The New Disney Princess

[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.

[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.

[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."

[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...

[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...

[Earth 2 Chris]

I just want to say, after carefully thinking this over, and asking how my wife felt about it, I'm looking at this a bit differently. I still say it could be far worse, and the changes are much more subtle than what Disney COULD have went for....but I understand the underlying messages behind the changes could be offensive to those who admired the character's non-conformist attitude. I still think a good deal of it has to do with Disney "homogeninzing" the characters so they all have a common look for merchandising, but either way, the core of the character is somewhat compromised by having her conform to the others.

Chris

[megoscott]

Considering the gnashing of teeth that followed the loss of the sacred red underwear, I can't believe anyone would be mystified by this uproar.

[megoscott]

Word is Disney pulled the design off their website today.

[Werewolf]

Considering the gnashing of teeth that followed the loss of the sacred red underwear, I can't believe anyone would be mystified by this uproar.

Well, I guess it's different when it's stuff they care about. So nitpicking and nerd raging over that won't totally cause the world to be less safe.

[megoscott]

The sexist double standard is quite striking. When fangirls complain they've turned great female characters into sex kittens everyone laughs and tells them they are being PC femi-nazis. Take away Superman's red pants and it's the end of comics as we know it. It's so blatant it's actually embarrassing.

[YoungOnce]

http://www.marinij.com/millvalley/ci...ncess-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.

Great answer and pertinent information that addresses the topic.

Although I weighed in earlier that it's a little frustrating that Disney would change the spirit of the character to make her fit a more slick, commercial ideal of what beauty is sold to be these days, I definitely won't be losing any sleep or joining a picket line. But just because I am not investing any emotion in it doesn't mean that I can't poo poo their decision. I think that's all any of us are saying.

What I found more entertaining (in a funny way, really) in this thread was reading the posts of those who voiced legitimate thoughts about how this was a little disappointing on behalf of little kids who could be losing a role model that mirrored their own looks and the posts from other grown men (I assume) who posted remarks about how hot the models were; I'd buy that for a dollar; Ariel had her "boobs" covered by clamshells, etc...

And really, I'm not slamming anyone here for that high-school-esque humor... I engage in it myself to excess. But it really revealed why those posters weren't able to identify with the original dissing of Disney's decision to homogenize this particular female character. I sometimes forget that this forum is made up of toy geeks ( you folks know that this is one of the most civil open forums on the net... Great people...); but those posts reminded me of that guy in that Hallmark commercial who's at the wedding and he just keeps saying the wrong thing at the wrong time to the wrong people. Funny!

Again, not a slam. We are what we are. Just funny.

[megoscott]

It's true, we are who we are. These things reveal a lot about us, that's why they matter.

Pop culture fans care deeply about the things that are important to them and we all feel like we have a stake in how our interests are handled. These things are all symbols for who we think we are. You can't on the one hand wax eloquent about how some of this stuff is our modern mythology and a connection to higher ideals and then say it doesn't matter, it's just a cartoon. If Superman is to be taken seriously as a symbol that has meaning to people (and I think he absolutely does and in a way much deeper than a costume change) then what this character stands for ought to be respected too.

[jwyblejr]

Considering the gnashing of teeth that followed the loss of the sacred red underwear, I can't believe anyone would be mystified by this uproar.

Because the red undies have been around longer. If she had been around longer,then sure I could understand it. In the end,there really ain't much we can do in either case. Just gripe and moan.

[Werewolf]

Because the red undies have been around longer.

Merida is just as much of an icon and role model to a generation of girls as Superman is to ours and it really has nothing to do with the length of time the characters have been around.

Many female comic book characters have also been around a very long time. When changes to them are brought up it's generally met with the same derision.

When fangirls complain they've turned great female characters into sex kittens everyone laughs and tells them they are being PC femi-nazis. Take away Superman's red pants and it's the end of comics as we know it. It's so blatant it's actually embarrassing.

[huedell]

If Superman is to be taken seriously as a symbol that has meaning to people (and I think he absolutely does and in a way much deeper than a costume change) then what this character stands for ought to be respected too.

It's as clear cut as that to me, too.