New Disney Princesses

If it doesn't pertain to Adventures in Odyssey, you've stepped into the right place! Grab a chair, and talk about your favorite books, TV shows, join a debate, or just be random!
User avatar
Eleventh Doctor
Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
Posts: 4769
Joined: February 2013

Post

It doesn't have to be an either or situation, adoption of other cultures stories wouldn't mean the total abandonment of European fairy tales.
King of The Lands of Rhetoric, Lord Ruler of the Debate Vampires, and Duke of Quebec

"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
User avatar
TigerShadow
Mocha Jamocha
Posts: 2654
Joined: June 2014

Post

Besides, those stories could be told with minorities. Need I remind you of the hugely financially successful Aladdin, which has all the beautiful sparkles and Princess trappings and visibly Middle Eastern protagonists? You could have stories set in places like India or Arabia or Egypt, and maybe they wouldn't have traditional castles and huge ballgowns, but who's to say that they wouldn't still appeal to kids? There are still sparkles and the potential for lovely costumes and all the typical visual Disney tropes. And besides, Disney has been branching out from just adapting fairy tales for a long time, and many of those movies have been very successful and have become iconic, too—The Jungle Book, The Lion King, Aladdin, and Tarzan all come to mind.
Pound Foolish wrote:The difficulty being those are their stories whereas ours are already known and precious to us.
It's not like Disney adaptations are that faithful to the source material anyway—Frozen is barely anything like "The Snow Queen", and Tangled isn't that much like "Rapunzel". We can adapt other cultures' stories without a huge to-do.
it's not about 'deserve'. it's about what you believe. and i believe in love
User avatar
Miss Friendship
Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
Posts: 4824
Joined: February 2015
Location: Somewhere beyond you
Contact:

Post

I don't watch Disney, so my observation here isn't very important, but I should like to point out that Tiger is right about it being important to use other cultures as themes. If nothing else, Children need to know more about the world than just their cultures idea of a great story. Broadens their horizons, so to speak.

OK, that was completely unrelated, wasn't it?
~Lady Friendship Knight of the Order of Chrysostom in the Court of the Debate Vampires~
AKA Countess Concordia of the Chat, Regalia, and the Queen of Sarcasm

I am a personal quirk. --Adrian Dreamwalker
Pound Foolish
Coffee Biscotti
Posts: 3347
Joined: June 2012
Location: Kidsboro
Contact:

Post

Yes, Aladdin was told with minorities because Aladdin is by and about minorities, like all Arabian Nights. (Though how Arabian they are is up for debate, but accidentally or not they are thought of as such.) Aladdin lends more evidence to my point. It's a familiar, precious fairy tale. Not a fairy tale of the Grimm/Anderson genre, but a fairy tale.

Yes, Disney has made lots of wonderful and successful non-fairy tale movies and we are at the moment talking about Disney princess movies... which are fairy tales. And the fairy tales they've done with minorities have consistently flunked and the ones starring Caucasians have consistently hit the money. Moana may break the curse and then she may not. Frankly, it's surprising Disney is still trying. When it comes to giving minorities the spotlight in fairy tales audiences have failed to reward their efforts.

Keep in mind, the Disney Princess line is one of the biggest merchandizing Disney has. Heck, one of the biggest in America. It's easy for people to say they know how Disney should run their business. But Disney has made one of America's most valuable franchises doing it their way.

As for Frozen being almost its own story, yes, Frozen is the lone exception. It's too early to say if lightning will ever strike twice, but we'll see.

Back to what you said about there being lots of non-fairy tale Disney movies. The Disney Princess line is just that, the Disney princess line. We already know what it looks like, it's adaptions of fairy tales. So why does it have to change? Why can't they make other movies featuring minorities? As I write this, Disney's last animated film was Big Hero 6. It was a huge hit. It won the 2014 Oscar. It starred racial minorities. And it most definitely wasn't a princess movie.
“I absolutely demand of you and everyone I know that they be widely read in every [censored] field there is: in every religion and every art form and don’t tell me you haven’t got time! There’s plenty of time.”~ Ray Bradbury
User avatar
TigerShadow
Mocha Jamocha
Posts: 2654
Joined: June 2014

Post

Pound Foolish wrote:We already know what it looks like, it's adaptions of fairy tales.
So Pocahontas and Mulan, which are movies considered part of the Disney Princess line, are adaptations of fairy tales?
Pound Foolish wrote:that's what has brought in the Disney bucks. The ball gowns, the European castles, the magical sparkles.
Pound Foolish wrote:Aladdin lends more evidence to my point. It's a familiar, precious fairy tale. Not a fairy tale of the Grimm/Anderson genre, but a fairy tale.
So Aladdin, with its lack of ballgowns and European architecture, lends credence to your point that Disney's financially successful Princess films are the ones distinctly set in Europe?
Pound Foolish wrote:So why does it have to change? Why can't they make other movies featuring minorities?
Interesting. You just said that the Disney Princess line is one of Disney's most prominent franchises, and I'm guessing that your reasoning for this is its appeal to girls, yes? Tell me—what do you think the psychological impact would be on you if you were, say, a seven-year-old Latina girl and all you could see in merchandising specifically aimed for you was white girls (white girls who tend to have the exact same facial features, no less, though that's another rant for another day) and maybe one or two minorities who aren't even part of your ethnic group? That says that there's only one way to appeal to girls, one idea of beauty, one idea of being a Princess. That non-white girls can't be princesses, that non-white girls don't sell. There are stores that can't keep Tiana-related merchandise on the shelves and are stuck with the white girls, and you're saying that there's no market for non-white Princesses? You would prefer that non-white girls be excluded from representation?

Other non-European cultures have fairy tales that can be adapted with all of the pretty shiny things to catch a kid's eye and an intriguing story and mythos. America is supposed to be a melting pot, and people are supposed to at least have some idea that cultures exist besides that of the West. Why must Disney Princesses be immune to that standard? Why shouldn't we ask for Disney Princesses that represent all cultures, not just Europeans?

(Re: the financial aspect—The Princess and the Frog was released in close proximity to Avatar and Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel, and its earnings still exceeded its budget (its budget was $105 million and its worldwide gross was $267,045,765 (Source)), just not as much as Disney would have liked. And as far as I can tell, that only seemed to demonstrate to Disney that 2D animation wasn't going to be a hit, not that minorities in fairy tales were a financial killer.)
it's not about 'deserve'. it's about what you believe. and i believe in love
Pound Foolish
Coffee Biscotti
Posts: 3347
Joined: June 2012
Location: Kidsboro
Contact:

Post

TigerShadow wrote:So Pocahontas and Mulan, which are movies considered part of the Disney Princess line, are adaptations of fairy tales?
Sorry, I should've specified I meant films originally intended to be Disney Princess films, rather than later tagged that for the sake of merchandising. So long as we're counting in Pocahontas though, that's yet another minority princess box office fail.
TigerShadow wrote:So Aladdin, with its lack of ballgowns and European architecture, lends credence to your point that Disney's financially successful Princess films are the ones distinctly set in Europe?
Not that point, no. To be clear, I said earlier that adaptions tend to sell best if they're familiar. We're seeing that more than ever with all the reboots and such. Like I said, Disney tends to adapt stories that are already precious to us, like Aladdin. That said, yes. Aladdin is the lone exception to the the signature European setting alive with fairies and castles.
TigerShadow wrote:Tell me—what do you think the psychological impact would be on you if you were, say, a seven-year-old Latina girl and all you could see in merchandising specifically aimed for you was white girls (white girls who tend to have the exact same facial features, no less, though that's another rant for another day) and maybe one or two minorities who aren't even part of your ethnic group?
First off, I assume you mean all Disney merchandise? There is merchandise aimed at Latinas after all. From dolls to magazines to makeup. Apart from that them, you even see pretty little Latinas on billboards and in adds. (They are irresistibly cute after all.)

That said, I don't know how I'd feel because I'm not seven and I'm not Latina and so far as I know I'm not a girl. However, is there any stats or studies on the impacts of merchandising and such on minority girls? If not, then you're just relying "common wisdom" (a.k.a. stereotyping.) Why would females be more apt to having their self image manipulated by what companies decide to put on their T shirts than boys? You don't hear people wringing their hands because Latino boys will feel their unattractive compared to Disney Princes.

Anyhow, that's not the point I'm trying to make. The point is Disney is a business. A business that only can only make so many movies a year and so yearly space is terribly important. Every movie means they either take a huge step forward, enabling them to create even higher quality film, or backward. Disney employs millions of people and when movies like The Princess and the Frog fail it means they have to cut down on such things. Specifically, it eventually meant closing their entire 2D animation studio. Leaving legendary Disney animators unemployed, including animators that have been with Mickey working on creations like Beauty and the Beast , Aladdin (such as Eric Goldberg, animator of the Genie's energy) and the Littler Mermaid. When a film fails, there are consequences.

Like you said, Frog didn't bomb. It is always regarded as failing, however. In the movie business, you need a huge return on your investment at the box office. Especially if it's one of your most valuable franchises that you rely hugely on. Dream Works in huge trouble because of movies with return's like Frog's. Oh and since you bring up Annie, that's another minority family film with meh box office return. Oh, and Turbo, prominently featuring a Mexican, started Dreamworks' disasterous financial downward spiral that recently culminated in Home, another film prominently featuring a minority and another financial disaster pushing Dreamworks into a super bad spot. Not saying minorities are the cause of these movies failure. Just saying the numbers are not encouraging. You don't look at failed films and say, "Hey, we should do more of this!"

Besides, how would this even work? Again, the films starring minorities were only later labeled princess films. Would it make sense to have a modern day film starring a Latina and say right from the get-go, "This is a princess movie!"? Personally, I prefer actual princess movies that are set at the right time. A Mexican princess makes no sense because the term princess, especially a traditional fairy tale princess, has its roots in Medieval before Mexico existed! I know you'll try to get around that, but frankly, it seems absurd you'll even try. "Oh, Mexicans didn't exist in fairy tale times. Details, details."

Minorities may or may not care about which girls white businessmen put on T shirts. But they don't seem to show much at the minority family film box office. And as a business, Disney needs to keep that in mind.
Last edited by Pound Foolish on Mon Jul 06, 2015 1:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
“I absolutely demand of you and everyone I know that they be widely read in every [censored] field there is: in every religion and every art form and don’t tell me you haven’t got time! There’s plenty of time.”~ Ray Bradbury
User avatar
Eleventh Doctor
Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
Posts: 4769
Joined: February 2013

Post

Here you go, found a study by a university professor. Took me two minutes. http://dialogues.rutgers.edu/all-journa ... mages/file

“Children and adolescents who do not see characters “like themselves” on television are learning a fundamental lesson about their group’s importance in society…a loud and clear message that they do not count for very much in society”
King of The Lands of Rhetoric, Lord Ruler of the Debate Vampires, and Duke of Quebec

"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
Pound Foolish
Coffee Biscotti
Posts: 3347
Joined: June 2012
Location: Kidsboro
Contact:

Post

Television? We're talking tv now? I don't know how many TV shows there are with Mexican characters but that's beside the point. I'll take a look at the article anyhoo I guess. Thanks.

EDIT: okay, so far I've barely skimmed the article but this lady does not seem pro-princess. "Princess Jasmine
and Mulan terminate their image of assertiveness and resilience by marrying a prominent and wealthy male character, rather than exerting their independence and seeking an alternative to marriage." Yeesh, Yeah, how dare they get married. Marriage clearly shows Mulan is wimpy. Yeah, this woman has an agenda here. Just sayin.'
Last edited by Pound Foolish on Mon Jul 06, 2015 12:16 am, edited 2 times in total.
“I absolutely demand of you and everyone I know that they be widely read in every [censored] field there is: in every religion and every art form and don’t tell me you haven’t got time! There’s plenty of time.”~ Ray Bradbury
User avatar
Eleventh Doctor
Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
Posts: 4769
Joined: February 2013

Post

Television can be understood in the context of this paper to include media in a movie theater or online, many children also watch the Disney movies on DVD or VHS on the television. The point is that if you are a minority and you do not see characters like you then you will interpret that as saying you are not important.

Edit: And you are agenda free?
King of The Lands of Rhetoric, Lord Ruler of the Debate Vampires, and Duke of Quebec

"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
User avatar
TigerShadow
Mocha Jamocha
Posts: 2654
Joined: June 2014

Post

Pound Foolish wrote:First off, I assume you mean all Disney merchandise?
No, I do not. Read the post again:
TigerShadow wrote:Interesting. You just said that the Disney Princess line is one of Disney's most prominent franchises, and I'm guessing that your reasoning for this is its appeal to girls, yes?
Pound Foolish wrote:Why would females be more apt to having their self image manipulated by what companies decide to put on their T shirts than boys? You don't hear people wringing their hands because Latino boys will feel their unattractive compared to Disney Princes.
They are important, too, and people should focus on representation for minority boys. But here I thought we were talking about Disney Princesses - as in, a line designed to appeal to girls, not boys.
Pound Foolish wrote:Would it make sense to have a modern day film starring a Latina and say right from the get-go, "This is a princess movie!"? Personally, I prefer actual princess movies that are set at the right time. A Mexican princess makes no sense because the term princess, especially a traditional fairy tale princess, has its roots in Medieval before Mexico existed! I know you'll try to get around that, but frankly, it seems absurd you'll even try.
Mulan and Pocahontas weren't Princesses, and they are official members of the line-up. You don't have to have the official Medieval Royal System in place; if the female protagonist in question is the progeny of the cultural equivalent of a ruler, it seems reasonable to me to consider that protagonist a Disney Princess, whether or not they are Technically A Princess.

And do you seriously think that a non-European-set film must be modern-day in order to make the female protagonist a princess, like these places somehow didn't have their own form of royalty and nobility? These places all have their own rich cultures and, yes, fairy tales. Medieval Europe does not have a monopoly on these stories. Here are some examples:

The Gypsy Queen (Mexican)

The Bear Prince (Mexican)

The Prince and His Three Fates (Egyptian)

Rhodopis (Egyptian)

The Tale of the Bamboo Cutter (Japanese)

How the Raja's Son Won the Princess Labam (Indian)

The Ivory City and Its Fairy Princess (Indian)
Pound Foolish wrote:The point is Disney is a business. A business that only can only make so many movies a year and so yearly space is terribly important. Every movie means they either take a huge step forward, enabling them to create even higher quality film, or backward.
Exactly. Disney didn't become one of the biggest entertainment moguls in the world by playing it safe and sticking to what sells. They took risks, which is a huge part of business and entrepreneurship.
Pound Foolish wrote:Oh and since you bring up Annie,
Which I didn't.
Pound Foolish wrote:Oh, and Turbo, prominently featuring a Mexican, started Dreamworks' disasterous financial downward spiral that recently culminated in Home, another film prominently featuring a minority and another financial disaster pushing Dreamworks into a super bad spot.
How to Train Your Dragon 2, which happens to be an excellent movie, also didn't perform as well at the box office as it should have, and it had an all-white (human) cast. Are you really sure that it's not the company? DreamWorks doesn't have quite the reputation that Disney does. For one thing, it hasn't been around nearly as long, and for another, DreamWorks specialized in suspicious look-alikes of Disney films for awhile there (Shark Tale and The Ant Bully seem suspiciously similar in premise and setting to Finding Nemo and A Bug's Life) and I think has some association with juvenile, cringe-worthy humor that adults tend to regard as low-brow. Brand names and reputation are powerful.

Weren't you the one talking about Big Hero 6 awhile ago? That film, which had two half-white half-Japanese boys, a black man, a Latina woman, a Korean woman, and a white man in its core cast, made $652,127,828 at the box office, a little under four times its budget. Yeah, films with minority protagonists are so unsuccessful. There's so much more that goes into whether or not a film is successful than whether it prominently features minorities.

Meanwhile, Eleventh has been kind enough to provide a link to a study. I will post a link to an LA Times article along similar lines: USC study: Minorities still under-represented in popular films However, I think that this quote gets to the core of the issue at hand:
"At the core, this is a visibility issue," said Katherine Pieper, research scientist at Annenberg's Media, Diversity & Social Change Initiative. "Who we see in film sends a powerful message about who is important and whose stories are valuable, both to international audiences and to younger viewers in our own country.... Are films communicating to audiences that only certain stories are worth telling?"
In a way, it's the same with merchandising, although it's not just that - it's the history of the Disney Princess line as a whole. When all Disney is producing is movies about white people and European cultures, they are, in a subtle way, sending a message that those are the stories that are worth telling and the cultures that are worth celebrating. How can that sit right with you?
Pound Foolish wrote:But they don't seem to show much at the minority family film box office.
Really? According to the MPAA's market statistics from 2014, minority groups in the combined US/Canada population made up, in total, 44% of moviegoers, with Hispanics at 25%, African-Americans at 10%, and Asians/Other at 9%. Considering that 229.7 million people in the U.S. and Canada went to the movies last year, those percentages that don't look like much actually do matter. Granted, that doesn't discuss family films, but it's still something to consider.

I guess what I'm not really getting, on a personal level, is why you are so militantly resistant to minority representation in Princess films. Disney has already shown itself to be ready and willing to break the traditional fairy tale princess ideal, starting with Ariel (it was a start; she may be a bit whiny, but at least she had a coherent goal and some interests), continuing with Jasmine (minority and a woman who wants to see what life is like beyond the palace walls, not to mention throwing her weight around when she needs to), moving on with Mulan (only Disney Princess with a body count), then to Tiana (a black woman who owns a highly successful restaurant in 1920's New Orleans, with a firm belief in hard work and a tangible goal that she accomplished primarily through working to boot), then to Rapunzel (seriously, can you see Cinderella smacking people with a frying pan and telling off the Wicked Stepmother?), and now to Anna (quirky, awkward ball of energy who set out on a goal and was determined to accomplish it).

Disney has a history of taking steps away from tradition, and I don't see why it's a huge problem for them to do it now. Both white and non-white people need minority representation in media - white people to see that there is a world beyond them, and non-white people to see people like them being treated as heroes and heroines, princes and princesses.
it's not about 'deserve'. it's about what you believe. and i believe in love
User avatar
shnoodlec.
Fudge Marble
Posts: 884
Joined: August 2012
Location: cyberspace

Post

Um. Hi. Just gonna say, Sofia the First is Latina.
You guys were talking about no Latina princess representation in movies and TV. Sofia is a princess made by Disney.
Last edited by shnoodlec. on Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
High wellborn Lady shnoodlec Knight of the Order of Augustine, formally known as Queen of the Monkeys. Q&A thread HERE. "SHNOOD IS THE OLDBIE NEWBIE AND SHE IS THE ONLY ONE WHO GETS THAT TITLE" - Belle
User avatar
TigerShadow
Mocha Jamocha
Posts: 2654
Joined: June 2014

Post

But Sofia isn't an official part of the line-up. She doesn't have an actual theatrically-released movie considered part of Disney's animated canon, nor has she been inducted into the Disney Princesses officially. She isn't used in merchandising except for that of her own show. We are discussing whether or not the official Disney Princess line should have more diversity in it, with films adapting stories from other non-European cultures, the latter of which Sofia is not. Why do you think I haven't brought up Eilonwy, Esmeralda, or Megara? Yes, of course Sofia is an important stride in the realm of Latina representation, but as far as the actual Disney Princesses are concerned, she doesn't fit the bill.
it's not about 'deserve'. it's about what you believe. and i believe in love
User avatar
aragtaghooligan
Fudge Marble
Posts: 870
Joined: May 2015
Location: The Great White North

Post

I have come to this conversation late but allow me to still say a few things. First, from a literary view point (I have an Bachelors of Art degree in English Literature) I don understand Pound Foolish's emphasis on the distinction between fairy tales and folk tales. Yes they are different, but not extremely so. In my class they were taught together and I have a bunch of both in the same collection. Fairy Tales are basically just European Folk Tales. Yes the Disney Princess adaptions have a special glamour all their own, but we have shown with Aladdin (which was based of a story not Grimm or Andersen) that there can be an appeal to other cultures as well. My big question is this: should money be Disney's number one concern or should we ask Disney to set aside the quest for another crazy Frozen success and focus on telling an ethical story that will help young girls? This is not a study, it is anecdotal evidence, but when I took a children's literature class a few years ago my seminar was all girls and we got into a conversation bout how many of them loved Belle best because she was the only princess with brown hair (This was before Anna/ Frozen came out). Here were a bunch of white girls who by all means should be able to relate to all the white princesses and yet they felt they couldn't be a princess and couldn't feel good about themselves for something as simple as the colour of their hair. I can only imagine how a girl would feel if it was more than just their hair that didn't fit.

One more thing though, I want more than just multi cultural princesses and a rendering of other cultures' folk tales. I want to see a continuation of spunky feminist characters, but most importantly I want more stories like Frozen. I ADORE Frozen. It is the first Disney Princess movie I really liked. I love its focus on sacrificial love rather than romance. I want to make sure we don't tell girls all they need is a prince to rescue them.
Image
Pound Foolish
Coffee Biscotti
Posts: 3347
Joined: June 2012
Location: Kidsboro
Contact:

Post

The first example of a Mexican fold tale, Tiger, could only be described as: what the heck? A prince gets a naked woman popped out of an orange to agree to be his wife and then he considers taking a gypsy's clothes away (oh, very nice) for the naked fiancee but they're too dirty so he leaves to get some and then the gypsy takes off all her clothes and then marries the prince instead when he comes back and then his real fiancee turns up and he burns the gypsy, his wife, at the stake. What the heck!?

The second one was lovely. At first it followed the story of East of Sun and West of Moon exactly, then it turned into Jack and the Bean stalk during the trip to the moon for some reason, with nothing much to add of its own. (Except the wife binds and gags the bear. Again, what the heck?) The alternate ending was fun, though. Maybe it's not better than the West of Moon, but it's as good. Maybe possibly Disney could adapt it. But then what? In practice, suppose a big American company adapted a cultural tale from what is arguably the most politically controversial minority at the moment. And they made it a princess film, with the traditional cute side kicks and catchy Disney tunes and exploited the story with endless merchandise. Would people be pleased or furious?
TigerShadow wrote:I guess what I'm not really getting, on a personal level, is why you are so militantly resistant to minority representation in Princess films.
I've said twice before I am heartily in favor of a
The first example of a Mexican fold tale, Tiger, could only be described as: what the heck? A prince gets a naked woman popped out of an orange to agree to be his wife and then he considers taking a gypsy's clothes away (oh, very nice) for the naked fiancee but they're too dirty so he leaves to get some and then the gypsy takes off all her clothes and then marries the prince instead when he comes back and then his real fiancee turns up and he burns the gypsy, his wife, at the stake. What the heck!?

The second one was lovely. At first it followed the story of East of Sun and West of Moon exactly, then it turned into Jack and the Bean stalk during the trip to the moon for some reason, with nothing much to add of its own. (Except the wife binds and gags the bear. Again, what the heck?) The alternate ending was fun, though. Maybe it's not better than the West of Moon, but it's as good. Maybe possibly Disney could adapt it. But then what? In practice, suppose a big American company adapted a cultural tale from what is arguably the most politically controversial minority at the moment. And they made it a princess film, with the traditional cute side kicks and catchy Disney tunes and exploited the story with endless merchandise. Would people be pleased or furious?

Also, according the article you posted, 76% of speaking roles in film are white. That is astonishing, who knew we were doing so well. Film roles are only a handful of percentages away from being proportionate to the actual population! That's very encouraging. It menas we still have catching up. And it doesn't take into account how many minorities have major roles or positive roles just speaking ones. Still, we seem to be headed the right way.

I've said twice before I am heartily in favor of Moana, who is a minority princess:
TigerShadow wrote:I guess what I'm not really getting, on a personal level, is why you are so militantly resistant to minority representation in Princess films.
To be clear, what's tiresome is when people insist minorities are something Disney should do. Which brings us to Hooligan:
aragtaghooligan wrote:My big question is this: should money be Disney's number one concern or should we ask Disney to set aside the quest for another crazy Frozen success and focus on telling an ethical story that will help young girls?
That is the question at the heart of this, thank you Hooley. And thank you for clarifying the difference between a folk and a fairy tale as well.

Here's the thing. It's wonderful when Disney does make a minority princess film. There's no reason to be anything but happy and applaud the bold move.

But it's not something Disney should do. They are not obliged to. They are a company. And to answer your question, Hooley, Disney Studios' prerogative as a business is to make money. But you can't really put making money ahead of making money because that comes to the same thing. On the other hand, Disney can't put pleasing people and the message etc. too far ahead of money because the quality of the films depends on their success. In other words, failed films, even ones with the best intent like Pocahontas, can hurt the company in the long run.

Disney is a company, with budgets and employees. And companies cannot be morally or civilly obliged to produce certain products. That is the function of a charity.

In other words, when Disney does take a big risk to put minorities out there, they deserve nothing but applause. But people can't expect them and Disney gets far too much flack when they don't.

Tiger, you earlier pointed out that Disney is founded on risks. It is. Big Hero 6 was a risk. It was an American 3D animated anime. It was a never before done blending of anime, Disney and Marvel. It was based on an unknown comic series. That was a risk. There was no knowing it turned out, they could only put all the enthusiasm they could into it.

With minority princesses, they already know how it may turn out. Rather than going into uncertain waters, it's more like coming back to a crocodile to be bitten again. Some people say they want minority princesses, but they don't go see them. Whiny blog posts don't equal movie bucks.

It's just so clear minorities aren't needed for successful films. Frozen is the most successful animated film of all time. It blew the previous Disney record holder and its racially diverse voice over cast, The Lion King, out of Africa. Not only did Frozen have no minorities either animated or voicing major characters. (In fact, just the opposite, it is perhaps the first Disney film to have a character who is truly white, namely Olaf.)

Which, again, they're doing. And which, again, is great.

To the heart of this though...

The Disney fairy tale shouldn't have to change so much.

That article Eleventh Dr. posted is sickening and refelcts the mindsets of too many people. People like that professor don't seem to like marriage and traditionally kind and sweet women and all the things Disney princesses stand for. She thinks she's taking a stand for women by slandering some of the strongest women who ever... well never lived because they didn't exist but they rock.

Snow White was enslaved by her stepmother right after her father died. Lesser girls would psychologically scarred, she kept dreaming and hoping. And then when the stepmother tried to murder her she did the sensible thing, she ran for it. But then she built a life for herself from scratch. She picked herself right up where, again, so many grown men would be psychologically shaken to bits.

Cinderella went through much the same motions. Yet through it all, she manages to take care of a family of birds and talking mice. And she plainly more or less the adoptive mother to this crew. She not only feeds and clothes them, heck, she regularly protects them from death. She remains strong and happy even among monsters. We see what happens when she steps even a little out of line. They attack her and rip apart her clothes and it's the nearest thing to a rape in a Disney movie.

Ariel longs to leave her home and be an explorer. When she meets her true love, she tosses aside her societal conventions and starts a new life on a dime. No waiting for men to make the first move for her. What's more, at the end of the day, her prince can't save her. She rescues him.

It's enjoy princesses that are more spunky or flawed. I love Rapunzel, Anna and Elsa too. But they're more your standard relatable character.

The Disney princesses are so much more. They're goals to strive for. They're not who you are, they're who you hope to be.

Adorkable Anna is fine. But they don't need to be all flawed or spunky.

And what's wrong with them being white? What gets me is that people seem to resent them for being popular and being white. What's wrong with being white? I know, we're all white ourselves, but still, it seems silly to blame a line of white fairy tale princesses for being mostly white fairy tale princesses. That's what you would expect it to be mainly made up of, isn't it?
“I absolutely demand of you and everyone I know that they be widely read in every [censored] field there is: in every religion and every art form and don’t tell me you haven’t got time! There’s plenty of time.”~ Ray Bradbury
User avatar
TigerShadow
Mocha Jamocha
Posts: 2654
Joined: June 2014

Post

Pound Foolish wrote:The first example of a Mexican fold tale, Tiger, could only be described as: what the heck? A prince gets a naked woman popped out of an orange to agree to be his wife and then he considers taking a gypsy's clothes away (oh, very nice) for the naked fiancee but they're too dirty so he leaves to get some and then the gypsy takes off all her clothes and then marries the prince instead when he comes back and then his real fiancee turns up and he burns the gypsy, his wife, at the stake. What the heck!?

The second one was lovely. At first it followed the story of East of Sun and West of Moon exactly, then it turned into Jack and the Bean stalk during the trip to the moon for some reason, with nothing much to add of its own. (Except the wife binds and gags the bear. Again, what the heck?) The alternate ending was fun, though. Maybe it's not better than the West of Moon, but it's as good. Maybe possibly Disney could adapt it. But then what? In practice, suppose a big American company adapted a cultural tale from what is arguably the most politically controversial minority at the moment.
European folk tales and fairy tales are messed up and weird, too, and they were adapted into Disney Princess films.
Pound Foolish wrote:And they made it a princess film, with the traditional cute side kicks and catchy Disney tunes and exploited the story with endless merchandise. Would people be pleased or furious?
Depends on what people you're talking about and how well Disney showed that they respected the culture.
Pound Foolish wrote:Also, according the article you posted, 76% of speaking roles in film are white. That is astonishing, who knew we were doing so well. Film roles are only a handful of percentages away from being proportionate to the actual population! That's very encouraging. It menas we still have catching up. And it doesn't take into account how many minorities have major roles or positive roles just speaking ones. Still, we seem to be headed the right way.
Yes, we're making progress, but it's not enough.
Pound Foolish wrote:
TigerShadow wrote:I guess what I'm not really getting, on a personal level, is why you are so militantly resistant to minority representation in Princess films.
To be clear, what's tiresome is when people insist minorities are something Disney should do.
This thread was centered around Disney Princesses and what we wanted to see added to the lineup, which included broader representation of ethnic minorities, and you came charging in here declaring that you were about to "explode" at the suggestion of such a thing. What did you think the response would be?
Pound Foolish wrote:With minority princesses, they already know how it may turn out. Rather than going into uncertain waters, it's more like coming back to a crocodile to be bitten again. Some people say they want minority princesses, but they don't go see them.
They've had some hits and some misses. However, as I said before, their most recent film starring minorities was a huge hit. Yes, BH6 is the furthest thing from a Princess film, but it's an indicator that films with minorities in lead roles can be huge hits.
Pound Foolish wrote:It's just so clear minorities aren't needed for successful films. Frozen is the most successful animated film of all time. It blew the previous Disney record holder and its racially diverse voice over cast, The Lion King, out of Africa.
Oh? Inflation means nothing? The Lion King, released in 1994, made approximately $987.5 million worldwide on its first release, while Frozen made about $1.279 billion in 2014 dollars. The Lion King made over $1.55 billion in 2014 dollars, and while Frozen may have octupled its budget, Lion King multiplied its budget almost twenty-two fold. The Lion King made more for its day than Frozen did, and people still flocked to theaters to see it when it was re-released in 2002 and in 2011. Frozen is not the most successful animated movie of all time; The Lion King still holds that position, and rightfully so. Perhaps Disney doesn't need minorities, racial diversity, and multiculturalism to be successful, but there's no denying that it's happened and can happen again.
Pound Foolish wrote:The Disney fairy tale shouldn't have to change so much.
But as I pointed out in my earlier post, it already has. Disney Princesses have, from the beginning, reflected the attitudes about how women were to behave in the societies in which they were produced. You make an excellent point about the Original Three, but those movies weren't made in a vacuum. Those princesses were soft, sweet, gentle, and domestic largely because that was how the average woman was supposed to act in the '30s and '50s.

By the '80s and '90s, however, which is when five of the eight original Disney Princesses emerged, attitudes and expectations had changed. Ariel was Fair for Her Day, but a princess with a goal and a personality beyond the Princess Classic was something new and interesting; it's part of the reason why The Little Mermaid is considered the start of the Disney Renaissance. Belle is considered strong even now, with her love of books in a society that tells her to remain ignorant, her refusal to marry a man who treats her like an object, and her ability to stand up for herself and refuse to sit there and take the Beast's rudeness. Jasmine sneaks out of the palace she feels trapped in, uses her status as Princess to her advantage, and scares off suitors who won't take "no" for an answer with her pet tiger. Pocahontas did her level best to stop a war and basically succeeded. Mulan is the only Princess with a body count who also fought against a Hun leader in single combat and won. Tiana is a black woman in New Orleans who worked two jobs for years to save up to buy a sugar mill and turn it into a hugely successful restaurant. Rapunzel slapped people around with a frying pan, shouted at huge menacing thugs to try to act like decent people, and stood up to the woman who had abused her for years. Merida was the first Princess who didn't have a love interest by movie's end, and in fact much of her story revolves around her refusal to get married.

I definitely agree that Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora are vastly underrated for what they go through, but that kind of misses the point of what Eleventh and I are trying to communicate. The Disney Princesses have evolved considerably even since the beginning of the Renaissance, never mind from the premiere of Snow White. They can evolve further; Disney just has to do some better card-playing.
Pound Foolish wrote:And what's wrong with them being white? What gets me is that people seem to resent them for being popular and being white. What's wrong with being white?
We've explained what's wrong with the fact that out of thirteen princesses, nine of them are white and four of them are individual racial minorities. There is nothing wrong with being white in and of itself; what's wrong is that, simply put, we have our white princesses. White girls are shown all the time that they can be Princesses of all sorts—spunky, quiet, strong, intelligent, and romantic. What are non-white girls shown? Some of them get one princess—vague Middle-Eastern, African-American, Chinese, and Native American. Some more will get a Polynesian girl. And yeah, it's awesome that Moana is Polynesian, and you can bet your bottom dollar that unless something completely bizarre happens—like, "me suddenly being taken off to Hogwarts to study magic" bizarre—I'll be going to see it.

But that's not enough. Girls from all racial backgrounds—and here we are discussing girls because that's who the Disney Princesses are primarily marketed to—be they black, Middle-Eastern, Polynesian, Latina, East Asian, South Asian, and yes, white, as well as other races besides, need to be told that they can be Princesses. That they, too, can strive for that ideal, that people who are like them can strive for that ideal, can fight for themselves and win.

You were given that article by Eleventh with specific reference to its discussion on the importance of portrayals of different ethnic identities and cultures to show young girls that they, too, have value and importance, no matter what their background is, and multiple people are referenced in that article as well as within this discussion who state that seeing someone like oneself, including in terms of physical appearance, is important in positive psychological development, and all you seem to have taken away from it is its feminist agenda. I agree, there are some problems with its portrayal of women who have love interests (Tiana's accomplishments are not denegrated just because she married Naveen), but you failed to address that article in the context in which it was brought up in this discussion.

Now, as the the general matter of moneymaking versus ethics, I'm having a hard time buying the idea that you seem to be propogating, that we shouldn't call Disney out for these kinds of problems and they shouldn't be told how to run their business. If we lived in a world where all that mattered was making money, you'd be absolutely right—but we don't.

Disney is a huge part of childrens' development. Whether by home viewing or the big screen, the vast majority of children who have the luxury of being able to watch movies are exposed to Disney, and children and young adolescents (people in general, but especially at those stages) are very impressionable, and their attitudes and thought processes are formed, in part, by what they're exposed to at a young age. This means that Disney does, to a certain degree, have a certain moral obligation beyond making money—they make their money by producing things designed to appeal to children (or the child within), which means that they need to tell the stories that they tell responsibly. The messages that they convey through film are powerful, and those messages aren't just conveyed by dialogue—when you're working with visual storytelling, especially in a medium as intentional as animation, the color palettes, the architecture, the cinematography, and yes, the racial background and designs of the characters all convey something, and what you don't show is just as important as what you show.

So what does it say when, over and over again, girls who are allowed to be Princesses are white and the stories that are adapted are all European in origin? When only four non-white girls are represented in the Princess line-up, and that's not even one Princess for every basic ethnic group? It says that their stories aren't important enough, that they aren't important enough to be shown onscreen.

Even the Bible tells us to be careful about what we out into our minds, because what we expose ourselves to affects our ways of thinking. I'm not about to suggest that Disney is a company that consistently promotes Biblical values, but that verse does speak to the importance of what we consume, because what we see—and what we don't see—affects how we think. And Disney is producing media that affects how children think. No, most children aren't sitting permanently glued in front of their TV screens watching Disney film after Disney film, but that doesn't minimize the major role that Disney films and all kinds of other media play in children's growth and development. For that alone, I think that it's perfectly reasonable to hold Disney to a higher standard rather than hide behind the fact that it's a business. Being a business doesn't absolve a company from ethical practices.
it's not about 'deserve'. it's about what you believe. and i believe in love
User avatar
Smaug
Chocolate Chip
Posts: 31
Joined: June 2015

Post

This is an interesting discussion. I'd just like to pop my head in here, though, and point something out. A lot of you are saying that Disney should adopt stories from cultures outside of Europe, and that would indeed be very wonderful, as it would be an opportunity to introduce diversity of cultures and traditions and ethnicities in their film franchises. But, in Disney's defense, I figured the appeal of the stories already produced is that they are familiar to us, they're the stories that we were raised on when we were children ("we" being more the generation or two above me, actually :p ). And then these well known stories have been further adapted to make them more relatable to the majority of the target audience. Which is (mostly white) American children. Because, let's face it, while the stories may have been taken from European fairy-tales, (and, as far as I know, it's just Western Europe we're talking about), the settings and characters have been tweaked out of a lot of their original culture and authenticity.

Of course, now that Disney is such a wealthy company, they certainly can afford to tailor stories to minority demographics in their own country, and maybe even branch out to other cultures and traditions around the world. I would really like this. As long as they do a better job of staying true to those cultures, and not stray into the territory of horrible stereotyping.
Pound Foolish
Coffee Biscotti
Posts: 3347
Joined: June 2012
Location: Kidsboro
Contact:

Post

TigerShadow wrote:European folk tales and fairy tales are messed up and weird, too, and they were adapted into Disney Princess films
Debatable. In any case, they don't involve nude trophy wives.
TigerShadow wrote:Depends on what people you're talking about and how well Disney showed that they respected the culture. (Seriously, you don't burn your wife at the stake...!) One thing that makes a fairy tale so special is that it's a treasure. It's been around for centureis because it's good. They were around for ages before Perrault adapted them at the beginning of the 16th century. That story may well not endure as long.
If by respect you mean accuracy, keep in mind that while Aladdin and its Disneyfied Arabia was a hit and even a spawned a TV show set in that version of Arabia, it was very different from the actual Arabia. (The less successful Mulan is somewhat more accurate, Pocahantas arguably not so much.) An accurate portrayal could still work! Point being though, once again, the record does not at all show that your type of Disney film would be a hit.
TigerShadow wrote:This thread was centered around Disney Princesses and what we wanted to see added to the lineup, which included broader representation of ethnic minorities, and you came charging in here declaring that you were about to "explode" at the suggestion of such a thing. What did you think the response would be?
Point taken. The fact remains it has been clear from the start I am delighted with Moana. Thank you for pointing out though. Are we cleared up or no?

I know I'm fiery about things but especially Disney which gets too much abuse lately
TigerShadow wrote:Yes, BH6 is the furthest thing from a Princess film, but it's an indicator that films with minorities in lead roles can be huge hits.
It is the only noteworthy indication in recent years, yes. (Thank goodness there is at least that one.)
TigerShadow wrote:Oh? Inflation means nothing? The Lion King, released in 1994, made approximately $987.5 million worldwide on its first release, while Frozen made about $1.279 billion in 2014 dollars. The Lion King made over $1.55 billion in 2014 dollars, and while Frozen may have octupled its budget, Lion King multiplied its budget almost twenty-two fold.
Oh boy, never thought I'd see myself get into this discussion. And I refuse to now. Even allowing for inflation, Frozen still made more at the Box Office than Lion King. Heck, it's the fifth most earning film of all time. Let it go, Lion King fans.
TigerShadow wrote:But as I pointed out in my earlier post, it already has.
Precisely. There are those that wish Disney Princesseswould change rather less. Again, Anna, Elsa and Jasmine are not necessarily a problem. The problem would come if there ceases to be anything but Annas, Elsas and Jasmines.
TigerShadow wrote:But that's not enough. Girls from all racial backgrounds—and here we are discussing girls because that's who the Disney Princesses are primarily marketed to—be they black, Middle-Eastern, Polynesian, Latina, East Asian, South Asian, and yes, white, as well as other races besides, need to be told that they can be Princesses. That they, too, can strive for that ideal, that people who are like them can strive for that ideal, can fight for themselves and win.
But do minorities really limit themselves that way? Do they truly get reassurance they are attractive and capable of greatness mainly from portrayals of their race? Or can they identify just as much with members of other races? It all depends on how much power a story truly has. Can a story of strong, beautiful women reach only those of their race, or girls of any race?

So far, you haven't supplied any evidence that way. Asked for a study on how the lack of merchandising affects minorities, you supplied a study saying there is a lack films with minorities. Um, already granted. Still waiting for the study on how, if at all, lack of Disney Princess minorities affect girls. (Maybe it does. Entirely possible. But so far all we seem to have are assumptions. Keep in mind, latinas are featured in merchandising and TV with growing rapidity. You're assuming this one line, purely because it's popular, somehow undoes that on some level.)

As for the Good Doctor, the paper he provided was incensing. As the majority of it is what is known as bunk, that doesn't make one inclined to believe this hopelessly faulty opinion piece. (Which includes no studies among its sources.) It may be right, it may well be somewhat wrong. Rotten stodgy professor sitting on your comfy IKEA chair you put together without the instruction to make yourself feel smart you slanderer of my princess girls...
TigerShadow wrote:This means that Disney does, to a certain degree, have a certain moral obligation beyond making money—they make their money by producing things designed to appeal to children (or the child within), which means that they need to tell the stories that they tell responsibly.
Absolutely true. And Disney does a good job of that, especially compared to a lot of movies from other studios, yes?

Now here's the thing. My dad is a contractor. He helps people remodel their houses. By doing so, he helps make his clients home beautiful. Now, many people are in poverty and can't afford good houses and some don't really have a house at all. Obviously, they have a greater need for help then the mainly white people he builds houses for. His clients already have good homes, he is simply helping further the gap between the rich and the poor in that way. Should he terminate his business and dedicate himself to building houses for poor people rather than feed his family?

Not a parallel case, but you get the point. A great need for something does not necessarily mean the providers of that something are responsible for delivering that something to those who require it. Disney makes it posssible for millions of artists to feed their families. (Many of whom are on the street thanks to Frog.What makes Disney responsible in this case? Why are they obliged to make a product that will likely fail?

So, here's what we have so far:

A. The Disney Princess line is primarily a line of fairy tales not folk tales. All the more successful princesses are from fairy tales.

B. Your claim rests on thinking young minority self worth is significantly tied to the Princess line. You've yet to really prove that.

C. Disney is a business. Businesses exist to as a means to employment. If there is indeed a need, they are not morally obligated to meet it as they are not a charity.

D. All previous princess minorities have done okay (Mulan) to doing kinda okay but ultimately leading to disaster (Frog) to bombing (Pocahontas.) All white princesses have been hits. The all white Frozen is by far their biggest princess yet and the 5th highest grossing film (not just animated film) of all time, beloved by white girls and minorities alike. Minorities that largely ignored said minority princesses. And when you see Latinas wearing Anna and Elsa clothes and backpacks with glowing pride, which you see often, it's a reminder stories don't seem to have the limitations you say they do. That princesses can make anyone happy whatever their race or gender.

Maybe minorities are negatively impacted by the mainly white princesses, but it doesn't seem so. So Disney does not seem to be doing much harm, and until we see it is it is not morally obligated to lose money.

That is all. Again, it's good when Disney does make minority princesses. In fact, it's wonderful. What you need to grant is Disney is not morally obligated to provide the service.
“I absolutely demand of you and everyone I know that they be widely read in every [censored] field there is: in every religion and every art form and don’t tell me you haven’t got time! There’s plenty of time.”~ Ray Bradbury
User avatar
aragtaghooligan
Fudge Marble
Posts: 870
Joined: May 2015
Location: The Great White North

Post

Pound Foolish:
1. Have you ever read the Grimm version or older of the fair tales? Have you even read Hans Christian Andersen's version of Little Mermaid? It is weird. In the end you find it is all to scare kids into being good so the Little Mermaid can get a soul. So yes even our traditional stories are weird.

2. It bothers me that you need a study to prove that girls benefit from seeing someone like them in a movie when to me that is such an understandable thing. It just makes sense that it would be true, especially after I saw my classmates get so excited about Belle just because she had the same hair colour as them. I also saw a quote from Black actress Woopie Goldberg about how the day she saw a black actress on a TV show (Star Trek I think it was) was the day she got the confidence to be whoever she wanted to be when she grew up.

3. As far as money goes, how about Disney makes a few hits doing whatever it takes and in between uses the excess money from the hits dedicated to being ethical representations of minorities just to know that they did the right thing whether or not it flops at the box office. From the sound of the stats y'all are posting none of the movies failed they just didn't have as big of a return as some, but that's ok. Not every Disney movie needs to be a HUGE hit.

And Smaug, you say these stories are familiar to us but the folk tales would probably be familiar to the people in that culture.
Image
User avatar
TigerShadow
Mocha Jamocha
Posts: 2654
Joined: June 2014

Post

Pound Foolish wrote:
TigerShadow wrote:Oh? Inflation means nothing? The Lion King, released in 1994, made approximately $987.5 million worldwide on its first release, while Frozen made about $1.279 billion in 2014 dollars. The Lion King made over $1.55 billion in 2014 dollars, and while Frozen may have octupled its budget, Lion King multiplied its budget almost twenty-two fold.
Oh boy, never thought I'd see myself get into this discussion. And I refuse to now. Even allowing for inflation, Frozen still made more at the Box Office than Lion King. Heck, it's the fifth most earning film of all time. Let it go, Lion King fans.
Oh, I see. $1.279 billion is somehow a higher box office gross than $1.55 billion. Magical. (Those are both worldwide figures, by the way; the second link I'm providing to Box Office Mojo concerns only domestic grosses.)

No, Frozen is not the fifth most earning film of all time. First of all, three movies have been released in the past few months alone that earned more: Furious 7, Jurassic World, and Avengers: Age of Ultron. Frozen is number 8. (Source)

Second of all, your claim fails to take into account what movie tickets were worth before 2014 compared to what they would have been worth in 2014, which is how I counted the Frozen gross and then adjusted the Lion King gross. Adjusting for inflation is absolutely vital to determining the financial success of one movie compared to another, because in many ways financial success is more of a comparison of how many people are willing to see it than it is the actual value of a dollar, because the value of the dollar changes depending on the time. So adjusted for inflation, Frozen is the all-time 103rd highest-grossing movie, and it doesn't even crack the top ten highest-grossing Disney movies. (Source)
Pound Foolish wrote:
TigerShadow wrote:But as I pointed out in my earlier post, it already has.
Precisely. There are those that wish Disney Princesses would change rather less. Again, Anna, Elsa and Jasmine are not necessarily a problem. The problem would come if there ceases to be anything but Annas, Elsas and Jasmines.
You're missing the point. That is the direction that Disney Princesses have been going since the beginning of the Renaissance. More Princesses fit into the spunky and independent mold than do not. They can continue to change and break more of the Princess mold; frankly, I can see more people being interested in another black Princess than a Princess in the vein of Snow White or Cinderella.
Pound Foolish wrote:
TigerShadow wrote:But that's not enough. Girls from all racial backgrounds—and here we are discussing girls because that's who the Disney Princesses are primarily marketed to—be they black, Middle-Eastern, Polynesian, Latina, East Asian, South Asian, and yes, white, as well as other races besides, need to be told that they can be Princesses. That they, too, can strive for that ideal, that people who are like them can strive for that ideal, can fight for themselves and win.
But do minorities really limit themselves that way? Do they truly get reassurance they are attractive and capable of greatness mainly from portrayals of their race? Or can they identify just as much with members of other races? It all depends on how much power a story truly has. Can a story of strong, beautiful women reach only those of their race, or girls of any race?

So far, you haven't supplied any evidence that way. Asked for a study on how the lack of merchandising affects minorities, you supplied a study saying there is a lack films with minorities. Um, already granted. Still waiting for the study on how, if at all, lack of Disney Princess minorities affect girls. (Maybe it does. Entirely possible. But so far all we seem to have are assumptions. Keep in mind, latinas are featured in merchandising and TV with growing rapidity. You're assuming this one line, purely because it's popular, somehow undoes that on some level.)
Disney Princesses are a form of media, and as a result I will connect this single issue to the broader topic of media representation, which does have a psychological effect on people. See these articles, some of which discuss the Princesses and some of which look at the general topic from another angle:

Study examines television, diversity, and self esteem

The impact of media representation of disabilities on teachers' perceptions

A radio of "Voces gitanas": Issues of media identity and self-representation in Barcelona

Gender Role Portrayal and the Disney Princess Films

Am I too fat to be a princess? Examining the effects of popular children's media on young girls' body image

Media Representations of Race, Prototypicality, and Policy Reasoning

These studies and news reports - of which there are more than just the examples I gave, particularly in the realm of the LGBTQ+ community - indicate the importance of accurate media representation and how the media affects people's thought patterns. This isn't even just an issue of non-white people feeling good about themselves; for many people, seeing themselves onscreen is helpful in them forming cultural identity and expressing who they are to others. People notice these things - even children notice these things.
Pound Foolish wrote:
TigerShadow wrote:This means that Disney does, to a certain degree, have a certain moral obligation beyond making money—they make their money by producing things designed to appeal to children (or the child within), which means that they need to tell the stories that they tell responsibly.
Absolutely true. And Disney does a good job of that, especially compared to a lot of movies from other studios, yes?
Whether or not they do a good job of that is precisely what is in question here. I think that they've told some beautiful stories in the past, and I want them to expand on that by adding more ethnic diversity to their princess line.

And I don't think it's fair to compare Disney to other studios, because other studios with hands in the game - DreamWorks, Blue Sky, Illumination Entertainment - simply haven't been around nearly as long to produce as many iconic films and become household names.
Pound Foolish wrote:Not a parallel case, but you get the point. A great need for something does not necessarily mean the providers of that something are responsible for delivering that something to those who require it. Disney makes it posssible for millions of artists to feed their families. (Many of whom are on the street thanks to Frog.)
I'm not saying that Disney should never, ever, ever produce another film starring white princesses ever, nor am I saying that Disney should devote themselves solely to producing princess films with non-white protagonists. I'm saying that it would be really great if Disney could adapt stories from non-white cultures, and that they should do a better job with the storytelling itself as well as with the marketing and the timing of release in order to make those a success, like they did with BH6. (Because again, part of the reason why PatF didn't do as well was because it was released at the same time as The Squeakquel and Avatar, and this is more of a subjective thing, but I think part of the reason why Pocahontas was a flop is because it was a really boring movie to begin with. It's just not very memorable the way Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast were. I can't speak to Mulan, though.)
Pound Foolish wrote:What makes Disney responsible in this case? Why are they obliged to make a product that will likely fail?
You keep talking about how Disney is a business. If we are to see them solely as a business, then telling a decent story no longer matters if they can sell a product to the masses without one. There's no reason to pay attention to the morals they're presenting and call them into question, because Disney is a business and that's all that matters.

Disney has made it clear that money isn't the only important thing. Oh, I'm sure that the executives want what sells, but that doesn't speak for the scriptwriters they employ, the concept artists, the film directors, the art directors, the storyboardists, the voice actors, the animators, and everyone else involved in production. I mean, watch the credits of Big Hero 6. The crew behind that movie went to painstaking lengths to accurately depict the various STEM fields in the movie, and it shows. Look at the gorgeous, vibrant, detailed backgrounds in The Princess and the Frog and Tangled some time. Pay attention to those little details.

My point is that Disney - the people who produce the films in question, because they are what is relevant to this conversation - is not solely devoted to making money. Animation is more than just a flashy money-grubber to babysit young children; it is an art form that the people working in the industry treat with respect for its storytelling power if they want to go anywhere.

Look, I will grant you that yes, Disney is a business, and yes, making money is important to remaining as a business. But if we act like a company's practices can never be called into question and revitalized for ethical reasons if their current practices are making money, we indicate that they may do whatever they so choose without regard to who or what they damage in the process because it sells.

(By "ethical practices", since we are discussing movie content, I mean that if we can't call out the lack of ethnic minorities, we cannot talk about any moral issues within the content - sexual content, violent content, spiritual content, foul language, drug and alcohol abuse, or anything else that might be considered problematic.)

If you're really okay with that, and you don't think that there is any reason to call for change in how entertainment companies - especially entertainment companies that claim to be trying to send solid messages to both children and adults - make their products, then this discussion is over, because I fundamentally disagree, and there is no more point in attempting to argue.

(Frankly, I'd rather this discussion be over now. I'm emotionally exhausted, I'm physically exhausted, and I'm sensing, Pound Foolish, that you and I come from fundamentally different places on the matters of Disney and representation within the media, and I'm becoming fatigued at what I see as an argument that doesn't really seem to be going anywhere. If I am wrong, then I would be happy to continue. But if I am right, then I think we can both allow this to be over, because I think we're getting to the point where all we're doing is repeating ourselves and talking around each other.)
aragtaghooligan wrote:I also saw a quote from Black actress Woopie Goldberg about how the day she saw a black actress on a TV show (Star Trek I think it was) was the day she got the confidence to be whoever she wanted to be when she grew up.
I've read that, too, and you're right, it was Star Trek. :) Goldberg was referring to Nichelle Nichols as Lieutenant Uhura on The Original Series, and recalled crying out, "There's a black lady on television, and she ain't no maid!" (Source) The Original Series is also famed for displaying one of the first interracial kisses on television, between Captain Kirk and Lieutenant Uhura in the episode "Plato's Stepchildren".
it's not about 'deserve'. it's about what you believe. and i believe in love
Pound Foolish
Coffee Biscotti
Posts: 3347
Joined: June 2012
Location: Kidsboro
Contact:

Post

aragtaghooligan wrote:1. Have you ever read the Grimm version or older of the fair tales? Have you even read Hans Christian Andersen's version of Little Mermaid? It is weird. In the end you find it is all to scare kids into being good so the Little Mermaid can get a soul. So yes even our traditional stories are weird.
I am the proud owner of two fake-leather bound, fairly enormous volumes, one of Grimm and one of Anderson. I adore them. And I haven't read all of them, sadly, but most of them. (Though the Perrault version is actually the version best known to us. Perrault added the slipper and the slipper and Fairy Godmother to his Cindrellonand frankly I like his versions of the fairy tales best.) Yes, the ending of Little Mermaid is tough, but I loved it as a kid. Anyhoo, there's a difference between the beautiful and sweet Mermaid and that story. If Disney cleaned up that story of a nude woman popping out of an orange and evil gypsy who strips down and gets burned upwhat would be left?
aragtaghooligan wrote:It bothers me that you need a study to prove that girls benefit from seeing someone like them in a movie when to me that is such an understandable thing.
We still haven't really addressed that we don't see this much hullabaloo over boys needing minority role models. Again, the merchandise may be aimed at girls but not the films. And certainly not Disney films in general. Why all this talk about girls and how they won't feel pretty if Disney doesn't show them enough?

Anyhoo, yes, it's understandable. (Though your anecdote of jumps from girls being glad there is a princess who does share a trait with them to saying they, "were a bunch of white girls who by all means should be able to relate to all the white princesses and yet they felt they couldn't be a princess and couldn't feel good about themselves for something as simple as the colour of their hair." Couldn't be a princess? Couldn't feel good about themselves? What? That's quite a jump to make. (Seriously, again, you don't hear people saying boys can't feel good about themselves because Prince Charming has black hair. Apparently, boys are far less shallow than girls.:P)

So, we have one claim here. Girls are affected by media. (Granted. Annnd so are boys. Girls might be more affected, might not be.) We also have a separateclaim that Disney is a huge part of the problem.
The trouble comes when we talk of Disney in isolation when this is a problem with the entire media. A Latina Disney princess won't fix the problem. What would fix the problem is movies and TV in general had more minorities. Think about it. Girls watch TV all the time, many/most for an hour or more daily. When Disney does have one princess movie coming out, which it doesn't do often, it's just one in a year.
TigerShadow wrote:Second of all, your claim fails to take into account what movie tickets were worth before 2014 compared to what they would have been worth in 2014, which is how I counted the Frozen gross and then adjusted the Lion King gross. Adjusting for inflation is absolutely vital to determining the financial success of one movie compared to another, because in many ways financial success is more of a comparison of how many people are willing to see it than it is the actual value of a dollar, because the value of the dollar changes depending on the time. So adjusted for inflation, Frozen is the all-time 103rd highest-grossing movie, and it doesn't even crack the top ten highest-grossing Disney movies. (Source)
Well put, thank you for the effort. In any case, if you're wondering where the claim it's the fifth highest grossing of all time came from it's from Wikipedia and The New Yorker, but you're making your case very well so anyhoo point to you.
TigerShadow wrote:frankly, I can see more people being interested in another black Princess than a Princess in the vein of Snow White or Cinderella.
Extremely true, they certainly shouldn't go that far.

Now, the articles you provided. Media influences people, granted. It's very right and very necessary minorities be onscreen, absolutely and hear hear. That cannot be more agreed with strongly enough. That's a given, isn't it?

That does not necessarily connect to Disney specifically. Animation is a handful of the films produced a year and a handful even of what Disney does.
TigerShadow wrote:And I don't think it's fair to compare Disney to other studios, because other studios with hands in the game - DreamWorks, Blue Sky, Illumination Entertainment - simply haven't been around nearly as long to produce as many iconic films and become household names
Good point, though I'ma big Dreamworks fan actually, though have made some junk.Guadians of Gahooole wasn't bad, Rise of the Guardians is genius, How to Train Your Dragon, and Kung Fu Panda. ^_^ Even Blue Sky the Ice Age sequel machine has Horton Hears a Who. And I agree, Illuminate has oodles of potential.
TigerShadow wrote:I'm not saying that Disney should never, ever, ever produce another film starring white princesses ever, nor am I saying that Disney should devote themselves solely to producing princess films with non-white protagonists.
No, you're not.
TigerShadow wrote:You keep talking about how Disney is a business. If we are to see them solely as a business, then telling a decent story no longer matters if they can sell a product to the masses without one.
They have obligations. You just haven't demonstrated they have the obligation you say they have.
TigerShadow wrote:Oh, I'm sure that the executives want what sells, but that doesn't speak for the scriptwriters they employ, the concept artists, the film directors, the art directors, the storyboardists, the voice actors, the animators, and everyone else involved in production. I mean, watch the credits of Big Hero 6. The crew behind that movie went to painstaking lengths to accurately depict the various STEM fields in the movie, and it shows. Look at the gorgeous, vibrant, detailed backgrounds in The Princess and the Frog and Tangled some time. Pay attention to those little details.

Hear hear and hear! Keep in mind those things are not detrimental to Disney's success, quite the opposite.
That said, they have priorities besides money. Their art is beautiful. Their stories are entertaining and powerful. (And your suggesting they adhere to what people want rather than the artistic fairy tale tradition Walt started.) Again, the problem is you haven't quite demonstrated a Latina princess is a priority. You've come awful close, you've given me a lot to think about. But not quite.
TigerShadow wrote:(Frankly, I'd rather this discussion be over now. I'm emotionally exhausted, I'm physically exhausted, and I'm sensing, Pound Foolish, that you and I come from fundamentally different places on the matters of Disney and representation within the media, and I'm becoming fatigued at what I see as an argument that doesn't really seem to be going anywhere.
Very understandable, thank you for your honesty. We'll drop it, then? Again, you have given me something to think about.
TigerShadow wrote:aragtaghooligan wrote:
I also saw a quote from Black actress Woopie Goldberg about how the day she saw a black actress on a TV show (Star Trek I think it was) was the day she got the confidence to be whoever she wanted to be when she grew up.


I've read that, too, and you're right, it was Star Trek. Goldberg was referring to Nichelle Nichols as Lieutenant Uhura on The Original Series, and recalled crying out, "There's a black lady on television, and she ain't no maid!"
Awww, that's fantastic!
“I absolutely demand of you and everyone I know that they be widely read in every [censored] field there is: in every religion and every art form and don’t tell me you haven’t got time! There’s plenty of time.”~ Ray Bradbury
Post Reply