DVDizzy Forum

The other Disney Princess Merchandise thread had been inactive for 2 years (unless there was a newer one I missed) - so I am making this new one.

First topic:

I was reading the circulars for Black Friday deals and came across a Target flyer. In it, they had a 7 piece Disney princess doll set.

This struck me as odd, princesses included were:

Snow White
Cinderella
Ariel
Belle
Jasmine
Tiana
Rapunzel

I was happy to see that neither Mulan nor Pocahontas were included (as princesses they are NOT) - I am a purist about what counts as a Disney princess.

However, if they were going to have 7 dolls - why the heck not just finish the set with Aurora?

It seemed odd to me to exclude just one official princess from the set.

I mean, Mulan and Pocahontas have been included less and less in recent years - obviously Eilonwy and Kida never were princesses - so why drop one of the staple, legacy princesses?

My first theory was she was blonde and they are trying to not take away from Rapunzel being blonde.

That theory fails because 1) Cinderella is blonde, too and 2) TANGLED SPOILERS: .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. technically Rapunzel is brunette (although I doubt they will ever, even once, market her as such.)

So - anyone have any ideas why they'd have a 7 doll set - include everyone - even Tiana and Rapunzel - but drop Aurora?

Just seemed very odd to me.

Well, technically, Cinders is titian.

I can see Aurora being dropped for variety's sake–if Cinderella is blonde and blue-eyed in her merchandise and Aurora is also blonde and blue-eyed…why keep both? If a little girl really wants an Aurora doll, there's plenty of options. Since Rapunzel is green-eyed and freckled, she doesn't directly compete.

Disney Store has a new pack with all the 10 official Disney Princesses:





And also, there are the new Disney Princess Singing Dolls:



Here the missing one is Snow White (plus Pocahontas and Mulan...)

Where did you find that Disney Princess 10 piece set? That looks really nice. I tried looking on the Disney Store site but couldn't find it.

Disney Lover wrote:Where did you find that Disney Princess 10 piece set? That looks really nice. I tried looking on the Disney Store site but couldn't find it.

Here it is:

http://www.disneystore.com/toys-new-cla ... 8+1000995/

But it says that’s sold out! But maybe there will be more available coming soon…

Well, if we're going to talk about this, Aurora should have been included, and I am ok with Pocahontas and Mulan being out, but actually, even though I am a purist, I lately have been okay with them being part of the princess line for the whole "any ethnicity cna be a princess" and "any grils can be a princess even if she's not a real princess" thing.

But I am really sore that for the new singing dolls which are excellent in their quality and singing idea, their outfits are almost perfect, but missing some big things they usually have on other dollls!

For one, Cinderella's outfit and hair are better in a lot of ways than past ones, but she's missing her headband! I think Tiana and Belle are missing their gloves, Aurora's missing her crown, and I think there's a bunch of other things just missing and I don't get it. Thye came so close to accuracy and perfection and then lost! And then there's the fact Cinderella's dress should be more silvery and not have the bodice be different from the skirt...

Disney Duster wrote: I think Tiana and Belle are missing their gloves,

Belle's gloves are on there. Just a much lighter color. You can tell if you look hard enough.

For the record, Pocahontas IS a princess in her movie since she's the daughter of the chief.

Have you seen the new princess playsets from Disney Store?

They're so cool:






New dolls from Mattel: Longest Hair Ever:



And new books featuring Rapunzel with the other princesses!

I got the princess playset with pink Cinderellad and Blue Aurora. There just aren't enough blue auroras.

It always bothered me that they made Cinderella's hair buttery yellow and her dress sea blue. Princess merchandising doesn't seem that creative when it comes to coloring.

it kind of bugs me that Rapunzel is now included in all this cheap princess junk lol


i mean i get that she actually is a true princess, unlike Mulan


but she has so much life and personality, it's sad to see her stripped of it by stuffing her in over the top Princessy clip art

skyler888 wrote:it kind of bugs me that Rapunzel is now included in all this cheap princess junk

...

she has so much life and personality, it's sad to see her stripped of it by stuffing her in over the top Princessy clip art

I feel as though Rapunzel and Tiana did have some extra spunk earlier princesses did not - especially with their 'talent' aspect - Tiana cooking and Rapunzel drawing. Could be a result of the modernizing of these two films to be 'contemporary' fairy tale films. However, little girls love their princess merchandise - so to call it junk is unfair. Sure crap like Disney Princess bath towels and toothbrushes qualify as junk, but I wouldn't say dolls do.

I posted this once a while ago, but thought it'd be relevant again. Realize I do not seriously think these should all be included in the merchandising line:

Here’s the true ‘Disney Princesses’, according to the fact they are shown being/becoming princesses in the canon films and the canon film derivatives:

Princess by Blood:

Princess Adella (The Little Mermaid 3: Ariel's Beginning)
Princess Alana (The Little Mermaid 3: Ariel's Beginning)
Princess Andrina (The Little Mermaid 3: Ariel's Beginning)
Princess Aquata (The Little Mermaid 3: Ariel's Beginning)
Princess Ariel (The Little Mermaid)
Princess Arista (The Little Mermaid 3: Ariel's Beginning)
Princess Atta (A Bug's Life)
Princess Attina (The Little Mermaid 3: Ariel's Beginning)
Princess Aurora (Sleeping Beauty)
Princess Dot (A Bug's Life)
Princess Eilonwy, daughter of Angharad, daughter of Regat of the Royal House of Llyr (The Black Cauldron)
Princess Jasmine (Aladdin)
Princess 'Kida' Kidagakash (Atlantis: The Lost Empire)
Princess Melody (The Little Mermaid 2: Return to the Sea)
Princess Merida (Brave)
Princess Snow White (Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs)
Princess Su (Mulan 2)
Princess Ting-Ting (Mulan 2)
Princesses Mei (Mulan 2)
Princess [technically Chieftess] Pocahontas (Pocahontas)
Princess Rapunzel (Tangled)

Live-Action Princesses:

Princess Rosalinda Maria Montoya Fiore (Princess Protection Program)
Princess Amelia Mignonette Grimaldi Thermopolis Renaldo (The Princess Diaries)
Princess Charlee (The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement)
Princess Lorraine (The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement)
Princess Aimee (The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement)
Princess Hannah (The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement)
Princess Nadege (The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement)
Princess Alexandra (The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement)
Princess Nicole (The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement)
Princess Nadia (The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement)
Princess Claudia (The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement)
Princess Maui (The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement)
Princess Grace (The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement)
Princess Camille (The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement)

Princess by Marriage:

Princess Belle (Beauty and the Beast)
Princess Cinderella (Cinderella)
Princess Nala (The Lion King)
Princess Nancy Tremaine (Enchanted)
Princess Tiana (The Princess and the Frog)

Pretend Princess:

Minnie Mouse (Mickey, Donald, Goofy: The Three Musketeers)

Here’s what shouldn’t technically count:

? Princesses:

Mulan – Marries a general, not royalty.
Princess [technically Chieftess] Tiger Lily (Peter Pan) – Is a Princess in the source material. Heck, let’s add her for more diversity!
Giselle – Never marries a prince. Is just a forest maiden.

Thoughts:

Pocahontas is as much a princess as any of the rest of them. Yes, the cultures of the Native Americans and the Europeans are different, but it is the same equivalent.

I love how the "Tangled dolls" are still labeled "Rapunzel." Who by the way, is a princess by birth, not marriage. Looks like the original movie titles still lives on anyway in the dolls?

On the subject of Rapunzel, I love how a lot of the pictures of her are hand drawn and not CG. It's like the film that could have been. *sigh*

I've seen the Target dolls set and I agree, Aurora should also be in it. But with or without her, that is a VERY cool set. My wife and I agreed that it was funny that Snow white wasn't left out as she seems to be a lot lately from what we can see. When we were at Disneyland earlier this year, there was next to nothing in the gift shops with Snow white on it.

Neal wrote:

skyler888 wrote:it kind of bugs me that Rapunzel is now included in all this cheap princess junk

...

she has so much life and personality, it's sad to see her stripped of it by stuffing her in over the top Princessy clip art

I feel as though Rapunzel and Tiana did have some extra spunk earlier princesses did not - especially with their 'talent' aspect - Tiana cooking and Rapunzel drawing. Could be a result of the modernizing of these two films to be 'contemporary' fairy tale films. However, little girls love their princess merchandise - so to call it junk is unfair. Sure crap like Disney Princess bath towels and toothbrushes qualify as junk, but I wouldn't say dolls do.

dolls and toys are fine, i loved creating my own stories with those little plastic disney toys they used to sell

it is only when they put there smiling, doe eyed faces on stupid items, like you said, that really bug me


that imo, is what cheapens the films and gives disney the rep that their movies, especially the fairy tale ones, are only for little girls


and of course Tiana and Rapunzel's personalities are a result of modern movie making, tbh that's why it bugs me less when snow white or aurora are featured in princess merchandise, as they had very light personalities to begin with and kind of are the basic fairy tale princess

bruno_wbt wrote:Have you seen the new princess playsets from Disney Store?

They're so cool:

LOL they included Aurora twice - awesome

^ And Cinderella and Tiana twice.

Pocahontas was in a DEMOCRACY I'm not sure if she can be called a princess.

Disney Duster wrote:^ And Cinderella and Tiana twice.

Pocahontas was in a DEMOCRACY I'm not sure if she can be called a princess.

WHAT?!





Native Americans did not have a democracy system. Wtf are you smoking?

Disney Duster wrote:Pocahontas was in a DEMOCRACY I'm not sure if she can be called a princess.

Well, as chief, Powhatan was a monarch-like leader, albeit in a social structure different to the regimes akin to what would have been found in Europe at the time (which in turn influenced the kingdoms in the European fairy tales). Thus, Pocahontas can be described as at least a sort of princess, more so than Mulan at least; she was classed as an Indian princess back in the 1600s when she grew in fame, and most versions of her legend (which inspired the Disney film more than real facts) tend to call her a princess. We could get into a huge needless debate over types of society and whether or not she could be classed as a princess; no form of society is the same, and one will ultimately end up making approximations to try and make things easier to understand. And let's not forget that the Disney Princess line is basically "Disney's Pretty and Popular Heroines" line; many of the popular heroines are or become princesses, so I'd see it as a fairly snappy umbrella term.

Oh, and for the record, a monarchy can be democratic, just as a republic doesn't necessarily mean an equal regime (such as is the case with various communist countries past and present). The Queen of England doesn't have absolute power; if they'd clung onto it long ago, they'd have all gone the way of Marie Antoinette.

Anyway, away from the anthropological/political rambling...

Some people know me as the ultimate warrior against the Disney Princess line. I could explain where my disappointment lies in great detail, but I'll keep it to a few reasonably brief points.

1. It ostracises audiences away from the films; as opposed to twenty years ago, I doubt many young boys today would want to watch the likes of Sleeping Beauty and Snow White after being exposed to merchandise featuring the heroines against a pink backdrop and clad in diamonds.

2. It basically takes the term "Disney princess" as a means to brand otherwise isolated characters and sell them off as a generic toy line, sort of like a fairy tale version of the Cabbage Patch Kids or Bratz. Once again, it could make naive people assume that these films are basically toy advertisements (as opposed to the toys being advertisements for the film). I do feel a similar thing happens with a lot of other Disney characters and universes, in particular those of Pooh and Mickey, so I'll condemn Disney for that as well.

3. It's all reasonably sexist. I hate to sound overly politically correct, and it's my concerns with the merchandising line, and not so much the films themselves. As part of a society wide issue, the whole thing makes kids appreciate superficial things (hair, make-up, fine clothes, looking pretty, getting a hot boyfriend), and I worry it's sending out messages to young girls that looks can really matter; no wonder that in the Los Angeles Time article about Tangled that a psychologist stated that young girls are concerned with becoming hot and looking like Hannah Montana.

4. The obsessive purist and Disney fanboy in me gets annoyed by some of their decisions. Some of it is just related to preferring them look one way more than another, but I also hate the type of things they seem to make up. I saw "Disney Princess Babies" when out shopping for my cousin's daughter's birthday, and was horrified to see that they got the characters so wrong. Aurora, Cinderella and Belle were in baby versions of their ball gowns, when they would definitely not have done so in their film's respective universes. On the same shopping trip, I saw a ballerina Snow White; since when did she do ballet? And the diamond look that they're sometimes clad in is just creepy. (In case you're wondering, we weren't planning on getting her anything Disney related, rather we were just browsing. We got her a Jessie doll in the end, which she loves, and took along with her when she went to see Toy Story 3).

5. Related to all the last points (in particular 1, 2 and 4), the Disney Princess line doesn't really respect the legacy of Disney, or the universes created in the original films, which are all classics.

I'm not trying to troll by posting this; these are my genuine concerns with the line, all of which derive from my own appreciation of Disney and the company's standing. I'd rather see merchandise that is respectful to Disney's legacy than to the stuff we generally see; Disney can definitely do it. I will admit that the Disney Store doll set posted here looks quite pleasing, as it seems to celebrate the films and their legacy as much as it is an excuse to parade lovely females.

Anyway, I'm tired. Hopefully I won't receive death threats, or claims that my reasoning is completely bogus and that I shouldn't talk about classics on this forum.