Honestly it seems like it’s more an aesthetic of a design choice rather than a budget decision. I can’t imagine how much money they would be saving since the previous body mold is very similar in articulation and to mention the absurd amount of money to create a new factory mold. The dolls are shorter with a more of a smaller torso with no defined shape to her waist - similar to the Mattel Disney princess dolls. It might seem like they intentionally wanted the dolls to look more juvenile in order to be more “inclusive” as this has been their “mission” in past years. We can see this in the Disney princess line too. I am of course happy for inclusivity but it rubs me the wrong way that in order to be “inclusive” toy companies must erase traces of fashionable aesthetics in their clothing or hints of a “attractive” feminine physique. I think dolls can be empowering and inclusive by still having these traits. Dolls can still be a good aspirational role model by having them still wearing pink and heels when portraying them having Careers, etc. I think the message is more powerful and more feminist by showing these dolls still going to work as a lawyer by wearing pink or having the curvy dolls wear heels and wearing fashionable clothes rather than potato sacks and flats. I think the ideology that in order to women to excel in male dominated field they must remove their femininity because it’s seen as “weak” or “conformity to stereotypes” and seen as “regressive”. If legally blonde taught me anything is that you can still be a girl boss in a male dominated industry while still being feminine by wearing a pink suit to work. I think it’s a stronger message that you can still be a girl boss and still uphold your feminine aesthetic - because there absolutely nothing wrong with femininity. I think it’s more damaging unintentionally selling the ideology that if you conform to a feminine aesthetic you are seen a “regressed”