone thinks of the princess films first - it appears we aren't quite as flooded in Princess merchandise here in the UK. A lot of my friends think first of 'Fantasia' and 'Alice in Wonderland' (though they are mostly artists or art students, and there is arguably more to appreciate artistically in these films than in the princess films, 'Snow White' excluded).

My non-arty friends tend to think of 'The Lion King' most immediately because of their age. But there are some who immediately think of 'The Little Mermaid' and other princess films. These often show a dislike for the films - but when I tell them one of my favourites is '101 Dalmatians' they often say 'oh, now that is different, of course. I'd forgotten about that.' It may partly because the film's set in England, but there is also the idea that it seems to some to be less stereotypically Disney (despite having many of the defining attributes of a typical Disney film), perhaps because it is not a fairy tale with princesses and castles, as well as being based on relatively contemporary source material. People often need reminding of 'Pinocchio' as well, which is a teensy bit disappointing.

I do think that Disney is synonymous with the princess movies (though whether this is because of the merchandise or the significance most of them have in Disney history is debateable). I think Disney is therefore often seen (rather unfairly, and not reflecting the content of the princess films) as only appealing to girls of a certain age (and men of a certain orientation). As I said, it's a stereotype, but it's hard to shake off - Disney are making no effort to at the moment.

My biggest concern with the franchise is that they will continue to create more typical princess movies with the same kind of heroines: girls who are bored with their lives or rebel against their parents. There are a few princess/heroines who defy this stereotype: Snow White (who is a combination of a damsel in distress but also plays a mother figure to the dwarves) and Mulan (a misfit heroine, whom unlike other "princesses" in the past actually wants to live up to her father's expectations).

Since "Enchanted" is meant to be in some ways, a parody, I'm not gonna take it too seriously. However, it's going to be difficult to handle the fact that "The Princess and the Frog" seems to be made moreso for expanding the princess market to African American girls and less about the animation revival.

But it upsets me that everyone over in Glendale is thinking that "Disney's revival needs to be based in fairytales" just because it's been coincidentally the formula. Only a handful of Disney's sucessful animated hits were based on fairytales. They need to start looking into other stories and ideas unrelated to fairytales or else this will get stale real quick.

toonaspie wrote:My biggest concern with the franchise is that they will continue to create more typical princess movies with the same kind of heroines: girls who are bored with their lives or rebel against their parents. There are a few princess/heroines who defy this stereotype: Snow White (who is a combination of a damsel in distress but also plays a mother figure to the dwarves) and Mulan (a misfit heroine, whom unlike other "princesses" in the past actually wants to live up to her father's expectations).

True. True, true, true, true. Actually reminds me of the way I wish Atlantis had gone. (Kida's potential was squandered.) At any rate, more variety would be appreciated. I think Disney is getting there, however.

Someone who likes Nala wrote:Since "Enchanted" is meant to be in some ways, a parody, I'm not gonna take it too seriously. However, it's going to be difficult to handle the fact that "The Princess and the Frog" seems to be made moreso for expanding the princess market to African American girls and less about the animation revival.

a) I'm in basic agreement, although this could improve people's perceptions of Disney.
b) There will inevitably be racial debate and political correctness debate over "The Princess and the Frog." I hope for a good story, regardless. The movie will be released before and after non-princess movies, and I honestly don't think people only associate Disney with the princesses.

Most people I know are associating Disney with Pirates of the Caribbean these days.

The cat and cartoon loving Aspie wrote:But it upsets me that everyone over in Glendale is thinking that "Disney's revival needs to be based in fairytales" just because it's been coincidentally the formula. Only a handful of Disney's sucessful animated hits were based on fairytales. They need to start looking into other stories and ideas unrelated to fairytales or else this will get stale real quick.

It depends on how far they take it. A healthy mixture would be ideal, though all "happily ever after" stories become fairy tales to a degree. I know you're thinking of princess tales, but it's the truth. At any rate, a healthy mixture of princess tales and other tales would be ideal, and I think that seems to be what is happening and what will improve.

"Will the public one day one day think of Disney as "That cheap studio that makes all the princess crap"

Probably yes.

Not because the princess movies weren't great. They were. They were the company's biggest successes. There would be no Disney without them.
It's beacuse how the company is presenting those movies nowadays.
In stores you only see childish pink bracelets with glitters and plastic make-up sets with drawings of Jasmine and Cinderella that doesn't even look like them.

All the movies that come out now have nothing to do with Disney and I bet most people don't even know they are produced by Disney.
The 2d animated classics were and will be the Disney image.
But people will forget about the real movies and get brainwashed by the whole merchandise thing.

MagicMirror wrote:Not everyone thinks of the princess films first - it appears we aren't quite as flooded in Princess merchandise here in the UK. A lot of my friends think first of 'Fantasia' and 'Alice in Wonderland' (though they are mostly artists or art students, and there is arguably more to appreciate artistically in these films than in the princess films, 'Snow White' excluded).

Woah, I just had to step in here! Are you telling me that 'Sleeping Beauty' was not mean to be an artisticly-driven masterpiece? It's best known for it's art! That's what most people like most about it! It's Disney's most stylized film (arguably, maybe 101 Dalmations is a good competitor)! And 'Cinderella' was the first Mary Blair inspired picture, 'Alice in Wonderland' came after it, and maybe they did more exploration or whatever in 'Alice', but still, the art style of Mary Blair was used in 'Cinderella' first, then 'Alice in Wonderland', then 'Peter Pan', etc. In fact, it is arguable, but on the 'Cinderella' DVD, one artist said they thought Mary Blair's art influenced and was apparent in 'Cinderella' the most. And Mary Blair's work has gained lots of recognition and respect in the animation world these days. Now, 'The Little Mermaid' looks very similar to 'Beauty and the Beast' and then 'Aladdin' so...I could see how those may not seem artistically different from each other, just progressing to better and better animation.

toonaspie wrote:My biggest concern with the franchise is that they will continue to create more typical princess movies with the same kind of heroines: girls who are bored with their lives or rebel against their parents.

The only princess, or any protagonist really, that openly rebels against their parent(s) is Ariel. Jasmine's slightly rebellious, but she never openly goes against her father's wishes; she didn't intend to run away from the palace, only visit the market. And, personally, I'm concerned that so many people (Disney fans or otherwise) automatically assume that rebelliousness is a negative attribute. Honestly, if noone ever rebelled against oppressive attitudes, then we wouldn't have personalities at all.

As for the future, from what little we've heard about TP&TF, Tiana/Maddy/whoever seems to appreciate and help/assist her mother. I'm more glad that a princess is finally going to have a benevolent mother (who has a name) than I am worried about the princess' attitude.

Only a handful of Disney's sucessful animated hits were based on fairytales.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but nearly all the fairy tales they have made (which aren't that many to begin with) have turned into hits: Snow White, Cinderella, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin (more of an Arabian tale, I suppose). The few that weren't hits are still recognized as classics (Pinocchio and Sleeping Beauty). So, really, it's hard not to see their reasoning in returning with a fairy tale (ideally a princess film which they can market extensively) even if they shouldn't be so insecure about their abilities to create a story/film.

Disney's Divinity wrote:

toonaspie wrote:My biggest concern with the franchise is that they will continue to create more typical princess movies with the same kind of heroines: girls who are bored with their lives or rebel against their parents.

The only princess, or any protagonist really, that openly rebels their parent(s) is Ariel. Jasmine's slightly rebellious, but she never openly goes against her father's wishes (she didn't intend to run away from the palace, only visit the market). And, personally, I'm concerned that so many people (Disney fans or otherwise) automatically assume that rebelliousness is a negative attribute. Honestly, if noone ever rebelled against oppressive attitudes, then we wouldn't have personalities at all.

Hmm,yeah.