So I finally saw Frozen...

[Avilan the Grey]

...And I love it.
(Figure I'll avoid Necroing).

Geographically... It's quite obvious that the story is set in Not!Norway. But the other countries we hear of?
"Weaseltown" is definitely Not!England. "Southern Isles" is most likely Not!Denmark.

Also, for once the cameo in the movie is not even out of place. Eugene and Rapunzel (seen at the ball, if you look quickly) are after all royals from a country... which actually fit, time wise. This movie is set "Sort of early 19th century" and so were Tangled. A lot of weird things like people still using crossbows, but uniforms and fashion (among non-duckling thugs) was very "early 19th century".

[Scowling Dragon]

Well good for you. And all the other people that liked it.

[Avilan the Grey]

Well good for you. And all the other people that liked it.

The way you go on about this movie it's almost like you'd think it's a Bioware product, like Dragon Age 2...

[Lord Raziere]

oh don't mind him Avilan, Scowling Dragon has been here for years I don't remember seeing him say that he liked something even once. I think he just likes being grumpy. or at least dislikes most of what I like.

but yeah, Frozen is a good film. I think what really made it work was the music that helped capture the fairy tale nature of the whole thing, and while still making a couple left turns from the usual fairy tale faire. its a happy, bright fairy tale but still one that is creative and doesn't trod out any usual plot, all the characters motivations are believable, sure there is still the villain but he isn't evil for evil's sake, he is the kind of political evil you'd expect to see out say, Westeros where he knows he is in a bad position for any kind of inheritance and so seeks an alternate route to power.

[Avilan the Grey]

oh don't mind him Avilan, Scowling Dragon has been here for years I don't remember seeing him say that he liked something even once. I think he just likes being grumpy. or at least dislikes most of what I like.

but yeah, Frozen is a good film. I think what really made it work was the music that helped capture the fairy tale nature of the whole thing, and while still making a couple left turns from the usual fairy tale faire. its a happy, bright fairy tale but still one that is creative and doesn't trod out any usual plot, all the characters motivations are believable, sure there is still the villain but he isn't evil for evil's sake, he is the kind of political evil you'd expect to see out say, Westeros where he knows he is in a bad position for any kind of inheritance and so seeks an alternate route to power.

Yes, I feel everybody's motivations are fairly realistic. A prince without hope to be anything but the cute younger brother in his own court sees a chance to become king? With the right mindset, why not? An elderly "ambassador" (which also means "spy" to a degree. Still does, to a point) that tries to find out the secrets of the royal family...? Definitely.

Etc.

[MLai]

sure there is still the villain but he isn't evil for evil's sake, he is the kind of political evil you'd expect to see out say, Westeros where he knows he is in a bad position for any kind of inheritance and so seeks an alternate route to power.

That's the one thing prominently childish about the film: The evil prince being eeeevil.
This movie really didn't need an antagonist who is a villian.
It was addressed in past Frozen threads. The prince could very well have been a good-hearted pragmatist who wasn't in true true love with Anna, but who didn't have to be malevolent either. He was just the only one available to make the difficult choice based on limited information (kill Elsa, end her witchcraft, save the entire country).
He could have done all the above, and the plot wouldn't have to change at all (except for his villain monologue scenes). Except there's no clear cartoony villain.

[Avilan the Grey]

I must say I had never heard of the story this was based on. "The Snow Queen" was not even a blip on my radar before this movie.
No, I will not read it, because I despise HC Anderssen. Seriously. I have never liked any of the stories I have read, and have only found him boring and depressing, and not neccesarely in that order.

He DOES seem to be MUCH more popular in the US than in Sweden, for some reason though... Of course that might be because all Swedish kids since the 40ies were fed Astrid Lindgren instead

Regarding Hans: I disagree. I like him. And I understand his reasoning. Back then (or "then", the fantasy replacement of say 1830) Royals could still hold all the power, and still be psychopaths without anyone noticing or finding it odd.

[Saph]

I got around to watching it a few weeks ago. I liked the sisters, but the male characters were a bit bland. Wasn't so much of a problem with whatshisname, the generic love interest (since he didn't really have anything to do anyway), but compared to the really cool Disney villains, the evil prince was just lame. (He doesn't even get a good song!)

Honestly, I think Mlai's right – it would have worked better without a primary villain. Elsa's issues were interesting enough on their own without shoehorning in the evil prince plot.

[MLai]

Regarding Hans: I disagree. I like him. And I understand his reasoning. Back then (or "then", the fantasy replacement of say 1830) Royals could still hold all the power, and still be psychopaths without anyone noticing or finding it odd.

It's not about whether or not he's believable. It's about bucking the trend and breaking tropes. I mean, try to name one other Disney movie which could have worked just the same without the antagonist (or 1 of the main antagonists) being a villain (or a scary/unsympathetic character).

Heck I'll answer my own question: Dumbo (1941). Bambi (1942).

[Brother Oni]

It's not about whether or not he's believable. It's about bucking the trend and breaking tropes. I mean, try to name one other Disney movie which could have worked just the same without the antagonist (or 1 of the main antagonists) being a villain (or a scary/unsympathetic character).

Heck I'll answer my own question: Dumbo (1941). Bambi (1942).

Is that just the animated movies or are we including live action like Mary Poppins as well? And to nip it in the bud, that's the offical version, not recut trailers, like Scary Mary.

[Avilan the Grey]

Reading around in different forums and I found this theory interesting:

Is Disney building a coherent world?
Not only is the main protagonists from Tangled there as a cameo, but as I said before their kingdom is in the same period. Also the named kingdoms. Where was Tangled taking place, geographically? My guess would be Not!Germany. That gives us Not!Norway, Not!England and Not!Denmark and Not!Germany.

Also, a thing a lot of people has failed to grasp (This was probably all discussed in the original thread...):
Hans never does a face-heel turn. He was evil from the start. He's just not obvious about it.

[MLai]

Is Disney building a coherent world?
Not only is the main protagonists from Tangled there as a cameo, but as I said before their kingdom is in the same period..

Jayngfet can answer this in more detail, but I think the same troupe of Disney animators did both movies. Same lead artist, same "new Disney animation technique", etc etc.
That can easily lead to "Hey wouldn't it be cool if..."

[Wayac]

I mean, try to name one other Disney movie which could have worked just the same without the antagonist (or 1 of the main antagonists) being a villain (or a scary/unsympathetic character).

Maybe Beauty and the Beast? Their defining moments are Beast letting her go to her father and Belle returning to him, neither of which need to be necessitated by Gaston being villainous.

Honestly, I think Mlai's right – it would have worked better without a primary villain. Elsa's issues were interesting enough on their own without shoehorning in the evil prince plot.

Perhaps they could've gone with Elsa turning evil, then have Anya willing to sacrifice herself anyway to save her sister and have that turn her good again. I dunno.

[Avilan the Grey]

Jayngfet can answer this in more detail, but I think the same troupe of Disney animators did both movies. Same lead artist, same "new Disney animation technique", etc etc.
That can easily lead to "Hey wouldn't it be cool if..."

Yes.

The main points though are others:
1. For the first time ever, when not set in the actual real world (aka New Orleans, London) Disney is naming the kingdoms.
2. Both movies seems to take place in the same time period, faux early 19th century but with bows instead of guns.

[Traab]

Honestly, i didnt like the film much. The start bored me to tears so I left the living room. I think I ended up quitting halfway through the coronation, before everything started to happen. Let it go was a cool song though. I came back to watch the big third act finale and it was pretty cool. I enjoyed the twist of the prince and how Anya's cure would work.

[Avilan the Grey]

Honestly, i didnt like the film much. The start bored me to tears so I left the living room. I think I ended up quitting halfway through the coronation, before everything started to happen. Let it go was a cool song though. I came back to watch the big third act finale and it was pretty cool. I enjoyed the twist of the prince and how Anya's cure would work.

Anna. Not Anya. Pronounced Ah-na, since it is set in Not!Scandinavia.

Anyway, I have no problem with that. I definitely am among those ranking this as one of Disney's top 5 ever.

[SuperPanda]

Perhaps they could've gone with Elsa turning evil, then have Anya willing to sacrifice herself anyway to save her sister and have that turn her good again. I dunno.

I might get called out on this but I think the point the others were making is that the movie didn't need anyone being evil at all, the plot could have worked, and possibly worked better, if Hans had just been good but cynical rather than cynical and evil.

Spoiler: How this changes things?

Show

Nothing needs to change at all until Anna comes back alive but freezing from Elsa's magic. Hans then can hold her and mourn for her rather than kiss her - explaining that he'd started to grow to like the idea of living with her, that her cheerful naivety was refreshing in a way but that he needed to make the hard calls.

He could even still put out the fire but this time saying that he was sorry he couldn't save her or make it quicker than that.

His conversation with Elsa then goes from "I was planning on killing you and your sister from the start, mwahaha" to a talking about why he'd be a better ruler than either of them. It could even fuel the storm by making Elsa afraid he was right.

Then in the snow-storm he can say he's been trying to find another way, but its clear now that the ice magic only ends with Elsa's death, that he's sorry but she'll have to die for everyone else to live.

While not needed, I'd even have Anna's sacrafice snap Elsa out of her fear and self doubt and cause her to end the winter even before Anna comes back.

Thematically it could strengthen Elsa's confidence issue arc and Anna's growing up arc at the same time. The other-all message of the film continues to be "you can save yourself - you don't need to be saved."

[Silfir]

Maybe Beauty and the Beast? Their defining moments are Beast letting her go to her father and Belle returning to him, neither of which need to be necessitated by Gaston being villainous.

Woah, Gaston absolutely had to be an utter bastard. Where the Beast has the exterior of a monster but is ultimately a decent person, Gaston is considered the epitome of handsomeness (with an entire song dedicated to all of those superficial standards of beauty and how he meets every single one of them) but is a despicable human being, allowing the movie to show twicefold that outer beauty and inner beauty are not connected in any way.

I thought Hans was executed decently and while Disney has subverted the True Love at First Sight business before along with a send-up of the Prince Charming archetype, in Enchanted, they had not pushed the subversion as far as turning the Prince Charming into a villainous character and turning "True Love" into his tool of manipulation. Could they have done without him? I'm guessing they felt they needed some sort of conflict beyond that of Elsa coming to terms with her powers and her estrangement with her sister to make a proper movie out of the whole thing, once "Let It Go" essentially did away with their plans of turning her into an all-out villain (for any length of time). Hans also hardly would've had as easy of a time scheming his way into the succession if Anna had not had to spend much of her life in virtual isolation imposed by her parents and about to be perpetuated by Elsa, so he was an effective choice when it came to showing the damage it caused.

EDIT: @SuperPanda, I'm a little confused; how would that scenario make Hans even a smidgen less villainous?

[DigoDragon]

I saw Frozen recently as well and quite enjoyed it. The music is the best part I think, and overall I'd put it in the #3 slot just behind Tangled as my top fav recent Disney films (A sword-wielding horse versus rogue with a frying pan is tough to beat for an awesome fight scene). I think the trolls were pretty cool design-wise. Had a vibe that reminded me of Jim Henson's stuff for some reason, but that's not a complaint. :)

[SuperPanda]

EDIT: @SuperPanda, I'm a little confused; how would that scenario make Hans even a smidgen less villainous?

Well it would all come down to personal moral compass on how much less evil it would make Hans.

Spoiler: Just in case

Show

Original Recipie Extra Crispy

1)Plans to seduce and kill his way to a crown. Plans to Marry into the crown and make the best of . it.
2)Notice's Anna's naivety and siezes the opportunity Same here actually
3)On seeing Elsa's curse revealed advances plans to On seeing Elsa's curse revealed is genuinely
Remove her from the scene frightened
4)When Anna goes off on her own, is only worried When Anna goes off on her own is actually worried
Until he is given power. about her people.
5) When confronting Elsa in Ice Palace, is looking When confronting Elsa in Ice Palace is looking for
for an excuse to kill her without guilt. a way to stop her without killing her.
6) When Anna comes back is delighted that she'll When Anna comes back is sad to see her suffer
die leaving him power. and can't do anything for her nor does he think it
. is possible to help her.
7). Confronting Elsa in prison monologes gleefully. When confronting Elsa in prison demands she
. stops the storm so he doesn't have to.
8.) In the storm goes into a rage. In the storm gives into his own cynicism and lack
. of faith.


Or the short version: I tend to find villains less villainous if they don't enjoy the harm them inflict. Having it obviously weigh on him but having him represent total disillusionment (and fail because he doesn't believe in love, hope, happy-endings) would make him less evil and more pitiable... to me.

[Traab]

Woah, Gaston absolutely had to be an utter bastard. Where the Beast has the exterior of a monster but is ultimately a decent person, Gaston is considered the epitome of handsomeness (with an entire song dedicated to all of those superficial standards of beauty and how he meets every single one of them) but is a despicable human being, allowing the movie to show twicefold that outer beauty and inner beauty are not connected in any way.

I thought Hans was executed decently and while Disney has subverted the True Love at First Sight business before along with a send-up of the Prince Charming archetype, in Enchanted, they had not pushed the subversion as far as turning the Prince Charming into a villainous character and turning "True Love" into his tool of manipulation. Could they have done without him? I'm guessing they felt they needed some sort of conflict beyond that of Elsa coming to terms with her powers and her estrangement with her sister to make a proper movie out of the whole thing, once "Let It Go" essentially did away with their plans of turning her into an all-out villain (for any length of time). Hans also hardly would've had as easy of a time scheming his way into the succession if Anna had not had to spend much of her life in virtual isolation imposed by her parents and about to be perpetuated by Elsa, so he was an effective choice when it came to showing the damage it caused.

EDIT: @SuperPanda, I'm a little confused; how would that scenario make Hans even a smidgen less villainous?

While admittedly the comparison of beast and gaston was a good one, he didnt start out evil. Dude lost his mind at some point. He had spent his entire life (presumably) being the big dog. The big man on campus, the alpha male and lord of all he surveys. Then this belle chick refuses him. Its like it puts this crack in his entire self image. Had she agreed, she would have been a fairly standard trophy wife, and he would have been a bit of an ass, but not evil or monstrous. But she didnt, so it breaks his image of himself. The song helped patch things up a bit, but the events that follow just seem to make things worse. Its been a long time since I watched it, but doesnt she at one point come back to the village, then leave for the beast, choosing, in gastons mind, an animal over him? At that point he goes full scale frollo from the song hellfire and loses his freaking mind.

[Cizak]

Geographically... It's quite obvious that the story is set in Not!Norway. But the other countries we hear of?
"Weaseltown" is definitely Not!England. "Southern Isles" is most likely Not!Denmark.

Weselton could be Not!Sweden, if they wanted to include all the Northern countries. The trolls live near geysers, found on Iceland, and Oaken is a sauna bather, something often considered typically Finnish.

[Jayngfet]

Jayngfet can answer this in more detail, but I think the same troupe of Disney animators did both movies. Same lead artist, same "new Disney animation technique", etc etc.
That can easily lead to "Hey wouldn't it be cool if..."

Well a consistent setting would be nice, but it proscribes connections we can't really verify, due to obvious timeline issues that'd need to be worked out since the art direction from films can go centuries apart, but certain connections are undeniable. That is to say that Tangled did happen, since Rapunzel actually cameos for a couple of seconds looking like she does in the end of her movie, and Eugene wears his costume from the wedding short, so one movie obviously follows another(fashion directions are about 50 years apart though, Tangled is 1790's while Frozen is 1840's, though both with heavy deviation). But that was something that was basically thrown in so there's no deliberate worldbuilding from film to film here. Frozen was planned after the fact so it couldn't be built to either, which is obvious since Tangled has an actual world map and the spot where Arendelle would logically be is just a vague Scandinavian mishmash. If there's any other definite links to other films, the director is being incredibly tight lipped and coy about them, as she is about many other setting or character details, throwing out joke-connections rather than confirming real ones.

Consistency from film to film though isn't really in the cards. Disney is currently trying to play fast and loose thanks to internal politics we can only really guess at except for what's been said, and isn't particularly eager to rush into things given where that's lead before. Even just a sequel to what's their highest grossing animated movie ever(before inflation) hasn't actually been confirmed, even though literally every single key figure has said multiple times they're in for it. Linking it in a real and specific way beyond being in the background would be harder though,

That's not to say you can't work out a setting on your own for fun, of course. Between the spinoff crossovers and animated series you could probably link a dozen of the fantasy films together into one setting and get a working timeline in place, but it wasn't really a conscious and regulated effort from a single developer. Which isn't to say it wouldn't be fun to adventure through on the tabletop, since we're still talking about a setting with it's own Pantheon and mythology, and there's enough repeated motifs that you can work out a good class system between them all, but that comes with a big "some assembly required" sticker on it.

[Traab]

It may also be a play on the whole pixar thing where every movie has a connection to at least one or two other films. Like the planet express pizza truck which i think shows up in one form or another in virtually every film, or you see a specific car that is also in the movie Cars. Or the shadow of the dog from Up in Ratatouille. There is a big conspiracy theory going on about it being one universe and they keep skipping along the timeline. Or maybe its just they like slapping in easter eggs.

[erikun]

I've really enjoyed Frozen, and thought it is one of the better Disney movies. That said, I will admit that the movie certainly has its faults. Perhaps not the faults that many people complain about it, but there are some things that could've been better with the story.

And I think that Hans works as an evil villain.

Spoiler: evilness

Show

The whole point, I think, was that he was doing something wrong without the stereotypical hand-wringing and mustache-twirling that goes along with typical evil villains. If he was being sneaky and scheming like the duke of Westelton then it would've been obvious that he was evil from the start. By contrast, the simple fact that he wasn't acting evil beforehand just points out that a character can have bad motivitations without the typical thematic buildup towards it - that it's possible for a character to hide their motivations, and only their actions hint at what they are planning. I wonder if some people's problem with Hans was precisely because they weren't given their genre-savviness hints before the reveal.

By contrast, making him well meaning seems like it would excuse what he did. "Well, I tried to kill you and your sister, but I have this sob story and had no other alternatives." It would just come off as weaker; far better to simply have him clearly evil if he's interested in killing people.

It actually reminds me a bit of the more recent Maleficient movie.

[Math_Mage]

Frozen's leads > Frozen's men > those goddamn trolls

Also, the way Kristoff in particular was shoehorned into the story was pretty lazy. (Which is not to say Kristoff shouldn't have been there, just that he could have been set up differently.)

But...I wanna build a snowman.

[Avilan the Grey]

The ranking varies a bit, but right now:

1. The Lion King
2. Emperor's New Groove
3. Frozen
4. Lilo & Stitch
5. The Great Mouse Detective

...Yes I might have an odd taste in Disney movies.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I must say I had never heard of the story this was based on. "The Snow Queen" was not even a blip on my radar before this movie.
No, I will not read it, because I despise HC Anderssen. Seriously. I have never liked any of the stories I have read, and have only found him boring and depressing, and not neccesarely in that order.

He DOES seem to be MUCH more popular in the US than in Sweden, for some reason though... Of course that might be because all Swedish kids since the 40ies were fed Astrid Lindgren instead

Regarding Hans: I disagree. I like him. And I understand his reasoning. Back then (or "then", the fantasy replacement of say 1830) Royals could still hold all the power, and still be psychopaths without anyone noticing or finding it odd.

For a moment I thought that Hans was Christian Anderssen again and thought you'd accidentally deleted the quote markers or had developed a split personality.

Hans never does a face-heel turn. He was evil from the start. He's just not obvious about it.

Enemy agents can still do face-heel turns.

Weselton could be Not!Sweden, if they wanted to include all the Northern countries. The trolls live near geysers, found on Iceland, and Oaken is a sauna bather, something often considered typically Finnish.

All the northern countries being independent wouldn't fit the time period though.

[Silfir]

While admittedly the comparison of beast and gaston was a good one, he didnt start out evil. Dude lost his mind at some point. He had spent his entire life (presumably) being the big dog. The big man on campus, the alpha male and lord of all he surveys. Then this belle chick refuses him. Its like it puts this crack in his entire self image. Had she agreed, she would have been a fairly standard trophy wife, and he would have been a bit of an ass, but not evil or monstrous. But she didnt, so it breaks his image of himself. The song helped patch things up a bit, but the events that follow just seem to make things worse. Its been a long time since I watched it, but doesnt she at one point come back to the village, then leave for the beast, choosing, in gastons mind, an animal over him? At that point he goes full scale frollo from the song hellfire and loses his freaking mind.

That's an accurate description of his slow descent into madness; I do fail to understand how this means he doesn't "start out" evil. Belle might very well be the first woman or person in his life who won't do what he wants - in his reaction to rejection, he showed his true colors. If Belle had given in, he would still be an absolute bastard of a human being, he just wouldn't have gotten the opportunity to prove it (just yet).

Granted that he lost his mind, but the reasons he lost his mind for do not excuse him, they only condemn him further. A human being with a shred of decency left at some point would have accepted being told "no", if grudgingly. The moment Gaston tried to have Belle's father committed to an asylum unless she agrees to be his wife, at the latest, would have placed his evil count firmly in the multiple digits of kilonazis.

It's a unifying feature of many Disney villains; they are genuinely rotten, but you can still understand how they became who they are - what kind of thinking goes on in their mind that causes them to do the things they do.

[Avilan the Grey]

Weselton could be Not!Sweden, if they wanted to include all the Northern countries. The trolls live near geysers, found on Iceland, and Oaken is a sauna bather, something often considered typically Finnish.

The guy was obviously British. IMHO, of course.