by Squeely » November 26th, 2016, 11:33 am
Golden Age Films:
Agreed that early Disney princes are bland as all get-out. I've heard Snow's prince was supposed to be way more involved with the story, but he proved difficult to animate when the film's budget was already ballooning. I can see why they cut him down significantly, as I don't think too much is lost in his absence. Still, interesting to wonder how the film would have played out with him having a bigger role. I'm not sure what the deal is with Cinderella's prince, though. He was basically as lacking as Snow's, but drawing realistic humans wasn't a completely new thing like it was with Snow White. You'd think, since Disney had a good handful of films under their belt at that point, that Cinderella's prince would have had something to him. Alas.
Phillip and Bambi are definitely the most interesting princes of the golden age, but that still isn't saying much. Bambi as a fawn is cute and very curious about the world around him, which is typical of any young child. Both Bambi and Phillip are your typical strong, dashing heroes, which is fine, but there isn't really anything else to them.
I will add that I never found the lack of character for the golden age princes to be that much of a problem, though I'd definitely say it's a minor gripe I have with each of their respective films. Fairy tales are often pretty simplistic with regards to characterization, and I think Disney mostly kept to that. There's something a lot more "classic" feeling about the golden age films vs later films, and while that doesn't make them better than the later films per se, it is an appropriate feeling.
90s Renaissance Era Films:
I really like Eric. He's pretty kickbutt at sailing, and steering the mast of his ship straight into Ursula was definitely his crowning moment of awesome. But I will admit, beyond that and his general good-guy-ness, there isn't much to him. It's a shame, because it makes Ariel's attraction towards him come off as pretty shallow.
Beast/Adam is where things really pick up for Disney princes. He's definitely my favorite, because you can see where his severe anger issues come from (compounded by the fact that he was only around 10 when he was transformed and his world fell apart), and his growth as a character feels very natural. Aladdin is a lot of fun, though his compulsive lying is certainly a bad thing. He does the right thing by freeing Genie, though, so he ain't all bad.
I really love Simba, he's probably my second favorite prince, for the duration that he is one, at least. He's got a lot to his character as both cub and adult; he really is a Disney prince done right. Naive, inquisitive, playful, egotistical (understandable as he was a cub and didn't know any better), and adventure-seeking as a cub, then grappling with depression and his past as an adult. It makes for a wonderfully dynamic character.
John Smith, like most Pocahontas characters, is just kinda... there. He's onboard with slaughtering natives until he meets a pretty one... Yikes, that's worse than Aladdin's lying and for that matter, worse than every other prince in general. It would have been an easy fix: have him be a newbie explorer, while other, more seasoned explorers talk about slaughtering natives, and John looks uneasy about doing such a thing. Perhaps even gets laughed at by the crew of the ship for seeming so hesitant. It may not have been historically accurate, but neither are magic talking trees, so eff it, it would have given John more of a struggle and made him more likable. There's not much else to John's character; he's pretty much your typical dashing hero type, which is a shame, since it seemed like Disney had really nailed it as far as writing princes up to that point. Eric even had a je ne sais quois about him that John seems to lack. I don't know what went wrong with Pocahontas, as while I wouldn't go so far as to call it bad by any means, the writing is definitely weak.
Does Phoebus count as a prince? I really admired his sense of humor, and willingness to work with Quasi.
Li Shang was great as a stern-but-secretly-warmhearted captain.
It could be argued that Tarzan is a prince, as he's often described as "king of the apes" or "king of the jungle", but doesn't ascend to that rank until the very end of the film. I adore Tarzan. Poor guy goes through a lot of identity crises throughout the film due to his being torn between worlds, but that's exactly what makes him so interesting. That and, he's very kindhearted and oozes charisma.
Modern Renaissance Era Films:
I love Naveen, his being something of a screw-up when it comes to his parents' fortune is very entertaining. I love how he brings fun and a more carefree attitude into Tiana's life, but doesn't put her down for being a workaholic and helps her follow her dream. Flynn was hilarious, especially when paired with Maximus, definitely another fave.
I'm mixed on Hans. His sudden heel-turn around halfway through the film was an interesting twist I didn't see coming... On the other hand, it sucked the likability right out of him. I feel like there were more interesting places to go with the whole youngest of 13 princes thing, it certainly could have made him relatable to anyone who has a lot of siblings and added to his likability, but they didn't go there. Turning him into a villain felt like they were shoehorning a villain in at the last minute, when Frozen didn't really need one and would have felt more unique without. Here's hoping Hans gets some sort of redemption in Frozen 2. I definitely want to enjoy him more.
