Y'know, I have nothing to say about the stupidity

http://family-room.ew.com/2013/05/15/brave-merida-makeover/

Put down your bows and arrows, Brave fans. After more than a week of concern over the changed appearance of our favorite animated redhead, a Disney rep tells EW that there’s no cause for alarm: Merida’s seemingly sexier image was only created for the heroine’s official induction into the Disney Princess Collection and was always planned to be phased out within a few months of the coronation.
When an image appeared online that showed a drastically altered Merida, it prompted a backlash among fans, including a petition on change.org. “This new Merida is a paler reflection of her former self without the spark and the ‘you go girl’ quality that her creator intended,” the petition reads, urging Disney to return to the Merida from the film.
Twelve days and over 200,000 virtual signatures later (including Cinderella Ate My Daughter author Peggy Ornstein and Snow White and the Huntsman actress Lily Cole) reports started to surface that the Disney Store had quietly taken down all banner images of the thinner, more glamorous Merida, and replaced them with the familiar freckled-face and wild-haired version that we got to know in the film. And petitioners were clear that they wanted it to remain that way.
Shelby Knox, a senior petitioner on the “Keep Merida Brave” campaign and a Sundance-winning filmmaker responsible for the 2005 documentary The Education of Shelby Knox wrote the following update Wednesday:
GET MORE EW: Subscribe to the magazine for only 33¢ an issue!
Making changes to a website are easy & easily undone; the true test will be how Disney plans on depicting Merida on merchandise now that she is part of the official Disney Princess collection to know that Disney is truly committed to preserving the Merida we all know & love, we need to keep the pressure on until we receive an official statement from them promising to keep Merida brave!
Through all the hubbub, Disney Consumer Products has been fairly quiet but a source wanted to clarify that the image was actually never on the Disney Store site, despite reports to the contrary. It appeared on an invitation sent to bloggers for the coronation and on the Target site, they say. When the petition first started getting press, a Disney representative issued a vague statement to Yahoo! Shine that didn’t come close to addressing the concerns of the petitioners. It reads: ”Merida exemplifies what it means to be a Disney Princess through being brave, passionate, and confident and she remains the same strong and determined Merida from the movie whose inner qualities have inspired moms and daughters around the world.” Our source says that no other official comment on the matter is planned.
What do you all think? Was this grass roots at work or much ado about nothing?

Pic

How exactly is that stupid?

If this is a lot of people complaining about nothing, then how does this compare to modeling for advantage and being a petty rules lawyer, aka half the threads on Dakka?

The whole thing was "much ado about nothing"

She is a animated character. Both of those images represent her just fine.

While I have no real comment on the merits of the argument on either side, I will say:

Merida’s seemingly sexier image was only created for the heroine’s official induction into the Disney Princess Collection and was always planned to be phased out within a few months of the coronation.

smells like CYA, after the fact, shenanigans. The corporate equivalent of, say, casually dropping a racial slur in conversation, having everyone gasp, and then awkwardly laughing and saying "hey guys I was just joking"

 Ouze wrote:

Merida’s seemingly sexier image was only created for the heroine’s official induction into the Disney Princess Collection and was always planned to be phased out within a few months of the coronation.

smells like CYA, after the fact, shenanigans. The corporate equivalent of, say, casually dropping a racial slur in conversation, having everyone gasp, and then awkwardly laughing and saying "hey guys I was just joking"

Oh very much so, the Mouse is busily working to clean this mess up in a hurry.

I suppose I get where the complainers are coming from, taking what was presented as a strong female character and "sexing her up" as it were, obviously rubs a certain group of people the wrong way.

 Ouze wrote:
While I have no real comment on the merits of the argument on either side, I will say:

Merida’s seemingly sexier image was only created for the heroine’s official induction into the Disney Princess Collection and was always planned to be phased out within a few months of the coronation.

smells like CYA, after the fact, shenanigans. The corporate equivalent of, say, casually dropping a racial slur in conversation, having everyone gasp, and then awkwardly laughing and saying "hey guys I was just joking"

Agreed completely with Ouze on this one.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The whole thing was "much ado about nothing"

She is a animated character. Both of those images represent her just fine.

That's the thing. It doesn't represent her well at all.
The entire character of Merida was about being able to go out and do stuff for yourself, rather than just sitting in a castle looking pretty and waiting for a prince to come marry you. Partway through the film she has a fancy dress put on her like the new version is wearing, and actively tears it apart because it restricts her movement. So an image of her wearing that sort of dress and smiling, having shown her disdain for that type of clothing in the film, doesn't "represent her just fine" it goes against almost everything the character was about.

The fact that it's just for the princess ceremony is actually what makes it bad.

It's basically saying that she couldn't be a princess as-is. She had to be sexed up slightly to qualify for princess status.

Meridia from the movie doesn't cleanly fit into the madonna/whore dichotomy, so they had to change her to be one of the two.

 Goliath wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The whole thing was "much ado about nothing"

She is a animated character. Both of those images represent her just fine.

That's the thing. It doesn't represent her well at all.
The entire character of Merida was about being able to go out and do stuff for yourself, rather than just sitting in a castle looking pretty and waiting for a prince to come marry you.

Pretty girls can go out and do stuff for themselves as well...

Partway through the film she has a fancy dress put on her like the new version is wearing, and actively tears it apart because it restricts her movement. So an image of her wearing that sort of dress and smiling, having shown her disdain for that type of clothing in the film, doesn't "represent her just fine" it goes against almost everything the character was about.

It only does at that particular stage of the film, the representation can be a few years in the future as well. Images change, there was nothing wrong with the second pic and both images represent her just fine.

She is, after all, a cartoon character.

 DeathReaper wrote:
She is, after all, a cartoon character.

Yes, because children never idolize or love cartoon characters.

From a friend of mine about the subject:

My kids absolutely LOVE this film. I was just reading this article on my laptop, and [my four year old daughter] peeked over at the comparison picture and asked why does the Brave princess look so different (totally unaware of this controversy). So I played along (out of curiosity) and asked so how are they different. She rolls her eyes and says it's obvious that the faces and dresses are not the same and asked why isn't the other version carrying her bow & arrow? That must be her older sister.So for those that argue what's the big deal, it's quite clear to me that some may pick up on subliminal queues, and images do play a role when raising for impressionable young girls.

The right image looks very derpy.

Yeah, Disney is pretty fething stupid about this.

The kids I've spoken to said that Disney's thing is "fake" and "not the real Merida".

Not that I'm at all surprised to see some random nobody on the internet mocking people for caring about a fictional character (even as they spaz out about entirely different ones).

I dont see a differance?

 Newabortion wrote:
I dont see a differance?

The main difference is in the facial expression and body language; the one on the right looks as if she's undergoing hypnosis.

From first glance: Slimmer waist, bigger hips, no weapon, less wild hair, eyes and stance designed to be sultry and seductive, etc.

It isn't just stance, there are some mild, but distinct, physical differences.

 Melissia wrote:
Yeah, Disney is pretty fething stupid about this.

The kids I've spoken to said that Disney's thing is "fake" and "not the real Merida".

Not that I'm at all surprised to see some random nobody on the internet mocking people for caring about a fictional character (even as they spaz out about entirely different ones).

Huh? Im just saying it is complaining about a little change. He Dress is just more Glittery and has a meddalian on the way, She she is skinnier, but quite often that is a result of thet artist who drew it.

Do you mean that the differences are insignificant and people are complaining about nothing?

Yes, IMO they are insignificant, They are so small and they do not change who she is.

Apparently the creative director behind her disagrees with that

What?

http://www.themarysue.com/merida-disney-redesign-brenda-chapman/

“I think it is atrocious!!!… Since I am no longer with the company, I’m sure they could care less what I think on the matter. But they have betrayed the essence of what we were trying to do with Merida—give young girls and women a better stronger role model. She’s strong inside and out—she’s not just a simpering pretty face waiting around for romance! She was created to turn that whole ideal on it’s [sic] head! Oh yeah… that’s why I created her… they’re just in it for the money… not the integrity. They don’t care what message they send about women, as long as it makes them a buck.”

 Sigvatr wrote:
The right image looks very derpy.

While I agree the left image is much easier to fap to, that's the entire point. Merida has become a "you don't need to be pretty" princess. That is important to a lot of people.

Tbh, I couldn't imagine fapping to the image of a..12? year old girl regardless.

But the appearence doesnt change how she acted in the movie or what she did(I saw half of it)

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But the appearence doesnt change how she acted in the movie or what she did(I saw half of it)

Suddenly you live in a world where appearances no longer matter? Perhaps if you saw the entire film you would also know she tried to rip the dress up that Disney shoved her in.

The Disney press release is clearly CYA after the fact spin.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The fact that it's just for the princess ceremony is actually what makes it bad.

It's basically saying that she couldn't be a princess as-is. She had to be sexed up slightly to qualify for princess status.

Meridia from the movie doesn't cleanly fit into the madonna/whore dichotomy, so they had to change her to be one of the two.

I don't know that I'd say it's so much about sex, but I agree completely that it's a betrayal of the character. Giving her makeup, a more hourglass figure, a fancy dress, shampoo-commercial hair, AND taking away her signature weapon add up to throwing away all the character's personality in favor of a banal parody; shoving her into the Generic Princess #456 mold.

 Mannahnin wrote:

I don't know that I'd say it's so much about sex, but I agree completely that it's a betrayal of the character. Giving her makeup, a more hourglass figure, a fancy dress, shampoo-commercial hair, AND taking away her signature weapon add up to throwing away all the character's personality in favor of a banal parody; shoving her into the Generic Princess #456 mold.

She had a pronounced hourglass figure in the movie as well, and the belt her quiver was attached to clearly accentuated her hips.

Was this change necessary in order to shoehorn the character in with the Disney princesses? Yes, absolutely.

Is the entire idea behind the Disney princesses an outdated concept drawn from a 1950s-era patriarchal establishment? Yes, absolutely.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Was this change necessary in order to shoehorn the character in with the Disney princesses? Yes, absolutely.

Is the entire idea behind the Disney princesses an outdated concept drawn from a 1950s-era patriarchal establishment? Yes, absolutely.

and does any of this matter? Not at all!

Considering the princess brand for disney is among the highest selling brand, They gotta be doing something right.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Considering the princess brand for disney is among the highest selling brand, They gotta be doing something right.

Something selling a lot doesn't mean that it is good.

See: McDonald's, most pop singers and boy bands, and many fraudsters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
and does any of this matter? Not at all!

It doesn't matter to you, obviously, but it matters to a lot of people.

If yo'ure going to start complaining about "first world problems" or some other malarkey, yo'ud stop posting in dakka period becuase dakka's all about the first world problems

 Melissia wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Considering the princess brand for disney is among the highest selling brand, They gotta be doing something right.

Something selling a lot doesn't mean that it is good.

See: McDonald's, most pop singers and boy bands, and many fraudsters.

Actually selling a lot does mean something is desired (Thus good).

So McDonald's, most pop singers and boy bands are all "Good"

Obama must be good then...

 DeathReaper wrote:
So McDonald's, most pop singers and boy bands are all "Good"

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

 d-usa wrote:
Obama must be good then...

I think he is.

Best selling politician two terms in a row!

But if you don't see the problem with the Brave situation and don't mind having role models for young girls made more sexual and less independent then that's fine I guess. Some people liked having a better role model for their daughters.

 d-usa wrote:
Best selling politician two terms in a row!

But if you don't see the problem with the Brave situation and don't mind having role models for young girls made more sexual and less independent then that's fine I guess. Some people liked having a better role model for their daughters.

The Brave thing isn't aimed at me is it? As I feel that Disney princesses aren't exactly the best role models for little girls especially in a society that values independence, freedom and meritocracy.

 Melissia wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So McDonald's, most pop singers and boy bands are all "Good"

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

I am just using the definition of "Good" i got from google, nothing more.


https://www.google.com/search?q=good+definition&rlz=1C1DVCB_enUS383US392&aq=f&oq=good+definition&aqs=chrome.0.59j5j65l3j0.2581j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 Cheesecat wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Best selling politician two terms in a row!

But if you don't see the problem with the Brave situation and don't mind having role models for young girls made more sexual and less independent then that's fine I guess. Some people liked having a better role model for their daughters.

The Brave thing isn't aimed at me is it? As I feel that Disney princesses aren't exactly the best role models for little girls especially in a society that values independence, freedom and meritocracy.

Don't worry, not aimed at you.

 d-usa wrote:
Best selling politician two terms in a row!

But if you don't see the problem with the Brave situation and don't mind having role models for young girls made more sexual and less independent then that's fine I guess. Some people liked having a better role model for their daughters.

That is the thing, I dont SEE how her looks change how she acted in the movie.
It is like Mulan, She is a princess, but her look didnt change what she did in the movie.
BTW, Mulan is awesome, just thought i would put that out there.

DeathReaper wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Was this change necessary in order to shoehorn the character in with the Disney princesses? Yes, absolutely.

Is the entire idea behind the Disney princesses an outdated concept drawn from a 1950s-era patriarchal establishment? Yes, absolutely.

and does any of this matter? Not at all!

Considering Disney's market share gives it tremendous influence in how small children perceive the world and themselves, then yes, it most certainly does matter. You might not be able to see that for yourself right now, but it matters.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Considering the princess brand for disney is among the highest selling brand, They gotta be doing something right.

Do not conflate "populist" with "good", lest you tacitly accept that Obama is "good", universal background checks are "good", and the ACA is "good".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Best selling politician two terms in a row!

But if you don't see the problem with the Brave situation and don't mind having role models for young girls made more sexual and less independent then that's fine I guess. Some people liked having a better role model for their daughters.

That is the thing, I dont SEE how her looks change how she acted in the movie.
It is like Mulan, She is a princess, but her look didnt change what she did in the movie.
BTW, Mulan is awesome, just thought i would put that out there.

If a role model for young children is asked to change their appearance, then it is simply reinforcing a stereotype that is considerably outmoded. What does it say when in Mulan, the entire point is that a woman doesn't have to be restricted by gender roles (that was the point, right? I was not young enough to care to watch Disney films anymore when it came out), but then is forced to conform to a gender role in order to be listed amongst Disney's pantheon of princesses? Doesn't that completely undercut the message of the film itself?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So McDonald's, most pop singers and boy bands are all "Good"

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

I am just using the definition of "Good" i got from google, nothing more.


https://www.google.com/search?q=good+definition&rlz=1C1DVCB_enUS383US392&aq=f&oq=good+definition&aqs=chrome.0.59j5j65l3j0.2581j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Yes, I'm well aware that you relied on a pathetic cop-out.

 azazel the cat wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Was this change necessary in order to shoehorn the character in with the Disney princesses? Yes, absolutely.

Is the entire idea behind the Disney princesses an outdated concept drawn from a 1950s-era patriarchal establishment? Yes, absolutely.

and does any of this matter? Not at all!

Considering Disney's market share gives it tremendous influence in how small children perceive the world and themselves, then yes, it most certainly does matter. You might not be able to see that for yourself right now, but it matters.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Considering the princess brand for disney is among the highest selling brand, They gotta be doing something right.

Do not conflate "populist" with "good", lest you tacitly accept that Obama is "good", universal background checks are "good", and the ACA is "good".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Best selling politician two terms in a row!

But if you don't see the problem with the Brave situation and don't mind having role models for young girls made more sexual and less independent then that's fine I guess. Some people liked having a better role model for their daughters.

That is the thing, I dont SEE how her looks change how she acted in the movie.
It is like Mulan, She is a princess, but her look didnt change what she did in the movie.
BTW, Mulan is awesome, just thought i would put that out there.

If a role model for young children is asked to change their appearance, then it is simply reinforcing a stereotype that is considerably outmoded. What does it say when in Mulan, the entire point is that a woman doesn't have to be restricted by gender roles (that was the point, right? I was not young enough to care to watch Disney films anymore when it came out), but then is forced to conform to a gender role in order to be listed amongst Disney's pantheon of princesses? Doesn't that completely undercut the message of the film itself?

How you look =/= how you act

 Melissia wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So McDonald's, most pop singers and boy bands are all "Good"

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

I am just using the definition of "Good" i got from google, nothing more.


https://www.google.com/search?q=good+definition&rlz=1C1DVCB_enUS383US392&aq=f&oq=good+definition&aqs=chrome.0.59j5j65l3j0.2581j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Yes, I'm well aware that you relied on a pathetic cop-out.

Not at all, it was in my original post, Hence the Quotation marks in the post.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So McDonald's, most pop singers and boy bands are all "Good"

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

I am just using the definition of "Good" i got from google, nothing more.


https://www.google.com/search?q=good+definition&rlz=1C1DVCB_enUS383US392&aq=f&oq=good+definition&aqs=chrome.0.59j5j65l3j0.2581j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Yes, I'm well aware that you relied on a pathetic cop-out.

Not at all, it was in my original post, Hence the Quotation marks in the post.

That doesn't make it any better you know.

Calling McDonald's good, even facetiously, is an insult to all food and the animals and plants real food is made of.

Come on man, you know McD's doesn't serve food. It serves Soylens Viridiens disguised as food

Yes, McDonalds is not good to everyone. There are a few people that like some items on the McDonalds menu.

I personally agree with "McD's doesn't serve food. It serves Soylens Viridiens disguised as food "

but their sales numbers would suggest otherwise.

I do have to admit, I liked the complete "average girl that can save the day" that Merida was in the movie. It's something I would approve of a daughter of mine following. The new version gives off too much of that "Hanna Montana pretty girl" vibe that everything is nowadays, that has already been talked about in the posts above.

It was nice that her being a hero didn't need to have anything to do with how pretty she was. If you have something that works...don't change it! If the look of the original character as it appeared on-screen worked perfectly, why not leave it alone.

 DeathReaper wrote:
their sales numbers would suggest

Absolutely nothing other than that they sell well.

You dont sell well if you sell crap(Unless you sell manure) They must be doing something right.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
You dont sell well if you sell crap

The real world suggests otherwise.

Something selling well doesn't mean it's good. Nor does something not selling mean that it is bad.

But it does show that it has something people want.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But it does show that it has something people want.

Or rather, a lot of people are willing to settle for crap if it saves them money-- which is perfectly understandable, but it's still crap.

 Melissia wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
You dont sell well if you sell crap

The real world suggests otherwise.

Something selling well doesn't mean it's good. Nor does something not selling mean that it is bad.

Yeah, no one is going to call a Michael Bay film a masterpiece.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But it does show that it has something people want.

Or at least that it has something they want after the marketing industry has done its best to convince them that they want it. And this is especially true when you're talking about a product aimed at young children who aren't able to see through the marketing. Parents giving in and buying toys with harmful stereotypes attached because their kids beg for them doesn't make it a good product.

Mcdonald's sells well because we're biologically adapted to crave salt, sugar, and fat.

Our bodies' physiological desires haven't caught up to the reality we live in; that we have constant access to cheap, nourishing food, that we don't have to physically labor 12 hours a day to get it, and that we have central heating, so the calories we ingest aren't predominantly spent, for half the year, in maintaining our core body temperate so that we don't die. Our bodies want the things we could only rarely get previously, and that helped compensate for being cold and doing long hours of labor.

Food producers; especially the makers of snack foods and fast foods, have scientists in laboratories working every day to make their products as tasty and "addictive" as they can make them. Their holy grail is something called the "crave point", where after each bite you want more, and you're never satiated.

 dogma wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

I don't know that I'd say it's so much about sex, but I agree completely that it's a betrayal of the character. Giving her makeup, a more hourglass figure, a fancy dress, shampoo-commercial hair, AND taking away her signature weapon add up to throwing away all the character's personality in favor of a banal parody; shoving her into the Generic Princess #456 mold.

She had a pronounced hourglass figure in the movie as well, and the belt her quiver was attached to clearly accentuated her hips.

That's not what I recall from the movie or am seeing in the comparison image. The movie version has some hips, as she's not a super-skinny female, but is pretty flat-chested and her waist is not especially narrow. The complained-about version has (just a little) more chest and a narrower waist, emphasizing her figure.

Plus: Mc Donalds isn't cheap at all, at least not in Europe. For the average price of a menu, one could also get a Pizza. A really good Pizza.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
How you look =/= how you act

No, but how you look allows others to perceive things about how you might act. If you take your young niece to go see Brave, and you leave the movie and she's talking about how cool Merida was, and how much butt she kicked, and how your niece wants to be like Merida, you'd see Merida as a somewhat positive role for her yes? Now say that Merida gets inducted as the next Disney Princess and her character completely changes to match this concept of what girls should look like. And now your niece wants to emulate Merida as she appears as a Disney Princess, she asks you about makeup, and getting your hairs did, and w/e other sorts of nonsense that she deems to be important to being a girl because that is what Merida would do.

What if the thing was a little different. What if Twilight Sparkle wasn't the bookish young pony, and instead focused on trying to pick up the cute boys on the football team? Wouldn't this upset you as someone that thought Twilight was a positive role model for young girls? A girl that studied well, learned new things, and used her brain to beat challenges rather than the supple batting of eyelashes or a small giggle?

I can't believe I just made that comparison... >_<

 Alfndrate wrote:
I can't believe I just made that comparison... >_<

I think we all just died a little, on the inside.

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little. Wait...yep, definitely.

Alfndrate wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
How you look =/= how you act

No, but how you look allows others to perceive things about how you might act. If you take your young niece to go see Brave, and you leave the movie and she's talking about how cool Merida was, and how much butt she kicked, and how your niece wants to be like Merida, you'd see Merida as a somewhat positive role for her yes? Now say that Merida gets inducted as the next Disney Princess and her character completely changes to match this concept of what girls should look like. And now your niece wants to emulate Merida as she appears as a Disney Princess, she asks you about makeup, and getting your hairs did, and w/e other sorts of nonsense that she deems to be important to being a girl because that is what Merida would do.

What if the thing was a little different. What if Twilight Sparkle wasn't the bookish young pony, and instead focused on trying to pick up the cute boys on the football team? Wouldn't this upset you as someone that thought Twilight was a positive role model for young girls? A girl that studied well, learned new things, and used her brain to beat challenges rather than the supple batting of eyelashes or a small giggle?

I can't believe I just made that comparison... >_<

I was trying to find a way to make a comparison like that, but, knowing absolutely nothing about MLP, I was unable to, and unwilling to put the effort in.

So thank you for taking one for the team there, Alfndrate.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Best selling politician two terms in a row!

But if you don't see the problem with the Brave situation and don't mind having role models for young girls made more sexual and less independent then that's fine I guess. Some people liked having a better role model for their daughters.

The Brave thing isn't aimed at me is it? As I feel that Disney princesses aren't exactly the best role models for little girls especially in a society that values independence, freedom and meritocracy.

As a father of a soon-to-be 11 year old daughter who loves Disney Princesses (we even did the Princess breakfast at Cinderella's Castle on our last trip to Mouse World) I guess I don't see the issue. Now, admittedly we have not seen this particular flick yet.

My daughter (adopted from China at 18 months) loves Mulan, Pocahontas, Ariel, Cinderella and the rest. She has done a report on the real Pocahontas for school. She has a nerf sword she uses when she plays Mulan while wearing a gorgeous silk kimono robe my wife got for her. She also adores all the fancy dressed 'barbie' doll type dolls of the Disney Princesses (and we have several of those). Yes, in almost all cases they are wearing fancier clothes than their movie version, and have nicer hair, but she likes them. That has no bearing on the lessons about independence and freedom she may have gotten from the movies (and which get reinforced in other aspects of her life). I see nothing wrong with her liking pretty fancy sparkly things. How are these characters bad role models? They tend to do courageous deeds for the sake of 'good', and if they also dress fancy and have nice hair, how does that negate their acts? My wife, and active duty soldier also enjoys dressing up and wearing make-up and sparkly jewelry. Often my wife and daughter will coordinate their outfits and jewelry if we are going someplace special. Yet my wife has deployed to combat zones and been shot at and rocketed a few times. The fact that she dresses nice and tries to look good doesn't make her less of a woman or less of a role model to my daughter.

I guess I am missing something, because I don't get it.

My daughter loves them too. She and the Wife both loved Brave, because the chick was normal. Well that and everyone had a funny accent.

I'll admit I didn't see brave. The last one I went to was tangled. It was packed and there were only about four males in the theater. NO ONE TOLD ME IT WAS A MUSICAL DEAR GOD THE HUMANITY!!! little girls dancing in the aisles in some form of prepubescent gynogifted conga line. Wo.

 CptJake wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Best selling politician two terms in a row!

But if you don't see the problem with the Brave situation and don't mind having role models for young girls made more sexual and less independent then that's fine I guess. Some people liked having a better role model for their daughters.

The Brave thing isn't aimed at me is it? As I feel that Disney princesses aren't exactly the best role models for little girls especially in a society that values independence, freedom and meritocracy.

As a father of a soon-to-be 11 year old daughter who loves Disney Princesses (we even did the Princess breakfast at Cinderella's Castle on our last trip to Mouse World) I guess I don't see the issue. Now, admittedly we have not seen this particular flick yet.

My daughter (adopted from China at 18 months) loves Mulan, Pocahontas, Ariel, Cinderella and the rest. She has done a report on the real Pocahontas for school. She has a nerf sword she uses when she plays Mulan while wearing a gorgeous silk kimono robe my wife got for her. She also adores all the fancy dressed 'barbie' doll type dolls of the Disney Princesses (and we have several of those). Yes, in almost all cases they are wearing fancier clothes than their movie version, and have nicer hair, but she likes them. That has no bearing on the lessons about independence and freedom she may have gotten from the movies (and which get reinforced in other aspects of her life). I see nothing wrong with her liking pretty fancy sparkly things. How are these characters bad role models? They tend to do courageous deeds for the sake of 'good', and if they also dress fancy and have nice hair, how does that negate their acts? My wife, and active duty soldier also enjoys dressing up and wearing make-up and sparkly jewelry. Often my wife and daughter will coordinate their outfits and jewelry if we are going someplace special. Yet my wife has deployed to combat zones and been shot at and rocketed a few times. The fact that she dresses nice and tries to look good doesn't make her less of a woman or less of a role model to my daughter.

I guess I am missing something, because I don't get it.

*Slow Clap*

 Frazzled wrote:
NO ONE TOLD ME IT WAS A MUSICAL DEAR GOD THE HUMANITY!!!

You went to a Disney cartoon, what did you expect?

 Frazzled wrote:
I'll admit I didn't see brave.

That is becuase you are a real man, such as myself. Let us retire to the lounge for scotch, cigars, and stories of wiener dog conquest in the age of enlightenment.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I'll admit I didn't see brave.

That is becuase you are a real man, such as myself. Let us retire to the lounge for scotch, cigars, and stories of wiener dog conquest in the age of enlightenment.

Hear hear!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
NO ONE TOLD ME IT WAS A MUSICAL DEAR GOD THE HUMANITY!!!

You went to a Disney cartoon, what did you expect?

About half the films are musicals (I don't distinguish them from Pixars). I just hadn't prepared myself beforehand.

Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I'll admit I didn't see brave.

That is becuase you are a real man, such as myself. Let us retire to the lounge for scotch, cigars, and stories of wiener dog conquest in the age of enlightenment.

I'm not certain if you were trying to come up with the perfect satire of the issue here or not, but you did.



@CaptJake: I suspect you'll notice what the problem is when your daughter feels pressure to look a certain way in order to fit in, and you recognize said pressure as having been manufactured by Disney.

 Frazzled wrote:
My daughter loves them too. She and the Wife both loved Brave, because the chick was normal. Well that and everyone had a funny accent.

I'll admit I didn't see brave. The last one I went to was tangled. It was packed and there were only about four males in the theater. NO ONE TOLD ME IT WAS A MUSICAL DEAR GOD THE HUMANITY!!! little girls dancing in the aisles in some form of prepubescent gynogifted conga line. Wo.

Could you not have had the cigars and brandy, and then unleashed the weiner dogs on the unsuspecting crowd?

 Alfndrate wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
How you look =/= how you act

No, but how you look allows others to perceive things about how you might act. If you take your young niece to go see Brave, and you leave the movie and she's talking about how cool Merida was, and how much butt she kicked, and how your niece wants to be like Merida, you'd see Merida as a somewhat positive role for her yes? Now say that Merida gets inducted as the next Disney Princess and her character completely changes to match this concept of what girls should look like. And now your niece wants to emulate Merida as she appears as a Disney Princess, she asks you about makeup, and getting your hairs did, and w/e other sorts of nonsense that she deems to be important to being a girl because that is what Merida would do.

What if the thing was a little different. What if Twilight Sparkle wasn't the bookish young pony, and instead focused on trying to pick up the cute boys on the football team? Wouldn't this upset you as someone that thought Twilight was a positive role model for young girls? A girl that studied well, learned new things, and used her brain to beat challenges rather than the supple batting of eyelashes or a small giggle?

I can't believe I just made that comparison... >_<

That is a complete change of character, not a change of how she looked.

I'm not certain if you were trying to come up with the perfect satire of the issue here or not, but you did.



@CaptJake: I suspect you'll notice what the problem is when your daughter feels pressure to look a certain way in order to fit in, and you recognize said pressure as having been manufactured by Disney.

Really? Do you have a daughter?
Mine never had any of that. I will admit she did want a dragon fire gun after watching Mulan, but hey so did I.

hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
How you look =/= how you act

No, but how you look allows others to perceive things about how you might act. If you take your young niece to go see Brave, and you leave the movie and she's talking about how cool Merida was, and how much butt she kicked, and how your niece wants to be like Merida, you'd see Merida as a somewhat positive role for her yes? Now say that Merida gets inducted as the next Disney Princess and her character completely changes to match this concept of what girls should look like. And now your niece wants to emulate Merida as she appears as a Disney Princess, she asks you about makeup, and getting your hairs did, and w/e other sorts of nonsense that she deems to be important to being a girl because that is what Merida would do.

What if the thing was a little different. What if Twilight Sparkle wasn't the bookish young pony, and instead focused on trying to pick up the cute boys on the football team? Wouldn't this upset you as someone that thought Twilight was a positive role model for young girls? A girl that studied well, learned new things, and used her brain to beat challenges rather than the supple batting of eyelashes or a small giggle?

I can't believe I just made that comparison... >_<

That is a complete change of character, not a change of how she looked.

And so what then if part of Merida's character is her staunch refusal to conform to a certain way of looking? Would it not be a complete change of character then, if she did conform?

You see, where fictional characters are concerned, their appearance is a part of their character.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
My daughter loves them too. She and the Wife both loved Brave, because the chick was normal. Well that and everyone had a funny accent.

I'll admit I didn't see brave. The last one I went to was tangled. It was packed and there were only about four males in the theater. NO ONE TOLD ME IT WAS A MUSICAL DEAR GOD THE HUMANITY!!! little girls dancing in the aisles in some form of prepubescent gynogifted conga line. Wo.

Could you not have had the cigars and brandy, and then unleashed the weiner dogs on the unsuspecting crowd?

I think thats probably a war crime somewhere.

 Frazzled wrote:
I think thats probably a war crime somewhere.

Is that similar to "It's 5 o'clock somewhere"?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
How you look =/= how you act

No, but how you look allows others to perceive things about how you might act. If you take your young niece to go see Brave, and you leave the movie and she's talking about how cool Merida was, and how much butt she kicked, and how your niece wants to be like Merida, you'd see Merida as a somewhat positive role for her yes? Now say that Merida gets inducted as the next Disney Princess and her character completely changes to match this concept of what girls should look like. And now your niece wants to emulate Merida as she appears as a Disney Princess, she asks you about makeup, and getting your hairs did, and w/e other sorts of nonsense that she deems to be important to being a girl because that is what Merida would do.

What if the thing was a little different. What if Twilight Sparkle wasn't the bookish young pony, and instead focused on trying to pick up the cute boys on the football team? Wouldn't this upset you as someone that thought Twilight was a positive role model for young girls? A girl that studied well, learned new things, and used her brain to beat challenges rather than the supple batting of eyelashes or a small giggle?

I can't believe I just made that comparison... >_<

That is a complete change of character, not a change of how she looked.

YOU SHOULD INSTEAD READ MY EDIT AS I FEEL THAT IT IS A BETTER POINT.

Like I said though the looks can affect how people perceive you will act. Look at the image below (spoilered for those that don't want to see Ponies). Note: This is someone's interpretation of Equestria Girls, I believe the official art of the film keeps them looking like ponies, just on 2 legs.


All of them look pretty okay right? Look at "Rarity" on the far right. She's wearing a short dress that reveals more than half her thigh, she has (as Ragnar called it), Shampoo-commercial hair, and the look in her eye is not one of the fashion discernable tastes of the Rarity you know from MLP, she looks like she's trying to lure in all of the boys. Looks, whether you want to admit it in this thread or not, matter. Perception matters. You, yourself, stated in another thread that when you go to the game store you shower, put on clean clothes, and your good hat. If how you look doesn't matter, nor influences how people perceive you will act, then why are we talking about the sexualization of a cartoon character, or why people should shower and wear clean clothes when they go out gaming? Because when people walk into their local gaming store and see 300 pound men with holes in their underwear the size and shape of Florida (I kid you not I was "treated" to this while working for Wyrd last summer at GenCon) and the stench of raw onions and sewage, they don't want anything to do with that store. The same thing holds true for people looking for positive role models for their children. When I was growing up, I was allowed to watch almost any cartoon. I was the only person in my 4th grade class that had not seen an episode of South Park. Why? Because my parents didn't want 4th graders with mouths like sailors to be a role model in my life.


Edit: I would like to point out that you are a fan of MLP, a show that has earned praise for not conforming to the standards of "what boys and girls should like/look like." You're sitting here arguing that the change in Merida's character design isn't negative, hows about that jumping of the shark that happened at the end of season 3? Everything has change now that your Twilight Sparkle has wings and is a "Princess" herself. Actually feth that's a damn good point. Speaking of people having their character designs changed. Twilight became one of the Equestrian Princesses at the end of last season, she's no longer the bookish Twilight that everyone knows. Now she's royalty, she's got fething wings (and no longer needs to really rely on that balloon), and is now VASTLY different from her 5 friends... But she had to conform to the standards of what an Equestrian Princess is. Merida is no different in this regard, and the fan backlash isn't either.

Feth, 2 deep analysis of MLP in a single morning. Is 9:40AM too early to start drinking? Because Idk how much longer I can keep treading that pastel colored water...

 azazel the cat wrote:



@CaptJake: I suspect you'll notice what the problem is when your daughter feels pressure to look a certain way in order to fit in, and you recognize said pressure as having been manufactured by Disney.

Give me a break. Frankly a lot of the crap TV shows kids this age watch are a LOT worse in respect to 'how one should look' than any Disney Princess toys/movies/drawings. Kids her age and for the next few years do not need Disney Princesses to apply pressure to look a certain way, the pressure is there regardless from peers and a slew of other sources that don't necessarily have the GOOD lessons associated with them that the Princesses do. And you know, I'll let you in on a little secret. Parenting has a big effect too.

So again, I fail to see the issue. The characters tend to have a certain look for the 'Barbie doll' version, and in my experience little girls like that look (which is fine in my book), and again, that does not negate any of the lessons learned through the character's actions.

Haven't read the thread but to be fair it was likely a change for their park actors. They need the same specifications for all their princesses and would have had to hire people that would only be able to play Merida at their parks. Just my guess on the main reason it was slightly altered.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Haven't read the thread but to be fair it was likely a change for their park actors. They need the same specifications for all their princesses and would have had to hire people that would only be able to play Merida at their parks. Just my guess on the main reason it was slightly altered.

Wrong. Disney has had actors playing Merida since the movie came out. Additionally, actors don't only play princesses. They didn't have to change the genie to put people in a costume.

CptJake wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

@CaptJake: I suspect you'll notice what the problem is when your daughter feels pressure to look a certain way in order to fit in, and you recognize said pressure as having been manufactured by Disney.

Give me a break. Frankly a lot of the crap TV shows kids this age watch are a LOT worse in respect to 'how one should look' than any Disney Princess toys/movies/drawings. Kids her age and for the next few years do not need Disney Princesses to apply pressure to look a certain way, the pressure is there regardless from peers and a slew of other sources that don't necessarily have the GOOD lessons associated with them that the Princesses do. And you know, I'll let you in on a little secret. Parenting has a big effect too.

So again, I fail to see the issue. The characters tend to have a certain look for the 'Barbie doll' version, and in my experience little girls like that look (which is fine in my book), and again, that does not negate any of the lessons learned through the character's actions.

Some girls do like that look. But not all. And a large portion of girls like that look because, from a very early age, they are taught that such a look is "right" and "good"; it is not a natural phenomenon in many, many girls.

And yes, some shows are worse. But that does not make Disney's actions okay. A murderer is not a great guy just because he stands next to a spree killer.

 Frazzled wrote:

I'm not certain if you were trying to come up with the perfect satire of the issue here or not, but you did.



@CaptJake: I suspect you'll notice what the problem is when your daughter feels pressure to look a certain way in order to fit in, and you recognize said pressure as having been manufactured by Disney.

Really? Do you have a daughter?
Mine never had any of that. I will admit she did want a dragon fire gun after watching Mulan, but hey so did I.

Wouldn't Mulan be positive example as she is a strong, independent woman? Unlike Cinderella and Snow White who are completely dependent on others for success (the 7 dwarves, the fairy godmother, the rich prince, etc) and the only things they seem to be valued for is being pretty,

cooking and cleaning.

The ironic part, In cinderella 3, Cinderella actualy becomes very independent and has to fight to get her man back.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

I'm not certain if you were trying to come up with the perfect satire of the issue here or not, but you did.



@CaptJake: I suspect you'll notice what the problem is when your daughter feels pressure to look a certain way in order to fit in, and you recognize said pressure as having been manufactured by Disney.

Really? Do you have a daughter?
Mine never had any of that. I will admit she did want a dragon fire gun after watching Mulan, but hey so did I.

Wouldn't Mulan be positive example as she is a strong, independent woman? Unlike Cinderella and Snow White who are completely dependent on others for success (the 7 dwarves, the fairy godmother, the rich prince, etc) and the only things they seem to be valued for is being pretty,

cooking and cleaning.

Mulan is a postitive role for girls as well, though Disney gets (some) flak because Mulan is wearing that dress that she hated in the film, albeit I thought there was a part in the film where she willingly wore it.

But @Alfndrate, You make a point, Still i think it is a worthless think for a petition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:


Mulan is a postitive role for girls as well, though Disney gets (some) flak because Mulan is wearing that dress that she hated in the film, albeit I thought there was a part in the film where she willingly wore it.

There was, at the end, in her home she wore it. Cant remember why though.

Good thing you can just decide not to sign the petition then...

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
The ironic part, In cinderella 3, Cinderella actualy becomes very independent and has to fight to get her man back.

Maybe, but is that the version of Cinderella that most people are most familiar with? Also Cinderella has a message to say about little boys as well that being tall, rich and in control is ideal.

Correct, Im just pointing out, The original cinderella, in the movie was nothing more then sitting there, she did rely on others to make her dream come true, that is right.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
cinderella 3

WHY.

 CptJake wrote:
I guess I am missing something, because I don't get it.

What you're missing is that not every situation is like yours. You've made an effort to balance the "pretty" stuff with other things and ensure that your daughter sees "pretty" as just one aspect of a person. However, not all parents are that active in providing role models, imagine a child who gets most of their ideas directly from tv/movies/etc. Now they're left with role models that are based around looking pretty and very little else, to the point that other details about the character have been pushed aside in favor of a generic pretty dress.

Now, obviously this isn't the worst example, but that doesn't make it a good thing. The harmful "your job is to look pretty" problem isn't coming from a single explicit source, it's the result of a constant supply of more subtle messages all adding together. This character change is just one more part of that.

 Peregrine wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I guess I am missing something, because I don't get it.

What you're missing is that not every situation is like yours. You've made an effort to balance the "pretty" stuff with other things and ensure that your daughter sees "pretty" as just one aspect of a person. However, not all parents are that active in providing role models, imagine a child who gets most of their ideas directly from tv/movies/etc. Now they're left with role models that are based around looking pretty and very little else, to the point that other details about the character have been pushed aside in favor of a generic pretty dress.

Now, obviously this isn't the worst example, but that doesn't make it a good thing. The harmful "your job is to look pretty" problem isn't coming from a single explicit source, it's the result of a constant supply of more subtle messages all adding together. This character change is just one more part of that.

Sorry, these are weak arguments in my opinion. Again, the kid sees the movie and gets the role model message from that. A toy or actor in a similar but nicer costume and hair style doesn't take that away. Parents can decide to reinforce the positive aspects.

It sounds like the real issue is parents not being parents. I guess I just don't see it as Disney's (or any other company's) job to raise my kids and can't find much empathy for folks who do. If you allow the 'be pretty for pretty's sake' to be the message your kid gets, that is on you. Nothing Disney nor any other company does or does not do is going to change poor parenting.

Disney is basically undoing everything the movie was marketed to be as far as a strong female role-model is concerned.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So McDonald's, most pop singers and boy bands are all "Good"

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

I am just using the definition of "Good" i got from google, nothing more.


https://www.google.com/search?q=good+definition&rlz=1C1DVCB_enUS383US392&aq=f&oq=good+definition&aqs=chrome.0.59j5j65l3j0.2581j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Logic oblige : 'Good' is a syncategorematic term. It doesn't have an isolated meaning.


On-topic : I find nothing sexy about both Merida's, but the aesthetics of the ''old'' one (with the bow) is more pleasing and innovative. The proposed one seems to lose to conformity.

After the 'I need a hero' fiasco, you'd think Disney would somewhat learn.

 CptJake wrote:
A toy or actor in a similar but nicer costume and hair style doesn't take that away.

But yes, it can take it away. Which does the kid see more frequently, the toy or the movie? Which one contradicts the general message from society, and which one reinforces it? Etc.

I guess I just don't see it as Disney's (or any other company's) job to raise my kids and can't find much empathy for folks who do.

It isn't Disney's job. But what they're doing goes beyond merely not helping you raise your kids and into actively sabotaging that process. It's like the companies that send all their manufacturing overseas to get around those pesky laws about having safe working conditions and minimum wages, obviously what they're doing is legal but we don't have to approve of it.

If you allow the 'be pretty for pretty's sake' to be the message your kid gets, that is on you.

Nonsense. That message is overwhelming in our society, it's not a question of whether or not a person gets the message, it's how strongly do they get it and how much of an effect does it have. Unless you're one of those religious fundamentalists who locks their kids in the closet to "protect" them from the sinful world "proper parenting" can only attempt damage control, not get rid of the message completely. So yes, good parents are important, but that doesn't excuse the actions of people creating those harmful messages.

CptJake wrote:It sounds like the real issue is parents not being parents. I guess I just don't see it as Disney's (or any other company's) job to raise my kids and can't find much empathy for folks who do. If you allow the 'be pretty for pretty's sake' to be the message your kid gets, that is on you. Nothing Disney nor any other company does or does not do is going to change poor parenting.

I think you're absolutely right in every aspect of the above statement, with one exception:

A parent trying to counterbalance the entirety of media in today's age is akin to trying to use your hands to push back the tide. No matter how good of a parent you may be in teaching your daughter about proper role models, independence, etc., ultimately you will find yourself in a tug-o-war against an entire cultural zeitgeist, which honestly is nigh impossible to oivercome directly; instead it must be eroded and changed so as to better conform to your parental desires (because the current culture is largely informed by the parental desires of a pre-women's lib movement, which generall encouraged domesticity).

To keep with the tide analogy, dikes are built one brick at a time to eventually keep the tide back.

 CptJake wrote:
Give me a break. Frankly a lot of the crap TV shows kids this age watch are a LOT worse in respect to 'how one should look' than any Disney Princess toys/movies/drawings. Kids her age and for the next few years do not need Disney Princesses to apply pressure to look a certain way, the pressure is there regardless from peers and a slew of other sources that don't necessarily have the GOOD lessons associated with them that the Princesses do.

Hey, I’m not dumping on the Princesses in general. I am advising that, as a dad of daughters, you should probably see Brave. While I may be biased toward the Celtic theme, toward any movie with Kelly MacDonald, Emma Thompson, and Billy Connolly in the lead roles, and toward a movie with a strong-willed, independent redheaded daughter clashing with her overprotective mother (hello, my sister and mom) IMO it’s one of the better Disney movies in a while. It’s an especially good one for mothers and daughters, which is really nice to see. Heck, it’s Pixar, man- what are you waiting for?

The issue here (for me, anyway) isn’t that the Disney Princesses are terrible role models or particularly damaging to kids. Most of the characters, at least within the last twenty years or so, are fairly independent and capable. The issue is that Merida was written specifically not to be a dressed-up princess. She’s an active, outdoorsy, no-makeup, tousled-hair sort who explicitly refuses to dress up fancy, act like a princess and get married off. Who (in the movie) rips the pretty-but-constricting gown she’s stuffed into as a physical and symbolic display that it restricts her freedom of movement and action. Putting makeup and a fancy gown on the character, taking away her bow and giving her a makeover as a more conventional pretty princess is antithetical to the character. She’s specifically designed and written as a (charming and fun) contradiction to that concept. This is not to say (at least IMO) that pretty princesses are terrible. But that forcing THIS particular character into that mold and image, when that’s SPECIFICALLY the mold she’s designed to not fit into, is clueless, dumb, and pretty annoying to people who like this character.

It’s kind of like changing Han Solo in Star Wars so that he’s no longer roguish or potentially untrustworthy. Maybe by making it so that he’s not the kind of guy who would shoot Greedo first or something. But more so.

Y'know, you make a valid point, I might have to reconsider tmy viewpoint on the change.
Still the the protest is worthless though, It is disney they do what they want.
Maybe i will get my niece a brave doll when we go next week.

 azazel the cat wrote:

CptJake wrote:It sounds like the real issue is parents not being parents. I guess I just don't see it as Disney's (or any other company's) job to raise my kids and can't find much empathy for folks who do. If you allow the 'be pretty for pretty's sake' to be the message your kid gets, that is on you. Nothing Disney nor any other company does or does not do is going to change poor parenting.

I think you're absolutely right in every aspect of the above statement, with one exception:

A parent trying to counterbalance the entirety of media in today's age is akin to trying to use your hands to push back the tide. No matter how good of a parent you may be in teaching your daughter about proper role models, independence, etc., ultimately you will find yourself in a tug-o-war against an entire cultural zeitgeist, which honestly is nigh impossible to oivercome directly; instead it must be eroded and changed so as to better conform to your parental desires (because the current culture is largely informed by the parental desires of a pre-women's lib movement, which generall encouraged domesticity).

To keep with the tide analogy, dikes are built one brick at a time to eventually keep the tide back.

That is only true if you allow your children to watch things that give off an image that you do not want them to idolize.

It really all starts with the parents.

Got an issue with Brave? Do not let your kids watch that film.

Got an issue with your kids playing Halo? Do not let your kids play that game...

DeathReaper wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

CptJake wrote:It sounds like the real issue is parents not being parents. I guess I just don't see it as Disney's (or any other company's) job to raise my kids and can't find much empathy for folks who do. If you allow the 'be pretty for pretty's sake' to be the message your kid gets, that is on you. Nothing Disney nor any other company does or does not do is going to change poor parenting.

I think you're absolutely right in every aspect of the above statement, with one exception:

A parent trying to counterbalance the entirety of media in today's age is akin to trying to use your hands to push back the tide. No matter how good of a parent you may be in teaching your daughter about proper role models, independence, etc., ultimately you will find yourself in a tug-o-war against an entire cultural zeitgeist, which honestly is nigh impossible to oivercome directly; instead it must be eroded and changed so as to better conform to your parental desires (because the current culture is largely informed by the parental desires of a pre-women's lib movement, which generall encouraged domesticity).

To keep with the tide analogy, dikes are built one brick at a time to eventually keep the tide back.

That is only true if you allow your children to watch things that give off an image that you do not want them to idolize.

It really all starts with the parents.

Got an issue with Brave? Do not let your kids watch that film.

Got an issue with your kids playing Halo? Do not let your kids play that game...

And what do you do when you recognize that this image is everywhere and inescapable?

 DeathReaper wrote:
Got an issue with your kids playing Halo? Do not let your kids play that game...

Or leave the house, or have friends, or see a magazine, or listen to the radio, or go to school.

 azazel the cat wrote:

CptJake wrote:It sounds like the real issue is parents not being parents. I guess I just don't see it as Disney's (or any other company's) job to raise my kids and can't find much empathy for folks who do. If you allow the 'be pretty for pretty's sake' to be the message your kid gets, that is on you. Nothing Disney nor any other company does or does not do is going to change poor parenting.

I think you're absolutely right in every aspect of the above statement, with one exception:

A parent trying to counterbalance the entirety of media in today's age is akin to trying to use your hands to push back the tide. No matter how good of a parent you may be in teaching your daughter about proper role models, independence, etc., ultimately you will find yourself in a tug-o-war against an entire cultural zeitgeist, which honestly is nigh impossible to oivercome directly; instead it must be eroded and changed so as to better conform to your parental desires (because the current culture is largely informed by the parental desires of a pre-women's lib movement, which generall encouraged domesticity).

To keep with the tide analogy, dikes are built one brick at a time to eventually keep the tide back.

Strangely, I was able to do it pretty easily. Just be involved.

 Frazzled wrote:
Strangely, I was able to do it pretty easily. Just be involved.

I have no problem believing you were able to do all sorts of damage without any outside help!

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Strangely, I was able to do it pretty easily. Just be involved.

I have no problem believing you were able to do all sorts of damage without any outside help!

Oh come on, Frazz doesn't seem to be a bad parent, he is Texan though, so if you ask him he's the biggest and best parent. But honestly from what I've heard about "the Boy" and GC, they're not bad kids albeit I heard it through Frazz, so he probably has rose tinted glasses

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Strangely, I was able to do it pretty easily. Just be involved.

I have no problem believing you were able to do all sorts of damage without any outside help!

Oh come on, Frazz doesn't seem to be a bad parent, he is Texan though, so if you ask him he's the biggest and best parent. But honestly from what I've heard about "the Boy" and GC, they're not bad kids albeit I heard it through Frazz, so he probably has rose tinted glasses

What, doesn't everyone teach their kids how to hotwire a car and assume a new identity in Mexico?

Well in two weeks the boy graduates and off to university with a half decent scholarship. GC is starting high school, never having gotten anything other than an A. I blame their mother for that.
And yes I am the biggest, or at least my keister is.

I felt that Frazz would realize I was just joking.

 Frazzled wrote:
GC is starting high school

I feel so old all of a sudden.

Oh yea, definitely took it that way (although maybe the truth...)

Age-How do you think I feel??????

I realize there weren't enough in my post.

Also I feel old too

both images seem to be of a red head girl with impossibly small waist proportions in both,

the first picture is from a side angle, making the slim waist appear slimmer, not to mention its a very common thing done in animation to exaggerate features.


I can understand people not wanting any changes to a favorite character, for any reason, even if its simply not liking change.

but there is basically no difference between the two pictures, they are both exaggerated uber skinny attractive red heads, if one is a sexist image, then they both are.


personally, I am sick to death of having sex sold at every opportunity, cant go 5 seconds without some advertiser or media trying to sell something using a "sexy" (one limited definition of sexy anyways) image or model

 easysauce wrote:
but there is basically no difference between the two pictures, they are both exaggerated uber skinny attractive red heads, if one is a sexist image, then they both are.

I feel an optometrist visit is in your future, and you might want to avoid driving.

 Ahtman wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
but there is basically no difference between the two pictures, they are both exaggerated uber skinny attractive red heads, if one is a sexist image, then they both are.

I feel an optometrist visit is in your future, and you might want to avoid driving.

10 seconds to wait before the attack on my cognitive abilities, classy!

and no, there is no large difference between the two, both are extremely skinny redheads, with the animated one viewed from the side, and the cgi one from the front further.

you did notice that the animated one is a side angle right? that makes it look even skinnier

or is it just about not having a bow and arrow or some other ridiculous thing the "patriarchy" is enforcing?

my kids wont have body image issues from this any more then they will from the below.

 easysauce wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
but there is basically no difference between the two pictures, they are both exaggerated uber skinny attractive red heads, if one is a sexist image, then they both are.

I feel an optometrist visit is in your future, and you might want to avoid driving.

10 seconds to wait before the attack on my cognitive abilities, classy!

You sort of open up the door to questioning your cognitive abilities when you say that two different images are the same thing. If you can't see the difference that is fine, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, and they have been discussed quite a bit, which makes being unable to tell the difference a little baffling to be honest.

easysauce wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
but there is basically no difference between the two pictures, they are both exaggerated uber skinny attractive red heads, if one is a sexist image, then they both are.

I feel an optometrist visit is in your future, and you might want to avoid driving.

10 seconds to wait before the attack on my cognitive abilities, classy!

For what it's worth: eyesight =/= cognitive ability.

And I think you're missing the forest for the trees. One of the central points to the character is that she refuses to conform to the pretty-princess-dress-me-up image. So what should one make of that, in seeing her conforming to that image in order to be considered a Disney Princess?

Oh, and here are Venus de Milo's measurements (maintaining the size ratio after height reduction):
Height= 5'4"
Bust= 34"
Waist= 31.2"
Hips= 40.8"

 Ahtman wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
but there is basically no difference between the two pictures, they are both exaggerated uber skinny attractive red heads, if one is a sexist image, then they both are.

I feel an optometrist visit is in your future, and you might want to avoid driving.

10 seconds to wait before the attack on my cognitive abilities, classy!

You sort of open up the door to questioning your cognitive abilities when you say that two different images are the same thing. If you can't see the difference that is fine, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, and they have been discussed quite a bit, which makes being unable to tell the difference a little baffling to be honest.

saying there is BASICALLY no difference is not saying they are the same, check your own reading comprehension before you insult me and put words in my mouth.



if its an argument over HOW annorexic looking is ok, then fine continue arguing that one slightly less anorexic looking princess is totally fine, while the other is crossing the line.

looks to me like they BOTH came out of a concentration camp, even if you insist one is "not ok" and one is "ok"

they both are way to skinny, and the difference between them is negligible

and actually az, vision is part of cognition, all our senses are.

the point is that its obviously an insult directed at me personally, and an attack on the person makes for a poor and impolite argument.


if the whole point of the "pre change" princess was that she wasnt the stereotype, then that is your failure to see the forest for the trees, as she already IS the stereotype. (looks wize anyways)

 easysauce wrote:

you did notice that the animated one is a side angle right? that makes it look even skinnier

Both are practically standing at the same angle. The animated one turns her facing more toward us from the hips up. Shoulder, waist and hips are sensibly the same in both.

Drawn one shows more skin because of the shoulder cut on her dress. That's about it.

 azazel the cat wrote:
And what do you do when you recognize that this image is everywhere and inescapable?

 Ahtman wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Got an issue with your kids playing Halo? Do not let your kids play that game...

Or leave the house, or have friends, or see a magazine, or listen to the radio, or go to school.

Follow frazzled's advice:

 Frazzled wrote:
Strangely, I was able to do it pretty easily. Just be involved.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Still the the protest is worthless though, It is disney they do what they want.

Getting one's voices heard in large numbers is not worthless.

 easysauce wrote:
saying there is BASICALLY no difference is not saying they are the same, check your own reading comprehension before you insult me and put words in my mouth.

Out of curiosity, is all the text in that sentence the same size to you? Or did you notice that some was bigger than the rest? Or was it all basically the same size in your estimation?

Back to the original topic: If given the choice, I'd much rather hang with the original Merida than the re-imagined one. The move Merida just seems like a heck of a lotta fun, whereas the redesign looks like a high-maintenance drama queen.

Just sayin'.

~Tim?

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:Back to the original topic: If given the choice, I'd much rather hang with the original Merida than the re-imagined one. The move Merida just seems like a heck of a lotta fun, whereas the redesign looks like a high-maintenance drama queen.

Just sayin'.

~Tim?

That's exactly the point.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:Back to the original topic: If given the choice, I'd much rather hang with the original Merida than the re-imagined one. The move Merida just seems like a heck of a lotta fun, whereas the redesign looks like a high-maintenance drama queen.

Just sayin'.

~Tim?

That's exactly the point.

And now we're assuming based on appearance.

We've come full circle folks. Bravo!

 gunslingerpro wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:Back to the original topic: If given the choice, I'd much rather hang with the original Merida than the re-imagined one. The move Merida just seems like a heck of a lotta fun, whereas the redesign looks like a high-maintenance drama queen.

Just sayin'.

~Tim?

That's exactly the point.

And now we're assuming based on appearance.

We've come full circle folks. Bravo!

Hey, I was just pointing out the obvious fact, IE that Disney's redesign made no sense as it didn't jive with the personality of the character.

~Tim?

Is the entire idea behind the Disney princesses an outdated concept drawn from a 1950s-era patriarchal establishment? Yes, absolutely.

I like this sentence. It says, 'this was a stupid decision' and 'Get out of the 50's Disney' so well