So I finally saw Frozen...

[BRC]

But...it's not an X-men style metaphor for those things. Nor are her parents trying to repress Elsa's power, just control them....Conceal it, Don't Feel It turns to Conceal, Don't Feel by Elsa's own actions and her parents show nothing but love and support even when Elsa's freezing the entire room around them. Elsa almost killed her sister by playing a game with magic witch powers (there does seem to be some kinda magic stigma, but I think that's an artifact from the earlier scripts with a Snow Queen-style villain) and her parents never so much as show an iota of anger with her about it. How can you confuse 'trying to help her control her powers' to 'forcing her to repress them'?

Just...confuses me.

I'm not sure if it was intended that way, but I've seen a decent amount of people (the same people who treat Elsa's parents like the worst parents ever) interpret Elsa's powers as a metaphor.
Her character arc certainly supports it.
First, she's trying to hide who she is.
Then, when she's exposed, she feels shame and fear, and runs away.
Then, she comes to accept herself for who she is (Let it go) and even celebrate it.
Then, at the end, she learns that not only can SHE accept herself, but that others will accept her as well.

It's an arc a lot of people can relate to, and having non-supportive parents who tried to force their kids to be "Normal" fits into that arc.

We don't know if her parents were trying to get her to control her powers, or simple to never use them, but it certainly seemed like Elsa was trying to hide. Every instance we see of Elsa struggling to control her powers involves her using them when she dosn't want to. Plus, the symbolism of her father giving her the gloves (Which she throws away when she comes to accept herself).

[Nilehus]

Slight difference between being gay and being able to kill a kingdom unintentionally. I understand where the metaphor comes from, but it's still stretched reaaally thin, at best.

[Lord Raziere]

Slight difference between being gay and being able to kill a kingdom unintentionally. I understand where the metaphor comes from, but it's still stretched reaaally thin, at best.

Jean Grey says hi. she can do a LOT worse if she goes Dark Phoenix, and X-Men has already been using their powers as a gay metaphor.

[Callos_DeTerran]

I'm not sure if it was intended that way, but I've seen a decent amount of people (the same people who treat Elsa's parents like the worst parents ever) interpret Elsa's powers as a metaphor.
Her character arc certainly supports it.
First, she's trying to hide who she is.
Then, when she's exposed, she feels shame and fear, and runs away.
Then, she comes to accept herself for who she is (Let it go) and even celebrate it.
Then, at the end, she learns that not only can SHE accept herself, but that others will accept her as well.

It's an arc a lot of people can relate to, and having non-supportive parents who tried to force their kids to be "Normal" fits into that arc.

We don't know if her parents were trying to get her to control her powers, or simple to never use them, but it certainly seemed like Elsa was trying to hide. Every instance we see of Elsa struggling to control her powers involves her using them when she dosn't want to. Plus, the symbolism of her father giving her the gloves (Which she throws away when she comes to accept herself).

Funny thing, the lyrics and visuals of Let It Go tell a very different story and I love the fact that what's said and what actually happens are so very different. There's been plenty of analysis on the matter, but I still find it cool.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by BRC
I'm not sure if it was intended that way, but I've seen a decent amount of people (the same people who treat Elsa's parents like the worst parents ever) interpret Elsa's powers as a metaphor.

I've seen a lot of people read all sorts of things into the story, and I'm quite sure that most of them never occurred to the people who actually wrote it.

Originally Posted by BRC
Then, when she's exposed, she feels shame and fear, and runs away.

Not so much shame as raw panic. At the end of the coronation ball, her worst fears have just come true: the secret she's tried so desperately to conceal is suddenly public, everything she's been dreading for years has happened and there's nothing she can do.

She's terrified; she's desperate to get away; because for Elsa, being alone is safety--for her and everyone else.

And I think we can't overlook that last part: Elsa internalized her parents' warning, and took it on as a defining burden, in large part so she can't do any further harm, especially to Anna. When Elsa flees across the fjord to the mountain, she's isolating herself for everyone's sake--or so she believes--which she tells Anna directly when Anna finds her.

Most of what Elsa and Anna do is what each believes is best for the other. That undercurrent of love is present throughout the movie; it's only at the end that it takes its final form. Shame simply isn't an element in that dynamic.

The mistake a lot of people seem to make is in trying to interpret this as somehow mapped onto some real-world social concern, instead of understanding what happens as a self-contained story. That's how the plot was developed, as something that would be internally consistent, believable and emotionally powerful.

Originally Posted by BRC
...having non-supportive parents who tried to force their kids to be "Normal" fits into that arc.

And the simple fact is that Elsa's parents were not non-supportive. They showed her kindness and love, and did absolutely everything they could to help her.

Think about it. Elsa's parents had a "spare," in Anna. They could have shipped Elsa off to a monastery and raised Anna to believe she was an only child, and prepared her to be the new queen. They could have abandoned Elsa completely, forever, and devoted themselves to Anna instead. THAT would be non-supportive.

Instead, Elsa's parents groomed her to be their successor. Hard to think of anything that shows more faith and confidence in their child.

.

[Nilehus]

Jean Grey says hi. she can do a LOT worse if she goes Dark Phoenix, and X-Men has already been using their powers as a gay metaphor.

And it's just as stretched there. Being understanding of someone's sexuality or gender is great and a message I can get behind completely. Being understanding of Xavier having a device in his basement that could kill 99% of the world in a couple minutes or Jean Gray trying to destroy the universe... Not so much. Giving the characters a trait or ability that is inhuman detracts from the message that we should accept others as they are, because being gay, bi, pan, trans, etc. IS human.

[Lord Raziere]

And it's just as stretched there. Being understanding of someone's sexuality or gender is great and a message I can get behind completely. Being understanding of Xavier having a device in his basement that could kill 99% of the world in a couple minutes or Jean Gray trying to destroy the universe... Not so much. Giving the characters a trait or ability that is inhuman detracts from the message that we should accept others as they are, because being gay, bi, pan, trans, etc. IS human.

then define "human".

[Nilehus]

then define "human".

Not having the ability to raze the earth with telepathy, for one. Not shooting concussive beams out of your eyes, sucking the life from someone with a touch, etc.

Seriously, you're arguing that you see no difference between being gay and being able to manipulate fire. That's... That's an argument I am so not interested in having.

Edit: Took immortality out of there. Science says it's possible. In theory. In the undefined future. Who knows? Should be fun.

[Lord Raziere]

Not having the ability to raze the earth with telepathy, for one. Not shooting concussive beams out of your eyes, immortality, sucking the life from someone with a touch, etc.

Seriously, you're arguing that you see no difference between being gay and being able to manipulate fire. That's... That's an argument I am so not interested in having.

well if you can't define what a human is without saying "not something else" then you have no right to call something inhuman, because you have no definition that something IS human, which means you can call anything inhuman that you want without any repercussion, so your saying that what you say is inhuman is inhuman because you say so, and not for actual reasons.

seriously your arguing that most of the characters we read in comics are not human, thats an argument I'm interested in having

edit: so random powers isn't human, but upgrading yourself with technology to become immortal is human? you define blasting fire out of your hand as inhuman, but being a person who can switch bodies through computers is completely human?

[Callos_DeTerran]

well if you can't define what a human is without saying "not something else" then you have no right to call something inhuman, because you have no definition that something IS human, which means you can call anything inhuman that you want without any repercussion, so your saying that what you say is inhuman is inhuman because you say so, and not for actual reasons.

seriously your arguing that most of the characters we read in comics are not human, thats an argument I'm interested in having

edit: so random powers isn't human, but upgrading yourself with technology to become immortal is human? you define blasting fire out of your hand as inhuman, but being a person who can switch bodies through computers is completely human?

Human=An individual that belongs to the species homo sapiens at a given moment, possessing the same genetic hallmarks as others of the species. Fact is that, in comics anyway, that the majority of characters are not humans and this is not a bad thing. One can be something other than human and still deserve all the same rights and benefits as a human, down to including the same treatment. The conflict is one of equality and acceptance, not about if you belong to the same species because that's frankly irrelevant, cause plenty of fictional characters who aren't human are capable of great and wonderful things and plenty of fictional humans have down inhuman, monstrous things. What's important is how you act, not what species you belong to.

For the record, somebody switching bodies through computers is probably not human anymore to be perfectly honest, but that kind of stuff happens.

The main point is still that there's very little actual connection between understanding of someone else's gender/sexuality and understanding of something like magic/superpowers. They're easy to make similar looking on a superficial level but honestly they're nothing alike.

EDIT: Also, just because something is being used as a metaphor (X-Men-Mutants coming out as similar to being gay) doesn't mean it's a good metaphor. Fun fact here, you may face discrimination and fear (maybe, not gay myself so I've obviously never come out as such) for coming out as gay, that's a case of someone just being prejudiced, their own opinion, or misinformation, but again...it's just treatment. To my knowledge, LGBT people do not have super-powers that allow them to devastate their surroundings, which is something to be legitimately afraid of no matter the source and especially if it's hooked up to such a shaky trigger as 'emotional control'. Another fun fact, despite X-Men being set in modern times and thus a more 'enlightened' time, the X-Men face discrimination and hate as the norm from the everyday people. In Frozen, during the ambiguous time-period of 'between crossbows and muskets' where prejudice was common as was superstition to an extent, people being afraid of Elsa is the exception rather than the norm. Heck, they aren't even scared of Elsa, just her powers and seeming inability to control them. When she freezes out her coronation party and flees outside, despite being exposed as a dangerous witch, her subjects look concerned and worried for her rather then about her.

[Nilehus]

well if you can't define what a human is without saying "not something else" then you have no right to call something inhuman, because you have no definition that something IS human, which means you can call anything inhuman that you want without any repercussion, so your saying that what you say is inhuman is inhuman because you say so, and not for actual reasons.

seriously your arguing that most of the characters we read in comics are not human, thats an argument I'm interested in having

edit: so random powers isn't human, but upgrading yourself with technology to become immortal is human? you define blasting fire out of your hand as inhuman, but being a person who can switch bodies through computers is completely human?

Find someone that can shoot fire out of their hands, and I will buy what you are saying.

Also, I never said the characters themselves are inhuman. Just the ability to teleport, turn into ice, etc. They're still very sympathetic and relateable, but their abilities are not. There was an X-Men story, I forget when I read it. Teenage boy hit puberty, and he woke up the next day. His family, neighbors, pets, animals, all gone. Vanished. Turns out he was a mutant, and he projected a field that dissolved organic matter or something. Sad, yes. Equivalent to the kid being gay, no.

(Wolverine had to snikt him, because he was the only one who could get close enough without burning away. Really sad.)

And I am not sure, honestly. I was listing things that are impossible for humans to do that the X-Men can. When/if that comes around and actually becomes a reality, I'll let you know. Don't think I'd want to do it, though.

Callos: Thank you for saying what I wanted to much more eloquently, you evil upstaging swordsage.

[Lord Raziere]

well going by your own criteria of immortality being physically possible and therefore human, its also technically possible to design cybernetic arms hooked up to a tank of napalm, all of which is then grafted onto a human so that they have cybernetic hands that shoot flame from said tank of napalm on their back, (sure completely impractical and stupid but thats not the point)

so technically, by your definition Nilehus, shooting fire out of your hands IS human, because we can design a way to make it so that we can.

[Jayngfet]

so technically, by your definition Nilehus, shooting fire out of your hands IS human, because we can design a way to make it so that we can.

We're all human.

However, we all reserve the right to observer differences.

Specifically the difference between dude boning and concussive blasts.

Because those are two very different things.

[Traab]

Its less about being inhuman and more about being dangerous. Liking your own gender isnt comparable to being able to shoot concussive blasts of energy out of your eyes that destroy everything. Fearing someone for thinking they were born the wrong gender is stupid. Fearing someone that controls the forces of nature is smart. X-men = gay rights is so freaking stupid that it boggles the mind because they arent anything alike. There actually IS something to be afraid of with mutants.

[Nilehus]

... Okay, sure.

Anyways, one major thing I liked about Frozen was that the cute animal/snowman companion was in the movie just enough. Olaf made a few jokes, saved Anna, and then when it came time for the big dramatic climax, he stepped out of the scene. Much, much better than some of their other movies in that regard, and it didn't leave me being irritated by him.

[BRC]

And the simple fact is that Elsa's parents were not non-supportive. They showed her kindness and love, and did absolutely everything they could to help her.

Think about it. Elsa's parents had a "spare," in Anna. They could have shipped Elsa off to a monastery and raised Anna to believe she was an only child, and prepared her to be the new queen. They could have abandoned Elsa completely, forever, and devoted themselves to Anna instead. THAT would be non-supportive.

Instead, Elsa's parents groomed her to be their successor. Hard to think of anything that shows more faith and confidence in their child.

.

You could interpret it a lot of ways. We don't see all that much in terms of the parents teaching Elsa. We know they sealed the castle, gave her the gloves, and the "Conceal, Don't Feel" mantra that she internalized.
Nobody's saying they didn't love her, but "I love you, I want you to be happy, being normal will make you happy, THEREFORE out of love I am going to try to force you into being "Normal" is exactly what a lot of people deal with in terms of Unsupportive parents.

What I'm saying is that when people start reading Elsa as a metaphor, which they do, that shifts their interpretation of the story.
Loving, but unsupportive parents trying to force "normalcy" on their child is part of that narrative, so that's how they interpret Elsa's parents. That's one way to interpret it, and that's the one that flows best with LGBT (or mental illness) Metaphor.

[Callos_DeTerran]

well going by your own criteria of immortality being physically possible and therefore human, its also technically possible to design cybernetic arms hooked up to a tank of napalm, all of which is then grafted onto a human so that they have cybernetic hands that shoot flame from said tank of napalm on their back, (sure completely impractical and stupid but thats not the point)

so technically, by your definition Nilehus, shooting fire out of your hands IS human, because we can design a way to make it so that we can.

Going by what Nilehus said, which was remarkably vague in fact, immortality might be possible but the means is still very much up in the air. I doubt very much that the immortality that science thinks might be possible would leave humanity as 'human beings' though.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by BRC
What I'm saying is that when people start reading Elsa as a metaphor, which they do, that shifts their interpretation of the story.

On this point, at least, we can agree.

But I don't think it's useful to define her parents as "non-supportive," in the contemporary use of the word, when the story is set in 1840s Scandinavia with a completely different social context.

Originally Posted by Nilehus
Anyways, one major thing I liked about Frozen was that the cute animal/snowman companion was in the movie just enough.

o gawd. Not Olaf.

I can handle the trolls, but Olaf makes me want to reach for a flamethrower.



For me, the happy medium for an animal sidekick was defined by Tangled, in which we have two animals, Pascal and Maximus, who manage to express hilarious personalities without saying a single word. They're important to the plot, they're full characters in their own right, but they do this without being too gimmicky.

In Frozen, Sven the reindeer followed this approach perfectly, and he's a great sidekick. But Olaf...was a concept that should've been dropped with the earlier drafts of Anna and the Snow Queen, when he was an irritating henchman for the villainous Elsa.

In fact, it was Olaf that kept me from seeing Frozen in the theater when it first came out. I saw the first teaser trailer, in which Olaf and Sven are wrangling over the carrot, and decided it would be somewhere on the order of Planes and best skipped entirely.

[Nilehus]

Going by what Nilehus said, which was remarkably vague in fact, immortality might be possible but the means is still very much up in the air. I doubt very much that the immortality that science thinks might be possible would leave humanity as 'human beings' though.

Scientists have some theories on how they could keep cells continually reproducing at the optimal rate, instead of the process decaying as you get older.

It was vague because it's entirely hypothetical at this point, as far as I know. And I'm not a biology major, so I'm not going to pretend I understand all the details. Still, neat to think about, and as far as superpowers go, it is one of the more realistic. I wasn't even thinking of brain uploading.

Edit: I'll agree, he wasn't my favorite character, but as far as kid-appeal characters go, I enjoyed him. Actually made me laugh out loud a couple of times. I can definitely see how he'd grate the nerves. I think that after my daughter watching it 1500 times or so, I'm just completely numb.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Nilehus
I think that after my daughter watching it 1500 times or so, I'm just completely numb.

Yeah, I can see how that could happen. I gather this is an occupational hazard when you have small kids + Frozen.



.

[Traab]

Yeah, I can see how that could happen. I gather this is an occupational hazard when you have small kids + Frozen.



.

I did the same thing with mary poppins as a kid. I wore out my vhs recording of it. Lots of kids have that one bit of entertainment they cant get enough of. Tv, movie, book, music, whatever.

[Nilehus]

Yeah, I can see how that could happen. I gather this is an occupational hazard when you have small kids + Frozen.



.

You have no idea. At one point, I was speaking along with the movie, completely in monotone just to mess with her.

She kept doing a pouty face and putting her hand over my mouth. She especially did not appreciate my rendition of 'Let It Go'.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Nilehus
She especially did not appreciate my rendition of 'Let It Go'.

I can so imagine.

[Jayngfet]

You could interpret it a lot of ways. We don't see all that much in terms of the parents teaching Elsa. We know they sealed the castle, gave her the gloves, and the "Conceal, Don't Feel" mantra that she internalized.
Nobody's saying they didn't love her, but "I love you, I want you to be happy, being normal will make you happy, THEREFORE out of love I am going to try to force you into being "Normal" is exactly what a lot of people deal with in terms of Unsupportive parents.

Of course, ultimately Elsa was her own worst enemy, in a way no other character could ever hope to be. Whatever her parents meant, she obviously took the sentiment to extremes and was afraid to even be touched. She obviously idolized her parents even after their deaths, styling herself after her mother and imitating her fathers portrait, but that was probably the issue more than anything else. She'd long since taken whatever it was her parents were trying to do and caricatured it inside her own mind.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Jayngfet
Of course, ultimately Elsa was her own worst enemy, in a way no other character could ever hope to be.

I would say her fear was her true enemy, in that she allowed it to control her. Even after she fled Arendelle and created her own palace, her fear was still just below the surface--and it came roiling up again once Anna found her.

One of the visual aspects of the film they did so beautifully was to explore the natural color palette they could create with ice and its optical properties--and then using those colors to accentuate the various moods Elsa was feeling, from delight and liberation to harsh conflict and fear. The colors of her ice became the emotional voice of every scene.

.

[Xondoure]

Really, a lot could have been spared if the troll had just quoted yoda. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate.. leads to suffering. And now everyone's clear.

[Jayngfet]

Really, a lot could have been spared if the troll had just quoted yoda. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate.. leads to suffering. And now everyone's clear.

They knew fear would be an issue. Her father even said "getting scared only makes it worse" straight out.

Obviously though the lesson doesn't work that well on a teenaged girl with PSTD.

[Nilehus]

They knew fear would be an issue. Her father even said "getting scared only makes it worse" straight out.

Obviously though the lesson doesn't work that well on a teenaged girl with PSTD.

It was a textbook vicious cycle. She knows fear makes her powers unstable, the thought of accidentally hurting someone scared her, making her powers more unstable, making her more afraid, and so on.

Poor girl. Unfortunately for her, her family, and her kingdom, you can't make someone have confidence.

[Brother Oni]

Scientists have some theories on how they could keep cells continually reproducing at the optimal rate, instead of the process decaying as you get older.

It was vague because it's entirely hypothetical at this point, as far as I know. And I'm not a biology major, so I'm not going to pretend I understand all the details. Still, neat to think about, and as far as superpowers go, it is one of the more realistic. I wasn't even thinking of brain uploading.

Layman's explanation for the theory I'm familiar with - every time a cell duplicates itself, it makes a copy of the DNA. Much like an old photocopier, you make a copy of a copy enough times, the quality degrades; in this case you lose a little off the end.
With a normal document, if you lose a bit off the margin there's no issue, but keep doing it and you start losing parts of the document. Lose enough of the document and it's useless.
The proposed fix is to stick the lost end back on every time it's copied.

And now you know all about telomeres, telomerase, introns, exons and mitosis.

You have no idea. At one point, I was speaking along with the movie, completely in monotone just to mess with her.

I need to remember this Dad trick for the next time mine watch something over and over.

[Avilan the Grey]

Elsa's powers have been ridiculously over-analyzed already. Is she gay? Is she a trans-person? Is she a schizophrenic? Does she have an eating disorder?

No.

She can kill the world and everyone in it with ice.

That's... far far worse.

However, the song, and the message, can be used to inspire anyone in the groups above and everyone else too. This is the thing; we already know what her issues are. Insecurity. Fear. Panic. Shame (not for her powers as such as for her inability to control it). An added layer of fear and heavy responsibility as the crown princess*... But almost all of us have something we hide and are ashamed of on some level. The song works for me, for example, as a CIS straight male because I was bullied mercilessly for 10 years and even now, 25 yeas later, the scars go VERY deep.

*This is a reason I like the Norwegian version of Let It Go, it points out her being raised as the crown princess especially, adding the extra layer of failure and guilt on her that the original (and the Swedish version) doesn't have.