The whole point of YMMV is that people might disagree. So why does Snow White's YMMV page get to list her as a Mary Sue (I understand why some would see her as one) but both times I added that to Frozen's and BATB's YMMV pages for Elsa and Belle they got taken down? The tropers sounded a little miffed too.
People seem to get offended when something about most of the modern heroines is negative/imperfect is implied, but people don't seem to mind doing it to the older princesses, especially Snow White. Why is she a Mary Sue but not the others that also have plenty of Sue qualities?
I don't think it makes any of them BAD characters to say that.
Edited by 50.165.123.235 Hide / Show Replies
I'm not sure a Sue trope is appropriate on such pages anyway, due to them being inherently flame bait (despite me personally feeling some characters are sues, just not the disney princesses).
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.
Sue pages are allowed on work pages, just not on the main trope page, IIRC.
But a couple of things: this is the Disney Princess page, so the people who've been adding or taking away the trope probably won't be here. Second, in general, I believe that YMMV tropes aren't 'anything goes', so much as 'anything goes that fits the parameters of the trope, but people have different standards'. So what I mean is, sometimes we can argue to keep a trope off a page because it doesn't fit, because it really just doesn't.
So if I were to try and say Mario is a Captain Ersatz of Fred Flintstone, even though the page is YMMV, it'd be pretty clear that he really isn't, judging by the definition of the trope.
In this case, I don't think Elsa could be considered a Mary Sue. Her flaws are the driving point behind the movie, and they're shown repeatedly to be crippling and negative. They're not 'pretty' flaws like clumsy or naive, either. But I think Belle could fit, in the same way the original three are: beautiful, flawless, special, etc.
EDIT: Reading over your example, I think it was needlessly vitriolic. I also don't think your entry actually makes a case for Mary Sue, just 'I don't like this character'. What traits does she have that are actually Mary Sue-ish? I don't think, if you liked Elsa, you would have an issue with her being powerful, which is really the only quality you listed that would fit a Mary Sue.
As for Belle's, again, I think you expressed outright dislike instead of just making an example. And I wouldn't agree with your assessment for why she's a Sue.
Edited by 66.58.193.70
Have Anna and Elsa been officially added to the roster yet?
Hide / Show Replies
I think we waited to include Merida until she had a "coronation" by disney (also gave them enough time to make merchandise with her on it), so I think we will wait for Anna and Elsa until their own.
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.
The Sofia the First page lists the title character as an official Disney Princess, but she does not appear on the roster for this page. Should she be added as a princess or that trope removed from the other page?
Hide / Show Replies
She's a Disney princess but not a Disney Princess — she's junior, and has not been crowned. I've removed Disney Princess from that page.
That was the amazing part. Things just keep going.
This is her normal hair color.
◊ This is the redesign.
◊ This was the original.
◊
The last two are a lot more similar than the first two. Aurora's hair in the movie is a very dusky shade of blonde, and very unnatural as a color. She has bright blonde hair in the merch. If you want to get into semantics about what constitutes "golden" then we'll change the wording. Suffice it to say, her hair doesn't resemble its original color.
Hide / Show Replies
The movie was made in 1959. That shade you see in the movie, was probably what they thought would pass for golden hair. This is Cinderella's redesign
◊. As you can see, her hair is lighter than Aurora's redesign, and doesn't look very golden. This is Belle's dress
◊. It's slightly lighter, but still has this golden effect.
As I said, you can talk about semantics, but fact remains they are not the same color, end of story. We can reword what color her hair is called, but suffice it to say her original hair color is darker, her merch hair color is lighter. Trying to reason that they're actually somehow being true to the original is pointless. The colors are different.
The colors in animated movies and the colors in merchadise always tend to be different. In the merchandise it's given more detail, like shading and lighting to show material. But the merchandise, I think, got the golden color of Aurora's hair and Belle's dress much better than the movies did. If Tangled was a 2D movie, I don't think they can make Rapunzel's hair have the same specific golden hue that her 3D form's hair had.
Her hair is a specifically different color. It could be colored darker, as could her skin, to be closer to what it is in the film. It is not. This isn't about speculating what you think their intention it is. The fact remains. It is a different color.
Aurora's skin and hair color in the movie
◊ and Aurora is the DP Franchise
◊
Describe the differences you see. Her skin is very slightly ligtened and her hair has gone from whatever color is in the movie to a more goldish yellow.
This
◊ is the coloration of the actual scene, where both her skin and hair are darker than the doctored and poor quality version you give. Both images are clearly darker in color than the version in the DP merchandise.
That said, I'm not really going to argue this with you; you're ban evading.
With regards to the Pretty Princess Boutique and catering to boys: Um... yes, because little boys will totally want to go to something called a "Princess Boutique" and dress up. Why not give them the "Adventurer's Guild" or "Royal Armoury", or the like, where they can do so?
Kida is a princess, is an important part of the plot and even becomes queen by the end. Shouldn't we add her?
Hide / Show Replies
She's not part of the "Disney Princess" merchandise line.
Being in a Japanese-produced work is not enough of a difference to warrant its own trope.
Seemingly because Atlantis (and Black Cauldren) is too fantasy, or something. But, you know, two foot long dragons, sapient crickets, talking house furnishings, and century long sleep spells... those are fine...
No, they didn't do well enough at the box office. Or less cynically, little girls were less interested in those princesses for whatever reason. The franchise was started because a Disney exec noticed little girls already dressed up as the princesses and idolized them. Eilonwy was not one of those girls, and Kida didn't turn out to be popular (nor was her movie).
- Adaptation Dye Job: Aurora had pale blonde hair in her movie, and tannish skin, but is usually pale with bright yellow hair in merchandise. Cinderella had strawberry blonde hair in her film, but is blonde in the franchise.
Aurora's hair is pure blonde in The Merch—in the movies it seems to have a more gold tint to it, but the entire coloring scheme is unique to that movie, while the Disney Princesses are colored with the same inks. [1]
◊ She also has sort of rose-colored skin—look at Phillip for a tan-pale comparison.
- Shallow Love Interest: The blandness of the early Disney Princes is subject to much mocking by fans. Averted with Beast, Aladdin and Naveen, epically.
Added Phillip, since, when he's not staring dreamily into Aurora's eyes, shows snarkiness, wit, derring-do, and a sense of humor. Especially when contrasted with the first two princes and Eric. Also corrected spelling.
Edited by Bloodfall
NO PLACE TO HIDE
According to the article:
- Swan Lake, Bluebeard, Rumpelstilskin, Aida, and The Love For Three Oranges were each going to be made into a film at some point by Disney. Maybe their heroines would have been in this franchise.
Bluebeard? Really? I would love to see the Disney take on that.
What's the policy for troping characters who aren't officially on the roster but are sometimes included in the franchise, like Alice, Esmeralda, the Frozen sisters, Sofia and Elena, etc.?