DVDizzy Forum

Mooky wrote: Yes! The '90s Mattel dolls were superb -- they had film-accurate outfits and a bunch of quality accessories; some even had movable joints and were super-bendy. About two or three years ago I bought anniversary/collector's editions of Snow White, Cinderella and Aurora from the late '90s, and I don't think they ever had dolls that were that faithful to their film versions. I'm talking about details like Snow White's skirt being pale yellow and Cinderella's gown being silver-bluish. They're aslo very intricate, but not gaudy in the slightest.

You must have gotten the Signature Edition Dolls of Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora. Those are truly gorgeous from the pictures I've seen. I was also more of a fan of the faces the dolls had back then. The current Disney Store ones are fine, but they try so hard to replicate the animated counterparts, that they come off looking weird, especially Cinderella and Belle imo. The old Mattel dolls managed to capture the essence of the character while adhering to the Barbie standard, so they didn't have super inflated eyes and caricatured features.

Mooky wrote: That's an error in merchandise that started in the '90s actually. Jasmine action figures and figurines also had blue shoes.

Same with her outfit being colored as more green than blue. Actually most of the current colors we see the princesses in, started in the 90s, before the Disney Princess franchise actually debuted. Cinderella's dress was getting more and more blue, while Aurora was appearing more and more in pink, whereas in the era before, she was only ever in blue. And even Belle's merchandise when her film came out, usually had her in one shade of yellow, at least on the clipart.

Yes I agree with Mook and JeanGreyForever about the Mattel dolls being better, having great collector's dolls, and more accuracy in dress and face. And yeah, Belle had all one color of yellow for her dress for some reason very often...

Oh, a friend showed me this video, I thought it was perfect for the posts in this thread!:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFZ2cIh-H5M[/youtube]

Disney Duster wrote:Oh, a friend showed me this video, I thought it was perfect for the posts in this thread!

That was hilarious! Who wouldn't want to be a Disney Princess?

Thanks! Yeah, who wouldn't want to be one...except for when you are a slave! LOL My favorite part was the Ursula one. Love the lyrics.

Sotiris wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:Oh, a friend showed me this video, I thought it was perfect for the posts in this thread!

That was hilarious! Who wouldn't want to be a Disney Princess?

And you don't find my jokes funny!?

I was thinking since Disney is always trying to find ways to capitalize on the Disney Princess brand, why not create a line-up called "Little Princess" with characters targeting a younger demographic than the Disney Princess one? It would be a good opportunity to utilize and popularize less known female characters.

The line-up could include some of the following: Alice, Wendy, Tiger Lily, Shanti, Penny (from The Rescuers), Eilonwy, Jenny (from Oliver & Company), Rachel (from Fantasia 2000), Chaca (from The Empeeor's New Groove), Lilo, Franny (from Meet the Robinsons), Penny (from Bolt), and Vanellope.

^ I think that's a great idea! (I wonder if Disney is leaning in a similar direction, if "Alice's Wonderland Bakery" will lead to other similar shows {I know it's not our Alice in that show...}.)

If they do make this new line,
A) How will they handle having two Pennys?
B) Are we thinking merchandise, books, shorts, preschool shows, non-preschool shows, a joint movie? What are the possibilities?
C) How about a line like Palace Pets to go with it?
D) Would Disney use Tiger Lily from 1953 or the upcoming live-action one (I know that the film's depiction of Native Americans is troublesome)?
E) What about Melody? ("No sequels allowed to tarnish the line!" I can hear already!)

blackcauldron85 wrote:If they do make this new line, how will they handle having two Pennys?

The list I made is just the pool of characters they can pick from. They don't have to include all of them. Since Penny from The Rescuers is the more popular of the two, maybe they can just include her.

blackcauldron85 wrote:Are we thinking merchandise, books, shorts, preschool shows, non-preschool shows, a joint movie? What are the possibilities?

Usually, when a new franchise is being launched, it starts as a book series and later expands into merch, CDs, web series etc. If it proves to be succesful, the sky's the limit. Of course, I don't expect such concept to be as popular as the Disney Princesses, but it can still be moderately successful.

blackcauldron85 wrote:How about a line like Palace Pets to go with it?

If Palace Pets wasn't popular enough to sustain a franchise despite the connection to the Disney Princesses, there's no way a similar concept can be successful with less known characters.

blackcauldron85 wrote:Would Disney use Tiger Lily from 1953 or the upcoming live-action one (I know that the film's depiction of Native Americans is troublesome)?

The animated one. Tiger Lily herself is not that problematic. The sequence What Makes the Red Man Red is the offensive part. Besides, they can create new stories for her that are culturally respectful and progressive.

blackcauldron85 wrote:What about Melody? ("No sequels allowed to tarnish the line!" I can hear already!)

I don't have an issue with that, but I can understand why others may oppose the idea. I think Melody and Jane from Return to Never Land would fit just fine.