Disney Dolls

[UmbrellaFish]

That was my first thought, too, but also AFAIK that has always been a rumor re: Giselle. Then I thought about Star Wars and Marvel— if Disney can license the likenesses of those live action actors for beaucoups of merch, why not actors from remakes? I guess it all depends on what was written in their contracts. Perhaps there is an expiration date for how long they can use Halle’s likeness in doll manufacturing, and this is the last gasp? Mattel also released a new Halle Ariel doll this year, but that was branded to the film.

I still find the Disney Princess branding here inexplicable. I don’t know why it wouldn’t have just been branded to the live action movie, like all the other TLM 23 merch, and all other Disney Store dolls that aren’t part of the Princess franchise (look at the branding on this Alice doll: https://www.disneystore.com/alice-class ... pe=regular).

[Sotiris]

I still find the Disney Princess branding here inexplicable. I don’t know why it wouldn’t have just been branded to the live action movie, like all the other TLM 23 merch, and all other Disney Store dolls that aren’t part of the Princess franchise.

Maybe they thought slapping the Disney Princess label on would boost sales. I wonder if they'll try this gimmick with the live-action Snow White dolls next year too.

[UmbrellaFish]

The first run of Snow White dolls and merch will definitely be branded to the movie, just like every other Disney movie, including Princess movies.

[Thumper_93]

I always thought that the live-action versions of the princesses weren't included because of rights issues. Wasn't that the reason Giselle didn't get inducted into the franchise? Even though a photo of Halle isn't featured on the packaging, they are still using her likeness given the doll is based on her features. Having to pay a fee to use the likeness of the actresses who portrayed the princesses in live-action wouldn't be profitable for Disney consumer products in the long-term. It makes sense to do that for a limited time when the live-action movies are new and relevant, but not long after that period.

Animated Giselle was going to be included as an official Disney Princesses but they couldn't make it because she was created inspired by Amy Adams so they have to pay her each time that her character appears on any kind of merchandise. That's what I've always heard. If you see the Disney store dolls made when the movie came out then you can observe that they come with a Disney Princess label on their gowns. So yes, they had plans to include her as an official princess (that would've be amazing!). But that's a different thing. Giselle was not another version of an existent character, she was a whole new character and her inclussion into the franchise wouldn't make anybody feel weird about it. Just imagine how weird it would be for a grandparents to choose which Ariel to buy as a present. Disney has very recognizable characters. I doubt that they would want to loose this thing. Glen Keane said that when you think about a character like the beast you think on the Disney version. Loosing this identity sign would be a big mistake for them. With Marvel is different because the characters were created befote the films were released. You can still using Captain America and everybody is going to recognise him because his design has some things that you can easily identify with him like the shield or the colors. They release merchandise from the movies but after that they use to make merchandise of animated versions or comics versions in order to don't pay rights to the actors.
I suppose that they have the same issue with live action characters. Maybe they have a year to use their faces paying what they accorded in the movie contract and after that they have to increase the money that they have to pay actors to use their faces.
Maybe they though that the movie was going to be enough sucessfull and decided to make as many dolls as possible but they made a great mistake. Singing doll Ariel is available online for only 17$. Nobody that is not a fan is going to spend 35$ when they can have the same doll for less money. In Europe all the Mattel dolls are on sale. The Deluxe one is available for 15€ (about 18$) when it original price was over 60€ (about 65$). They didn't sell as they expected and the movie is not popular enough to mantain a whole collection of the movie and paying Halle rights for using her face.

[DisneyFan09]

Well, while I like the design of the doll, she does look a little uncanny. She looks too similar to Halle Bailey, more so than the actual Mattel dolls from the remake did.

[Thumper_93]

I saw the video and the doll is worst than the singing one. The new one doesn't have articulated legs. The tail is only printed by one side, the fabric of the tail is more plasticous and the fin is only printed in one side too. The hair looks like the same than the first one (polypropylene). I don't have details about the blue dress but she comes without the bandana.
They are asking the same price for a worst quality and they also removed the singing from the doll. I only hope that they are smart enough to don't put the two dolls online at the same time because they are not going to sell too much when the singing doll is cheaper and has better quality....
And talking about live action dolls..I saw today the Snow white doll picture that was leaked a few months ago. Honestly It looks stunning but i don't know if it is the LE one from Disney store or the Mattel one. She looks really great to be made by Mattel. We all know how cheap their dolls look like....

[UmbrellaFish]

Well, while I like the design of the doll, she does look a little uncanny. She looks too similar to Halle Berry, more so than the actual Mattel dolls from the remake did.

I don’t think Disney has a good reputation with their face molds for live-action dolls. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the infamous Emma Watson Belle doll from the Disney Store? Halle’s doll IMO is a very good likeness, but I agree it’s uncanny. I prefer the more stylized Mattel face mold.

I actually really like all of Mattel’s face molds for the Princesses. I have an animated Ariel and an Aurora that were released last year and their faces are so pretty to me. OTOH, I don’t think they really *look* like their animated movie counterparts, but I think to work in doll form, some adaptations are required. As pretty as some of them are, I don’t think any of the Disney Store dolls are really on-model, either.

There was a Sally Slater LE doll released to the Disney Store website yesterday! Sally Slater is a character from Disney’s Haunted Mansion attraction. https://www.disneystore.com/the-haunted ... 55638.html

I want her, but can’t afford right now. Hoping she sticks around for a few weeks!

[DisneyFan09]

I don’t think Disney has a good reputation with their face molds for live-action dolls. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the infamous Emma Watson Belle doll from the Disney Store? Halle’s doll IMO is a very good likeness, but I agree it’s uncanny. I prefer the more stylized Mattel face mold.

Yes, it was. And it looked horrible (no offense to Watson, though).

I always thought that the live-action versions of the princesses weren't included because of rights issues. Wasn't that the reason Giselle didn't get inducted into the franchise?

Yes, it was. It`s somewhat funny that it was the case, due to how Giselle was technically and deliberately made to start the franchise. And her animated version didn`t look too similar to Amy Adams, so she could`ve stood at her own terms and being her own character, without being associated to Adams herself.

[Disney Duster]

Actually, the Disney Princess franchise started way before Giselle, in the '90s. Also, I think, I don't know, but I think Giselle's animated incarnation is supposed to look exactly like Amy Adams, just stylized. So I think it is only by accident and stylization that she doesn't look exactly like Amy Adams.

[UmbrellaFish]

Yes, Duster is right, the Disney Princess franchise was well established by the time of Enchanted’s release in 2007. 17 (?!?!) years ago, fans speculated that Giselle would join the DP franchise and when she did not, fans speculated that Disney did not want to pay Amy Adams royalty fees for her image in merchandise. That’s become the commonly accepted story among fans and may well be true, but again, AFAIK that’s always been speculation and has never been confirmed by anything you’d call a reliable source. And I’d note, even if that story is true, the stipulations of Amy Adams’ contract would only apply to Amy Adams. We don’t know how contracts between Disney and actors may have evolved almost 20 years later.

[DisneyFan09]

Actually, the Disney Princess franchise started way before Giselle, in the '90s.

True, but it wasn`t the same, official franchise as the one that is relevant today. Cause the official franchise didn`t start until the new Millenium.

[Thumper_93]

Yes, Duster is right, the Disney Princess franchise was well established by the time of Enchanted’s release in 2007. 17 (?!?!) years ago, fans speculated that Giselle would join the DP franchise and when she did not, fans speculated that Disney did not want to pay Amy Adams royalty fees for her image in merchandise. That’s become the commonly accepted story among fans and may well be true, but again, AFAIK that’s always been speculation and has never been confirmed by anything you’d call a reliable source. And I’d note, even if that story is true, the stipulations of Amy Adams’ contract would only apply to Amy Adams. We don’t know how contracts between Disney and actors may have evolved almost 20 years later.

Giselle was going to be part of the Disney princesses. As I said before Disney store's dolls had labels with the Disney princess logo.

[UmbrellaFish]

Well, I guess I should have said permanently added. That picture proves characters have been added and then removed from the franchise, which I always said may happen with Ariel 23, too.

[Thumper_93]

Well, I guess I should have said permanently added. That picture proves characters have been added and then removed from the franchise, which I always said may happen with Ariel 23, too.

Esmeralda was included too and she was removed. Honestly I don't know how they decided about adding or removing characters by the time. Esmeralda was popular during the 90s and at the beginning of the brand she was incluyes on some magazines and in the Disney store doll collection. After that she was removed at all. Maybe they decided that after testing how well the character sold but honestly if this is the main rule to include a character into the franchise then I don’t know Why Raya has been included when nobody cares about her.

[Mooky]

I believe these haven't been posted here before:

Midnight Masquerade Ariel doll:
https://www.instagram.com/p/C9H8S6Vguds ... t2bnRvMQ==

Midnight Masquerade Alice doll:
https://www.instagram.com/p/C8xaq5_JrIS ... R3b3F5d3dq

Midnight Masquerade Queen of Hearts doll:
https://www.instagram.com/p/C9qYj2bpYm5 ... VrbmZsNGM1

[UmbrellaFish]

What are your thoughts? I think Queen of Hearts is exciting, but I don’t care about the rest.

I’m always glad when I see a doll I don’t want to buy! lol

[Mooky]

Disney Store dolls were never on my collecting radar (I have varying issues with their sculpts and proportions, but mostly their availability and price), yet I can't deny they're competently made and generally look super, super lovely. The detailing is extraordinary. Out of these three, I like (surprise, surprise) Ariel the best. QoH is definitely the most unique of the lot.

[Thumper_93]

I saw them on IG and I have to say that the quality went down too much. The masquerade dolls released before had best designs, the masks were stunning and the most important part of the outfit. The Queen's of hearts mask is imperceptible. Her outift looks cheaper than other's villains.
I had some expectations about Snow White but the color palette that they used looks very similar to the premiere and the ultimate princess collections. These colors looks really great on Snow White but I think that they shoul've used more accurate colors for this doll.
This year I'm not much into Disney dolls. I get Sally from Haunted Mansion today and I think that I'm gonna get Alice Masquerade because she looks cute. I would love to have Jane Porter too but they say that she's going to be exclusive...

[UmbrellaFish]

There were also images of two other Disney Store limited edition Ariel dolls. I tried to find a pic, but they were leaks so Disney maybe scrubbed them off the internet? Anyway, they were both of Ariel in her blue Tour of the Kingdom dress, one for general release, and the other slightly more detailed for D23.

There was another leak of what appeared to be a Certificate of Authenticity for a Tiana doll, but no leaks of the actual doll.

And I continue to pray that we’ll get a Mary Poppins release!

I wanted the Sally Slater doll but she sold out pretty quickly online.

[Disney Duster]

Actually, the Disney Princess franchise started way before Giselle, in the '90s.

True, but it wasn`t the same, official franchise as the one that is relevant today. Cause the official franchise didn`t start until the new Millenium.

I am sorry, I think you make smart posts all the time, but I must respectfully say I don't think you are correct here. What made the franchise official in the new millennium as opposed to when it started in the '90s?