While I'm a fan of multi-cultural inclusion, I am not a fan of blatantly marketing to multi-cultural correctness just to make a buck.  The image of the fairies smacks of multi-cultural profiteering--without any real substance.  Case in point: Sesame Street discusses cultural identities and has multi-cultural inclusion.  The products division that's behind the Fairies appear to be slapping a bunch of skin tones on CG models to sell products to all the major ethnic demographics in America.

So it's okay to have a set of fairies who are "diverse" as long as you don't make a buck off it? What a wacky take.

Okay, my turn to complain. How come all the CG fairies look like they've been copied off the "Bratz" model sheet. I know a lot of mothers of little girls who are not going to appreciate that if it makes it into a movie or toy version.

rufus3698 said: So it's okay to have a set of fairies who are "diverse" as long as you don't make a buck off it? What a wacky take.

Hey, that's not what I said.  I said I had a problem when the marketing of diversity becomes the exploitation (or profiteering) of diversity.  So there's the Asian fairy.  And the African-American Fairy.  And a couple of white Fairies.  (Is that a Native American fairy?)  And so on.  But their skin color is displayed in such a way that it becomes one of the focal points of this campaign--when ethnic identities are not part of the narrative substance of these stories at all.  

My first impression is that the original characters designs were a bit more interesting. The new versions feel like the faeries just are more generic.  Here are some samples from JHM with the original designs. Got to love big hats made from flowers.

http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2006/09/26/5967.aspx

Uh, I'm curious....why is a dark-skinned fairy automatically an "African-American" fairy? Maybe she's just plain African?

See the tangled web we weave?

Of course, since fairies come from, by their nature, an alternate world/universe/dimension that may or may not be of this earth at all, maybe they're ALL just plain ALIEN fairies?

Bottomline? Who CARES what their alleged ethnicities are? I mean, isn't "fairy"

a "race" all by itself, too?

And y'know...since Tink comes from the mind of the very ENGLISH J.M. Barrie wayyyy back when, she probably isn't an ANYTHING-American, is she? Isn't that just a touch of cockney accent to those tinkly noises she makes?

(smile).....and now that we've done the old reductio-ad-absurdum with this....the costumes are okay, but the HAIR! OH my.....

To answer your question (Are you ready for the walkaround versions of the Disney Fairies ?), Jim, "NOOOOOOOOOOO"!

And I have a 6 year old daughter, who I'm guessing is their core audience.  It just seems like too much too fast.  I loved Tink for years, but this is just feeling sooooo "marketed."  I think I've reached character fatigue...they've had so many new movies and introduced so many new characters in the last 10 years, I think I'm ready for a slowdown.  What was this, 5 new fairies at once?  I hope they just focus on Tink, and let the other ones pop up rarely and unpredictably so they keep some "magic" about this whole thing.  Hmmm, we gotta show up at 10 for this fairy, 11:30 for that fairy, 1PM for another to fill in our fairy signature book?  That ain't gonna happen for this family!

I don't want to be burned out on Disney, but I'm feeling that feeling...

Sue in Texas

...DL in June, WDW in August...

The entire "Disney Fairy" is dependent on what Lasseter had done to the movie, which resulted in its much delayed release. If this direct to video movie is as good as I'm hoping it could be (remember it resulted in the resignation of Toon Studios president), then I'm all for the walk-around face characters.

If the movie is not good, then it is pure marketing. These characters will be driven to poularity by good stories behind them. If that isn't there, it will be "Tinkerbell and those other ones".

I have a DREAM!  That one day...  White fairies and Black fairies can be joined together in the bounds of racial fairitude...  I say I have a DREAM!  That one day we won't judge fairies by the color of their skin but by the content of their character...

What ever happened to not having Tink in the parks because of scale issues?

For the record, I consider the whole "Disney Fairies" concept absurd and just a blatant marketing ploy to sell product based on characters without real "character". These CGI fairy friends of Tink are all exactly the same design, distinguished solely by different clothing and hairstyles - there is no attempt at individual personality in the designs themselves. Even the attempt at creating multi-ethnic fairies falls flat due to the sameness of the features. Why aren't the little black and Asian characters allowed to look like who they're supposed to be? Why the politically correct homogenizing of the facial features into one generic and bland design, equal to all the others?

I've also noticed this same unfortunate trend in the "Disney Princesses" line, where all of the characters' faces have been homogenized and blandly softened through excessive airbrushing until they all look like pretty much the same girl, lacking the distinctiveness of features that their original film counterparts have. I variously refer to them as the "Plastic Princesses" and "The Stepford Princesses" due to their utter lack of real personality and charm.

Ironically, these walkaround "Disney Fairies" may be a rare case of the live versions improving immensely on the animated originals. At least with the casting of these young actresses, you have a group of attractive girls who really do look distinct from each other, naturally creating visual variety that is so much more appealing to the viewer. Perhaps if the powers-that-be over at Disney Consumer Products weren't so stifling of the creativity of their art staff, we could see animated designs that were just as interesting as these real life portrayals, only caricatured in the tradition of time honoured Disney cartoons, not this politically correct visual pablum we get served these days...

What I want to know is what happened with WITCH.

The Imagineers were right. You guys will complain about anything.

Since I'm one of you guys, I guess I should find a problem with these Fairies as well?

Hmm.......What about the Blue Fairy? What about Flora and Fauna? How could they leave Walt's masterpieces behind. If he were alive today, he'd puke.

How was that?

Silly me. I thought there were already plenty of fairies walking around WDW now.

Okay, okay, but SOMEbody hadda say it.

(Smile)

John Wayne said: Uh, I'm curious....why is a dark-skinned fairy automatically an "African-American" fairy? Maybe she's just plain African?

Oh, I don't know.  But I'll bet dollars to donuts that she speaks very clear Americanized English and not Sawhili.  You on for that bet?

Obviously that should be Swahili.  Saw the typo as I hit submit.  Point remains the same.

It's interesting how the design for the characters have changed...at last they moved out from that "Light Tragic" concept of them.

I look at the live character prototypes and the first thing that hit my mind was, "Desperate Fairylives"...a group of fairies who live under the Wisteria bush down the lane...the comedic drama story of five impish lasses of magic as they lead their daily lives of love and trouble.....

first off - TINKERBELL IS A PIXIE!  

That being said, this is one more marketing ploy to get the young girls to whine and wheedle their parents to seperate hard earned money from the bank account into a well developed line of merchandise that will hold interest for, maybe, a couple of years.

I think the real message behind this is that the bottom is falling out of the Princess market and that Disney wants to have a back up to ensure a hold on the market.  

Moving forward - Tinkerbell is a supporting actress in the Peter Pan franchise.  And, hate to tell you this, the majority of the "Tinkerbell Fan Demographic" I've seen has been older women who will tell you exactly how she is drawn and modeled, gay men, and, maybe, just maybe, some young and impressionable children.

(Flashback to the "Light Tragic" Premeire at Disneyland when "Tink" (a sparkling flare pyro) sliddown a cable from the top of Sleeping Beauty's Castle to perch in a tree above Town Square...however, the pyro unit popped off the cable right before the catch point and landed in the street.  A well meaning cast member went over and stomped the sparkling flare out.  To which a high pitched cry of a young girl was heard to state, "Mamma!  He just killed Tinkerbell!".....)

Tinkerbell is appropriate in a parade as a character (they can fudge the scale) and in the fireworks (for the same reason), but, as a walk-around?  And, one who will probably speak?  Oy!

Tinkerbell has long been the "magic and pixie dust" supplier for the Disney Company.  Look at the number of times Walt used her in the TV series to get him or the viewers down to Disneyland?  And, that she had her own little spots in each of the original show introductions...I'd say that TInk was pretty well enshrined and entrenched into the mythos that was structured around the magic of Disneyland.  I only think that there could be better ways to interface her with the character entertainment of the park than to generate her own movies (fairy Barbies) and out of scale characters with an age difference that is hard to avoid..even if you are a young lass of six....

Disney owns the "Peter And The Starcatchers" trilogy by Pearson & Barry.  And, it is my understanding that they have optioned the film rights to development as well on the set.  Herein is the perfect setting for Tink...her history, the background, the appropriate setting as Peter Pan's companion...and, in developing that series (and an associated spin-off from it for television and direct-to-dvd productions) it is conceivable to extend the Tinkerbell and other fairy/ixie population into storylines.  

But, Tinkerbell is a part of an action-adventure environment, not a girly "oops...we got into trouble again, Lynette" tea club.  And, in that, Disney seems to be missing the mark.

Tink can be a strong and independent female role model for young girls, if used appropriately.  I fear that this style of story line and projected follow-ups will not lead in that direction.  I do fear, however, a "Desperate Housewives" style setting for the six to eight year old young girl bracket.  And, to be honest, those coniving, ploying, ego-oriented women of Wisteria Lane are not the role models I would want to place on any young girl or daughter of my own.  (The same can be said with Barbie...another obvious design factor being followed in this set of characters and series of stories.  As for the "princess syndrome"...I won't even start going there. ;)  )

Still, no matter what we have views upon, this is pretty much "written in stone" that the company is doing this and that these characters will be in the parks.  As with all matters, it will have it's moments of strength, and, then fade back out to a point of shaded oblivion.  

And, when the "Peter and The Starcatchers" trilogy does get to film (God willing it is done correctly and true to the writings of the books), Disney will have a youth franchise that will appeal to young girls, to young boys, and, to adults alike.  And, that franchise, I truly believe, is where the golden egg that the company is looking for in these immediate characters we are discussing, lies.

I have no problem with this what so ever Im tired of the pointless arguement that Disney corporation is just using it to sell DVDS well I got news for all you supposed Walt knows best people  Walt Disney Wasnt as Hunky Dory as you expect , he did the exact same thing every character, every character attraction presented  from a business sense made sense to him to promote it... because it made the company profit from merchandise sales...  Hello wonderful world of color hello promoting disneyland every week  hello sleeping beauty castle before the movie even opened...  Its a business get used to it

I like the idea of the Walk Around fairies. Yeah I know it's marketing but my little girl got very excited when I showed her todays article. She'll enjoy meeting them and that what they're for. For little girls. Us adults see through the marketing side of Disney, yet I think that's OK. We know it's about money, but to my daughter, these characters are real. She'll love them and that's what matters. And yeah dear old Dad will shlep over to Wall Mart and buy the merchandise LOL!

Wait, you're asking if I'm ready for hot chicks in skimpy costumes at my favorite place in the world....... dude. Why are you even asking?

What I continually don't understand is why Tink is made to seem like a "strong, empowered female role model" by so many people, Disney execs and regular folks alike.  I don't have a problem with her in the fireworks or parades, but when you come down to it, in the movie her character is vain, temperamental, vindictive and jealous.  Sure, she may have helped save Peter in the end, but only after trying to get Wendy stoned to death!

I just think we can find a better 'strong female' character than her.  After all, I usually see her being used by DCP to adorn T-shirts of young girls with the word "Spoiled" written all over them.  Not a trait to encourage, if you ask me.

Of course, her personality will probably be 90% whitewashed by the time this franchise takes off (if it does).

Englishboy, by those standards YOUR accent (presuming from your nick that you ARE English) would make YOU possibly....African...Chinese...Australian...etc. etc. etc.

In other words, ethnicity as transferred via GENES is not NATIONALITY as transferred by passports, and culture can go both ways. So relax, willya?

BTW, Swahili is one of HUNDREDS of languages spoken on the continent of Africa....but I'm not quite sure what a "Swahilish" accent would sound like. Are you?

Id just like to know what they did with Tinks hips. That particular part in Peter Pan you have pictured she herself is concerned with her proportions... now they have a teeny girl whos hips dont fill out that skin tight costume.....

I wonder if they will have that 'shrinking' effect they talked about.

<i>"What I continually don't understand is why Tink is made to seem like a "strong, empowered female role model" by so many people, Disney execs and regular folks alike.  I don't have a problem with her in the fireworks or parades, but when you come down to it, in the movie her character is vain, temperamental, vindictive and jealous.  Sure, she may have helped save Peter in the end, but only after trying to get Wendy stoned to death!"</i>

I'll say upfront that I [willingly] have read all of the new Disney Fairies books, and they're absolutely wonderful; Gail Carson Levine really captured the whimsy of Neverland, and the chapter books are sweet.  I agree with the original poster - Walt's Tinkerbell was <i>not</i> someone I want my daughter to admire, but Levine's characters are beautifully humane, realistic, and loveable.

I know I sound like an idiot, but I would much rather the main book set [Prilla, Terence, Vidia, Lily, etc] be the basis for a movie than the new lot [Irrdessa, Fawn, etc].  While they're all mentioned in the book, albeit in a "blink-and-you'll-miss-it sort of fashion, their personalities all seemed washed down... perfect for the Disney Princess sort of franchise that I despise.

In terms of the "race" issue, the broad range of skin tones really works with the art of the original books - all the characters look stunning.  However, the fairies they chose for the movie seemed to be more of the effect of "If we don't include more skin tones, we'll be criticized again for only having white protagonists!" Less of demographic targeting, more of covering their behinds.

Isn't it that the Fairies are aimed a little older than the Princesses demographic, not as a total replacement but as something girls can latch onto as they lose interest in the Princess Club?

The one thing that's encouraging is that these fairies exist in the same universe. According to an article in the NYT mag some years back, none of the Princess characters are allowed to make eye contact with eachother because they don't exist in the same universe- they all stare out in a vacuum, instead.

BTW, any of you seen this pic? http://bri-chan.deviantart.com/art/smile-for-the-camera-42854459 Total spoof of the Princess brand

I'm 5'1 and I'm good at staying quiet. Maybe I can be their next Tinkerbell! XD

Why do so many people seem to think scale will be more of an issue with Tinker Bell than it is with Chip & Dale, Mickey Mouse, or, say, almost every other walk-around character that ought to be smaller than it appears?