Girls go through something called the princess phase.
Toy makers know this, and ruthlessly exploit it. That's why toy stores are chock a block full of that particular pink / purple combination. It has been tested.
Reader, you think you AB tested that signup button? Toys is a multi-billion dollar industry. They've tested those colours.
So here's an example where a strong character gets trimmed down a bit. Disney do this because they want to sell merch. There's nothing wrong with making (a lot of) money, but watering down creative vision to do so is probably bad. And people are criticising disney for making this character less special.
We'll see what happens next time this character is in a movie. Maybe Disney will create an awesome story with strong plot lines etc.
Ok, so girls are genetically predisposed to a 'princess phase'? If so, I'd love to see the data backing that claim up. If not, then what is it that causing them to go through that phase (maybe the toy/entertainment companies you site as responding to the phase?)?
In my opinion (and this is just me guessing) it's exactly because society dresses girls up in pink frilly stuff and every toy is pink and sparkly.
So it now becomes a self-reinforcing loop - they like pink and sparkly, people buy pink and sparkly, toy makers provide pink and sparkly, there are no other toys[1] to buy so they keep getting pink and sparkly.
[1] I remember when Lego was unisex. It was just blocks. Now it's STARWARS blocks, or pink and sparkly stuff blocks. Obviously boys and girls can play with whatever they like, but peer pressure is weird at that age.
There's a big niche in the market (it's being filled now) for toys that are great and unisex. You'll have plenty of examples, but check the age ranges, then check against the total toy supply.
There's also a need for clothing that doesn't say things like "Here comes trouble" for boys or "little princess" for girls. Something aspirational and fun and gender-neutral.
They should just understand that other girls have different preferences and it's okay to be different and like what you want to like.
> "look at this regressive stuff! How dare they!"
In this case it's regressive because Merida was originally a tomboy changed into the stereotype of a Disney Princess. I would not be outraged about this if Merida was originally that way in Brave.
Why do you presume that? There's no basis to think that.
Also: If Disney already has a dozen sparkly girly princesses, adding one with a different target market should expand their customer base. Adding another to the same group might just cannibalize sales of other existing sparkly princesses.
Because I spend a lot of time with her. Mostly at the hackerspace teaching her what a 3D printer is, how to make an arduino blink faster, and how to design files so that I can laser cut them.
I think the above costume was pretty tastefully "sparkled" up. If you want more, you could add the tiara from the movie or a more jeweled belt. Not even the Queen, mother of Merida and trying to shove the princess ideal down her throat, was _that_ dressed up for even the main event of the movie. I don't think this is any plainer or boring looking compared to some of the other Disney Princesses.
Also, not everything has to appeal to your niece or other girls or else we're telling them it's bad to be feminine. There's still a target audience for the Merida from the movie and it doesn't step on the toes of those that want a sparkly Princess.
It's not "oh, well now there is one less non-stereotypical character for me to idolize", it's "look at this regressive stuff! How dare they!".
How should girls that like sparkly things feel when they read this? Are they regressive? Should they be ashamed with themselves along with Disney?