Disney Princesses curiosities
- Thumper_93
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 395
- Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:51 am
- Location: España
Disney Princesses curiosities
Hello everybodyy! I hope that this topic is not a problem. I've created it because I would like to talk about some curiosities and discuss about it and I haven't found a post to do it.
I was taking some photos about an Esmeralda doll released by Disney store when the franchise was created and I would like to discuss with you why disney decided to remove her from the line. I also have a book where Megara appears and I remember seeing Alice in the official website when it was created. Some other characters like Jane have appeared in magazines and well, it's exciting to know how the franchise could have been.
I know that Tinker-Bell was removed because they created her own franchise but why do you think that they removed characters like Esmeralda?
https://http2.mlstatic.com/revista-prin ... 2018-F.jpg
I was taking some photos about an Esmeralda doll released by Disney store when the franchise was created and I would like to discuss with you why disney decided to remove her from the line. I also have a book where Megara appears and I remember seeing Alice in the official website when it was created. Some other characters like Jane have appeared in magazines and well, it's exciting to know how the franchise could have been.
I know that Tinker-Bell was removed because they created her own franchise but why do you think that they removed characters like Esmeralda?
https://http2.mlstatic.com/revista-prin ... 2018-F.jpg
- blackcauldron85
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 16462
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:54 am
- Gender: Female
- Contact:
Re: Disney Princesses curiosities
I do remember the Disney Store having a wall of Princess dolls that included Tinker Bell, Esmeralda, etc., back in the day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_Princess
From 2005:
https://disneyprincess.fandom.com/wiki/ ... Princesses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_Princess
https://web.archive.org/web/20060323155 ... y_princessThe 2000s line-up consisted of princesses Snow White, Cinderella, Aurora, Ariel, Belle, Jasmine, Pocahontas, Mulan and Tinker Bell. Tinker Bell was soon removed from the line-up; she would go on to headline the sister franchise Disney Fairies.
From 2005:
I don't know if this is accurate but:Cast:
Ariel, Belle, Cinderella, Jasmine, Mulan, Pocahontas, Sleeping Beauty and Snow White.
https://disneyprincess.fandom.com/wiki/ ... Princesses
Esmeralda was an official Disney Princess in 2004, she was removed because she wasn’t selling as good like the others in the franchise like the others where so Disney crossed her off the list for that reason.
Jane Porter was originally considered as the newest Disney Princess in 1999, not long after the Disney Princess franchise started, she was ultimately removed likely because her dress color scheme was too similar to Belle's so she was removed for that reason so nobody would confuse her for Belle or confusing Belle for Jane Porter.
- universALLove
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2400
- Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 8:21 am
Re: Disney Princesses curiosities
My guess is because she isn’t a Princess and she’s a secondary character in the film she stars in. It’s Quasi’s movie ultimately and I think if they kept Esmeralda, Meg, Jane, Kida etc. the line could become crowded with too many characters and a little confusing as to having the “Princess” brand full of Disney female characters that aren’t all (technically) Princesses. The bulk of the line includes Princesses with the exception of Mulan (possibly Pocahontas) but they are the starring role in their respective movies and not a secondary character and Disney probably kept them in to keep the line ethnically diverse. Otherwise it would be primarily white Princesses with the exception of Jasmine and Tiana.
- Disney's Divinity
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 15775
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:26 am
- Gender: Male
Re: Disney Princesses curiosities
I can believe that about Jane being removed because her dress clashed with Belle's. It's the same reason Tiana is mostly in her green dress rather than the blue and Aurora often in pink rather than the superior blue, because Cinderella is THE blue dress (nevermind it's silver in the original film... *grumblegrumble*).
When I was growing up and the line first started, Megara, Esmeralda, Jane, and Alice were all a part of it. I saved a bunch of stickers and things that had Megara on them because I loved the character almost as much as Ariel. I've read things on this forum over the years--I'm not sure if they're true--that Megara was removed because she was thought to be a bad role model for children... Personally, I think it was likely that her stylized design clashed with the others.
I agree that cutting those characters may also have had something to do with keeping the line narrowed down and not too crowded. But they're reaching a crowd now with Rapunzel, Moana, Elsa & Anna, Merida, and Tiana all having joined the line. And Raya will likely be added, too.
When I was growing up and the line first started, Megara, Esmeralda, Jane, and Alice were all a part of it. I saved a bunch of stickers and things that had Megara on them because I loved the character almost as much as Ariel. I've read things on this forum over the years--I'm not sure if they're true--that Megara was removed because she was thought to be a bad role model for children... Personally, I think it was likely that her stylized design clashed with the others.
I agree that cutting those characters may also have had something to do with keeping the line narrowed down and not too crowded. But they're reaching a crowd now with Rapunzel, Moana, Elsa & Anna, Merida, and Tiana all having joined the line. And Raya will likely be added, too.
Last edited by Disney's Divinity on Fri Apr 17, 2020 10:36 am, edited 2 times in total.
Listening to most often lately:
Ariana Grande ~ "we can't be friends (wait for your love)"
Ariana Grande ~ "imperfect for you"
Kacey Musgraves ~ "The Architect"
- Sotiris
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 19954
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:06 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Fantasyland
Re: Disney Princesses curiosities
It's tough to tell, but I have a few theories...I think Alice was removed because she's too young. She doesn't really fit with the rest of characters. I think Jane was removed because Disney realized they'd need to keep paying the Burroughs estate to use her. I always felt Megara was removed because of her design. Her body proportions are exaggerated and her waist is long like a column. Maybe Disney feared they'd get flack from parents for promoting an unrealistic body image. Esmeralda probably got removed because of her sex appeal. She dances provocatively, Frollo has sexual fantasies about her...She must not have been deemed wholesome enough for the line-up.
Of course, these are just theories. The most probable reason they were removed was because they weren't as popular as the rest of them or because Disney wanted a smaller line-up with their most recognizable characters to easier promote and advertize as a unified brand.
Of course, these are just theories. The most probable reason they were removed was because they weren't as popular as the rest of them or because Disney wanted a smaller line-up with their most recognizable characters to easier promote and advertize as a unified brand.
- Disney's Divinity
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 15775
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:26 am
- Gender: Male
Re: Disney Princesses curiosities
^ That’s true about Megara’s waist being too tiny when standing next to the other princess, thanks to her stylized design. That could be part of what they meant by “bad role model,” whereas I was simply thinking they meant in regards to her being enslaved by Hades.
Listening to most often lately:
Ariana Grande ~ "we can't be friends (wait for your love)"
Ariana Grande ~ "imperfect for you"
Kacey Musgraves ~ "The Architect"
- Thumper_93
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 395
- Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:51 am
- Location: España
Re: Disney Princesses curiosities
But remove Esmeralda of the franchise because she was less popular doesn't have any sense considering that some princesses doesn't sell as well as other do. In my opinion she was a fantastic character that represents great values. She's against racism, She works to own her own money, She's friend of those who are marginalized....Yes, she's not the main character of her movie but Jasmine is not the main character too and she's in the franchise. In my opinion Esmeralda would have made a good job in the franchise and some of those who are always complaining about the franchise would have to be quiet because all kind of women are representated.
About jane to me it has more sense that she was removed in order to not pay for her rights. But parents are silly so yes, she could be removed because they coul get wrong and confuse her with Belle.
I also have some pictures of Jane in a princess magazine. I'll try to upload it!
About jane to me it has more sense that she was removed in order to not pay for her rights. But parents are silly so yes, she could be removed because they coul get wrong and confuse her with Belle.
I also have some pictures of Jane in a princess magazine. I'll try to upload it!
- Sotiris
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 19954
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:06 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Fantasyland
Re: Disney Princesses curiosities
See, I don't buy that as the reason for Jane not being included because they could have easily used her white/red dress from the movie that's prettier and kid-friendly. Lack of popularity and/or rights issues seem more likely to me.Disney's Divinity wrote:I can believe that about Jane being removed because her dress clashed with Belle's. It's the same reason Tiana is mostly in her green dress rather than the blue and Aurora often in pink rather than the superior blue, because Cinderella is THE blue dress (nevermind it's silver in the original film... *grumblegrumble*).
- Thumper_93
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 395
- Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:51 am
- Location: España
Re: Disney Princesses curiosities
Do you know if Disney could use Tarzan rights in the future without pay?Sotiris wrote:See, I don't buy that as the reason for Jane not being included because they could have easily used her white/red dress from the movie that's prettier and kid-friendly. Lack of popularity and/or rights issues seem more likely to me.Disney's Divinity wrote:I can believe that about Jane being removed because her dress clashed with Belle's. It's the same reason Tiana is mostly in her green dress rather than the blue and Aurora often in pink rather than the superior blue, because Cinderella is THE blue dress (nevermind it's silver in the original film... *grumblegrumble*).
- Sotiris
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 19954
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:06 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Fantasyland
Re: Disney Princesses curiosities
No, their license has expired. They'd need to renew it to release new merch based on the movie.
- Disney's Divinity
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 15775
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:26 am
- Gender: Male
Re: Disney Princesses curiosities
I think they also want the line to be racially diverse for consumers. Tiana is the company's only black princess. Even if she sold barely nothing, she's going to be there. Despite criticisms of her portrayal, Pocahontas is Native American. There's often been (rightful) criticism of how white the line--and the Disney canon--is in the past.Thumper_93 wrote:But remove Esmeralda of the franchise because she was less popular doesn't have any sense considering that some princesses doesn't sell as well as other do.
Listening to most often lately:
Ariana Grande ~ "we can't be friends (wait for your love)"
Ariana Grande ~ "imperfect for you"
Kacey Musgraves ~ "The Architect"
- universALLove
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2400
- Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 8:21 am
Re: Disney Princesses curiosities
That’s silly, it’s like when Lara Croft’s proportions were criticised in the past for being unrealistic but I highly doubt women or children are looking at fictional animated (cgi or drawn) characters as influence over their body image.Sotiris wrote:Her body proportions are exaggerated and her waist is long like a column. Maybe Disney feared they'd get flack from parents for promoting an unrealistic body image.
- Sotiris
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 19954
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:06 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Fantasyland
Re: Disney Princesses curiosities
I agree. Esmeralda would have made a great addition. I don't think it was her lack of popularity either. Aside for her being deemed too sexy for the line-up, another possible reason is that she's from a very adult-themed movie. Disney didn't even put the Disney logo on the American stage production. It was also controversial at the time of its release. Religious groups threatened to boycott the film when it was first annouced. The filmmakers actually created the archdeacon character and made Frollo a judge to appease them, but they still protested the film anyway. This might not matter today, but back when the DP brand was being formed, Disney still catered to those people.Thumper_93 wrote:But remove Esmeralda of the franchise because she was less popular doesn't have any sense considering that some princesses doesn't sell as well as other do. In my opinion she was a fantastic character that represents great values. She's against racism, She works to own her own money, She's friend of those who are marginalized....Yes, she's not the main character of her movie but Jasmine is not the main character too and she's in the franchise. In my opinion Esmeralda would have made a good job in the franchise and some of those who are always complaining about the franchise would have to be quiet because all kind of women are representated.
It may be silly, but it happens. The princesses and particularly Ariel and Jasmine have been strongly criticized for their small waists, so I could definitely see why Meg whose body is even more caricatured would have been an issue for Disney.universALLove wrote:That’s silly, it’s like when Lara Croft’s proportions were criticised in the past for being unrealistic but I highly doubt women or children are looking at fictional animated (cgi or drawn) characters as influence over their body image.
- Disney's Divinity
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 15775
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:26 am
- Gender: Male
Re: Disney Princesses curiosities
If that’s really the case, it’s a shame Disney is so cheap. I’d love for Jane to be a part of the DP franchise and for Tarzan to appear in Kingdom Hearts again, receive more merchandise / promotion, etc.Sotiris wrote: See, I don't buy that as the reason for Jane not being included because they could have easily used her white/red dress from the movie that's prettier and kid-friendly. Lack of popularity and/or rights issues seem more likely to me.
And, yeah, I was thinking when I made that first reply to you about Megara than Ariel and Jasmine are already tiny enough as it is. Megara's even worse thanks to her stylization; it's not bad in the film when she's surround by other characters in the same style, but when presented beside the other princesses who aren't stylized, it would be a problem.
Listening to most often lately:
Ariana Grande ~ "we can't be friends (wait for your love)"
Ariana Grande ~ "imperfect for you"
Kacey Musgraves ~ "The Architect"
- Thumper_93
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 395
- Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:51 am
- Location: España
Re: Disney Princesses curiosities
Wow...Disney made Frollo a Judge insted of a cleric and even with that religious groups protested....well, the people that are complaining all the time should watch the movie again and see how Esmeralda defends the real meaning of what catholicism means...I agree. Esmeralda would have made a great addition. I don't think it was her lack of popularity either. Aside for her being deemed too sexy for the line-up, another possible reason is that she's from a very adult-themed movie. Disney didn't even put the Disney logo on the American stage production. It was also controversial at the time of its release. Religious groups threatened to boycott the film when it was first annouced. The filmmakers actually created the archdeacon character and made Frollo a judge to appease them, but they still protested the film anyway. This might not matter today, but back when the DP brand was being formed, Disney still catered to those people.
An aditional and funny date is that in the book esmeralda is not actually a Gipsy girl. She was stolen from her mother and She doesn't even have green eyes. Her eyes are Black but in my opinion Disney made a great Job with her. She may not be a Princess but for me is a strong character that would have been a great character inside the franchise.
Re: Disney Princesses curiosities
I think the reason is really about marketability and how much the original movie was successful. Also all the characters they've eventually chosen for the franchise are the the characters whose film is about them, mainly the protagonists except Aurora (but the story and characters still revolve around her) and Jasmine, whose film is so popular that I understand why she gets this exception. That's just what I think though, I don't really know their reasoning.
- Thumper_93
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 395
- Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:51 am
- Location: España
Re: Disney Princesses curiosities
Well, the story in The Hunchback is also around Esmeralda. She's why Quasimodo changes her mind about the world, She's Frollo's obsession, Phoebus love interest so She's actually an important piece in the movie. So I believe that yes, maybe it was because of the popularity of the movie or because she's "so sexy" to be a princess
- Sotiris
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 19954
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:06 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Fantasyland
Re: Disney Princesses curiosities
Well, Disney obviously couldn't do that because it would feed into the stereotype of gypsies stealing babies. I love Esmeralda's design and personality. She's a great character all around. I'm surprised in the novel her eyes were black given the meaning of her name. I'm glad Disney gave her emerald eyes. They're very striking and contrast well with her darker complexion.Thumper_93 wrote:An aditional and funny date is that in the book esmeralda is not actually a Gipsy girl. She was stolen from her mother and She doesn't even have green eyes. Her eyes are Black but in my opinion Disney made a great Job with her. She may not be a Princess but for me is a strong character that would have been a great character inside the franchise.
Re: Disney Princesses curiosities
^Also the "secretly white" trope is racist.
- Thumper_93
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 395
- Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:51 am
- Location: España
Re: Disney Princesses curiosities
Sorry i didn't say that She wasn't "robbed". She was changed. A gypsy woman has a baby, this baby is Quasimodo and She changes her baby for Esmeralda. That's why Esmeralda's mother is crazy. Te time goes by and there's a woman who hate Esmeralda for being a gypsy. This woman is her mother and they get reencountered when Esmeralda is going to die. That's the story as I remeber. I started to read the book last year but it's very long and it's hard to read hahaha.