DVDizzy Forum

Jack Skellington wrote:Jasmine lived in Morocco, I can tell from they way the doors are shaped, take it from someone who knows his culture.

Interesting that you noticed that...it makes the meet n greet at Epcot work that way.

However I dont think that the story of Aladdin was supposed to take place in a specific nation in that movie (only that you recognize the culture and region the tale it is set in). Many of those nations in the Middle East area werent even named till around the 1700s and the story takes place many centuries before that.

And also the original Aladdin story in the 1001 Arabian Nights is actually set in China.

I love lists like this ^_^
More "firsts" please!
And on a Disney Princess lj, we pretty much figured out, through deduction or facts, that:
Cinderella=France
Snow White=Germany
Aurora=England or France
Ariel=Norway
Belle=France

Oh! A few more firsts, I hope they are right and weren't mentioned before. Just some tiny things ^^;

*Snow White is the first with two names (not sure if White is her surname or not)
*Snow White is the first with brown eyes
*Cinderella is the first with blue eyes
*Aurora is the first with violet eyes
*Aurora is the first to have curly (well semi curly) hair
*Ariel is the first to be the youngest in a family (Cinderella was older than the stepsisters or same age I think)

Since it seems a lot of people feel strongly about this here's what I am going to do.

I am doing to re-do the thread. First, I am going to re-check the facts, correct mistakes and add in some of your facts. Then I am going to divide the list in two: the official Princesses and the Non-official Princesses, and add their facts so that all bases are covered.

Everyone cool with that?

pap64 wrote: Official Princesses and the Non-official Princesses

It's probably not that big a deal for some, but I'd rather it simply be divided as "Disney Princess (in Merch & Canon)" versus "Disney Princess (Canon only)". Mainly because it makes more sense, at least semantics-wise. There's really no such thing as an "official" Princess or a "non-official" Princess. A character is either a Princess or she isn't, regardless if she's included or excluded in the clique-y merch line. Just because Eilonwy isn't in the merch line but fans want Giselle to be doesn't make Giselle any more "official" a Princess, nor does it make Eilonwy a "non-official" Princess. And characters like Alice, Wendy, Tink, Esmeralda, Megara*, Mulan, and Giselle** would not belong on either list since they are not born into nor marrying into sovereignty/royalty, which is usually how the title of "Princess" is given. And any argument about "Kingdom Hearts" will be ignored. That's a crossover video game, not a canonical movie.

Albert

*Some may argue that Megara would be a princess, but just because Herc is descended from the gods doesn't make him a prince (there's really no sign of a sovereignty in the film and no one ever says "Zeus is the king of us gods!"). Also, it's important to remember that he chose *not* to join them in Mt. Olympus, and also to remain mortal (with his strength, I assume) on Earth. Plus, unlike other films, it's not implied in the end that Herc and Megara are even thinking about marriage, so until there's a crappy DTV sequel that says so, Megara is just a heroine who happens to have a semi-royal boyfriend.

**I still will never understand why fans on insist on labeling Giselle a Disney Princess when one of the main points of the movie is that she didn't become one. It's like she gets it as an honorary title because of her popularity, and yet true blue princesses like Eilonwy and Kida get the shaft.

Princess Forever wrote:I love lists like this ^_^
More "firsts" please!
And on a Disney Princess lj, we pretty much figured out, through deduction or facts, that:
Cinderella=France
Snow White=Germany
Aurora=England or France
Ariel=Norway
Belle=France

I thought that Ariel was Denmark since that is where "The Little Mermaid" story originated from.

oh yes, my mistake, I had Norway on my mind for some reason! *lol*

Escapay wrote: *Some may argue that Megara would be a princess, but just because Herc is descended from the gods doesn't make him a prince (there's really no sign of a sovereignty in the film and no one ever says "Zeus is the king of us gods!"). Also, it's important to remember that he chose *not* to join them in Mt. Olympus, and also to remain mortal (with his strength, I assume) on Earth. Plus, unlike other films, it's not implied in the end that Herc and Megara are even thinking about marriage, so until there's a crappy DTV sequel that says so, Megara is just a heroine who happens to have a semi-royal boyfriend.

Ha, are you forgetting "Zero to Hero"? Remember that direct-to-video "sequel" (though it was mostly TV series episodes put together with bad new animation, like Tarzan and Jane or a lot of Pooh releases). I think it was implied that they were married in that, though I could be wrong. But one of the most interesting things I've heard brought up about Meg is that in the original myths she WAS a princess. I haven't looked into that myself though. But what exactly does Charleton Heston say about Zeuss in the intro to Hercules? Does he refer to him as ruler or leader of the gods, or anything like that? Anyway, he certainly comes off, to me, as king of all the gods. Not that I'm arguing for Meg to be a princess or anything. It doesn't matter to me either way.

Of course, I believe one could argue just how "canon" any sequels and prequels are, since I doubt (though, again, I could be wrong) that the princesses at the theme parks are trained to discuss Melody or other new characters, or, say, that Cinderella is taught that she now should not remember the ending of the original Cinderella but instead should remember the events of "Cinderella 3".

Escapay wrote:It's probably not that big a deal for some, but I'd rather it simply be divided as "Disney Princess (in Merch & Canon)" versus "Disney Princess (Canon only)". Mainly because it makes more sense, at least semantics-wise.

Have to agree on this, though isn't it just Merchandise vs. Canon rather than Merchandise & Canon vs. Canon? Since the princess merchandise does seem to include some non-princesses... *sigh* That's why I tend to like the term "Disney Girls".

slave2moonlight wrote:Since the princess merchandise does seem to include some non-princesses...

Which is why I chose "Merch & Canon" vs. "Canon" to differentiate between the canonical Princesses. The merch line has screwed up some fans' conceptions of what the title "Princess" really means (it's not a synonym for heroine, people. It's a sovereign title.). So if there's gonna be a list of Disney Princess facts and people want to differentiate what kinds of Princesses there are, it should be divided into what Disney merch thinks a princess is versus what Disney canon thinks a princess is. And the "honorary" or "guest" princesses are still not princesses. I'm sorry if it makes some fans mad, but it's stupid to call someone like Giselle a Princess just because fans want her to be one and because she was considered for, but ultimately not part of, the merch line.

albert

There are Disney Princesses and there are princesses from Disney films. Being a princess in a Disney films doesn't make you a Disney Princess. That's why Mulan and Pocahontas are included in the line and Eilonwy and Kida aren't.

Escapay wrote:

slave2moonlight wrote:Since the princess merchandise does seem to include some non-princesses...

Which is why I chose "Merch & Canon" vs. "Canon" to differentiate between the canonical Princesses. The merch line has screwed up some fans' conceptions of what the title "Princess" really means (it's not a synonym for heroine, people. It's a sovereign title.). So if there's gonna be a list of Disney Princess facts and people want to differentiate what kinds of Princesses there are, it should be divided into what Disney merch thinks a princess is versus what Disney canon thinks a princess is. And the "honorary" or "guest" princesses are still not princesses. I'm sorry if it makes some fans mad, but it's stupid to call someone like Giselle a Princess just because fans want her to be one and because she was considered for, but ultimately not part of, the merch line.

albert

Well, yes, I agree, but that's why I'm saying wouldn't it be simpler to just say Merchandise vs. Canon, canon meaning the "true" princesses, since it's the merchandise line that chooses to label non-princesses as princesses along with real princesses. Aw, forget it...

mooky_7_sa wrote:Being a princess in a Disney films doesn't make you a Disney Princess.

But, don't you see what's wrong with that sentence? It's clearer and makes more sense to say that there is the Disney Princess merchandising line, and then there are the canonical Disney princesses, which are the "true" princesses and would include Eilonwy, Kida, and whoever else...

mooky_7_sa wrote:Being a princess in a Disney films doesn't make you a Disney Princess.

Agree,Giselle and Mulan aren't real princesses but they fit the line and are heroines,they"re much more Disney Princesses then Meg or Kida,it's a Disney Heroines line if you want.
And I think Giselle is official,she appeared in many things and she seems much more official then Meg or Alice who just got pushed into a CD because there weren't enough Princesses.

Sometimes my boyfriend calls me a princess. Is this proper? Well, let's check the dictionary!

prin·cess
1. a nonreigning female member of a royal family.
2. History/Historical. a female sovereign or monarch; queen.
3. the consort of a prince.
4. (in Great Britain) a daughter or granddaughter (if the child of a son) of a king or queen.
5. a woman considered to have the qualities or characteristics of a princess.

Modern Language Association (MLA):
"princess." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 11 Sep. 2008. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/princess >.

I got a bit of criticism when I posted my drawing of Giselle over in my dA account because I included the line "I think she might be a real princess" in the description, but my real intention there was to make a reference to one of Morgan's lines from the film, not make a statement about Giselle's status. But under this definition I think it's fair to say it's acceptable to see people refer to their favorite Disney girls as "princesses," even if they're not technically royalty. I even find myself doing it!

Anyway, whether or not I should really be referred to as a princess by my boyfriend, well that's another debate altogether.

Plus, unlike other films, it's not implied in the end that Herc and Megara are even thinking about marriage, so until there's a crappy DTV sequel that says so, Megara is just a heroine who happens to have a semi-royal boyfriend.

I don’t know how you came to that conclusion. Unlike other films, the two protagonists actually die/risk death for one another. If that doesn’t equal a couple, I don’t know what does. In fact, they do a bit more for one another than many characters who actually get married on-screen.

Also, just because Hercules didn’t “ascend the throne,” doesn’t mean his blood is any less “royal.” I don’t mind that Megara is excluded from the merchandise, as the line doesn’t really matter to me, but I think it’s plausible for her to be considered “royal” if you were looking for a reason.

mooky_7_sa wrote:There are Disney Princesses and there are princesses from Disney films. Being a princess in a Disney films doesn't make you a Disney Princess.

This is exactly the skewed 'logic" and ideas that I'm annoyed with, and I'm not singling you out, I'm singling out the idea that "if you're a Princess in a film, it doesn't automatically include you in the merch line".

The merch line is flawed for many reasons, but its biggest flaw is the fact that it promotes the idea that "Princess" is selective. Yes, the acquirement of a title "Princess" is selective (after all, there's only so many sovereign/royal families left in the world), but not the way that Disney feels (mainly that you're part of the line if you're from a popular and marketable movie).

Sprince wrote:Agree,Giselle and Mulan aren't real princesses but they fit the line and are heroines,they"re much more Disney Princesses then Meg or Kida,it's a Disney Heroines line if you want.

But it's not called the Disney Heroines line, which is exactly my point. "Princess" does not always equal "Heroine", and Disney is twisting the definition in order to fit in characters like Giselle and Mulan.

enigmawing wrote:5. a woman considered to have the qualities or characteristics of a princess.

Yes, but what are the qualities and characteristics of a princess? That's the whole point. A person can't be a princess. You can emulate the characteristics and qualities of people who are princesses, but you can't be one. "Princess" is a title, not a personality.

I won't touch the "my boyfriend calls me princess" or anything similar because it's being used as a term of affection. My concern is how Disney is misusing the title in its marketing. "Princess" is a royal title. It's not a label for heroines and popular characters, regardless what Disney says.

Disney's Divinity wrote:Also, just because Hercules didn’t “ascend the throne,” doesn’t mean his blood is any less “royal.”

Because the gods themselves aren't "royalty" in a sovereign sense. Yes, Zeus is their leader, but not in a sovereign sense of "King". Just as a President is an elected leader but not considered royal. Thus, "semi-royal" touches on that by acknowledging he's the son of the gods' leader, but it's not in the royal sense.

Disney's Divinity wrote:I don’t mind that Megara is excluded from the merchandise, as the line doesn’t really matter to me,

It doesn't matter to me either (who's in and who's out of the line). What matters to me is that fans get the right idea of what is a "Princess" by its definition (as enigmawing pointed out), and what is a "Princess" as Disney promotes it. Reading drivel like "they're a princess in the film, but not a Disney Princess" makes me more than the thought of slipcovers taking over the world.

The term "Disney Princess", it must be understood, is a merch line. It's not an official title for characters. It's a selective group of popular characters (or characters Disney wants to make popular) from Disney films that will sell merch.

And there are fans who say "Such-and-Such belongs in the line, she's a heroine with the same qualities as Othersuch-and-Such". And "Heroine" is not "Princess", just as "Princess" is not "Heroine". I'll likely get a lot of flak for that, but come on. If we go with that idea, then Mary Poppins is a Princess. After all, she's the heroine of her film, she's got many endearing qualities that Disney would want to promote, and hey, she's popular!

This is why when pap64 asked what to call the characters, I said "(Merch & Canon)". Because if he's going to make a list of "Princess" facts that focus on who's in the merch line and who isn't, he'll have to acknowledge which.

As it stands, the following characters (merch line inclusion or not) can be considered a "Princess" because it's acknowledged in their films that they are born into or marry into whatever sovereignty exists in their culture:

Snow White
Cinderella
Aurora
Eilonwy
Ariel
Belle
Jasmine
Nala
Pocahontas
Kida
Tiana
Rapunzel

I don't care whether or not any of them are in the merch line, just that they are the only characters (from the DAC canon at least) who should be allowed the term "Disney Princess". There's no "She's either a princess in a Disney film or She's a Disney Princess" bullsh!t.

albert

Escapay: Sorry, couldn't resist playing devil's advocate here. You make a lot of great points. I do stand by what I was saying earlier (and what you're basically saying here), that it's all a bunch of marketing BS on Disney's part.

However, you've gotta admit that the term "Disney Princesses" sounds a heck of a lot catchier than "Disney Girls," "Disney Heroines," or "Disney Bimbettes" (oops, was thinking of the blonds from Beauty and the Beast) and of course they're gonna pick their prettiest, most popular, and most marketable characters to fit the line. That's to be expected; business is business and I'm sure Disney plans to keep such a profitable line going for as long as humanly possible.

But yeah, the whole ordeal has skewed the logic of a lot of fans. Personally I don't mind seeing non-royalty characters declared "princesses" so much as actual princesses being left out (since it seems to create a double-standard) but eh, that's just me. Anyway, I couldn't resist playing with the idea in my own way.

enigmawing wrote:Escapay: Sorry, couldn't resist playing devil's advocate here.

Don't worry, I often like the devil's advocate. They're willing to step up with a good argument rather than a shocked fan who'll just huff off and say "well, forget you, man!"

enigmawing wrote:However, you've gotta admit that the term "Disney Princesses" sounds a heck of a lot catchier than "Disney Girls," "Disney Heroines," or "Disney Bimbettes" (oops, was thinking of the blonds from Beauty and the Beast) and of course they're gonna pick their prettiest, most popular, and most marketable characters to fit the line. That's to be expected; business is business and I'm sure Disney plans to keep such a profitable line going for as long as humanly possible.

I know, my beef isn't with the marketing line. It's simply with how fans interpret "Princess" because of how Disney uses it. While I'm annoyed that less popular characters aren't in the line, I'm more annoyed that it says that you have to be a popular character to be in the line.

enigmawing wrote:But yeah, the whole ordeal has skewed the logic of a lot of fans.

Exactly.

enigmawing wrote:Personally I don't mind seeing non-royalty characters declared "princesses" so much as actual princesses being left out (since it seems to create a double-standard) but eh, that's just me.

I wish it could just be me too. But it just bothers me that because of the goddamn line, there are fans out there who'll say "Kida isn't a Disney Princess" just because she isn't in the line. There is not, nor should there be, a difference between "Princess in a Disney Film" versus "Disney Princess". Just because Disney uses the latter as a marketing term does not mean fans should suddenly say Eilonwy isn't a Disney Princess, nor will it *ever* make Giselle a Disney Princess.

enigmawing wrote:Anyway, I couldn't resist playing with the idea in my own way.

It's a great piece of art, Sunset Girl! (And sorry, I couldn't resist using your old name at least once in this post!)

Albert

Yeah, the exclusion of characters has always made me why people make a big deal out of Tiana being the first black Princess when she isn't really (I always thought the Atlantean--Kida--were black?). But I guess they mean the first African black princess. Or maybe they mean the first black Princess that will "officially" be inducted in the line.

Anyway, I don't mean to turn this into another infamous tangent on the Princess line. There's been several now.