FettFan
Well-Known Member
No, I don't. Tiana is the last Disney Princess.
Rapunzel COULD have been. But she's not since they screwed up and went to CGI.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
New Disney Princess?
- Thread starter taz0162
- Start date
No, I don't. Tiana is the last Disney Princess.
Rapunzel COULD have been. But she's not since they screwed up and went to CGI.
ellie-badge
Well-Known Member
But she's not the last Disney Princess.
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it any different.
And if they "screwed up" so bad... why was Tangled so successful?
disney fan 13
Well-Known Member
BOOM
ellie-badge
Well-Known Member
olinecoach61
Well-Known Member
Classic!
FettFan
Well-Known Member
Because sadly, children these days expect CGI. Hand-drawn animation will always be more impressive to a lot of moviegoers since it takes a lot more work and practiced talent to produce. (same reason that a lot of moviegoers prefer the original Star Wars trilogy to the prequels, with actual models and sets instead of blue and green screens)
As an example, here is the palace chase from The Thief and the Cobbler: (it helps if you mute it so you don't have to listen to Matthew "That's a Lot of Fish" Broderick sleeping through his lines)
All of that is hand drawn.
Sorry, Ellie, but we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. Remember, Beauty and the Beast got a nom for BEST PICTURE. BatB was the reason AMPAS created the "Best Animated Feature" category in the first place.
erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
Well I guess if I have to stomach another princess meet and greet, I can live with it being Leia. 
Magenta Panther
Well-Known Member
GenerationX
Well-Known Member
Disney Princesses is a brand. A sharp Disney Marketing Exec thought that merchandise under a collective "Disney Princesses" label might sell better than marketing the characters individually, and it worked beyond a shareholder's wildest dreams. Leia's inevitable membership in the Disney Princess club doesn't sully anything for me, because I don't hold marketing campaigns sacred.
Magenta Panther
Well-Known Member
I doubt Leia will ever be marketed as a Disney Princess. She'll just keep hanging out with Chewie and the gang.
ellie-badge
Well-Known Member
While it does take a lot more work to create a traditionally hand drawn animated film, that's exactly why it's being looked over these days. It's inefficient. Believe me, I love traditional animation, and I would love more than anything to animate traditionally (it's been my dream since I was a little girl), but creating computer generated films is faster and, more importantly, cheaper. That's why you seldom see traditionally animated films anymore. It has nothing to do with whether the audience "expects" computer generated imagery; it comes down to money and whether the company is willing to spend it, plain and simple.
Most people don't watch The Lion King and go, "Oh wow, look at how the camera pans around Mufasa and Simba on Pride Rock! That must have been so hard to animate! That's really impressive!" Unless they're hardcore Disney fans such as us, they'd likely not even notice how difficult it was to animate. They'd look at it as an ordinary dolly shot like any other film. Kids especially don't pay attention to that level of detail.
I'm very familiar with The Thief and the Cobbler, and I do agree that (most of) the film was quite visually impressive (you should really check out the Recobbled Cut if you haven't, it's much better than the movie that was actually released and closer to what it was originally intended to be). However, most of the impressive scenes were animated decades ago, probably in the mid sixties and seventies. They had no other option but to hand draw everything.
True, Beauty and the Beast was nominated for Best Motion Picture. It more than deserved it, too, as the story, characters, music, voice actors, and especially the animation was phenomenal. But, again... it was made before the big computer generation boom. Wall-E and Up were also nominated for Best Motion Picture, too. I think their nominations are based on how good the movies are, not the way in which they were animated, and all three (in my opinion) are absolutely fantastic and deserved to be nominated.
Regardless, that seems to be the case, and I'm more than willing to do just that. I respect your opinion, and I hope you respect mine as well. No hard feelings, and I actually very much enjoyed this little discussion of ours.
ellie-badge
Well-Known Member
ellie-badge
Well-Known Member
If any of you have seen Wreck-It Ralph already, highlight the text beneath here for my question (and if you haven't seen it, DON'T HIGHLIGHT WHAT'S BELOW, as it is a HUGE spoiler):
Do you think Vanellope von Schweetz will be added to the Disney Princess line?
Do you think Vanellope von Schweetz will be added to the Disney Princess line?
I was just wondering about this today.
Being a princess in a Disney animated film is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for a character to be a Disney Princess, at least for purposes of the "Disney Princess" brand. Characters who are not princesses -- such as Mulan and, arguably, Pocahontas -- are part of the Disney Princess brand because they have personalities and/or characteristics consistent with how Disney conceives of the brand.
On the other hand, some characters who actually are princesses in films in the Disney animated canon (which doesn't include Enchanted), such as Kida and Eilonwy, are not part of the Disney Princess brand for any number of reasons -- which might include the relative unpopularity of their movies or, more important, a general lack of "fit" with the specific image of the brand.
For the latter reason, I'm pretty sure the answer to your question is no.
AGDLillyBelle
Member
DisneyWall-E
Well-Known Member
I was thinking the same exact same thing.
Highlight for my answer( And I would have to say yes. She is an official Disney Princess. )
twinnstar
Active Member
Hmm, heres how I always looked at it...
Disney Princess are "classic." They are either from historical stories or from fairytales that have been around for a long loooooooooooooong time. So, even though they may be new to Disney, they were always "characters" that we knew and grew up with, which is why they are considered classic.
The two overlooked Princess, Princess Eilonwy & Kida, are both from original or modern stories, thats why they dont count. That also applies to Merida as well, but she also shouldnt count cause at the end of the day Brave was a Pixar film.
Yes, I think they all need to be animated.
The only missing Princess that fits all my criteria who is not included is Princess Tigerlily, and I'll chalk that up to her role in Peter Pan being so small.
Soooo...yeah.
Disney Princess are "classic." They are either from historical stories or from fairytales that have been around for a long loooooooooooooong time. So, even though they may be new to Disney, they were always "characters" that we knew and grew up with, which is why they are considered classic.
The two overlooked Princess, Princess Eilonwy & Kida, are both from original or modern stories, thats why they dont count. That also applies to Merida as well, but she also shouldnt count cause at the end of the day Brave was a Pixar film.
Yes, I think they all need to be animated.
The only missing Princess that fits all my criteria who is not included is Princess Tigerlily, and I'll chalk that up to her role in Peter Pan being so small.
Soooo...yeah.