The new Princesses being excluded from the lineup

[DisneyFan09]

Seriously, guys. Now that it's been confirmed that neither Moana nor the Frozen-sisters will be included in the official lineup, what are your thoughts about it? Due to the fact of the overwhelming success of the franchise and how Disney used it to promote their newcomers through it, what are your thoughts about them not joining the lineup? Of course in Frozen's case it's understandable, due to the brand gaining credibility of it's own. But Moana? Shrugs. Even Sofia and Elena has been officially excluded from it. Of course the downsides of the franchise has been debated here priorly, but I still get the notion that the some users here wouldn't mind to see the newest Princesses in the lineup. Or am I wrong?

[Disney's Divinity]

Well, I'm glad Sophia and Elena are not a part of the lineup. They are TV show characters.

[Tangled]

I'm guessing that with Moana they want to distance themselves from a princess image. Moana is a main female character who shouldn't be lumped in with the princesses just because she's a main female character. After all, she isn't a princess. Yes, I know that Pocahontas and Mulan aren't technically princesses either, but their inclusion in the franchise was decided more than 15 years ago (plus, diversity).

Who knows if this could change. Moana may very well not be able to sell merchandise all by herself, so Disney could always coronate her a few years down the road. However, after Frozen, I don't blame Disney if they feel confident enough to market Moana as a special character rather than as a princess.

[JeanGreyForever]

When I first read this I thought Disney was removing Tiana, Rapunzel, and Merida from the princess lineup which made me get a bit too excited.

Disney is confident about Moana right now running her own separate franchise, but we'll see how well the film actually ends up doing. I wonder if Moana makes Big Hero 6 numbers, will they consider her profitable enough?

[DisneyEra]

A new Moana toy. Now from the looks of this, I don't see a "Bad Ass" girl here. I see a cute Polynesian girl with her animal friends & her little boat covered with flowers. Typical for "Disney Princess" merchandise. Just growing tired of the Revival Era marketing schemes

[Warm Regards]

The Frozen sisters (I guess that's their new nickname from now on? ) aren't official Disney Princesses because Frozen made a billion dollars and the franchise makes a lot of money just as it's own entity.

As for Moana, I've theorized in the Moana thread that they want to see if the movie can make another billion before switching gears and marketing her as the "princess" she is. They can't say she's a DP now, though, because it would diminish the Moana merchandising market value. So Disney is playing the waiting game, basically.

A new Moana toy. Now from the looks of this, I don't see a "Bad Ass" girl here. I see a cute Polynesian girl with her animal friends & her little boat covered with flowers. Typical for "Disney Princess" merchandise. Just growing tired of the Revival Era marketing schemes

I wonder why there is such disparity with the character's personality...?

[Disney's Divinity]

As for Moana, I've theorized in the Moana thread that they want to see if the movie can make another billion before switching gears and marketing her as the "princess" she is. They can't say she's a DP now, though, because it would diminish the Moana merchandising market value. So Disney is playing the waiting game, basically.

I agree with you completely. Tbh, I have a feeling that even if Moana does a billion like Frozen and Zootopia, Moana (the character) will not be the huge merchandise seller that Anna/Elsa are for better or worse, and she'll be inducted into the DP line pretty quickly anyway.

[ce1ticmoon]

Haven't all of the recent princesses started off without being immediately placed into the Disney Princess line anyway? It makes sense not to throw the characters in there while they're still fresh and new and can move merchandise on their own, especially during that first holiday season and even some time after the home video release.

As mentioned by everyone countless times, the Frozen characters haven't been 'inducted' the same way as the others simply because they continue to sell exceptionally well. I would assume that they would have been added to the series somewhere down the line once the hype dies down, but since Disney is making sure that the hype stays alive by releasing that sequel, I suppose that may not be for a very long time.

By the way, what is up with that illustration of Moana? She looks super rigid and stiff, as if she is supposed to be a plastic doll there. Not to mention, that looks nothing like her... I hope that's not what all of the 2D clip art of the character is going to look like... lol.

[DisneyEra]

The Moana Disney Store Doll.

[DisneyFan09]

Yes, I know that Pocahontas and Mulan aren't technically princesses either, but their inclusion in the franchise was decided more than 15 years ago (plus, diversity).

Prepare yourself for a Deja Vu rant, but here it goes; Pocahontas is the daughter of a Chief, so while not being Royal in European sense, she's still semi-royal in that sense.

The Fro zen sisters (I guess that's their new nickname from now on? )

Why wouldn't it be? They live up to that term But I wonder if their inclusion to the lineup will ever happen.

[Disney Duster]

Disney has even said in their marketing of this Disney Princess franchise that the line-up is not for just technical princesses (which I'm sorry but Pocahontas still isn't technically! Same with Mulan!) but for heroines who display "what it means to be a princess". My guess is that would just be "special" girls who are brave and strong and spirited and blah blah blah whatever they wanna say all the princesses in the line-up are even if they really aren't. I used to mind it, now I don't. At least on a superfical level. But for the poor girls who think being a Disney Princess means being an actual princess, it messes that up and confuses them so I wish Disney would only use actual princesses, screw diversity.

As was said by Disney's Divinity, the TV show ones shouldn't be included. But neither should Merida. She's from Pixar, not Disney.

[JeanGreyForever]

Yes, I know that Pocahontas and Mulan aren't technically princesses either, but their inclusion in the franchise was decided more than 15 years ago (plus, diversity).

Prepare yourself for a Deja Vu rant, but here it goes; Pocahontas is the daughter of a Chief, so while not being Royal in European sense, she's still semi-royal in that sense.

Pocahontas is a weird case because Europeans actually considered her to be a princess (a chief was the equivalent of a king to them), but in her own culture, being the chief's daughter didn't lend her any special treatment. Especially since her father had multiple wives so he had multiple children. Pocahontas just happened to be one of his favorites.

Disney has even said in their marketing of this Disney Princess franchise that the line-up is not for just technical princesses (which I'm sorry but Pocahontas still isn't technically! Same with Mulan!) but for heroines who display "what it means to be a princess". My guess is that would just be "special" girls who are brave and strong and spirited and blah blah blah whatever they wanna say all the princesses in the line-up are even if they really aren't. I used to mind it, now I don't. At least on a superfical level. But for the poor girls who think being a Disney Princess means being an actual princess, it messes that up and confuses them so I wish Disney would only use actual princesses, screw diversity.

As was said by Disney's Divinity, the TV show ones shouldn't be included. But neither should Merida. She's from Pixar, not Disney.

The Disney Princess line has an unfortunate stigma now of just having vapid princesses who sit around singing about their princes coming to save them, while holding tea parties. This isn't true for any of them (no not even Snow White and Aurora), but the lineup depicts them in this generic way removing all of their lovable traits from the original films. At most, they each get a trademark trait like Jasmine has a pet tiger, Belle likes to read, Ariel likes to explore, etc. The original three don't even get that beyond maybe cleaning or sleeping or dreaming. So really Disney has no one to blame but themselves for sugar coating the lineup. Now the public's perception of the princesses comes from that rather than the films so Disney has to distance their newest films (Brave, Frozen, Moana) so the public will accept them.

[DisneyBluLife]

The only one that isn't a princess is Mulan but Pocahontas is clearly called a princess in the sequel. And the sequel is more official than any real life arguments. You cant't compare Pocahontas' universe with real life. You have to compare Pocahontas' universe with itself and in her universe she is called a princess, which makes her one.

[JeanGreyForever]

The only one that isn't a princess is Mulan but Pocahontas is clearly called a princess in the sequel. And the sequel is more official than any real life arguments. You cant't compare Pocahontas' universe with real life. You have to compare Pocahontas' universe with itself and in her universe she is called a princess, which makes her one.

I know. I mentioned that Pocahontas wouldn't be a princess in her own culture, but by European standards she would be. In real life they also called her Princess Pocahontas which is the only reason why the sequel called her that as well since the sequel was supposed to reflect the real life Pocahontas. Notice how the original film never refers to her as a princess though. Anyway the sequel counts for nothing, both by fans and by Disney themselves. Disney seems to have disavowed themselves from the sequels beyond a perfunctory Blu-Ray/DVD release, and even that is being phased out.

[DisneyBluLife]

Sometimes you can buy things from the sequels. I remember in 2012 Disney Store released a Belle doll wardrobe set which included her red dress from The enchanted christmas and a Pocahontas doll wardrobe set with clothes from the sequel (they could have made original clothes if they wanted but they didn't). And when Aladdin came out last year Disney store released a Jasmine doll which included her weeding dress from Aladdin and the king of thieves.

[JeanGreyForever]

Sometimes you can buy things from the sequels. I remember in 2012 Disney Store released a Belle doll wardrobe set which included her red dress from The enchanted christmas and a Pocahontas doll wardrobe set with clothes from the sequel (they could have made original clothes if they wanted but they didn't). And when Aladdin came out last year Disney store released a Jasmine doll which included her weeding dress from Aladdin and the king of thieves.

The dresses are the only things that Disney really uses as you mentioned and even that is sporadic. The limited edition doll for Jasmine is her wedding dress but it isn't based on her wedding dress from the film at all. Yet just a year before, her singing doll had the film wedding dress. Belle's christmas dress has assumed a life of its own and become the most iconic thing about that sequel since the Disney Parks also use that as her holiday dress. However you'll never see Aladdin in his King of Thieves outfit, even though he is no longer a street rat. Nor will you see John Rolfe ever in Disney Merchandise. John Smith is still the love interest of Pocahontas by Disney canon in both the parks and merchandise. The new Lion Guard show has also altered the canon so that Lion King II no longer fits continuity the way it did before.

[DisneyBluLife]

True, but atleast they are aknowledge the sequels sometimes. It is true that The Lion Guard destroyes some of The Lion King 2's plot but I am glad that they still treats it with some respect by including Kiara and later we will see Kovu. But The Lion Guard also destroys some of the first movie ' logic. Simba tells Kion that Scar tried to kill Mufasa after Scar had lost the power of the roar,but if that is true why did Mufasa still let Scar live with him and his family in the first movie when he knew Scar tried to kill him? It doesn 't make any sence.

[JeanGreyForever]

True, but atleast they are aknowledge the sequels sometimes. It is true that The Lion Guard destroyes some of The Lion King 2's plot but I am glad that they still treats it with some respect by including Kiara and later we will see Kovu. But The Lion Guard also destroys some of the first movie ' logic. Simba tells Kion that Scar tried to kill Mufasa after Scar had lost the power of the roar,but if that is true why did Mufasa still let Scar live with him and his family in the first movie when he knew Scar tried to kill him? It doesn 't make any sence.

Hmm interesting point. Perhaps Mufasa is simply more forgiving, but I agree that it doesn't seem to mesh well with the original film which is frustrating.

[Disney Duster]

Disney shouldn't make a "universe" where certain chaarcters are one thing but then in another "universe" they're another thing.

Regardless of that, Pocahontas has to be an actual princess, but she's not, and Europeans may have called her a princess but hey, they were wrong. She came from a democracy.

I don't mind how vacuous the princesses seem in certain merchandise. It's just some merchandise! In some things they are just like themselves, even if things just related directly to their movies. I imagine it must be rather hard to keep all princesses exactly like their complete selves in new songs and stories and costumes and other such merchandise.

[Thumper_93]

Sometimes you can buy things from the sequels. I remember in 2012 Disney Store released a Belle doll wardrobe set which included her red dress from The enchanted christmas and a Pocahontas doll wardrobe set with clothes from the sequel (they could have made original clothes if they wanted but they didn't). And when Aladdin came out last year Disney store released a Jasmine doll which included her weeding dress from Aladdin and the king of thieves.

The dresses are the only things that Disney really uses as you mentioned and even that is sporadic. The limited edition doll for Jasmine is her wedding dress but it isn't based on her wedding dress from the film at all. Yet just a year before, her singing doll had the film wedding dress. Belle's christmas dress has assumed a life of its own and become the most iconic thing about that sequel since the Disney Parks also use that as her holiday dress. However you'll never see Aladdin in his King of Thieves outfit, even though he is no longer a street rat. Nor will you see John Rolfe ever in Disney Merchandise. John Smith is still the love interest of Pocahontas by Disney canon in both the parks and merchandise. The new Lion Guard show has also altered the canon so that Lion King II no longer fits continuity the way it did before.

But "Aladdin and the king of the thiefs" is not a sequel. Is the end of the TV series. They used Jasmine's wedding dress in the singing doll that they released a few years ago.