I think the Renaissance Era is overrated. There, I said it. I don't have a favorite era and I think they each have their respective strengths and weaknesses. Each era has some amazing films to its name. Each era also has some not so great or even downright terrible movies in it. I don't think the Renaissance is any better or worse than the Classic or Revival Eras, they just each have different strengths.

I don't know whether this is considered unpopular or not, but I might as well say it. I wish Tarzan and Prince Adam don't look similar, especially their hair and bony face!

Y'all know how The Original 6 consisted of Snow White, Cinderella, Aurora, Ariel, Belle, and Jasmine, right? Well, I just came up with a new theory. Say Anna and Elsa DON'T get added to the lineup and Moana DOES. We could have a new 6! This new 6 would include Pocahontas, Mulan, Tiana, Rapunzel, Merida, and Moana. I think if they put THOSE 6 on merch, it would sell. Plus, Pocahontas and Mulan would get more recognition. What do y'all think about this?

It bothers me when some fans are often compare Classic and Renaissance Eras movies with Revival Era movies as well. I think it's unfair to compare those three different eras as well, as they are create in different time periods, which means characteristic, personality of each characters, and moral messages of movies from each eras are suited with the perspectives of audiences and public in each time periods. For example: Revival era movies are focused more with family and friendship rather than romance, to more attract current audiences, which definitely have different perspective than the audiences from previous eras.

I think it's funny when people get all bent out of shape that the Revival era movies have this marketing strategy that's about making their characters and morals "better" than those from past eras. Especially Renaissance stans - like, do you guys seriously not remember how aggressively Jasmine, Ariel, Mulan, and especially Belle were marketed as being not passive/dumb/hung up on getting a man like Walt's girls were? Because I sure do.

It might sound weird, but I don't count designs and (somewhat) movements as part of animation. When I think of animation I think of things like the colors of the background and characters, the shadows, the lighting, and effects. I rant designs of characters and other things like that to be part of more of the drawing style rather than animation. I hate the drawing style of Hercules, but I do think the animation is beautiful. With movements, I consider it part of the animation but also not at the same time. I know many are going to disagree with me on this (or are probably confused by what I'm trying to say) but it's just my opinion.

It bothers me when certain users attack other people's opinions just because they do not agree exactly with what is the "norm". What's even funnier is that these same users are very defensive and the second an opinion of theirs (that they believe to be fact) is attacked, they lose all restraint and freak out, typing out long diatribes like I am now just to show how ridiculous this all is. People are allowed to have different opinions you know. Debate is not restricted and should in fact be encouraged and that comes from a difference of opinions and beliefs. I'm noticing a very group mentality here where people gang up on others for advocating an opinion that is not shared by the defensive group.

Athena from Tomorrowland is the best live-action Disney character.

I've been meaning to post this unpopular opinion for a while and I'm finally going to say it. Melody does NOT blame others for bad things that happen to her. I haven't just heard that here on Fanpop, but also on other sites and really this isn't AT ALL shown in her movie. Where the hell did she even blame others, other than telling Morgana that she tricked her? When her party becomes a disaster she doesn't blame Sebastian or Chef Louis. She even says these exact quotes to her mother while crying: "What's wrong with me?" and "Mom, I'm the princess of disaster!". So far not seeing her as blaming others for her problems. Well, there is when she discovers the locket has her name on it and Ariel reprimands her for going into the sea..... Where she again DOESN'T blame anyone but asks her mother why the locket has her name on it and realizes she's hiding something, but Ariel just changes the subject by saying she disobeyed her.

Not seeing Melody really blaming anyone where, since she's just pointing out the obvious (Ariel is hiding something from her) and asking a reasonable question anyone in her situation would ask but received no answer. Melody has a perfectly good reason for being upset with Ariel because she's hiding something from her, refuses to tell her about it, and changes the subject to Melody disobeying her. I know Ariel has her reasons, but Melody is in the right here and isn't blaming ANYONE! She wanted answers and as far as she knew at that point, no one was going to tell her something important that she had the right to know.

Yes, she does betray her mother and gives the trident to Morgana, but she was mad and not thinking clearly. Ariel had been lying to her for her entire life, especially since it involved something related to her love of the sea and mermaids. Her lack of trust was understandable, plus she's twelve-years-old for crying out loud! When they're mad at their parents, they go against them without thinking clearly and for MUCH LESSER justifiable reasons than Melody. She admits to Flounder that everything is her fault and doesn't blame anyone. She at first got mad at Morgana for tricking her, but soon realized that it was really her own fault. So one time equals her constantly blaming others? BULL CRAP! She even fixes her mistakes by defeating Morgana (with the help of Triton in the end) and apologizes because she realizes her mistake.

I respect other peoples opinion, but I've heard this argument several times (not only on Fanpop but other sites as well) and I'm sorry, but it isn't an opinion when there is NOTHING shown in the movie where she displays this behavior, so it's completely FALSE. A lot of this comes from fans of Ariel that just don't like it when there is a character that doesn't 100% agree with her or go along with her way of thinking. I ADORE Ariel, but don't demonize other characters like Melody or Triton (a confession I've already made) just because they don't agree with her. I don't expect everyone to like Melody just because I do, but don't make up reasons to hate her that are NEVER shown in the movie.

Call me bias if you want, but I just don't see how Rapunzel is often called as Mary-Sue by some fans here. Yes, she have many good traits, but it doesn't make her to be too perfect. I think the princesses like Cinderella and Aurora are more like Mary Sue than Rapunzel.

I wish people don't compare Belle to Bella Swan, it's pretty stupid!

I think Sadira is more beautiful than Jasmine. If only she was in a product with better animation (Along with a hairbrush).

I'm going to be killed by Kataralover, but I used to hate Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas because it's scary and dark for a Christmas film, but after listening to the soundtrack recently, I need to watch it again for Christmas this year!

i really want to see a gorgeous, heart-warming good old romantic story in Disney's next movie. Something as simple and beautiful as Me Before You. I'm a little exhausted with the continuous streak of all the action-packed, ambition driven, save the world plots.

Call me childish or something like that, but I love the redesign look of Disney Princesses. They looks fresh in the redesign look.

I hated Human Again, because the objects are very selfish and egoistical!

These are two opinions. One is unpopular and one isn't, at least I don't think it is.

1. To be completely honest, I like characters that have little or no flaws, which are hard to find. I don't mind Mary Sues. They have traits I admire and when they inspire me to be the best person of myself that I can. Yes they are unrealistic, but since we live in a media-centered world, seeing a character like that can impact the lives of others. And there ARE good people who don't have many flaws.

2. I also find that when people love a character and they obviously have flaws, they fail to recognize it because they love the character that much. I used to do that with my favorite fictional character but I learned that it isn't fair to dismiss it in them, but scold it in other characters.

Okay, I don't really know whether this is considered a very unpopular opinion or not, but I might as well say it and please forgive me auroraxaurelia for using your image without seeking your permission. But I wish Belle was designed like this. I don't know why, but really!

I actually enjoy Disney remakes towards the classic animated movies. I think nothing wrong with remaking movies, it's the common thing happen in movies.

I actually like the Beast's human form. I see a lot of people hating on it, but I personally think he looks good.

Disney should make a geeky princess like Princess Mia in the Princess Diaries.

I think that The Enchantress, Babette/Fifi, the Bimbettes, the woman that says "Good day", and Angelique are more beautiful than Belle! Belle is so common looking and isn't stunning or gorgeous or anything special. She's beautiful but in a more average and ordinary way than the extraordinary beauty that she's made out to be.

Though she is considered as "fairest of them all", I don't think Snow White is really pretty.

I was very happy that Giselle from Disney's Enchanted is not included in the DP lineup, she's my least favourite princess.

This is kind of a confession, but not really unpopular, I just feel like no one's really talked about it. But really think that since Anna and Elsa aren't Disney Princesses (and wont be), that we really shouldn't count them officially in our club (but some people are already doing that). Idk why but it's kinda like if someone included Sofia the First or Megara in the lists/polls for me, where there's a separate club for animated heroines so I just don't think they should be here since they aren't official. Tbh even though I really loved Moana and I'm fairly certain she'll be added, I don't even wanna include her until she's official. But that's just me, I'm not tryna tell you how to live your life or whatever... fight the man, man~

I think Maleficent have better storyline than Sleeping Beauty.
-The reason why Maleficent curse Aurora more makes sense. She curse her because her revenge with Aurora's father who betray her, it was more acceptable rather than in the original one, which she curse her only because she wasn't invited to the party.Ridiculous.
-Maleficent isn't thoroughly evil. She feels guilty to curse Aurora after she supervise her for 16 years and realize that she is innocent and she doesn't deserve that curse. It's more realistic and shown human nature, which wasn't fully good or evil.
-The meaning of true love in Maleficent is more universal. Aurora was awaken after Maleficent kiss her brow, represent her motherly-like love with her. In original one the curse was broken with Philip kiss her, which Aurora met only around one day. I know it's a fairytale, but I just think it was unrealistic.

Most peoples often said both Cars and Cars 2 are considered as worst Pixar movies, and only created for appealing little boys, but I enjoy to watch them ^.^ Though I admit the story of Cars 2 is kinda forced to be a secret agent story instead of the racing.

How Far I'll Go has more motivational lyrics than Let It Go upon recently listening to it again.

I find Anna's hair is more beautiful than Elsa's.

Okay, this is my brother's opinion and on the behalf of him, he thinks that Frozen is 10 times better than Moana.

This is a copy and paste of a confession from CAMH forum.

I'm sure that I'm going to get a lot of hate for this one, but it's a confession I've been meaning to make for a while. I don't understand this trend among Disney fans, especially ones who don't like the villains, to claim that Cruella is THE most evil (not just Disney) villain ever because of her animal cruelty. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to excuse her, or say that she's a nice person by any means. But really, when I just compare her to other Disney villains I can think of serval that come across a more evil then she does. I'm mean you've got Frollo, who wanted to kill a whole race of people, Shan-Yu, who enjoyed torturing people, The Evil Queen, who tried to kill out of envy.

If somebody's going to say that animal cruelty is their main reason for claiming that she's the most evil, okay that's their opinion and I respect it. I do have a question though, why isn't Edgar from the Aristo Cats so evil, I mean he poisons cats, steals them, and leaves them to die for money? But when ever I've mentioned him everybody just seems to like him, and not be bothered by his animal, because 'he's funny". Like I said, I respect everyone's opinion but some constancy and reasons for those opinions would be nice.

Sorry for the rant I just had to get that off my chest.

Sorry to make two posts in row.

This is a copy and paste of a confession on CAMH forum

Here's an unpopular opinion I've been meaning to make for a while. I'm sick of this trend among DuckTales fans of absolutely demonizing Launchpad to make Scrooge look good and excuse his harsh behavior. Of course he's been accused of being a reverse snob for a while, but now they're claiming that he's a leech and gold digger, is too stupid to live, and does nothing but cause problems.

First of all: A rerseve snob is someone who looks down on a another person for being better off than they are. Nothing in Launchpad's personality would indicate that he's that way. The one minor incident that always mention is what is supposed to be an awkward moment where he says Scrooge can get away with wearing a weird looking outfit because he's rich.

As far a him being a leech and gold digger, again, where in his personality does it hint that he's like that? He definitely isn't shown trying to sweet talk Scrooge into giving him money, unlike Huey, Dewey and Louie. In the episode Launchpad first crash he's shown lowering his flying fee for Scrooge because he was desperate for a costumer, and hasn't asked for any raises in all the years they worked together.

And as far as him being too stupid to live and doing nothing but causing problems, you're partially right. Yes he is arguably "stupid", and clumsy because he's the comic relief, which does sometimes cause problems. But he's also very competent in other areas and saves the day sometimes, like in the episodes Top Duck, and Where No Duck Has Gone Before. Also he's not the only character whose flaws have caused problems for the group. Scrooge's greed and temper, and Huey, Dewey and Louie's irresponsibly have also cause problems.

You guys all know how much I adore Scrooge, so take it from me, demonizing his friends doesn't excuse his flaws.

I'm honestly not too surprised when people don't refer to Aurora by her actual name and just call her Sleeping Beauty. This is probably because of my personal opinion, but I think it's because she is one of the most forgettable protagonists in Disney history. Yes, they do say her name constantly in the first song (Hail to the Princess Aurora) but how many people do you know that are humming that song like they do Once Upon A Dream? If it wasn't for the Disney Princess franchise she'd likely be completely forgotten. People usually think about the Three Good Fairies and Maleficent when they hear about Sleeping Beauty but not Aurora. Also, a reason for little kids who probably don't remember her name likely don't know whether to call her Aurora or Briar Rose (or Rose for short) because she's more often called that than she is Aurora in the movie. I think it's because she's just not very memorable as a character that people call her Sleeping Beauty and not Aurora. I mean, people know Ariel and call her by her name and don't call her The Little Mermaid. Why? Because even if you like Aurora more, you can't deny that Ariel is a more memorable character. There are characters I like more than others but still admit that they aren't as memorable as certain characters I don't like. I DESPISE Peter Pan but I know he's more memorable than say Taran from The Black Cauldron. But this is all just my opinion.

I prefer the animated version of Peter Pan over the 2003 version!

I'm actually fine with the "twist-villain" type that Disney use in some of their current movies (King Candy/Turbo, Hans, Yokai/Callaghan, and Bellwether). They brings more surprise with the audiences. The one who we expected to be good, is actually evil. Though I agree if Disney seems to be a bit overused with this type of villain.

I don't see how Belle is snob and rude. Yes, she seems to a bit snob with the villagers, but that's just because she dislike the villagers that pretend her and her father to be freaks towards her father's job as inventor and Belle's loving with books. She might be seems a bit stubborn with refuse Beast's offering to a dinner and leave him alone after he gets mad with her. But again, that's because she didn't like the rude Beast and she's scary with him. It's pretty understandable. A lot of peoples who dislike Belle often said this and it upset me.

WARNING: This turned out longer than I expected it to be and I know people will disagree with me... Well... Mainly the Frozen fans.

I think that The Princess and the Frog objectively has a better soundtrack than Frozen. What do I mean by that? Well, first of all, before I explain, let's forget how Frozen's soundtrack has been EVERYWHERE in the past. Also, I don't hate or dislike Frozen, it's MAJORLY overrated but good. The reason The Princess and the Frog's soundtrack is better is that it suits the style of its movie better than Frozen's songs do with its movie. It's set in New Orleans and the instrumental style is jazz and not just that, Dig A Little Deep has a gospel style to it, which is popular among the black community. Ray's song with his family fits with the Cajun style that is known in the Louisiana bayou and is used to help to help guide our heroes through this strange world (especially after Louis got them lost). Even the short opening of The Evening Star fits in with the concept of wishing on stars in the movie. They're a lot of fun and personally got me invested into the movie because they sucked me into New Orleans and its musical style.

Frozen's songs are great too (With two or three exceptions) but I think the musical style didn't fit the movie. I don't feel like the instrumental style is too modern or poppy like a lot of people do. The great songs felt like the typical timeless instrumental music you'd hear in fairy-tale movies and I think it's the kind of instrumental style that Tangled's song should've had (Except for the reprise of Mother Knows Best). However, it missed a HUGE opportunity to have the songs use a more Scandinavian style in its instrumental style. Like when the song opens up with a choir singing, which they also use when Elsa brings back summer and even do something similar when Elsa is crowned Queen and we see an actual choir sing. That was great and it would've worked better if the songs had that style.

The songs that aren't great, in my opinion, are Reindeers Are Better Than People, In Summer, and Fixer Upper. They really don't fit into the movie AT ALL! The reindeer song doesn't add anything in terms of story, is too short, doesn't have Jonathan Groff live up to his vocal talent, and the style is more of the pop guitar music that we got in Tangled (In the songs, anyway). In Summer is cute but doesn't really feel like it should belong in the movie but more in a Winnie the Pooh movie or something where the songs are mainly cute and fun. Fixer Upper, ignoring that the trolls are basically encouraging adultery and ignoring the seriousness of Anna's situation, is a very flawed song in quite a few ways. It's just used to force Anna and Kristoff to fall in love and make it seem even more out of nowhere, it's an odd choice to have as the last song in the movie, feels more like filler, and the gospel style REALLY doesn't fit. It worked with Dig a Little Deeper because of how gospel is popular in the black community and in New Orleans. It also worked in Hercules because gospel because of how the gospel songs were only sung by the Muses (Who I think were black, could be wrong) and they're goddesses, therefore it makes sense for them to sing a style that is used in churches, has a heavenly feeling, and goes with one of the themes of the movie (Immortality). Here it doesn't really fit at all.

I also think the songs in The Princess and the Frog transition better. Even when I fell in love with Frozen the first time I saw it (Before noticing its flaws after my second or third viewing before the hype for it went INSANE) I felt like the songs didn't transition very well. I felt like maybe they could've used the instrumental music to transition better. Like with Let It Go, when Anna leaves and we see nothing but a crazy snow storm before we get to Elsa at The North Mountain, we get the a kind of Scandinavian instrumental style music but then out of nowhere a Broadway-style instrumental music comes to have Elsa sing Let It Go. The song is amazing, but the transition didn't feel natural like with The Princess and the Frog. The songs in The Princess and the Frog managed to transition better because all of the music in the movie (Even when there aren't any songs) always keeps its style the same, so the transitions are more flowing. It never felt out of nowhere or that it didn't fit with the movie. They helped move the story along too.

Frozen's songs did move the story along too (the great ones), although the reprise of For the First Time in Forever felt kind of forced in certain ways. Like how some lines kind of shoved things down our throats like "There's so much fear!" (No sh*t Ms. Einstein). Also, I feel like the song Life's Too Short would've fit the situation better because it has Elsa confident and not afraid of her powers anymore, instead of contradicting the Let It Go scene, and moves the story along better as well as showing Anna and Elsa acting more like real sisters. But again, even that song should've had its instrumental style fit more the Scandinavian style and just let Tangled have its songs have the Broadway-style music.

I know the post is REALLY LONG and it's likely NO ONE will read all of it, let alone comment, but it's my opinion. But I do promise I didn't mean for this to end up being so long!

Pocahontas is the bravest Disney princess.

I think The Lion King is overrated.

Okay, get ready for a big rant! I know I'm pretty much the only Jar Jar Binks fan on the planet but I've gotta get this off my chest, because I'm REALLY MAD about what Disney decided to do with him. I can't believe they decided to make his official fate being banished for a second time and reduced to a street preformer! The author of the book says that he did it to represent real life, with adults hating him and kids loving him. Even if that was what he was doing there are much better ways to have done it than this. I know that he's unpopular but Disney is so much better than this, especially since they started to develop out just the comic relief. This honestly just feels like a giant slap in the face to all Jar Jar fans, almost like they're telling us we don't deserve to be Star Wars fans. I haven't been this mad at Disney in a long time.

Idk if this is really an unpopular opinion or not, but just share this.

I'm glad to see the classic princesses are way more praised in Fanpop rather than anywhere else. Since join Fanpop for 2 years ago and start to active on this club, I start to like the classic princesses more. Before join Fanpop I think they're weak, boring, lame, and nothing more than princesses from childhood. But this club change my narrow-mind perspective.

After analyze more, I find the classic princesses are NOT weak or lame like most peoples are judged them. They shown their strengths and their charm. They might be not physically a strong badass like Mulan or Merida, but they're emotionally are strong. Snow White is an optimist and always trying to think positive even in bad situations. Cinderella is kind and always stay strong even after she was treated badly by her stepfamily. Aurora, though she has lack screen time in her movie, shown elegance, grace, caring, and responsibilities. They definitely can be good role models, especially for little girls.

So I'm getting confuse how anyone can hate such a sweet and kind princesses like them? Because they didn't represent the current females for generally? It was really a nonsense reason, the princesses and their films are set on 1800s, so I think their personality are represent the females in that eras.

Frozen is technically like Titanic, Disney makes it into a family friendly version of Titanic.

While the current trend of the "surprise villain" that Disney is doing isn't something I'm a fan of, I actually thought Bellwether from Zootopia was pretty well-done for this trope. Is she as good as THE great Disney villains like Cruella, Maleficent, Ursula, and so forth? Hell no! However, unlike the other times Disney has done the surprise villain thing, it wasn't as convincing. Hans came out of nowhere, King Candy/Turbo was already a villain and his motivation was pretty pathetic and he lacked charm, Big Hero 6's villain (So unmemorable I don't remember his name) had strong motivation with wanting to avenge his daughter but had no charm (Plus not caring that Tadashi died trying to save him and even trying to kill his students really kills it for me) and was kind of just obvious because of how much Disney has been doing this recently, and with Moana *SPOILERS* it was clever but was a little bit of a cop out and not that interesting *END OF SPOILERS*.

So why do I feel like Bellwether works? Because she was charming from beginning to end and her reasons make sense. She was tired of always being treated like she didn't matter because she was just a sheep, so she wanted to switch things around. Her abusive boss basically had her reduced to a secretary when the name of her position (Assistant Major) sounds more important that what she actually did at her job. When you look back on the movie you can tell subtle hints and really it makes sense. Plus she keeps her humorous side. Again, she's nothing great but was cool and one of the better villains of the revival era. So far the only villains of the revival era that are great to the level of being compared to the past villains are Dr. Facilier and maybe Mother Gothel. Disney really needs to go back to making villains that are villains for most of the movie like they were in the past, but Bellwether wasn't a badly done surprise villain.

I'm bisexual, but I'm disappointed with Disney's decision to make Le Fou allegedly "gay" in the new BatB movie. It's just described as him having a crush on Gaston and being "confused", which is really bad representation. It sucks that the first canonically LGBT character is the village idiot whose name literally means "the fool" and is the butt of every joke and basically just there to idolize Gaston. But it isn't very surprising knowing Disney's history of "queer-coding" villains.

I prefer the 1991 version of Beauty and the Beast, mainly because I feel that this year's version is definitely not as good as my personal expectations and as ajotma mentioned, it portrayed the LGBT community in a negative light.

I think the hate that Jessica Rabbit gets is pretty undeserving. Yes, she obviously wouldn't be able to exist in real life, but they established that. She even says "I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way." She's comfortable with her sexuality but she never goes after other men like a slut because she's married to the man... or rabbit she loves. Roger is the one male character in the movie that never looked at or talked to/about Jessica like an attractive sex object but rather just the woman he loves. He loves her for the person she is on the inside and she's devoted to him for that and the fact that he makes her laugh. She's smart, kind, resourceful, would rather her husband think badly of her than to have him never make anyone laugh again (Which he loves to do), is willing to do anything for her husband, has a good heart, is confident, and brave. I'm not gonna act like she's the most interesting or developed character ever, but she does have a character outside of her sex appeal, even if it's not much. When I think of characters with nothing beyond their sex appeal I think of Hollie Would and the villainess from Foodfight, just off the top of my head. Much like with Lola Bunny, Jessica doesn't really do anything deserving of so much hate from what little is seen of her in the movie. People seem to have nothing to criticize her about other than her being ridiculously sexualized, which was the point.

I'm seriously failed to find Jasmine's unique attributes. I can find any other Princesses' unique attributes but not her. That makes her is in my least favorite and I think she is just added to the lineup as Aladdin receive positive reviews.

With the exception of Cinderella, Disney should not make their classics into live-action.

While I ADORE Belle, I honestly don't think she's anything special in the looks department. I think the only reason she's considered to be so gorgeous is because of how they Disney will only show the flattering pictures of Belle and her fans will only acknowledge her gorgeous shots when for a lot of the movie she's quite ordinary looking. She's beautiful, but not stunning or gorgeous in my opinion. She's so inconsistently drawn that it's almost like people can't agree on what her overall appearance is. To me, she looks like the picture I posted here. She's nothing extraordinary in the looks department in my opinion. Her facial structure is ordinary, her eyes are just round most of the time (Yeah, if you focus on how she looks in the ENTIRE movie, her eyes are round for most of the movie), her bangs are terrible, and is far from the great beauty she is made out to be in her movie. But that's just my opinion.

I really don't like the idea of Disney doing a live-action remake of The Little Mermaid. I'm usually open-minded to live-action remakes, within reason, and you all know that The Little Mermaid is my favorite Disney movie but I'm not sure a live-action remake of that movie is a good idea. I mean, how are they going to have the characters sing and talk underwater? I don't think Disney (or any company) has the technology for that yet. Being able to talk and sing underwater is very important because of how Ariel loses her ability to do so when she's on land and becomes human.