âŚThe problem isnât that Disney makes stories based on folktales, though. Honestly, I donât think the problem is even the copyright. (Though that sure doesnât help.) The problem is that Disney has the brand recognition and the deep pockets to freeze out anyone else who tries.Â
I know, itâs a subtle distinction. Iâm going to use dolls as an example, because Special Interest Hell. Bear with me for a second.Â
A while back, Mattel made a doll line called Ever After High. Ever After High had a gimmick- it was a doll line based on fairy tales, but instead of being based directly on the fairy tale characters themselves, it was based on their children. This meant that they could create iconic and memorable designs for the characters without being accused of ripping off Disneyâs designs. Â
This is an original âbasicâ Ever After High doll:Â
The dolls are almost fully articulated- they have 360 degree head rotation, articulated shoulders, elbows, wrists, and knees. Their costume designs are complicated, often featuring multiple layers of fabric and lots of accessories. Each doll came with a stand, a hairbrush, and a bookmark that told their âstoryâ. They retailed for $16.99.Â
The dolls came in two factions: âRoyalsâ (the children of heroes) and âRebelsâ (the children of villains). Each one had a backstory and a motivation, and they had an accompanying webseries that told those stories.Â
(I swear thereâs a reason Iâm going into Excruciating Detail.)
Even though I didnât like the sculpts⌠Ever After High was a pretty good doll line, and it was moderately successful. It brought in 53 million dollars- not nearly as much as Barbie, but still a decent profit.
⌠Disney didnât sue Mattel for this. Copyright never got involved. But they didnât need to sue. They did two things that killed Ever After High dead.Â
The first was that they took the license for the Disney Princesses away from Mattel and gave it to Hasbro. Since thatâs, obviously, a big money-making license, that was a pretty nasty punishment.Â
But the other thing Disney did, the thing that I think was what properly killed Ever After High⌠they massively expanded the merchandising for Disney Descendants.Â
âŚNow, it looks like Disney Descendants was already in the works when Ever After High started coming out. I donât think Disney got so OMGSCARED of Ever After High that they made a product directly to compete with it. And I canât say anything bad about the movies because a) I havenât seen them and b) I think @bpd-dylan-hall will kill me.Â
But the two franchises share some notable similarities- theyâre about the teenage children of fairy tale characters, who are split into two factions: âheroâ and âvillainâ. Theyâre very âmodernâ, with colorful hair and flashy, iconic designs. Â
This is a basic Disney Descendants doll:Â
I own both Ever After High and Descendants dolls, and I gotta say: the Descendants are way lower quality. Theyâve got almost no articulation- just wrists, hips, and knees. They donât come with a stand or many accessories. Their costumes are much simpler, and most of the designs are screen-printed on. Theyâre not crap dolls, donât get me wrong, and I like their sculpts more than EAH- but by comparison, theyâre not very good.Â
But that made one important difference: The Disney Descendants basic doll retailed at $12.99.Â
Now, riddle me this: if youâre the parent of an eight-year-old girl who loves dolls, which are you more likely to get: the high-quality expensive doll with a lot of small parts sheâs likely to lose, or the cheaper one with a brand name on it that you recognize?Â
Disney was able to massively undercut the competition. Mattel couldnât keep up. They made cheaper versions of the Ever After High dolls -they went for $9.99 or so, theyâre absolute garbage, and collectors and kids both hated them.Â
Mattel hasnât officially canceled Ever After High. But the showâs not coming out anymore, the dolls arenât on shelves anymore, and we havenât heard anything about either since 2017. Disney won, and they won hard.Â
If Disney didnât have the kind of money they do, if Disney didnât have the kind of clout they do, this wouldnât have happened. I mean, sure, all doll lines end eventually, thatâs the way of the world, but Disney deliberately undercut the competition. Depending on how much dolls cost to make and ship, they might even have been making them at a loss.
But Disney could afford to do it because theyâre Disney.
The only time anyoneâs ever really been able to successfully make a fairy tale franchise without getting shot down by Disney was Shrek, and thatâs because Disney didnât want to touch the aeShrektic with a ten-foot pole. They were scared theyâd ruin their image. Any other time anyone does anything with fairy tales (or princesses, or talking cars, or talking fish, or pirates, orâŚ)  Disney can make their own version and sell it at a loss, driving their competitors out of business. They have more money than God. They can afford to lose money on one theme park, let alone one toyline or one movie.
The problem with Disney is that itâs a monopoly. and like any other monopoly, Disney can freeze out anyone who tries to compete with them. I think if you trustbusted Disney- left them with their animation studio and maybe their theme park division, but took away Pixar and Marvel and ESPN and all their television outlets and all the other crap they own- theyâd have a harder time undercutting everyone else. youâd see more stuff based on folklore and fairy tales, and itâd have more than a snowballâs chance in hell of being successful.Â