Feature
- Do You Hate Your Partner, Too?
- California Teen Avoids Heavy Sentencing by Passing the Buck
- Wanna Buy Your Teenager a Padded Push-Up Bra?
- Vampires in Texas!
- These Guys Are As Bad As Westboro Baptist Church
- Funny Letters Sent to Women's Magazines
- Women's Ski Jumping: Still Not a 'Real' Sport
- Will the World Be Pro-Choice Soon?
- Are We Getting Too Lazy to Even Divorce?
- Forever 21's Maternity Line: Glamorizing Teen Pregnancy?
This weekend, though most families are probably seeing Harry Potter for the first or second or eighth time, guaranteeing it another couple hundred million in sales, I’m considering how I’m going to squeeze in seeing the Disney movie Tangled into my very busy schedule. This is mostly because the character, Rapunzel, is voiced by Mandy Moore, and I still haven’t forgotten my love for her in every movie ever. But it’s also because the film is being touted as “The Last of the Disney Princess Movies.” In fact, the title and marketing of the film was …
… actually changed drastically to attempt market to boys as well as girls, hence the title change; Disney was worried that boys woudn’t go see a movie about a princess. Which is pretty odd, considering their last venture, The Princess and the Frog, did quite well at the box office, despite negative press swirling around the potential racism and sexism of the film.
This time, they were taking no chances, and Tangled is getting positive reviews. On the one hand, could it be a good thing that a traditional princess movie was altered so as to to broaden the genre; it sounds as though this movie is based on a partnership between the two leads, which is always exciting. But looking back on the traditional princess movies of my childhood, I don’t recall ever thinking that they didn’t apply to boys as well. There were plenty of male characters, they just weren’t necessarily the leads. It seems like they’re trying to take a leaf from the brilliant book of Pixar, whose Toy Story series features predominant male leads, and has done astoundingly well at the box office.
But the Toy Story movies are just good movies. I’d argue that though their main characters are male, there are also plenty of strong female characters (Jessie, for one), and that it sets a good example that Andy, the little boy the toys are owned by, has dolls in the first place. But then again, Pixar has always been good about being open-minded; I’ve always gotten the impression that Andy’s mom is a single-mom, and their “It Gets Better” video is one of the more touching ones I’ve seen. Disney, however much I love them, has a history of dominating their empire with an iron fist. What does this mean for princesses? I’m not sure how many more of them there are left to tell stories with. But I hope that they realize that there are many more girls out there to talk about, and that we all want to see them. And if you’re ever look for some female-empowerment films, check out Siobhan’s list of movies to show to your kids. There’s even one Disney Princess movie on there…
You Might Also Like ...
-
-
9
My son loves all the Disney Princess movies. Except Cinderella.
Then again, he has a Snow White doll and wants a Snow White dress, so he may not be indicative of most little boys.
Serious pissoff here. I wrote a whole response which has now disappeared into the ether.
Relevant point – the existence of boys in a movie does not make it something a boy wants to see. The plot is what matters – and a plot about women having no worth and massive troubles until their beauty allows them to land a handsome and rich prince who will fulfill their life purpose of marrying and reproducing is not an overly enthralling plot for boys. I think it’s only interesting for girls due to societal reinforcement.
As a rule of thumb no “existence of boys” in any topic does not mean that they wont have interest. Gender representation in anything does correlate with the amount of people will to attend. Racial representation also correlates with the amount of people will to show up.
The utter lack of English grammar leaves me largely baffled at what you are trying to say here.
But if it is that, in fact, the presence of boys or girls suggests the likelihood of boys or girls in the audience, you are confusing the conditions.
There is a difference at hand between ‘necessary conditions’ and ’sufficient conditions’.
Perhaps you are saying that boys in the film does make boys interested. Or that a film without boys would not make boys interested. That would suggest that ‘the presence of boys in the film’ is a *necessary* condition to get boys in the audience. (A must happen for B to happen.)
That does NOT mean that it is a *sufficient* condition – ie. if A happens, then B will happen, and B doesn’t require anything else to happen. Boys being in the film is not the ONLY thing that must happen for boys to go see the movie. There must also be a plot that interests boys. So it is not sufficient alone for boys to be in the movie (as per ‘cinderella’).
Many people confuse necessary and sufficient conditions. I hope that it will now be seen less often around here.
Sorry, I was very tired when I posted my first comment.
.
“That would suggest that ‘the presence of boys in the film’ is a *necessary* condition to get boys in the audience.”
.
Sorry to confuse you, but in the calculus classes I have taken I was taught when talking about the correlation between variables a function is used to describe the behavior. I made a terribly confusing jump and combined my poorly made point with bad grammar. This seemed to anger you and that was not my intent.
.
My thinking was very much based on a simple linear equation. However, just because A(x) approaches zero does not mean B(y) will reach zero. In an linear equation a Y-intercept can be used to represent the base amount of males attending regardless of A(x as Male representation).
.
From what I can tell you agree using the “necessary and sufficient conditions” logic.
.
The point I so poorly attempted to make before refers to the use of math to track the correlation of sales with gender representation, plot, special effects, actor fame and more.
.
The only point I really wanted to make was to representation of gender having a measurable affect on sales. Not to imply this effect is more potent then how a great plot would affect sales.
I wouldn’t even argue potency. I would simply suggest two likely necessary conditions. Boys probably won’t go see a movie without a single boy, and they probably won’t go see a movie with a plot aimed at girls even if there are boy characters.
.
With further explanation, all makes sense. the first post just didn’t.
It didn’t anger me though – I just had no idea where on earth you were going. There were a lot of phrases where a slight misphrase gives the opposite meaning. If I am angry, you’ll know it. :D
I personally have never understood the whole “prince rescues princess” genre, it is never really explained what is in it for the prince. Think about it, you are a prince you are inheriting a kingdom, you would have very little trouble finding a wife if that is what you are into. Why risk your life just because this woman is pretty? A good story would be a prince and his retainers storm and clean out a monster infested castle. They get to the keep and rescue the princess when she kisses him and asks when they are to marry, he explains that he stormed the castle because the monsters were harassing the trade routes in his future Kingdom. And he won’t be marring her because he is betrothed to one of the princesses in a neighboring Kingdom in a political marriage. and could she please vacate his new castle because he plans on fortifying it and using it as a base for his soldiers to patrol the local trade routes and prevent smuggling.
What do you mean there’s nothing in it for the prince? He gets ‘the most beautiful girl in the kingdom!!!’ – Isn’t that all a man wants?
The purposes of men are as dumb as the purposes in women in these stories.
That said, I think the guy in ‘Sleeping Beauty’ was the only one that had to actually rescue. and he was already in love when she was stolen from him. Snow White’s guy just came along and kissed an apparently dead girl. Cinderella’s just picked a pretty one at a ball. Eric nearly went ahead and married another girl, then switched back when it was convenient. The former Beast probably had to take when he could get.
.
I like your storyline though. They could even make something usefully appealing to both sexes (and much better for young girls) by continuing with the story of the princess going and finding something else useful to do with her life.
Well, I haven’t seen Tangled, but my husband did take our (almost) 3 year old son to see it. He absolutely loved it. In fact, he didn’t want to leave the theater, and made my husband stay for the entirety of the credits. So, if their aim is to get boys interested in “princess” movies, it looks like they may have found a successful formula.