Upcoming Pixar film featuring NEW Disney Princess?

[Disney Villain]

While browsing the internet today I came across an interesting article about Enchanted, and an upcoming Disney Princess Baby Merchandise franchise. What was interesting about this article was that it mentioned that Disney currently had, excluding Giselle, 3 new princess films in development. First, The Princess and The Frog, featuring Princess Tiana. Second, Rapunzel, featuring...well Rapunzel. And third a film "starring a Scottish princess in a new Pixar production". So forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Disney has ever said anything about a Scottish Princess, never mind a Princess Film being released under the Pixar Banner. Now I posted this article in the Enchanted Discussion Thread, but after I thought about it I figured that it deserved its own thread. What baffles me is the idea of Pixar creating a princess film. Anyway, here is the article:

Disney reaches to the crib to extend princess magic
By MERISSA MARR,AP
Posted: 2007-11-19 10:24:59
Eds: Via AP.

By MERISSA MARR

The Wall Street Journal

At the recently opened Bibbidi Bobbidi Boutique at Cinderella's castle in Walt Disney World, hordes of young girls in ball gowns jostle every day to get their hair coiffed, their nails painted and their faces plastered with make-up to imitate their favorite princess.

It's an image that's become classic of the Walt Disney Co. Princess revolution. What started out in 2001 as a few princess outfits became an overnight sensation as Disney enchanted 3- to 6-year-old girls throughout America with everything from princess comforters and princess backpacks to princess-emblazoned sneakers. Smartly-packaged releases of classic princess movies have helped bring girls back for more each year.

But while Disney appears to have exploited every corner of princess mania, it is also under pressure to keep its $4 billion princess franchise growing. So Disney's princess minders are hoping to hook even younger girls and their moms on the craze with a new range of princess products aimed at newborns. The princess clan will feature on cribs, diaper-changing mats and other infant products next year.

Also on tap: adding new princesses to the core lineup that includes Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Ariel, Belle and Jasmine (more-recent characters, Mulan and Pocahontas, are largely on the sidelines). Disney plans to introduce a new African-American princess called Tiana in an animated film, "The Princess and the Frog," a response to demands for more diversity among princesses. Two other animated princess-based movies - one starring Rapunzel and another starring a Scottish princess in a new Pixar production - will be rolled out after that.

Meanwhile, Disney's first live-action princess movie, "Enchanted," will hit screens this week and is being tapped to sell more princess products. The movie - in which an animated girl betrothed to a prince is propelled into modern-day, live-action New York City - was originally conceived as a chance to introduce a new princess, Giselle, to the lineup, according to people familiar with the matter. But Disney abandoned that plan when it realized securing the life-long rights to the image of Amy Adams, who plays Giselle, was harder than an ugly step-sister squeezing into Cinderella's glass shoe.

Andy Mooney, Disney's head of consumer products who launched the Princess brand, concedes that the heady growth of recent years is likely to slow at home and that the company is looking to push the brand more aggressively overseas. That initially means Europe, then Asia. Disney has been trying to introduce the brand in countries like India, where it launched a search for an Indian princess.

One challenge in the more mature home market: a brewing backlash against what Disney Princess represents. Tomi-Ann Roberts, a professor of psychology at Colorado College, complains that the princesses have become more sexualized, with more skin showing and bigger heads, eyes and breasts. "The ever increasing marketing to younger and younger girls of an adult sexualized version of the princesses is concerning," says Ms. Roberts, who co-authored a report on the sexualization of girls.

Other critics worry that encouraging young girls to obsess about being a princess sends the wrong message, with too much focus on being beautiful and not more substantive achievements.

Disney doesn't see that as a problem, and says most parents understand that Disney Princess is simply a role-play phase that kids go through. "For every mother that sees an issue, there are a million that don't," says Mr. Mooney, who adds that even beyond the target age group of 3 to 6, "girls do princess in private."

Still, many parents of princess-obsessed daughters notice they abruptly drop the brand at about age 6. In an attempt to keep girls enchanted longer, the company launched Disney Fairies, a slightly edgier group of characters (including Tinker Bell) aimed at 7- and 8-year olds. Mr. Mooney estimates the Fairies franchise will generate $750 million in retail sales this year.

The ultimate aim is to waltz girls from one franchise to another well into their teens. After fairies, Disney is attempting to hook them on "Kim Possible," "That's So Raven" and "Hannah Montana," all playing on the Disney Channel, and then serve up "High School Musical" for older kids.

"Then they come back to us as brides and mothers," says Mr. Mooney. Earlier this year, his group launched a range of princess-themed wedding gowns. Unlike the kitschy outfits made for kids, the wedding gowns are high-end, selling for $1,100 to $4,000. Walt Disney World also offers Cinderella-style weddings.

A gaping hole was babies. Mr. Mooney says mothers are highly gender aware these days (he estimates at least 80 percent elect to know the ______ of their baby before it is born). Disney had historically sold gender-neutral characters like Mickey Mouse and Winnie the Pooh in the infant market, but mothers surveyed have shown more interest in gender specific products, selecting princesses for a girl and "Finding Nemo" for a boy. Disney has both in the works.

The key for the princess infant line was to make sure it didn't damage the core business - something they tried to get around by making it a more subtle, less character-driven design. Mr. Mooney says, "We don't want to turn off the older kids."

Indeed, one issue for Disney is that many of its franchises are skewing younger each year. In the beginning, the princess franchise appealed to a slightly older audience. Also, competition has been growing. Toymakers like Mattel Inc. have pushed hard into the fantasy market for young girls. And many of the traditional characters like Cinderella exist in the public domain. In fact, MGA Entertainment has introduced a line of edgy, more modern dolls called Bratz Princess.

Independent toy analyst Chris Byrne says Disney Princess is one of the most "strategically sound properties and branding initiatives in many years." He adds that "princess fans really are fans."

Disney does have the huge advantage of a powerful movie studio to fuel the brand. All of Disney's princesses originated in the movie world and the studio is core to introducing new characters. But Disney's new head of animation, John Lasseter, put a stop to direct-to-DVD sequels that had included "Cinderella" out of concern they were cheapening the brand. The studio will continue to make direct-to-DVDs in the princess world, just ones with original stories and bigger budgets. Disney, meanwhile, has contemplated extending the brand to the Disney Channel, but has so far concluded it could damage the channel by skewing it too female.

Another question is whether the brand could suffer from overkill. But Mr. Byrne, the analyst, says, "We're talking about 3- to 6-year-olds - there's no such thing as overkill."


Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
11/19/07 10:23 EST
__________________

[Disneykid]

I find this really interesting but am also baffled as to how something like this got leaked so early and so non-chalantly. Pixar's schedule is settled for the next few years with Wall-E in 2008, John Carter of Mars and/or Up! in 2009, and Toy Story 3 in 2010. That means this Scottish princess film won't debut till 2011 at the earliest. I'm not surprised at Pixar for trying this, though. It's obvious they want to branch away from the comedy genre and try new things (Wall-E being low-key and with little dialogue, John Carter being a CG and live-action hybrid, etc.). This new film is probably going to be their try at an original fairy tale (assuming it's going to be one; for all we know, this Scottish princess could be a warrior in an action-adventure film or something, but considering she'll be part of the princess line, I doubt it). It's going to be strange seeing a CG character with the rest of the princesses, unless they portray her in 2-D like some Pixar merchandise does for each film.

[Ariel'sprince]

This is getting really annoying.
If it's true,why they won't add Giselle,a classic character to the line (with a stupit reason,they couldn't fit Amy Adams when they can just add ANIMATED Giselle to the line!) but some black princess or a scottish princess from pixar will be in the line? this is worng,and Pixar shouldn't make princess films.
Well,i believe they will add Giselle in the line (maybe they think it's early to decied and when the movie will do well they will ad the animated Giselle) and i don't believe that pixar are making a princess movie.
Don't forget that articals can be worng (for example-i found some artical that says the Carrie Underwood is the main character of Enchanted and other Giselle being Kidnappt from Andalasia (that's the stupitest thing i ever heard,she wasn't kidnappt,she was banished)) so i just don't believe this.

[singerguy04]

I would just like to say on Pixar's behalf...

First, they can make any film they want. If they want to take a jab at something more disney-esq then they are more than welcome to. I would actually love to see them do it. I just want to see CG move away from comedy and try something new, i want to see more of what CG can do.

Second, Disney bought Pixar. If they were to make a princess film, Disney would have every right to add her to the franchise. Disney = Pixar now.

[Balto123]

I'm guessing this new Scottish princess will be appearing in "Up" in 2009, judging by that film's brief synopsis. Sounds interesting imo.

[Ariel'sprince]

I would just like to say on Pixar's behalf...

First, they can make any film they want. If they want to take a jab at something more disney-esq then they are more than welcome to. I would actually love to see them do it. I just want to see CG move away from comedy and try something new, i want to see more of what CG can do.

Second, Disney bought Pixar. If they were to make a princess film, Disney would have every right to add her to the franchise. Disney = Pixar now.

Disagree,if Pixar want to make Princess films,too,then Disney will have nothing uniqe.
Pixar should leave the princess films for Disney.
It's not right that a Pixar character that were made just becouse of a PC will be a Disney Princess and Giselle,a classic character,won't be a Disney Princess!.
Well,i like the Princess from other cultuers and i"m actually Pixar will make a Princess film but still.

[Escapay]

I would just like to say on Pixar's behalf...

First, they can make any film they want. If they want to take a jab at something more disney-esq then they are more than welcome to. I would actually love to see them do it. I just want to see CG move away from comedy and try something new, i want to see more of what CG can do.

Second, Disney bought Pixar. If they were to make a princess film, Disney would have every right to add her to the franchise. Disney = Pixar now.

Disagree,if Pixar want to make Princess films,too,then Disney will have nothing uniqe.

You have GOT to be kidding me. What do you call every other Animated Classic that DOESN'T feature a Princess? Chopped liver?

I agree with singerguy. If Pixar wants to make a Princess film of their own, by all means, let them. What's the general public gonna do? Boycott the film? Yeah right. Why should a studio be restricted to making X or Y type of films just because their parent studio is known for J and K type of films? Ridiculous notion.

Pixar should leave the princess films for Disney.

I'm doing everything I can to avoid laughing loudly and obnoxiously at my screen. That's the worst idea I've heard since the concept of Disney not being unique.

If Disney going to keep this up and make films and also use pixar for films with "Oooo,we have the first German princess! come see this film" then not only Disney,but the whole Disney Princess franchise will make me sick.

Suddenly I have a strange desire to see the first German Princess, followed by the first Australian Princess, the first Filipino Princess, and the first Martian Princess.

Scaps

[Ariel'sprince]

Disagree,if Pixar want to make Princess films,too,then Disney will have nothing uniqe.

You have GOT to be kidding me. What do you call every other Animated Classic that DOESN'T feature a Princess? Chopped liver?

I agree with singerguy. If Pixar wants to make a Princess film of their own, by all means, let them. What's the general public gonna do? Boycott the film? Yeah right. Why should a studio be restricted to making X or Y type of films just because their parent studio is known for J and K type of films? Ridiculous notion.

.
Disney are only making CGI movies or Princess films,so like it or not,they won't be original.
And yes,the public will have enough of princesses and will hate every last one of them,like all of the animales movies.

Pixar should leave the princess films for Disney.

I'm doing everything I can to avoid laughing loudly and obnoxiously at my screen. That's the worst idea I've heard since the concept of Disney not being unique.

Yeah? well,this just prove how obnoxiouse you are.
And this is the best concept,Disney made those films,not them,they want to be original? they can make their own ideas.

If Disney going to keep this up and make films and also use pixar for films with "Oooo,we have the first German princess! come see this film" then not only Disney,but the whole Disney Princess franchise will make me sick.

Suddenly I have a strange desire to see the first German Princess, followed by the first Australian Princess, the first Filipino Princess, and the first Martian Princess.

And suddenly,i don't wanna read antother obnoxiouse,disgusting and rude post of you,actually,i never wanted.
And like it or not,i will still like this franchise so don't waste your money (and time with your disgusting posts).[/quote]

[Someday...]

If Disney going to keep this up and make films and also use pixar for films with "Oooo,we have the first German princess! come see this film" then not only Disney,but the whole Disney Princess franchise will make me sick.

Suddenly I have a strange desire to see the first German Princess, followed by the first Australian Princess, the first Filipino Princess, and the first Martian Princess.

Scaps

snow white is assumed to be german.
Ive heard that tlm is assumed to be danish, and that batb is assumed to be french,
the only difference to me, is that they are flaunting the fact she is scottish, but locations of disney movies in movies like batb is flaunted anyway.

The location is usually where the tale came from, ie.
Batb is a french story, snow white is from the middle of europe, and the little mermaid is from denmark.

[Disney Duster]

I'm going to have a mini-rant. I am not sick of the Disney Princesses themselves, but I sure am sick of Disney marketing them and adding new ones to market even more of them! This makes me sick!

Marketing the adult romantic (and possibly sexual) princesses to babies? I know that Disney sees a demand for genderizing it's babies, but why not just choose girls animals like Marie from the AristoCats or Thumper's sisters? Nemo's a boy animal.

Oh, and by the way, genderizing your baby is a bad enough idea. Your baby should choose a princess or a talking fish, not you. Show them different things and see what they like. Why give them the ideas so early that princesses are for girls and Nemo is for boys? What happens when your little girl wants to watch Finding Nemo?

Anyway, it also sickens me that Disney is trying to have girls grow up form princesses and then just move to Disney Fairies, like girls can't escape Disney until they're 18. Or any group, but apparently the marketing to boys is less agressive or less focused on because of, hmmm, maybe the stereotype that girls shop and buy a lot more...

Andy Mooney, Disney's head of consumer products who launched the Princess brand, concedes that the heady growth of recent years is likely to slow at home.

Whew! But I don't see how this makes sense when they're adding 3 new princesses, and if the Pixar one doesn't come to fruition, still 2 more.

Finally, the Pixar thing. It all depends on wat people consider a "princess movie". I for one thought the definition needed more than just a princess in it. The princess has to be the central character, and romance and magic are less necessary but still the usual requirements. But honestly, I don't think Pixar should make a "princess movie" because they will be seen as copying Disney. Having a princess as one character is one thing, though. I do not consider The Black Cauldron a princess movie at all, but it has a princess as a main character.

And I'm also a little sick of everyone saying Disney = Pixar. I know Disney bought them, but doesn't it still say "a Disney and Pixar film, or Disney presents a Pixar film?" And I just feel that Pixar would still want to be considered seperate from Disney. Owned by them, associated with them, but still a seperate entity.

This is a horrible analogy, but if you make cookies and your friend also makes cookies, do you want everyone to think you make your own cookies or you and your friend made them together? So it was like even after all the work you did by yourself, people think your cookies had help from your friend, and who knows how much help.

Pixar should still get credit for their own films and their own characters. Their princess being part of the Disney franchise would almost be like telling a lie. Disney's not making this princess, Pixar is.

[Disneykid]

If Disney going to keep this up and make films and also use pixar for films with "Oooo,we have the first German princess! come see this film" then not only Disney,but the whole Disney Princess franchise will make me sick.

Suddenly I have a strange desire to see the first German Princess...

Doesn't the Shrill, the first princess, period, technically fit that bill? (Hey, I made a rhyme! I don't usually do that much of the time.)

[Ariel'sprince]

I agree with every word you said,Disney Duster,and yeah,that's what i think.
Also i"m not sick of the Princess,but the marketing,too.

[Simba3]

I think this is a really interesting idea. I am all in favor for Pixar branching out and trying new film concepts, even if it is with a princess movie. Maybe they will put a new spin on the princess films, who knows? As long as the outcome is good, I think it is a great idea.

[Escapay]

Oh boy, there are so many ways to respond to this latest round between Scaps and 'Sprince...

You have GOT to be kidding me. What do you call every other Animated Classic that DOESN'T feature a Princess? Chopped liver?

.
Disney are only making CGI movies or Princess films,so like it or not,they won't be original.

Just because they're "only" making CGI and/or Princess movies DOESN'T mean they won't be original, and is a very weak statement in itself. For 60+ years, Disney made 2D and/or Princess movies, and all of them were original in their own right. So why the hell would CGI suddenly be limited to one formula that shouldn't be considered original?

Personally, I'm sick of all the CGI bashing, regardless if it's towards Disney, towards Pixar, towards any animation company. It's almost as if people really and truly believe that some CGI being took a daggar and stabbed 2D in the heart, then went around going forth and multiplying. Walt Disney was ALWAYS about trying new things, and had he lived through at least the early 80s, he would have embraced CGI and would have considered animated features in that form.

I'm doing everything I can to avoid laughing loudly and obnoxiously at my screen. That's the worst idea I've heard since the concept of Disney not being unique.

Yeah? well,this just prove how obnoxiouse you are.

Darling, if I wanted to be obnoxious, I'd have written something far more scathing than the idea of laughing at a computer. Has the mentality on UD reached the point that someone can't distinguish between sarcasm and seriousness?

And the "Princess Films at Disney ONLY" idea IS a bad idea. Disney is a business, a very prosperous one, with hundreds of venues for their well-known library of characters. Saying they should limit themselves to one franchise is pretty much corporate SUICIDE. It will not only turn away consumers/fans who dislike the franchise, but will also eventually turn away consumers/fans who like the franchise. Just because YOU want Disney to be nothing but Princess films doesn't mean EVERYONE ELSE does.

And this is the best concept,Disney made those films,not them,they want to be original? they can make their own ideas.

Pixar HAS made their own ideas (though T/P fan and netty say otherwise, with valid points), but why the hell are we suddenly saying, "Oh, only Disney's allowed to make Princess films." That's a very close-minded idea that restricts creativity for any non-Disney company. Taking your twisted logic even further, then perhaps we should suddenly declare that only Disney should be allowed to make animated movies. Give me a frackin' break! If Pixar wants to make a Princess movie (in the Disney Duster definition, not in the general "a movie with a princess" definition), they have EVERY RIGHT to make one, regardless if Big Brother Disney is the one known for them. Just because Disney owns them doesn't mean they run their studio. That's like saying just because General Electric owns NBC, that NBC should ask GE what kind of shows they'd be allowed to produce.

Suddenly I have a strange desire to see the first German Princess, followed by the first Australian Princess, the first Filipino Princess, and the first Martian Princess.

And suddenly,i don't wanna read antother obnoxiouse,disgusting and rude post of you,actually,i never wanted.

Once again, I must ask what exactly is the mentality of UD these days if people cannot take a simple joke.

And dear, if you never wanted to read my posts, why bother replying to mine at all?

And like it or not,i will still like this franchise so don't waste your money (and time with your disgusting posts).

Go ahead and like the franchise, I'm not stopping you. But who ever said that I'd be wasting my money on the franchise? And how dare you tell me to stop posting my opinion. I have every right to post my opinion about the Princess Franchise, just as you have every right to NOT READ THEM. Just because an opinion different doesn't mean it's wrong, and if you take offense to it, then at least acknowledge it maturely without childishly saying, "Oh, they're disgusting and obnoxious and rude." For god's sake, this is a messageboard, where opinions and thoughts are rampant, why limit yourself to an easy insult?

I'm going to have a mini-rant. I am not sick of the Disney Princesses themselves, but I sure am sick of Disney marketing them and adding new ones to market even more of them! This makes me sick!

Ditto.

Odd as it sounds, I actually do enjoy a few of the Princesses (well...Belle and Jasmine...). But I do have a respect for a few others, simply because I have a higher regard for their films than for the characters (Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty). If anything, I hate that Disney has decided that the Princess line, however fluffy and girly and brainwashing it is, should be the one to get the heaviest promotions and the most exposure.

Marketing the adult romantic (and possibly sexual) princesses to babies? I know that Disney sees a demand for genderizing it's babies, but why not just choose girls animals like Marie from the AristoCats or Thumper's sisters? Nemo's a boy animal.

Agree. There are definitely "safer" characters to market to younger audiences before "advancing" to the Princess line. There should be products for otherwise asexual characters like Wendy (pre-Return to Neverland), Alice, and Lady.

ETA:
Okay, Lady isn't asexual, but there's likely to be less sexual connotations with Lady than with a human princess. Unless a little girl suddenly decides she's into beastiality, which is highly unlikely.

What happens when your little girl wants to watch Finding Nemo?

I'll put in the DVD and watch it with her!

apparently the marketing to boys is less agressive or less focused on because of, hmmm, maybe the stereotype that girls shop and buy a lot more...

These marketing people obviously never met my family. I buy way more than my sister, and am more swayed by ads than she is.

Andy Mooney, Disney's head of consumer products who launched the Princess brand, concedes that the heady growth of recent years is likely to slow at home.

Whew! But I don't see how this makes sense when they're adding 3 new princesses, and if the Pixar one doesn't come to fruition, still 2 more.

It's possible that they're gonna slow down the ad campaigns (making it less in-your-face at stores and theme parks), while slowly adding new characters as well.

"Star Trek" took a break after "Enterprise" went off the air in 2005, after 26 exhaustive years of continuous films/tv shows. It's coming back in Christmas 2008 with their new "re-imagined" Star Trek (starring Chris Pine as Captain Kirk and Zachary Quinto as Mr. Syler...er, Mr. Spock). The 3-year interim has been good for fans, IMO, as it's a great build-up to something that will either make or break the established franchise. Likewise, with the Princess line, taking a less aggressive approach to marketing will help its fans appreciate it more and look forward to stuff like an Ariel Toothbrush or a Cinderella dust pan.

But honestly, I don't think Pixar should make a "princess movie" because they will be seen as copying Disney.

Honestly, it's only seen as copying by people who don't know otherwise. And if people are thinking that Pixar's copying Disney, that's their problem. Pixar shouldn't restrict itself to avoid angering Princess fans.

And I'm also a little sick of everyone saying Disney = Pixar.

Agreed. Just because Disney bought Pixar doesn't mean it's assimilated it and added its biological distinctness to their own. We might as well say that any pre-1986 MGM film should now be considered a WB film just because Warner owns that huge library, or that any pre-1950 Paramount film is now a Universal film.

And I just feel that Pixar would still want to be considered seperate from Disney. Owned by them, associated with them, but still a seperate entity.

I've always felt that's how they functioned, regardless if Disney bought them or not.

This is a horrible analogy, but if you make cookies and your friend also makes cookies, do you want everyone to think you make your own cookies or you and your friend made them together? So it was like even after all the work you did by yourself, people think your cookies had help from your friend, and who knows how much help.

Actually it's a great analogy, but taking it even further, it'd make more sense if we specified what types of cookies. For example, let's say that your friend is known for making chocolate chip cookies. They're the best chocolate chip cookies in the world. The cookie is soft and chewy, and the chocolate is rich and sweet, it's like an food orgasm in your mouth. And you decide to make cookies too, but you make white chocolate macademia cookies. And they too, are the best cookies in the world. Within your circle of friends, your friend and you are known for your excellent orgasmic cookies.

Then, one day, you and your friend get married. So everyone automatically assumes that any cookies you guys make are together. But really, the chocolate chip cookies are still your friend's, and the white chocolate macademia are still yours. Then, perhaps on a Tuesday, your friend/spouse decides to try and make the white chocolate macademia cookies. If you're a good spouse, you'd let them, but also let people know that they are not the same. These white chocolate macademia cookies by your friend/spouse may contain the essentials, but could be entirely unique unto itself.

Pixar should still get credit for their own films and their own characters. Their princess being part of the Disney franchise would almost be like telling a lie. Disney's not making this princess, Pixar is.

But then we shouldn't include Pixar characters in Disney theme parks, since the Disney theme park is another Disney franchise.

Plus, one could also take that argument and say that anything post-1966 isn't even true Disney, since Walt didn't supervise it himself, and thus, shouldn't be considered in any true Disney franchise.

snow white is assumed to be german.
Ive heard that tlm is assumed to be danish, and that batb is assumed to be french,
the only difference to me, is that they are flaunting the fact she is scottish, but locations of disney movies in movies like batb is flaunted anyway.

The location is usually where the tale came from, ie.
Batb is a french story, snow white is from the middle of europe, and the little mermaid is from denmark.

True, true, but the way Disney is approaching this marketing scheme, we haven't had one where the film is explicity marketed as being "The FIRST (insert ethnicity) Princess!" Honestly, the ethnicity of a princess should be the least on their minds when promoting the film. Whatever happened to the story, the characters, the animation?

Doesn't the Shrill, the first princess, period, technically fit that bill? (Hey, I made a rhyme! I don't usually do that much of the time.)

Inigo: That Vizzini, he can fuss.
Fezzik: F...fuss...I think he likes to scream at us.
Inigo: Probably he means no harm.
Fezzik: He's really very short on charm.
Inigo: Oh, you've a great gift for rhyme.
Fezzik: Yes, some of the time.
Vizzini: Enough of that.
Inigo: Fezzik, are there rocks ahead?
Fezzik: If there are, we'll all be dead.
Vizzini: No more rhymes now, I mean it.
Fezzik: Anybody want a peanut?

I think this is a really interesting idea. I am all in favor for Pixar branching out and trying new film concepts, even if it is with a princess movie. Maybe they will put a new spin on the princess films, who knows? As long as the outcome is good, I think it is a great idea.

YES!!! OH GOD, YES, FINALLY, SOMEONE GETS IT! It shouldn't matter WHO is making the film, what should matter is if the film will turn out well and stand up to criticism on its OWN merits, and not have to be compared to films that came before it!

Simba3, you get a pink elephant, for keeps!



Scaps

[Simba3]

I think this is a really interesting idea. I am all in favor for Pixar branching out and trying new film concepts, even if it is with a princess movie. Maybe they will put a new spin on the princess films, who knows? As long as the outcome is good, I think it is a great idea.

YES!!! OH GOD, YES, FINALLY, SOMEONE GETS IT! It shouldn't matter WHO is making the film, what should matter is if the film will turn out well and stand up to criticism on its OWN merits, and not have to be compared to films that came before it!

Simba3, you get a pink elephant, for keeps!



Scaps

Yay! I love pink elephants. Thank you, and I'm glad we see eye to eye on this.

[PeterPanfan]

I've finally come to defend Escapay.

Ariel's prince-I have a few *coughactuallymorethanafew*things to say about your posts in this thread.

What you're saying is that any company that makes a Princess movie,besides Disney,is unoriginal. That is (to quote Hermione Granger) "completely barbaric"! If you think PIXAR is not showing originality by producing Princess genered movies,then why is Disney not being bashed. Most of their more populaur movies have a Princess as a main charector.

And by calling Escapay "obnoxious" you are showing that you are "obnoxious" by stooping down to this childish level and calling his opinions "disgusting". This is a little off-topic,but please clean up your grammar.

Disney certaintly did not invent Princess movies,as you stated. They just made them more known and populaur.

Escapay never said he would buy Princess merchandise. Do not put words into his mouth.

Oh,and I'm all for PIXAR making a Princess movie.

No that my rant is out...carry on.

[Disney Duster]

Watch out, this is a doozy.

I agree with every word you said,Disney Duster,and yeah,that's what i think.
Also i"m not sick of the Princess,but the marketing,too.

Thank you! You're so supportive. I'm glad to have you on this forum.

Escapay, guess what? It is so weird but as I was scrolling down I accidently thought Simba3's avatar was yours, and I got scared. It was like tradition was breaking. But I wondered if maybe it was all part of your humorous plan. To surprise us with something completely random. The odd thing is, I've seen the same image in Simba3's avatar before, with another member here, but they changed it. I forgot who it was, though.

ANYWAY...thanks for, once again, being amazing in your task of looking at everything you'd like to talk about and giving each quote full attention. You even read my "princess movie" definition!

Firstly, I would like to ask: when did the term "princess movie" come about? I think the first time was in some commercial, probably for Netflix, when some girl was excited her mom got her "a princess movie". I used to hate the term because categorizing leads to stereotypes leads to finding ways to make things less unique and different and fewer categories. But I must admit the term is pretty accurate and I am a confessed fan of the...I guess it's a genre now? I've actually read an official Disney article calling it a genre and using the term "princess movie".

Odd as it sounds, I actually do enjoy a few of the Princesses (well...Belle and Jasmine...). But I do have a respect for a few others, simply because I have a higher regard for their films than for the characters (Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty). If anything, I hate that Disney has decided that the Princess line, however fluffy and girly and brainwashing it is, should be the one to get the heaviest promotions and the most exposure.

First of all, I'm happy to hear you respect Cinderella. I find faults with it and I haven't watched it in a while and don't know how I feel about it currently but I will always have love for it and like when people acknowledge it's good and has a lot going for it. But I don't quite understand your wording of "If anything, I hate that Disney has decided that the Princess line...should be the one to get the heaviest promotions and the most exposure." Huh? Why should one franchise get more of that over another? I would think you would want all lines to be moderate and un-whored out. Did you just say that because you hate the line most of all?

There are definitely "safer" characters to market to younger audiences before "advancing" to the Princess line. There should be products for otherwise asexual characters like Wendy (pre-Return to Neverland), Alice, and Lady.

Yea I read your edit as well, LOL, and I almost put Nala before I edited my post to replace her with Marie, but I wonder if you knew Wendy was included in some princss merchandise long ago (when it was just small and "finding itself" as a franchise, before it decided what girls to use and became grotesque). I think I saw Wendy grouped with them on shirts and even in doll form, similar to how Tinker Bell was included with them for a while. And perhaps it's arguable, but I'm pretty sure Wendy <3 Peter. I bet you mentioned her because you love Peter Pan so much! But at least you agree with me about the non-sexual or romantic character idea.

or a Cinderella dust pan.

back at ya, with a little resentment as I feel it was partly insulting to her character. She certainly didn't like cleaning (playing with bubbles is different! How about a Cinderella bubble blower?!). Then again, I'd love a pink spinning wheel themed with Aurora. I still laugh at that tea party on some princess DVD where Renata Joy or Luke talked about spinning wheel napkins and said something like, "Hey Aurora! Remember when you were cursed and pricked your finger on a spinning wheel and you would have died but you just fell asleep until someone came along to kiss you? I got these napkins that will totally remind you of that!"

Honestly, it's only seen as copying by people who don't know otherwise. And if people are thinking that Pixar's copying Disney, that's their problem. Pixar shouldn't restrict itself to avoid angering Princess fans.

I'm glad you quoted me. That really wasn't a very good reason for them not to do a princess film, but it is one of the reasons I have, and it's similar to the reason that any CGI studio wants to move away from making movies about talking animals, or more specifically, talking rodents or penguins. I'm sure some company could come up with some more great talking rat or penguin stories, but it would have to be so very good for anyone to go see it.

But even if something's good, I have found myself of late realizing the Walt Era princess films have many similarities, and no matter how good each one is individually, it does bother me to see them all singing to birds. Or at least, I'm conscious of it, and I would not like to care and just enjoy each moment without thinking it's just like something else I saw.

Now I know Pixar could do something so new and so different, but if it still has a princess as the main character, romance, and magic...oh, and now I remember anthropomorphic or personified animals and/or objects as the princess' friends (and usually almost the only ones she can "really talk to") could also be part of the definition of what makes a princess movie. From birds to teapots to carpets. Oh my! One of these days we should all have a discussion on what makes a princess movie! And maybe Pixar could break it?

Actually it's a great analogy, but taking it even further...

Yay! And you're analogy was very good, the marriage idea really worked! Though even through the analogy I was thinking "boy, the people eating those cookies are going to think the chocolate chip maker is copying, or the original white chocolate maker made them." Still, it's a good analogy and proves what people should think. So how will they think the right thing, or rather, know that the previous chocolate chip maker is now making different tasting white chocolate cookies? I guess it'll all be in the...marketing. And it'll also be in how different the cookies are from each other.

So now, let me say how I feel about it all now. The Pixar princess should not be part of the princess line because she's not really a Disney princess, she's a Pixar character. The Disney theme parks argument doesn't fly with me because lots of things appear in Disney World that people know aren't always made by Disney (Muppets, Star Wars, MGM Movie Ride). I've only seen Pixar character grouped with other Pixar character in books published by Disney, but they'll have the Pixar name, small as it is written, on them. It'll look so weird if they suddenly call it "Disney and Pixar Princess".

Your post Walt film argument is so weak, come on, you really wnated to argue that? Disney put his name on the studio, and so many artists, some fired and new ones hired while he made the films, and he had a big hand in them but it was really all the effort of his studio. It's the studio. Maybe the direct-to-video features are iffy but those take characters already made buy the studio. I was always iffy about Enchanted's Giselle because James Baxter actually did her, but I let it slide because she's supposed to be a based on previous Disney princesses and it's still considered a Disney film. But Pixar is an entirely, entirely new studio and a new beast.

It will also depend on how different Pixar's film is from all the other princess ones, because then it will be seen as copying even though Disney might be "allowed to copy from itself".

Vizzini: No more rhymes now, I mean it.
Fezzik: Anybody want a peanut?

Simba3, you get a pink elephant, for keeps!

*sulks and stews in jealousy*

[Disney-Fan]

Ariel's Prince, the only thing you should be asking yourself is this: Since when does Disney hold the patent trademark over making princess movies? If you find that your answer is 'Never', then you know perfectly well that Pixar is just as welcome to add to the animated princess cannon.

[Escapay]

I've finally come to defend Escapay.

Thanks, fellow fan of Pan! Pink Elephant time!

Escapay never said he would buy Princess merchandise. Do not put words into his mouth.

You never know. I might want a Princess Jasmine skillet or a Snow White toolbox! But yes, I never said I'd buy Princess merch, nor am I interested in buying any at the present time.

Watch out, this is a doozy.

Doozies are the best kind of posts! Gives me something to look forward to, and justifies me spending time on a reply.

Escapay, guess what? It is so weird but as I was scrolling down I accidently thought Simba3's avatar was yours, and I got scared. It was like tradition was breaking. But I wondered if maybe it was all part of your humorous plan. To surprise us with something completely random. The odd thing is, I've seen the same image in Simba3's avatar before, with another member here, but they changed it. I forgot who it was, though.

I have considered changing Gromit before (simply to break tradition). But it's easier to just update him with a little hat or object than to pick a new defining image.

ANYWAY...thanks for, once again, being amazing in your task of looking at everything you'd like to talk about and giving each quote full attention.

No problem! If I just do one long quote with one long reply, it doesn't make sense, and just doing one long reply without quotes would confuse anyone who didn't read the stuff I'm replying to. Plus, it gives me a chance to do cool quote names, though lately I've just been using the regular names because my creativity is currently stalled.

You even read my "princess movie" definition!

Firstly, I would like to ask: when did the term "princess movie" come about? I think the first time was in some commercial, probably for Netflix, when some girl was excited her mom got her "a princess movie". I used to hate the term because categorizing leads to stereotypes leads to finding ways to make things less unique and different and fewer categories. But I must admit the term is pretty accurate and I am a confessed fan of the...I guess it's a genre now? I've actually read an official Disney article calling it a genre and using the term "princess movie".

I'm sure it's a fairly recent term that stemmed from the Disney Princess line. But like you, I hate the term (along with terms like "romcom", "chick flick", etc.) because it automatically puts a stigma on any movie that gets labeled with that term, and sometimes isn't even accurate.

Odd as it sounds, I actually do enjoy a few of the Princesses (well...Belle and Jasmine...). But I do have a respect for a few others, simply because I have a higher regard for their films than for the characters (Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty). If anything, I hate that Disney has decided that the Princess line, however fluffy and girly and brainwashing it is, should be the one to get the heaviest promotions and the most exposure.

First of all, I'm happy to hear you respect Cinderella. I find faults with it and I haven't watched it in a while and don't know how I feel about it currently but I will always have love for it and like when people acknowledge it's good and has a lot going for it.

Blame Cindy 3. I've only seen it once (Feb07), but knowing that Cindy's got that kind of spunk and backbone made me re-evaluate the first film to see if those traits are portrayed. The last time I watched the movie before my re-evaluation was soon after I bought the Platinum, so there was a good two years between viewings. While I haven't seen either film since Feb07, I do hold Cindy in a higher regard (oddly enough, based on a sequel!). Plus, it allowed me to rediscover my Jaq and Gus-Gus fanaticism!

But I don't quite understand your wording of "If anything, I hate that Disney has decided that the Princess line...should be the one to get the heaviest promotions and the most exposure." Huh? Why should one franchise get more of that over another? I would think you would want all lines to be moderate and un-whored out. Did you just say that because you hate the line most of all?

I probably worded it the wrong way. I really have nothing against the franchise (though it's the best one for me to poke fun at), I really just hate that Disney chooses to overmarket it over their other franchises. I mean, really, would it kill Disney to give their Heroes line a little more attention? Half of my Disney Store at Deptford Mall is all Princess stuff, the other half is just a disorganized hodgepodge of every other line.

Overexposure will result in disinterest and apathy, and while I wouldn't mind if some Disney franchises were laid to rest, I wouldn't want to wish it on its fans. Of course, there's no such thing as "equal" in marketing or in the entertainment industry, and right now, Princesses and Pirates are the big sellers for Disney, and will be the one with the most aggressive ad campaigns.

There are definitely "safer" characters to market to younger audiences before "advancing" to the Princess line. There should be products for otherwise asexual characters like Wendy (pre-Return to Neverland), Alice, and Lady.

Yea I read your edit as well, LOL, and I almost put Nala before I edited my post to replace her with Marie, but I wonder if you knew Wendy was included in some princss merchandise long ago (when it was just small and "finding itself" as a franchise, before it decided what girls to use and became grotesque). I think I saw Wendy grouped with them on shirts and even in doll form, similar to how Tinker Bell was included with them for a while. And perhaps it's arguable, but I'm pretty sure Wendy <3 Peter. I bet you mentioned her because you love Peter Pan so much! But at least you agree with me about the non-sexual or romantic character idea.

You know me too well, Mike! I included Wendy partly because she's in Peter Pan (#3 in my favorite DAC list), and also because even though she does have a crush on Peter Pan, she also presents herself as a mature young woman who won't be swayed from her convictions (even though she's upset at the thought of getting her OWN ROOM). And I'm so oldschool Disney I remember when Mulan was part of Disney Princess!

or a Cinderella dust pan.

back at ya, with a little resentment as I feel it was partly insulting to her character. She certainly didn't like cleaning (playing with bubbles is different! How about a Cinderella bubble blower?!).

I totally didn't even put 2 and 2 together when I wrote dust pan. I was just thinking, "Hmm...what household object can make for odd Princess merch?" It almost was "Cinderella toaster", but then I thought, "no, a toaster is just weird". For some reason, in my crazy mind a dust pan seemed more practical for Princess merch.

Then again, I'd love a pink spinning wheel themed with Aurora. I still laugh at that tea party on some princess DVD where Renata Joy or Luke talked about spinning wheel napkins and said something like, "Hey Aurora! Remember when you were cursed and pricked your finger on a spinning wheel and you would have died but you just fell asleep until someone came along to kiss you? I got these napkins that will totally remind you of that!"

That was a priceless quote, and it came from Renata's Disney Princess Sing-Along Songs: Volume 2 - Enchanted Tea Party DVD review:

Hey Aurora, remember that time you almost died when you pricked your finger on the spinning wheel? Well, I saw these spinning wheel napkins and just had to get them for you, girl!"

it's similar to the reason that any CGI studio wants to move away from making movies about talking animals, or more specifically, talking rodents or penguins. I'm sure some company could come up with some more great talking rat or penguin stories, but it would have to be so very good for anyone to go see it.

Yeah, that's what I was talking about earlier with overexposure. The past few years saw not only a barrage of CGI films, but the more well-known ones were talking animals. I personally like talking animal films, but even I can get sick of them at times. The problem is that now most people's conceptions of CGI is that it's just a funny talking-animal film. The animation studios need to take a break from those ideas and try other ones...like the CGI Ten Commandments.

Also, there's plenty of untapped fairy and children's tales that can be given an animated treatment. I've often ranted on how Disney should do a feature-length version of The Velveteen Rabbit because it's a simple story with a lot of potential, especially regarding the almost father-son relationship between the rabbit and the skin horse. Plus, it's got such rich and flowing dialogue, that's easy enough for children to understand, but still with a powerful subtext that adults pick up.

For example, take this well-known passage. It just oozes of a metaphoric comparison to unconditional love...

"What is REAL?" asked the Rabbit one day, when they were lying side by side near the nursery fender, before Nana came to tidy the room. "Does it mean having things that buzz inside you and a stick-out handle?"

"Real isn't how you are made," said the Skin Horse. "It's a thing that happens to you. When a child loves you for a long, long time, not just to play with, but REALLY loves you, then you become Real."

"Does it hurt?" asked the Rabbit.

"Sometimes," said the Skin Horse, for he was always truthful. "When you are Real you don't mind being hurt."

"Does it happen all at once, like being wound up," he asked, "or bit by bit?"

"It doesn't happen all at once," said the Skin Horse. "You become. It takes a long time. That's why it doesn't happen often to people who break easily, or have sharp edges, or who have to be carefully kept. Generally, by the time you are Real, most of your hair has been loved off, and your eyes drop out and you get loose in your joints and very shabby. But these things don't matter at all, because once you are Real you can't be ugly, except to people who don't understand."

"I suppose you are real?" said the Rabbit. And then he wished he had not said it, for he thought the Skin Horse might be sensitive. But the Skin Horse only smiled.

"The Boy's Uncle made me Real," he said. "That was a great many years ago; but once you are Real you can't become unreal again. It lasts for always."

It always makes me cry when I read that passage.

Or at least, I'm conscious of it, and I would not like to care and just enjoy each moment without thinking it's just like something else I saw.

I feel the same way towards movies I love too. I've taken to avoiding some of my favorites for months on end, so that when I do watch it, I'll be in the mentality of "Yes! I'm watching this again, let me just watch it to watch!" instead of picking up on all the little things that I don't like about them.

Oh my! One of these days we should all have a discussion on what makes a princess movie! And maybe Pixar could break it?

It'd make for a great Disney Debate! Disney Debate #5: The Definition of "Princess Movie"...

So how will they think the right thing, or rather, know that the previous chocolate chip maker is now making different tasting white chocolate cookies? I guess it'll all be in the...marketing. And it'll also be in how different the cookies are from each other.

Hit the nail on the head! Also, sometimes it doesn't matter who made the cookie, so long as it tastes orgasmic!

The Disney theme parks argument doesn't fly with me because lots of things appear in Disney World that people know aren't always made by Disney (Muppets, Star Wars, MGM Movie Ride).

I know, I threw it in there because it was late in the post and I needed an easy, if unreliable, argument. Plus, even the original Disneyland wasn't Disney-reliant. Only Fantasyland really was concentrated on Disney characters, while the other areas focused on unique locales and experiences. I would love, though, if Disney took their old Tomorrowland ride, "Adventures Thru Inner Space" (or as it was known on Grad Nites: "Voyage Through Intercourse") and turning it into a live-action movie.

Bringing up the Muppets also opens up another can of worms, as it's the same thing as Pixar. Should past, present, and future Muppet productions be considered Muppet AND Disney? But this reply is long enough and not really about muppets, so I'll leave that for another thread.

Your post Walt film argument is so weak, come on, you really wnated to argue that?

I've come across a few die-hard Walt idolizers who absolutely believe that post-Walt material shouldn't bear the "Disney" name, which is where the argument came from. I don't agree with it as it's a laughable concept, and the staunchiest supporters of the "Walt-Era Only" practically make him some kind of entertainment Messiah.

On a quasi-related-but-not-really note, there's an online poster I knew from my soap opera days who held on to this absurd opinion that the only true soap operas are those produced in New York City, since that's where they originated. Of course, as many a soap fan knows, soap operas originated on radio in Chicago, but it was New York where it was made popular. Anyway, he absolutely held on to that belief, that he REFUSED to call the non-NY shows "soap operas", and never referred to them by name. For example, he'll say "All My Children" since it's produced in New York, but would refer to "Days of our Lives" as "that hourglass show in California". So many people tried and tried to get him to see how/why this opinion was wrong (such as the fact that many other countries produce soap operas, such as England's "Coronation Street" and "EastEnders", and Australia's "Neighbours" and "Home and Away"), but he never swayed. To this day, he still believes there are only four US soap operas left ("Guiding Light", "As the World Turns", "One Life to Live", and "All My Children"), since the other five are produced in California.

But back to the "post-Walt not real Disney" argument. It's a load of bullsh!t that I don't believe in, but threw it in because some people believe it to be a valid argument. Don't know if they'd be willing to step in and defend it, and honestly, I don't care. Because at the same time, there's the Disney fanatic who'll immediately embrace anything with the Disney name, regardless if it's good or if it's naff.

Disney put his name on the studio, and so many artists, some fired and new ones hired while he made the films, and he had a big hand in them but it was really all the effort of his studio. It's the studio.

Exactly how I feel. I think it was in Walt: An American Original where Walt was telling a director (I think Robert Stevenson) that they're selling the Disney name, the concept that the public has of Disney, and that while the public may not recognize the director's name, they'll recognize the Disney one and still appreciate the film. I probably butchered his words, but essentially he was saying that the name "Disney" no longer meant "Walt", but meant the studio, and how its films and such should reflect what "Disney" had become.

Vizzini: No more rhymes now, I mean it.
Fezzik: Anybody want a peanut?

I just *had* to throw in a Princess Bride reference! Especially since Kelvin reviewed the 20th Anniversary Edition DVD.

Simba3, you get a pink elephant, for keeps!

*sulks and stews in jealousy*

I can't say, "Aw Mike, don't stew, here's a pink elephant" because then you'll think it's a pity one.








BUT we've had plenty of in-depth conversations before that were definitely pink-elephant deserving, so consider this overdue...



Scaps

[Disneykid]

I totally didn't even put 2 and 2 together when I wrote dust pan. I was just thinking, "Hmm...what household object can make for odd Princess merch?" It almost was "Cinderella toaster", but then I thought, "no, a toaster is just weird".

Don't be so sure...

DUN DUN DUUUUUUUUUUN

I just *had* to throw in a Princess Bride reference! Especially since Kelvin reviewed the 20th Anniversary Edition DVD.

The funny thing is, I was actually thinking of that scene when doing my rhyme. (insert twilight zone music here)