Disney Princess Criticism - What's Your Opinion?

[Disney's Divinity]

I just had a lightbulb moment, though- if we only had Aurora, let's say, then it'd appear that Disney is more like "A prince is what matters!" vs. rounding it out with the adventuresome Ariel/Moana/Punzie/Raya, or the sisterly love of Elsa/Anna, etc etc etc, so I think my brain figured out what you mean. And yeah, I wonder if Disney+ has other warnings up their sleeve. I personally don't mind, because as long as the movies aren't censored, a short warning is meh to me, but I understand that some people are more offended (if that's the right word) about the warnings.

Yeah, exactly. And I don't mind the warnings either. I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with them. To me, it's like how many very old novels have intros.

As for Anna, the difference is probably that Anna's main lesson in Frozen is that she's wrong for putting trust in guys she doesn't even know. One nearly ices her. Anna is sort of that old worldview being gently ribbed in the first Frozen the way Charlotte is in comparison to Tiana. It's interesting that Anna takes on Elsa's responsibility in 2--it shows how much the character evolved by becoming more like her sister and left the girl of the first film who was desperate for human interactions or love to fix all her issues behind.

I agree, it would be nice if it didn't have to be a competition, that there didn't have to be something "wrong" with Raya for being a warrior character or superhero. I was reading an article about Raya this morning that reminded me of how the modern princesses were criticized as supposedly flawless Mary Sue types on this forum once. The article made the case that it's actually those older characters that are without flaw and without personality, with no real guiding desires or definition. I think it's true, tbh. I mean, what exactly guides Aurora or Snow White? They don't have any real desires beyond a male savior in their dreams coming to take them away or character traits like Ariel's obsession with the human world, Belle's reading, Tiana with her restaurant, etc. The only thing you could call a flaw in those characters is how passive they are, but that only comes from the audience of today looking at the past; the world within the films themselves and the makers of those films certainly didn't consider that a flaw, rather a plus. The fairy tale films of Walt's day were much more vague and lacking in definition altogether. The princesses of those days were practically divine and not like real people.

[Disney Duster]

I liked what you said about Aurora, BlackCauldron85. I know she appears very little, but in that little time we already saw her teasing with the fairies and then making fun with the animals and I still think she at least understands her responsibility as a princess, there's nothing to suggest otherwise.

When Aurora finds out she is betrothed to another man, and Flora says "You can never see that young man again", she bursts into tears. It shows to me pretty clearly she is not making a choice to take on a royal responsibility, but going along with what everyone else says she has to do.

The article made the case that it's actually those older characters that are without flaw and without personality, with no real guiding desires or definition. I think it's true, tbh. I mean, what exactly guides Aurora or Snow White? They don't have any real desires beyond a male savior in their dreams coming to take them away or character traits like Ariel's obsession with the human world, Belle's reading, Tiana with her restaurant, etc. The only thing you could call a flaw in those characters is how passive they are, but that only comes from the audience of today looking at the past; the world within the films themselves and the makers of those films certainly didn't consider that a flaw, rather a plus. The fairy tale films of Walt's day were much more vague and lacking in definition altogether. The princesses of those days were practically divine and not like real people.

Well, Snow White wanted a better life. And she actually liked making food and doing housework. Amy, Snow White did actually like doing house chores, I think. Aurora...well Mary Costa said she was into nature. And of course we all know Cinderella was into sewing, dresses, dancing, exploring palaces, and wanted a better life. So they still weren't all only about men.

[Redadoodles]

When Aurora finds out she is betrothed to another man, and Flora says "You can never see that young man again", she bursts into tears. It shows to me pretty clearly she is not making a choice to take on a royal responsibility, but going along with what everyone else says she has to do.

I think it is quite unfair to judge Aurora's reaction. Anyone would react the same way before eventually think about the options. Crumbling down at that moment is natural.

[Disney Duster]

Well, you are right about that, but farerb said there was nothing to prove otherwise that she was taking on responsibility. I would at least say there is also nothing to prove that she was taking royal responsibility. Neither case can be proven, but I'd say her crying instead of saying, "All right, I'll do my duty" and then having a cry to herself after some cake leans more toward the implication that she felt she had no choice.

[blackcauldron85]

Anyway, regardless of what we think of Aurora, do we really think that Sleeping Beauty as a film is that much outdated? I mean it is the film where three elderly women are in a good-vs-evil battle against a powerful witch.

Is it more the 'average' person that sees Sleeping Beauty as outdated? People who haven't seen it since they were young maybe might not remember that Phillip was heavily assisted by the fairies; people probably assume that it's another film where the princess waits by for the man to save her, when you're right- women did save her, kind of like how Anna saved Elsa. I think maybe, if we are comapring people's opinions about Anna and Aurora, that Anna was an active character, literally saving her sister's life, while Aurora was saved (no matter by who). I'm not bad-mouthing Aurora at all- I enjoy her as a character- but that might play into people's comparisons of the two.

Regarding my feeling towards the princesses, personally I don't understand why it's a new-vs-old situation

Going back to the "growing up with" conversation: Many generations of people only grew up with a Disney Princess meaning Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora. So to them, a Disney Princess is someone who cooks, cleans, and lives to get rescued by a man. (Whether or not that's an accurate, full, and complete description of our beloved heroines!) Then we got Ariel, Belle, Jasmine, Pocahontas, and Mulan, and, even though Cinderella was as outspoken as she could be, at least with her animal friends and behind the backs of her family, the '90s princesses spoke their minds more, weren't seen doing chores or baking or things like that, and Ariel helped in the fight with Ursula, which was groundbreaking, since the previous princesses didn't physically fight. I think that Belle gets a lot of flack from the general public because they say that she had "Stockholm Syndrome," but then you have the people praising her for reading, and maybe to speaking her mind to Beast... Jasmine was assisting Aladdin in the fight with Jafar; she wasn't waiting around to be saved. Pocahontas and Mulan literally saved their people during times of war, so they were clearly working hard! I think with Pocahontas, people scrutinize the love story, saying either that John Smith is a White Savior, or that the real Pocahontas was a lot younger and wasn't in a relationship with John Smith in real life, etc etc etc.

I think, too, that in the '30s-'50s, Disney didn't deviate as much from the original source material. We know that TLM & B&tB had been worked on back then, and they just couldn't crack the story. So if those films came out back then, I mean, maybe Ariel would be sea foam, you know? Maybe Belle would have had a lot of meals with Beast. If different stories were made back in the day instead of SW/C/SB, and if SW/C/SB were made in the '90s, then those princesses probably would have been more active in defeating the villains, you know? It's not the princesses' fault of when their movies came out. So I think seeing what positive traits they DO have is most helpful when comparing the princesses, if this makes sense.

It's interesting that Anna takes on Elsa's responsibility in 2--it shows how much the character evolved by becoming more like her sister and left the girl of the first film who was desperate for human interactions or love to fix all her issues behind.

It's good that Anna got to have that journey. If she hadn't met Kristoff, but the gates were open, while she would have had the lesson of "true love can mean my sister," she still wanted to have a boyfriend and experience that side of love, too, right? So I think she would have been empowered but also still dreaming about finding a partner. And like I said earlier, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. While I'm fine with the newer princesses, and I love them, there's nothing wrong with wanting to find a partner-- that's part of being a human, you know? Wanting companionship and someone to "get" you, etc. So I think a character like Anna is great, because she shows both sides-- having strength and overcoming obstacles, and yet still believing in love. But also the newer princesses (including Elsa) show that you can have strength and overcome obstacles, and you don't need to be focused on finding a relationship in order to be a full, complete person. But Anna shows that it's okay to have that full life, plus want someone to share it with.

I mean, what exactly guides Aurora or Snow White? They don't have any real desires beyond a male savior in their dreams coming to take them away or character traits like Ariel's obsession with the human world, Belle's reading, Tiana with her restaurant, etc.

Well, to be fair, we don't know that Snow White didn't enjoy reading or sewing, etc. We don't get to see that. Obviously she's good at baking, so maybe that was her passion, but she's washing stairs when we meet her! She was a slave, and the film takes place in whatever century it takes place in (you guys know that stuff better than I do!)- even if the film took place in 1937- it's unlikely that Snow White would be able to climb the palace walls and support herself without a man, right? I know that some women worked back in the day, but wasn't it not until World War II that women really were able to support themselves without a man? (I don't know how "spinsters" supported themselves- maybe they were some of the few women working outside the home- I really have not done any research on this!) All this to say, these women's hobbies were not included in the stories. (One could argue why the dwarfs have a hand-washing song, and we don't get a "I love doing this!" song by Snow White. She loves whistling while she's working and baking pies...maybe she has a passion for music and baking, maybe she's trying to make lemons out of lemonade, and really welding or dirt bike riding would be her passion if she was exposed to that sort of thing. Back then, women or well, anyone, didn't have that kind of stuff. ) So yes, the women are a product of their time, whether in the 17th or whatever Century, or in the '30s-'50s. The '80s and '90s did have women in a different position in the real world than even in the '50s, with women even getting to do more than ink and paint on the films. So it makes sense that Ariel, Belle, etc., could play a more active role.

I'm probably rambling and preaching to the choir...I'm just typing what I think while reading you guys' posts! I love talking about the princesses...

The only thing you could call a flaw in those characters is how passive they are, but that only comes from the audience of today looking at the past; the world within the films themselves and the makers of those films certainly didn't consider that a flaw, rather a plus.

Lol, or I could have read one more sentence and you summarized what I was getting at nicely.

Well, Snow White wanted a better life. And she actually liked making food and doing housework. Amy, Snow White did actually like doing house chores, I think. Aurora...well Mary Costa said she was into nature. And of course we all know Cinderella was into sewing, dresses, dancing, exploring palaces, and wanted a better life. So they still weren't all only about men.

Right! They weren't just sitting around, waiting for a man as some say. And like I said earlier, while the films don't focus on all of their hobbies, surely there were things that they did throughout their days. And I bet that Snow White did like at least baking, right? I mean, cleaning stairs probably was not her favorite activity, but I think she took pride in doing a good job, and I think I said in an earlier post maybe that keeping the dwarfs house tidy- even before she knew who lived there- was just a kind thing to do. She was a kind person, so she wanted the "orphans" to have a clean house. She wanted to make the dwarfs' lives better- she really did. So by having them wash, for example, she was showing that she cared about them, I think.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Separating this part since it's all revolving around Aurora [and Anna to an extent])

I still think she at least understands her responsibility as a princess, there's nothing to suggest otherwise.

I wonder if, like Jasmine, Aurora is fine with "having" to be a princess (not like she knew growing up, but still), but she just asks that she be able to marry for love... Like, she might not have a say in it, but to make lemons out of lemonade, at least give her that, you know?

When Aurora finds out she is betrothed to another man, and Flora says "You can never see that young man again", she bursts into tears. It shows to me pretty clearly she is not making a choice to take on a royal responsibility, but going along with what everyone else says she has to do.

Good point. I mean, she was a young girl and she essentially had been living a lie, so I'm sure she not only was having like an identity crisis, but to have someone else tell you that you can't see someone that you love? And I don't think that farerb or myself are saying that Aurora was like, "Yay! I'll get to rule a kingdom one day! Just what I always wanted!" -- especially since she didn't grow up knowing anything about that. But I think she was dutiful and I mean, even if she said "I won't be a princess!", what could she really do about it?

I think it is quite unfair to judge Aurora's reaction. Anyone would react the same way before eventually think about the options. Crumbling down at that moment is natural.

Right. I mean, no matter who you are, to be told that you can't see someone that you love would hurt anyone, peasant, princess, anyone in between. To not have free will- really the thing that Jasmine is wanting all along- would suck for anyone, no matter how outspoken about it they are.

I would at least say there is also nothing to prove that she was taking royal responsibility. Neither case can be proven, but I'd say her crying instead of saying, "All right, I'll do my duty" and then having a cry to herself after some cake leans more toward the implication that she felt she had no choice.

Yeah, I mean, she didn't have a choice...so it's kind of like she's thinking, maybe, that she doesn't agree with being told to not see Phillip- anyone would be heartbroken- and she may not like having to be a princess, but she isn't exactly in a position to run away, find Phillip, and start a new life. And I know that you're not saying there is anything wrong with it, but there's not anything wrong with how Aurora felt. Unfortunately for her reputation, she doesn't get much screentime, so people might put her down for only wanting to meet and then crying over a man. But really, she was a girl who never knew her true identity, and she had no friends except the animals. So she wanted to meet someone- whether Anna or Aurora, they needed a friend-slash-love...I think if Aurora or Anna had met another girl (under the assumption that both would still be straight), then they'd at least have been happy to make a friend. If you're lonely, maybe you really want a significant other, but who would turn down making a friend, you know? But for people to badmouth Aurora and Anna for being human...I mean, if the only people criticizing them are people who never have been in a relationship and they are opposed to love, then yeah maybe whatever, but for someone to have been in a relationship at some point in their life, yet criticizing Anna and Aurora's wanting to be in a relationship- that doesn't seem right. But on the flip-side, yes, as far as role models go, again, it's unfair for her reputation that Aurora gets such little screentime. And yes, I can see why a parent might be like Moana > Aurora, for example, for a role model for their kids. But hopefully a parent can point out that Snow White's kindness is a very worthwhile trait, or Cinderella never giving up her dreams; Cinderella and Tiana were both dreamers- Cinderella had to work within the constraints of her environment. I'm sure that Cinderella would have loved to be employed anywhere else, so she could afford a little apartment, but that wasn't what she could do in her situation, whereas in the 1920s, Tiana was able to be employed outside of the home. But Cinderella still was a kind person, and she had willpower, even if she wasn't able to fix her situation herself.

[Disney Duster]

Yes, Aurora was saved by women, but also by a man. It was all four of them. And Aurora never ventured to find happiness, she followed her aunt's orders. Though that was wise, as her aunts were right. So...Aurora did no wrong, I mean, she lived well, why would she change anything? Aurora's sleeping is seen as a metaphor for women to wait for men to save them, but it's probably more accurately a metaphor for waiting for the right person to be in a relationship with, which is absolutely a good thing. "Someday My Prince Will Come" is also about that and that's why that song or Snow White are not sexist or about waiting to be saved. "I'm Wishing" may be the song about waiting to be saved, though even that could be just about waiting for love.

It's true, some people who grew up with only the Walt Princesses have a certain idea of how a Disney Princess should be. It's true, Cinderella was a little outspoken and each princess has grown more and more progressive. And yes, in the Walt days they didn't deviate from the original sources as much, but if the Walt Princesses had been made in the '80s or '90s, they would be stronger, more independent, and fight more. I always wondered how Cinderella would be had her film been made in the '90s. Her movie probably would have been something between Ever After and the 2015 remake. Ever After is like the Beauty and the Beast of Cinderellas. Also, Belle was proven not to have Stockholm Syndrome by Lindsay Ellis, by the way.

I think it's good that Anna wanted to save her sister and kingdom but also find love. Wanting companionship and someone to "get" you is a wonderful thing, that almost every human wants and needs, so it's a good thing for a character to have. By the way all Disney Princesses have strength and overcome obstacles! Well, not Aurora as much...

Snow White could have liked lots of stuff, but a film needs show that stuff to audiences for people to relate to the characters, and get a sense they are better characters/role models. They need to show that stuff for people to not think they are all about men. It's not like Walt couldn't have given Snow White a hobby. Hobbies existed even in the once upon a time centuries. I actually think Snow White's hobbies were housework and cooking, and there is nothing wrong with that. I laughed at your "I love doing this!" song idea. I don't know when women could start working outside of the home, but I know at least Cinderella could have, in her 19th century-set film. I don't know when women could live on their own, either, but at least they could by money left to them in the 19th century as well.

Snow White probably did like baking, I agree. And she did help the Dwarfs out of kindness, though it was also so they would let her live there.

Aurora could have totally run away with her man and not be a princess. But she acts like she feels she has no choice but to be a princess. True, if she had found a female friend, she would love that, too, but as a straight girl she would love a perfect guy for her more. And there is nothing wrong with that, or for Anna wanting that, either. It's ok to say certain characters are better role models than others, but yes, it's good to point out the positives in all characters, too.

I enjoy talking about the princesses, too!

[blackcauldron85]

Also, Belle was proven not to have Stockholm Syndrome by Lindsay Ellis, by the way.

I'm not saying she does or doesn't, but that's a thing that a lot of people talk about (like how Snow, Cindy, Aurora only wait for a man, Belle has Stockholm Syndrome).

I laughed at your "I love doing this!" song idea

I'm not knocking "Bluddle-Uddle-Um-Dum"- I think it's funny and I've always enjoyed it, but maybe there's more to Snow than what we see her do. And if those are her hobbies, then of course there's nothing wrong with it. I'm just defending my girl!

though it was also so they would let her live there

Yes, that is a good point. Her kindness blinds me to other things.

[Vlad]

Regarding Snow White, I read for the first time ever the original story. I thought it was so bland and dull. I was so surprised to see that none of the characters have names (except Snow White herself), that the dwarfs didn't have those fun personalities, that the Prince didn't show up until the very end of the story. Snow White herself is nowhere near as fun and sweet as Disney's character. She doesn't have a personality, there aren't any moments in the story that could allow the reader to fall in love with her as a character. At least, in the Disney movie, when she enters the dwarfs' cottage, she assumes the role of being a mother figure to them, and teaches them good manners, personal hygiene and so on. And also, the movie allows the viewer to love her, because she has all those scenes with the animals and the birds and there's also that very sweet scene in which she bakes a pie for Grumpy.

In the book, she enters the dwarfs' cottage and she eats their food, and sleeps in their beds. When they get home, they find her sleeping, and they decide to take care of her and let her stay with them, but she doesn't do anything for them. And although she spends a few days with them, there isn't a single scene in which you can see them bonding. That's why I don't get why people say that the "Silly Song" and "Some Day My Prince Will Come" sequences in the movie are pointless. Those are sweet, short scenes, in which you see Snow White bonding with the dwarfs, and she basically trusts them enough to tell them about her dream and about falling in love with the Prince.

I was shocked to see that Snow White didn't meet the Prince until the end of the story. In the movie, although brief, their encounter at the beginning is one of the sweetest moments. I have no issue with the "love at first sight" aspect. I think it was more plausible in the '30s, because people weren't as cynical as they are now. I was also shocked to see that the Queen had two more attempts at killing her in the book. Walt made that right decision to not include those in the movie. Even the happily ever after thing was so dull. The Prince sees her in the coffin, falls in love with her, and decides to take her to his palace. The dwarfs make a wrong move, carrying the coffin, and the a piece of the poisoned apple falls from her mouth. All the romance is gone.

I usually say that the book is much better than the movie, but in this case (and most likely in the case of all fairy tales), it's the complete opposite. Walt was a genius, and made all the right changes to the story. If they stuck with the original story, the movie wouldn't have been as great.

What do you guys think?

[blackcauldron85]

I think in a lot of older fairy tales, characters were just not as fleshed out. We can thank Walt Disney for wanting to help us out with that! I think maybe they were used as morality fables, so while there was entertainment value, they weren't intended to be long stories, unlike a 60-120 minute movie, you know? (I typed this as I read your post, so yes, you did give Walt credit as well! )

I was also shocked to see that the Queen had two more attempts at killing her in the book.

I know that there was the poisoned comb, and Walt had thought about putting that into the film, if I am not mistaken, but did not.

The dwarfs make a wrong move, carrying the coffin, and the a piece of the poisoned apple falls from her mouth.

You know, inadvertant CPR saved Snow's life.

[Redadoodles]

Well, you are right about that, but farerb said there was nothing to prove otherwise that she was taking on responsibility. I would at least say there is also nothing to prove that she was taking royal responsibility. Neither case can be proven, but I'd say her crying instead of saying, "All right, I'll do my duty" and then having a cry to herself after some cake leans more toward the implication that she felt she had no choice.

To be honest, at that point in the story the only reasonable thing to do was to go home with the fairies. Aurora would have been stupid to chose to stay in the forrest when you know that there was a curse on her. Going home with three fairies to protect me would have been my choice as well (and they failed at that). That's why I despise Elle Fanning's Aurora who supposed to be a modern heroine. She literally races to the castle (ON HER OWN!!!) even though she's well aware that she's cursed.

[Disney Duster]

Long overdue, Vlad! But I'm glad you finally read it! But not everything you said is correct. Snow White is required to cook and clean for the Dwarfs in exchange for staying with them. Also, it is the Prince's servants that carry the princess, not the Dwarfs. That makes me wonder if you really read the original version or some version that is close to the original but not quite. And in an even earlier version, the Prince makes the servants carry Snow White to different places, just 'cause the Prince likes looking at her, and one of the servants get so fed up with it he opens the coffin and shakes Snow White, which makes the piece of apple fall out.

However, I agree, Walt Disney improved the story and did so for every tale he adapted. I mean, there's some things in the original stories I prefer, but overall, Disney's always better!

Redadoodles, but...if Aurora stayed in the forest she would have been what everyone but Maleficent and Diablo thought was safer.

[Jules]

GUYS!

Right now I don't have time to read everything that has already been posted, but I have a link to a video that should be of interest to you all.

https://youtu.be/RMcVfqRCNNc?t=116

It's an excerpt from the Fred Waring show highlighting music from Walt Disney's Alice in Wonderland. The excerpt is also available in the bonus features section of the 2011 Blu-ray release of the film.

As I watched Walt Disney describe the differences between Snow White, Cinderella and Alice, my jaw dropped. It seems back in 1951, Walt himself was perfectly aware of the Snow White's "passive" nature - it wasn't just something taken for granted. He contrasts her to the more "proactive" Cinderella and Alice. Perhaps all the Disney princess haters - and especially those who ban their children from experiencing the three classic Walt-era princess films - should watch this clip.

Can we be sure Walt wasn't a time traveller?

[Disney's Divinity]

I’m not surprised he was aware of how passive a character is. Anyone who is a writer knows when a character is passive because it affects the way the story works or is written. Moreover, Cinderella and Alice did come more than a decade after Snow White. They also happened after WW2, a time in which women had had greater employment because most of the male workforce had been drafted (Rosie the Riveter). That affected many people’s perception of women at the time, even if the ‘60s’ first wave of feminism hadn’t happened yet. You can see growth from Cinderella to Alice, Lady, and Wendy even within the '50s.

It's good that Anna got to have that journey. If she hadn't met Kristoff, but the gates were open, while she would have had the lesson of "true love can mean my sister," she still wanted to have a boyfriend and experience that side of love, too, right? So I think she would have been empowered but also still dreaming about finding a partner. And like I said earlier, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. While I'm fine with the newer princesses, and I love them, there's nothing wrong with wanting to find a partner-- that's part of being a human, you know? Wanting companionship and someone to "get" you, etc. So I think a character like Anna is great, because she shows both sides-- having strength and overcoming obstacles, and yet still believing in love. But also the newer princesses (including Elsa) show that you can have strength and overcome obstacles, and you don't need to be focused on finding a relationship in order to be a full, complete person. But Anna shows that it's okay to have that full life, plus want someone to share it with.

I don't think there's anything wrong with romance; I don't think most of the newer films eschew romance either. Elsa, Raya, and Moana are the only new princesses where romance doesn't feature a role; and Elsa is in a film alongside Anna, who does have some romance-driven plot. I also remain skeptical about Raya, that perhaps she and Namaari may end up with a Korra / Asami-ending if there is a sequel considering all the similarities to TLoK... I think romance in a female-driven film only becomes problematic when that's all there is to a character, although I think it's good to have a few films with female characters, too, where there is no romance--like Alice in Wonderland, Moana, etc. I think the only reason it's an issue mentioned in regards to the older characters is because there's really not much else to them aside from the romance, the desire for romance. That goes back to the lack of personality.

Btw, I do like Snow White and Cinderella (the characters) even if I do understand why those films are seen as problematic role models for children today because of the princess line. I wouldn't have a signature including all the princesses if I didn't like the vast majority of them. Cinderella has always been in my top 10 Disney films. It's difficult having conversations about feminism and the way female characters are depicted in media (and sometimes what's wrong with those portrayals) with fans of the movies themselves (whether that's in relation to DACs or any other film), because it usually comes with a kneejerk defense mechanism. I guess the perspective I come at this with is that, at the end of the day, films and characters aren't real and whatever criticism they receive won't harm them the way the consumption of media actually can harm people. I don't take it personally when there are criticisms of TLM; many of them are true or merited, particularly the fact that Ariel play no role in the resolution of her own film the way a protagonist should. I remember how much viewers loved when Ariel attacked Regina with the fork on OUAT ( ), so I can only imagine how much greater the ending of TLM would've been if Ariel had been the one to triumph over Ursula.

[blackcauldron85]

the Prince makes the servants carry Snow White to different places, just 'cause the Prince likes looking at her, and one of the servants get so fed up with it he opens the coffin and shakes Snow White, which makes the piece of apple fall out.

Whaaaaa?!?!?!? Whoa. (lol, that first part wouldn't even fly in a 1937 Disney movie, huh? )

Julian, I don't get it. I'd think that that Walt clip is supporting what the princess haters and people who ban their kids from Snow White think... he called her a simple little girl mostly concerned with romance...?

[Disney Duster]

Disney's Divinity, you say the older Disney characters have nothing too them besides romance and don't have much personality, but Snow White and Cinderella are kind, caring, gentle, love dancing and singing, help others, and Snow White loves cooking and cleaning while Cinderella likes sewing and wants to go to a party and wear beautiful clothes and see what a palace is like. And it's not a knee-jerk reaction, me and others think about this stuff carefully and only reply with what we feel is the truth.

Haha, you're right Amy about Snow White and even Cinderella with them being about romance, but at least he said Cinderella was practical.

[Vlad]

Long overdue, Vlad! But I'm glad you finally read it! But not everything you said is correct. Snow White is required to cook and clean for the Dwarfs in exchange for staying with them. Also, it is the Prince's servants that carry the princess, not the Dwarfs. That makes me wonder if you really read the original version or some version that is close to the original but not quite. And in an even earlier version, the Prince makes the servants carry Snow White to different places, just 'cause the Prince likes looking at her, and one of the servants get so fed up with it he opens the coffin and shakes Snow White, which makes the piece of apple fall out.

However, I agree, Walt Disney improved the story and did so for every tale he adapted. I mean, there's some things in the original stories I prefer, but overall, Disney's always better!

I read the translated version. Maybe it was incorrectly done, who knows...But anyways, I like the movie a lot better.

[Redadoodles]

Redadoodles, but...if Aurora stayed in the forest she would have been what everyone but Maleficent and Diablo thought was safer.

I don’t agree. Back at the castle, she would have been surrounded by guards, nannies and other members of the staff (on top of being guarded by her magical godmothers). Besides, the king and queen were expecting their daughter to show up. For the fairies to remain in the Forrest with Aurora would have been a crime and very inappropriate.
Also, Aurora was raised as a polite and gentle young woman so she would have gone back to the castle just so she wouldn’t offend her parents (royalty or not) who saved her life by giving her up.
Let’s not forget that Aurora didn’t really have a problem with being a princess but had an issue with being separated with her love interest. Its not fair to judge her character because the plot doesn’t give her time to think or even try to find a solution to her problem. The main thing throughout her birthday is to keep her safe.

[Disney Duster]

Well, actually they all thought she would be safer in the forest becaus they thought Maleficent would never know she was there, and she had three magical fairiesto protect her. Then they thought she would be safer at the castle just before sunset, which was incorrect. You are right about how Aurora might react, but it doesn't change the fact it looks to me like she felt she had no choice. I also don't think they told Aurora about the curse, because I don't think they wanted her to suffer from that information and it doesn't seem like she knows about the curse. Even though you would think they would tell her about the curse so she knows why she lived in a cottage for 16 years.

[Redadoodles]

Well, it's really up to the viewer to decide if Aurora is aware of the curse or not. For me, she is for the simple reason that she would ask why she would need to go back that very same day when she's been gone for sixteen years. She would also question why her parents decided to give her up etc.. As I said, once Phillip tells his father that he intends to marry a commoner, the plot moves very fast and leaves no time for the characters to think.

[Disney Duster]

That is quite true, Redadoodles.

Hey, I think Vlad and Amy will be very interested in this post I made about a favorite film and character of yours, Snow White!

I also found these tow videos in defense of my favorite princess:
If Cinderella isn't your favorite Disney princess, let's talk
IN DEFENSE OF CINDERELLA - Why I Love Cinderella (A Video Essay)