I love characters with obvious flaws. It lends them a lot of depth and makes them more believable.

Mulan, for example. And Ariel.

This is why I love them, because they are seemingly perfect. I see flawed people every day of my life, and seeing a not so flawed character is refreshing.

I agree with BelleAnastasia's opinion.

I don't know which I prefer. I like the Obviosly flawed ones like Ariel and Mulan. But recently, every hero/heroine in recent movies have become too flawed to the point where you wish the villian would kill them. As a result, I started to hope for heroes/heroines that are less flawed and aspire to be. On the other hand, I feel completely stupid and idiotic compared to them.

I prefer something more fantasy then reality sorry, "reality will be here tomorrow but the imagination lives forever" Bianca Ruiz

That's why Ariel and Mulan are in my top 2 and Belle Aurora are in my bottom 2. I love seeing flawed characters it makes them real and relatable. Characters with no flaws are boring and dull with no developement AT ALL.

^ but Mulan is not even that flawed, if you think about it.
anyway, this, cause i prefer to admire a princess for her good qualities and being a good role model, instead of just relate to their flaws and don't learn anything to be a better person

interesting point

Yes but flawed princesses teach us to be ourselves and don't try to change yourself to be someone your not

They inspire me to be a better person, like Belle, but I love Ariel anyways.

Everybody is flawed, even the seemingly perfect princesses have flaws

I don't prefer one or the other.

nobody is perfect my two fav princess punz and ariel obiusly flawed LOL!

Yep, yep, yep.

I'm not sure, depends from the princess herself actually. I can like both real flawed princess (like Merida, Elsa, but not the one like Ariel) and those who seems perfect but also have flaws that hardly noticed (like Cinderella, Aurora, Belle, Rapunzel, but not the one like Tiana).

I just don't like static characters all that much. The few static characters that I do like are Cinderella, Aurora, and Snow White, since they were more closely based on the original fairytales. When there are drastic changes made to a story, that don't seem to preserve the original fairytale content, then they have to make major sense. For example, Disney did change the glutton-for-punishment original ending to The Little Mermaid, and only in that instance did the change actually work well in my opinion. Similarly, Charles Dickens changed his glutton-for-punishment ending to Great Expectations and that allowed his audience to relate to the characters of Pip and Estella more.

When Belle, Jasmine, Tiana, and Rapunzel were introduced to me, Disney spun a totally different fairytale than the one that had existed for hundreds of years. Belle suddenly had no siblings, and was no longer a gardener who appreciated flowers, especially roses. Jasmine was relegated to a back seat for the Aladdin movie. The original princess from the frog prince was not a cook, did take mercy on the frog, and didn't beat the frog and accuse him of laziness like Tiana does. And in the original tale, Rapunzel, after having her hair chopped off, has two babies, and raises them in the faith that she will be reunited with her prince-- and her spiritual faith is rewarded. The personalities of these Disney princesses simply don't match up with their personalities in the original tales, and they are reduced to a "lesser level" in the Disney versions. They are less relateable to me, because some real people aren't "only children" and have siblings; some real people show some mercy, instead of being snobbish towards those who work for a living, and don't share the same hobbies; some people don't quickly jump to conclusions and judge others; some people have a spiritual side. Disney made a lot of princesses after Ariel, but most of these princesses ( with the exception of Pocahontas and Mulan who are both very, very flawed) express few flaws--- and being written that way---they are STATIC. For me, they simply don't replace the character as found in their original tales. Actual people ARE NOT role models. Real people have actual flaws.

Merida, Elsa, Anna, and Moana are cases where everything is all a made-up story in someone's mind. These movies obey no fairytale tropes whatsoever. I don't seem to care about these characters, nor what that happens to them, either.

depends on the character and the flaws in question, personally. but if 'subtly flawed' is the middle ground between 'flawed in a cartoonishly (lol) heavy-handed way' and '100% pure' than that's usually what i'm into. i appreciate the balance, and it's more true to life - the flaws of real people usually aren't super obvious right off the bat either.

But what's wrong with changing your flaws? They're called flaws for a reason. They're imperfections that work against you. Plus, look at Ariel: she's super flawed but never overcomes her foibles, at all. She doesn't learn anything or develop. And Mulan does go through serious development but as someone else said, she's hardly flawed in a way that matters, that might make the audience not like her (like Merida or Anna).

I fully believe in self-improvement and achieving your full potential. I want to be the best I can be, so I prefer characters I can look up to, but who's to say those are inherently less relatable than the "super flawed girls next door"? I can't relate to Ariel at all and barely Mulan. I can definitely relate to being in a trapped situation like Aurora and Cinderella though, or trying to stay positive like Snow.