The New Disney Princess

[HardyGirl]

Exactly!

And that is why the changes aren't right. The character was this no-nonsense independent individual who could take care of herself. That was the whole point. She didn't want or need a frilly dress. Or a lower neckline. She needed her bow and arrows.
I see no reason to change all that, except if you want to re-affirm that women are just supposed to be pretty and in need of help.

Perhaps Disney could change Star Wars as well? Princess Leia can be a stay-at-home mom, doing some knitting and getting supper ready for the boys when they come home...
Not that there's anything wrong with that, but don't create a character with a very special attitude, and then remold her into something else because it's more easily digestible...

[Gorn Captain]

Maybe not to you. The redesign shrunk her waist, increased her bust and lowered her neckline. I can see why those changes could be seen as troubling or a mixed message.

And that is why the changes aren't right. The character was this no-nonsense independent individual who could take care of herself. That was the whole point. She didn't want or need a frilly dress. Or a lower neckline. She needed her bow and arrows.
I see no reason to change all that, except if you want to re-affirm that women are just supposed to be pretty and in need of help.

Perhaps Disney could change Star Wars as well? Princess Leia can be a stay-at-home mom, doing some knitting and getting supper ready for the boys when they come home...
Not that there's anything wrong with that, but don't create a character with a very special attitude, and then remold her into something else because it's more easily digestible...

[huedell]

Scott, altho' out of context, please permit me to take one phrase of yours out of context and give you *my* version of a "verbal high five":

This is a big issue because it blatantly disregards the entire impulse behind the character... .

... that's the crux of what bowled me over about this subject. Heaven knows that *I* know the corporation stuff that Don took walked me through (and you referenced as far as "sparkle screaming"), but the "pound for pound" big revamping of a character who would thumb her nose at what Disney is doing more than just about any other fictional femal Disney heroine is "of ironic note" to put it mildly.

And when you say:

....and their daughter is still the most princessey girl you'll ever meet. She doesn't need Disney to tell her to be that.

all I'd ask for is not to be villified for not wanting to let Disney "off the hook" JUST because it's part of our society. That angle would have us turn into non-opinionated drones. And, to reiterate one of my earlier points, *this* scenario isn't exactly about the "Disney Princess issue" as I see it. It's more of a "Meridia issue" as indicated in that quote of yours above (that I high-fived).

I have absolutely NO issue with little girls being princessey. To quote myself from earlier: "I'm all for women being whatever they want to be."

[ctc]

>it blatantly disregards the entire impulse behind the character

It DOES; but that's the price of doing business with a big company. I can understand why this sort of thing would bother folks who worked on the show, and the audience.... but I'm also aware of how it happens. (Perhaps even MORE depressing.) The TMNT cartoon scared the HELL out of me back in the day 'cos I'd read interviews with Eastman and Laird over the changes, and how they were squeezed out of their own works. It's one of the reasons I shy away from big budget stuff.

>good solid market research that told them they needed to tart her up

I think for me that's the sticking point: I don't see the changes as THAT substantial.

>When little girls say they like it because it's more sparkly, that's all fine and good but, subconsciously, they are soaking in the sexy 'come hither' look and the skinny aspect of the new version.

I don't get that at all. I don't get a "come hither" vibe, I don't see the sultry eyes, and statements like this sound more like hangups from the author than anything demonstrable to me. Especially the later statements about how they've changed her personality. I haven't seen any evidence of that. She just looks kinda different.

>we stuck with the original trilogy as long as we could, so innocent, so fun

....with the arm cutting, and Tauntaun gutting, and dead family, and cannibal space teddy bears....

>but to some people it was clearly one small victory for non-conformist thinking that's been sucked up by the machine to be used against you

Well.... I think the lesson to be had is NEVER trust big companies. (I don't think I've ever heard the concept of "non-conformist thinking" EVER applied to Disney....) But that kinda goes to the Star Wars thing: it's easier for us to accept older transgressions 'cos as kids we were on the recieving end, whereas parents are more on the blocking end. When Pond Baba got his arm chopped off, 8 year old us thought "andObi-Wanchoppedthatdude'sarmofanditwasAWESOME!!!!" When 40 year old us sees Obi-Wan chop Darth Maul in half we shudder as we think of how it's gonna affect the kids.

Don C.

[megoscott]

>
So there's a weird undercurrent that happens in cases like this. Meridia herself isn't the product of someone's imagination, who penned a story, and has definite goals and ideas for the character.... she was created by dozens, if not hundreds of people, for the purpose of making money. Someone pitched the story, which was then vetted by the producers and executives who finally agreed on a story they thought would sell. She then went through a design process, which probably involved no less than ten people.... juggling designs against a sellable image, and what would work CGI. The script was written and rewritten by the writing department, probably another dozen folks.... and sent for storyboards, pacing, test marketing, revisions.... What we get is ALREADY a corporate conglomerate. So we may enjoy what we get at any given point, but you can't REALLY be surprised when that changes. (Just like Superheroes....)

...but we ARE, because we see the end result as an entity unto itself, and every later permutation is compared to said entity. That part's normal. It's also why folks tend to lose interest in stuff and move on. But it's a bit of personal smoke and mirrors.

>Out of the three examples, Meridia is the one who was altered

Yeah.... but not that much. I think we see it as more drastic 'cos of my aforementioned point: that we were brought up more aware of such things.

Don C.

http://www.marinij.com/millvalley/ci_23224741/brave-creator-blasts-disney-blatant-sexism-princess-makeover

The co-creator of the character weighed in and she was pretty mad. Chapman fumed. "When little girls say they like it because it's more sparkly, that's all fine and good but, subconsciously, they are soaking in the sexy 'come hither' look and the skinny aspect of the new version. It's horrible! Merida was created to break that mold — to give young girls a better, stronger role model, a more attainable role model, something of substance, not just a pretty face that waits around for romance."

This is a big issue because it blatantly disregards the entire impulse behind the character. People who are sensitive to the messages their daughter's embraced the character because it offered some contrast to the sexy princess images their daughters are surrounded by. You feel like you are fighting this uphill battle and you just lost a big ally in the fight...I understand why they are mad and sympathize.

However, they didn't change the film, they changed the look of the character for bedsheets and water bottles and whatever else they want to sell, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of soon-to-be landfilled plastic garbage. I imagine they had good solid market research that told them they needed to tart her up to make her sell. Put the character on a shelf at Wal-Mart next to the other princesses and it probably screams for a little more sparkle and a little more exaggerated proportions.

If you are the kind of person who wants to seriously control what kind of messages your kid consumes, it's just an uphill battle in this climate. We have friends who are stridently no-TV, no mass culture characters, no gender stereotypes in toys, no sexism, no guns....and their daughter is still the most princessey girl you'll ever meet. She doesn't need Disney to tell her to be that. And some boys without guns will still make fingers and shoot at you when they reach a certain age. What can you do?

My son went through Star Wars real heavy last year, we tried to hold it off but his friends at school had seen it and then Dad had toys in the basement...we stuck with the original trilogy as long as we could, so innocent, so fun. But sooner or later they hear about what you are denying them and they want to know who Annakin Skywalker is and what's the deal with General Grievous. So I'm reading books and skipping the part where he mass-murders the Jedi babies and whatever horrible thing happens trying to forestall the inevitable.

It makes you realize how much these huge media corporations have a place in your life whether you want it or not. Thanks to Disney we are going to be force fed Star Wars and Marvel Superheroes until we puke. I'm not even a fan of Pixar anymore. When I heard they sold 8 BILLION dollars worth of Cars merchandise I just wanted to get off that ride. They have a right to do what they want and people clearly love it, but...yuck.

So changing the Brave girl may not seem like a big deal, but to some people it was clearly one small victory for non-conformist thinking that's been sucked up by the machine to be used against you.

[Werewolf]

However, the whole dismissive attitude to the point of "the world might be a better and safer place to live" ("better" AND -----"SAFER"!)... and it even got an "Amen", well, it's ludicrous. Geez, slam an opinion if you must, but putting the world's safety in jeopardy in your statement is a bit much, when all these Disney fans want to do is save a character's potential value as a role model from being exponentially diminished.

I think that is the most telling part of this whole thing.

It's not that some people are disagreeing with those that may have issues with the changes. It's the dismissive and condescending way they are going about it. The attitude that the issue shouldn't even be allowed to be discussed and some how even the act of discussing it makes the world less safe. While giving each other amens and verbally high fiving each other. All this in place that is filled with people nitpicking characters, comics and movies they like/care about on a daily basis.

I find it all a bit depressing.

[BlackKnight]

Oh come on now, women not posting more here has nothing to do with stuff like this...are you kidding me? women don't post here as much because the majority of members here are guys....if agreeing that I don't see that big of a deal with the change or not having a problem with it, makes me look like "sexist to some" then so be it, you can't please everyone , I'm not...I just don't honestly see the big deal, sexier & prettier obviously makes more money and that's why Disney's making the move...She's wearing a dress that doesn't show anything, I don't remember people complaining about The Little mermaid Ariel..she was what 15? and wearing shells to cover her boobs...and Jasmin with her half nude outfits, and yet no one had a problem with that..all the princesses should be as pretty as possible because that's every girl wants to be

Now if you tell me they changed something like nemos little fin, or making Quasimodo in to a hunk with a six-pack then I could see the outrage because you're changing a disability , but changing a dress, a thinner waist and not carrying a bow?? To me and only "me" it's not a big deal

No ..
I Agree with U 150% Brother.

[ctc]

>there's huge irony here that anyone would tell us to (cue Shatner voice) "Get a life" on a board full of superhero and sci fi nerds

I say it.... well, imply it anyhoo.... all the time.

Say; maybe that's why I have no friends. *sniff*

>there are also neices that will ask questions that will place a parent in a rough spot. Parents will have to explain why this character wasn't fine the way she was and she needed a makeover

Maybe; but I think even more won't notice. Kids will have already locked into "their" idea of the character, and this change will be absorbed into that. Kinda like how folks of our age can reconcile the Dark Knight AND the "POW! BAM!" Batmans. (BatMEN?) I also don't know if the whole beauty standard thing is as much an issue for the kids as for us. OUR generation was one of the first to be big on the tolerance and equality issue; so it's still a sticking point for us, since we can easily remember times when it was a big problem. But the kids today, three or four generations removed have grown up with a stronger sense of equality. Sure there are still problems, but I think there are more solutions. Plus, the kids coming up now had a lot of female characters who were just as badass as the males; I think that's one reason stuff like Naruto and Bleach have such large female fan bases. It's not weird to see a female action star.... hence the "where's her bow?" question from the young'uns.

>at least the posters should see the value in the arguments made by people who want more from their favorite corporations than the big money grab ALL THE TIME and forever

That's a sticking point for me. You can definitely take that position, but ultimately Disney IS a big company, and their characters are franchaises.... so it's inevitable that they're gonna get remixed depending on what the marketing dictates. It's not a question of not maiiung the money grab; they're a corporation, corporations don't have morals or perspectives; the money grab is the sole purpose they exist. And you CAN argue that maybe the people can make moral decisions, but as anyone who's ever dealt with a big corp knows; there's a whole slew of processes in place the minimalize the effects of the individual. (And not out of a sense of evil; it's what happens to an entity that exists solely for profit.)

So there's a weird undercurrent that happens in cases like this. Meridia herself isn't the product of someone's imagination, who penned a story, and has definite goals and ideas for the character.... she was created by dozens, if not hundreds of people, for the purpose of making money. Someone pitched the story, which was then vetted by the producers and executives who finally agreed on a story they thought would sell. She then went through a design process, which probably involved no less than ten people.... juggling designs against a sellable image, and what would work CGI. The script was written and rewritten by the writing department, probably another dozen folks.... and sent for storyboards, pacing, test marketing, revisions.... What we get is ALREADY a corporate conglomerate. So we may enjoy what we get at any given point, but you can't REALLY be surprised when that changes. (Just like Superheroes....)

...but we ARE, because we see the end result as an entity unto itself, and every later permutation is compared to said entity. That part's normal. It's also why folks tend to lose interest in stuff and move on. But it's a bit of personal smoke and mirrors.

>Out of the three examples, Meridia is the one who was altered

Yeah.... but not that much. I think we see it as more drastic 'cos of my aforementioned point: that we were brought up more aware of such things.

Don C.

[huedell]

Thanks Hugh. But to be clear, I wasn't saying that b/c I put in my cash, I'm entitled to my POV, (I should be anyway)....

Apologies for confusing the issue by trying to paraphrase your "more money than they should legally be allowed to make" quip. I saw that as witty hyperbole and was riffing on that. And BTW apologies if you weren't really joking when you made that statement. Either way, I liked reading it!

My point was more that Disney put out a strong character that kids and moms could embrace, and now just b/c they want to make her one of the "princesses", they want to change her appearance to what THEY believe is more princess-like. That's just plain hypocritical....

I essentially agree with you there. Obviously we feel more alike than "not alike" on the subject. My greatest qualm is more summed up with messing with a character's core than an overall Princess/"beauty" issue that Disney could be seen as being toxic with.

As you and I both agree, we realize that Disney can do whatever the heck they want to make money... we just don't think it's a sensible decision as far as issues of hypocrisy be they about the character or women's image issues in general.

Personally? I'm all for women being whatever they want to be. So if Jasmin wants to dress "hot" who am I to say she's a bad influence on kids? Even if that WAS the case, I don't want to be that guy that figuratively/theoretically "takes away the freedom of choice from another" by being judge and jury... and as funny as it sounds, that applies to fictional characters, as well as "real" people.

[huedell]

Oh come on now, women not posting more here has nothing to do with stuff like this...are you kidding me? women don't post here as much because the majority of members here are guys....if agreeing that I don't see that big of a deal with the change or not having a problem with it, makes me look like "sexist to some" then so be it, you can't please everyone , I'm not...I just don't honestly see the big deal, sexier & prettier obviously makes more money and that's why Disney's making the move...She's wearing a dress that doesn't show anything, I don't remember people complaining about The Little mermaid Ariel..she was what 15? and wearing shells to cover her boobs...and Jasmin with her half nude outfits, and yet no one had a problem with that..all the princesses should be as pretty as possible because that's every girl wants to be

No one SHOULD be complaining about Ariel's shells or Jasmin's ****ty wardrobe.

This is not about nudity or any other "sexual" type thing alone.

Ariel was a mermaid, so she wore shells. Jasmin was a Middle East chick so she wore outfits that showed more skin becauase they kept her cool in the heat. Meridia was a tomboyesque character whose defining stuff did not include becoming a Princess with a high-end wardrobe. Out of the three examples, Meridia is the one who was altered.

It's not like putting Ariel in a business suit, but it's along the same lines.

[huedell]

You're not wrong, from a fan point of view.... but I think you have to remember that the whole "Princess" thing was a way for Disney to rebrand a bunch of their old properties. It's easy to call shenannegains on them because it really IS a case of shenannegains on their end. BUT; they're a megacorp, that's what they do. It's not about audeince gratification; that's a means to an end. It FEELS like it is, to us, the audience.... but that's 'cos we ascribe things to the characters, stories and films we like that isn't neccessarily there. Like the Big Two-ish on the superhero end, Disney can and will rebrand their stuff into whatever form the think will sell. They're not characters, they're product. It's ALWAYS been like that. In some ways Merida got off lucky with a sparkly skirt.... when Tinkerbell finally got a voice she went from an uppity, assertive, selfish character to a generic giggly, girly action hero.

I think you Don, along with everyone else that is bucking the ones affected by this, are missing the point that regardless of whether we see the character more as a "fan" thing or as a "product" thing, that there's huge irony here that anyone would tell us to (cue Shatner voice) "Get a life" on a board full of superhero and sci fi nerds who don't get slammed this hard for having a strong opinion based on a character aspect change.

Granted, if you were to look at this solely as "product" then people like t2cool would have a point when they give their Batman comparison and in THAT regard, I retract what I said about there being absolutely no connection between an insignia change for Batman and Merida's uncharacteristic image makeover.

However, the whole dismissive attitude to the point of "the world might be a better and safer place to live" ("better" AND -----"SAFER"!)... and it even got an "Amen", well, it's ludicrous. Geez, slam an opinion if you must, but putting the world's safety in jeopardy in your statement is a bit much, when all these Disney fans want to do is save a character's potential value as a role model from being exponentially diminished.

T2cool's neice may laugh at the idea that this could happen through a makeover that takes away key elements of the character's persona, but there are also neices that will ask questions that will place a parent in a rough spot. Parents will have to explain why this character wasn't fine the way she was and she needed a makeover in spite of the movie's moral message.

Or worse yet, parents will feel hypocritical themselves when buying Disney product, because they don't like the message Disney is constantly pushing the parameters on. If your answer is "Fine. Don't buy it. Go somewhere else for your entertainment." Well, its just a shame that has to happen in the first place. And there are indeed many spurnned parents that WILL choose other company's heroines to replace the Disney ones over time (although now Princess Leia becomes a questionable respite!)

In the end, you "detractors of the detractors" are the winners, because as Don mentioned, it's all about the dollars when come to what ideas are embraced and what are trashed by the mainstream. But that "mainstream" we're talkin' about here.

How about here at the Museum? Sometimes I'd like to think that as intelligent and practical as the majority of posters here are, that they can at least see these debates from the POV of the ones being negatively affected, theones to who dollars men absolutely nothing to in this context. The posters here don't have to agree with the idea that this stuff should be handled differently than how Disney sees fit. But at least the posters should see the value in the arguments made by people who want more from their favorite corporations than the big money grab ALL THE TIME and forever.

But now i see that what I'd "sometimes like to think" isn't the reality here, as there many people here who would rather dismiss this stance altogether. No acknowlegement of good ethics, no nothin'.

Well, you know what they say: "It is what it is."

[ctc]

>Disney put out a strong character that kids and moms could embrace, and now just b/c they want to make her one of the "princesses", they want to change her appearance to what THEY believe is more princess-like

Hmmmm.... I think part of the dilemma here is that everybody's focussing on JUST the appearance. Isn't there more to the character than that? Have they changed any of her personality? (It's the Superman's undies qunundrum: if the character is so shallow that such a small change makes a dif, how much of a character ARE they?)

I don't see a huge dif between the designs, other than the newer one has been brought more in line with the standard ones.... an act I still feel has more to do with standardized production than pushing any sort of ideology. 'Course then it becomes more chicken and egg: does their aligning towards a standardized concept of "attractive" represent some sort of scheme on their end, or is it them ascribing to the social norm so's to sell more product?

>or making Quasimodo in to a hunk with a six-pack

They did that. He was called "Helios" or somesuch. And to be fair, I remember a LOT of outrage over that one.

>Not every Disney leading lady becomes a princess.

....not YET....

>If Disney is going to bestow this honor on Merida, then it should be the way she is

You're not wrong, from a fan point of view.... but I think you have to remember that the whole "Princess" thing was a way for Disney to rebrand a bunch of their old properties. It's easy to call shenannegains on them because it really IS a case of shenannegains on their end. BUT; they're a megacorp, that's what they do. It's not about audeince gratification; that's a means to an end. It FEELS like it is, to us, the audience.... but that's 'cos we ascribe things to the characters, stories and films we like that isn't neccessarily there. Like the Big Two-ish on the superhero end, Disney can and will rebrand their stuff into whatever form the think will sell. They're not characters, they're product. It's ALWAYS been like that. In some ways Merida got off lucky with a sparkly skirt.... when Tinkerbell finally got a voice she went from an uppity, assertive, selfish character to a generic giggly, girly action hero.

Don C.

[babycyclops]

By making these changes Disney are defining or reinforcing what 'pretty' is.
I like about 2% of what Disney does anyway, so my opinion is already set, this just reinforces the reasons why I stay away from most Disney product.

As for why this is a topic of discussion at all.... well hot-button political issues are not really open for discussion here; but cartoons and toys are.
This issue touches on topics of body image and gender. Why do companies like Disney help sell fatty foods and soft drinks with toy give-aways and happy-meals, while at the same time reinforcing narrow definitions of beauty.

[toys2cool]

Oh come on now, women not posting more here has nothing to do with stuff like this...are you kidding me? women don't post here as much because the majority of members here are guys....if agreeing that I don't see that big of a deal with the change or not having a problem with it, makes me look like "sexist to some" then so be it, you can't please everyone , I'm not...I just don't honestly see the big deal, sexier & prettier obviously makes more money and that's why Disney's making the move...She's wearing a dress that doesn't show anything, I don't remember people complaining about The Little mermaid Ariel..she was what 15? and wearing shells to cover her boobs...and Jasmin with her half nude outfits, and yet no one had a problem with that..all the princesses should be as pretty as possible because that's every girl wants to be

Now if you tell me they changed something like nemos little fin, or making Quasimodo in to a hunk with a six-pack then I could see the outrage because you're changing a disability , but changing a dress, a thinner waist and not carrying a bow?? To me and only "me" it's not a big deal

[Zemo]

Dismissing people's concerns or complaints over this IS hypocritical considering how comics fans endlessly nitpick stuff to death here. But comparing changing the shape of Batman's or Superman's insignia to the changes made to Meridia's figure is NOT a valid comparison because it does not take into the consideration the cultural concerns and issues of changing her body and appearance.

I remember a while back someone started a thread wondering why more women don't post here. I think the dismissive comments in this thread helps answer that question.

That's apple's and oranges.