It annoys me how people demand that Disney make new "types" of Disney Princesses. I hear people say things like, "DISNEY BETTER MAKE A _____ DISNEY PRINCESS OR ELSE !!1!11!!1!11!1!!1" They're all Disney Princesses, they're all characters. How about we actually focus on the character instead of things like their race? It's like judging them by their appearance, demanding that. Things like representation and diversity are good things, but there is no reason Disney needs to cater to every want everyone has. Just let them make movies, let them make characters, the way they want to. There's no use complaining about how Disney didn't make a ___ princess for you, do you seriously expect them to make a character the way you ask? Sorry if this seems directed towards anyone, but I had to say this.

Sorry for another post, I'm feeling ranty today. :P


I really think Ariel is popular here. I personally don't understand why people say she isn't. She gets hate, yes, but it typically tends to only be from a few vocal users on the club. The rest of the users tend to generally like her. I think some people need to start separating hate from pointing out flaws. Most people on the club like her, but are not afraid to point out that she has flaws and what those flaws are. Like I said, there is a difference between pointing out the flaws of a character and hating on a character. And even if she got more hate, I would still consider her popular. Let's take a look at the definition of popular.

pop·u·lar
adjective
1.
liked, admired, or enjoyed by many people or by a particular person or group.

So, if she gets a lot of love, she's popular, see? And she gets a lot of love. There are many, many, users who have her as first in this club. (And many who place her very high as well.) I would list them, but I don't want them thinking I'm trying to personally attack them by doing it. I really do find her one of the most loved Disney Princesses on here, and I don't find her one of the most hated at all.

Merida doesn't deserve the hate she gets so much on here. She deserves so much love! To the people who DO hate her-don't get offended, it's just my opinion.

I don't know how popular this is, but I think Sleeping Beauty (more so the movie) is more feminist than it's credited for. I'm copying and pasting (and slightly editing) my comment on one of the links to explain.

" The story is driven mostly by female characters. The female villain is portrayed powerfully, feared by all and seen as a real threat. The fairies play a large part in the movie as well. They are mostly portrayed positively, saving Prince Phillip from the dungeon and providing him with weapons, playing a part in Maleficent's defeat. Aurora herself isn't exactly a feminist icon, but the overall movie could be given more credit. "

Opinions?

Animation doesn't matter to me. At all. A Disney movie could have the most horrendous animation in the world and it could still be my favorite movie ever. I don't know why, but I don't care about how "good" or "bad" animation is. It doesn't affect my enjoyment of the movie.

I dont find Ariel selfish and I find Gaston incredibly ugly

I think nostalgia is a very important reason for loving a movie. I see a lot of people who say "Oh people only like this movie because they watched it when they were a kid," and I'm like... so? If something reminds you of your childhood I think that's a very good reason to like it. An example for me would be Aladdin - a movie about which I am not nostalgic at all because I didn't see it until I was a teenager. I don't like Aladdin all that much, and I don't think I ever will, precisely because it doesn't hold any of that childhood charm that I associate with other DP movies such as The Little Mermaid. It makes me sad because it is a good movie and I want to like it more, but I just never will because it isn't nostalgic for me.

This will sound weird, but I think it'd be cool if Disney made another (or a truly, depends on where you stand) shy, introverted princess. Society tends to favor extroverted people and many have the idea than an extroverted woman is more "worthwhile" of attention than a girl who has difficulties opening up or forming relationships. It could be interesting for Disney to showcase a girl who happens to be a little on the quiet, lonely side (by default, not just by "magical loopholes" like Elsa). And it would be nice if the narrative of her story wasn't about how her shyness is an "obstacle" she has to overcome and change because oh no, she's such a weirdo for not talking much or being on her own. She could end the movie still being a little on the reserved side and still have friends and loved ones around. (There are way too many movies where the shy girl turns into the life of the party because the plot demands it and i always found those stories sooo cliched and in a way pressuring girls to be one way that is favored over another...). Think of something like Violet Parr or Fluttershy.

I've said this once, and I'll say it again-Gaston has the best damn singing voice out of any DP villain.

Warning: Multiple confessions included, but assembled in a rambling manner 😜

Disney fanatics sound so effing ignorant when they whine "Disney would've done it better!" because a.) that's disrespectful to the other film company/cast and crew, b.) they usually can't provide valid reasons as to *why* c.) and Disney sometimes cares too much about upholding its "family-friendly ideals" to provide the edge/grit needed. I.E. It will most likely never create a film like "The Prince of Egypt" because covering religion would be too controversial.

More fans should be informed of animation history before blindly defending Disney because, while the majority of its filmography is absolutely phenomenal, the suits (businessmen) have basically been running the corporation since Walt's death AND driving its most talented animators out. There's nothing wrong with cherishing the films, but don't delude yourselves. At the end of the day, the animators, voice actors, screenwriters, directors, singers, lyricists, composers, etc. should be given the true recognition rather than the name brand itself. In other words, give credit where it's due instead of pledging blind allegiance and treating Disney as untouchable because of its legacy.

Speaking of legacy, it is important to know that is Disney's greatest strength. Remember its "Dark Age Era," or even how some of its most beloved classics were box office failures? "Sleeping Beauty," an undeniable visual masterpece failed so miserably at the box office that Disney was forced to stick to relatively safe stories AND cheap animation techniques such as Xeroxing until its resurgence circa TLM/BatB. If inflation is taken into account, SWatSD is still technically the most successful animated film of all time, but the expensive/creatively ground-breaking films that followed ("Pinocchio" and "Fantasia") bombed, so it was imperative that the films that followed those be successful, and they were.

Fast-forward to the time between Walt's death and TLM, the company would have folded if not for the parks which were basically shrines to its glory days! Fast-forward to everything after "Tarzan," and before "The Princess and the Frog," Disney would've crumbled if not for the parks, merchandising, Disney Channel aka "the kid star machine" and accumulation of various successful properties/franchises (Pixar, ESPN, ABC, Marvel, etc.)

My point in the aforementioned is that no other corporation would be able to recover unscathed multiple times, especially after such dramatic losses, but Disney *always* will. Because, unlike all of the others, Disney has existed long enough that its messages have been ingrained in us since before our birth; at the very least, it dates back to our great-grandparents' upbringings. And while I am grateful for that, it justifiably frustrates me that people not only take a literal embodiment of a grand dream come true for granted, but that they can't understand this is precisely why Disney has no excuse but to offer the best in all regards: it has the advantage.

Bona fide stars and/or the greatest talents of our time have lent their voices/contributions to a Disney film not for the money -- as the scale is ridiculously low and their likeness isn't paid for -- but because they want to be immortalized. Therefore, if you're truly a Disney fan, you should know better than to attack other companies for not upholding the same standards, or even to expect such in the first place, because they are the real-life underdogs. I suppose that would make those loud-mouths the villains. Funny how that works, isn't it?

Which brings us to Don Bluth. He was probably just as much a part of your childhood as Disney, and it absolutely kills me when people claim he sold-out in the '90s by creating Disney-esque features 😤 He is an extremely talented animator and director who -- could use A LOT of help in the writing department, but still manages to get heartfelt messages across one way or another -- struggled to keep his own company afloat after the Renaissance began+Spielberg and Lucas cut ties with him.

Are people really that foolish as to believe he had an actual say in the matter? Obviously, he was told "make it look similar enough to Disney, or we'll find someone else that will" 😞 Do you think he wanted to suffer that degradation?! NO. But sometimes talent and acclaim aren't enough, and when you're the leader, you must swallow your pride and make compromises for the sake of your employees. Why can't we appreciate his selflessness instead of sneering at the likes of "Rock-A-Doodle," "The Pebble and the Penguin," "Thumbelina" and "A Troll in Central Park" .

It's like people conveniently choose to forget there was a time before Pixar, Dreamworks and the like existed; as if Disney never had a monopoly in the field. Speaking of DreamWorks, do they know why it was formed? Because Jeffrey Katzenberg was fed up with Michael Eisner taking the credit for everything he earned for Disney and giving him hell. Eisner was the cut-throat Disney CEO until he was forced out by Roy Disney. I'll give him props for pushing the darkness of THoND, but it ends there. Interestingly enough, Spielberg teamed up with Katzenberg on Dreamworks. Ouch. That sealed his choice to never finance a Bluth film again.

Since we're talking about Bluth's misfortune and Eisner's shady tactics, it's important to know that Eisner re-released multiple films during the weekend debut of Bluth's "Anastasia". A move that undoubtedly was responsible for the only-moderate commercial success of Fox Animation Studios' first feature-length film. And this was before the likes of DreamWorks. But remember, Katzenberg was a businessman first and foremost. Because he'd surrounded himself with priceless contacts over the years, his success was all but ensured.

Bluth had no such luck, and after the massive financial disaster of "Titan A.E.," he has been all but black-listed. Sad, too, because it wasn't really his fault: $30 million worth of concept art had already been squandered before Bluth was brought on board, he was told that he could take the project or cost all of his team members their employment, and it was hardly marketed because the new president of the company -- who took office during its production -- didn't want to waste money on marketing since he intended to gut the animation department (for whatever reason).

We're talking about a man whose classics (such as "The Secret of NIMH," An American Tail," "The Land Before Time" and "All Dogs Go To Heaven") were tainted by their God-awful sequels, of which he never consented to, save "Bartok's Magnificent Adventure," because he had to sell the rights of all the characters he ever created before he could even begin production on any of his films. A man who could've become the face of Disney, as he was offered the position of animating director in the late '70s, but left after only fulfilling it for a short time because he knew Walt's standards weren't being upheld.

He knew it was unacceptable to skimp on adding shadows, reflections, eye colors and anything else that added atmosphere which made these magical worlds seem real to us. He sacrificed hours of his own time after work to train newbies, learn techniques that the Nine Old Men had neglected to teach and/or forgotten altogether, create budget-cutting methods for better animation, film live-action references and train people to act out those sequences and argued the necessity for of all this until he came to the heart-breaking conclusion that everything had come down to a matter of nickels and dimes, and that it might be too late before his voice would be heard. And he proved to the world that animation could be transcendent once more, surpassing Disney on a critical and commercial level for nearly a decade.

So, you can idolize a man like John Lasseter, who gutted the 2D department after a film didn't perform as well as he'd hoped, fired the brilliant Brenda Chapman, and "returned Disney to its former glory" by reinforcing the establishment of a suit-driven studio once more, but I'll take a "failure" like Don Bluth any day. At least the latter "sold-out" for the betterment of others, not to mention walked out on inevitable prestige in favor of "moving forward".

As I said in a comment on the wall, I really enjoy Shenzi, Banzai, and Ed from The Lion King, even more than I enjoy Timon, Pumbaa, and Simba.
I can understand why someone wouldn't like them or found them annoying, but they make me laugh. Okay, the hyenas treat the lions wrong, but they also were the ones who finished off Scar (a character I dislike) after he stabbed them in the back.

The little mermaid is a bad story told very well. Return to the Sea is a good story told poorly. Melody's story is an improvement over her Mother's.

I think the scene of Ariel emerging from the water in her silver dress could've been animated *much* better. It's especially laughable when you compare it to the lovely shot of her kissing Eric, in which she looks lovely and fuller. I don't like to criticize the princesses' body shapes because I don't believe in shaming of ANY kind, but she looks emaciated, masculine and awkward, as hardly any detail is added to her face. I think the raising of her arms is sweet, but it looks like they just chose to use a rough pencil test (albeit colored in). All I'm sayin' is that it would've been wise to rotoscope her in that scene, as they clearly did in the one thereafter.

I think Ron Musker and John Clements, while clearly incredible directors and screenwriters, are often hit-or-miss when it comes to choosing the color palette and wacky aspects of their films. In TLM, TP, and "Hercules," I found some objects in a good amount of scenes to be obnoxiously bright. I.E. A few underwater scenes, Zeus' Kingdom and the like💀 Whereas, I long for Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise's brilliant mixture of rich, neutral and vibrant colors and overall simplicity... it's enough to make me wish they'd been brought back instead, or at least as well, to be honest 😿 But that will probably never happen since G.T. works at DreamWorks now 😩

I don't get the 4th Pirates Of The Caribbean movie that well at all. I think it has something to do with the characters. I mean, don't get me wrong, Penelope Cruz did a good job in it. I guess I just like Will and Elizabeth better. (Don't worry-I've looked up the past 2 movies. Even though I've only seen the 4th one and the original one, I still know the story.)

I think things would be a lot better if Frozen was never made.

I think Princess Leia should be added to the line.

Omg i just found out Epcot is planning to add an "Arendelle" pavilion to their world center...Nevermind my feelings for Frozen, isn't Epcot supposed to be "educational"? Why should they make a pavilion based on a fictional country when other countries still need to be represented on the pavillion (more Africa and South America), Disney, you're being greedy...hMMM

I don't have a list.

I would have liked Frozen had it not be over-marketed.

I don't care about lists in general and the "who's more beautiful" polls.

Not sure if this is unpopular (OR a confession/opinion), but, here it goes-it is bugging the living crap out of me that Anna and Elsa haven't been added to the lineup yet. I know Frozen is still pretty popular, but I felt like I needed to get that out there.

I love Peter Pan (the movie). Yes, I do find the hero very annoying, but at least Disney stayed true to the original story, because that's how Peter is portrayed in the book. And I am aware of the racist scenes (and I don't ignore them), but the movie still holds a very special place in my heart, because of the nostalgia, I used to watch it all the time when I was younger. I especially love the soundtrack.

I somewhat enjoy Sofia the First, even though it's predictable and clearly targeted toward young children. Not sure if that's unpopular.

Into the Woods was a decent movie an interesting musical but the plot could be hard to understand for me I got confused BUT THERE WASNT ENOUGH OF JOHNNY DEEP!! They should have done more with his character better yet given him a different part in the movie. And the whole Cinderella side of the tale I didn't see it coming Prince Charming is a total dooshbag, the step mother and stepsisters keep true to the grim brothers version with a twist of fate p, Cinderella runs away more then once and has birds as sidekicks that come to her when she sings and can understand them like Giselle man the things they come up with these day WOW!

i think Frozen teaches a bad moral about love relationships. The whole Fixer upper song for example and Kristoff's entire behaviour (ok he has a few nice moments but just a few) is like telling the kids: " It's ok to date with a jerk, he is maybe rude and uneducated and has digusting habits but there is really no need to search for your prince because jerks are way better! "

Hum I don't really care much about Snow White the film as a whole. I know it has its fans, and it's important due to its historical significance, but i don't find it really appealing. It's pretty to look at in some places and the orchestration at times is nice, but i kinda get bored a bit by it.

I don't like Elena of Avalor's design much. It looks cute but very generic. It seems like they just mixed Jasmine's and Maria's from the Book of Life's design together to make her. Also, I'm somewhat bothered that the first Latina princess is Mexican...(but that's just because I think Mexicans in general in Hollywood seem to be portrayed a lot more than other Latin Americans and i expected something new)

Don't take this the wrong way, but it makes me kinda mad when they say Pocahontas' hair is like paper. (I.E. when it blows in the wind) I feel like I want to shout out "It's supposed to be like magic when it does that!". I don't mean to offend anybody. It's just my opinion.

I don't think Elsa is sexy just for wearing a tight dress, loads of makeup and swaying your hips. In fact I don't think Esmeralda or Jasmine are sexy JUST for basically those same reasons either (except of course a crop top in lieu of a dress). I think in addition to beauty sexiness is attitude, which is why I think if anything Anna is more, for her wholesome/ingenue attitude with her natural beauty. And while Elsa is very attractive, something about her I just can't find sexy like everyone else does, dress or not. Maybe the fact that she's a young girl with a middle aged woman's voice? :S I can't put my finger on it.

Disney used to be very "gutsy" back in the day - nudity in Fantasia, experiencing drunken Dumbo, the villains getting away with everything in Pinocchio (Those poor donkey-boys!), The Horned King in The Black Cauldron (I know, not as old as the other movies mentioned, but it's certainly scary), etc. I guess the newer movies have their moments, too, but I think that some of the older Disney movies would get banned for some of their content if they were released nowadays. I wouldn't mind seeing something a bit risky again, but I do understand why these don't occur so casually anymore.

Most likely not unpopular, but I would like to see what Wardrobe looks like as a human. She sort of disappeared into oblivion.

I actually don't mind most of the sequels because I'm happy that I get to see the characters again but in a different adventure.

I do think Elsa has less characterization than her sister ( Anna), and very much less than most of all the other Disney lineup girls. People attribute "great characteristics" to Elsa that simply aren't there on screen. I keep hearing how Elsa is so selfless, how she is so mature, how she is elegant ( okay, she's as elegant as Belle is, so that point, at least, is a true statement), how she knows what she wants, etc. I also keep hearing how she is the best Disney Princess.... It's funny to me, because I wonder how the movie Frozen really shows me that Elsa is selfless, how Frozen really shows me that Elsa is mature, and how Frozen characterizes Elsa as showing that she knows what she wants. In fact, after watching Frozen twice, I do not see how Elsa is completely selfless, how Elsa is more mature than say, Anna or Merida, nor how Elsa knows what she wants in life. Elsa doesn't seem to know anything, and only seems to "pretend" to know a lot of stuff.

As for people claiming Elsa's the most affectionate of the princesses because of the way she "cares for her friends"--- that's totally missing. We get Elsa giving the empty-handed complement of " you look nice" to her sister at the coronation party. This is the first time they've seen each other's face in years, I guess. Did they never eat dinner together? Could you not find something else to say, besides "your dress looks nice?" I mean, what are your hobbies, interests, hello? Re-acquaint yourselves. We also get a vapid discussion about chocolate... which goes nowhere. We then get Elsa shooting ice when she argues with her sister, after she feels threatened by Anna's outburst and glove-grabbing. Besides those "caring moments" I just mentioned, we get the part where Elsa tries to shoo Anna out of her ice castle because she thinks her sister is in danger. But that nice moment where Elsa feels "almost caring" toward her sister simply backfires. In the very next scene, Elsa loses her temper and shoots her sister with ice--- and that move really comes across as intentional in the movie. Then Elsa sends the snow monster to chase her sister away, which is, again, intentional. I really have a hard time seeing " the loving care" in imparting physical injury to a person, and then throwing them out on their butt. I don't see how that is "fully caring about others, and putting others needs ahead of oneself."

We get ONE instance of Elsa displaying love and affection: she finally hugs her sister at the end of Frozen, because her sister sacrificed herself and stood in front of Hans to block a blow intended for her. After that, though, I don't think "love" cleared everything up in the sisters' "rough/rocky relationship." We don't see Elsa talking to Anna about how she treated her, do we? We don't ever see Elsa explain to Anna, why their parents made her keep her distance. Nope. We only see Elsa either phenomenally scared, panicked, and/or resigned to being a monster, or happy-go-lucky. I really found Elsa to be exceptionally out of character in her happy-go-lucky routine, after she's given the answer "that it's love" by Anna. Elsa is suddenly all rainbows and sunshine, with no lingering doubts at all, and offers no apology to her sister for what she did. Make no mistake, Anna is both ditzy and rude, but that does not excuse Elsa from offering her an apology for the awful way she acted towards Anna.

When I digested this movie, and watched each scene carefully, I failed to see the wonderful qualities that people kept attributing to Elsa. Elsa is certainly not brave. Elsa turns out not be very mature at all. Elsa actually has a lot in common with Anna's immaturity: for example. Anna rashly decides to marry a man sight unseen; Elsa rashly decides to heck/hell with good behavior, I'm going to release my feelings and "let it all go." BOTH girls are rash and make very poor decisions! Additionally, Elsa is simply not as selfless as people keep saying. Choosing your superpowers over your family is selfless?

Elsa is pretty and elegant, just like all the others in the DP line, but beauty does not help you conquer your fears. Belle was elegant, also, but do we only judge Belle on her "elegance" alone? I seem to remember Belle being judged primarily by how she was able to model the correct example of "kindness" to the beast. Beauty really is empty. Character matters.

My beef with Elsa, Anna, Tiana, Merida, and Rapunzel ( mostly the modern DPs), is that the full characterization that was required-- that would have made the titular protagonist/ deuteragonist a fully-fleshed out identity--- either by evil motivation, or by good motivation-- is noticeably missing. What most audiences expect from a story ( besides tiny girls and moms playing dress-up) is not the characters' pretty outfits, eye-makeup, facial structure, and song--- but the reason for the characters' existence. A completely defined reason for their behavior. It's hard to relate to bits and pieces. Frozen is all bits and pieces. The characters in Frozen, especially Elsa, are all in bits and pieces. The motivations and the stories in the new Disney Princess era are rushed, so thrown together at the last moment-- that enormous holes exist between connecting one idea to the next. So when people say that such and such a character has all of these wonderful attributes--- and the movie basically glosses over them all, never truly identifying what they are--- I find it really hard to agree. I have a truly hard time saying that the Modern DPs are well-rounded characters. I can not say I like Elsa, Anna, Tiana, Merida, and Rapunzel on the same level that I liked the Classic girls or the Renaissance girls. Particularly in Elsa's case, what I see is a jumble of thoughts, and I do not know anything concrete about her, whereas in the past, with the Classics and the Renaissance, I definitely did know why this DP acted the way she did, and why this story even existed. Sure, these new DP characters are liked, but in my opinion, less time was spent creating them, less story is there to justify their creation, and much more merchandizing has been put in to fill in the gap. I may sound sour, here, but I'm trying to explain why these new Disney Princesses are like jigsaw pieces, and are less relatable to me. Instead of making me care about them, Disney has started to make me disinterested in them. And I'm really worried about Moana, because Frozen's success has basically given Disney the greenlight TO NOT tell a well-crafted, coherent story for the next Disney Princess. What I fear is that we will get another misleading trailer about the storyline, and another opportunity to just push some characters across a screen without providing any background for their behavior, nor any context for their actions. Disney will cash in, but I won't be entertained very much at all.

I've always thought Flynn was gorgeous and he has always been my second most handsome Prince but Idk anymore. Now that I am more out there in the dating world, I've found that there are a lot of guys that look like him. Not to say that he is average, he's still good looking but not as hot as I remembered.

I hate the way Disney uses Elsa and Kristoff (who are equally if not more naive about love than Anna) to shame Anna about wanting love. they could've taught the lessons about being careful who you give your heart away to without being so spiteful about it and turning it into more of a "true love don't real, you're dumb for believing in it even though this is a fairy tale where that thing is actually logical. also, falling in love with the anti-Disney prince is OK". but I see no need to do it at all- Disney's been smacking this moral at us for years and years now. WE GET IT! it's so redundant now, especially how Enchanted already used this message. and as I've said before, none of the other couples actually married after a couple days. It's just embarrassing how Disney seems ashamed of the old movies but clearly don't even watch them.

I think Tangled is the best DP movie both from my own opinion and critically too. It's got beautiful animation, mentally strong protagonists, very emotional moments, a realistic and rather terrifying villain, and one of the best romantic relationships ever created on the big screen. The only places I see it lacking is in the songs and even then we have wonderful numbers like "I See the Light" and the Kingdom Dance. In my opinion it's a classic and one of the best written tales Disney has ever produced.

I also think that those who argue The Lion King or Beauty and the Beast are better are looking the movies through nostalgia glasses. Or they don't care much for characterization and put more stock on animation and music. Which is worthwhile, but a bit shallow in my opinion.

I'm probably the only one here who's bothered by this, and I'll probably get shamed for nitpicking.
I'm slightly bothered by Anna's pronunciation of the word 'sauna'. (She says 'SAW-na') Most people I know pronounce it the way she does in the movie, but it's incorrect. It's a Finnish word that is correctly pronounced 'SOU-na'. Yeah, it sounds unusual to most people, but I just think it's proper to respect the origins of words. Frozen has a Scandinavian setting, I might add. My apologies for criticizing small details.

Afew months ago, I heard alot of talk about wanting to add a princess with a disability. Me being from the south, it's hard to see something like that. Don't get me wrong, the thought of it DOES sound wonderful because it would give little girls with a disability a positive message saying they're not alone fighting whatever it is they have.

I pretty much just did polls and wrote article about this topic. Seen here.
link

Now I'm wondering how everyone else defines damsel in distress and which princess is and which princess isn't. This is how I see it. I compare each princesses damsel moments with their heroic moments and which ever side takes majority, that's what the princess gets. This is the results I got.

Damsels
Snow White
Jasmine
Merida-Looking back, I'd probably say her too. I need to re-watch Brave.

Heroes
Mulan
Rapunzel
Tiana

Both
Pocahontas
Ariel
Anna
Elsa
Belle

Neither
Cinderella
Aurora

One unpopular opinion per princess

Anna-I find her humor more entertaining, more natural and less forced than Rapunzel. She's funniest princess in the line-up.

Elsa-Doesn't offend me nearly as much as Kristoff with her comments about love. In fact, she doesn't offend me at all.

Merida-Just a female empowerment stereotype that caters to ignorant people like Anita Sarkeesian.

Rapunzel-I really don't like her brown hair.

Tiana-I don't think she's mean, the only person she's really mean to is Naveen, and she kind of has the right to be.

Mulan-Gets some undeserved praise that rightfully belongs to Ariel, Belle, Jasmine and Pocahontas to varying degrees.

Pocahontas-Not as nearly as dull, mature or serious as people make her out to be, AT ALL. She is wise but only when it comes to nature.

Jasmine-Not dumb at all for not realizing that Aladdin and Prince Ali are the same person, immediately. This is an old opinion on Fanpop. Not sure if it's still around today.

Belle-Same as Mulan. Only this time the praise rightfully belongs to just Ariel.

Ariel-The prettiest, sexiest and most beautiful princess. Not really an UNpopular opinion but still.

Aurora-I think Kingdom hearts' purple is the best version of her dress. But if I had to pick, I guess I prefer blue.

CInderella-A strong female character in her own right. A strong character PERIOD really!

Snow White-Same as Cinderella.

As much as it makes me angry, I think I know why Pocahontas isn't used much on DP merchandise. I think it's because they'll accidentally upset her ancestors/the people in her tribe. This may not be much of a confession, but still.

I love Anastasia Tremaine (in the sequels) more than Cinderella.

I was just a tad bit underwhelmed and bored with the live-action Cinderella yet I absolutely loved Big Hero 6. I also never really loved Wreck-it-Ralph because it always seemed overlong to me, I do think it is very original but it has never been a favorite of mine, I actually prefer Frozen more than Wreck-it-Ralph.

I ship Jafar with Tzekel-Kan (The road to El Dorado). I think they are really cute together.

I keep hearing about how great 2015 Cinderella and Ever After are. I guess you could say those are just not my type of movies *shrugs*

I think Elsa is the most creative princess.

I think it's ok to have Mulan as your favorite because she saved China. Some complain about fans only caring for her because of that action. But truthfully, actions speak loud and people shouldn't act like being a national hero isn't a big deal, it's a huge accomplishment that can be admired. It's not one of the main reasons why I love her and I am against fans who put the other Princesses down because they're ''not quite on that level'' but I just felt like I had to say this.

Am I the only one who was never repulsed by the kissing scene between Jafar and Jasmine? I loved watching it when I was a kid even, mostly because of Aladdin's reaction haha.

Pocahontas, Tiana, Belle AND Mulan would along with princesses like Cinderella and Aurora before a princess like Merida. In fact, of these four, Poca would be the only princess close to Merida. I can actually come up with reasons why Tia, Belle and Mulan would hate Merida.