Should Namaari be Counted as a Disney Princess?

[hammerofglass]

I think it's kind of weird they never made Vanellope part of the lineup, especially when her making friends with the group was a big part of her second movie.

Edit: I later remembered that she refused it in the actual movie.

[Nealithi]

A greater question is whether Leia counts.

No, she wasn't made by Disney and Disney and Lucas Film seem to have this weird mentality of being Anti-Princess when it comes to Leia in Star Wars. Yeah, it's weird everything in this part of the Disney Era gets REALLY defensive when it comes to Leia being a Princess. Like I remember someone working on TLJ being asked why Leia wasn't considered a Princess getting really angry at even the mention of it and had this minute long rant about how they don't want Leia to be called a Princess anymore.

It's weird.

I was told Leia can't be a Disney princess because she is not animated. So when someone dresses as Cinderella they can use a broader look than Carrie Fisher.

[Thebestoftherest]

That is fair, I just didn't see a lot of stuff with her or atleast compare to Elsa but that just me.

[clearspira]

Sorry to get all "that guy" on this, but Leia is not a princess. She lost that title when Alderaan went up in flames. After that she is just a plain old general.

[hammerofglass]

Sorry to get all "that guy" on this, but Leia is not a princess. She lost that title when Alderaan went up in flames. After that she is just a plain old general.

So's Mulan, it apparently doesn't matter.

[clearspira]

Sorry to get all "that guy" on this, but Leia is not a princess. She lost that title when Alderaan went up in flames. After that she is just a plain old general.

So's Mulan, it apparently doesn't matter.

That sort of thing bothers me. What are the actual criteria for being a Disney Princess if ''being a princess'' isn't one of them?

[Riedquat]

Sorry to get all "that guy" on this, but Leia is not a princess. She lost that title when Alderaan went up in flames. After that she is just a plain old general.

So's Mulan, it apparently doesn't matter.

That sort of thing bothers me. What are the actual criteria for being a Disney Princess if ''being a princess'' isn't one of them?

Don't even know why I looked at this thread, but anyway...

A Disney Princess is a character archetype. Doesn't mean every character in a Disney-owned property that's a princess is therefore a Disney Princess.

[Thebestoftherest]

Sorry to get all "that guy" on this, but Leia is not a princess. She lost that title when Alderaan went up in flames. After that she is just a plain old general.

So's Mulan, it apparently doesn't matter.

That sort of thing bothers me. What are the actual criteria for being a Disney Princess if ''being a princess'' isn't one of them?

I mean it kinda of popularity contest.
This is from the disney wikia page and looks right.
Each official Disney Princess must meet the following requirements:

1 The character must have a central role in an animated Disney/Pixar film.
2 The character must be human, or have a humanoid appearance in the cases of Ariel and formerly Tinker Bell.
3 The character should not be the star of a sequel.
4 The character must be royal by birth, royal by marriage, or do a heroic deed in cases of Mulan.
5 The character's film should not have been an overwhelming success or an underwhelming failure, like solely with the case of Aurora. This explains the absence of Eilonwy and Kida.
6 Along with it, the character must have massive appeal and recognition towards viewers and audiences.

[Winter]

I mean it kinda of popularity contest.
This is from the disney wikia page and looks right.
Each official Disney Princess must meet the following requirements:

1 The character must have a central role in an animated Disney/Pixar film.
2 The character must be human, or have a humanoid appearance in the cases of Ariel and formerly Tinker Bell.
3 The character should not be the star of a sequel.
4 The character must be royal by birth, royal by marriage, or do a heroic deed in cases of Mulan.
5 The character's film should not have been an overwhelming success or an underwhelming failure, like solely with the case of Aurora. This explains the absence of Eilonwy and Kida.
6 Along with it, the character must have massive appeal and recognition towards viewers and audiences.

That's all on a wiki and wikis can be edited by anyone and most of these requirements don't even make sense.

1: The character must have a central role in an animated Disney/Pixar film

Well, that's annoyingly vague considering that EVERY female character in a Disney film almost always has a central role in the story so this requirement means nothing.

2: The character must be human, or have a humanoid appearance in the cases of Ariel and formerly Tinker Bell.

What does looking human have to do with Anything? This one just seems rather silly.

3: The character should not be the star of a sequel.

Well, I guess we can no longer count Cinderella, Aurora, Ariel, Belle, Jasmine, Pocahontas, Mulan, Tiana and Rapunzel as Official Disney Princesses since they all have sequels in which they are either the lead or have a staring role. And the only reason I'm not counting Snow White, Merida, Moana and Raya is because none of them HAVE sequels yet and when they do they WILL either be the star of the story or play a major part.

4: The character must be royal by birth, royal by marriage, or do a heroic deed in cases of Mulan.

Yeah, this rule means nothing BECAUSE Mulan is included thus all that is needed is to be awesome and that fits with most Disney Female characters.

5: The character's film should not have been an overwhelming success or an underwhelming failure, like solely with the case of Aurora. This explains the absence of Eilonwy and Kida.

And this is just stupid because by that logic Belle shouldn't be included because Beauty and the Beast was the first Animated film to have been nominated for 3 Academy Awards one of which was best picture and still won the award for best original score. Also Raya, as much as I personally love it, was a box office bomb and was critically mixed which puts it in the category of underwhelming failure and since all other Disney Princesses films that are seen as official by Disney are HUGE hits that spawned their own franchises they must also be discounted.

6: Along with it, the character must have massive appeal and recognition towards viewers and audiences.

What does that even mean? And if that's the case why remove Esmeralda and Tinker Bell considering they fit this annoyingly vague requirement.

I'm sorry but the truth of the matter is what makes someone a Disney Princess seems to just come down to popular demand and Disney's own personal whim. And they're not even constant with it seeing that they often include characters in Disney Princess Merchandise that AREN'T Official Disney Princesses which includes Esmeralda, Tinker Bell, Anna, Elsa, Sofia and Elena.

So, sorry but these requirements mean nothing.

Raya was included because her film has gained a lot of popularity this year and fans were demanding it and Disney just decided to go F it we'll make her an Official Disney Princess since she's often called one anyway.

[Lazerlike42]

Although I don't entirely agree with the full analysis, I think Winter is correct that the take of that wikia article is not correct.

The bottom line is that a character being a Disney Princess is purely a matter of Disney making a declaration that she is one. The Disney Princess line is essentially a product/marketing line. It's not based on some defined set of criteria but on what characters Disney wants to give the Princess title to. That's why, as Winter points out, there would seem to be a lot of inconsistencies in what characteristics the princesses share. It's also why some non-princesses are included and why some actual princesses are excluded.