DVDizzy Forum

I'm not going to be drawn into anything with PapiBear. After seeing this person's other posts, and the debacle they caused the other week, I think this perfectly sums up this person.



Nothing more to say on this thread.

darth_deetoo wrote:I'm not going to be drawn into anything with PapiBear. After seeing this person's other posts, and the debacle they caused the other week, I think this perfectly sums up this person.



Nothing more to say on this thread.

Name-calling is an easy way to avoid a discussion when you know your argument won't hold.

Nice to see that I'm proved right yet again.

Deetoo, if you really don't intend to be "drawn into anything" over a specific point on the thread, it's best you don't post anything rather than a thinly disguised personal attack which is against the guidelines we have created in order to give everyone who posts or visits the site an enjoyable experience.

2099net wrote:Deetoo, if you really don't intend to be "drawn into anything" over a specific point on the thread, it's best you don't post anything rather than a thinly disguised personal attack which is against the guidelines we have created in order to give everyone who posts or visits the site an enjoyable experience.

Thank you, 2099.

I'll be contacting mods regarding this person, as I don't appreciate being subjected to abuse in my personal messages!

darth_deetoo wrote:I'll be contacting mods regarding this person, as I don't appreciate being subjected to abuse in my personal messages!

And I don't appreciate being subjected to abuse and slander on the boards, but that didn't seem to stop you, did it?

Looks like you're just fine dishing it out, but you can't take it.

Oh, by the way -

darth_deetoo wrote:Nothing more to say on this thread.

Yeah, famous last words. Ha!

Darth_deeto wasn't name-calling in my opinion. If someone was flaming someone else, I would call them a flamer. Is that name-calling?

I had heard the term "trolling" before, and always thought it was a term for looking for trouble, and trying to start it.

It's an internet term, like newbie. Is calling someone a newbie name-calling?

Darth_deeto, are you getting attacked in private messages? Because I don't think anyone in this thread has really been attacked yet...except the princesses, actually. I guess it depends on the person. Different people take offense to things other people wouldn't.

Oh, and darth_deeto I really hope you will stay in this thread because you are a fan of Disney princesses like me and you are a good debater! I like talking with you!

[quote="darth_deetoo
Isn't she reading Shakespeare (Romeo and Juliet) in the Special Edition.

I think the newer Princesses, are probably more well rounded characters than the earlier ones. I don't mean that in a negative way, it's just how the characters are written in different times. The Cinderella of Cinderella III seems much more resourceful and capable than in the original film, where she actually resolves to do something about her situation, whereas in the original film, when her stepsisters tear her dress up, she just breaks down in tears. I know that's a limitation of the story, but, it's still a defining character moment.[/quote]

I totally agree with you there. There is no denying that C-III is a wonderful film and faithful to its original, but there are differences in her character. I cannot help but feel that the cinderella of Cinderella III would have had a different reaction when her sisters tore up her dress in the original. She would have had more control over the situation like the pumpkin scene in the third film.

And yup, she is reading Shakespeare! There is no denying that she is clever or has 'book smarts'. I guess they related her smarts to children by having her read fairy tales; which would be what most children would be reading at the time of watching the movie. That is the kinda target age range. It could be that children who read fairy stories like Belle can feel that thye can grow up to be just as kind, loyal, honest, and inside beauty seeking as Belle is. Which is a great thing for children to learn.

I spoke to my five year old neighbour about which Princesses she prefers, and she said 'Ariel'. When asked why, she said that she loved her because Ariel was fun, loved to giggle and took care of her friends. Those were her own thoughts on Ariel's character. I asked her mum about it, and she said that her daughter loved to watch Ariel's Undersea Adventures TV series every day when its on, and her mum thinks that she can, and does learn lessons from it. She said the episode 'Daring To Dance' had a profound effect on her, as she has a little friend who is partially deaf, and that episode helped her to understand it a bit more.

That was just one child's view on the Princesses. She said she loved the others as well, but Alice was her second favourite because she loves exploring and "looking for things" (her own words). However, she does not like Snow White as she is "boring" apparantly. Never once was weight mentioned, or their clothing. From what I can remember as a child, I never thought of the Princesses weight or clothes, and the same for my Barbies. That was just never an issue for me. And it seems it isnt an issue for her either!

Oh, and her mum does not agree with Bratz at all either, and therefore there is not any Bratz stuff in her toy box. Her mum also said that her daughter has not expressed an interest in them either, thank goodness! She said Disney is her favourite, not just Princesses, but Pooh and Pixar as well.

Hope this is helpful in the debate!

Has it occured to anyone over at Disney that their new pirate franchise (which is targeted at boys) will have a more dangerous impact than the princess franchise?

Dont pirates promote like stealing, money, violence, and raping?

Does anyone get me here?

toonaspie wrote:Has it occured to anyone over at Disney that their new pirate franchise (which is targeted at boys) will have a more dangerous impact than the princess franchise?

Dont pirates promote like stealing, money, violence, and raping?

Does anyone get me here?

Very true! I'm sure we'll be hearing parents complaining about that sooner or later as well.

The only defense I can throw up for pirates is that it's more intended for an older audience. The rating on both films are PG-13. Therefore you can assume older than 13 yr. olds are watching the film and buying the merchandise. Obivously, this isn't the case but then Disney can't really be blamed for younger than 13 yr olds getting in trouble because of it. That doesn't explain much for all the toys for pirates, because I doubt they are intended just for teenagers and higher.

I'm sorry I'm writing so much! Just to let you know, I love this discussion and I have no illwill toward anyone with views opposing my own. This is really fun and I'm so into it!

darth_deetoo wrote:Isn't she reading Shakespeare (Romeo and Juliet) in the Special Edition.

Really? Well, if so, that's actually good. Though, it is another romance...hehe, it's still a very smart thing to read.

darth_deetoo wrote:I think her love of books is supposed to be a way of showing her intelligence.

So, do you feel that had to somehow figure out a way to let the audience know she is particularly smart, and they only saw books as a way to do it? They could have had her reference her books in situations, and perhaps have a conversation about psychology or something with the Beast, but I see how that may have been much. I still find a problem with the fact that the only books we saw her read were fairy tales (the Special Edition is not the original cut).

darth_deetoo wrote:I think the newer Princesses, are probably more well rounded characters than the earlier ones.

Well-rounded usually means you do or know a lot and you understand many views instead of just one view, like open-minded. But all the princesses are open to having a life different from the one they're living. I want to get what you mean. If you think about it, Belle and Cinderella kind of wanted the same thing. To live in a big castle...or at least, that's what they ended up being happy with. Belle had more adventure with a scary beast and talking objects, so if that makes her more rounded because she had that extra stuff...well, Cinderella still got to see some incredible stuff going on with pumpkins and mice! So...I dunno.

Just so you know, I do have an agenda. I'm trying to prove to people that Cinderella is just as good as the other princesses, or at least not as inferior as many seem to think. And Snow White and Aurora are harder to work on but I'm trying to show they can compete. I just want you to know where I'm at.

darth_deetoo wrote:The Cinderella of Cinderella III seems much more resourceful and capable than in the original film, where she actually resolves to do something about her situation, whereas in the original film, when her stepsisters tear her dress up, she just breaks down in tears. I know that's a limitation of the story, but, it's still a defining character moment.

Well, I must admit I took some offense to "more resourceful and capable", but if you were saying the movie showed she did bigger things for herself, going to the palace on foot by herself, breaking out of the pumpkin by herself, yes, that is bigger. But the situation and danger was also bigger. The nature of the story allowed that. She knew the Prince already met her and would accept her, and there was no ball so she didn't need a dress. There was also no pressing for time, as in the ball might have been winding down by the time she got there on foot. If she got to the palace late in Cinderella III, she figured the Prince would recognize her as the girl he met and it wouldn't matter if he already met Anastasia. She also needed a disguise so her stepfamily wouldn't recognize her.

As for busting out of a pumpkin, it's much easier to break a fruit than wood, and so it would have been harder to break out of her room when she was locked in it. Also, breaking the door would have damaged her house. Oh, and how could I forget, if she didn't get the slipper on time, she would just be back to her normal sad life, and she could have tried to find the Prince later. But if she didn't break out of the pumpkin on time, she would have died.

As for doing more about her situation, I already said she made sure her stepmother let her go to the ball, as long as she met conditions. She tried hard as she could to meet the conditions, working all day. She failed, but she still tried.

Disney's Divinity already talked about it, but I was gonna say all the princesses cried, and Cinderella cried after her clothes were ripped off her and she was screamed at. A little traumatic.

I myself don't cry much anymore. My friend, who reads a lot of philosophy and psychology and, yes is smart, told me that a trait of smarter people is hyper-sensitivity, so you cry when music or art is so beautiful. She cries when she thinks about her sad situations. Basically I'm trying to say crying ain't all that bad. I DON'T cry and that doesn't mean I'm stronger or better, I don't think. I wish I could cry.

kurtadisneyite wrote:Meanwhile in a Disney Publications "Once Upon a Princess" , Esmeralda got her own "princess story". Probably a matter of time before she gets into the general princess circulation.

That was written in 2003, Hunchback was in 1996. I don't know, the writers of that book probably thought "what heroine's stories would be interesting and we could expand well." I'll be honest, because that's one of the few inclusions of Esmeralda these days, I doubt it'll spread. And because she's not a "real princess", I have to admit I'm fine with that...sorry.

Prudence wrote:I agree completely. Snow White, Cinderella, and Belle have healthy body shapes. Aurora's mid-section I cannot critic, because it's too much like my own natural frame.

Well, she lived in a forest, her godmothers didn't know that much about cooking...but it's probably more due to her stylization. I read she was the most visually developed, stylized female character done up to that point and the artists purposely made her prettier than Cinderella...they actually said that. By the way I'm be Ariel Foruming soon so...tomarrow perhaps I'll have time to answer some messages...

Prudence wrote:In all honesty, one of my secrets is this: I know I'm worth something. I know I'm worth more than anyone realizes. That may sound self-centered, but if people knew they were worth so much more than what the media and trends project, they would find many other ways besides relationships that would lead to success in this world.

Hmmm...yea, I care so much about relationships. Perhaps too much. That sounds like a good theory you've got, we all have this potential to make the world so much more, but relationships get in the way and the media makes us think we can only be what they project.

Prudence wrote:Heck, that's one of the reasons I like both Cinderella and Prudence. In different ways, they have both thought something along the lines of what you just said.

I'm thinking this occured more in Cinderella II, when Cindy was like, yea, I don't like this way of being a princess, I gotta do this myself. Interesting, I guess Cinderella II gave some character development after all. In the original she didn't ask the mice to help her, and tried to get to the ball herself...she just ended up failing.

Prudence wrote:It IRKS you!

IT IRKS ME!!!! It IRKS MEEEEE!!!!!!

Prudence wrote:Sometimes I think the "modern" princesses stand on the edge of the bratty side, especially Ariel and Jasmine.

I agree. Lessons are confusing. You should appreciate what you have (Cindy) but also not be content with crap and try to get better if you know you deserve better (Cindy, Ariel, Belle, Jasmine).

Prudence wrote:Out of mere curiosity, was your mention of Aristotle in my honor by any chance? I remember I brought up said Greek philosopher in our first conversation.

Well, I tried to think, who is smart and read something smart, and subconciously that came to mind. I guess that came from you, then! Yay!

Disney's Divinity wrote:Possibly, though I doubt every parent is great enough to imitate. Though I can honestly say I was molded by The Little Mermaid nearly as much as my mother (and grandmother), and I don't feel that I've become a "bad" child.

Oh yea, but I forgot to say that some parents are horrible role models. I meant to say, because parents influence their kids so much, they should be the ones teaching, and teach what is good for kids. Also, I realize I may have been molded by a Disney film myself. Cinderella may make me like blondes so much and wish I had blonder hair, I go to parties hoping someone I like will be there and I can get with them, I wait for my love interest to ask me out. I have asked people out and once pursued a relationship when they showed interest but wouldn't come around, though. I also wonder if my quieter, subdued personality is Cindy influenced.

Disney's Divinity wrote:I think one of the other major problems with Disney movies and, truly, with all movies in general is that movies with a leading lady usually have a greater chance of being romance-driven than those with male protagonists. Seriously, I don't see anything like "Kiss the Girl" or "Someday My Prince Will Come" in classics like Peter Pan or The Jungle Book.

Ooohhh...yea, Peter had Wendy but it wasn't about getting her, Mowgli had that village girl but it wasn't about getting her.

Disney's Divinity wrote:If I had to rate the characters myself, it would probably end up something like: 1. Cinderella, 2. Belle, 3. Ariel, 4. Snow White, 5. Jasmine and 6. Aurora.

Yay! Thank you for making Cindy # 1! They kind of all have good points and bad points. I'm a little surprised Belle isn't first, but her and Cinderella are actually similar, I find, at least in their stories. They even both get locked up at one point and released by a small friend!

Escapay wrote:Either way, Belle has a great interest in books because of the knowledge that they bring, and the possibilities of her imagination (what with reading books that have no pictures. )

Hmmm...well, I watch Disney movies and wish I could go to Arabia or a big castle. But if I read the stories wothout pictures, would that do better than that for me?

Escapay wrote:Also, when the Beast showed her the library, I'm sure she was thinking more beyond, "WOW, think of all the fairy tales in here!!!"

! I agree I must give that an

atlanticaunderthesea wrote:I totally agree with you there. There is no denying that C-III is a wonderful film and faithful to its original, but there are differences in her character. I cannot help but feel that the cinderella of Cinderella III would have had a different reaction when her sisters tore up her dress in the original. She would have had more control over the situation like the pumpkin scene in the third film.

Maybe, but I'll repeat myself:
As for busting out of a pumpkin, it's much easier to break a fruit than wood, and so it would have been harder to break out of her room when she was locked in it. Also, breaking the door would have damaged her house. Oh, and how could I forget, if she didn't get the slipper on time, she would just be back to her normal sad life, and she could have tried to find the Prince later. But if she didn't break out of the pumpkin on time, she would have died.

So I think that Cinderella in the sequel could still fit with the same original Cinderella. I think C-III did such a good job keeping her the same character!

atlanticaunderthesea wrote:And yup, she is reading Shakespeare! There is no denying that she is clever or has 'book smarts'. I guess they related her smarts to children by having her read fairy tales; which would be what most children would be reading at the time of watching the movie. That is the kinda target age range. It could be that children who read fairy stories like Belle can feel that thye can grow up to be just as kind, loyal, honest, and inside beauty seeking as Belle is. Which is a great thing for children to learn.

Good point! But I just would have liked to see one complicated novel or work of some famous philosopher in there to show us she's intellectual, if that's what they were going for.

atlanticaunderthesea wrote:I spoke to my five year old neighbour about which Princesses she prefers, and she said 'Ariel'.

I decided not to quote the whole thing. Basically I found the whole story sweet and eye-opening. She doesn't care if Ariel has a poofy dress or a tail, she just loved what she did and how she acted! That definately goes against what some mothers feared about girls only seeing the prettiness and not what the characters do.

That's not all little girls, I know some girls who loved Ariel because she was a mermaid, but you gave a real example that princesses were not bad but possibly good for a little girl. I like how she liked Alice! Encouraging girls to question, explore, and find out things!

Which is also what Ariel does, about the human world. In one episode of the show, her father took away a human boot, and she said, "I wanna learn!"

singerguy04 wrote:The only defense I can throw up for pirates is that it's more intended for an older audience. The rating on both films are PG-13. Therefore you can assume older than 13 yr. olds are watching the film and buying the merchandise. Obivously, this isn't the case but then Disney can't really be blamed for younger than 13 yr olds getting in trouble because of it. That doesn't explain much for all the toys for pirates, because I doubt they are intended just for teenagers and higher.

Actually, even though the films are PG-13, lots of kids know who Captain Jack Sparrow is because he is advertised everywhere. One kid I met pointed to Johnny Depp in his pirate garb and asked me if I knew who he was. I said "Captain Jack Sparrow" and he said he knew the Captian Jack part but not the Sparrow part. Point is, kids know about him and the movies, and Disney is making toys and costumes for the very young kids! Peter Pan even has kids going for pirates, and they tried to kill Wendy!

AUUUGH, your quotes are messed up! Of course, you just might correct this by the time I'm finished replying.

Disney Duster wrote:I'm sorry I'm writing so much!

Why apologize for that?

I myself don't cry much anymore. My friend, who reads a lot of philosophy and psychology and, yes is smart, told me that a trait of smarter people is hyper-sensitivity, so you cry when music or art is so beautiful. She cries when she thinks about her sad situations. Basically I'm trying to say crying ain't all that bad. I DON'T cry and that doesn't mean I'm stronger or better, I don't think. I wish I could cry.

My boyfriend and I must be freaking geniuses. -annoyed huff- Actually, I agree with your friend. It makes sense, but I don't like it.

Disney Duster wrote:

Prudence wrote:Heck, that's one of the reasons I like both Cinderella and Prudence. In different ways, they have both thought something along the lines of what you just said.

I'm thinking this occured more in Cinderella II, when Cindy was like, yea, I don't like this way of being a princess, I gotta do this myself. Interesting, I guess Cinderella II gave some character development after all. In the original she didn't ask the mice to help her, and tried to get to the ball herself...she just ended up failing.

Actually, I was referring to Prudence's reactions (and her failure) in the "Royal Mouse Catcher" scene from Cinderella III!

Disney Duster wrote:

Prudence wrote:It IRKS you!

IT IRKS ME!!!! It IRKS MEEEEE!!!!!!

YOU IRK THE WOOOOOORLD! Just kidding.

Disney Duster wrote:

Prudence wrote:Sometimes I think the "modern" princesses stand on the edge of the bratty side, especially Ariel and Jasmine.

I agree. Lessons are confusing. You should appreciate what you have (Cindy) but also not be content with crap and try to get better if you know you deserve better (Cindy, Arie, Belle, Jasmine).

Agreed. Sort of like our "kismat" conversation. (Kismat, for those who may not know, is an Arabic phrase meaning, "It is my lot.")

Disney Duster wrote:

Prudence wrote:Out of mere curiosity, was your mention of Aristotle in my honor by any chance? I remember I brought up said Greek philosopher in our first conversation.

Well, I tried to think, who is smart and read something smart, and subconciously that came to mind. I guess that came from you, then! Yay!

Wow. In all seriousness, I'm honored!

The word is "subconsciously." Don't applaud me for knowing its spelling, though. In my elementary school days, I didn't know the word for "conscious" and wrote, "Tara became un-unconscious."

darth_deetoo wrote:Isn't she reading Shakespeare (Romeo and Juliet) in the Special Edition.

I don't know if this counts, but in the broadway musical. Belle is reading Hamlet

The Little Merboy wrote:

darth_deetoo wrote:Isn't she reading Shakespeare (Romeo and Juliet) in the Special Edition.

I don't know if this counts, but in the broadway musical. Belle is reading Hamlet

Actually, in the Broadway show, she reads a story about King Arthur. In "Human Again" in the movie, she reads "Romeo and Juliet".

I thought that was in the Enchanted Christmas movie? Well, I can't remember I guess...

SpringHeelJack wrote:

The Little Merboy wrote: I don't know if this counts, but in the broadway musical. Belle is reading Hamlet

Actually, in the Broadway show, she reads a story about King Arthur. In "Human Again" in the movie, she reads "Romeo and Juliet".

Thats it! I always get those confused Both boring

Disney Duster wrote:
Just so you know, I do have an agenda. I'm trying to prove to people that Cinderella is just as good as the other princesses, or at least not as inferior as many seem to think. And Snow White and Aurora are harder to work on but I'm trying to show they can compete. I just want you to know where I'm at.

You don't have to go to all that trouble Disney Duster (though it's much appreciated !). I'll try to defend Aurora, since it is my favorite movie.

We have all heard of sheltered children. Children whose parents refuse them to see or do anything out of fear something bad will happen to them. This is the case of Aurora.

Ever since she was cursed at birth by Maleficent, her parents and god parents (Flora, Fauna and Merryweather) have tried to protect her. Since burning all the spinning wheels in the kingdom did not work, her god parents took her into the woods to hide. There she had zero contact with others of the human race and no knowledge whatsoever about her own name or past. Her only friends were forest animals, whom she talked to (probably because isolation caused her to lose some of her mental health ) So when someone (Prince Phillip) shows up it's her dream come true because she finally has someone to relate to and someone to care for her (after seeing the cake/dress making routine by the fairies I doubt they were all that good, and that peasant outfit was probably store bought).

Allot of people have commented about the stupidity of Aurora running away and crying over a boy, but her her it's not just a boy like it would be to you and me it is someone else of the human race (sounds like some bad sci-fi movie, but it is true). Also she has been told that she is not who she thinks she is and her future has been decided for her. She is sad because she is being told that the life she had was a false one and the life in the future for her is uncontrollable and does not have that person who she first met. (the crown she is given to by her godparents symbolizes this and so when she gets it, she naturally cries, which as Disney Duster pointed out, makes her smart!)

In addition she has to be hypnotized by Maleficent something else she has no control over and remains in a death like state for the next 20 (or so) minutes of film.

In short Aurora has never been given a chance to show what she is truly capable of ("Why do they still treat me like a child") and she can do is dream of a better future, which does eventually come to her and no doubt she will be able to do wonderful things in that future (Enchanted Tales?), but for now she regrettably has no personality other than a dreamer who has been excluded from society.

So to everyone else out there, don't be so mean to Aurora, she'll get her chance (like Cinderella, who is way better than all the other princesses but apparently Disney Duster has to write and essay explaining why to the rest of you ) in some Direct to video film. I only hope they don't make her into a preppy blond.

Disney Duster, I forgot to comment on this bit last night:
I read she [Aurora] was the most visually developed, stylized female character done up to that point and the artists purposely made her prettier than Cinderella...they actually said that.

Where did you read this? She's certainly NOT prettier than Cinderella! I consider Cinderella's features to be practically flawless. Aurora is the single most angular Disney Princess there is. A friend once told me that the only reason this is the case is because the movie Sleeping Beauty was based on angles. (Should I note that this friend is an Ariel fan because she has red hair herself, though she does not find red hair attractive?)

I like Aurora - or Briar Rose, as I prefer to call her - because she does not have the traditional "heroine" look. She's the only Disney Princess I can look like. Of course, the common critique is that she is too skinny. Well, she's animated. Good grief. Besides, I also heard she was modeled off of Audrey Hepburn, but I can't see a resemblance nor can I place assurity in the source.

Anyway, I like Aurora because I -don't- see her as a traditional beauty. I see her as a real-looking person. Were tall and angular females considered beautiful in 1959?

Speaking of beauty and prejudice, I hope the "Anneliese van der Pol was caught driving drunk!" rumor is complete hogwash. I'm regularly mistaken for being Ms. van der Pol! It hurts when I read and hear comments like, "I never liked her look. Her look gave me something to be suspicious of." What?! Ugh!

Another reason I like Prudence -
She has the "look" of a villain, but she's simply a human who puts up a front and tries very hard. That's rare in a Disney character.

Prudence wrote:Disney Duster, I forgot to comment on this bit last night:
I read she [Aurora] was the most visually developed, stylized female character done up to that point and the artists purposely made her prettier than Cinderella...they actually said that.

Where did you read this? She's certainly NOT prettier than Cinderella! I consider Cinderella's features to be practically flawless. Aurora is the single most angular Disney Princess there is. A friend once told me that the only reason this is the case is because the movie Sleeping Beauty was based on angles.

I actually do think Aurora is the most beautiful. I guess it depends on how you view the film. There's no doubting she is stylised, but she is also pretty undefined in certain key areas. And I think this allows viewers to place their own interperation into the artwork.

This is a common theory, often used in comics and anime. Often heroes in anime will have less defined features and fewer lines than the villains. Comics often use simple artwork to indicate beauty or innocence. Notice how many comic strips use the visual short hand of a over large head to make a character appeal to the audience (this is based upon the human response to a baby's proportions). By keeping the image loose and undefined, it becomes more appealing to people, because they can project their own images onto it. And I believe this also applies to Aurora.

I can't find a name for this (which is really annoying me, because I literally read a whole webpage on it last week). However, Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics has a whole chapter on this (if I recall correctly).

Disney Duster wrote:....So I think that Cinderella in the sequel could still fit with the same original Cinderella. I think C-III did such a good job keeping her the same character!

I agree. She's more "modern" in Cinderella III, but she did stay in character. Why did she not give up on her dreams like she did the night before, when her dress was ripped? Well, here's another reason. It wasn't "the night before." The time frame had been turned, but there must have been unconscious memories of the reversed year in Cinderella's heart. Her confidence had grown.

Disney Duster wrote:

atlanticaunderthesea wrote: I spoke to my five year old neighbour about which Princesses she prefers, and she said 'Ariel'.

I decided not to quote the whole thing. Basically I found the whole story sweet and eye-opening. She doesn't care if Ariel has a poofy dress or a tail, she just loved what she did and how she acted! That definately goes against one some mothers feared about girls only seeing the prettiness and not what the characters do.

That's not all little girls, I know some girls who loved Ariel because she was a mermaid, but you gave a real example that princesses were not bad but possibly good for a little girl. I like how she liked Alice! Encouraging girls to question, explore, and find out things!

Which is also what Ariel does, about the human world. In one episode of the show, her father took away a human boot, and she said, "I wanna learn!"

That is so adorable. Anyway, I have four little neighbors. One prefers Cinderella, one prefers Belle, one prefers Ariel, and still another loves Jasmine. (However, Cinderella has gained a lot of popularity in my neighborhood, thanks to the new movie.) Their reasons change all the time, because they are so young. Most kids are always changing their minds and thinking, "Oooh! Sparkly!"

My favorite princess is Cinderella because of her personality. There is a children's book called "My Best Friend is Cinderella," about a little girl named Emma who lives in Cinderella's kingdom. She wanted to be a princess like Cinderella because she basically wanted to play dress-up. Cinderella taught her that princesses have many responsibilities. Tis a cute little story, and the moral is very true.

There are quite a few girls who grow up to have "feminine" jobs because of a dream or an inspiration, but they important jobs nonetheless. Responsibility is crucial. Hmm. It goes beyond jobs as well. I'm a cheerleader and a dancer, and have been told that these activities do not make me an athlete. Yes, they do indeed - especially cheer! It is stereotyped and considered "girly," but it is very much a sport.

~*~

On another topic, I never thought about the "Pirates" series as being bad for young boys. Perhaps the argument has some truth. I'll have to think on this one for awhile, but as Disney Duster said, the Pirates trilogy is intended for more mature audiences. Besides, there are some people who are just watching to see if Norrington lives or dies!