Anna and Elsa too then are already princesses, though I would say that the Disney princess theme was underplayed in the film. Elsa just had a coronation ceremony and became queen, so having another for her to become a Disney princess seems odd to me. Is she reverting? She was a princess for the past 20 years, (according to the Disney Wiki), so it seems strange to me that she became queen in her film, but would then me sort of meshed into the Disney Princess Collection. I guess technically Anna could become part of the collection, but it still seems sort of weird to me. Actually the whole press and culture surrounding the Disney Princess Collection is weird to me, can I vent about this for a minute?
Slightly off topic rant:
Lets discuss the term "Disney Princess." Prior to the late 1990's, this was a generic term referring to any female character from any Disney film, who in one way or another was a princess. Even though back then characters like Aurora, Snow White, and Cinderella, came to mind, there was no collective group called the "Disney Princesses." Before that time, the term literally meant a Disney character, who due to the story in the film, was a princess. In the late 1990's, Andy Mooney, who was the President of Disney Consumer Products at the time, developed a marketing strategy for the princesses. This is when the collection termed "Disney Princesses," first began to appear, and you started seeing all of the princesses together in soundtracks, lunchboxes, clothing, etc... Before this occurred, you would have likely seen one princess per product. What I'm basically getting at here, is that the Disney Princesses are just a huge MARKETING STRATEGY. It is often said that part of the inspiration for the collection was that Andy Mooney noticed lots of knock off Disney princess costumes on young girls, so he just wanted to package it better. So the whole point of terming them "Disney Princesses" and trademarking it and whatnot is to make money. Disney is a company, their marketing division makes things that sell. If Anna and Elsa (hypothetically) are not inducted into the Disney Princess line, do you know what that means for you? Probably nothing. Before Pocahontas was brought into the collection, you could still buy all the Pocahontas stuff you wanted. Just because she wasn't part of this marketing scheme doesn't mean that you missed out. A perfect example of this is Tinkerbell. Yes, she's been marketed much more in recent years due to the Fairies franchise, but even before that there was always tons of Tinkerbell merchandise. You could still buy all the frilly, girly, Tinkerbell stuff that you wanted without having to be consumed by the Disney Princess collection. What I'm getting at here is really plain and simple. Disney is a company. Companies like to make money. Producing a t-shirt with a bunch of princesses on it will sell. Selling = $$$. Sure, there are some promotional events specific to the Disney Princess line, but they're honestly not that great. There are some TV appearances, and soundtracks that probably would not have happened if the marketing strategy didn't lump them all together, but those are really geared towards children anyways. Finally getting to my point about this with Anna and Elsa-- I don't care at all if they're Disney princesses. Like seriously, I don't care one bit. It literally makes no difference, except that they can appear on merchandise with other princesses (staring off in a different direction of course, because they don't know that each other exist). I like Anna and Elsa now, and I will like them the same whether or not they become part of the collection. I guess I just don't understand why people get so worked up over what is really just a marketing strategy.
On a similar note, do you know who's not part of the official Disney Princess collection (and in most cases no one cares)?
* Vanellope von Schweetz: technically a princess (though she refers to herself as president), and not in the collection.
* Giselle: She is as princess-y as they come, but still not part of the collection. Perhaps it is because "Enchanted" was never branded as a princess movie, and it did not do as well as producers would have hoped, but it did have a decent following.
* Kida: I'm not a huge fan of "Atlantis," but I know a good amount of people who are. Kida is technically a princess, but isn't part of the collection. Elsa's character was also slightly based off of her, so well, that's weird.
* Eilonwy: I don't know, does "The Black Cauldron" just not count?
The list could go on (even to include animals and products of sequels,) but it doesn't need to. I know people who like all of the above characters, and aren't crying over them not being part of the Disney princess collection. It is simply a marketing scheme that takes what is popular and sells it.
My other gripe with the Disney princess stuff lately is the feminism (or lack thereof), that seems to drive people crazy. I will mention that I'm really not a feminist myself, but it seems ridiculous to me that people get so worked up over cartoons like this. Every now and then someone says something along the lines of, "Those 'Disney Princesses'... why can't they be better role models for young girls, they're always damsels in distress... they always try to find princes... they don't do anything for themselves... blah, blah, blah." To point out the obvious, most of the princesses are taken from fairy tales that were written hundreds of years ago when it was completely okay for women to be portrayed like this. Another point, that I think is obvious, but apparently other people don't seem to realize is, really, role models? I'm pretty sure when I was a little kid, my role models were my parents. I come from a very Disney loving family, and to say that these princess films were pushed on me as a child would be an understatement, but I don't think I ever looked at them as role models. I remember things I could relate to about some of them, like how Belle likes to read. But as a child I can't imagine them acting as bad role models unless your parents have some kind of influence in that same direction. If your daughter says "I want to be like Cinderella and wear big poofy dresses and marry a prince right now!" when she is five years old, I think it's your job as a parent to throw in some better role models, or even better things about Cinderella to offset this. You could tell them about how she was able to stand up for herself against her evil stepmother, or how what goes around comes around (ie: the evil step sisters don't get the prince, but Cinderella does). If you're worried about your child turning into a little Honey Boo Boo princessy brat, that is not the fault of a simple marketing scheme, that is your fault as a parent for allowing that to happen.
I would say that 90% of the time, the princesses are as feminist as they can be given their time in history, and the fairy tales they're based off of. Disney has definitely heard the feminist cry though, and tried to correct this in recent films, though it is clearly sometimes difficult. Rapunzel, as much as she tries to take care of herself can't, not because she is a woman, but because she's been locked in a tower for her whole life. Her dependence on a man, Flynn Rider, is not because she is following an anti-feminist princess set up, it's because she's been locked up for the past 15 years and doesn't know where to go or how to interact in the outside world. I think the same can be said about Anna from "Frozen." I've already heard some complaints about her quickly falling in love with Hans after just meeting him. I think in one sense, Disney is kind of poking fun at the princess convention, but at the same time she's had no contact with the outside world for most of her life, so she doesn't have the social skills to know if she is in love or not. I also find it strange when there is clearly a strong attempt to make the princess more feminist friendly, and there is still backlash about it. Take "The Princess and the Frog" for instance. The complaints there make absolutely no sense to me. Tiana held more than one job, while working hard to save the money to buy her restaurant and make her own dreams come true. Yes, she marries a prince and becomes a princess in the end, but how else was she supposed to become human again? She still defies Naveen's spoiled personality throughout the whole film to let her more determined and hardworking personality show through. I haven't heard many feminist complaints about Merida, and I hope I never do, because well, she's pretty much the most feminist princess out there so that would make no sense to me.
Okay, back on topic. Elsa and Anna... My personal opinion: Disney is testing the waters to see how they do being marketed on their own compared to how they thing they would do being marketed along with the other princesses. If they do better being marketed as part of "Frozen" rather than the princess collection, they will remain separate. If Disney's marketing committee thinks that they would sell more when combined in the collection, then that is what will happen. This is kind of a stretch, but remember when Disney got "Star Wars," and everyone was all antsy about whether or not Princess Leia would become a "Disney Princess" or not? She is a Disney princess, in the sense that she is a princess from a film franchise owned by the Disney company, but she is not part of the "Disney Princess" collection. My best guess would be that there would be more outrage than happiness if she was grouped with Belle and Cinderella, and her films have enough of a following and marketing strategy as it is that it wouldn't be worth it. I guess I just really don't understand what all the hoopla is about with the Disney princess stuff. Whenever a movie comes out that has princesses, it's one of the first topics that starts floating around, but it really doesn't make that much of a difference. For now, Disney has made no formal announcement about the fate of Elsa and Anna, thought the Wikipedia page for the film suggests that the two may become "Disney Princesses," whether that means part of the collection, or just the general term I'm not sure, and it's also Wikipedia so take it with a grain of salt. Call me crazy, but I don't care at all if the two characters are labeled "Disney Princesses" or not, I like the movie just the same.
Feel free to comment below.
facebook.com/bdicologero
instagram: bdicologero
No comments:
Post a Comment