My Own Personal Nerdy Disney and Animation Scrutinizing Analyses

onsdag 14. juni 2017

"The Lion King II: Simba's Pride" - The Rare Disney Cheapquel to Be A Proud King of Disney Cheapquels

Hi folks! Welcome to My Own Personal Nerdy Disney Scrutinizing and Animation Analyses blog. A blog where I'm analyzing several Disney films, Disney or Animation in general! These entries are meant to be my analyses only. Not reviews or statements. Just fun analyses! Though I'll make some personal remarks now and then, the content of these entries is meant to be depicted objectively. They're made for entertainment purpose only and the pictures/clips are copyright Disney or other companies.

Make sure to leave a comment if you like this site! And if there's something you think could be improved, please let me know. But in a constructive way, please. And just a note; I'm not a Native English writer, so my incorrect grammar may be notable.

And finally; If you haven't seen the films, beware of spoilers! And the funny lines aren't meant to be nothing than funny. So I hope you won't find them offensive. If so, I apologize.

This entry happened to be a first of it`s kind. Mostly because it was my first assessment of a direct to video sequel. So forgive me, purists and haters ;)

It would've been an understatement to state how "beloved" the Disney direct to-video/DVD-sequels were (yes, note the sarcasm, folks). And it's easy to see why. Those products were inferior to their theatrical counterparts in many ways and truly hampered people's memories about their predecessors. Two major reasons for why the hate of these cheapquels, which they've been referred to, have been so overwhelming (and sure this applies to direct of video-productions in general, not only the Disney cheapquels).

On a personal level, I kinda liked the idea at first (though of course I've would've personally preferred actual theatrically sequels). Yet when the craze eventually took over, it certainly became clear that these cheapquels were declining in quality and becoming worse and worse (in my opinion).

Disney`s Previous Policy of Sequels

Strike this pose. And yes, it hurts ;)

However, while the craze fortunately stopped in late 2008 and the Revival era actually launched theatrical sequels (going against the studio's original policy about sequels. Which never happened in Walt's time, because of how the sequels of Thee Little Pigs flopped). While of course there are many subjective opinions about these cheapquels, there has been at least one which has happened to become cherished and perceived as superior to it`s counterparts. And that is the sequel to The Lion King. The Lion King II: Simba's Pride.

Yes, I have a bigger mouth than you. So what? :)

General Information About Simba`s Pride

Having finally turned 20 years old (released October 27th 1998), Simba`s Pride was a huge success. With $ 454.5 million copies sold overall and being the most successful direct-to-video release to date (and with 3.5 copies sold the three first days). And anticipating it's success, there were shipped 13 million copies to stores. Pride also won an Annie Award for Best Animated Home Entertainment Production. While it was initially planned as a 1996-release, when director Darrell Rooney and Jeannine Roussel came onboard. Yet Variety rumored it to be released in the spring of 1997. Simba's Pride was one of the earliest films to be released in the cheapquel phase.

This ambitious sequel was made by Disney's Australian studio (though the pre-production process started in the US) in a 20 months process. Though the overall execution took overall four years (while there was a slight hiatus due to rewriting). The cheapquel-phase had started four years prior to Pride with Return of Jafar. Which it's success made Disney confident enough to churn these cheapquels to a living profit.

So Simba's Pride was the sixth cheapquel in the lineup (1998 also saw the release of Pocahontas II: Journey To A New World, a rare Disney sequel that at least logically was needed. Which was loathed by Pocahontas fans for actually ending the relationship between the lovebirds). Being the official follow-up to the most successful animated film at the time, Simba's Pride had no small expectations on it's shoulders (though the discussions of a sequel originated before the first movie was released).

It would be easy to claim that The Lion King should've received an theatrical sequel in the same vein as The Rescuers Down Under, for obvious reasons (though an excuse for it at the time was that Feature Animation was too occupied with their own properties and that home video was an effective way to launch a sequel). But we all know that unfortunately didn't happen (at least domestically, since Simba's Pride was in some European and Latin American countries released theatrically. Which was a deliberate choice).

Yes, it's a preview screening for those
with Potter's invisibility cape :)

It would be easy to ponder about why exactly it took so long to make a sequel to Lion King, since there were a less gap between Aladdin and The Return of Jafar. Fans of Lion King could wonder if Simba's Pride would've benefited to ride on the heels of it's success of it's predecessor. But at least we got the Timon & Pumbaa-series in between and visitors of Disneyworld had the Circle of Life An Environmental Fable attraction. Which featured original, polished animation of Simba and his jungle pals. And let's not forget the Stand By Me short, which also had some quite polished animation! Simba's Pride got more merchandise than the other cheapquels, but the reason is of course obvious (and the merchandise was also a big gain, gaining $ 300 millions).

Well, since we're stuffed, we can at least look at each other :)

Is it`s Fanbase Deserved?

But as already said, Simba's Pride has a reputation of being superior to the other cheapquels (and I'm sorry purists, there are even people who consider it to be superior to it's highly regarded predecessor). But does it deserve it? Well, let's analyze this subject, shall we?

Enjoy holding her while you can.
Soon she'll be to heavy for ya :)

The Strengths of Simba`s Pride

Of course this assessment will be my own subjective analysis on the take, so take it with a grain of salt. But even for an analytical brain as mine (no meaning to brag), it's easy to spot the weaknesses and strengths of any movie (or a product for that matter) and see why people are compelled or repulsed by those qualities. In retrospect, it's easy to see why some people actually embraced Pride better than the other cheapquels.

Pride has a lot of it going for it! It's irresistibly cute and endearing! The animation is frankly superior to it's counterparts and actually looking less Saturday Morning cartoon-esque. The music is mostly good, both it's score and the songs (which Ladysmith Black Mambazo contributed to). The characterizations are engaging enough and the premise yields promise.

Even a lion can have a Colgate smile :)

A Different Storyline From It`s Predecessor

One thing the early Disney cheapquels shall have credit for, is for being actual continuations of the stories and never relying on skimpy plotlines as the later on cheapquels did (the only exception were the Beauty and the Beast midquels, which were non-canon). At least Pride shall have credit for being an actual continuation of the story and not just being just a rehash of it's predecessor (though some naysayers have whined that most of the plotlines are basically a reversion of their predecessors, but sorry to cite this guys, at least some of the plotlines makes sense).

Pride had a different conflict, yet it's needless to cite that it's basically another Shakespeare-plot line, this time with Romeo and Juliet (and also a little bit of Manchurian Candidate), just with an happy ending (and yes, since it's Disney, it's easy to compare it to Pocahontas, which this film pays nods to with swirling leaves. Some have compared it to The Fox and the Hound as well).

The New Characters: The Outlanders

We've watched The Fox and The Hound too many times ;)

However, the new storyline leads us to one of the Pride`s head-scratching issues: The Outlanders! Of course they`ve been something to ponder widely about. Due to

their logical aspects of their non-existense in the original (and also how the Hyenas are completely absent in this film. Though they get a brief mention by Nuka in the Elephant Graveyard. Since the Outlanders are apparently given their own place, the Outlands. Though it was originally meant to be a Crystal Cave).
Of course they make little sense. Yet for a wild imagination, one could assume that they could`ve been existent in The Lion King all along. Just not being mentioned.

In a way, the choice of giving Scar afollowing cult is dramatically intriguing. Since he wasthe antagonist of it's predecessor (and yes, it obviously introduces a religion named Scar, since Zira worships him as a God. Yet Zira was originally going to ally the Hyenas). Yet despite this, Kovu is never actually Scar's son (Michael Eisner suggested to back off that from that subject. Despite that Kovu was originally going to be both Zira and Scar's son. But hey, at least conscious step, due to how it's been widely debated that Simba and Nala could've been half-siblings as well). Yet Kovu and his siblings never given a father figure, nor is he mentioned whatsoever (on The Lion King source site, this issue is left with an question mark). The Outlanders are the only new characters in the movie (though Zazu were originally going to have a love interest in Binti, who was cut).

Yes, you should be scared of me. I gave you jaundice :)

Kovu and Zira

And I have a long way to go.
That's why I'm shaking.

I can be anthropomorphic by
doing this pose. Sort of :)

At least Kovu's (voiced by Max`s voice actor, Jason Mardsen) set-up makes an intriguing conflict. And it makes the stakes even higher, regarding Kiara's position as a queen. It also gives Kovu (which means scar in Swahili) some character arc and depth. Yet for all this, Kovu's arc and growth is too conventional and straight-forward to be interesting!

The antagonist is Kovu`s mother also raises the stakes higher. And while Zira (meaning hate in Swahili, though she was originally named Bianca) actually shows traits of dimensionality, she never evolves enough as a character and becomes a standard villain at the end (to make the villain a female this time was a conscious choice, to deflect it's predecessor).

Of course in real life this would've created both trauma and disturbance to anyone who's raised under such conditions. So despite how Pride being made at a low-budget and aimed at children, it includes a fairly dark subject (but of course that was the original The Lion King).

Of course Kovu's dilemma is easily resolved at the end. By having his mother falling to her death and having Kovu`s grief be compensated by having his happy ending. Still, director Darrell Rooney have stated that Kovu could've possibly not been Zira's biological son. Mardsen looked at Jeremy Irons' Scar for inspiration for Kovu. While to his dismay. he couldn't use a voice that was too reminiscent of Scar, yet he didn't transfer himself too much to Kovu. Kovu`s original name was Nunka, which made him and Nuka in fact the same character once.

Kiara

Note an error. And I'm not
hinting where ;)

Funny enough, Simba's Pride gives a remarkable twist to Simba's newborn cub. To have her being a female (which of course has led to debates about Simba and Nala's cub in the first film, what he was originally called and being contradicting to the canon, since that cub was a male and therefore fulfilling the circle. And that he was named Chaka or Kopa, not Kiara, and having siblings named Shani and Timira)! While there were rumors that Rob Minkoff and Roger Allers thought the original cub complicated the story, they've still declred their ignorance about Kiara's gender at the time!
Of course the theories of Simba's Pride being canon have been brought up, also for starting in the same way as it's predecessor. With He Lives in You (from the Broadway play), since that the predecessor actually ended with the Circle of Life reprise.

Of course Kiara (as an adult voiced by Neve Campbell, though Jennifer Aniston and Sarah Jessica Parker were considered for the part) is just as adventurous and disobedient as her father was in the first film. And also being a departure from him, by not wanting to be royal (an article by New York Daily News labeled the movie as The Lion Queen, which could've been a suitable title). But Kiara's arc regarding her royal position is (in my opinion) vaguely executed and not consistently.
Since it's Disney after all, Kiara (who was originally Shani and afterwards called Aisha, until realizing that a character in Mighty Morphin Power Rangers shared that name) is easily comparable to the spunky and independent likes of Ariel, Jasmine and co. But that's really both her and the movie's Achilles heel and a big flaw! Kiara acts way more recklessly and ruthlessly than Ariel ever did (despite Ariel's receiving more hate). And regardless of her father's behavior, she disobeys him quite recklessly!

Besides, Kiara puts an immense faith in Kovu when they meet again as adults. Despite (apparently) having met each other just once as a cubs (and not to mention how she acted snotty and ungrateful when he saved her life)! Kiara seems oblivious about the potential danger Kovu represents and mostly sides with Kovu when Simba's is attacked by the Outlanders afterwards (originally Simba was intended to be killed by the Outlanders, yes, believe it or not, but it was scrapped). And just to notify, my statement was not meant to be a dismissal about Kiara's love for her father. But a statement about Kiara being too blinded by her love (despite how Kovu eventually grows and matures).

Biggest Flaw of Simba`s Pride: It`s Screenplay

We lions can laugh too,
not only Hyenas :)

Which leads us to the biggest flaw of the film; The screenplay!

Even for a Disney cheapquel, it contains a huge gap; Kiara and Kovu unfortunately never spends enough time together as cubs (despite how they have more screentime as adults, it's notable that the marketing for the film marketed them mostly as cubs)! Which really doesn't seem to justify why Kiara places such an enormous faith in Kovu when they meet again as adults (Neve Campell and Jason Mardsen recorded several of their scenes together and worked on Saturdays)!

While the absence of time together on one hand makes sense, since both prides mostly prevents them to meet each other. It still would've made logically more compelling if they've spent more time together as cubs, to justify Kiara`s faith. And frankly, both of them were more endearing as cubs (of course it's could be assumed that Kiara and Kovu could've met each other as cubs within the story/outside the movie. But since the movie just shows that single interaction, it's easy to conclude that they didn't met again until their adulthood).

We're the stand-in for the same scene in the first movie :)

Second Flaw: What To Do With The Secondary Characters/Comic Relief

We can't be friends,
you're too silly :)

Another flaw Pride possesses is it's comedy and not really
knowing how to use the characters from it's predecessor. At least sort of! Timon and Pumbaa mostly serves as Kiara`s misplaced babysitters. Regardless of all the opinions about the duo, at least they served a purpose in the original film; To take Simba in and learn him about Hakuna Matata (which just gets one mention in this sequel, yet it's rumored that it was going to be more mentioned and Timon citing that Pride is a sequel). In this sequel, however, they're (in my opinion) incredibly grating and just serves as juvenile filler.

Which is pretty much what can be said about the rest of the comedy on this film. Regardless of all the opinions about the original The Lion King, at least it does juggle comedy and drama well (in my opinion and frankly, Timon and Pumbaa were at least more tolerable there). Zira's eldest son Nuka (which means stink and was voiced by Andy Dick, who stucked a tissue both in his shirt and on his head on his recordings), serves as a semi-comic relief. And is quite grating and fails miserably!

Yes, my nose is strong enough
to cause wind when I'm
breathing in :)

At least Rafiki has a slight purpose in the sequel. By serving as a semi-matchmaker for the lovebirds (and obviously gets to interact with Kiara more than he did with Simba as a cub). Yet Zazu only serves as a delivery assistant without getting his personality tratitsshown (perhaps due to that Rowan Atkinson didn't reprise his role). At least Banzai was originally meant to come back, but he was dropped. The same was meant with Sarabi, but it was scrapped when Madge Sinclair passed away (and yeah fanboys, we could always assume that Sarabi passed away, too).

Another Strength of Simba`s Pride: Simba`s Trauma

Regardless of all the opinions there are about Simba's Pride, at least it deserves genuine recognition for one thing; It actually shows that Simba is still haunted by his trauma! Pride deliberately includes this for a plot point. Yet it makes the story more realistic and logical. And therefore more compelling. And while it would be easy to whine that such a subject matter is quite dark for a childrens movie, anyway, the original was just as dark. So at least we have that to blame. But it`s still nice that Pride uses this, regardless of being a plot point, anyways.

Criticism of Simba/Romeo and Juliet Structure/The Lion Guard

Just pretend it looks yummy ;)

Of course one recurring criticism about Pride is about Simba's actions as a king. Several people have labeled him notorious for banishing the Outlanders and Kovu at the end. And being too oppressive to his daughter. To cite my opinion, it's fairly easy to see that side of the case. Yet to see the other point of view, his reasons for doing so are entirely justifiable! Simba had every right to suspect Kovu, due to his purpose (as cited by Zira in their first meeting in the film)!

I'm going to be your king, so I should sneer the most :)

Of course this has also brought up the speculation that Kiara will be a superior ruler as queen. Since how she intergrates the Outlanders at the climax. Whether Kiara will be live up to this, is of course debatable. But we'll leave that discussion for now.
Of course this Romeo and Juliet-story is for once destined to a happy ending. But it's notable that it has it's cake and eats it too; Unlike Pocahontas, this climax actually has a battle between the two prides and the inspirational speech to make the prides set the piece. But hey, at least this movie doesn't end with Kiara and Kovu reproducing, as it could've easily done.

At least we're diverse in color :)

And yeah folks, let's not forget that Disney has messed up with continuity by giving Kiara a same age brother in Kion in The Lion Guard. Of course this issue makes for a groan, but the creators have justified this that Kion appears during the time where was not shown in Simba's Pride. However, Zira and Kovu makes an appearance in The Lion Guard. But hey, what can we do about it?
And yes folks, the original climax ended with something that could've implied that Zira deliberately threw herself at the river, but it's was deleted.

Some Scrutiny of Mine

Of course this assessment was, as aforementioned, my personal opinions about the strengths and weaknesses of The Lion King-sequel. Regardless of all the various opinions about it, I'm sure there are people who've found more faults with it than I did (which I won't even bother to ponder about now). But of course the big question is that if Simba's Pride truly deserves to be perceived as an worthy sequel among the cheapquel catalog? Is it really good enough to be regarded as a worthy follow-up to what was among the time the biggest Disney King? (Yes, this pun was intended)

The Reason For It`s Popularity/Comparsions To The Lion King

It would be easy to assume that Pride's popularity is linked to the popularity of it's predecessor. Well, that's a fair suggestion (yet it's not a foolproof thing that every sequel of a beloved predecessor gains a fanbase because of those reasons alone). However, in spite of this, Pride never becomes an exact replica of it's predecessor (at least tone-wise). It actually comes across like it's own movie with it's own tone and feel. Of course this doesn't mean that every sequel feels as a replica of it's predecessor. But where the original was sumptuous, epic and frankly quite grave, Simba's Pride is cuter, fluffier and frankly lighter in tone (despite having it's own fair share of darkness and depth).

In spite of this, it's fair to cite the fact that Simba's Pride is (at least by the major public) nowhere perceived as being superior to it's original counterpart. The Lion King is truly a labor of perfection, which is the reason why it's so beloved. However, it's notable that Pride is one of the rare cheapquels to actually have the characters be listed in the end credits. With both their supervising animators and voice actors, as Disney animated classics usually did back in the nineties and early millennium.

At least it's not "me Tarzan, you Jane". We couldn't :)

Epilogue

But to state my overall opinion about Simba`s Pride, I do have a genuine fondness for it. Mostly for it's strengths. I remember being quite mesmerized by it by it's initial viewing and actually loving it. So I do consider the praise to be genuinely deserved, despite it`s flaws. Regardless of how Pride should've been perceived among the cheapquel phase, it`s a cute movie on it's own right. Unfortunately it's hampered by a stamp of belonging to a cheapquel catalog (and for it's other aforementioned faults). But at least fans of the film can be glad that it is regarded higher than it's cheapquel counterparts. So that makes it one ;)

Roar into my updates on https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100035703494050 and https://twitter.com/NerdyLunada.

References:

onsdag 1. mars 2017

Disney's Anti-Princess Policy; How To Detract Themselves From What They've Mostly Known For and Excluding Their Newest Members From Their Brand

Hi folks! Welcome to my My Own Personal Nerdy Disney and Animation Scrutinizing Analysis blog. A blog where I'm analyzing several Disney films, Disney or Animation in general! These entries are just meant to be my analyses. Not reviews or statements. Just fun analyses! Though I'll make some personal remarks now and then, the content of these entries are meant to be depicted objectively. They're made for entertainment purpose only and the pictures/clips are copyright Disney or other companies.

Make sure to leave a comment if you like this site! And if there's something you think could be improved, please let me know. But in a constructive way, please. And just a note; I'm not a Native English writer, so my incorrect grammar may be notable.

And finally; If you haven't seen the films, beware of spoilers! And the funny lines aren't meant to be nothing than funny. So I hope you won't find them offensive. If so, I apologize

Yes, you've read right. It's not April's Fools, folks ;)

Originally this entry was written where Disney were detracting themselves from the Princess brand. It was written when it was confirmed that Moana wasn't going to join the Princess lineup, yet recently she's been put into more of the marketing of the brand. So yeah, this entry is a little dated now. But it`s been updated later on.
While I've definitively used this following statement before, this entry certainly was a departure from my previous additions. Most of my entries have been analytical rants or assessments about Disney's animated canon features. While this entry was an analytical rant about a certain policy which Disney adapted. Which their desperate attempt to dismiss the Princess stamp and excluding their newest heroines from their lineup.

The Criticism of Disney Princesses

It would've been the understatement of the year to cite that Disney are known for their fairy tale movies about Princesses. That statement is such a crucial fact that it's really no point to cite their position in Disney history (despite that most of Disney's movies aren't even about Princesses).

But it`s a mere fact that the Princesses are the most widely criticized aspect by Disney in every single way. And though the criticism has varied, it's legit to say that the`ve been mostly criticized for their representation of their roles and female agenda. In other words; The bad stigma the Princess stamp has.

We're the lovesick version of Brady Bunch.
We were told to be so ;)

It's needless to state that Walt's three Princesses are the ones who's been perceived as passive damsels. But also the ones who defined the so-called stereotypical Disney Princess. And therefore has (unwillingly) given the Princess stamp a bad name! But regardless of that criticism of Walt's royal gals, we'll have to remember that they were products of their time. And therefore executed in that way (but to be fair, folks, their so-called passive nature isn't entirely Disney's fault either, hence they were depicted so in their original tales).
The criticism has surrounded for years, long before our scrutinizing message board era. However, the evolution of time and the criticism still made Disney conscious enough to keep up in time and trying to make their heroines more independent, strong-willed and modern. Which the 90's certainly proved,

regardless of the various opinions about those gals (yet Christopher Finch cites that Ariel wasn't the first Disney heroine with spunk in his The Art of Walt Disney book).
And as for the criticism itself, there's no need to look it up the Internet to find various articles with rants about them (from reporters and otherwise). One recurrent statement (among others) is how their main goal is about their quest for love. But of course that criticism has also been brought up in several books which criticizes the values of the Mouse House (about the following video, the featurette about The Little Mermaid begins at 3:02)

The Genesis of The Princess Franchise/How it Launched The New Princesses of the Revival Era

Yes, it's a timeline. In Disney's universe, not an actual one ;)

But the new millennium saw the rise of the Princess franchise which has lasted to this day! It's needless to refer to my previous entry about the Princess franchise, where I'm deliberately scrutinizing the pro's and con's with the lineup. But it would've been an understatement to dismiss that the franchise has made it's mark on people and influenced them in such a way that they now consider those movies as "Princess"-movies.
The franchise has been a neat and lean way to keep several Princesses relevant. But the brand has also shaped Disney's policy towards them. In that sense, it's no surprising that they've figured to launch their newest Princesses within that franchise at the time, despite how manufactured and gimmicky it may seem. Even Pixar's first Princess, Merida, was been incorporated to it.

How Disney Suddenly Stopped Including the Princesses Into the Lineup

But when Moana was released in 2016, Disney changed their policy completely and decided to stop including their upcoming Princesses into the brand! For proof, none of the sisters from Frozen have been included! While I've tapped into this issue in my previous entry, it was originally confirmed that both Anna and Elsa were originally going to join the franchise.
While Disney themselves have never officially confirmed the reason for the non-inclusion, it's obvious how Disney realizes how the Frozen brand has been lucrative at it's own (for obvious reason, duuh). And that it has a unisex appeal.
Other candidates as Sofia the First or Elena from Avalor haven't received an official inclusion either. But since both were Disney Junior properties, it`s a logical reason for not include them. Yet both of them were deliberately made to milk the Princess brand, so it's almost radical to not include them either.

How Moana Was Not Included and Marketed As an Anti-Princess

Such a simple gesture
is enough to make
you a feminist ;)

And then Moana was going to suffer the same fate! But at least Disney themselves had an explanation for that reason; Her tribal blood! Well, at least it's a reason that`s legitimately justifiable. But the same fate could've befallen Pocahontas, due to her having the same blood (and let's forget about how Mulan has been included, despite that both she and Pocahontas are the most neglected in the franchise. since Mulan have been promoted less lately). Of course the tribal blood issue affecting the exclusion is entirely debatable, due to them not being Royal in a technical, Eurasian sense. But it's a provocative debate, nonetheless.

Lately, however, it's been more evident that Moana has been included in marketing, making room for the speculations of her eventually being included.

But regardless of this, it's notable how the team from her movie have desperately been trying to detract her from the Princess stamp! By contrasting the strong, feminist attributes from the Princess stamp! Of course this is remarkable, due to the Princesses having been acknowledged for their proactive evolution. But regarding their past, why even having the issue of associating a Princess of being strong and fierce? Yet what's even more contradicting is how Moana is frequently featured in current Princess-promotional campaign.

How Disney Shouldn`t Be Ashamed of Their Princess Staple

We've been actually frozen. It's freezing,
so what did you expect? Pun intended ;)

After Frozen's and the Princess franchises enormous success, it would've been easy to assume that Disney shouldn't stray away from the Princess stamp. And rather embrace it completely! Regardless the various opinions about it, the Princesses is something that Disney shouldn't been ashamed to promote, since their aforementioned association with them. Apparently Disney seemed to have the opposite attitude about it when Moana was released! But wait, folks, there's more; It was announced that Disney would stop to include their newest Princesses in the lineup any longer, as cited in this tweet. Regardless what could've been said about that issue, at least it's a legit one. Due to how Disney has milked their Princess brand by launching new Princesses and having more members within it. But at least it could've been interpreted as a good sign for the naysayers.

How Disney Have Always Portrayed Their New Princesses as Non-Typical Princesses

A remarkable thing is that Disney themselves are still depicting the progression of their heroines as something entirely new! Ever since Mermaid, most of their heroines have been marketed as being bold, fierce, proactive and not "the stereotypical Disney Princess". Which they've also done with the former Princesses of this Revival era.
It's odd and noteworthy that they're still overstating this stamp, which could be easily be interpreted as Disney themselves are labeling the Princess stamp as negative. But the feminism attributes within the heroines are still going strong! Just look at how feminist the Princesses of the live action remakes of the animated features are being labeled as (and yes, een Belle in the live action remake has her anti-Princess comment, despite that it's possible to ignore it's non-Princess agency, haha). Even Jasmine in the live action version of Aladdin had her feminist agenda. But the irony is how the majority of the new Princesses actually serves trope of not being a stereotypical damsel, haha! If you think about it, the lineup is more full of non-typical Princesses than the stereotypical damsels!

Some Scrutiny About The Anti-Princess Agenda

This is what boredom does to ya :)

Of course this current non-Princess policy can be interpreted as individually as the Princess franchise itself. As either positive or negative. Some people are passionate about Disney detracting themselves from their brand, due to the aforementioned criticism against it (as confirmed in my former entry about the lineup). However, it's a quite remarkable policy from Disney to detract themselves completely from it. And contradictory as well. While this issue was reminiscent of when the rumors about Disney not wanting to make more Princess-films during Tangled's time (but at least it's a different case).

The more, the merrier, but more as in
less space to move within ;)

The stamp has also been fueld by the media, since they`ve also labeled every new female feature as a Princess movie. But Disney are still conscious about that inescapable stamp, anyway. And how they've suddenly decided to not keep filling their brand with upcoming Princesses.
At least the latter issue has a legit excuse, hence the lineup would've been easily overfilled! However, writer Jonathan Brill have cited in a assessment that the royal titles of the Revival gals have barely affected their narrative at all. While of course this is debatable, it's still can be perceived as legit enough.

My Own Purpose With This Scrutiny

Of course my assessment was not meant to be a direct attack towards Disney themselves. Or an assessment to persuade them to change their policy. It's just meant to be an analytical rant about it. But whatever Disney decides in the future for their royal sweethearts, we'll have to wait and see. Of course the enduring criticism which Disney Princesses have received could also affect other fictional female characters as well. But we'll leave that discussion for now ;)

The Signs of Including Moana To The Franchise

Yes, I'm being self-absorbed,
folks. I have human emotions
after all :)

However, there was a couple of noteworthy updates since I originally wrote this entry; Auli'i Cravalho (Moana), Jodi Benson (Ariel), Paige O'Hara (Belle) and Anika Noni Rose (Tiana) joined The Power of the Princess-attraction on 2017's D23 Expo (originally it was announced that Ming-Na Wen was going to be among the squad of the event, but she was absent). The voice actresses shared their experiences of making their movies and singing their songs.

Mark Hehn, who made a surprise appearance at the show, showed some pencil tests of the Princesses (and a fan that was mentioned by Benson was among the audience, being somewhat a surrogate child of O'Hara. A fan that had survived a car accident and survived by singing Part of Your World. And suprising Cravalho by showing her first audition. In 2019, Moana was officially included as a member in the franchise. While it was a little late to include her, it was still a good sign that she was eventually included at last.

But of course the proof has mostly been through the merchandise that featured Moana and not only toys. And she`s been included in the Disney Princess Essential Guide and The Disney Princess: A Celebration of Art and Creativity. So this means that she will most likely join the lineup someday.

How The Princesses Starred in Ralph Breaks the Internet

And yes, our Royal gals were featured in Wreck-It-Ralph's sequel, Ralph Breaks the Internet (which took place after The Power of a Princess-gathering, yet a resume video of the former was shown in the latter event. Believe it or not. Regardless that it did create some havoc, at least the legacy of the Princesses will last longer than Ralph`s mockery. But we'll just have to accept the fact that it`s happened.

Rhetorical catchphrase, isn't it? But lucky us, we have the privilege to do so ;)

Follow my updates on https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100035703494050 and https://twitter.com/NerdyLunada.

References:
Mouse Under Glass (David Koenig)
The Art of Walt Disney: From Mickey Mouse to the Magic Kingdoms and Beyond (Christopher Finch).
Disney's Art of Animation: From Mickey Mouse to Hercules (Bob Thomas)
The Mouse That Roared: Disney and the End of Innocence (Henry Giroux)

A Wish Your Heart Makes: From the Grimm Brother's Aschenputtel to Disney's Cinderella (Charles Salomon).
Tale As Old As Time: The Art and Making of Beauty and the Beast (2017 version, Charles Solomon)
The Making of Beauty and the Beast (Bob Thomas)
Disney D23 Magazine Fall 2016
Waking Sleeping Beauty DVD.
https://goodmenproject.com/arts/much-revealed-power-of-the-princess-panel-d23/
http://www.heraldextra.com/entertainment/columnists/francine-brokaw/princess-power-shines-at-disney-expo/article_51c3f93a-d8fc-503e-bffc-0ac6df124dfe.html
http://highschool.latimes.com/orange-county-school-of-the-arts/the-power-of-the-princess-panel-highlights-from-d23-expo-2017/
http://www.disneyinyourday.com/2017/07/28/d23-expo-2017-the-power-of-the-princess/
http://www.rotoscopers.com/2017/07/15/d23-expo-2017-the-power-of-the-princess/
https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6466765193322298364&pli=1#publishedposts
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/ct-ae-0127-borrelli-20130125-column.html
http://www.dvdizzy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=32079&start=140
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170606005564/en/Walt-Disney-Animation-Studios-Pixar-Animation-Studios
http://www.dvdizzy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=32441&start=40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuHR5ZOWp-U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDjxkhRj19Q
http://firescholars.seu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=honors
https://www.ucc.ie/en/media/academic/appliedsocialstudies/docs/AshleeHynes.pdf
http://kereeachan.tumblr.com/post/147287404742/moana-is-not-going-to-added-to-the-disney-princess
https://jonnegroni.com/2016/12/09/in-case-you-missed-it-moana-finally-settled-the-disney-princess-debate/
https://www.quora.com/Why-hasnt-Disney-officially-named-Anna-or-Elsa-as-a-Disney-Princess
https://blog.animationstudies.org/?p=1381
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism
https://books.google.co.vi/books?id=E8Pj3FtAoAQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/beautyandthebeastghinson_a0a71b.htm
https://muse.jhu.edu/chapter/272262
https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/movies/2013/11/27/animated_frozen_will_warm_your_heart_movie_review.html
https://storyofaphoenix.wordpress.com/2014/12/15/finding-the-glass-slipper-a-feminist-analysis-of-the-disney-princess-films/
http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-ways-disney-princesses-created-modern-feminism/
https://www.theodysseyonline.com/moana-and-elena-of-avalor-to-not-join-the-disney-princess-lineup
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20161128-the-controversy-behind-disneys-groundbreaking-new-princess
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-little-mermaid-1989
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhwxTQYeY2o
https://twitter.com/_CraigGerber/status/815265680257908736
https://storify.com/sternb13/the-disney-princess-effect-on-young-girls-and-femi
http://www.neontommy.com/news/2011/01/princess-effect-are-girls-too-tangled-disneys-fantasy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/24/princess-culture-is-bad-for-girls-now-theres-proof/?utm_term=.3b7cc0816ca6
http://diply.com/virginradiolebanon/article/disney-princesses-worst-role-models
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/27/opinion/oe-brooks27

http://nerdology.org/2015/05/truly-feminist-disney-princesses/
http://the-artifice.com/feminism-disney-princesses/
http://time.com/3667700/frozen-brave-disney-princesses-heroes-and-sexism/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3954230/Disney-s-Beauty-Beast-promotes-domestic-violence-Bizarre-lesson-plan-claims-Belle-abusive-relationship-Snow-White-domestic-skivvy-seven-dwarves.html
http://feministfiction.com/2014/01/08/the-unforgivable-pinkness-of-disney-princesses/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/business/media/a-new-disney-princesa-carries-responsibilities-beyond-her-kingdom.html?_r=2
http://feministfiction.com/2012/07/17/some-day-my-prince-will-come-disney-princesses-vs-merida/
http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1042&context=dissentingvoices
http://www.dvdizzy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=32222&start=540