Follow TV Tropes


Headscratchers / Disney Princess

Go To

  • Is the Disney Princess franchise basically over, now that all new princesses have been excluded from it?
    • Since the success of Frozen, any new princess is expected to hold up their own franchise. Hence no more princesses being added to the line.
  • Is it me, or are the princesses so much paler in the merchandise than they are in their movies? Rapunzel and Aurora, especially.
    • It's not just you, and it's not just Rapunzel and Aurora. Mulan and Belle, as well as Aurora, both appear to be paler than ''Snow White'', who was named for her very pale skin. Backlash did cause Mulan to get a recoloring to her origanal skin tone, though.
    • 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.
    • The criteria seems to be a) popular heroine from a popular movie and b) someone who can appeal to multiple demographics. Snow White, Cinderella, Aurora, Ariel, Belle, Jasmine and Rapunzel are all from very popular movies and instantly recognisable. The others are from less popular movies but do have that minority demographic appeal. Tiana of course is the first black princess, Mulan appeals to the Asian demographic and Pocahontas to the Native American. Merida seems to be the odd one out but she's Scottish and more of a tomboy than the others, so that's demographic appeal too. With other characters, their movies weren't that popular - Esmeralda and Megara are considerably less known than say Ariel or Belle. Also they don't have any apparent ethnicity - Esmerelda just looking Ambiguously Brown and Meg only appearing to be another Caucasian brunette. Pocahontas and Mulan are easily identifiable as Native American and Chinese, so they get in for diversity's sake. That's probably the reason Jasmine is in there too, as she's the only princess who isn't the main character in her film. Likewise they're not human - Nala, Maid Marian. Or perhaps too young - Alice and Wendy.
    • Advertisement:
    • Jasmine's probably Arabic. Diversity rule applies to her.
    • Also, in the original book (Our Lady of Paris), Esmeralda is not a gypsy girl, she's french (Her real name is Ines) but she just happens to have tan skin because of the long exposure to the sun. So Ambigously Brown my... tropes.
    • Honestly, this troper could see Esmerelda being added to the line. If we keep in mind that royal status isn't strictly necessary (and that she's married to Phoebus, just like Mulan is to Shang), she's got all the other "requirements" down pat. I'd guess the only reason she's not is because her debut film isn't exactly super-kid friendly. Also, since when is Tiana not as recognizable as Rapunzel or Belle? Her movie brought about what many people called "the Disney Revival."
  • 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?
    • Advertisement:
    • 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.
      • Because wearing a dress automatically makes a girl weak and stupid, amirite?
      • 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!
      • Takes time and money to make a film and a lot of the times these films either get cancelled or shelved.It would be nice to have an actual Asian princess but I think Mulan will do because in my opinion she is royalty at heart.And yes I just had to be just had to put on that old Disney corniness.
      • 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.
      • *drools* Ditto.
    • 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.
    • I always got the impression that Mulan disliked being super dolled up and was only doing it so she could get matched with a good husband so she could bring honor to her family. She does go back to wearing feminine clothing when her gender is revealed, but what she wore then was much less fancy than the stuff she wore for the Matchmaker; compare it to a ballgown and regular shirt+jeans. The Disney Princess line is mostly to get cash though, and fancy dresses sell more than plain ones.
    • The last point is the most notable. The gowns the princesses are depicted in get less screen time in the films than one would think. Tiana, Belle, Anna, Cinderella, Mulan and Ariel (depending on what she's depicted wearing) only wear theirs for a small part of the film. As the line is meant to be of fashion dolls, Mulan doesn't really have an outfit suited for them. She probably gets the pink dress to help distinguish her from the rest of the princesses. So many of them have blue outfits that they might just need some colour diversity. Aurora wears pink too when she's in blue for most of her film.
    • Lets set the historic facts straight. The head of state in China during Mulan's time period was Emperor, one level higher than kings, and military achievements are highly regarded and can earn you all nobility titles, hereditary or not, except the imperial ones reserved for the emperor and his immediate family. Mulan's achievement, beheading of Shan Yu, the emperor of an opposing and hostile force, will earn her a Queen Regent title ruling practically half of the country, all on her own right. So Mulan is not just a princess, she is a women created her own kingdom single-handedly.
      • "Will earn" isn't really the same as "did earn." And to say that she "singlehandedly created her own kingdom" is a bit melodramatic. She's a war hero, and she did a lot of great things for China, but she's just not an official member of royalty.
    • I think all this stretching the rules to justify members of the line is getting a little annoying. We should all remember that it's a line of merchandise that's meant to use popular characters to appeal to little girls, whether those characters are "actually" princesses or not. As Maui says, "If you wear a dress, and you have an animal sidekick, you're a princess!" Trying to create a list of qualifications that covers every member of the line is pointless - the qualifications are whatever Disney wants them to be. "Disney Princess" is basically a title all its own, that can be bestowed upon any character the company chooses.
  • Even if Disney changed the rules to allow book heroines in the franchise, would characters such as Kilala from Kilala Princess and Will Vandom from W.I.T.C.H. be allowed in? Their comics were originally published in Japanese and Italian respectively, and if they got their own films, would they be made in English or Japanese and Italian and then dubbed?
  • 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.
    • Short-haired dolls are a bitch to make, it is the reason the Sailor Starlights were given long hair; also, having long blonde hair is kind of iconic to the Rapunzel fairy tale.
  • 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.
    • I got the impression that Mulan was the type of girl who would only doll herself up every now and then - since she's got chores to do and a lot of work on her estate, so she doesn't have time to dress up. But she was afraid of becoming a perfect wife because she would be required to doll up more often - which was something she wasn't used to.
  • 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 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.
      • If anything, Mulan shows disgust against the gross habits that she sees on the men on the training camp when she arrives. So she's not exactly a tomboy anyway, she just did what she had to even if that meant to dress up as a man. And she only fights again on the second movie because the Emperor asked her to do that, if he didn't asked, she would had live a very pacific life with Shang until a war happens or she dies due of childbirth or sickness but without having to fight again. And Mulan would be happy anyway because as another usser stated, she's practically a Queen-by-her-own-hand of half China.

  • 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).
    • It's only human characters in the line, presumably to sell the fashion toys. This is why Maid Marian, Miss Bianca and Nala aren't in.
    • Not a reason, but a quasi-explanation: Nala was never explicitly mentioned to be a princess/important part of the royal family until she became a queen consort when Simba became the king. Now Kiara on the other hand, was a princess.
    • I say it's just because she's not human. The Disney Princesses are meant to be relatable and appealing to girls, which is a lot easier to achieve when they're of the same species. I can't imagine a lot of little girls saying "I want to be like a giant cat when I grow up!" It just sounds silly.
  • 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.
    • One, because she's not any sort of nobility - even Mulan falls into that category - two, she's not important or major enough to the story of her film, the bulk of which focused on Hiro and his relationships with Tadashi and Baymax, and three, as far as I know, she's not popular enough to even be considered. It takes more to be a Disney Princess than just being a kind, optimistic feminine action hero.
    • And a more meta reason: they want to avoid putting the movie into the Girl-Show Ghetto. The Disney Princess line is 'for girls' while the Marvel properties are 'for boys'. They might be afraid that Disney Princess merchandise of Honey would alienate the little boys who like the movie. And Honey isn't the protagonist. Jasmine is the only princess in the line that isn't the lead in her film, but she narrowly gets in because she's still prominent. Honey's just a supporting character.
    • And possibly because her movie is set in the future, while the princesses all come from various parts of history. Thus they get to have Gorgeous Period Dress outfits, while Honey's two outfits are her sweater and skirt, and her superhero costume.
    • I think it's just largely because she's not nobility and not important enough - in her film, she's not the primary character (Hiro), the secondary character (Baymax), or the third one (Tadashi?). She's just a supporting member of the superhero team who doesn't have an actual character arc or significant role to play. The most accurate comparison I can think of would be if they decided to make Terk from Tarzan a Disney Princess, on the basis of her being a girl who's action-y, upbeat, and semi-important to the story in a Disney film. It takes more than that.
  • If not Honey Lemon, why not Princess Leia Organa of Alderaan?
    • One, she's live-action, and even if Disney tries to give her an animated "redesign", she'd really stand out against the other girls who are much more, hum, "animated". Two, Star Wars is really a world of its own, and it doesn't really fit the "Disney Aesthetic" too well (compare Disney films having bright and sunny backgrounds, cute talking animals, and sweet morals over Star Wars which is much more..."cold" so to say compared to the cheery atmosphere of Mickey's world). Perhaps that's sorta why Disney knows it well and they often keep Star Wars stuff on its own, apart from the rest of Disney. I think if you even try to insert Star Wars images next to classical Disney imagery like in those crossover videos or stuff like Fantasmic! it'd look really out of place. And now that Carrie Fisher is gone, it might seem like an insult to her memory to placer her character on the line.
    • Princess Leia isn't a proper Disney character. She's a character who's owned by Disney, yes, but that's just because they bought the rights to the franchise she's a part of. And the Disney Princess line is meant to market primarily to younger girls, who are probably outside the primary demographic of the Star Wars movies.
  • I know she's not included in the line (yet), but I see this done more in the DP fandom than in the Frozen fandom, so...Why is Elsa always mischaracterized? In the original film she comes off as a kind yet secluded and nervous woman; but in the fandom she's always turned into this bold semi-Daenerys Targaryen figure, who's always going around menacing others, being assertive/"badass" and acting smugly around the other princesses. Is there something I missed? Because in the original film she has almost none of those traits. Sure, she gets a little confident during Let It Go, but afterward she's again afraid, nervous and distant.
    • Same way that Mulan and Merida always get characterized as hating girly things and being more interested in fighting people than anything else. Or Pocahontas gets portrayed as cold, distant, and condescending of the other princesses. People are more interested in making these characters come across as cool and better than the other ones.
    • I actually wrote a visual analysis recently based on a still from Let It Go for a college class, discussing in detail how the song goes to portray Elsa as independent and self-confident, without caring what others are going to think of her, and how much of the marketing for the film chose to portray her as such, as well, even though throughout the rest of the film, all she wants is for her people to respect and appreciate her without fear. In short, I could sum up the paper by saying that many people seemed to care more about the Elsa that looked cooler and more badass and confident, as opposed to the character that could actually be seen as more relatable. (If you want proof of this, just google her name - half the images have her smiling smugly and casting magic with a flourish, something she probably wouldn't have been caught doing even at the end of the actual film.)
    • It's the Memetic Mutation giving her a personality she doesn't have in the movie. "Let It Go" is synonymous with "fuck the haters, I'm gonna be myself from now on" and that's how it appears out of context.
  • Why is Elsa considered a Disney princess? She's not a princess, she's a queen!
    • She is not, actually, one of the official Disney Princesses. As to why fans include her, probably because she fits with them aesthetically and her movie has all the hallmarks of a Disney Princess movie. Even so, being an actual princess has no bearing on being a Disney Princess—see Pocahontas and Mulan.
    • I thought I heard someone say she was going to be formally inducted into the line, even though she was a queen. (Ironically, I think a lot of people are excited to have her in the line because she's a queen, and she's the oldest, and all that other jazz that gets fangirls and fanboys excited.)
      • There's always been rumors, but Disney hasn't so much as suggested it in the past. They get included with Disney Princess stuff, but never quite branded as such.
    • It's possibly because Frozen was such a success that there was no need to. Frozen itself has become a Cash Cow Franchise and was a cultural phenomenon - far more than any of the other movies.
    • Girl-Show Ghetto is really not something Disney want to get Frozen into.
    • On the other hand, the first ever Disneyland castle built with more than one princess in mind, the Enchanted Storybook Castle in Shanghai, have a seasonal theme with Tiana representing Spring, Rapunzel representing Summer, Merida representing Autumn, and you guessed it, Elsa representing Winter. So watch for coronations during the first month of opening of that park.
    • Elsa was a princess before her coronation. Belle, Cinderella, and Tiana were, respectively, a tinker's daughter, a nobleman's daughter, and a waitress before they married princes. If we were to stick only to characters who had the explicit title "Princess" for the entire movie, we'd have precious few in the line...
    • Frozen hit the perfect spot of being a cash cow franchise appealing to little girls but also having the approval of parents. For years many parents thought the traditional Princesses held bad morals or questionable feminist figures, yet many of these parents praised Frozen for its deconstruction of classic Disney "cliches" that they felt were problematic as time went by (the evil queen, true love's kiss, Prince Charming, love at first sight...). Disney can kill two birds with one stone with this movement: keep promoting classic characters and keep sales afloat yet raise no controversy of promoting "sexism" or such. Keeping Elsa apart of the line will ensure the feminist mothers will still buy her dolls without raising a stink, but they can still sell Cinderella dolls for the parents that don't mind the old princesses.
  • Why haven't Disney started a Disney Prince brand, even as a spin-off brand to Disney Princess? It would be good marketing, plus the princes would have more prominence than just being accessories for the Princesses to hang around with. And yes, I do get that there was once a "Disney Adventurers" franchise that was a huge flop, but it had a tiny 5 characters, and a villain (Captain Hook) was part of that lineup anyway. How 'bout a "pretty boy" saga starring Aladdin, the Beast, Naveen, Eric, Flynn, Shang, maybe Kristoff, and very possibly Tarzan and Hercules?

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:


Media sources: