Partially it has to do with the extra highlights and the intense implied light of the art, but it's worth noting that Aurora is not actually tan in her movie or even close to it. Compare her skin tone with the people around her—the darkness probably comes from being in the shade most of the time. Partially it has to do with a very thoughtless artist who is clearly equating lighter skin with prettier looks.
No, Snow White is tanner, with blue highlights in her hair, and smaller, almond-shaped eyes. So they seemed to be trying to make her appear Asian?
I read somewhere (probably on this wiki) that Giselle wasn't included in the line because they couldn't get the rights to the actress' image. Why couldn't they just use the cartoon version from the beginning? Sure it's not how she is through most of the movie but hey, Rapunzal isn't 2D (I heard they're using 2D pictures in the line) and Mulan isn't a princess. It wouldn't be the first time they stretched to make someone fit.
Because the animated Giselle is based on Amy Adams' appearance and image so Disney would still be paying her life-long rights to use it.
I guess this is also one of the reasons Princess Shayla isn't in the line either.
It's not. Princess Kida and Princess Eilonwy are not in the line, despite being princesses. Megara is also ostensibly one (as the King of the Gods son's wife), and there are a number of Disney-related material with princesses. The only criteria for the princesses that can really be determined is they were from a popular Disney movie, with the probable exception of Pocahontas, who was most likely included for diversity reasons.
Mulan. Just...why? Did they just forget the entire movie except...did they just forget the entire movie?
Why what? Why she was put in the franchise, because she's not a princess? Or something else?
OP was most likely referring to the fact that Mulan was a strong, independent character in her film. It sends a message that girls don't need to be girly/feminine if they don't want to. And yet in merchandise, she is either wearing the kimono she wore to the matchmaker (something she despised doing), or wearing a frou frou dress that didn't even exist in ancient China.
Well, this is the Disney Princesses line. She had to wear a dress, and the main reason Disney included her in the first place was because she was their most prominent Action Girl. Besides, she's sometimes advertised in the dress she wore when defeating Shan Yu at the end.
This troper blames it on a disconnect between the marketing people and the people who made the actual movie. The latter were interested in making an good movie with an enjoyable heroine who teaches kids a valuable lesson about gender roles and being yourself. The former probably were told "Find as many ways to sell dolls of this character to kids, or your fired".
Er, Mulan didn't despise the outfit she wore when seeing the matchmaker. (it wasn't a kimono, by the way. Those are Japanese) Just because Mulan went to war and became an Action Girl, doesn't mean she has to stop liking girly things. At the end of the film, she was seen wearing a dress again.
Different poster, but for me, why put her in the line in the first place, to me that's lazy, so you don't have a Asian disney princess...why not make a movie that will have one. I'd LOVE to see that!
Well, also, given the way Asian cultures tend to work, if she did in fact marry general...pretty boy, she is nobility by marriage, just not an actual princess per se. If I'm recalling my history correctly, high ranking officers were nobles.
Disney was planning on doing an Asian fairytale, and the choice was between "Mulan" or "Journey to the West". If they had gone with "Journey to the West", Disney would have been put in the unusual position of having a princess who was a villian: The Iron Fan Princess.
Okay, now I kinda wanna see that.
If anything, the reason why is "But Mulan wasn't a princess". Yeah, she comes from an upper class family, but isn't really a member of the royal family. (Shang may have been nobility, but yeah.) You can say the same about Pocahontas, but even then, she wasn't really a "princess" the way of others.
Mulan disguised herself as a man and went to war to save her father; it had nothing to do with her being a tomboy, liking men's clothes, or promoting feminism.
Mulan never expressly hates the dress she wears—she smiles at herself in the mirror during the song. Rather, she disliked what the dress was representing for her, which was a life and persona that she did not want. As far as not actually being a princess, it's not exactly important.
I never got the impression that Mulan disliked the idea of being in an arranged marriage (granted I've never seen the second movie), just that she was upset that her personality prevented her from being acceptable as a wife. She was perfectly willing to enter an arranged marriage to bring honor to her family, and was devastated when she ruined her chance (and thus dishonored her family).
... Uhm. Pocahontas isn't a princess either, and she's still in the Disney Princess line. Also, several things said in this thread seem to be either blatantly false or based on trying to project VERY gender-essentialist views (of the "FEMININE BAD, MANLY GOOD" kind) on Mulan's character. U nlike what one of the tropers above claims, Mulan herself NEVER despises anything girly or feminine: she actually likes being dolled up up until trouble starts at the matchmaker, willingly puts on a more practical but still girlish dress at the end, and gets along relatively well with very feminine women like her mother. She is NOT less independent and strong merely for putting on a dress.
Is there a reason Rapunzel dolls seem to only be sold pre-Traumatic Haircut moment beyond the recognition factor? Seeing that there aren't many/any (I've seen Tiana dolls with both brown and black hair) brunette princesses, and since Rapunzel is a cute-as-a-button brunette, it'd be nice of Disney to make a doll out of her for the brown-haired girls to play with.
It gives away the ending of the movie. And it might be more common to play with fairy tale dolls as if they were within their stories as opposed to after them.
They got also Rapunzel dolls in her Wedding dress and her short brown hair.
It's probably because she's more recognizable in it, and it's more interesting from a manufacturing standpoint. Most girls only wear their gowns briefly in the movie, but they're usually sold wearing them. It's just more iconic/marketable/appealing.
Why do some people have a problem with the Princesses' new hairsyles. It's really not like they'll show the new hairstyles outside of merchandising. It really looks more like it's temporary, then permanent. Is it really "childhood raping", just cause Snow White's wearing her bow on the side of her hair, momentarily?
Because the merchandise often disrespects the characters, and by extension, women. Characters like Mulan did not appreciate being super dolled up, but that aspect of her character is disregarded to move merch. There's a strong implication that a woman's appearance is more important than her personality or tastes. Not to mention that part of the appeal of the movies has been their animation, and homogenizing the girls is ignoring that.
It's already been mentioned in several other spots on the page, but it apparently bears mentioning again: nowhere in her film does Mulan give any indication that she in any way dislikes being dressed up. If anything, she seems pleased with the results of her makeover montage, and she genuinely wants to make a good impression on the matchmaker and thus make a good marriage, if only as a means of honoring her family and making them proud of her. She even goes back to dressing like a girl immediately once she's outed to the army, even though there are several reasons it would be more practical for her to continue dressing as a man for a while longer. Mulan's only complaint is that her naturally proactive and outspoken personality is not considered desirable in a wife in her culture, forcing her to choose between hiding those parts of herself in order to achieve her goals, or behave in a way that's true to herself but fail to accomplish anything worthwhile as a result.
Actually, Mulan did mind being "super dolled up", which is how it's put. She was very clear that she didn't feel that's who she was. She didn't mind the idea of it—it's not like she had some moral issue with the make-up or dress—but she as a person felt like it didn't suit her. Dressing her up like it again, despite her clear insistence it wasn't who she was inside, is one of the issues people have with the merchandise.
Why is it that whenever the princesses are shown with their respective princes, Belle is always shown with Prince Adam in beast form? She wasn't a princess until they married after his transformation. Why would she still get an invite to whatever tea party, Christmas DVD, or other merchandising venture if she isn't a princess at that time? Does she have some sort of deal with the Enchantress if he misbehaves, as an alternative to making him sleep on the couch?
There's no story or continuity to the line. They all exist in separate worlds and don't interact. You see Beast more often because he is more recognizable than Adam.
And more popular.
Why is so Mulan so heavily misunderstood, even (especially!) by her own fans? People generally seem to have this idea Mulan is a tough, ball-busting tomboy who despises girly crap and would hate to be next to Cindy or Aurora on the merchandise (seriously, there was a tumblr post suggesting this). The Classic 3 are badly misunderstood enough but almost no one seems to understand Mulan's personality. She isn't masculine or aggressive in the slightest- she has a strong feminine side and is actually a very sweet and obedient daughter. Yet she is always pitted against the old princesses, especially Aurora, like they are opposites.
I'd ascribe it to Flanderization by a Fan Dumb (or a divided fandom that loves Mulan and hates the classic three.) Worth asking is if any of these people interpreting Mulan as an ultra-mean tough girl (as opposed to a Guile Hero who puts her love for her family first) have seen the film in recent years.
Why isn't Nala, the lioness from The Lion King, completely ignored as a Disney Princess, she being royalty now and all?
One logical reason, as the Princess lineup is a merchandise marketing tool: Nala isn't human and therefore can't quite wear all the bling of her human counterparts.
One darker reason is that Nala really isn't human and would pretty much eat her rivals.
As pointed out on the page proper, the characters included are really more like 'popular heroine'. Mulan and Pocahontas are not princesses, and Kida and Eilonwy are both human princesses who are not included (Megara and Jane are also nebulously royalty). Nala isn't hugely popular on her own, but more importantly she doesn't fit in with the merchandise (this is partially why you see so little of Pocahontas).
Why shouldn't Disney include Honey Lemon as one of the Disney Princesses? She's feminine, is an Action Girl, and she's kind and gentle, always trying to stay positive.