The Once and Future Princess

Disney stages cinematic coup, princesses a-drift in Pixar purgatory

- by Bob McLain, November 30, 2010

Share

Disney claims that its newly released film 'Tangled' is the final strand in the company's long dalliance with its beloved bevy of fictional princesses.

Does anyone hear a royal 'hmph'? Or catch sight of a glass slipper thrown with deadly accuracy toward John Lasseter, the CCO (Chief Creative Officer) at Pixar and Walt Disney Animation Studios, who said that "...princesses...have a limited shelf life"?

Don't get me wrong: I believe Disney believes it's past the point of princesses.

Disney is evolving. Like anything evolving, it wants to shed its skin every so often. To John Lasseter and, apparently, other Disney executives, the princess movie is quaint, old-fashioned, limited in appeal. There are sexier movies to be made. Serious movies. Mega movies. With pirates in them. Or animated versions of Mr. Potato Head.

Call it the Hannah Montana effect. Miley Cyrus wants to evolve into Diva Dakota not because the Hannah Montana franchise is exhausted (far from it!) but because, well, I'm not really sure.

The princess franchise isn't exhausted, either. 'Tangled' earned $48.8 million in its opening weekend, a mere follicle behind Harry Potter's $49.1 million second-week take. How 'Tangled' does during its second week will be very interesting: if box office plummets, then maybe Lasseter has a point about little girls becoming fickle about their princesses and cynical about "...the romanticized ideal they represent - finding the man of your dreams...".

Yes, indeed, what little girl wants to keep looking for the man of her dreams?

The thing about little girls, however, is that there's always more of them - an inexhaustible supply, in fact, each with parents who possess an exhaustible but available supply of bucks to pay for movies and merchandise that feature princesses and fairy tales and romanticized ideals. Sure, these little girls will quickly grow up (I have one, I know!) and their tastes will shift to tweener fare like iCarly and the urban jungle of Bratz, where the 'romanticized ideal' is riding passenger in a pimp car.

But what grown-up little girl still doesn't want to be treated like a 'princess', even if not by the man of her dreams? All those mothers who collectively spent $48.8 million to take their daughters to see 'Tangled' last week may have given up on their romanticized ideals, but they apparently thought it important that their little girls not give up on theirs just yet.

Ed Catmull, President of Pixar and Walt Disney Animation Studios, drew a line in the cinematic sand when he said recently that "[f]ilms and genres do run a course". He's right; genres do run a course. But I'm not so sure that princesses constitute merely a genre. They embody the dreams of many little girls. Down deep, I think Ed Catmull thinks so, too. That may be why he also said that "[genres] may come back later...'.

The draft you feel is the door being left open for another princess film.

For now, though, as Disney consumes companies like Marvel and marches into trendy-hot fields like social media, they're trying to delicately distance themselves from the princesses and fairies and nostalgia that made them. Disney wants to be seen as an entertainment megalith built from many media bricks one of which just happens to wear a tiara.

But it's simply not possible, at least not for the next few generations. Disney is what Disney was. Mention 'Disney' and your mind pops Mickey. Cinderella, too. And the parks. Protean corporate juggernaut? Uh-uh.

At some point, maybe next year, maybe not for a few years, someone will have to walk into a room full of princesses sitting with their arms crossed, their feet tapping, their eyes not blinking, and explain that it was all a mistake. The world still has little girls. Those romanticized ideals? Still a market for them.

And please, Cinderella, put down that glass slipper...

Don't stop there! More Tidings Await...