These colours! I wonder, if was a 6, 7 -year old girl, I'd go "nah, now they're gone unrealistic" or "Yes! Aqua and purple, that's how the world SHOULD be!".

What happened to Snow White?

Ooh, a trans dk pink recolour for the new fern piece in Rivendell! Like the set, don't need the minidolls.

I honestly thought this was the reveal of the sets from LEGO DREAMZZZ, as it sure looks like something that would fit it. I guess not. The upcoming Dreamzzz theme will prove most interensting though.

Add the Princesses who've already been released in polybags (Rapunzel, Ariel, I'm missing at least one who isn't already in the treehouse) and I think you've got a full deck?

Why is Jasmine the only one with the official “princess” title on the box?

I've never been so tempted to spend so much on a minidoll set. Not that I don't like them, I've been a Friends fan since the line started, and I also loved Elves an DC Super Hero girls; I've just never spent that much on a minidoll set.

@ResIpsaLoquitur: Not a polybag, but there's also Merida from 41051. Which is another minidoll set I own.)

No Princess Merida - that's a bit of a let down for us Scots!

Reminds me of Elves from a few years ago. Would probably get it if they were minifigures, but I'm not so sure at the moment.

Now imagine visiting that castle IRL...

@TheOtherMike said:
"I've never been so tempted to spend so much on a minidoll set. Not that I don't like them, I've been a Friends fan since the line started, and I also loved Elves an DC Super Hero girls; I've just never spent that much on a minidoll set.

@ResIpsaLoquitur: Not a polybag, but there's also Merida from 41051. Which is another minidoll set I own.)"

Good point. Yeah, I was musing over the cheapest way to get access to minidolls outside of big box sets. To my knowledge, the polybags since the line started have been Rapunzel (twice), Ariel, Elsa (twice and represented here), Cinderella, Raya, and Moana (already represented here). Also, there was an Olaf bag. And Belle (again, represented here) appears to have been in one of those magazine GWPs.

I think the cheapest boxed set might have been a two separate Snow White and Jasmine sets that came in around $10. Dunno, I only get polybags.

@cabbie said:
"But is it a tree? I see the house, but not the tree…"

There's woodgrain on the quarter-cylinder panels, tentacle/tree-boughs, and Elves-style violet foliage, so it's definitely tree-like ... multiple trees ... more of an Ewok- or Lothlorien-style mid-canopy village? (If it is in a forest, I question the utility of the mounted binoculars to the right ... maybe they're for birdwatching.) The pale green doesn't immediately scream "wood" but there are pale-barked trees such as aspen, birch, gum and sycamore.

I'm wondering if this is a LEGO-original setting for this collection of characters, or if it's inspired by some obscure Disney coloring book, webisode or parade float. Have we ever seen all the princesses in one room apart from "Ralph Breaks the Internet" (2018)?

Where's Princess Vanellope von Schweetz?

Love those Korean names. Ellisu!

What, no Princess Leia?

I love this! It looks like Elves, and there are some great recolors. Interesting to see Raya return. It's also the first appearance for minidoll Wendy, Tinkerbell, Pocahontas. Wendy's hair looks really good!

If they used minifigs instead of minidolls it would be a must buy for me. Still a great set, might try to get it.

Still waiting for minidoll Princess Leia to join the crew.

Glad Lego is giving Pocahontas the love finally! This set looks really great too.

Great to finally get Pocahontas, in both mini-doll and minifig form - although I do think she looks more like herself as a mini-doll, something about the eyes and the expression that the minifig failed to capture.

Although her depiction in the box art really shows the limitations of mini-doll articulation, impotently holding her oar aloft while her canoe goes wherever it feels like. Would've been nice to get Meeko the raccoon as well, but hopefully there'll be another opportunity.

I'm not into this theme but this looks like a fun set for kids. I might have to pick it up for parts.

Is she really still “Alice in Wonderland” if she’s not _in_ Wonderland? The sequel book seems to indicate otherwise.

@itsatrap327:
Technically, over half of these aren’t official Disney Princesses. Tink used to be at the start, but they pulled her out to start a fairie equivalent. Wendy and Alice aren’t princesses at all, and I don’t how Mirabel or Raya figure in. Frozen is far too valuable if an IP for Anna and Elsa to be part of the Disney Princess lineup (not to mention, neither is technically a princess at this point). Moana is not actually a princess according to the film, but she’s been co-opted into the Disney Princess IP for lack of any more fitting bucket to land in.

@ra226 said:
"Tinkerbell seems odd at that scale--I wonder if they could have made a new part or put a new print on an existing part to imply her?"

Microdoll?

@jkb:
I’m on board for the purple, but I don’t really need the world to look like it’s been dipped in toothpaste. Fortunately, I have a solution for the former, as I’ve got custom purple sunglass lenses.

@ResIpsaLoquitur:
Besides Belle, Moana, Mulan, Pocahontas, Tiana, and Jasmine, it’s missing Merida, Snow White, Cinderella, Aurora, Ariel, and Rapunzel, which is half the current lineup.

@CCC:
Yeah, they’d have to make a new mold to do Hook’s hook in minidoll form.

Ooh, so many unique pieces! Hoping I can snag this on ebay without the minidolls. Not that they're bad, but they will likely account for a third of the price!

The girl with glasses looks like Friends ambassador.

Ough... I'm not much for Disney sets but I'm enamored with the Elves vibes of this... really shows how amazing that theme could still be if it were still around. The colors and organic details on this are incredible.

This looks awesome! Reminds me of LEGO Elves for sure. I love the colors and getting 13 minidolls in one set is just insane. Definitely gonna pick this up later in the year!

@Alpha_Tango:
I don’t know if they ever addressed why Vanelope isn’t included, especially since she’s the only character who has been told, in a movie, that she counts as a Disney Princess.

@biffuz:
The official requirements for induction are being a primary character in a Disney animated film, human/human-like), and not introduced in a sequel. Leia was addressed years ago. She’s from a live-action film, and doesn’t qualify.

@ResIpsaLoquitur:
Xenomorph Queen isn’t animated, isn’t human or human-like, and was introduced in a sequel. Technically, Giselle should be included, but they reportedly don’t want to pay Amy Adams royalties for using her likeness on merchandise (since she her animated design was based on her live-action scenes). Princess Sophia should be included, if “animation” includes TV shows, and not just films, but she probably runs into the same problem as Frozen, where the original IP is successful in its own right, and doesn’t need to be bundled.

@sir_vasco:
Or buy the set, sell the minidolls.

@Ridgeheart:
Yeah, I was thinking about Autumn’s left arm when writing about Hook, and wondering if that was something the Design Department would greenlight (I think there’s a slight curve to the arm).

Was really hoping that someone had translated the text over Jasmine's silhouette. ??

@PurpleDave said:
" @ResIpsaLoquitur :
Xenomorph Queen isn’t animated, isn’t human or human-like, and was introduced in a sequel. Technically, Giselle should be included, but they reportedly don’t want to pay Amy Adams royalties for using her likeness on merchandise (since she her animated design was based on her live-action scenes). Princess Sophia should be included, if “animation” includes TV shows, and not just films, but she probably runs into the same problem as Frozen, where the original IP is successful in its own right, and doesn’t need to be bundled."

The criteria is "Walt Disney Animation Studios," not "animation." So, Disney actually has multiple animation shops, and the "prestige" films that are considered part of the "Disney Canon" are made by WDAS. (People forget that "canon" doesn't historically mean "official continuity." It actually means "measuring rod." "Canon" in its strictest literary sense means "the material that the official record keeper considers official." This may be arbitrary, but that's what the guy in authority gets to decide.

Hence, "Cinderella" is "canon" because it came out of WDAS. The two direct-to-video Cinderella sequels are not. This doesn't mean the stories don't exist--it just means WDAS has an official "library" of what's considered a prestige film and two direct-to-video sequels don't matter for that metric.

So, it doesn't matter that Sophia the First is a Disney product, a princess, and animation. It's not produced by WDAS and doesn't get the official label. (Moreover, "Disney Princesses" is an official merchandising product line. They could put Sophia in there if they wanted to, but like I said, the criteria seems to be 1) WDAS film and 2) royalty.)

"Duck Tales: Treasure of the Lost Lamp" was a full-length theatrical film as well. However, it wasn't produced by WDAS but by a different studio. Not Disney canon.

I'm not aware if WDAS had a role in the animated portions of Enchanted. I'm assuming no, and to my knowledge, Enchanted is not considered part of the Disney Canon--particularly since the bulk of the film wasn't animated.

This looks amazing!

Mini dolls are nice, magical tree house not so much.

@Ridgeheart said:
"Still waiting to see how you intend to shoehorn Mulan into this.

So I've had a look-see into "what makes a Disney Princess", and the list seems to be pretty damned arbitrary. Some of the rules include:

- movie must be neither a flop NOR a smash-hit
- must be born/married into royalty OR performed some feat of heroism
- should preferably have a nice singing-voice
- should preferably talk to animals or non-humanoid sidekicks (without being considered gravely mentally ill)
- must be a central character
- must not be introduced in a sequel
- must be humanoid
- must be conventionally attractive

So I think we can agree that these requirements are horse-excrement, and are applied willy-nilly. The 'feat of heroism' was tacked on just so Mulan could be slotted in, and based on popularity alone, most of the established princesses should be booted from the list (because their movies were smash-hits in and of themselves).

Ariel is, for the majority of her movie, not even fully humanoid, instead some disgusting fish/human chimaera, and I very much question the mental state of anyone who doesn't recognize a fork when a giant golden version of that same thing is your family's fabled magic heirloom and badge of royal office.

'Hercules' might just meet the most weasely of requirements, "not too popular, not too shabby", and Megara ticks all of the boxes, but where is she on this dumb list? Where is she, oh wise keepers of the Metrics? Where on the Sacred Scrolls are the Elders of Disney Regality keeping her name?

Or, you know. Maybe we should stop trying to enforce arbitrary rules on a company that has a giant rodent for a mascot with a naked canine for a pet, and a different, fully-dressed canine for a best friend - maybe that's just Pluto's thing, and we should respect it. Why do the Ducks go pantsless, but Tarzan doesn't? Why do the Ducks routinely eat chicken? Isn't one of Daisy's best friend a giant hen? Why haven't we seen her around for so long? When Hercules was forced to wear a shirt soaked in centaur-blood, it caused him so much pain that he threw himself onto a funeral pyre and burned to death, do you really think he'll want to hear about Fantasia?

The Princess-requirements are dumb, and I say throw them out the window. So Leia gets to be a Disney Princess. Vanellope gets to be one too. You want to consider Spider-Gwen a Disney Princess, I'm with you all the way. You want Tinkerbell to be a Disney Princess? You got it, dude. Nala, Esmeralda, rock on. Minnie and Daisy and Kairi? Kingdom Hearts says "yep!" to them, and many others.
"

I think you've overthinking this. Disney-the-company has a specific merchandise branding line called "Disney Princesses" which has a dozen or so specfic characters. *Disney* sets the term "Disney Princesses." The commonalities of those dozen characters appears to be "royalty from WDAS (plus one Pixar)" and that's it.

The thing that's made this debate silly is fans running wild with Disney's IP absorption, so everything from Leia to the Xenomorph Queen qualifies as a Disney princess if you argue it hard enough.

Again: "Disney Princess" is a branding term that specifically includes twelve or so characters. That's it.

@Ridgeheart said:
" @ResIpsaLoquitur said:
"So, basically "from a feature Disney Animation Studios Film" (plus Pixar) and "born or married into royalty." Characters like Alice, Wendy, and Lilo don't count (not royalty), nor do Leia, Shuri, or the Xenomorph Queen (not from a Walt Disney Animation Studios feature film)."

That would disqualify Fa Mulan, unless she married into royalty behind mere warrior-class Li Shang's back. Shock and intrigue! But then, there are no records of the real-life (?) Hua Mulan doing anything of the sort, or being royalty herself. Uncle Walt is going to have to rethink his metric.

But I don't think it's in Disney's robotic claws anymore. It seems the Princesses have decided their own metric, and if you meet their qualifications, you're One Of Them, that's how they welcomed Vanellope (and Bucky). Besides, what's canon worth these days, am I right? That's what I thought. We're all Disney Princesses now.

@PurpleDave said:
"Is she really still “Alice in Wonderland” if she’s not _in_ Wonderland? The sequel book seems to indicate otherwise."

Carroll allegedly gave her the full name of the real-life girl he based the character on, and it's also spelled out in 'Through the Looking Glass' - "Alice Pleasance Liddell". It's not very catchy, but it's better than "Alice Of 'Wonderland' Fame".

@PurpleDave said:
" @ra226 said:
"Tinkerbell seems odd at that scale--I wonder if they could have made a new part or put a new print on an existing part to imply her?"

Microdoll?"

Lightbrick.

@PurpleDave said:
" @CCC :
Yeah, they’d have to make a new mold to do Hook’s hook in minidoll form."

Autumn's arm already has a 3.18 pole-connection, and another variation of the bar-holder with clip (or hook) might be useful in other scenarios as well."

When did Bucky join the ranks?

But can it travel back in time?

That's a lot of Princesses in one set... sweet!

@sagh said:
"Was really hoping that someone had translated the text over Jasmine's silhouette. ??"

Google Translate says "Meet the new Princess Jasmine in June!"

@Ridgeheart:
Tink was an original member of the Disney Princess club, before being spun off to head up Disney Fairies. Esmeralda also got kicked out, for reasons I don’t know. Moana is pointedly the daughter of a chieftain, not a princess, but she’s a member (even though she didn’t get a coronation ceremony to mark the occasion). It kinda seems like the one thing that’s not a requirement for being a Disney Princess is being an actual princess. Here’s a breakdown of who made the cut:

Snow White, Aurora, Ariel, Jasmine, Rapunzel, and Merida are the only ones who were born to the title of “Princess”. Pocahontas and Moana are daughters of tribal chieftains, so not technically princesses, but certainly born to equivalent status in their cultures. Cinderella, Belle, and Tiana become princesses by marrying princes. And Mulan is never a princess, or even equivalent to one.

Tink got promoted out of the franchise. Esmeralda got demoted out of it. Raya may or may not be included. Eilonwy and Kida are two actual princesses who could qualify, but their respective films probably weren’t popular enough to merit consideration.

@ResIpsaLoquitur said:
"Some really long and complicated stuff about “canon” that completely falls apart the instant @PurpleDave mentions…"

Merida.

Merida is Pixar, not WDAS. They’re owned and distributed by Disney, but they make their own movies, and other than Planes and tv shows, I can’t think of any Pixar IP that has been adapted by other studios.

The unsubtle truth is that Disney rewrites and ignores whatever rules they choose to let in who they want in the club. They never published formal rules until the Leia question came up, and no official list has ever included the most important rule, which is that they must be marketable, but not _too_ marketable. The whole point was to reclaim the merchandising from the black market economy, but that means product has to actually sell, and inclusion also can’t hinder sales (Disney Princesses have traditionally been rotated in and out of focus, which would be a problem for always-popular characters like Anna and Elsa).

@PurpleDave said:
" @Ridgeheart:
Tink was an original member of the Disney Princess club, before being spun off to head up Disney Fairies. Esmeralda also got kicked out, for reasons I don’t know. Moana is pointedly the daughter of a chieftain, not a princess, but she’s a member (even though she didn’t get a coronation ceremony to mark the occasion). It kinda seems like the one thing that’s not a requirement for being a Disney Princess is being an actual princess. Here’s a breakdown of who made the cut:

Snow White, Aurora, Ariel, Jasmine, Rapunzel, and Merida are the only ones who were born to the title of “Princess”. Pocahontas and Moana are daughters of tribal chieftains, so not technically princesses, but certainly born to equivalent status in their cultures. Cinderella, Belle, and Tiana become princesses by marrying princes. And Mulan is never a princess, or even equivalent to one.

Tink got promoted out of the franchise. Esmeralda got demoted out of it. Raya may or may not be included. Eilonwy and Kida are two actual princesses who could qualify, but their respective films probably weren’t popular enough to merit consideration.

@ResIpsaLoquitur said:
"Some really long and complicated stuff about “canon” that completely falls apart the instant @PurpleDave mentions…"

Merida.

Merida is Pixar, not WDAS. They’re owned and distributed by Disney, but they make their own movies, and other than Planes and tv shows, I can’t think of any Pixar IP that has been adapted by other studios.

The unsubtle truth is that Disney rewrites and ignores whatever rules they choose to let in who they want in the club. They never published formal rules until the Leia question came up, and no official list has ever included the most important rule, which is that they must be marketable, but not _too_ marketable. The whole point was to reclaim the merchandising from the black market economy, but that means product has to actually sell, and inclusion also can’t hinder sales (Disney Princesses have traditionally been rotated in and out of focus, which would be a problem for always-popular characters like Anna and Elsa)."

I don't think that's my quote.

I pointed out in other comments that the official Disney Princesses are WDAS plus one Pixar.

I'm not aware there's a formal criteria. Disney has a dozen princesses under a branding label of "Disney Princesses." The commonality they all have is "royalty from a WDAS film (plus Merida)."

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that's not my quote.

I find it really weird that @PurpleDave is now block quoting me with a quote I haven't written in here anywhere. I ctrl+F'd that phrase several times for sanity to make sure I didn't write something and then forgot about it. I'm literally not seeing it anywhere else in that thread. I didn't write it. Dave is quote-attributing it to me. (On further read, it appears that what he's doing is a gross compression and distortion of whatever I wrote before. But there's no signaling that this is a hyperbolic alteration of what I wrote. He's just using the block-quote function as if I wrote that. I didn't.)

This comes on the heels of last week's discussion where he distorted my advocacy for "price per weight" as a metric into a call for "chonky pieces," which wasn't remotely what I wanted at all.

This is getting annoying. Again, I'm repeating a request I made before. Is there a way to block another user in the comments? @Huw ? Anyone? I've now literally got a false quote attributed to me here. This guy's annoying. Dave, you're annoying. Seriously. I know you like to own the comment threads and reply to everyone, but this manipulative alteration/dismissal of what I wrote is really bad, particularly when I'm just explaining stuff. If your beef is with the Walt Disney Company, take it the hell up with them.

Adding: your distorting me as apparently forgetting Merida literally ignores my above comment where I wrote: "The commonalities of those dozen characters appears to be "royalty from WDAS (plus one Pixar)" and that's it." So, like, I didn't forget Merida. But no, you want to flex several more paragraphs about how you're right, while completely overlooking that I acknowledged the Merida issue, in text, above.

Nope, Dave's gotta be right. Dave's gotta own the comment threads.

Please stop replying to me here.

@Ridgeheart:
Disney Princess is almost certainly unique in that it’s a brand that rakes in billions-with-a-b dollars annually, for what was basically an off-the-cuff decision. There was no focus-grouping, or really any marketing done to start with. There was just a recognition that little girls were wearing dresses that looked like Disney princesses, and Disney wasn’t the one selling them.

The original list included Tink and Esmeralda. What possible logic resulted in them being considered princesses? In the end, Tink fell into the “too popular” camp and they concocted a franchise to hang around her shoulders. Esmeralda wasn’t popular enough, and got the boot (though they do still market the character independently). Her inclusion really raises an eyebrow when you consider how appropriate it is to market her character to little girls for role play. It strains that eyebrow if you consider the original story, where she’s basically murdered for not shacking up with a priest and dumped in a mass grave.

Regarding Ariel, I kinda doubt Triton eats with his trident, and the dinner fork would be like recognizing what a toothpick’s intended purpose is because it bears a passing resemblance to a spear.

Megara probably lost out because she’s not the focal character in Hercules’ movie.

And Nala is probably not on the list because Disney doesn’t want to be associated with marketing to that crowd.

Also…Bucky Barnes, the Winter Soldier?

@Galaxy12_Import:
_New_ Princess Jasmine? I’m pretty sure she already had a few sets, getting both a tiger and a boyfriend.

@ResIpsaLoquitur:
I was responding to the post you made, timestamped 05 Apr 2023 19:32, where you spent five paragraphs going on about WDAS and never once mentioned Merida being from a studio that's not WDAS. I didn't work my way down to the post where you finally remembered her until after I'd submitted my post.

@PurpleDave said:
" @ResIpsaLoquitur:
I was responding to the post you made, timestamped 05 Apr 2023 19:32, where you spent five paragraphs going on about WDAS and never once mentioned Merida being from a studio that's not WDAS. I didn't work my way down to the post where you finally remembered her until after I'd submitted my post."

Stop replying to me.

I love all the colors in this set! All my favorite colors, shades of purples & pinks and teal and aqua. Some great pieces too, like the new fern piece in the new pink and the Nexo knight piece too. Wow this is going on my list. I even like the mini dolls they included in this set.

Alice was never a princess, she jumped straight from pawn to Queen when she reached the eighth square of the chessboard.

If these were proper minifigures I would be buying this, as this are minidolls I will be avoiding this.

Lol… A bit cynical but this would likely sell just fine for the same price with only the mini dolls. …This may be the first mini-doll set I purchase.

Now I just want a small little set with Wendy and Pocahontas. Is this possible?

@Ridgeheart:
I do remember the “original” stories certain Disney films are based on being discussed, more than once. That gets a lot messier than I’d previously been aware, though. The Brothers Grimm never set out to make a book for children. They were collecting Germanic fairytales for scholarly purposes, and originally presented them in a form that was as true to their roots as the brothers were able to determine. They basically invented the field of folkloristics. Jacob was very adamant about staying true to the traditional form of these stories, but as the collection grew, people started reading them to their kids. Wilhelm actually began the process of sanitizing the stories to be more kid-friendly, while Disney unfairly bears much of the blame. Even then, some were considered too offensive and/or too dark (speaking of Lord of the Flies, there was one about kids committing murders), and you don’t really come across them unless you’re actually studying folklore.

But this was a situation where the original forms of these stories are lost to time, since they were handed down orally rather than in written form, up to the point where the Grimms got involved. We know the original form of Hunchback, because Hugo’s novel was an original work. Adaptations have probably all toned things down, but they probably all did so with the original novel as a starting point, rather than adapting someone else’s adaptation.

Now, regarding the rules for Disney Princesshood, the more I look into it, the less convinced I am that Disney every publicly stated the rules. Everything seems to refer back to a Screenrant article from maybe five years ago. Lots of people just imposed their own observations on one list of rules or another. A common “requirement” is an animal companion, and the boys being turned into bear cubs is shoe-horned into that rule to justify Merida being included. This bit about “premium studio” WDAS (when they were very nearly shuttered because they tried to compete with sister studio Pixar, and failed miserably), the idea that they actually have to be a princess in the film, or the idea that being a princess actually gives them an edge, are all conjecture. The whole point of the brand was to reclaim lost merchandising opportunities, and the most critical requirement seems to be bankability. If little girls were found to be dressing like Vanelope, she’d probably be an official Disney Princess. If they started dressing in Xenomorph Queen costumes…Disney would probably just sue for copyright infringement, and tell everyone to wait until Halloween costumes hit stores.

Anyways, if you really want to dig into not-Disney-compatible princess tales, here’s the site for you:

https://www.rejectedprincesses.com

The guy who runs it thoroughly researches actual historical princesses, queens, and so on, produces his own original artwork, and boils their stories down to an easily digestible format. And many of these make the original version of the Brothers Grimm publication look downright tame.

I can’t wait until we get to the Disney Prince rules. :o)

@CCC:
@Ridgeheart:
Ha! Little did we know, but Hook now has a microdoll (dis082) in set 43220...but no hook hand.

@yellowcastle:
I think they need to be born a prince, and other than that, they just need to be breathing. Many of them never even got names. If little boys start dressing up in counterfeit Disney Prince costumes, maybe they'll come up with something more involved.