DVDizzy Forum

Thumper_93 wrote:

JeanGreyForever wrote: The dresses are the only things that Disney really uses as you mentioned and even that is sporadic. The limited edition doll for Jasmine is her wedding dress but it isn't based on her wedding dress from the film at all. Yet just a year before, her singing doll had the film wedding dress. Belle's christmas dress has assumed a life of its own and become the most iconic thing about that sequel since the Disney Parks also use that as her holiday dress. However you'll never see Aladdin in his King of Thieves outfit, even though he is no longer a street rat. Nor will you see John Rolfe ever in Disney Merchandise. John Smith is still the love interest of Pocahontas by Disney canon in both the parks and merchandise. The new Lion Guard show has also altered the canon so that Lion King II no longer fits continuity the way it did before.

But "Aladdin and the king of the thiefs" is not a sequel. Is the end of the TV series. They used Jasmine's wedding dress in the singing doll that they released a few years ago.

I think that covered Jasmine for political correctness probably due to complaining social justice warriors.

It looks like Disney won't be adding more princesses to the official line-up, anymore.

Q: Are Anna and Elsa not in the lineup because they're too popular?

Craig Gerber: All I know for sure is that from Frozen on, Disney Princesses are expected to create their own franchises, not be part of same 1.

Source: https://twitter.com/_CraigGerber/status ... 0257908736

Wow. Thank God. I wished for this and now it looks like it will come true.

So what happens if we have a princess/movie that doesn't do the exact numbers Disney expects it to/as much as Frozen. Would she have to be added for its sake or would she join the club of "untouchables" alongside Kida, Esmeralda, Megara, etc...And never see anymore merch again.

Honestly not surprised and tiny bit relieved because that franchise was growing in flash of speeding light. But, what if she's a supporting/side character?

It sounds more like Disney is taking into account the critique behind lumping princesses from different worlds into one.

Thanks for using my thread, Sotiris It's flattering

Some of the princesses in the line up are already popular enough to market on their own. Ariel, Rapunzel, Cinderella and Belle for sure. I believe Snow White would be ok on her own. Possibly Jasmine.

Semaj wrote:It sounds more like Disney is taking into account the critique behind lumping princesses from different worlds into one.

At least Disney is finally listening.

thedisneyspirit wrote:So what happens if we have a princess/movie that doesn't do the exact numbers Disney expects it to/as much as Frozen. Would she have to be added for its sake or would she join the club of "untouchables" alongside Kida, Esmeralda, Megara, etc...And never see anymore merch again.

thats what worries me...the only thing I liked about the Princess franchise is that it kept many of the less popular princess characters in the public eye on merch, promos and in the parks long after their films came out. I was hoping that Moana would be added just b/c I cant see her being around much longer after this year.

I agree, I don't believe Moana has had the impact that Disney thought. I wonder if she will be plopped in and used as Merida is ? She does even have an 'I Want' song as well, a Princess must.

I recently read somewhere that Disney is done with adding new princesses into the DP lineup, so I'm not sure then if that means they will continue to sustain Moana as a separate franchise or just drop her into obscurity. I know the box office results weren't as high as they might have wanted and the merchandise isn't selling really well.

Atlantica wrote:I agree, I don't believe Moana has had the impact that Disney thought. I wonder if she will be plopped in and used as Merida is ? She does even have an 'I Want' song as well, a Princess must.

Speaking of Merida; If you'll perceive the franchise from a logical point of view, she's the only misplaced "member" is actually. And of course it's due to her being a Pixar property. Though I personally was never one of those who had huge reservations of her being included in the brand, she is one who should've been excluded and replaced from it for that (logical) reason.

And regardless of all the (valid) rants against the franchise, I personally think they've could've included the Frozen sisters and Moana in it. Due to them being royal and therefore their inclusion being justifiable (well, of course Moana is another case, but she is a daughter of a Chief). Due to Disney having relied and overexposed this brand, why not continue to include their upcoming Princesses in it?

I'd be weird if they included Moana anyway considering she proclaimed she's not a princess in her movie.

Sure it is. But let's face it; Due to her being a female lead, she's automatically perceived as a Princess by the majority (due to people automatically referring every Disney heroine as Princess, in terms of stereotype). Despite that the team has desperately tried to detract her from the title (since Disney obviously doesn't perceives it as lucrative anymore). And due to Disney's fairy tale movies have always been musicals and the only musicals from this Revival era has been the Princess movies, Moana still belongs in that genre anyway. But one must wonder if the Princess labeling is created by the media.

Sotiris wrote:I'd be weird if they included Moana anyway considering she proclaimed she's not a princess in her movie.

Disney actually has a list on NON-princess heroines that they give very little attention to.

Alice in Wonderland is worthy of its own franchise, and I've seen it marketed separately at Hot Topics stores. Then there's Wendy Darling, Esmerelda, Megara, Jane Porter, Lilo and Nani (the original power sisters! ), and Vanellope von Schweetz among the majors.

If the object is to move beyond the princess label, they already got a lot to choose from.

Yeah but aside from Alice the other ones are often forgotten/not marketed enough.

I kinda wonder why is that, considering some are strong characters and push for that so-desired "good moral" aspect of Disney. I'd reckon it's aside from the film being a "flop", it maybe has to do that these characters don't represent the typical "aesthetic" associated with princesses. No poofy gowns, not much "fairy tale magic" presented in their films, have a much more tomboyish personality compared to the princesses, and their romances are more down-to-earth or subtle compared to the likes of romance presented in Sleeping Beauty or even Tangled.

But, as you guys said, it seems Disney wants to get away from the image associated with the Princess brand, so they're trying something "new" with Frozen or Moana...Even if they don't add later the heroines from the two films to the line.

Sotiris wrote:I'd be weird if they included Moana anyway considering she proclaimed she's not a princess in her movie.

Pocahontas is the daughter's chief, just like Moana is. And Mulan isn't a princess or royal.

I like this video - it mentions what the criteria is to be a Disney Princess:
https://youtu.be/uoczh5J3pJ8?t=2m35s

DisneyFan09 wrote:And due to Disney's fairy tale movies have always been musicals and the only musicals from this Revival era has been the Princess movies

Winnie the Pooh is a musical, though...

blackcauldron85 wrote:Pocahontas is the daughter's chief, just like Moana is. And Mulan isn't a princess or royal.

Yes, but none of them rejected the title 'princess' in their own movie.

blackcauldron85 wrote:It mentions what the criteria is to be a Disney Princess

There aren't any official criteria. Fans make those up based on the existing line-up.

Well, this is interesting. There is a brand new Disney Princess ad that was posted on Facebook today. Moana, Anna and Elsa, weren't in it, but...Elena was.

https://www.facebook.com/DisneyPrincess/