Ariel Not Being a Princess of Heart

[Max]

Like most Disney animated sequels, they were straight to DVD. Disney is weird when it comes to their sequals, they make them to their most popular movies, but then half-ass them and pretend they never happened when they hit shelves.

The more I think back on it, the more I'm remembering that Disney actually has quite a few princesses that are just unknown/not popular. There's also Kiara, Simba and Nala's daughter and there's probably more I'm forgetting

But I'm digressing. At the time KH1 was made there weren't that many Disney Princesses. It was conceived during the end of the "Disney Renaissance" and we had just gotten a new batch off princesses, enough for there to be more than seven PoH if they chose, but they didn't. Over all, I agree with Tinny. I don't know why Alice specifically being a PoH (especially over Ariel) bothers people so.

Kiara, I do remember her, The Lion King 2 I am familiar with. You know, I talked to my girlfriend earlier about how crazy I thought it was that there were several Little Mermaid movies, and then I was informed there were multiple Tarzans, multiple Mulans, and multiple Aladdins. I was only aware of one of each of these! I knew many of these shows got animated series, but I did not know there were so many movies. I was aware of a couple like the Hercules sequel or prequel or whatever, but man, I honestly was blind to the amount of milk Disney has been making all of these years.

And sorry to get so off topic. But anyway, until recently, I always thought there were only 6 Disney princesses altogether, I found out at work that a good deal had been added. But because of that, I always thought Ariel was just the princess that got left out for some reason. It has never bothered me I would say, but I was just always so curious about it.

 

[kupo1121]

To be fair "Disney Princess" is just a brand name and much like "Princess of Heart" it's just a fancy title because all the characters are girls. Although, it is weird that Mulan is the odd one out since the last time I checked, she's the only Disney Princess who isn't actual royalty.

I forgot where I read this, but you're right in that "Official Disney Princess" is just a brand, it's not an actual league of princesses. Disney defined it somewhere and in the definition, it never stated that you had to be a princess. It just stated ideals and values a girl had to have since, after all, it's trying to cater to girls and give them a role model. A good role model wouldn't say "you have to be a princess" since that isn't gonna happen.

Also, when the brand was first made, Esmeralda was part of the lineup but was removed around a decade ago and we all know for a fact she's the farthest from royalty you can get

I somehow forgot Pocahontas as well. Maybe it's because of racial issues, but KH generally seems to try and stay away from Disney's interpretation of Native Americans. Their depictions haven't been known to be the most sensitive. The closest we've gotten was seeing the Native American village in Neverland, but only once and suspeciously vacant.

Yeah, Pocahontas isn't well recognized by Disney, I'm not sure why. I know her merchandise doesn't skyrocket off the shelves, but they don't make too much for her I know there was a big controversy over that movie, but I wish people would know it's a fairytale, it's too late to change it now and the movie in and of itself (not comparing it to what actually happened) is still 1 of Disney's best movies to me.

That's a good point. I wonder why they decided to recognize Mulan as a Disney Princess when she was, both 'historically' and in the films, NOT a princess by birth or marriage? If Mulan can be a Disney Princess, why NOT Alice or Esmerelda?

Ironically, I believe both Alice and Esmeralda (I know Esmeralda was) were included in the lineup in the past but were removed for whatever reason.

Did anyone else notice that Flynn and Rapunzel appeared at the end of Frozen at that reception?

Yup, Disney themselves released the still where you can see them for less than 1 second.

There is also a hint at Wreck-It-Ralph which I think is utterly terrible so I won't even go into that one <_<

Whales can breathe out of water too, but cannot do so for long as their skin dries out; it's possible Mer-people had a similar issue too but are still capable of breathing air & water as well as being able to be out of the water for a limited amount of time.

This is always what I thought about Ariel. I know they aren't the same movie, but PotC stated that a mermaid dries up quickly, like a fish so I always assumed that's why no merperson ever went up on land forever...cause they couldn't.

Wait, there are three? I was baffled there were two.

Yes, the sequel is originally where Ariel's daughter Melody, yearns of going to the ocean (so it's the opposite of the original) and Ursula's sister, Morgana, gives her her wish at a cost. Honestly, while the movie isn't perfect, it's not the worst Disney sequel out there and it's definitely tolerable. I never cringed while watching it and while I know it's not as good, it's not a bad movie by any means (neither was Return to Neverland or any of the Aladdin sequels).

The third one was a prequel to the original to show what originally happened to Ariel's mother and involved this weird storyline with music being banned from Atlantica. Also, not a bad prequel, but this one wasn't very good in my opinion either.

Overall, while most Disney sequels are bad, none have ever been so bad that I choose to ignore them like Pocahontas 2...that movie was absolutely terrible...

 

[Ruran]

Kiara, I do remember her, The Lion King 2 I am familiar with. You know, I talked to my girlfriend earlier about how crazy I thought it was that there were several Little Mermaid movies, and then I was informed there were multiple Tarzans, multiple Mulans, and multiple Aladdins. I was only aware of one of each of these! I knew many of these shows got animated series, but I did not know there were so many movies. I was aware of a couple like the Hercules sequel or prequel or whatever, but man, I honestly was blind to the amount of milk Disney has been making all of these years.

And sorry to get so off topic. But anyway, until recently, I always thought there were only 6 Disney princesses altogether, I found out at work that a good deal had been added. But because of that, I always thought Ariel was just the princess that got left out for some reason. It has never bothered me I would say, but I was just always so curious about it.

Oh shit, that reminds me. Mulan 2 introduced THREE princess characters. I don't even know their names...

Yeah, since there's a Disney Princess boom the roster grew and it's likely to keep growing. That makes sense, it would seem odd if it weren't because KH wasn't adding DP per se as PoH. It just so happened thaat most of them were.

 

[Ventus_]

Kiara, I do remember her, The Lion King 2 I am familiar with. You know, I talked to my girlfriend earlier about how crazy I thought it was that there were several Little Mermaid movies, and then I was informed there were multiple Tarzans, multiple Mulans, and multiple Aladdins. I was only aware of one of each of these! I knew many of these shows got animated series, but I did not know there were so many movies. I was aware of a couple like the Hercules sequel or prequel or whatever, but man, I honestly was blind to the amount of milk Disney has been making all of these years.

Most of the sequels you named are shit that never should have been made. Little Mermaid II was interesting enough and I am thrilled with the fact that for once Disney didn't model their offspring genetics solely by pairing the gender with the parent of the same (IE: Esmeralda's and Pheobus's little boy looks exactly like Phoebus, blonde hair included though Esmeralda's black hair would have been genetically correct). Melody was actually a good blend. The third installment however which was actually a prequel was crap, a disappointment considering that it was a factor of interest to acknowledge Ariel's mother which set the scene for the main plot. Something my best friend and I were noticing is how there isn't a single Disney literal Princess who has a mother, only a father (We don't count Cinderella's step mom because she was no mother to her) and to top it off it's never addressed. But they did a lazy job with it, Queen Athena was a freaking clone of adult Ariel.
Tragically it's true that Disney has come to simply milk the popularity they accomplish, Walt himself would be ashamed.

The Lion King II I also enjoyed.

Ahem, apologies for encouraging this off topic conversation, nasty habit of mine if I'm not the one straying to begin with I tend to keep it going.

I forgot where I read this, but you're right in that "Official Disney Princess" is just a brand, it's not an actual league of princesses. Disney defined it somewhere and in the definition, it never stated that you had to be a princess. It just stated ideals and values a girl had to have since, after all, it's trying to cater to girls and give them a role model. A good role model wouldn't say "you have to be a princess" since that isn't gonna happen.

Also, when the brand was first made, Esmeralda was part of the lineup but was removed around a decade ago and we all know for a fact she's the farthest from royalty you can get

Is this so? Disney as well does not define "princess" by literal status? Why then are there not more non-literal Disney woman whom they deem princesses such as Megara who is a very strong independent woman and why would they remove Esmeralda who teaches us to treat all as equals? Why are there not enough of such characters in existence? Incidentally most of the literal Disney princesses only teach little girls that if they wait patiently a prince will come sweep them off their feet which is beyond BS, Ariel goes even further and portrays how we need to change what we are to find true love(though the original story is more morally accurate and actually ends with her dying). Some role models.

This is beside my point however. It was them who chose to make most of them literal princesses so to turn around and say they do not define their princesses by literal status makes no sense to me.

This is always what I thought about Ariel. I know they aren't the same movie, but PotC stated that a mermaid dries up quickly, like a fish so I always assumed that's why no merperson ever went up on land forever...cause they couldn't.

That's one viewpoint. Every writer will portray a certain type of character differently. Look how many types of vampires are out there?
It just dawned on me the scene in which Ariel lays complete body on the sand beside the unconscious Eric whom she'd just rescued from drowning. She's stayed by his side until the moment he opened his eyes and would have caught her and saw what she was. Who knows how long that actually was despite the short span we are shown? Yet she was fine.

Overall, while most Disney sequels are bad, none have ever been so bad that I choose to ignore them like Pocahontas 2...that movie was absolutely terrible...

Interestingly Pocahontas II is truer to the actual person's biography it's based off of than the original film. The relationship between her and John Smith was actually father/daughter like not romantic, which is more appropriate considering that the age difference matched it. She was 16 and although I am unsure of his age I know it was much older, too much to have been a love interest.
She did however truly travel to England and marry John Rolfe but sadly she died not long after, still 16.

 

[Max]

Overall, while most Disney sequels are bad, none have ever been so bad that I choose to ignore them like Pocahontas 2...that movie was absolutely terrible...

Great, now a Pocahontas 2. Maybe my Mother's parenting was better than I thought, I should thank her from sheltering me from this endless list of movies that were better off not existing.

Yeah, since there's a Disney Princess boom the roster grew and it's likely to keep growing. That makes sense, it would seem odd if it weren't because KH wasn't adding DP per se as PoH. It just so happened thaat most of them were.

I guess thinking about it, a huge majority of Disney's female leads seem to end up being Disney Princesses now. I mean several come too mind who aren't, but it just makes me wonder why? If Belle can be a Disney Princess, why not several others as a couple other posters mentioned.

 

[kuraudoVII]

Kiara, I do remember her, The Lion King 2 I am familiar with. You know, I talked to my girlfriend earlier about how crazy I thought it was that there were several Little Mermaid movies, and then I was informed there were multiple Tarzans, multiple Mulans, and multiple Aladdins. I was only aware of one of each of these! I knew many of these shows got animated series, but I did not know there were so many movies. I was aware of a couple like the Hercules sequel or prequel or whatever, but man, I honestly was blind to the amount of milk Disney has been making all of these years.

And sorry to get so off topic. But anyway, until recently, I always thought there were only 6 Disney princesses altogether, I found out at work that a good deal had been added. But because of that, I always thought Ariel was just the princess that got left out for some reason. It has never bothered me I would say, but I was just always so curious about it.

There was a Hercules sequel? ^O _ ^O I never heard of all of these. The most I know are the Aladdin movies and T.V. series, the Hercules show, The Little Mermaid movies, the Mulan sequel, and the Lion King sequel.

Oh yeah, and the really bad sequels to Hunchback and Pocahontas.

 

[Ruran]

Is this so? Disney as well does not define "princess" by literal status? Why then are there not more non-literal Disney woman whom they deem princesses such as Megara who is a very strong independent woman and why would they remove Esmeralda who teaches us to treat all as equals? Why are there not enough of such characters in existence? Incidentally most of the literal Disney princesses only teach little girls that if they wait patiently a prince will come sweep them off their feet which is beyond BS, Ariel goes even further and portrays how we need to change what we are to find true love(though the original story is more morally accurate and actually ends with her dying). Some role models.

Great, now a Pocahontas 2. Maybe my Mother's parenting was better than I thought, I should thank her from sheltering me from this endless list of movies that were better off not existing.

I guess thinking about it, a huge majority of Disney's female leads seem to end up being Disney Princesses now. I mean several come too mind who aren't, but it just makes me wonder why? If Belle can be a Disney Princess, why not several others as a couple other posters mentioned.

I can't remember where I read it so you'll just have to take my word for it, but there are three basic criteria to qualify as a DP.

1. She must be a princess by blood.
2. She must be a princess though marriage.
3. She must perform a great feat of heroics.

That's why Mulan is a DP even though she's not royalty, in universe of her movie she's hailed as a hero who saved all of China. Unfortunaly, there just aren't many lead female characters in animated Disney movies that perform heroics to that scale. We've been getting more "strong independent women" characters as of late that can be qualified as "heros", like Merida and Anna, but they lso happen to be princesses.

Then there's the marketing aspect. Disney Princess is a brand name so the girls who make the cut are also the ones seen as the most profitable. That's why even though there are a bunch of other princess characters, a good chunk of them never became actual DPs and quietly fell to obscurity.

 

[Max]

I can't remember where I read it so you'll just have to take my word for it, but there are three basic criteria to qualify as a DP.

1. She must be a princess by blood.
2. She must be a princess though marriage.
3. She must perform a great feat of heroics.

That's why Mulan is a DP even though she's not royalty, in universe of her movie she's hailed as a hero who saved all of China. Unfortunaly, there just aren't many lead female characters in animated Disney movies that perform heroics to that scale. We've been getting more "strong independent women" characters as of late that can be qualified as "heros", like Merida and Anna, but they lso happen to be princesses.

Then there's the marketing aspect. Disney Princess is a brand name so the girls who make the cut are also the ones seen as the most profitable. That's why even though there are a bunch of other princess characters, a good chunk of them never became actual DPs and quietly fell to obscurity.

Okay, the criteria makes sense I suppose. And looking at some of the mentioned, like Megara, I don't exactly see her being a bunch of little girls top choice when buying their princess pillow or pajamas. And while Jane seemed a strong female lead in Tarzan, she never really came off as heroic, and she is nowhere close to a princess.

And if all Female leads were considered Princesses, some of them would just be awkward. Could you imagine Sally from NBC being on a DP blanket standing next to all of the other princesses?

 

[kupo1121]

Is this so? Disney as well does not define "princess" by literal status? Why then are there not more non-literal Disney woman whom they deem princesses such as Megara who is a very strong independent woman and why would they remove Esmeralda who teaches us to treat all as equals?

Easy. Esmeralda was removed because her merchandise wasn't selling. Likewise, Megara merchandise is rarely made anywhere because Megara doesn't sell. The Disney Princess is just a brand, so it's only as strong as it's candidates and Disney isn't forking out money to make merchandise of characters who don't sell. Princess Kida from Atlantis was originally prepped to be added to the line but after Atlantis didn't do well in the box office, the plan was scrapped.

That's one viewpoint. Every writer will portray a certain type of character differently. Look how many types of vampires are out there?
It just dawned on me the scene in which Ariel lays complete body on the sand beside the unconscious Eric whom she'd just rescued from drowning. She's stayed by his side until the moment he opened his eyes and would have caught her and saw what she was. Who knows how long that actually was despite the short span we are shown? Yet she was fine.

It was definitely a long time because the ship went down at night and she sung to him at least in the morning when the sun was out as bright as day. That being said, in PotC, they said mermaids slowly dried up so I definitely think Ariel could have lasted days (after days though, she would have been too weak to even crawl back) so I don't she dries up THAT fast. This is just speculation though as to how long she can last.

Interestingly Pocahontas II is truer to the actual person's biography it's based off of than the original film. The relationship between her and John Smith was actually father/daughter like not romantic, which is more appropriate considering that the age difference matched it. She was 16 and although I am unsure of his age I know it was much older, too much to have been a love interest.
She did however truly travel to England and marry John Rolfe but sadly she died not long after, still 16.

Truthfully, and this is off-topic, but I think the reason Pocahontas II was made was to possibly get more recognition from the people who complained about Pocahontas I being so unfaithful to history. What they ended up doing...was ruining Pocahontas lol at least in my eyes (and most people's).

 

[Ventus_]

I can't remember where I read it so you'll just have to take my word for it, but there are three basic criteria to qualify as a DP.

1. She must be a princess by blood.
2. She must be a princess though marriage.
3. She must perform a great feat of heroics.

That's why Mulan is a DP even though she's not royalty, in universe of her movie she's hailed as a hero who saved all of China. Unfortunaly, there just aren't many lead female characters in animated Disney movies that perform heroics to that scale. We've been getting more "strong independent women" characters as of late that can be qualified as "heros", like Merida and Anna, but they lso happen to be princesses.

Then there's the marketing aspect. Disney Princess is a brand name so the girls who make the cut are also the ones seen as the most profitable. That's why even though there are a bunch of other princess characters, a good chunk of them never became actual DPs and quietly fell to obscurity.

Alright I see and each girl only had to meet ONE of those requirements.

There was a Hercules sequel? ^O _ ^O I never heard of all of these. The most I know are the Aladdin movies and T.V. series, the Hercules show, The Little Mermaid movies, the Mulan sequel, and the Lion King sequel.

Oh yeah, and the really bad sequels to Hunchback and Pocahontas.

It was actually a Prequel to Hurcules, based around his teenage years before the 'Go the Distance' number where he left to pursue his god roots. It basically follows him in an Ancient Greek portrayal of modern High School.
As for the TV series I remember that for Aladdin and Hurcules but the one I watched the most of just because it was on daily at one time was The Little Mermaid. It wasn't actually horrible but the third film which came right after it ignored the portrayal in the series of how Ariel met Flounder by including a completely different portrayal. So that was kind of stupid. Unless the series wasn't canon but it's by Disney so why wouldn't it be?

It was definitely a long time because the ship went down at night and she sung to him at least in the morning when the sun was out as bright as day. That being said, in PotC, they said mermaids slowly dried up so I definitely think Ariel could have lasted days (after days though, she would have been too weak to even crawl back) so I don't she dries up THAT fast. This is just speculation though as to how long she can last.

That's right, it was at night that the storm occurred and morning when she sang to him on shore. It's been literally years since I've seen the film.

 

[blksabbath74]

Okay, I can understand some of the hate for the Disney sequels, however, let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment.


The original films were all major theatrical releases with large budgets and big name voice actors and musicians. They were complete, complex stories designed to entertain chilkdren AND adults and wow with great music.

The sequels, prequels and television series that spun off from the originals were all done on a much lower budget, were made for television, with the intended audience of the children who watch the Disney set of channels, and for the most part, have been successful with their target audience.

As adults, we understand that even though we WANT to know what else happens to a particular character, it is often better to leave a good, complete story alone rather devaluing it with sequels that are not up to the standard of the original (looking at you, Wachowski Brothers).

However, children want to know what else happens, and are perfectly happy with lower quality stories full of inconsistencies.


Having said that, I thought that Cinderella 3 was an improvement on the original, preferred Kronk's New Groove to that of the Emperor (huge Warburton fan here, Brock Samson anyone?) and enjoyed ALL the Lilo and Stitch films. Most of the rest isn't THAT bad...

 

[kuraudoVII]

Okay, I can understand some of the hate for the Disney sequels, however, let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment.


The original films were all major theatrical releases with large budgets and big name voice actors and musicians. They were complete, complex stories designed to entertain chilkdren AND adults and wow with great music.

The sequels, prequels and television series that spun off from the originals were all done on a much lower budget, were made for television, with the intended audience of the children who watch the Disney set of channels, and for the most part, have been successful with their target audience.

As adults, we understand that even though we WANT to know what else happens to a particular character, it is often better to leave a good, complete story alone rather devaluing it with sequels that are not up to the standard of the original (looking at you, Wachowski Brothers).

However, children want to know what else happens, and are perfectly happy with lower quality stories full of inconsistencies.


Having said that, I thought that Cinderella 3 was an improvement on the original, preferred Kronk's New Groove to that of the Emperor (huge Warburton fan here, Brock Samson anyone?) and enjoyed ALL the Lilo and Stitch films. Most of the rest isn't THAT bad...

I haven't had the chance to watch the third Cinderella film although I have read a bit about it from TV Tropes. Same deal with the Kronk's New Groove (Brock Samson FTW) and the Lilo and Stitch sequels.

I can see and agree with the idea that some children are content with certain follow-ups and such despite lower quality and inconsistencies. That being said, that argument has caused a severe problem within the Sonic community for years now...

 

[Launchpad]

I'm of the opinion that Kuzco should be a New!Princess of Heart...

 

[blksabbath74]

I'm of the opinion that Kuzco should be a New!Princess of Heart...

I was under the impression that there could be no new Princesses of Heart, though I've never really paid much attention to that.

If they were adding a 'new Seven' I'd throw in Merida, Elsa, Anna, Rapunzel and Tiana...

 

[kuraudoVII]

I'm of the opinion that Kuzco should be a New!Princess of Heart...

He already posed as Pacha's wife. It can happen.

 

[blksabbath74]

I haven't had the chance to watch the third Cinderella film although I have read a bit about it from TV Tropes. Same deal with the Kronk's New Groove (Brock Samson FTW) and the Lilo and Stitch sequels.

I can see and agree with the idea that some children are content with certain follow-ups and such despite lower quality and inconsistencies. That being said, that argument has caused a severe problem within the Sonic community for years now...

The Lilo and Stitch series actually continued to get better, IMO, as Stitch was now recast as a hero and Gantu as a villain.

 

[Max]

Having said that, I thought that Cinderella 3 was an improvement on the original, preferred Kronk's New Groove to that of the Emperor (huge Warburton fan here, Brock Samson anyone?) and enjoyed ALL the Lilo and Stitch films. Most of the rest isn't THAT bad...

What the hell? Cinderella 3? Meaning there is a 2? I think I am incapable of being surprised by this any further

 

[Ruran]

What the hell? Cinderella 3? Meaning there is a 2? I think I am incapable of being surprised by this any further

Cinderella 3 had time travel.

 

[Max]

Cinderella 3 had time travel.

No it didn't, you must be kidding. I refuse to believe it.

 

[unbound_word]

Ariel had disobeyed her dad a few times. That's proof of the darkness in her heart.