-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
RUMOR: Disney Princess branding being removed?
- Thread starter Dead2009
- Start date
ObscurityPoint
Well-Known Member
Sort of off your point, but I think I recall a Disney Heroes theme being a thing in the mid 2000s. I had a washcloth I bought from the Disney Store by my house (which closed down last weekBecause while women can be Heroines, we can't have men being Heroes...
) that portrayed Hercules, Aladdin, and Tarzan on it and said something along the lines of “Heroes” or “Legends” or something of that nature. Would be cool to expand upon that brand as well as the Heroines and add Peter Pan, Baymax, Ralph, and characters like that to the mix.
ObscurityPoint
Well-Known Member
katiebug:
suddenly appears in a fiery puff of green smoke like Maleficent
networkpro
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
My gut reaction is that heroine is not the right word....I completely understand the concept, but there's gotta be a better descriptor out there???Maybe with enough advertising, Disney can even change the what we call "heroin" to something else???
Princess is problematic because of that whole feudal society origination back story.
NickPytlinski
Well-Known Member
fair point
$4 Billion each for Marvel and Star Wars.
brb1006
Well-Known Member
Funny you mentioned that since Disney actually had a very short-lived counterpart to the Disney Princess franchise called "Disney Heroes" in the early 2000's. The lineup consisted of Aladdin, King Arthur from Sword In The Stone, Hercules, Peter Pan, Robin Hood, and Tarzan, that was meant to be the boy-centric equivalent of the Princess franchise. It was discontinued quickly after very poor sales.
The Disney Heroes brand was so short-lived that you can hardly find any screenshots of photos of it. But I vividly remember seeing merchandise for "Disney Heroes" a few times when I visited the Disney Store as kid.
Last edited:
FettFan
Well-Known Member
So if the name change is happening...Do we call this Heroine Hall now?
Sure guests reaction will vary...
As long as they don't forget the 'e' at the end.
There's a BIG difference between "Heroine" and "Heroin".
The_Jobu
Well-Known Member
Both of which they're desperately marketing towards girls now. Perhaps Disney Princes will become a thing...?
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
It was called King Stefan's Banquet Hall from 1971-1997.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
They tried the "Disney Heroes" brand. It didn't sell as expected.
AFAIK the mid 2000s line up included Peter Pan, Hercules, Aladdin, Tarzan, Prince Phillip, Robin Hood and Arthur.
AFAIK the mid 2000s line up included Peter Pan, Hercules, Aladdin, Tarzan, Prince Phillip, Robin Hood and Arthur.
brb1006
Well-Known Member
At least King Arthur and Robin Hood got some spotlight from Disney Heroes. Too bad it as very short-lived, because I remember seeing some of these at various Disney Stores.
So, after 3,011 hours worth of MCU in which there is one movie with a female lead and two scenes of an all-female team-up, and only one more female-led movie in the works for the next two years... That is desperate marketing?
And with the new Star Wars, there's two Anthologies movie: one has a female lead... among a bunch of men (Rogue One), and the other has a bunch of men with one main woman (Solo); and in the new saga films, there is a female lead surrounded by main characters that are male (Poe, Finn, Ren)... (not to mention the entire series up until this point was 90% male-driven)... That is desperate marketing toward girls?
Why is it that when female characters crash through the 10% screen time barrier it's considered pandering/marketing? You realize it's not pandering/marketing until the majority of movies have a female lead, or, in the case of team-ups or ensemble casts, the majority of the cast or face-time is female, right? Bringing them up to 50/50 isn't pandering. It's acknowledging half of humanity exists.
Last edited:
As I recall the classic horror shows of the 80's were modern day fables designed to convince teenager not to have sex as no sooner would a couple of teenagers start to get horizontal than boom Jason or Michael Myers would pop up and slaughter them. I can't help but wonder how many teenager pregnancies were prevented by the fear that having sex would instantly cause the bad guy to pop up and skewer you with a harpoon or fireplace poker.
NelsonRD
Well-Known Member
No, its about feeling desirable, finding love, and living your life with your soul mate. If it was about girls looking for a man to take care of them, these stories would end up with dirty old men.
The_Jobu
Well-Known Member
You seem very triggered. You should be pleased by the increased marketing to girls instead of defensive. You also treat marketing like a four-letter word, even though it's what Disney does best.
Aside from the MCU (which is aggressively marketing female projects in phase 4), in the actual comics Marvel has been, I'll say aggressively marketing, others will say pandering, for the past 6 or 7 years. In an odd way as well, they have a wealth of established female characters that deserve their own books rather than then re-branded characters they continue to give books to despite low sales. That's another topic for another day though.
The Star Wars effort is also quite evident. Remember "the force is female"? I prefer to think of it as gender-neutral, but then again, I'm not targeting a new demographic. I'm not sure why you think a film needs an all-female cast to be marketed towards women. The creators have all said themselves they are attempting to insert female-focused stories into the universe.
I see you also brought up pandering, which I never mentioned. Are you by chance also one of those fans that considers any criticism of Rey as misogynist trolling?
The_Jobu
Well-Known Member
That is exactly why I had so little success with the ladies in high school. If anyone else says differently, they're a filthy liar.
Um, actually. When you see an uptick in female participation which is nowhere near parity with male participation as aggressive marketing, then you're the one who's triggered. My point was that aggressive marketing isn't aggressive until you significantly pass 50% participation of female roles, which we are very very very far from.
There's Black Widow and Wandavision. Compare that to Shang-Chi, Winter Soldier and Falcon, Hawkeye, and Loki. (There are team-up projects whose male v. female content is unknown at this time.) Still nowhere near parity. That's close to token marketing and nowhere near aggressive marketing.
Because the status quo has been almost all-male casts. I've also said in my post that doesn't have to be all-female, so nice straw man there. Look to where I point out that in ensemble and team casting, the number of women is nowhere near 50%. Look how the Avengers initially had only one woman, one who didn't get her introductory movie until much later.
So... there's my point that has nothing to do with having to have all-female casts. But, since there have been casts that were almost all male-driven, then why not a parity with the same amount of movies being all female-driven? You act like that would be too much when actually if it happened the same amount of times as an all-male or mostly-male cast then that should be the norm and not some sort of aggressive marketing tactic... just normalcy. If there's a future team up with all woman and one man, than that shouldn't be seen as aggressive marketing, just a normal coincidence, just like the original Avengers had only one female.
Only when they complain she's female.
The_Jobu
Well-Known Member
Again, I'm not sure why you're so defensive. There's a clear push to bring women into these markets. Who are you attempting to defend, women in general or the marketing department? Are you still seeing the word "pandering" that was never mentioned?
And Capt Marvel 2, Valkeryie, Lady Thor, Lady Loki, the gender-swapped Eternals, Wasp, etc... And that's only what's announced, there's strong rumours they have their eye on more comic adaptations such as RiRi as the new Ironman, America Chavez, She-hulk and Ms. Marvel (the new one). I'm not sure how much more blatant you want their marketing efforts to be to concede that they're making a concerted effort to bring in the female demographic.
Yes, you said majority, which was equally illogical. A movie doesn't need to have a majority female cast to be female focused. Just look at who the film is focused on, or in the case of the creators, when they explictly state that their film is indicative of them adding more female directed content. This is their words, not my opinion. Again, I'm not sure who you're trying to strawman or white knight here. Why are you asking if there should be parity between male focused and female focused films? "Should" has nothing to do with it, they already "did". Personally, I think a good story should just be told and dont worry about who has what bits between their legs, but my personal opinion has nothing to do with marketing. Remember: "the force is female". Do you see their efforts of marketing to women a bad thing, is that it? Are you of the belief that the executives are champions of social values here to correct the past rather than shrewed marketers that saw an untapped source of revenue?
Well, to the handful of people that have said that, you get 'em tiger. The vast majority that I've seen just think she's a bad character.
And Capt Marvel 2, Valkeryie, Lady Thor, Lady Loki, the gender-swapped Eternals, Wasp, etc... And that's only what's announced, there's strong rumours they have their eye on more comic adaptations such as RiRi as the new Ironman, America Chavez, She-hulk and Ms. Marvel (the new one). I'm not sure how much more blatant you want their marketing efforts to be to concede that they're making a concerted effort to bring in the female demographic.
Yes, you said majority, which was equally illogical. A movie doesn't need to have a majority female cast to be female focused. Just look at who the film is focused on, or in the case of the creators, when they explictly state that their film is indicative of them adding more female directed content. This is their words, not my opinion. Again, I'm not sure who you're trying to strawman or white knight here. Why are you asking if there should be parity between male focused and female focused films? "Should" has nothing to do with it, they already "did". Personally, I think a good story should just be told and dont worry about who has what bits between their legs, but my personal opinion has nothing to do with marketing. Remember: "the force is female". Do you see their efforts of marketing to women a bad thing, is that it? Are you of the belief that the executives are champions of social values here to correct the past rather than shrewed marketers that saw an untapped source of revenue?
Well, to the handful of people that have said that, you get 'em tiger. The vast majority that I've seen just think she's a bad character.
And the vast majority who disagree with that assessment don't scream "misogyny!"