The New Disney Princess

[megoscott]

The whole story is pretty amazing. I see their problem.She doesn't fit in so well with the other princesses in that lineup, even with the makeover. When you render these 3D characters in 2D for merchandise it gets tricky.

The backlash has been big. Live by social media, die by it. Hey, at least they have characters people care about.

http://www.insidethemagic.net/2013/04/merida-to-become-11th-disney-princess-with-new-look-for-royal-coronation-ceremony-at-walt-disney-world-on-may-11/

[ctc]

>The character was this no-nonsense independent individual who could take care of herself

But has THAT part changed, or is it just the look? People seem to be making a leap there.

>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.

That's true; but I think there's two ways of arriving at this point. We can ascribe to it a sense of modern mythology, but ultimately the vast majority is designed as disposable entertainment. We may not USE it as such, but that's it's inherent intent. So you can run into a sense of loss and betrayal when the owners take it somewhere we didn't intend; even though, in a lot of ways we should have expected it. Sometimes things make a leap into something more. The author/audience relationship is reciprocal, and the attitudes of the audience can influence the progression of a character/story/setting. (Especially with something corp owned, since placating the audience is a great way to increase sales. It can also turn to pandering, which is a whole other issue.) Those attitudes can change over time as the audience changs too.... further complicating things....

>it really has nothing to do with the length of time the characters have been around

Yes and no. The feelings of the current audience don't, sure; but what that character stands as a representation of, and why does. One of the things that makes an older character, like Superman so persistent is that he's been around a LONG time and our collective image of him is an amalgom of all the past permutations. He seems more iconic, more TANGIBLE because we have seen him through so many different eras, so many different permutations that he's ALWAYS Superman. Even though he's not, and over the years there have been a LOT of different versions. With a newer character it's more difficult to make those ascriptions 'cos we haven't seen them through too many changes, so we aren't completely sure about how they're gonna turn out, and what they're gonna come to represent to the audience as a collective.

If you want to see a really good example of this sort of cultural creep and reappropriation in action, I recommend the film "Wonder Women! The Untold Story of American Superheroines" from PBS.

Don C.

[HardyGirl]

Good. Maybe this means that Disney has reconsidered this decision.

Word is Disney pulled the design off their website today.

[Brazoo]

>The character was this no-nonsense independent individual who could take care of herself

But has THAT part changed, or is it just the look? People seem to be making a leap there.

Don, I have a feeling you're just playing devil's advocate, but yes, THAT'S the point. Girls seem to measure SO much of their self-worth based on their looks.

I have 5 young nieces, and this stuff really bothers me.

[ctc]

>I have a feeling you're just playing devil's advocate

Well.... no, actually. I don't see the design changes as that big a dif so it's tough for me to allocate them to a radical rethink of the character.

>Girls seem to measure SO much of their self-worth based on their looks

It's true, but there are some complications to the debate:

-By spending so much time and effort worrying over the changes made to Merida's design, and considering the ramifications aren't you VALIDATING the idea that girls are defined by their looks? Hence my last comment. We haven't seen any idea of the new version's personality; that might be exactly the same but we're assuming a whole lot because the changes seem to match a preconception of a preconception that we have. We're protesting judging by looks alone by judging by looks alone.

-What about boys? Every argument about body image, preconceptions and judging by appearance made for girls' stuff should apply to boys' stuff like He-Man, GI Joe or Superman; but that never comes up. I think it's pertinent in debates like this 'cos it means either there's a whole half of society being hung out to dry (bulimia is rightly seen as an illness; juicing is seen as a ******bag personal choice) in which case you're not actually dealing with the PROBLEM, just who's on the recieving end; or there's something in the makeup/socialization of boys that makes them resistant to problems like this and isolating that could help immunize girls from similar effects.

>I have 5 young nieces, and this stuff really bothers me.

This stuff bothers me too 'cos I've had a number of my works.... very important to me.... come under scrutiny because of this sort of thing. Dealing with that demonstrated how complex the issue is, and it kinda bugs me when everyone moves into their respective camp, and there ceases to be any genuine exchange.

Don C.

[Werewolf]

I have 5 young nieces, and this stuff really bothers me.

It's good to see that so many other people get it and understand why something like this matters.

In the movie, Merida fought to be her own person and have her own destiny and identity. She wasn't the defined by the usual conventionally attractive cut and paste look and wasn't sexualized. The make over visually and symbolically strips her of that.

To quote the article Megoscott posted:

"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."

I'm reading loads of parents get that too and are understandably none too pleased about the change. Disney if just from a business perspective really fumbled on this because they alienated the very market they were going after. Parents and children that liked the character because she wasn't the usual Disney Princess.

[huedell]

^And this is essentially why I got drawn into the debate in the first place. Honestly, I've never even seen the movie. But this isn't your typical "Disney Princess outrage". To me, and many others, it's rewriting a character's essence in order make a buck. That's just sad. Taking away Supes' red trunks doesn't make Kal a communist.... and if it did, then we'd be closer to what went on with Merida.

[spacecaps]

Wow! Best Thread I ever started! So much passion on both sides of the coin. Surpisingly no one has even mentioned the point I brought up about The Black Cauldron which apparently gets no love anywhere, I guess, despite being one of Disneys best animated films.

Now I don't really have a dog in this fight either way but I found the comments and um, arguments to be very insightful.

First off, Disney is like the McDonalds of the movie business and they always do what's in their best interest, not your childs and having a slightly hefty hero doesn't exactly fit in with the image the "princess" line Disney is projecting. Second, the idea of giving your child a "princess mentality" (I am uniquely special and therefore certain entitlements should be alotted to me that other more common, less interesting and ordinary girls should not be permitted to have) is way more damaging than the waist size of one of 11 fictional cartoon characters.

Now Brave wasn't exactly a great movie and if the character hangs around, it'll be because Disney forces it on us (much like several other Disney charaters that have only remained "relevant" because Disney hasn't put them out to pasture yet.) In the same reguard, Brave is only a year old and in no way timeless. If it wasn't made by Disney it's kind of a forgettable film. Is the hero all that compelling in the first place? (free-spirited heroines aren't exactly a rarity these days) and the story was so predictable it has that "been there/done that" vibe about it after seeing it. It's basically Little Mermaid in the Forest. Miridia is no more or less special than any of the other similar character types we've seen in the Disney universe with one exception; she's fat. Despite possessing qualities that many other female heroines have, Miria stands out because shes unpolished and larger than most heroic girls in the Disney universe. Which is to say that just like the other "prettier" princesses she is being reimagined to fit in with, at her very core, her looks are the source of her appeal. They're just working in reverse for Miridia than the other princesses.

Take a look at some of the other Princesses in the line and you'll find quite a few of them are pretty shallow.
Snow White was killed becasue of her looks. She was saved by the prince for the exact same reason. He stops in the forest because "Oh my god this dead girl in the glass coffin is so beautiful I have to kiss her right now." Even the dwarfs were going to kill her when she was just a home invader but her beauty stopped them from doing so.

Cinderella attracts the Prince by being beautiful. Her gown and slippers are the direct cause of attraction. Not her sparkling personality of her dazzling intelect. It's what she's wearing. She won't even go to the ball until her Fairy Godmother and her magic rodents show up to tranform the servant girl in tattered clothing into a prom queen. The Prince doesn't fall in love with who she is, he falls in love with the image of who she appears to be.

Sleeping Beauty is similar as well. She's woken by a Prince who doesn't kiss her because he loves who she is, he kisses her because she's pretty. All three of these girls are telling the same story. Women should be seen not heard and only if your pretty will you get ahead. Their image is central to their respective stories.

Meanwhile in the Little Mermaid Ariel is a brat who defies her father and causes a heap of trouble along the way. Turns out her dad is right all along too but the message Disney packages to the audience is "True Love" while the notions of "Father knows best" get lost under the sea. Ariel does what she wants and gets away with it.

Esmerelda is saved by the Hunchback who truely loves her but she ends up with the more attrictave dude in the end. Why? Because the knight is better looking.

Gaston can have any woman in France but he doesn't want Belle because shes the most intelligent, he want's her because she's the prettiest girl in the country.

Even some of Disney's non-princess female leads are still stuck in very specific gender roles. For example Pan chooses Wendy because she's good at telling bedtime stories and is in his mind, everthing a mother should be.

Alice on the other hand is portrayed as "curious" which hides the fact that she is nothing more than a beautiful fool ignorant to everything happining to and around her.

There are examples in most of Disneys films like this but the point is that Brave's heroine is exactly that, heroic. As others have pointed out, its the image of the character that has been altered not the personality of the character. Disney hasn't changed that at all but we've seen this free-spirited, self-determined, headstrong female lead so many times in other stories that what made her special was that she happened to be a bit on the big side too. Just like the other princesses, Mirida is defined by her appearance and nothing more. She needs to be portly along with her free spirit and self-determination in order for girls to look up to her otherwise she just like the rest of them. So the ones that are complaining about the remade image of Mirida claiming that image shouldn't matter are defending the very idea that image is everything. "Because Mirida is no longer shapley my (shapley) daughter can no longer look up to this very independent thinking character whose personalitly has not been altered one bit." When what they should be saying is, "Who cares what she looks like so long as she's her own person, just like I want my child to be when they grow up."

[huedell]

... what they should be saying is, "Who cares what she looks like so long as she's her own person, just like I want my child to be when they grow up."

Yeah, but *my* point (and others including the author have made the same point) is that Mirida's *not* "being HER own person" if she's in that get up and otherwise "made-over".

This is NOT about Mirida's waistline.

At this debate's core, it's about something much deeper: Mirida's soul.

If parents don't want their kids having "pretty as a princess" appearancewise role models, that's one thing. However, THIS is not THAT. (As I said earlier, not the typical "Disney Princess outrage" an outrage movement which you diagramed in your last post, and with which we're already pretty aquainted with on the Net)

THIS is about having role models that--- although role models like Mirida are fictional characters-- have real-life implications when they (the fictional characters) seemingly abandon their values to blend in with the other company princess stooges. And THAT'S another thing (almost) entirely.

[spacecaps]

THIS is about having role models that--- although role models like Mirida are fictional characters-- have real-life implications when they (the fictional characters) seemingly abandon their values to blend in with the other company princess stooges. And THAT'S another thing (almost) entirely.

Well this is what I was talking about in the first place. The argument that putting her in a bedazzled dress or taking a few inches off the waist is somehow forcing her to abandoned her values is reinforcing the argument that looks are everything. It's not as if she was a Scientist and Disney decided to reimagine her as a high-school drop out or if she were environmentally conscience in her movie and suddenly she's the new face of Exxon. That's abandoning your values. What Disney did was simply change her outfit. They put her in a dress thats more fitting for a Princess. You can have the most hard-core female construction worker in work boots in blue jeans but chances are come her wedding day, she's putting on a wedding dress. It's dressing for the occasion. The clothes don't make the person who they are, the personality does and as long as they don't change the essence of the character, she still is the same person she was.

Now conversely where your argument holds some truth (and I don't recall if I saw it brought up here or not) is not the change to her clothes or weight but the loss of her bow and arrows. Traditionally weapons are masculine and there isn't much subtly about a long shaft that come to a point and is meant to be projected out towards others. Weapons don't get more phallic than that really and by removing her weapon, they've made her way more feminine than any waist line or dress change could ever accomplish. Her archery skills are actually a huge plot point in the film and not something that the character would willingly seem to give up or be seen with out. In fact she goes out of her way to defy her father because to her being good at what is stricly seen as a thing only reserved for men is what defines her. To her archery is the equivalent to turning up the stereo to a song her parents just don't understand. It's what maker her, her. Her very masculine weapon holds a strong connection to her sense of self and the fact that she is unwilling to compromise on her archery skills during the film and yet is reimagined with the one accessory that she identifies most with and defines her as a character speaks more to a change in values than anything else in her new design.

[Brazoo]

>I have a feeling you're just playing devil's advocate

Well.... no, actually. I don't see the design changes as that big a dif so it's tough for me to allocate them to a radical rethink of the character.

>Girls seem to measure SO much of their self-worth based on their looks

It's true, but there are some complications to the debate:

-By spending so much time and effort worrying over the changes made to Merida's design, and considering the ramifications aren't you VALIDATING the idea that girls are defined by their looks? Hence my last comment. We haven't seen any idea of the new version's personality; that might be exactly the same but we're assuming a whole lot because the changes seem to match a preconception of a preconception that we have. We're protesting judging by looks alone by judging by looks alone.

-What about boys? Every argument about body image, preconceptions and judging by appearance made for girls' stuff should apply to boys' stuff like He-Man, GI Joe or Superman; but that never comes up. I think it's pertinent in debates like this 'cos it means either there's a whole half of society being hung out to dry (bulimia is rightly seen as an illness; juicing is seen as a ******bag personal choice) in which case you're not actually dealing with the PROBLEM, just who's on the recieving end; or there's something in the makeup/socialization of boys that makes them resistant to problems like this and isolating that could help immunize girls from similar effects.

>I have 5 young nieces, and this stuff really bothers me.

This stuff bothers me too 'cos I've had a number of my works.... very important to me.... come under scrutiny because of this sort of thing. Dealing with that demonstrated how complex the issue is, and it kinda bugs me when everyone moves into their respective camp, and there ceases to be any genuine exchange.

Don C.

I think you're right, it's a complex issue and there probably isn't a one-size-fits-all answer to any of this.

In this specific case I think the character was specifically designed NOT to fit the mold of the traditional Disney Princess. Disney (and other companies) have made some recent efforts to update their female characters - but to me it all plays lip-service to the criticism (making their characters slightly spunkier, or something) without really getting to the heart of the matter: they still all end with the beautiful princess getting her prince.

In Brave the princess character was genuinely different. In fact, I saw the whole movie Brave as an allegory for the debate about this very subject: Merida's mother pushes for the traditional 'princess' values - and Merida pushes against them. (OR Disney is the Queen and Pixar is the Princess.) The end goal of that movie is about them trying to reconcile these two outlooks. Merida's victory at the end isn't about fulfilling a girlish fantasy - it's about her gaining acceptance for who she is without allowing outside prejudice to define her. In fact, the movie itself doesn't perfectly resolve all these issues, it treats them as the complex ideas they are. So, for Disney to make Merida more 'desirable' to young girls by changing her to fit the traditional princess more (even subtly) - it undermines the original intent of the movie. I think it's shameful, but I don't expect the Disney of today to know how to handle anything more complex in the first place.

As for your stuff, I sympathize. From knowing you on here I would expect that you'd put A LOT of time and thought into something you were working on, but I don't know enough about it to have an opinion. Again, I think a lot of efforts to address the underwritten female characters in fantasy type genre is lip-service. Making the female a little spunky or tough has become the new cliche - a token effort at best - but I don't think it does anything to address the real issues. I don't even think every female character NEEDS to be written to address these issues. I don't see why a female character can't be shallow, traditional or subservient, but in the correct context. In a children's story FOR little girls I don't know if there's a place for the old princess anymore. Sometimes I'm watching something with my nieces and I do feel uncomfortable with the messages they're getting from what they're watching, and other times I think of it as quaint, and maybe don't get as concerned. Like, I show my nieces Betty Boop all the time, and they LOVE it. I think of it as innocent because it's so antiquated, but maybe it is detrimental. Again, I don't know the right answer for everything - I only know my opinion about specific cases.

It's true that we don't discuss body image regarding boys as much - and I'm sure it affects a lot of boys/men - but I think the problem is much deeper and more significant in girls/women. I think the effects of these things are more severe to females, in general. I could be wrong - but that's what I think based on data I'm familiar with.

[spacecaps]

What about boys? Every argument about body image, preconceptions and judging by appearance made for girls' stuff should apply to boys' stuff like He-Man, GI Joe or Superman; but that never comes up.

Family Guy covered this one.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9fFhUmPOY8

[huedell]

Well this is what I was talking about in the first place. The argument that putting her in a bedazzled dress or taking a few inches off the waist is somehow forcing her to abandoned her values is reinforcing the argument that looks are everything. It's not as if she was a Scientist and Disney decided to reimagine her as a high-school drop out or if she were environmentally conscience in her movie and suddenly she's the new face of Exxon. That's abandoning your values. What Disney did was simply change her outfit. They put her in a dress thats more fitting for a Princess. You can have the most hard-core female construction worker in work boots in blue jeans but chances are come her wedding day, she's putting on a wedding dress. It's dressing for the occasion. The clothes don't make the person who they are, the personality does and as long as they don't change the essence of the character, she still is the same person she was.

Not to me and many others, she isn't. Just like a movie knows no time... being a Disney Princess knows no time either. And the two "character versions" don't mix (in the context of how I, and others of my mindset see it, anyway).

Additionally, IMHO, if you're going to acknowledge the "bow and arrow" thing, consequentally it puts your stance on a slippery slope if you're going by the context of my argument that having her "dress for the occassion" is tantamount to taking her bow and arrow away ...or her soul... away (which I know you aren't but I'm just cementing my POV).

[spacecaps]

Not to me and many others, she isn't. Just like a movie knows no time... being a Disney Princess knows no time either. And the two "character versions" don't mix (in the context of how I, and others of my mindset see it, anyway).

Like I said at the beginning of my first response here, I'm just basing my opinions off of what I read from the other comments here. But how is this:


so much worse or any different than this:

[Werewolf]

It's true that we don't discuss body image regarding boys as much - and I'm sure it affects a lot of boys/men - but I think the problem is much deeper and more significant in girls/women. I think the effects of these things are more severe to females, in general. I could be wrong - but that's what I think based on data I'm familiar with.

Because our society and media still views women's bodies as a commodity are judged far more harshly. Like the news media keeping daily tabs on whatever female celeb has lost or gained, for example.