Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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Is the entire idea behind the Disney princesses an outdated concept drawn from a 1950s-era patriarchal establishment?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