Comments on: Tinkerbell Gone Butch: Disney Revamps Glamorous Nymph Into Tomboy

By: Dad

Dad — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 17:08:16 +0000

“Disney said it wanted to give “Tink” a tomboyish look.”Is that to appeal to a larger demographic, or to allow a blurring of the character to mimic the society we are confronted with? Feminize the men, encourage the women to become more masculine. Remember who played Peter Pan those years ago on Broadway, Mary Martin?
Just what is a “50′s” mentality? What does that imply?

By: DS

DS — Sat, 09 Apr 2011 13:32:32 +0000

To be honest you look like a butch yourself, your biker mama leather vest for example.

By: Damian DelaRosa

Damian DelaRosa — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 13:36:27 +0000

1950′s mentality for sure.

By: KD

KD — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 02:50:42 +0000

Anyone who would really believe this trash has to be someone who wears tiny miniskirts, tight tops with way to much cleavage, and 5 in heels everyday. Weather their gardening, jogging, washing the car, or just visiting the in-laws.

By: KD

KD — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 02:23:45 +0000

WOW! First Tinkerbell is not a nymph shes a fairy. There’s a big difference. Next those don’t even look like pants they look like tights. And as far as not being weather dependent, sure a cartoon character wouldn’t be, but the viewers needs to relate to her and it makes more sense to wear more than one outfit. I don’t know about you but I don’t wear the same clothes everyday. And I have to point out that in the Peter Pan movies she never had a magic wand because she didn’t need one and she still doesn’t need one. They only gave her the wand for the Disney intro. I’m not sure you really know what butch is because there’s no way someone could mistake Tinkerbell, even in “pants”, for a guy.

By: Shaylin

Shaylin — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 02:48:35 +0000

you are totally inconsiderate. just because disney chooses to cover up their characters doesn’t make them butch! tinker doesn’t even look like a dude!

By: Lisa

Lisa — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 19:10:10 +0000

wow, i think tinkerbell still looks feminine and sticks with Disney’s story line of her being Peter’s assistant. Women and girls who are fully dressed and not wearing theatrical makeup are beautiful too. and women who are gay are human beings and deserve respect. but i am with ya on the Paris Hilton thing, talentless and dumb!

By: Mickey (shut up)

Mickey (shut up) — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:25:13 +0000

just cuz she’s wearing differnt clothes, doesnt mean she’s a different character. have you SEEN the movie? she’s the same adventure-seeking, overly jelous, yet still amusing and lovable character she was in PP, but with a slightly different waredrobe. GIRLS CAN WEAR PANTS!! ITS NORMAL!! what if you had a daoughter who grew up wearing skirts and dresses all her life, then suddenly decided she wanted pants? would you calll her “butch,” or would you just buy the pants? its not big deal, plus, pants make more sense for an adventure than a skimpy dress, dont you think?

By: Jenny

Jenny — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:35:31 +0000

This quote made me laugh: “The new image is butch and silly. Moreover, it’s not that different from Peter Pan.”

Um. Peter Pan isn’t exactly what I would call “butch”. Lol!

This is probably the dumbest thing I have ever read.
Tinkerbell’s signature look will ALWAYS be her tiny green dress. Just because she has on clothes for ONE MOVIE, doesn’t mean she’s become “butch”. God forbid she wears pants for once! That MUST mean she’s become a man!
Honestly. I got nothing from reading this.

Thanks for wasting everyone’s time, Debbie Schlussel, whoever the hell you are.

By: weds

weds — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 07:17:01 +0000

Well fuck me. I guess I’m wrong. She IS serious. God help us all. Dear Lord.

:::shakes head:::