Do I even have to tell you I love Disney? As far as I’m concerned, there are only two kinds of people in the world: people who love Disney, and people who pretend not to love it. We all love Disney. You love it. I love it. And I’m more than willing to shut up and give Disney my money for almost anything.Well, almost.As much as I love this company that helped shaped my and every other person’s childhood, I’m not going to deny when the “Mouse House” is obviously shilling out crap for an easy cash grab. Case in point: “Princess Palace Pets” I’m not going to pretend to wonder why this blatant toy line ripoff exists: Disney saw that Hasbro was making money off of its “Littlest Pet Shop” toy line, decided it wanted to make the same money, and decided to do that by making its own small pet toy line. What’s next? Is Disney going to rip off “Ever After High” making its own dolls with the kids of the Disney villains? (Wait? It actually did that? WTF?!)So aside from the fact that this toy line is ripping off a much better one, what else about “Princess Palace Pets” reeks of stupid?How about the fact that most of these pets look creepily similar to their owners? Treasure looks like Ariel. Teacup looks like Belle. Lapis looks like Jasmine. Summer looks like Rapunzel. What? Did Disney just take DNA samples of their princesses and splice them with animals in order to breed these bizarre look-alikes?And when the pets don’t have an eerie resemblance to their owners, they bear a resemblance to other similar animal characters. Aside from looking like Belle, doesn’t Teacup also bear a strong resemblance to Lady from “Lady and the Tramp”? Doesn’t Gleam look like Bambi’s gay rainbow clone. And take a good look at Petite with her yellow fur and long pink mane and tell me she doesn’t look like Fluttershy from “My Little Pony.” The only thing missing is the wings. Hasbro should at least file a copyright suit over that!But the major reason why this toy line is so blatantly stupid is the fact that most of these princesses already had pets to begin with. Why does Mulan need a panda when she had a cricket and a horse? Why did Snow White need a bunny rabbit when she already had a plethora of animal friends? Why did Rapunzel need a horse when she has a chameleon—and another horse!Jasmine already had a pet tiger. Pocahontas already had a pet raccoon. Cinderella already had a dog. Why did she need another one? Did Disney think she needed a puppy that was more “marketable”? Did all of the Disney Princesses have their old pets taken away so that they could be replaced with ones that could have toys made after them? Celestia only know how that happened!***How are you adapting to your new life as a princess, my dear?Oh, I love it very much, much more than my old life slaving away for my step-family.Good. There’s just one thing: in order to keep up appearances, the royal family has decided that you should have a new dog, one that’s more becoming of a princess—and one that’s much more marketable!Uh, oh, that’s okay. You don’t have to get me a new dog. I have Bruno.Yes, but wouldn’t you rather have a cuter, younger puppy like this one? (shows her Pumpkin.)Um, I'm pretty sure I love Bruno. He was there for me during the rough patch in my life with my stepmother and step sis—Oh, look at that! He went the way of Old Yeller! Now you have to love Pumpkin here!Oh no! Poor Bruno!You care nothing for him. You love Pumpkin now.I don't want to!You will love Pumpkin. YOU WILL LOVE HER!!!***Wow. I was in a dark place when I copied that off of the Nostalgia Critic . Palace Pets will do that to you. Tell me that’s not what exactly happened with the other Disney Princesses and their less marketable pets!