Midwest Elitist
Well-Known Member
Don't forget Rapunzel bathrooms!
At this point I'm starting to care less about Disney as a whole with their handling of their parks/IPs which is making me care less about Splash so uh, win/win?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Splash Mountain retheme to Princess and the Frog - Tiana's Bayou Adventure
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
- Status
At this point I'm starting to care less about Disney as a whole with their handling of their parks/IPs which is making me care less about Splash so uh, win/win?
ImperfectPixie
Well-Known Member
Don't forget about Akershus and the princess dining, or Bibbidy Bobbity Boutique (isn't there a 2nd location that isn't at MK?). And they got rid of the Pirate dress-up thing, didn't they?
Brer Oswald
Well-Known Member
I will admit, me not counting Carpets was more an oversight as I tend to forget that attraction exists.
I do think the shows count as they take up significant space. Nonetheless, the count they have now is fine I guess. Their over reliance on Princesses is more of an issue with the marketing than it is with the attraction count.
Some people keep thinking that.
Most Disney fans will say "oh well" Most of the general public will say "oh well" Even if it gets nasty and stirs hate on the internet...nothing new.
Incomudro
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately, this is true.
Incomudro
Well-Known Member
It's not about a quantity of people on either side.
It's a matter of who's the most vocal, and who has the current climate on their sidr.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
The reason I wasn't counting the DHS shows is that they've both been there forever and were about celebrating massively successful Disney films (as well as getting them into the parks) rather than any specific princess push. They both predate the creation of the actual Disney Princess brand.
My original point was that Disney hasn't really gone out of their way to shove princesses in the parks recently except for the Norway takeover (also that Splash Mountain isn't an outlier in terms of being a great attraction that doesn't involve princesses) -- which was again more about Frozen itself as a massive hit than about princesses, although they did take the opportunity to add princess dining -- and New Fantasyland, but Fantasyland is exactly where they should go so I have no problem with that.
The Tiana thing is a bit different in that I don't think the goal was ever to get Tiana an attraction -- it's to get the Brers and Song of the South out of the parks. Of course they didn't have to use Tiana or any princess there, but I think Tiana as the choice is understandable considering the overall context behind the retheme. Moana doesn't make sense where it's going, but I also don't think that's going to be much more than a nice landscaped area that has no real connection to Moana beyond having her name slapped on it. I agree that's an example of shoving a princess in where it's completely unnecessary, though.
Midwest Elitist
Well-Known Member
Being the most vocal doesn't necessarily put people on your side, it can also make you just look like the loud idiot that everyone eventually just finds annoying and ignores. Look at *cough cough* the past 4 years.
Dear Prudence
Well-Known Member
McDonald's finally had to fix their ice cream machines. They should get that team on this project.
The "Princess Brand" is purely a marketing tool. Admittedly so by its creators.
And yes, including Mulan made no sense with regard to the purported purpose of the brand, that is, to highlight Disney princesses. But it made marketing sense since Mulan couldn't, by herself, keep her merchandising franchise going solo. And so, she joins the other princesses, who, together, are synergistically more than the sum of the individuals.
And it made sense to be intentionally diverse... so that they can be merchandised to a diverse audience. This isn't virtue signalling. It's capitalism.
But the whole things hurts the brain to see how the brand is handled. Moana was the last one officially added, but with no 'induction ceremony.' Anna and Else were never added, but they were their own merchandising/franchising juggernaut (in retrospect, they could have left Moana out for the same reason). Originally, Tinkerbell and Esmerelda were part of the line-up -- a sure sign that 'princess' was originally meant in the loosest sense -- but they got dropped quickly.
Sofia and Elena never got inducted, maybe that's because before the age of Disney+, TV still had that lowbrow stench compared to cinema. However, Elena now regularly appears with the official princesses on floats and M&Gs.
Raya, as a chieftain's daughter is technically a princess in the way Moana or Pocahontas is, but I haven't seen her hobnob with the branded royalty... yet.
Mirabel is the granddaughter of a sort-of Mayor of a town, and maybe the magically-chosen successor to her grandmother... but with Mulan in the mix... does pedigree matter anyway? Besides, it seem that Mirabel/Encanto doesn't need the Princess Brand to carry her own merchandising weight. And with Elena unofficially in the mix, the Brand already has a Latina Princessa.
And yes, including Mulan made no sense with regard to the purported purpose of the brand, that is, to highlight Disney princesses. But it made marketing sense since Mulan couldn't, by herself, keep her merchandising franchise going solo. And so, she joins the other princesses, who, together, are synergistically more than the sum of the individuals.
And it made sense to be intentionally diverse... so that they can be merchandised to a diverse audience. This isn't virtue signalling. It's capitalism.
But the whole things hurts the brain to see how the brand is handled. Moana was the last one officially added, but with no 'induction ceremony.' Anna and Else were never added, but they were their own merchandising/franchising juggernaut (in retrospect, they could have left Moana out for the same reason). Originally, Tinkerbell and Esmerelda were part of the line-up -- a sure sign that 'princess' was originally meant in the loosest sense -- but they got dropped quickly.
Sofia and Elena never got inducted, maybe that's because before the age of Disney+, TV still had that lowbrow stench compared to cinema. However, Elena now regularly appears with the official princesses on floats and M&Gs.
Raya, as a chieftain's daughter is technically a princess in the way Moana or Pocahontas is, but I haven't seen her hobnob with the branded royalty... yet.
Mirabel is the granddaughter of a sort-of Mayor of a town, and maybe the magically-chosen successor to her grandmother... but with Mulan in the mix... does pedigree matter anyway? Besides, it seem that Mirabel/Encanto doesn't need the Princess Brand to carry her own merchandising weight. And with Elena unofficially in the mix, the Brand already has a Latina Princessa.
Last edited:
Incomudro
Well-Known Member
Let's remember, the time period these movies take place in are hundreds of years ago.
People were thin.
And the female characters in these films are teenagers really - they'd be thin.
And the films were marketed to Americans in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's... Those audiences were mostly thin, particularly the younger people who the films were arguably geared more towards.
Kirby86
Well-Known Member
Well they gave Tinkerbell the fairy line so it makes sense she wasn't in the princess line anymore. Esmereleda probably wasn't a great seller like most things Hunchback of Notre-Dame so they cut her out. But obviously like you said the Princess Brand is just a way for Disney to market and these characters long after the films lost market relevance (example you're not walking into the store and seeing Aladdin or Snow White and the Seven Dwarves branded toys) as for Frozen that brand still sells so they wouldn't cut that off at the legs. It's still to early to see how long they will keep Encanto branded toys.
ImperfectPixie
Well-Known Member
Again with your fixation on weight.
I'm referring to the inhumanly small waists and large hips. These things don't just ignore actual body types (of which there are a multitude, even when limited to "thin"), but furthers unhealthy body image in girls.
ETA: Don't get me started on corsets and the myriad of health problems they contributed to...
Last edited:
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
Leaving aside the fact that historical accuracy is not something any of the films in question aspire to, it is not remotely true that people in the past (especially those of the well-fed elites) were universally thin.
ImperfectPixie
Well-Known Member
Incomudro
Well-Known Member
Yeah, well... He was a King, known for overindulgence.Leaving aside the fact that historical accuracy is not something any of the films in question aspire to, it is not remotely true that people in the past (especially those of the well-fed elites) were universally thin.
Not a teenage girl.
Incomudro
Well-Known Member
Universally, no.
Overwhelmingly yes.
Don't even attempt to equate what's going on this country now - let alone in this same country just a couple of decades ago.
Now, you want to compare that with Europe hundreds of years ago?
And people who probably weren't even 20 years old hundreds of years ago.
That's nuts.
Yeah, you could find them.
But why would anyone make an animated film starring them 20, 30, 50 years ago?
Where would the market be?
And boy those Princes look awfully fit in those films.
Perhaps they should have been drawn with big guts so that Americans in 2020 could relate.
ImperfectPixie
Well-Known Member
A teenaged girl forced to wear a garment that constricted her body into unrealistic beauty standards even though said garments also caused long-term health issues?
They wouldn't just clone the Belle AAs and reskin them...right?
ImperfectPixie
Well-Known Member
First of all, you were flat out incorrect about people throughout history.
Fatness and Thinness in the Middle Ages
What did medieval people, living in a preindustrial time of food scarcity, think about fatness and thinness?
www.medievalists.net
Second of all, Marilyn Monroe - undeniably one of the most beautiful women to ever have lived - was a girl with very healthy-looking curves. She was not a waif-thin model of the sort we see today, and she definitely didn't resemble any of the Disney princesses, with their corset-sized waists and exaggerated hips. She's got a bit of a tummy, and has thicker arms and thighs than would be acceptable by today's standards (which I really think looks unhealthy and frail).
- Status