Let's Talk About the Ending of Frozen

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Let's Talk About the Ending of Frozen

Frozen can count among its myriad charms the one thing you just never expect to see from an animation studio whose signature brand is rigidly-formulaic retellings of stories so old your great-grandmother grew up hearing them.

Read Full Article

MovieBob:
Let's Talk About the Ending of Frozen

Frozen can count among its myriad charms the one thing you just never expect to see from an animation studio whose signature brand is rigidly-formulaic retellings of stories so old your great-grandmother grew up hearing them:

Surprises.

Read Full Article

Ah yes, It's about time we actually had a deconstruction of the god damn True Love at First Sight trope. The trope had served it's purpose in the past but now feels like an antiquated and pathetic line for those who either are too lazy to find love or have no responsibilities in the world to distract them. I hope this signals the rise of more decontructive works from Disney and other movie studios because it's time to get out of this stupid stagnancy of mainstream movie going (note, the indie scene is fine but it's not going to enlighten anyone but those who are already in the know and honestly, the American public needs a good slap of reality at some point)

I liked the movie, I didn't love it though. But, I'm certainly glad I got to see it though.

Since this column already has spoilers in it, I shouldn't feel like I need to put in what I say next into the spoiler box, but...just in case...

I kind of wished I liked this movie more than I did. I liked the songs, I liked the plot and everything, but, maybe these twists and turns didn't latch on to me as well as it seemed to for other people.

I loved this movie. Saw it Thanksgiving day, the showing had no more than 40 people in the audience, but everyone, adults and kids, were into it, lots of laughing, scene appropriate reactions, it was great.

Conner42:
I liked the movie, I didn't love it though. But, I'm certainly glad I got to see it though.

Since this column already has spoilers in it, I shouldn't feel like I need to put in what I say next into the spoiler box, but...just in case...

I kind of wished I liked this movie more than I did. I liked the songs, I liked the plot and everything, but, maybe these twists and turns didn't latch on to me as well as it seemed to for other people.

I completely bought into the love at first sight thing. This is a Disney movie after all, and like Bob pointed out, you almost expect that to be present and taken completely seriously. That makes the twist even better in that it plays with the expectations you have from simply walking into a Disney movie.

MovieBob:
More than a few critics and commentators have wondered/suggested that perhaps we're meant to "read" Elsa as being a lesbian, with her powers acting as an unsubtle metaphor for the same the way it does in the X-Men movies - she was, after all, born this way.

I think that sentiment reads a little more into the mentality of the general public than it does for Frozen's narrative. Having just got back from the movie, I never once considered that Elsa might be implied to be a lesbian, nor did it even occur to me to even call her sexuality into question. Are people really so uncomfortable about sexuality that any character not proven to be straight MUST be because the character was meant to be homosexual? She didn't have a love interest because she didn't. She's 18! She has an entire off-screen "happily ever after" to potentially meet a love interest.

Anyway, I sorta saw the twist coming, to the point where when the movie was over, I wasn't sure what you meant by a big shocking twist in your video review (that I checked out shortly before leaving to catch the movie). I won't say that I fully saw it, but there was this niggling doubt in the back of my head the entire time, so when the twist presented itself I wasn't as shocked as maybe I should have been. Rather my reaction was "So THAT'S why things were seeming a little off". Though I suppose that my reaction having a capitalized "that" should have my cue that "the twist" was revealed.

I think the technical side of the Movie was underappreciated. The tech created almost photorealistic snow, amazing Ice Effects with multiple shaders, and the stormy sea scene had probably more polygons than any animation scene before (which is why they didn'T show more than a few seconds of it).

Just my two cents.

I'd... Never in my wildest dreams even imagine this sort of relative bravery from Disney, of all places. Dearie me. These certainly are interesting times. I hope their commitment to reflection and evolution is well rewarded.

One thing I rather like is that it stands proof that you can attempt a deconstruction without excessive cynicism.

I'm very pleased that I got to know of it, I'd never think to look twice past the (abyssmal) advert campaign. Honestly, if this film ends up suffering for it, I hope they have their marketing department shot. It's Disney, surely they have at least one firing squad?

I think it'd be safe to say that I have children, it will become mandatory viewing in the Muspelheimian household.

Well... I may actually have to consider this. A completely shocking twist, that works... Awesome.

I just got back from seeing the movie. My friend leaned over and said that he wasn't so sure about Hans after the song, but I just brushed him off. Needless to say, when the reveal came, I was floored (felt my blood run a bit cool, ha ha) and he leaned over and said, "I knew it!"

I like the fact that Anna saved herself. No prince, no kiss, no waiting to be rescued (after a certain point). She did it herself, which is another thing that I think Disney broke with tradition with.

Makes me wonder though. If the movie succeeds, will they credit that to the marketing? If the movie fails, will they credit that to the twist and message?

The comparisons to Beauty and the Beast make me very happy about this film, I'll see it when i can. I'm not a big fan of the whole 'experience things cold' especially with a movie that isn't really geared towards that in a mystery thriller way.

I much prefer some context so spoilers don't really 'ruin' the experience for me, especially when half the time the modern cinema experience is such that it's very hard to absorb much of a film first time round, especially when parents are giving their ADD riddled kids smartphones to play with for half of the movie. As such much of the time i buy things when they come to home media.

I love Beauty and the Beast. The music is one of my favorites from any film... ever. Gaston is such a biting character because he's someone we can recognize, his villainy is one of pure musculature Ego. A wall of ignorant muscle. He'd fit in very well in the NFL.

Interesting, but I don't think the film deserves quite that much kudos. Largely because as Bob points out it relies entirely on it being a Disney movie to have any kind of real impact. The central idea of role reversals and such is actually kind of a stereotype, and that includes children's fare nowadays. Most anime is actually intended for a fairly young audience for example, and we've seen good guys and bad guys changing roles by the final act plenty of times. Heck back in the 1990s "Gundam Wing" pretty much decided to play this basic kind of game, starting out pretty stereotypical, but had everyone apparently change apparent alligiences at least once making it so you weren't entirely sure what the sides were going to look like come the finale. I think that was originally made in 1995, so it's almost 20 years old, and it's hardly unique (just an example I'm using because it had some mainstream success on US television). In short I'm not sure you can really claim a fake out dependent on your own tropes anything to write home about.

Then of course there is what I like to call "The Superman Factor" that is to say that I detest people trying to make everything edgy, grimdark, morally ambigious, and filled with tons of angst because it's considered to be "deeper" or "more realistic and relevant". Something like "Superman" is supposed to be kind of corny, upbeat, and in the end pretty bloody optimistic. The attempts to remake Superman as a more dark, edgy, and angst driven character miss the entire point OF the character, and by trying to rework him that way also cheapen other "darker" works because they tend to function by having something like "Superman' to compare them to. As odd as it is, the old "Superman/Gen-13" kind of said it bed, Superman is not fashionable, he has never been fashionable, what he is, is the one thing you can absolutely rely on. The point of Superman is, that no matter how bad things get, he will always, save the day and have things coming up roses, and he's not supposed to be wallowing in emotional pain when he does it.

This applies to something like "Frozen" because really I think Disney's work provides a backbone of tradition and optimism that let's people get away from all the crap in real life, and also provides a counterpoint to other, darker, works. Sure "Love At First Sight" doesn't happen very often for example, but it's wonderful when it does, and ultimately presents a sort of optimistic outlook people can enjoy in getting away from reality. While what they did here isn't terrible, I tend to think this messing around with their format is akin to people deciding they want to do things like re-envision Superman as something less than the world saving paragon he's supposed to be, again and again, in doing this kind of thing I think something like "Frozen" ultimately cheapens itself and misses the entire point of the brand it's a part of. What's more, if it's going to play in this league, it shouldn't be given a pass just because it's a Disney movie, in rating it fairly you should start bringing up material that handled the same kind of messages for a young audience, at which point you need to start comparing "Frozen" to the plots and lead ins of various animes, youth oriented novels, movies, and TV shows and the like, at which point it becomes "visually spectacular, but ultimately flat" warranting little more than a "C". The only reason to rate it higher is if your basically projecting some kind of counter-culture victory onto Disney.

I'll also say in closing that kids today have enough to be depressed about, without turning Prince Charming into a sleaze in a Disney movie. Closer to reality it might be, but when your dealing with concerns over youth suicide, mass shootings by kids, and everything else, I'm not sure a movie that is reliant on the tropes in it's own series, pulling more or less a "surprise! we were lying to you the whole time" kind of move is exactly the kind of thing Disney should be doing. Disney is supposed to be... I don't know... like audio-visual comfort food.

Therumancer:
Disney should be doing. Disney is supposed to be... I don't know... like audio-visual comfort food.

And ya know, funny thing about comfort food, it sometimes can give you diarrhea.

It's great to have the old stuff in out comfort zone to rely on, but sometimes things need to be shaken up, and I think this did that rather well. Not everything has a happy ending, and the closest people can and will betray you as Bob pointed out. It was a neat little subversion of tropes, but it's not the end of the world. I think you do a discredit to kids and teenagers by insinuating that they might not be able to handle it. True things aren't that great, but I hardly think something like this coming from a Disney movie is anything to be worried about. I also don't agree that this is anything to be likened to that Abortion of a film Man of Steel.

This is something that a lot of shows have been doing lately, and frankly, I think they need to. Change has to come in some form or another otherwise you get stagnation and rot. I'm NOT in any way a fan of the concept "Tough Love" or any stupid twisting of its meaning. I think we need what you mentioned, but I don't think it should remain dominant in the children's sphere of entertainment. I've heard the saying, "Nothing will destroy a happy child more than his first day of school." Now, that saying is a bit of stretch, but it does have application. A sheltered child finally getting thrown into the world by way of school is going to learn things. Sometimes things go to shit, sometimes you don't get what you want, sometimes things don't go as planned, and sometimes bad things happen to good people. The world is less idealic. And I think having a little taste of that in our kids entertainment as a cautionary tale isn't so bad, in fact it's good, and more importantly, its wise.

Heck, MLP even did this with the finale of its first season. All the 6 main ponies were so hyped for this Ball and they all had their dreams and ideas of what would happen when they finally got there. When it happened, every single one had a crappy time and many of their plans and desires backfired. It wasn't shit, but it certainly wasn't ideal and what they wanted. Learning to cope with something like that is healthy.

Therumancer:
snip

I think the movies still plenty optimistic considering how happy the ending still is. Kristoph learns to lower his cynism about humanity, Anna gets a more healthy relationship then her original one (even if Hans was the kind of guy he pretended to be), Elsa can use her powers and be loved for it, and Olaf gets to experience summer without dying. Everything ends positively, they just had to go though bad times to get there. Its the same kind of struggle that any main character form the disney renaissance has to go though, they are all a long ways form snow white. Aladins attempts to be someone he's not drives everyone around him away. Simba's abandonment of realty and responceablity nearly causes the destruction of his entire homeland. Hell Hunchback is way darker, in which Quasi has to take the entire movie to realize that Frolo is poisoning his mind with self hatetred, and in the end is denied the love of his life and has to move on. But in all the movies form the era the characters have to overcome a struggle and better themselves which makes the rewards in the end so much sweater. I don't think putting in a betrayal makes the struggle to harsh, the movie is far from depressing.

Given the Disney canon, the behavior of the character in question, everything, the twist totally WOULD have worked on me had they not drawn so much damn attention to it. Having characters openly speculate about a potential twist is a good way of making that twist pretty unsurprising once it follows through. I feel like the film showed its hand a little more than it should have. On the other hand, it'll totally blow kids away and, as your article points out, the deeper connotations really mean a lot. Still a great movie on the whole - wonderful cast, good music, visually wonderful. I hadn't noticed that about the LGBT thing, but it totally fits - adds an even more progressive read to what was already a considerably progressive movie for Disney. Huge step up from Tangled IMO.

Ishal:

Therumancer:
Disney should be doing. Disney is supposed to be... I don't know... like audio-visual comfort food.

And ya know, funny thing about comfort food, it sometimes can give you diarrhea.

It's great to have the old stuff in out comfort zone to rely on, but sometimes things need to be shaken up, and I think this did that rather well. Not everything has a happy ending, and the closest people can and will betray you as Bob pointed out. It was a neat little subversion of tropes, but it's not the end of the world. I think you do a discredit to kids and teenagers by insinuating that they might not be able to handle it. True things aren't that great, but I hardly think something like this coming from a Disney movie is anything to be worried about. I also don't agree that this is anything to be likened to that Abortion of a film Man of Steel.

This is something that a lot of shows have been doing lately, and frankly, I think they need to. Change has to come in some form or another otherwise you get stagnation and rot. I'm NOT in any way a fan of the concept "Tough Love" or any stupid twisting of its meaning. I think we need what you mentioned, but I don't think it should remain dominant in the children's sphere of entertainment. I've heard the saying, "Nothing will destroy a happy child more than his first day of school." Now, that saying is a bit of stretch, but it does have application. A sheltered child finally getting thrown into the world by way of school is going to learn things. Sometimes things go to shit, sometimes you don't get what you want, sometimes things don't go as planned, and sometimes bad things happen to good people. The world is less idealic. And I think having a little taste of that in our kids entertainment as a cautionary tale isn't so bad, in fact it's good, and more importantly, its wise.

Heck, MLP even did this with the finale of its first season. All the 6 main ponies were so hyped for this Ball and they all had their dreams and ideas of what would happen when they finally got there. When it happened, every single one had a crappy time and many of their plans and desires backfired. It wasn't shit, but it certainly wasn't ideal and what they wanted. Learning to cope with something like that is healthy.

The thing is though that there are plenty of other sources that do exactly what Frozen did, and far better, without relying on existing tropes by the production company to make the central "deception" work on the audience. It's been like that for years. My point is that Disney's work represents what you compare those other works too, being the comfort zone other things are supposed to play around with, not to play around with themselves. Disney hasn't ever really been truly stagnant as it does what it does well, and has been able to make a bundle year after year pretty much without fail. "Frozen" seems to be the result of some greedy, cigar smoking exec, sitting there and looking at darker, youth oriented literature, and saying "you know, we'll make a bundle doing that, and when we do it we'll shock people and get even more attention because nobody will expect it from us". In the process entirely missing the entire point of their own product and what made them successful to begin with.

To be honest when I use "Superman" as an example, I'm not just talking about the most recent movie. I'm talking about all the attempts to do this to the character, starting with the whole "Death and Return of Superman" where he was supposed to come back as a more grimdark character even after getting his powers back (before that we had black clad superman with guns... I kid you not). It didn't work. Recently in the comics the most recent DC reboot has had Superman being a much more angst driven character as well (or they did) less of a paragon, and certainly not entirely for "Truth, Justice, and The American Way" which is the defining tagline for the character. The of course we had "Superman Returns" which was pretty much "let's make an angst ridden metrosexual superman who returns to earth and faces relationship issues with what's supposed to be his perfect true love, to show how not-so-super he is despite all the powers", then of course we had "Man Of Steel" which as you pointed out was kind of an abortion right from the trailers, instead of Superman being a respected icon that inspires everyone, let's have a superman coming out of hiding and dealing with a world that doesn't really trust or respect him, and get into his head over that as a central element of the movie. Superman more or less trying to prove himself to the world, as opposed to being an ideal for everyone else to aspire to.

Those changes largely happened because of the success of dark comic stories, the ones about fairly brutal heroes with emotional problems, angst, and bad home lives, who aren't loved for saving everyone, and certainly aren't the types of guys to finish a story by replacing a toppled American Flag on top of the capital building, or have cheering crowds happy to see them when they fly by to save the day, relieved by the mere sight of the hero. The thing is those characters work because of guys like Superman who show it the idealistic way and have it work, no strings attached. Those stories lose meaning without anything to act as a counterpoint to.

What's more stories like say "Irredeemable" and one version of "Supreme Power" (which was a reboot of Squadron Supreme, Hyperion being Marvel's version of Superman in an alternate earth) asked a lot of the questions these movies did. Indeed the whole point of "Irredeemable" is that their version of Superman, called The Plutonian, basically goes off his rocker due to everyone being scared of him and plotting behind his back because he's so powerful. He eventually pretty much gives them what they are afraid of. In "Supreme Power" Hyperion is pretty much mistrusted by the same government that he works for because of his power, and it covers a lot of the same material, although I don't believe he ever goes off the deep end (though I don't remember finishing that series, which for all I know could still be ongoing). Those stories work largely because of the default "Real Superman" and how he functions and the fact that it works for him, and how he remains iconic and more or less pure even when he runs into concepts like "Department K" or finds out that guys like Batman have contingency plans in place to potentially kick his butt. Indeed he meets evil versions of himself that have gone off the deep end, and comes away from it more or less unphased in the long run. The way how Superman shakes it all off, and still saves the day, remaining more or less untouched is pretty much the essence of the character and what makes him Superman.

When it comes to Disney, it's pretty much the "Superman" of youth entertainment. The other stuff by other companies which subvert it's tropes, the "Irredeemable" and "Supreme Power" equivilents in kids animation, are already out there. When the original does it, well it's not cool, because in part people can enjoy the weird spins on the format because they know the "real" version is out there still.

To be honest, if Disney wanted to make some bucks off the subversion of their own tropes as opposed to just letting everyone else do it, it should have used another label ad maintained distance from it. Disney has a few sub-companies just for that kind of thing already (I could be wrong, but I believe Miramax and Dimension are both associated with Disney for example). Much like how DC decided to use "Wildstorm" (which will be much missed) to play around with concepts like "What if The Justice League decided to try and rule a twisted version of earth under their own high principles using force, dictating terms to nations both big and small, and acting as global enforcers of their own declarations and policies", and "What if Superman and Batman were gay lovers?". "The Authority" (one of my favorite,
now sadly defunct, titles) was pretty much that in a nutshell. Had DC had The Justice League pretty much take over the USA directly people would have freaked out, ditto for having Superman and Batman get hitched (despite the fact that some people would probably cheer in the short term for political reasons), that's why all of these tropes were subverted under an entirely different label and in no way associated with the main continuity in any way for a very long time (and later when they brought Stormwatch into the main DC universe, or so I heard, they apparently sterilized almost the entire thing of pretty much everything Wildstorm-like with nuclear fire to keep away the taint).

At the end of the day we'll have to agree to disagree, at the end of the day Disney did it, and they did it under their own label. I don't think it was a good idea, but at the same time I don't think it's the end of the world as long as they don't make a habit out of it. Unlike Bob I do not think it's especially praiseworthy. Released under almost any other label (Disney owned or not) I wouldn't be saying this, I pretty much feel that like Superman, Disney's movies belong on a very specific pedestal, being perfect as they are, for what they are meant to do.

As someone who grew up watching those old Disney princess movies, its pretty amazing to see a movie where they go and reverse themselves on a lot of the central themes they had established over the years.

There was one thing that happened that hasn't been mentioned, but I loved seeing it in the movie. At the end, Kristoff deliberately states to Anna that he would like to kiss her. It's a minor thing, but promoting the idea of proactive consent is also quite outside the box and I loved seeing it.

I'm starting to realize that it's impossible to tell this kind of story without this parallel being drawn.

Just got home from this movie.

Loved every second of it and it had me pining for when I watched Lion King and other Disney classics for the first time.

I was expecting the ending to be more of "Elsa kisses Anna on the cheek to thaw her", but holy shit was it better than that.

So pleased with that movie. I want to watch it again. Might go tomorrow.

WhiteTigerShiro:
Are people really so uncomfortable about sexuality that any character not proven to be straight MUST be because the character was meant to be homosexual? She didn't have a love interest because she didn't. She's 18! She has an entire off-screen "happily ever after" to potentially meet a love interest.

I don't think people would be jumping to that conclusion (metaphorical or otherwise) if it were "only" that she has no onscreen romantic interest. But when coupled with the fact that her story is cast as a coming-out narrative - she's been (literally) in a closet most of her life because of a "difference" she was born with, can't control and fears will make her ostracized, she flees her home/hometown, with the safety of distance can finally cut loose and experiment with said "difference," and by doing so becomes her true-self and concludes that her "difference" is not only okay but kind of awesome and joyous... in that context, it paints a plausible (if by no means definitive) picture IMO.

MovieBob:

WhiteTigerShiro:
Are people really so uncomfortable about sexuality that any character not proven to be straight MUST be because the character was meant to be homosexual? She didn't have a love interest because she didn't. She's 18! She has an entire off-screen "happily ever after" to potentially meet a love interest.

I don't think people would be jumping to that conclusion (metaphorical or otherwise) if it were "only" that she has no onscreen romantic interest. But when coupled with the fact that her story is cast as a coming-out narrative - she's been (literally) in a closet most of her life because of a "difference" she was born with, can't control and fears will make her ostracized, she flees her home/hometown, with the safety of distance can finally cut loose and experiment with said "difference," and by doing so becomes her true-self and concludes that her "difference" is not only okay but kind of awesome and joyous... in that context, it paints a plausible (if by no means definitive) picture IMO.

Yeah, looking at it from that angle, I can see how people might come to the conclusion that she's meant to be a metaphor for homosexuality. If nothing else, it's definitely a better excuse than what I thought was leading people to jump to that conclusion.

Wholeheartedly agree Bob.

That was one of the most well executed twists I've seen in a children's film.

Meander112:
There was one thing that happened that hasn't been mentioned, but I loved seeing it in the movie. At the end, Kristoff deliberately states to Anna that he would like to kiss her. It's a minor thing, but promoting the idea of proactive consent is also quite outside the box and I loved seeing it.

I like that bit too. It was nice they didn't have these characters go straight into marriage like these kinds of movies usually do.

ShirowShirow:
Makes me wonder though. If the movie succeeds, will they credit that to the marketing? If the movie fails, will they credit that to the twist and message?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/02/movies/frozen-disneys-new-fairy-tale-is-no-2-at-box-office.html?hpw&rref=arts

To answer your question, it would appear the (in my opinion at least) totally incompetent marketing team is getting the credit. To be fair, we don't (and never will know) if the movie would have been a success if it was advertised as what it was - a character driven story about the relationship between two estranged sisters and concerns about self-acceptance)- as opposed to a nondescript "family adventure movie" that it appeared to be.

I had totally written it off until I saw moviebob's review. Buuuuut on the other hand, if it WERE accurately represented, maybe there would have been far fewer attendees.

WhiteTigerShiro:

MovieBob:
More than a few critics and commentators have wondered/suggested that perhaps we're meant to "read" Elsa as being a lesbian, with her powers acting as an unsubtle metaphor for the same the way it does in the X-Men movies - she was, after all, born this way.

I think that sentiment reads a little more into the mentality of the general public than it does for Frozen's narrative. Having just got back from the movie, I never once considered that Elsa might be implied to be a lesbian, nor did it even occur to me to even call her sexuality into question. Are people really so uncomfortable about sexuality that any character not proven to be straight MUST be because the character was meant to be homosexual? She didn't have a love interest because she didn't. She's 18! She has an entire off-screen "happily ever after" to potentially meet a love interest.

Yea I agree, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with sexuality. However, that question of the people being uncomfortable is unfair and misleading as to why it was mentioned in the first place. The movie used plenty of the essential gayngst dressing kind of stuff: themes of the 'pressure to be normal' and 'overconscientious of societal norms leads to misery' along with the 'dangers of misguided overprotective parents' to name just a few without getting too spoilery or further overlapping with what moviebob talked about. Not saying straight people can't experience these things, but when an entertainment piece touches on these specific subjects, it's usually to talk about a character's non-straight sexuality. It's a media-based conditioned perception.

If the subtext was supposed to be that the queen was a lesbian, that makes the implications kind of unfortunate, doesn't it? What with her isolating herself because of the near-guaranteed accidental slaying of anyone in close physical contact with her and so on.

I read it more as "introvert princess, extrovert princess". You've got the girl that freaks out when anyone's even looking at her personal space (but has a great time when she's alone building snow-forts), and you've got the girl that wants to marry a guy after he's nice to her for a single evening. Introvert has to learn that things will go smoother if she communicates with people occasionally, extrovert has to learn to temper her decision-making with some degree of suspicion.

By the end of the story, both girls have moved far enough to the middle to be functional... but they still have the same personalities. Having the introvert happily married off at the end would kill the entire message of introversion not making someone the devil, because it would imply she was only happy when "cured" of preferring to be alone.

Prince Charming not being so charming? Gee, where have I seen that, before?

Snarkiness aside, it's cool to see Disney, the Factory of Happy Endings, apply such a twist to spice things up for the next generation.

This is completely off-topic, but does anyone else think that the titles of Disney's CGI fairy tale movies are rather terrible?

Tangled and Frozen are just so generic and undescriptive.

Took my 5 year old daughter to it this weekend and we both loved it.

I struggle to find shows that I feel good about her watching, and Frozen made it near the top of the list. Yes, Disney is getting extra credit for doing this, but that's largely because they are otherwise so bad at it, but also so prevalent everywhere else in life.

You can see Mulan at Disneyland - but she's always in the formal attire that she ruins at the beginning of the film. Pink as can be.

Merida is there and generally armed.

That's about it for Disney princesses with a substantial amount of agency.

With Frozen, Disney has doubled the number of self-reliant princesses.

And, theoretically (not sure if he'll ever actually be there), they have added a

to their Villains line-up.

I am absolutely okay with this.

Can we make a deal where you WON'T write spoiler articles until at least TWO WEEKS AFTER a film or TV show's major debut?

Because seriously. This is stupid.

I always read the actual ending not as Anna's love for Elsa undoing the curse, but Elsa finally being like "my sister was willing to sacrifice herself to save me" and finally understanding Anna and that being what did it. That might be just me, though.

That being said, it was a really well-executed twist that played with your expectations, and I don't know if the ad campaign was there to in part try to get audiences with the necessary expectations into the theater, but it seemed like it was successful in doing so.

Smokescreen:
Can we make a deal where you WON'T write spoiler articles until at least TWO WEEKS AFTER a film or TV show's major debut?

Because seriously. This is stupid.

Not really, this is a Disney princess movie on a video gaming website, its a fair assumption that the 'this is actually good' message could take 2 weeks by word of mouth before people would actually go out and see it.

I think Bob's one of the few critics to actually catch the relevance of this film - particularly in understanding how different kids in the target age range could respond and conceivably turn out from having this in their developmental repertoire. It's one of those subtle touches that could seriously affect a generation, and those kinds of things often happen under the critical radar, and for good reason. It's just surprising to see it from a Disney film again. I would argue, however, a few minor points, such as while Anna certainly did make the sacrifice that was responsible for unthawing her own curse, it was Elsa's love, the one thing she had truly been holding back, that was the real cure. In that sense, it was ultimately mutual but there's something about the way Bob puts it that seems like too much of a Kung Fu Panda philosophy than what I believe actually happened in the film. Also, I think it's silly to read lesbian context into Elsa, even though just by being a character that overcomes repression she certainly is loaded with LGBT approval potential! If anything, magic is what she truly keeps in her closet, and that is a metaphor for something other than sexuality, especially given that she isolates herself to explore it. Artists and personalities of particular kinds understand the metaphor very well, especially artists that are forward thinking enough to dare to stir the status quo, whether it be with something as non-volatile as a kid's holiday cartoon or quite otherwise. Awesome work, mate :)

Therumancer:
This applies to something like "Frozen" because really I think Disney's work provides a backbone of tradition and optimism that let's people get away from all the crap in real life, and also provides a counterpoint to other, darker, works. Sure "Love At First Sight" doesn't happen very often for example, but it's wonderful when it does, and ultimately presents a sort of optimistic outlook people can enjoy in getting away from reality. While what they did here isn't terrible, I tend to think this messing around with their format is akin to people deciding they want to do things like re-envision Superman as something less than the world saving paragon he's supposed to be, again and again, in doing this kind of thing I think something like "Frozen" ultimately cheapens itself and misses the entire point of the brand it's a part of. What's more, if it's going to play in this league, it shouldn't be given a pass just because it's a Disney movie, in rating it fairly you should start bringing up material that handled the same kind of messages for a young audience, at which point you need to start comparing "Frozen" to the plots and lead ins of various animes, youth oriented novels, movies, and TV shows and the like, at which point it becomes "visually spectacular, but ultimately flat" warranting little more than a "C". The only reason to rate it higher is if your basically projecting some kind of counter-culture victory onto Disney.

I think I'm gonna have to agree with most of this. Because honestly, the twist DOES seem pretty forced. I mean it makes sense from an isolated motivation standpoint (wanting to marry a princess to gain power for once in his life, seeing as how was pretty much the runt of his 12 brother family), but I dunno. Maybe if they wouldn't have made Hans so gosh darn likable to start off.

Love Is An Open Door was a totally fun duet song he and Anna had. I liked how they vibed so well and had so much fun chemistry together. And they DID talk about stuff together and had things in common and what not. It did feel like they were legitimately getting to know each other through the fun date they had. Sure it was just a first date, but an AWESOME first date that sometimes does happen when the two of you just click. And even throughout the rest of the film he was acting all legit cool and noble and Good Guy Hans. Bob namedrops PUA, but even then you can tell when a guy is being sincere and when a guy is just using canned lines. So when the axe is dropped and he's all "Muhahaha foolish girl! I never loved you!, I just wasn't feeling it. Seriously, all the dude was missing was a mustache to twirl...THAT'S probably why people found it so 'unpredictable'. Gaston's descent into villiany adds up and feels real when you take everything we've seen and known about him into account. Hans's didn't. They avoided one cliche only to run smack into another one.

This movie already had a strong tragic conflict between the sisters that it didn't NEED a designated antagonist to shoehorn in at the last second. They could have still found a way around that and still kept all the misunderstandings and what not around that lead to the climatic finish. That's basically what this entire movie was indeed all about; all these misunderstandings we all read about each other because of differences tend to cause a lot of problems. Love is understanding. Yada yada yada. Just stay on that path and drop the forced "GOTCHA!" aspect.

Like I dunno...have Hans and Anna kiss, but the spell is still there because they really aren't in true love. Anna's like "bwhaaa?", then recollects back to why Hans asked her to marry her so quickly. He sheepishly admits to just wanting her hand for the throne because of his 13th in line insecurities, but quickly redirects the convo with "But that doesn't matter, stay here while I stop your sister for good!" because that's the conclusion he came up with after Elsa told him that she couldn't stop the winter on her own. First Anna freaks out like "DUDE DON'T KILL MY SISTER, but that's also when she pieces together that it's the true love between sisters that's going to thing to break the curse. He later tries to apologize for being kind of a dick (instead of being 100% pure dickbag), but still gets shoo'd off, learning a lesson of his own. Give Kristoff his new sled and you can do whatever you want with him. Me, I don't think this movie needed that romantic pairing either, since the whole message is supposed to subvert the "Love After One Day" trope.

...yet there the trolls were doing just that...

...ya know what, the more I think about it, fuck those trolls. Those little assholes pretty much started all of this AND made things worse, but they're off to the side and don't get any blame because "D'awwww aren't they so fun and adorable?" I mean, how were they any better than Hans? They were ready to immediately wed their Kristoff off to a girl he's just met as well, completely dismissing the fact that she had a fiance they didn't even know. If anything keeps this film from being up there with the Disney Greats, it's those trolls. They're SUPER problematic morally and just script-wise once you really start to break down their role in the story.

I would ultimately give it like a B-, 7.5/10. There was a lot I really liked about it, but more cracks start to show when you hold it under scrutiny.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here