DVDizzy Forum

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.

I agree. Besides, they most likely meant for her to be the most beautiful, mainly because that's really all there is to her character. She rarely speaks and only does so long enough to keep the plot moving around her, whereas Cinderella focuses more on the heroine's emotions and virtues so that the audience will admire her.

Disney's Divinity wrote:

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.

I agree. Besides, they most likely meant for her to be the most beautiful, mainly because that's really all there is to her character. She rarely speaks and only does so long enough to keep the plot moving around her, whereas Cinderella focuses more on the heroine's emotions and virtues so that the audience will admire her.

Hrm, I still don't see her style as beautiful when compared to the other princesses, but I agree with "that's really all there is to her character." The three fairies have a lot more to their personalities than Aurora does!

Since everyone likes playing the blame game (the media included) I might as well mention this.

Am I the only one truly annoyed and offended by the shows on Teen Nick?

It seems that all they preach is too look good and beautiful so that you can get everything you want. Plus, the characters are shallow, arrogant, greedy people that in my honest opinion is far more damaging than the princesses.

Drake and Josh is a great example of this. Drake lies, is dishonest, irresponsible, greedy and a bad character. He abuses his brother and treats girl like a fashion accessory. Josh is a smart guy, but the writers love to humiliate him and make him a good social outcast so that the beautiful people can mock and abuse him. Don't even get me started on their little sister. She is a little b***h that gets away with every mean prank she does! She never gets punished and they ACCEPT it! What types of value are we teaching kids here? That they can get away with being mean, dishonest, greedy, selfish and shallow people just as long as you are beautiful enough? FFS!!!

Oh and don't even get me started on Zoey 101! It stars Britney's little sister and we all know the role model she turned out to be! Not only that, ALL the characters are beautiful looking and the young girls are covered from head to toe in make up and expensive clothes and jewelry! And of course, the outcasts are the target here, sometimes mocked and downright ignored. Not to mention the girls are awfully skinny. Seriously, I haven't seen any healthy looking characters.

Unfabulous is the same deal, only that the main character is an outcast that desires to be beautiful and be accepted by the popular kids.

The ONLY show I find appropriate enough in Teen Nick is Ned's Declassified. The show is cheesy and stupid as heck, BUT the cast is very varied (isn't composed of beautiful looking characters), the outcasts are respected (the main characters are outcasts in terms of looks and attitudes) and actually shows some morals and tips for kids to learn.

Sorry if I went vastly off topic here, but its silly that people are targeting just one franchise (the princesses here) while there are perhaps far more damaging stuff out there.

A friend of mine pointed out once that the My Scene Barbie dolls were unhealthy for girls because the girls were beautiful, decked out in expensive clothing, jewelry and make up, were awfully skinny and spend time with just as beautiful men.

Just in case, I don't mind beauty or have an issue with it. What I am saying is that the media focuses far too much on the beauty of people rather than personality, depth and most importantly REALITY. This is the issue we are talking about here. The fear is that children grow up believing that beauty will get you love, acceptance and success in life.

So that's my main issue.

Agreed.

Though yes, that was quite off-topic.

As parents it is up to us to teach lessons, and sometimes it is hard when we have to counter things that get put infront of our kids. I would not say the princesses are a bad influence. They are a make believe fantasy. Whether there is a moral or not, we can choose to point it out as a lesson, but we still have to remember it's make believe. I don't think a 3 year old is going to notice that Tinkerbells skirt is short. Dad, on the other hand will Kids do not know any better. They are like playdough. They innocently love the concept of a princess. It is up to parents to decide how far to disect the morals, dress etc. I have found with my kids that if I made too big a deal about an issue, they were more interested and curious. Less is more! At least until they were old enough to have an opinion. The off topic conversation was not without merit! TV programming nowdays requires diligent parental control. As for other questionable marketed products, we can only hope people don't buy them

I don't know if Ill ever have children, but I always believed that parents shouldn't manipulate and control EVERYTHING they kids do, think, play and watch. One thing is to establish controls and rules and guide them along the way, the other is to try and have dictator like grip on their lives.

So even if I end up not agreeing with what my kids are watching I must respect their decisions while educating them about what they are seeing. So if I had a daughter that loves Drake and Josh I will not try to change her habits BUT I will loudly state that what the characters are doing are wrong and that she should show more respect towards people.

musicradio77 wrote:During the last 45 years, people in their homes listened to such Disney classic soundtracks like "Cinderella", "Snow White" and "Sleeping Beauty" especially with the story albums as well. Those were on the Disneyland label back in the 1960's. I have a few albums on vinyl..... They stopped producing mass vinyl by the end of the 80's, gone were the three classics.

...the three Disneyland LP's like "Snow White", "Cinderella" and "Sleeping Beauty" are soundtracks along with the three story LP's from both 1962 and 1969 (except "Sleeping Beauty" in 1958) are very rare.

People from my generation grew up listening to vinyl. I don't have any vinyl from when I was a young kid and don't think my parents ever bought me any Disney LP's or 45's, but I have my vinyl from when I was a teenager and later began collecting lounge music on vinyl (and CD)... I still have my turn-table hooked up too. I have my dad's classic turntable in the garage and one of these days I will pay to restore it. But boy do I wish I had some of those old Disney records. You must have a nice collection musicradio77...

musicradio77 wrote:Today all the LP's just collectables and there so hard to find at a local thrift store, flea markets and on Ebay. I have about over a hundred Disneyland LP's in my collection, I'm not selling it, I keep it for my personal use. "Cinderella", "Snow White" and "Sleeping Beauty" are the rarest albums to find.

Thanks for posting those photos and giving these details - was wondering how hard it would be to find albums like that - sounds like it is difficult! I live in Los Angeles area and used to frequent flea markets (buying old lounge LPs back in the mid-90s, of which I have a small modest collection) and Ebay but been too busy with life/career stuff to do much of that for the last several years. I need to find time again for simple pleasures! BTW, can you give us some idea what the price range is on these old albums if one were to find, say on Ebay? I'm just curious. Also, have you run into any problems with fakes/bootlegs of these old albums?

Prudence wrote: Honestly, I think the Tinkerbell hype needs to stop. Tink tried to kill Wendy out of simple bratty jealousy, and yet she's franchised as being a wonderful heroine! Ugh.

Yes, but Disney is trying to make an entire franchise out of Tinkerbell so there is a reason for that, and it has to be that she is very popular, but why then? And then Disney if they are to be successful at this, will have to de-emphasize her "bad side," or is the lesson to be taught here, "hey, no one is perfect". But back to the point, Tinkerbell stuff must have been selling for them to make that decision, and since the animated movie has been in the vault for a long time (or OOP, right?), I'm trying to figure out how Tink caught on with the young girls - through their moms? I saw the live action movie version when it came out in the theater a few years ago, but that movie didn't really strike me as a movie you would take young girls to see. Do you suppose that is where young girls have had this exposure to that character?

Eh, most girls like her because "she's cute and snarky."

This came way late, but Flanger-Hanger, Princess Aurora actually has a lot going for her. She does dream about a prince, but when she meets him, she still keeps her head cool and doesn't run off with him. She asks him to come to her cottage and see if it's all right with her guardians. Then, when she starts crying, it's probably a mixture of the fact that the first and so far only boy she met would not get to be with her, she worried about how he would feel when he came to her cottage and wasn't there, she worried about how he would feel about not getting to be with her because she was a princess, and on top of all that, as you mentioned, she found out her whole life was a lie, and her parents weren't dead!

Then, when they told her she needed to go back to her old life, she accepted it. Sure, she cried, but she didn't go, "No! Boys are so important! I must have my man!" She agreed to take on her right and royal duty as a princess. Although, maybe that's kind of a bad message because it says you should marry who soemone else decides for you.

This is actually a toughie. On the one hand, Aurora let the boy go and prepared to do what she needed to unite her father and King Hubert's kingdoms. On the other hand, she didn't rebel against the fairies or her parents to marry the boy she really loved. Now I don't know...sorry.

Thanks for replying to my thoughts Disney Duster.....uh..what were they again? Never mind.

Nobody will ever know Aurora's real personality becuase it isn't given to people blantantly. We can guess but that's all we can really do (Which is why she is not really the most popular princess). But your theroes are intresting anyway.

Also, did you ever think that Aurora's life was kind of like the Truman Show, but in 1340 AD?

I thought this line from the article was a little too much...

"It really is ultimately about looking pretty, and having a lot of stuff," she said. "And as somebody who studied body image, I really worry about what it's setting girls up for. Will the girl who is wearing 'Princess' across her chest when she's three be wearing 'Spoiled' across her chest when she's six, and 'Porn Star' when she is 12?"

How in the heck does one go from Disney princesses to pornography?

Parts of that article was totally ridiculous and as everyone has been saying, there are worse popular little girl merchandise that are giving a bad influence.

I think the Princess line is fine and the products that try to teach something all tell little girls to never give up on their dreams.

It's funny how in the article one mother says that she tells her daughter that Snow White also dreams of being a vet. In one of the Disney Princess books, Cinderella actually becomes a vet and opens a clinic.

Kram Nebuer wrote:I thought this line from the article was a little too much...

"It really is ultimately about looking pretty, and having a lot of stuff," she said. "And as somebody who studied body image, I really worry about what it's setting girls up for. Will the girl who is wearing 'Princess' across her chest when she's three be wearing 'Spoiled' across her chest when she's six, and 'Porn Star' when she is 12?"

How in the heck does one go from Disney princesses to pornography?

Well, Kram, if the princesses are always scene posing and just looking pretty in clipart, the movies have attention thrown on their dresses and how they look, and they always want men...that's essentially dressing up for a man, which could lead to dressing down for a man, or not dressing in very much for a man, because it's about what men want to look at. The female body, preferably un-clad, right?

Disney Duster wrote:Well, Kram, if the princesses are always scene posing and just looking pretty in clipart, the movies have attention thrown on their dresses and how they look, and they always want men...that's essentially dressing up for a man, which could lead to dressing down for a man, or not dressing in very much for a man, because it's about what men want to look at. The female body, preferably un-clad, right?

As an adult, that's a plausible - and frightening - conclusion, but it seems like too far a stretch to me. I just don't see how a little girl would ever think of becoming a porn star because of all the Disney Princess products that surround her. I just feel that the quote in the article was much too much and if a three year old princess becomes a 12 year old porn star, then Disney should not be to blame. It would be bad parenting for letting such a thing happen to a little girl.

I guess we just have to remember that adults sometimes forget how a child's mind works.

It's a shame that that's what message seems to be sent from some of the Princess merchandise, but it's important to remember the other messages the Disney Princesses try to send like there's more to being a princesses than having stuff and being beautiful. That one song in one of the Disney Princess albums "Every Girl Can be a Princess" was all about not needing the princess frillies and being yourself, and using your own charms and grace to be a princess.

I was positive I posted in here last night

I think it's unfair to blame the princesses on being materialistic and instantly making them a stereotyped rich snob. They were born into it, or married into a life like that, they weren't after material possesions they were after love. Hopefully that makes sense, in my head it sounded good

I'm not sure if I've posted in here, but if I have, I'll give my $0.02 again...

Personally, I feel that the Princess line is essentially a glorified toy line aimed at a certain gender, in this case, girls. This is not something particularly harmful socially, as many girls who had grown up with Barbie and My Little Pony came out okay (as did the boys who grew up with Action Man and He-Man).

However, one thing that I feel harmful is to the value of the Disney films and the animated film canon. Like all toy lines directed at girls, it is made so feminine, that it would be hard for any boy to like it. This would make some kids miss out on Cinderella and the like, which whilst good films, could now easily be dismissed as tripe for seven year old girls. Equally, the connections between toy line (not just normal merchandise) and film could become blurred, and the originals could become viewed as extended advertisements.

The whole success of the Princess line could, as well, jepoardise future animated film production. Aside from Chicken Little (I'm not counting the likes of Pinocchio and Alice in Wonderland, as they're not based on traditional fairy-tales, more based on novels in the genre of fairy-tale fantasy), all the Disney animated features based upon fairy-tales contain princes and princesses, and their romances. Some early merchandise for Enchanted (an original fairy-tale) bares the "Disney Princess" logo, and the two future fully animated fairy-tales in production currently are The Princess and the Frog and Rapunzel. It's inevitable that we'll see Rapunzel and the Frog Princess (I can't recall her name) in the Princess line when those new movies come out, and I can't help but think that some middle management must now insist that every fairy-tale based film that is put into production must contain a princess. There are various fairy-tales that don't concern royalty, and I wonder that if they do ever get made, if Disney would rewrite them to include a princess. Could Disney's The Nightingale not really be much about the Emperor and the Nightingale but the Emperor's daughter and a street urchin that she has fallen in love with, with the Emperor and the urchin's mutual love of the Nightingale's song that makes the bumkin and the princess' marriage seem acceptable? Could sixteen year old Dorothy decide not to go back to poverty in Kansas despite her Aunt and Uncle living there but instead marry the Prince of Oz, who was stuck inside a brainless Scarecrow by the Witch's curse? Could Hansel and Gretel become two royal teenagers in love who are sent into the woods by Prince Hansel's evil Stepmother (who turns into a witch in desperation) so she can be queen forever? I may have gone on a bit, but you get my point. It seems as though fairy-tales not concerning royal romance are now taboo at Disney.

In my opinion, Disney should simply dismantle the Princess line for the sake of their own image. You can still put out merchandise featuring Ariel and Belle, but Disney, keep it as merchandise like in the good old days. Not a bloody toy line.

We'll see the new Aurora this fall. What I have seen from the DVD preview is she is more active than in the '59 feature, while retaining her angular styling and having decent animation.

A 50's footnote: Women often wore "torpedo bras" in that era, and Auroras' angular design fit right in.

Another poster commented about their 5 year old liking Ariel. Makes sense, as Ariel's the youngest of the Princesses, in her early to mid teens, and __acts__ like it (watch young teens at malls, events, etc. and you'll see what I mean !). She's also highly emotional and a bit rebellious compared to the others.

The other princesses tend to look and act as if they are older then their ages (no surprise; their reference models and voices were women well over 21 ! ).

Wonderlicious, very good points. It does seem nowadays that the movies are just long advertisements for toys. The thing is, when you love a movie so much, you can't really buy more movie, all you have left is the merchandise to try and slake your thirst for a character. But something must be done. I would rather have Cinderella merchandise focusing on the movie as a whole instead of just the fact she is a princess! Likewise for everything else. Though, wouldn't it be neat if they had stuffed Simba and some other animals in a talking pal you can take care of form? Uh...yea, and also, I really liked your point about how the merchandise that focuses on girls turns boys off from the movies that started them. Maybe they could balance things out by having some merchandise that focuses on the princes. Philip and the dragon seem to be pretty popular. As for all Disney fairy tales having princesses, Chicken Little went against that, but if Disney wants to make more money and create more princesses, your scary tale-tampering fears could come true!

kurtadisneyite wrote: A 50's footnote: Women often wore "torpedo bras" in that era, and Auroras' angular design fit right in.

OMG! Is that why her breasts are pointy?! I always thought that was really weird...like her nipples were hard! Hah! Aurora's always excited!

And yea, Ariel is the classic teenager as a classic princess, maybe that's why so many teens love her.

But the maturity and grandeur of the other princesses..mmmm... Kurt, I heard that they used a ballet dancer as reference for Cindy in Cindy III. Did they also do any of that for the first Cindy? Because if so, I would like her even more! The graceful ballet movements...

Errr,I think I should update this (Because well... I don't think Dora is the devil and... Jasmine is also a hero like the other Princesses).
Maybe she doesn't mean the Princess in the films,but how little girls see them in merchandise? (They haven't seen the film and they just cares about the dresses?).

I think it has something todo with role models - i guess the princesses in Disney films are no different to celebrities - however, these media born celebrity abuse their bodies with drugs, alcohol and eating disorders and these disney characters do not. I would rather my daughter grow up wanting to be a princess then a junkie - thats for sure.