Follow TV Tropes

Following

Discussion Characters / Frozen

Go To

You will be notified by PM when someone responds to your discussion
Type the word in the image. This goes away if you get known.
If you can't read this one, hit reload for the page.
The next one might be easier to see.
RT1986 Since: Sep, 2019
Dec 14th 2019 at 7:45:54 PM •••

Should we update the sisters' ranks as of the ending of Frozen II?

E.g. Queen Anna and whathever the rank of Elsa is now (I have no idea how monarchs who stepped down are offically addressed)

Edited by RT1986 Hide / Show Replies
bookworm11 Since: Oct, 2014
Dec 14th 2019 at 7:50:34 PM •••

Do you mean in the general descriptions toward the top of the pages, next to the pictures?

RT1986 Since: Sep, 2019
Dec 14th 2019 at 8:43:58 PM •••

No, the ones listed in the character sheets itself.

And on the same topic, isn't Kristoff a Prince now? I mean he's engaged to a Queen.

Edited by RT1986
bookworm11 Since: Oct, 2014
Dec 15th 2019 at 5:07:36 AM •••

It's hard to tell Kristoff's rank as of the end of second movie without confirmation from Disney, since that kind of thing can vary by culture. I'd recommend removing the ranks from the page, just say "Anna," "Elsa," and "Kristoff" to cover their ranks throughout the franchise and deal with the ambiguity of Kristoff's. Maybe just "Hans," too, to keep things consistent.

RT1986 Since: Sep, 2019
Dec 17th 2019 at 8:58:46 PM •••

Since days have passed and no one else replied, plus I do agree with you on removing the titles for simplicity anyway, I guess I'll just go on ahead.

Edit: Nevermind, you already beat me to it. 😂😉

Edited by RT1986
bookworm11 Since: Oct, 2014
Dec 17th 2019 at 9:21:19 PM •••

Someone else actually started, and I just figured I'd continue on to keep it consistent. 😂

bookworm11 Since: Oct, 2014
Nov 30th 2018 at 1:54:41 PM •••

There used to be the following note on the main page, at least before it got split up:

"Zero Context Examples are not acceptable, either put in the work to give it a description or leave it out.

Since the repeated notices about proper use of spoiler font have been ignored, No spoiler font is permitted in this article. The warning at the top will have to be enough. — admin message

Note to editors: there has been rampant misuse of villain tropes on this article. These judgments are absolute and violating them may get you suspended.

Anna is the heroine. Elsa is an anti-hero. The source of conflict is Elsa's powers. Hans is the villain. There is no Big Bad. "

It's missing now, not just on the index page, where it's probably unnecessary, but also on the character pages. (I found it again to paste by checking the page's history). I don't know how long it's been gone, since I just noticed its absence because someone recently used the Big Bad trope to describe one character on another subpage. Does anyone know what happened and/or why? I'm guessing the notes got lost when the characters were split up and the main page made into an index, and I'm concerned because it seems to have been added to stop edit wars (correct me if I'm wrong), but I also don't think it's my place to restore it when I'm not a mod and I don't know if it was actually removed for a reason.

Update: I realized it's still on the original film's page. Should it be added to any of the subpages?

Edited by bookworm11
bookworm11 Since: Oct, 2014
Oct 7th 2018 at 10:48:30 AM •••

I was thinking of making a page for animals (Sven and Sitron), or maybe non-human characters (Sven, Sitron, Olaf, and the snowgies). Right now the index differentiates between Extended Media characters and canon characters, but there's so much on the characters in A Frozen Heart that there's a separate page for Southern Isles characters, but that page mixes canon and Extended Universe, which is confusing. Most of what's on the page comes from A Frozen Heart, though, and the only characters on it who appear in canon are Hans and Sitron, and Hans already has his own page, so I thought separating Sitron would help. One reason I'm hesitant, though, is that the index is also mostly organized by home location right now, although there's at least one character on the Extended Universe page from Arendelle, so that inconsistency is already there.

Update: I put Sitron on a separate "Frozen Animals" page with Sven, put the snow creatures and the trolls on a "Frozen Magical Creatures" page, and a page for A Frozen Heart Exclusive characters that's a sub-bullet under "Extended Universe" on the main character index. I also made the Southern Isles page into an index that links to a page for Hans, a page for A Frozen Heart Exclusive characters, and the general franchise page that covers Frozen-related tropes that don't fit into other pages go, including versions of the Southern Isles that don't come from works with their own pages.

Edited by bookworm11
MsCC93 Since: May, 2012
Sep 22nd 2017 at 8:19:33 AM •••

Okay guys, so I split this into subpages due to a red warning of the page getting too big. Can someone do me a favor and please try to do a tiny character index page so people can navigate the subpages easier?

For example, I'm copying & pasting the Ed, Edd N Eddy one:

Main Character Index | The Eds | The Kids | The Kanker Sisters | Unseen Characters

I want something like that for all 4 subpages. I tried doing it myself, but errors kept on coming up and I got annoyed by it.

Also, you may see some errors, so please get rid of them.

MagBas MagBas Since: Jun, 2009
MagBas
Feb 28th 2017 at 8:39:07 AM •••

  • Evil Counterpart:
    • To Anna. Both are the youngest scion of a royal house and neglected by their own accounts, but where Anna is open and artless Hans is a skilled actor hiding his true motives. Both have issues with being overshadowed by their powerful siblings, but while Anna just wants to be close to Elsa, Hans turns out to be trying to equal and upstage his brothers.
    • To Elsa. While she shuts Anna out, she does that to protect her. Hans, on the other hand, while he would never shut Anna out, he only does that so that he would get to the throne, then he shuts her in the parlor to keep Anna from escaping the cold. Both also wear gloves to conceal their true selves - Elsa wears hers at the beginning to hide her powers, and Hans wears his throughout the whole movie up until his big reveal at the fireplace. And, both Hans and Elsa are associated with the unlucky number 13, but with a different twist - Elsa, being the 13th Disney Princess, remains good and caring; whereas Hans, being the 13th child in his family, turns out to be selfish and cruel.
    • To Kristoff as well. While very gruff on the outside, he's actually kind-hearted and friendly on the inside. Hans, on the other hand, while being kind and friendly on the outside, is actually cruel and ruthless on the inside. Also, while both are Anna's love interest, Kristoff is the only one of the two who really loved her, while Hans only loved power and was using her. Also, Kristoff would never hurt Anna, while Hans was willing to let Anna freeze to death.
    • Hoo boy, he's this to Olaf as well. While the snowman represents the love between Elsa and Anna, Hans represents the breaking of Elsa and Anna's bond. Another observation is that while Olaf is goofy and naive but still affectionate, loving, and cares deeply for his friends, Hans, on the other hand, is classy, sophisticated and intelligent but is cold-hearted, ruthless and sadistic. Also Olaf is cold literally, being a snowman, but warm in personality, while Hans is warm-blooded, being a human, but cold-blooded in personality.
    • And to Sven. Sven, for while he is a loyal animal, Hans is a traitorous human. Another thing to think about is that while Sven has shown multiple times in the film that he has a strong moral character, Hans is a sociopath whose ruthlessness knows no bounds and is incapable of understanding The Power of Love.

A lot of the characters in question are not counterparts but merely his opposites(Sven?).

Hide / Show Replies
Larkmarn Since: Nov, 2010
Feb 28th 2017 at 8:50:07 AM •••

... what the hell. Just cut them all. He's not really a counterpart to anyone. Maaaaaaaaaaybe Kristoff, but even that is kind of a stretch.

Edited by Larkmarn Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
creader Since: Jul, 2013
Feb 28th 2017 at 3:59:54 PM •••

Anna and Elsa are probably his closest to evil counterparts, the others can count as foils.

VeryMelon Since: Jul, 2011
Sep 1st 2014 at 9:19:34 AM •••

There's an Edit War over who is the Big Bad of Frozen. Please talk it out here before re-adding any examples.

Edited by 72.66.98.196 Hide / Show Replies
SatoshiBakura (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Sep 1st 2014 at 9:22:47 AM •••

This is a getting to be a big problem. I'm trying to resolve the conflict (Hans seems to zigzag as a Big Bad), but other people try to be specific. What happened to "averted", or "subverted"? We shouldn't delete these examples, but modify them.

SeptimusHeap MOD (Edited uphill both ways)
Sep 1st 2014 at 9:22:48 AM •••

At first glance over the Wikipedia page, the Duke of Weselton and Hans are the main candidates. I would put them down as Villain for sure. Uncommitted to Big Bad though - I am not sure if one of them has the force of the plot behind him.

Edited by 85.1.45.93 "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
SatoshiBakura (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Sep 1st 2014 at 9:25:02 AM •••

I would personally count Hans as a Bigger Bad until the last act. When he leaves Anna for dead, I would say that would be the moment he becomes a full on Big Bad.

Edit: And the Duke seems to be more of a Big Bad Wannabe. While he is explicitly evil, he feels more like comic relief than a true villain.

Edited by 71.171.109.182
SeptimusHeap MOD (Edited uphill both ways)
Sep 1st 2014 at 9:34:58 AM •••

Bigger Bad has a long Trope Repair Shop discussion going on, so I wouldn't count Hans for it just yet.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
SatoshiBakura (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Sep 1st 2014 at 9:38:33 AM •••

Well true, but Hans is still a Big Bad for the last act. He is just a villain (since we can't use Bigger Bad until the repair shop is done) for most of the film, he becomes a Big Bad when leaves Anna for dead, because at that point, he mostly drives the conflict.

Edited by 71.171.109.182
SatoshiBakura (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Sep 1st 2014 at 10:04:39 AM •••

At that point, Hans is the closest we have to a Big Bad. If there was a definite Big Bad at that point in the film, than yes, Hans would be a Final Boss. But since there is no Big Bad at the point when he becomes the antagonist, he takes over as Big Bad.

Edited by 71.171.109.182
Nithael Since: Jan, 2001
Sep 1st 2014 at 10:09:55 AM •••

No. Since there is no Big Bad at the point when he becomes the antagonist, there is no Big Bad in the story. A story doesn't have to have a Big Bad, it can very well exists without one, and that's the case here.

SatoshiBakura (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Sep 1st 2014 at 10:25:12 AM •••

What I meant to say was no Big Bad at that point in the story. Elsa is closest we have to a Big Bad for most of the story, but in the last act, Hans takes over.

It's similar to how Dragon Ascendant plays out, except that Hans isn't The Dragon to Elsa. Elsa is a sort of Big Bad for most of the film while Hans is sort of a Bigger Bad. When Elsa gets captured and Hans reveals himself, Hans steals the Big Bad position from Elsa.

SatoshiBakura (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Sep 2nd 2014 at 3:27:33 PM •••

Hello, anyone? I suggest we keep Elsa's Big Bad entry the same, but do this for Hans:

  • Big Bad: Becomes this in the final act of the film, but otherwise averted, as he barely contributes to the conflict before hand.
Does that sound good?

Edited by 71.171.109.182
KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
Sep 2nd 2014 at 4:33:40 PM •••

If we must add that to his portion, I suppose that's he best we're going to get (he definitely doesn't fit the Big Bad trope for the majority of the movie, but there is a bit of a case that in the end when he has both Elsa and Anna in his grasp he's close to it).

I'm still against him being listed as one in general though - the point Melon makes that Hans is more like the non-video game example of a Final Boss than necessarily a big bad is a decent one, as he doesn't exert much control over the plot or really have much of a major antagonistic presence (even behind the scenes) in the events themselves. He's a major secondary character who turns out to be evil, and he's the subject of the big climactic confrontation, but that itself does not a Big Bad make - it's about being the major antagonistic threat against which all (or most) action the heroes take is compared (that's why Elsa is the closest character to fitting the role, even if she ultimately doesn't fill it either).

In short, there's an element of either control over the plot or role/standing in comparison to the other characters that Hans just doesn't have. While he is the only truly villainous character in the movie, he does not fill the niche of "evil presence that looms over the others" (like Oogie Boogie does - the only reason Oogie fits, as he likewise doesn't have much input in the plot: Nightmare Before Christmas and Frozen are very comparable when it comes to this topic), that would make it more reasonable for him to fit.

Edited by 71.183.4.76 "The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
Sep 2nd 2014 at 4:33:40 PM •••

If we must add that to his portion, I suppose that's he best we're going to get (he definitely doesn't fit the Big Bad trope for the majority of the movie, but there is a bit of a case that in the end when he has both Elsa and Anna in his grasp he's close to it).

I'm still against him being listed as one in general though - the point Melon makes that Hans is more like the non-video game example of a Final Boss than necessarily a big bad is a decent one, as he doesn't exert much control over the plot or really have much of a major antagonistic presence (even behind the scenes) in the events themselves. He's a major secondary character who turns out to be evil, and he's the subject of the big climactic confrontation, but that itself does not a Big Bad make - it's about being the major antagonistic threat against which all (or most) action the heroes take is compared (that's why Elsa is the closest character to fitting the role, even if she ultimately doesn't fill it either).

In short, there's an element of either control over the plot or role/standing in comparison to the other characters that Hans just doesn't have. While he is the only truly villainous character in the movie, he does not fill the niche of "evil presence that looms over the others" (like Oogie Boogie does - the only reason Oogie fits, as he likewise doesn't have much input in the plot: Nightmare Before Christmas and Frozen are very comparable when it comes to this topic), that would make it more reasonable for him to fit.

Edited by 71.183.4.76 "The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
SatoshiBakura (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Sep 2nd 2014 at 5:02:37 PM •••

Well again, just say it's an aversion, don't take it off. It's not exactly calling him a Big Bad, It's just saying that he is the closest to this role in the climax.

Would you also think he would count as a Bigger Bad? While the trope is still in the repair shop, Hans still seems to count as he is the most significant evil force, but he doesn't drive along the conflict (that's mostly Elsa's job). He becomes sort of a Big Bad in the climax after leaving Anna for dead. This would be the entry:

  • Bigger Bad: Despite the fact he is the most evil character in the film, he doesn't become an active villain until the last act of the film. However, it was his plan to take over the kingdom that inadvertently starts conflict when his trying to marry Anna leads Elsa to reveal her ice powers and run away, and keeps the conflict going when he takes Elsa back to the castle as a prisoner. When his plan comes together in the last act, he steps down to become a full on Big Bad.

And why I at least want Big Bad on his sheet, I just feel like it would be odd if the main antagonist of a story does not get a mention of Big Bad in the examples. I always feel that Big Bad should always deserve a mention, whether they play it straight, avert it, or subvert it.

Edited by 71.171.109.182
VeryMelon Since: Jul, 2011
Sep 2nd 2014 at 7:42:02 PM •••

Well, that doesn't have to be the case in everything. There's nothing wrong with no-one being listed as a Big Bad.

Hans averting Big Bad means he's not solely responsible for the conflict of the movie, which is true. No reason to list it.

Hans subverting Big Bad means he's either a figurehead of the Bigger Bad(not true), more of a Well-Intentioned Extremist trying to prepare the heroes for a coming treat(not true), or even being a Disc-One Final Boss(not true, there's a reason I called Hans a Final Boss).

SatoshiBakura (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Sep 3rd 2014 at 3:03:04 AM •••

Wait, why exactly is Hans not a Bigger Bad? I can understand the last two, but you didn't provide an argument as to why he is not a Bigger Bad. There is a reason why I say he is a Bigger Bad, and that's because he is a greater threat than Elsa (who is the closest there is to a Big Bad), but he stays out of the way until the climax. Please provide an argument as to why he is not a Bigger Bad, not just say he's not.

And also, look at the Brave character sheet. Mordu is not a Big Bad, just a dangerous antagonist, but Big Bad is still listed on there to say that it's an aversion. Why can't we do the same thing here? There is a reason to list it, and that is to say that he is not the Big Bad. You seem to be bent on the logic that if it's not the trope, don't mention it. Hans is a notable aversion, because he is the main villain, yet he only contributes briefly to the story before the climax. A notable aversion has to be mentioned.

So for now, I have this to put down on Elsa:

  • Big Bad: Played with. While she isn't evil, her powers are the driving force of conflict in the film and she plays the role of main antagonist for the entire plot. This is made worse by the fact that several much more unsavory characters use the situation for their own evil ends, but at no point in the film is she intentionally trying to cause problems for anybody. In this manner, she is at best Obliviously Evil, if that - and a victim of the situation she finds herself in.

And these to put down for Hans:

  • Big Bad: Becomes a sort in the final act of the film (see Final Boss), but otherwise averted, as he barely contributes to the conflict before hand.
  • Bigger Bad: Despite the fact he is the most evil character in the film, he doesn't become an active villain until the last act of the film. However, it was his plan to take over the kingdom that inadvertently starts conflict when his trying to marry Anna leads Elsa to reveal her ice powers and run away, and keeps the conflict going when he takes Elsa back to the castle as a prisoner. When his plan comes together in the last act, he steps down to become the Final Boss.
  • Final Boss: He is the final threat that needs to be taken down, and is the trigger for Anna's Act of True Love.

Edited by 71.171.109.182
SatoshiBakura (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Sep 3rd 2014 at 3:55:37 PM •••

Actually, now that I think about it, the Big Bad entry for Hans is pretty redundant. I drop Hans' Big Bad entry, but keep his Bigger Bad and Final Boss entries.

shiro_okami Since: Apr, 2010
Sep 3rd 2014 at 4:17:46 PM •••

Hans is not a greater threat than Elsa, that is why he is not a Bigger Bad. I would actually say that Elsa is a greater threat than Hans, she is both more powerful than him and affects the setting on a much greater scale.

Edited by 174.96.198.101
SatoshiBakura (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Sep 3rd 2014 at 4:28:39 PM •••

Well, Hans is still the more significant evil even if he isn't more of a threat. Besides, Elsa is only more powerful than Hans, not a bigger threat. The reason Hans is a bigger threat than Elsa is shown in the climax: Elsa is defeated by Hans not by strength, but purely by words, and would have died if Anna didn't interfere. Elsa doesn't exactly know what she is doing throughout the movie, but Hans knew exactly what he was doing (almost), and manages to exploit everyone while barely being part of the conflict until the climax.

shiro_okami Since: Apr, 2010
Sep 3rd 2014 at 4:32:13 PM •••

I really don't see how any of that translates to him being a bigger threat, only more decisive. "Bigger" in Bigger Bad refers to either more power or greater influence or scale of affect, and Elsa has both, as her actions affect the entire kingdom in actuality. Sure, Hans actions could have potentially affected the kingdom had he won, but during the story at the most his actions only affect the heroes.

Edited by 174.96.198.101
SatoshiBakura (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Sep 3rd 2014 at 4:50:45 PM •••

Well that's true. Though, while Elsa does manage to affect the kingdom with her eternal winter, Hans also uses his charisma to pretty much win the kingdom over. To me, both have the same size influence in the plot, Elsa affecting it physically while Hans affecting it manipulatively.

But I shouldn't let my personal thoughts get in the way. Would you count Hans as a Big Bad, and why?

Edited by 71.171.109.182
shiro_okami Since: Apr, 2010
Sep 3rd 2014 at 5:01:48 PM •••

Like I said on the TRS thread, I think both Elsa and Hans each count as a Big Bad. Elsa is 'big' but not necessarily bad, but she still causes the bigger conflict, and while she herself is not evil her actions have negative consequences. Hans is 'bad' but causes a smaller conflict, although one totally separate from the conflict Elsa causes.

But my main point is, I don't think Hans qualifies as a Bigger Bad in any way, shape, or form, for reasons said previously. Even if Hans poses a threat on the same scale as Elsa, just in a different way, that still doesn't make him the Bigger Bad, as that requires a threat on a bigger scale, not the same scale.

Edited by 174.96.198.101
SatoshiBakura (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Sep 3rd 2014 at 5:09:44 PM •••

By the way, this my entry I put for Hans a while back to be a compromise to the arguments. The only reason I decided to see if Hans was a Bigger Bad was because, apparently, someone didn't agree.

  • Big Bad: Zig-Zagged as he doesn't become an active villain until the last act of the film. However, it was his plan to take over the kingdom that inadvertently starts conflict when his trying to marry Anna leads Elsa to reveal her ice powers and run away, and keeps the conflict going when he takes Elsa back to the castle as a prisoner.

This is how I truly feel about what Hans is. Do you think it's a good entry?

Edit: Also, I could add this for Hans:

  • Big Good: He plays himself up as one and succeeds in winning the majority of the characters over, but it's subverted once he is revealed to be Evil All Along.

Edited by 71.171.109.182
SatoshiBakura (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Sep 3rd 2014 at 5:30:55 PM •••

Now we just need everyone else to agree. That's the hard part. Though I will add the subverted Big Good example up there.

Edit: Though just a hunch, our current proposed Bigger Bad description states in the first sentence that "A Bigger Bad is a threat that's actually more dangerous, or affects more people, than the story's current Big Bad." Not saying that proves anything, and it probably doesn't, but I just want to see if it changes the way we look at this.

Edited by 71.171.109.182
SatoshiBakura (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Sep 4th 2014 at 3:11:25 AM •••

Hello? If no one objects for 24 hours, I will back the Big Bad entries, and call this discussion over.

KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
Sep 4th 2014 at 1:57:49 PM •••

@The idea of listing him as an Aversion: I don't see the point. Examples that boil down to this:

  • Trope: Averted. This character is not an example of this trope.

Are not a good examples of anything, even/especially if said examples are stuffed with explanation of what the trope actually is, as they're "examples" whose only real point is that they're not actually valid. Aversion is one of those things that's overused (and misused) throughout the wiki, and there are a lot less situations than it seems where using it is preferable to just having nothing at all.

As for Bigger Bad - being the Bigger Bad involves being a threat beyond the threat of the main Big Bad, which he is not - Hans is another antagonists who acts within the same plot as Elsa, but his scheme does not control or overshadow Elsa in any way, as much as he ensures they intersect at a point opportune to him.

@The proposed example write-up: for one, it's not very indicative of Big Bad as a trope - in fact, the description paints him more as The Heavy (since it describes him as - while not always being the big villain - being the one who moves the plot along), which isn't quite right either, as much of that moving the plot is accidental (or incidental, towards the end), and his deception means for much of that he fills a seemingly "heroic" role instead. Outside of that, my reaction to it is the same as my initial one in this discussion: it has similar problems as to the initial one, but if we have to put Hans as Big Bad (which we shouldn't) it's better than most.

Still disagreeing with listing him as one in general, though. There's nothing lost by just not having the trope on his character page, as apposed to writing descriptions that awkwardly write around the fact that he's not a very good example, even if we have to put a note for people not to re-add it.

Edited by 71.183.0.213 "The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
Sep 4th 2014 at 1:57:49 PM •••

@The idea of listing him as an Aversion: I don't see the point. Examples that boil down to this:

  • Trope: Averted. This character is not an example of this trope.

Are not a good examples of anything, even/especially if said examples are stuffed with explanation of what the trope actually is, as they're "examples" whose only real point is that they're not actually valid. Aversion is one of those things that's overused (and misused) throughout the wiki, and there are a lot less situations than it seems where using it is preferable to just having nothing at all.

As for Bigger Bad - being the Bigger Bad involves being a threat beyond the threat of the main Big Bad, which he is not - Hans is another antagonists who acts within the same plot as Elsa, but his scheme does not control or overshadow Elsa in any way, as much as he ensures they intersect at a point opportune to him.

@The proposed example write-up: for one, it's not very indicative of Big Bad as a trope - in fact, the description paints him more as The Heavy (since it describes him as - while not always being the big villain - being the one who moves the plot along), which isn't quite right either, as much of that moving the plot is accidental (or incidental, towards the end), and his deception means for much of that he fills a seemingly "heroic" role instead. Outside of that, my reaction to it is the same as my initial one in this discussion: it has similar problems as to the initial one, but if we have to put Hans as Big Bad (which we shouldn't) it's better than most.

Still disagreeing with listing him as one in general, though. There's nothing lost by just not having the trope on his character page, as apposed to writing descriptions that awkwardly write around the fact that he's not a very good example, even if we have to put a note for people not to re-add it.

Edited by 71.183.0.213 "The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
SatoshiBakura (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Sep 4th 2014 at 3:45:29 PM •••

Hans is a Big Bad though. You seem to judge that he doesn't cause one of the conflicts (the one involving Elsa and the eternal winter), he automatically makes him not a Big Bad. But Hans causes a different conflict: one that involves manipulating Anna and becoming king. He is, in fact, not The Heavy (as he only at certain points moves along the plot with Elsa), but he causes a conflict no less, and he is one of the problems that must be solved in the end. That means Hans is in a Big Bad Ensemble with Elsa, since they cause different conflicts. I should change my Big Bad description though.

  • Big Bad: Though he doesn't purposefully cause the conflict with Elsa, he is the mastermind behind a plot for him to become king. He manipulates Anna's feelings and takes Elsa captive to get what he wants, and becomes and active villain in the last act of the story. He may not be the cause of the eternal winter, but he takes advantage of the situation to its fullest, creating another conflict altogether.

And add this to both Elsa and Hans:

Edited by 71.171.109.182
VeryMelon Since: Jul, 2011
Sep 4th 2014 at 4:14:15 PM •••

Your insistence on someone needing to be labeled the Big Bad is becoming a Single-Issue Wonk that's encouraging shoehorning.

Edited by 72.66.98.196
SatoshiBakura (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Sep 4th 2014 at 4:19:12 PM •••

So instead of arguing, you are just saying I'm crazy. Maybe this is being a Single-Issue Wonk for me, but I'm providing a clear argument. shiro_okami provided a clear argument against Hans being a Bigger Bad, and that proved me wrong. You have not provided a clear argument, and that's why I'm not relenting. If anything you seem to have a Single-Issue Wonk against Hans being a Big Bad, because many others on this wiki say he is a Big Bad, not just me. And again, he does cause a conflict, just one that is different from the eternal winter.

Edited by 71.171.109.182
VeryMelon Since: Jul, 2011
Sep 4th 2014 at 6:42:48 PM •••

Hans doesn't cause all of the problems in the story. Without that qualification I can't agree with him being listed as a Big Bad.

Edited by 72.66.98.196
KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
Sep 4th 2014 at 8:41:40 PM •••

As has been pointed out, one of the main qualifiers for being a Big Bad is either a controlling interest in the plot itself (not just part of it), or to have a role as a symbol of evil in-universe. Not causing one of the conflicts in the plot isn't the problem - not having a degree of control over the plot as a whole is.

To counter the most recent description, this one just describes bad things he has done - it describes why he's a villain, not why he's a Big Bad. He masterminds a plot to become king, but as the description even states at least twice, that plot is only incidental to everything else that happens in the movie until the last act.

One of the interesting things about Frozen is that it doesn't really have a big bad - no one is pulling everyone's strings, as much as reacting to things to suit their own interests. Hans being the only one of those people who is actively evil does not make him a Big Bad.

Edited by 71.183.0.213 "The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
Sep 4th 2014 at 8:41:40 PM •••

As has been pointed out, one of the main qualifiers for being a Big Bad is either a controlling interest in the plot itself (not just part of it), or to have a role as a symbol of evil in-universe. Not causing one of the conflicts in the plot isn't the problem - not having a degree of control over the plot as a whole is.

To counter the most recent description, this one just describes bad things he has done - it describes why he's a villain, not why he's a Big Bad. He masterminds a plot to become king, but as the description even states at least twice, that plot is only incidental to everything else that happens in the movie until the last act.

One of the interesting things about Frozen is that it doesn't really have a big bad - no one is pulling everyone's strings, as much as reacting to things to suit their own interests. Hans being the only one of those people who is actively evil does not make him a Big Bad.

Edited by 71.183.0.213 "The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
SatoshiBakura (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Sep 5th 2014 at 3:22:07 AM •••

@Very Melon: First of all, he kind of did inadvertently cause all of the problems. Second of all, there is a reason why Big Bad Ensemble exists; Hans doesn't cause all of the problems, but Elsa doesn't exactly cause all of the problems either. It's when you put the two together that everything is their fault, which makes them a Big Bad Ensemble.

@Known Unknown: You seem to think that Big Bad=pulling everyone's strings. It doesn't: it means the villain who causes the conflict that the heroes must solve. Hans is controlling the plot to an extent. Don't you realize that throughout the film, Hans is mirroring everyones emotions? And especially manipulates Anna. The manipulation, in fact, starts before the eternal winter. My description also states that he does those bad things to get what he wants. And in the end, the eternal winter is only part of the problem, with Hans trying to seize the throne behind everyone's backs being the other part, and the two parts fit together like puzzle pieces. See the Big Bad Ensemble page, which is what this movie has.

Why do both of you ignore the existence of Big Bad Ensemble? That's clearly what the movie has going on. If you take out Elsa, the eternal winter, Anna's frozen heart, and the climax won't happen, but Hans will still be manipulating Anna's feelings and making his way to the throne, and eventually betray Anna when the time is right. If Hans is removed, the eternal winter may or may not happen for different reasons (suppose it does), but Anna wouldn't have fallen for the bad guy, Elsa would not have been captured, and the climax would not have happened. Two different plots are going on, but Elsa is behind one plot while Hans is behind the other. A very definite Big Bad Ensemble.

Edited by 71.171.109.182
SeptimusHeap MOD (Edited uphill both ways)
Sep 5th 2014 at 4:07:36 AM •••

Let's calm down a bit, folks.

To gauge whether any of the characters discussed fall under Big Bad or Big Bad Ensemble we need to know whether any of them is driving the plot, or a substantial part thereof.

The Wikipedia page sounds like Elsa's a Mike Nelson, Destroyer of Worlds character - she causes evil not by intent. So no, she is not a Big Bad.

For Hans, his role in the story starts too early for me to like qualifying him as Final Boss. That said, it looks to me like his role in the story is too incidental to qualify for Big Bad - I would qualify him for The Heavy though. Really, it's the freeze and the related stuff that is closest to being a Big Bad.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
SatoshiBakura (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Sep 5th 2014 at 5:14:49 AM •••

Okay, I will calm down and think about it. Elsa doesn't seem to count as a Big Bad the way you put it. Hans though, he is not the cause of the eternal winter, but his manipulation of the characters affects the entire story. His reflection of Anna causes her to fall for him and creates a rift between the sisters. His reflection of Elsa is able to subdue (and nearly kill) Elsa. His reflection of the Duke of Weasel Town ("It's Wesleton!") makes him seem like a better ruler compared to the Duke and helps him gain trust from the people. Hans doesn't cause one of the conflicts, but he causes a different conflict and keeps the other in motion. He may count as a Big Bad, but I'm starting to have doubts.

Edited by 71.171.109.182
VeryMelon Since: Jul, 2011
Sep 5th 2014 at 6:07:10 AM •••

Hans would be The Heavy, because at the point of the story where his manipulations are active he's driving the only source of competent antagonism in the film after Elsa accidentally starts an endless winter through no fault of Hans's planning. Still not a Big Bad in my eyes.

EDIT:Disregard what I said here. I disagree with him being The Heavy too.

Edited by 72.66.98.196
KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
Sep 5th 2014 at 9:41:47 AM •••

^^^^ Having multiple antagonists is not the same as having a Big Bad Ensemble.

As for your general description of Big Bad, that's not what the definition of that it. What you described is the definition of an antagonist, which is a very large, general trope that can encompass many different things. For the definition of a Big Bad, go to the trope's own page for more information. The description on the page clears it up with the first paragraph or so - it's not just making problems, it's controlling the problems of the plot as a whole.

It makes a lot of sense when paired up with Big Good (as it's intended to), as welk: the Big Good is the most influential force for good in the story, and the Big Bad is the most influential evil force.

I'd also disagree on Hans being The Heavy, as The Heavy is the antagonist whose actions are visible / the main focus in the plot (independent of role), which Hans kind of voids because he spends most of the movie appearing to be a hero. In retrospect we get to see his role in a different light, but during the plot itself he isn't focused on as an antagonist until late.

Edited by 71.183.0.213 "The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
Sep 5th 2014 at 9:41:47 AM •••

^^^^ Having multiple antagonists is not the same as having a Big Bad Ensemble.

As for your general description of Big Bad, that's not what the definition of that it. What you described is the definition of an antagonist, which is a very large, general trope that can encompass many different things. For the definition of a Big Bad, go to the trope's own page for more information. The description on the page clears it up with the first paragraph or so - it's not just making problems, it's controlling the problems of the plot as a whole.

It makes a lot of sense when paired up with Big Good (as it's intended to), as welk: the Big Good is the most influential force for good in the story, and the Big Bad is the most influential evil force.

I'd also disagree on Hans being The Heavy, as The Heavy is the antagonist whose actions are visible / the main focus in the plot (independent of role), which Hans kind of voids because he spends most of the movie appearing to be a hero. In retrospect we get to see his role in a different light, but during the plot itself he isn't focused on as an antagonist until late.

Edited by 71.183.0.213 "The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
SeptimusHeap MOD (Edited uphill both ways)
Sep 5th 2014 at 9:52:31 AM •••

Who is that post addressed at?

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
Sep 5th 2014 at 10:04:08 AM •••

Oops. Corrected.

"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
Sep 5th 2014 at 10:04:08 AM •••

Oops. Corrected.

"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
VeryMelon Since: Jul, 2011
Sep 5th 2014 at 11:19:47 AM •••

Known Unknown and I basically agree that Hans isn't a Big Bad, The Heavy, or even in a Big Bad Ensemble because too many things are missing for Hans to actually count as one.

Edited by 72.66.98.196
SatoshiBakura (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Sep 5th 2014 at 1:54:00 PM •••

Well, to test whether Hans is a Big Bad or not, I will see if he fits the criteria in the laconic Big Bad entry.

  • The ultimate villain of the story, who's causing the problem the heroes must solve.

Hans is obviously the ultimate villain of the story. And Hans did cause problems that the main characters must solve: First, his manipulation of Anna's feelings causes the problem with the true love conflict, which then causes the problem of Elsa revealing her ice powers and running away, causing the problem of the eternal winter (admittedly, the last two are inadvertent, but that doesn't make him any less of a villain and the laconic entry doesn't say it has to be on purpose) . If he was not a Big Bad, he would have stopped causing conflict at that point. However, while him trying to encourage Anna not to go after Elsa is iffy, when Anna gives him charge, he uses it to his advantage by winning over everyone in the kingdom, making him seem like a better ruler than Elsa. He is not causing a problem at that point until he decides to go after Elsa himself to find Anna and kill Elsa, causing the problem with the Duke's men trying to kill her and Elsa being on the verge of killing them. Since Anna is found not to be there, he just knocks Elsa unconscious and takes her prisoner causing the problem that Elsa is now a prisoner until Hans finds out what happened to Anna. Then he reveals his true intentions to Anna, and leaves her to die giving her a Break the Cutie moment and now has the excuse to kill Elsa, causing the problem that Anna needs to get out of a locked room, deal with a betrayal, and prevent Hans from killing Elsa.

He is not a Chessmaster who purposefully creates the conflict with Elsa and the eternal winter in his scheme to become king, but he is an Opportunistic Bastard who's manipulations to become king cause the eternal winter, and he takes advantage of the situation to become king, causing more problems along the way. Virtually, almost everything in the movie is Hans fault. This is why I think Hans counts as a Big Bad, and I want to make this his entry.

  • Big Bad: Played with. He is not a Chessmaster who purposefully creates the conflict with Elsa and the eternal winter in his scheme to become king, but he is an Opportunistic Bastard who's manipulations of Anna to become king cause the true love conflict that leads to the eternal winter. And even after that, he takes full advantage of the situation to become king, causing more problems along the way, and eventually becomes an active villain in the last act of the story.

And a question: Why is Gaston listed as the Big Bad of Beauty And The Beast despite the fact that he causes less problems than Hans does? That makes no sense for someone who cause less conflict in one movie to be listed as a Big Bad, while someone who causes more conflict in another movie to not be listed as a Big Bad.

Edited by 71.171.109.182
VeryMelon Since: Jul, 2011
Sep 5th 2014 at 2:16:12 PM •••

If he doesn't create every conflict in the movie on purpose, he's not the Big Bad. That's what you're not getting, and it's why you keep looking for loopholes to name him one.

SatoshiBakura (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Sep 5th 2014 at 2:35:59 PM •••

This is why I listed Hans as zig-zagging the Big Bad trope in the first place. He only inadvertently caused the main conflict, but he takes full control of the other problems, including the true love conflict, the Duke of Weasel Town, and eventually manages to take control of Elsa's situation when he captures her, and uses Anna's apparent death as an excuse to kill Elsa.

I like to think of it like this: if the movie made the audience aware of Hans being evil from the gecko, he would have been portrayed as the overarching threat the heroes aren't aware of, but causes problems they have to deal with and ultimately have to defeat in order to end the conflict. If you don't get it, imagine what if the movie made Hans the villain from the beginning and see what you think.

But again, Hans causes more conflict than Gaston, yet Gaston is still listed as a Big Bad and not Hans. Why is that?

VeryMelon Since: Jul, 2011
Sep 5th 2014 at 2:49:18 PM •••

Gaston is listed as the Big Bad because sometimes tropes get misused or shoehorned when people want things to fit(like what's going on here) and there are only so many people who will care to clean it up, especially people who haven't seen the movie.

If Hans was portrayed as being responsible for the entire conflict, he would be the Big Bad. He is not, so he can't be the Big Bad. All you are literally doing now is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Edited by 72.66.98.196
SeptimusHeap MOD (Edited uphill both ways)
Sep 5th 2014 at 3:23:39 PM •••

Inadvertent actions don't count towards Big Bad status. Much of what Hans does is too indirect to count towards Big Bad status.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
Sep 12th 2014 at 1:30:11 PM •••

So, it's been a while. Decisions?

I'm down for having Elsa have an entry on how she fills the role of a Big Bad while not having the spirit/personality of one, and Hans having a note instructing for him not to have the trope (or Bigger Bad) added.

Edited by 71.183.0.213 "The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
Sep 12th 2014 at 1:30:11 PM •••

So, it's been a while. Decisions?

I'm down for having Elsa have an entry on how she fills the role of a Big Bad while not having the spirit/personality of one, and Hans having a note instructing for him not to have the trope (or Bigger Bad) added.

Edited by 71.183.0.213 "The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
VeryMelon Since: Jul, 2011
Sep 19th 2014 at 7:43:21 AM •••

We all finally seem to agree that no one counts as a Big Bad or Bigger Bad.

Edited by 72.66.98.196
SatoshiBakura (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Sep 20th 2014 at 8:22:40 PM •••

I honestly can't agree with myself on whether anyone is a Big Bad or a Bigger Bad. I will do an examination to see what position Elsa, the Duke, and Hans qualify as.

  • Elsa: Yeah, while she is not evil and more of a Mike Nelson, Destroyer of Worlds type figure, she is still the one causing the eternal winter. Also she shuns out Anna during the movie, even though she is just trying to keep her safe. While the root of Elsa's problems come from her powers, she doesn't handle it properly, and trying to protect the people she loves causes the conflict, even though she is just as confused as everyone else. I agree with Known Unknown that we should list how she fits the role of Big Bad, but not the spirit. However, I think she should also be listed as The Heavy, as Elsa is very definitly the driving force of the conflict.
  • The Duke of Weselton: Now, the Duke seems to be the clearest antagonist throughout the movie. He is the one who actively tries to kill Elsa, and you are aware he is just trying to exploit Arendelle for its riches. Of course, Hans is revealed to be more villainous than him. He is technically in a Big Bad Ensemble with Elsa, but at the same time, a Big Bad Wannabe.
  • Hans: Okay, this is where things get very complicated. Many of the conflicts in the movie are a result of him indirectly, yet he doesn't take much of an active role in the movie. He is the most villainous character in the film, and his trying to become king of Arendelle affects everyone indirectly. Hans may or may not qualify as Bigger Bad. Currently, our definition of Bigger Bad in the repair shop is "A character who is a greater threat or affects more people than the story's Big Bad". Hans is...sort of a greater threat than Elsa in that he knows exactly what he is doing as opposed to Elsa, who has great power, but doesn't know what she is doing. And since Hans comes from a different kingdom, he also kind of affects more people. He is kind of a zig-zag in my opinion. Again, Hans is very complicated for me.

So that's how I'm breaking down the characters. I don't want any arguing, but I want to show what I've thought of.

Edited by 71.171.109.182
SeptimusHeap MOD (Edited uphill both ways)
Sep 20th 2014 at 10:49:41 PM •••

I am not sure what "she fits the role of Big Bad, but not the spirit." means but it sounds like "she doesn't fit the trope at all but she is listed anyhow". So no, I do not agree.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
SatoshiBakura (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Sep 21st 2014 at 4:29:22 AM •••

I don't know what it means either, but I'm going to interpret it as "She causes the conflict and is an antagonist, but she is barely villainous". Elsa is either an Anti-Hero or an Anti-Villain, but she is still the antagonist causing the conflict, both intentionally and unintentionally. The story is focused on stopping her, which is the marker for a Big Bad, but she is hardly a villain, but still an antagonist. I think it might just mean that she's different from the arch typical Big Bad, but still causes the conflict.

And again, the Duke is trying to kill her throughout the story, which also causes conflict among the characters, so Elsa is in sort of a Big Bad Ensemble with him, in my opinion.

SeptimusHeap MOD (Edited uphill both ways)
Sep 21st 2014 at 4:56:04 AM •••

Eh, her powers are a much better candidate for Big Bad. Her personally and the Duke are too peripheral to count as Big Bad or any of the corresponding tropes.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
SatoshiBakura (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Sep 21st 2014 at 10:09:30 AM •••

Though you do agree that Elsa/her powers is/are The Heavy of the movie, right?

KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
Sep 28th 2014 at 4:06:19 PM •••

Arguably, though since The Heavy is usually a no-brainer (usually, a proactive main antagonist is also going to be The Heavy by default) we usually add it for characters who visibly carry the movie but are still secondary.

"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
Sep 28th 2014 at 4:06:19 PM •••

Arguably, though since The Heavy is usually a no-brainer (usually, a proactive main antagonist is also going to be The Heavy by default) we usually add it for characters who visibly carry the movie but are still secondary.

"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
SatoshiBakura (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Oct 13th 2014 at 1:09:20 PM •••

Man, it's been a long time since we've been here. I've done more thinking, and have prepared these entries:

First, for Elsa:

  • Big Bad: Zig-zagged. Technically, it's her powers that are causing the problems in the story, and she only causes the eternal winter by accident and is in fact a victim of the situation herself. Yet, other conflicts are caused by her trying to keep people safe, most notably shunning out Anna.
  • The Heavy: Of a sort. She isn't actually a villain, but the plot is driven by the eternal winter her powers have created.

For Hans:

  • [Trope formally known as Bigger Bad]: Played with. He isn't anywhere as physically powerful as Elsa, as he doesn't have powers, but his manipulations and ruthlessness make him more of a threat than Elsa, who isn't trying to harm anyone. Also, his actions are the indirect cause of the plot, and indirectly allow it to move along.

Edited by 71.171.109.182
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
Nov 7th 2014 at 9:22:44 PM •••

I would just like to note that not every story needs to have a character listed as The Big Bad. If neither Hans nor Elsa fit the requirements than maybe neither of them qualify.

TysonJackson01 Since: Feb, 2014
SatoshiBakura (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Mar 26th 2015 at 3:20:19 PM •••

Care to explain why exactly? I've changed my stance dramatically since last time I posted here. At this point, I don't really care anymore.

Edited by SatoshiBakura
MrDeath Since: Aug, 2009
Mar 27th 2015 at 7:16:03 AM •••

She isn't. There was even an editing note saying not to add it. The whole idea that she's a Big Bad is completely ludicrous.

FairyDreamer Pink Butterfly Since: Sep, 2010
Pink Butterfly
Feb 17th 2015 at 9:46:02 PM •••

Awww. Elsa's picture got changed. :(

I preferred the other one. As lovely as Elsa is, I hate those smug images of her because she certainly is NOT.

I can either be a devilish angel or an angelic devil. You decide.
SatoshiBakura (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Aug 5th 2014 at 4:04:21 AM •••

Why is Let It Go a Sanity Slippage Song? Because I'm pretty sure Elsa isn't losing her sanity while singing it. She is just expressing her freedom.

Hide / Show Replies
KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
Sep 2nd 2014 at 4:44:00 PM •••

In context, Elsa is singing it as a means of shutting herself away from the world around her and expressing denial of the things she's responsible for - she's not making herself free as much as she's attempting to run away from her problems.

That said, i wouldn't necessarily call it sanity slippage, but it's certainly not totally idealistic in context.

"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
Sep 2nd 2014 at 4:44:00 PM •••

In context, Elsa is singing it as a means of shutting herself away from the world around her and expressing denial of the things she's responsible for - she's not making herself free as much as she's attempting to run away from her problems.

That said, i wouldn't necessarily call it sanity slippage, but it's certainly not totally idealistic in context.

"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
FairyDreamer Since: Sep, 2010
Feb 17th 2015 at 9:37:14 PM •••

Err...isn't that kind of the same thing? Running away could've worked if not for the whole winter problem.

I can either be a devilish angel or an angelic devil. You decide.
WarriorSparrow Since: Sep, 2010
Jan 12th 2015 at 8:16:27 PM •••

Seeing as "The Snow Queen/Evil Elsa" gets her own section, would be a bit of a stretch to aff more "What Could Have Been"s for the other characters as a sort of divided "Proto-Frozen" section?

Hide / Show Replies
MrDeath Since: Aug, 2009
Jan 13th 2015 at 8:02:39 AM •••

Why on Earth is there a section for a character that isn't in the film?

Larkmarn Since: Nov, 2010
Jan 13th 2015 at 12:19:29 PM •••

I'm with Sr. Muerte on this one. There being an "Evil Elsa" entry doesn't make much sense.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
lexicon Since: May, 2012
Jan 14th 2015 at 5:17:23 PM •••

You can't have a list for a character that was never written. It also looks like the beginning of an edit war. The edit reason says, "I wrote why," but I don't see anything changed.

ztyran Since: Oct, 2010
Jul 29th 2014 at 9:18:18 PM •••

I question the Ambiguously Gay trope for Elsa. The reason being is that if you are afraid you'll turn anyone you care about into a Human Popsicle if you let them get close, romance would not be on your mind gay or straight.

Hide / Show Replies
SeptimusHeap MOD (Edited uphill both ways)
Jul 30th 2014 at 1:59:23 AM •••

That doesn't stop you from having romantic feelings, though.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
MrDeath Since: Aug, 2009
Jul 30th 2014 at 10:41:47 AM •••

I just took it out. There's nothing in the movie that indicates she's a lesbian. The only evidence is that she doesn't have any kind of romantic attachment to anyone at all. It's just not an issue in the movie.

LogoP Since: May, 2013
Jul 30th 2014 at 12:23:00 PM •••

Mr Death is right. There are zero hints. The Ambiguously Gay trope is grossly misused in general. It also needs to be removed from Oakens' sheet as well.

Edited by 46.12.170.149 It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.
MrNickelodeon Since: Oct, 2013
Aug 5th 2014 at 8:03:51 PM •••

Someone has now added the Ambiguously Lesbian trope back. I think we need to find a way to stop people from re-adding that trope for the future. It just reeks of people trying to shove their fanon into things.

LogoP Since: May, 2013
Aug 5th 2014 at 8:35:51 PM •••

A mod note, perhaps?

It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.
SeptimusHeap MOD (Edited uphill both ways)
Aug 6th 2014 at 1:46:43 AM •••

Uh, yeah, adding opinion as an argument for including a trope is bad. I've pulled the entry and added a comment.

  • Ambiguously Lesbian: Has no love interest, shows no interest in men to the point that The Villain tried to woo her sister Anna because he, and everyone else, knew there was no point to even try with Elsa, who spent her entire life hiding something that she was born with and then becomes much happier once she embraced it. It's gotten to the point that her big song has been called a gay anthem.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
MagBas Since: Jun, 2009
Aug 6th 2014 at 8:31:06 AM •••

Out of note, this was included in Animated Films.

Edited by 200.187.118.2
Mareon Since: Aug, 2009
Aug 6th 2014 at 3:05:07 PM •••

Google "Frozen"+"Gay" and see the results. The world seems pretty descided that Elsa is a Gay metafore.

Larkmarn Since: Nov, 2010
Aug 6th 2014 at 4:07:49 PM •••

That's irrelevant. It can go on YMMV, but other than YMMV, we don't collect fan opinions.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
MrNickelodeon Since: Oct, 2013
Aug 6th 2014 at 4:23:46 PM •••

Even if there may be potential "coming out" subtext to her song, that means nothing. The movie gave zero implication that she has any romantic interest in women. She isn't Ambiguously Lesbian just because a bunch of people "interpreted" her that way or "saw her as a metaphor".

MrDeath Since: Aug, 2009
Aug 7th 2014 at 9:31:46 AM •••

Google "Frozen"+"Gay" and see the results. The world seems pretty descided that Elsa is a Gay metafore.

The internet decides that anyone and everyone is ambiguously or outright gay, because people can and will ship anything and everyone.

Seriously, even on this wiki, people will put Ho Yay listings based on nothing more than, "These two guys both exist in the work," and sometimes without even that.

LogoP Since: May, 2013
Aug 7th 2014 at 9:50:34 AM •••

Hm. I've seen a few cases which basically boil down to: Ho Yay: You wouldn't believe it but many people ship X and Y. Despite the fact that they exist in two completely different works.

Anyway, the Ambiguously Gay enty needs to go. It's utterly unsupported. Oaken's entry needs to be axed too.

EDIT: Which is what I just did.

Edited by 130.43.103.174 It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.
creader Since: Jul, 2013
Aug 8th 2014 at 7:30:31 PM •••

Personally, the reason I think Ambiguously Gay goes with Elsa is because one of the creators, Jennifer Lee was asked about Elsa's sexual orientation. Lee's response was that "it was best left unsaid". So, this trope does match with Elsa. I don't have the link for the question, but I know it was asked.

LogoP Since: May, 2013
Aug 8th 2014 at 7:55:28 PM •••

You're referring to this quote? "We know what we made. But at the same time I feel like once we hand the film over, it belongs to the world, so I don't like to say anything, and let the fans talk. I think it's up to them."

If that's the case, it doesn't really paint Elsa as Ambiguously Gay. She just said, in a very polite way, that the fans are free to make their crackpot theories as they please.

Unless there's a legit Word of God, the trope can't stand here.

Edited by 46.12.152.223 It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.
lexicon Since: May, 2012
Sep 19th 2014 at 5:03:01 PM •••

So I suppose she should also be taken away from the Ambiguously Gay page and Oaken too while we're at it?

LogoP Since: May, 2013
Sep 19th 2014 at 9:48:34 PM •••

Yep.

It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.
BlindJustice-2515 Since: Jul, 2014
Aug 29th 2014 at 8:31:14 AM •••

Can Hans' mocking of Anna being desperate for love be considered hypocrisy? His whole goal of becoming a king shows that he is quite desperate for attention and adoration himself.

Hide / Show Replies
SeptimusHeap MOD (Edited uphill both ways)
Aug 29th 2014 at 9:17:52 AM •••

Well, is that the reason why he does want to become king? I can think of several other reasons too.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
lexicon Since: May, 2012
Danel Since: Jan, 2001
Jan 27th 2014 at 12:45:23 PM •••

I honestly don't see anything on the Handling Spoilers page that indicates that trope names should be unspoiled. As the page is now, there is no point whatsoever in using spoiler tags at all since the trope names alone reveal the twist.

Hide / Show Replies
SeptimusHeap MOD (Edited uphill both ways)
Jan 27th 2014 at 12:48:51 PM •••

From Handling Spoilers:

Always show either the trope name on a work's page or the name of the work on a trope's page. If you feel that even the name of the trope would be a spoiler, leave it out.

The first part, in conjunction with the second sentence, spell it out.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
corruptmalemenace Since: Apr, 2010
Feb 10th 2014 at 11:03:36 AM •••

Those are explicitly for work and trope pages. We could at least spoiler the ones on the character page, no?

SeptimusHeap MOD (Edited uphill both ways)
Feb 10th 2014 at 11:11:54 AM •••

No. Ask The Tropers has repeatedly stated no. People have got suspended and pages locked over this.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
KingClark Since: Nov, 2009
Apr 27th 2014 at 4:33:01 PM •••

[Whoops, wrong thread. Delete this post.]

Edited by 72.181.165.189
ztyran Since: Oct, 2010
lalalei2001 Since: Oct, 2009
Jul 28th 2014 at 5:12:14 AM •••

Elsa and Anna's parents were added as a Bigger Bad Dummvirate. Why? O_o

Edited by 99.19.14.79 The Protomen enhanced my life. Hide / Show Replies
Larkmarn Since: Nov, 2010
Jul 28th 2014 at 5:51:12 AM •••

... because Bigger Bad attracts misuse, and this film attracts... weird opinions. At worst, you could make a claim that they're an Unwitting Instigator of Doom, but claiming they're the Bigger Bad is just wrong.

Edited by 156.33.241.3 Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
SatoshiBakura (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Jul 29th 2014 at 11:37:15 AM •••

I'm sorry, you're right. I thought they would count as an unintentional Bigger Bad as they indirectly cause the plot later on. Unwitting Instigator of Doom would fit a lot more.

KingClark Since: Nov, 2009
Apr 27th 2014 at 4:33:27 PM •••

Does Hans really count as the Big Bad for the film? He may be the primary antagonist by the time of the last act, but the trope requires the character in question to be the driving force behind the conflict, which Hans was only involved in indirectly until he made his plans clear. Final Boss would probably be a more fitting Trope.

Hide / Show Replies
SatoshiBakura (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Jul 25th 2014 at 11:03:54 AM •••

I think it's more zig-zagged. He is the cause of conflict mostly in the last act but even in the earlier parts of the film he still indirectly caused the conflict (ex. he tried to marry Anna to take over Arendelle, which led to Elsa revealing her ice powers and running away). You only realize it in hindsight.

SeptimusHeap MOD (Edited uphill both ways)
Mar 8th 2014 at 12:41:22 AM •••

This entry is being edit warred over. Please sort it out here instead of edit warring.

  • Abusive Parents: A subtle, realistic example. They're not Frollo or Mother Gothel, scheming and overtly selfish manipulators, even as they raise Elsa in a state of isolation, fear, and shame. They genuinely love their daughters and certainly aren't intending to do them harm. But they do. And that, sadly, is Truth in Television.

A couple of problems here: First, tropes are not to be put as subbullets of other tropes. Second, this entry does not spell out why they are Abusive Parents. Third, most of the material here is irrelevant to the example. And fourth, Abusive Parents is a No Real Life Examples, Please! trope, so an example thereof should not compare itself to Real Life.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman Hide / Show Replies
OnTheHill Since: Feb, 2011
Mar 8th 2014 at 1:40:41 AM •••

Apologies; I thought I spelled out very clearly why they were abusive parents. And considering it all occurs in the first ten minutes of the movie, I wasn't sure how extensively I needed to recap.

Prevailing opinion here seems to be that the King and Queen can't be abusive — they love their daughters and the writer/direction has stated that they were just "misinformed." Which is true. They did love their children; they were misinformed, irrational, and probably dealing with a fair amount of fear. Up to a certain point, it's all very understandable and human, if not necessarily helping an already difficult situation.

And then they make the decision to isolate Elsa. They remove her from the room she shares with Anna, limit her contact with others, and place at least a moderate degree of confinement on her. They bar her from Anna, the closest relationship she apparently has, and never do anything to discourage her very visible shame and terror. In fact, they encourage it.

They proceed do this for years. A decade at the very least. All while the relationship between their daughters is completely crumbling and Elsa is becoming increasingly petrified of any and all human contact. If the two of them notice this, it never seems to strike them as a concern.

And that is abusive. Completely objective abuse. Remove the good intentions and I don't believe anyone would be debating this.

The fact that people are debating this and quickly jumping in to excuse the King and Queen on the grounds that they were nice enough people/leaders/never chained Elsa to the wall disturbs me a little. The entire movie is centered around undoing the damage her parents inflicted on her...let's call it what it was.

Edited by 74.77.27.153
MsCC93 Since: May, 2012
Mar 8th 2014 at 4:51:53 PM •••

It's not abusive to make well-intentioned mistakes when you're a parent. Man, what's with the use of the Ron the Death Eater trope on these well-intentioned flawed parents these days?

OnTheHill Since: Feb, 2011
Mar 8th 2014 at 6:09:01 PM •••

A "well-intentioned mistake" would have been discouraging Elsa from using her powers and maybe being a little overcautious when it comes to social situations, so that she grows up without a proper acceptance of who she is and fears losing control.

Cutting her off from her sister for the entirety of her childhood and teaching her a "conceal, don't feel" mantra, so that she grows up afraid to hug her own parents good-bye, is abusive.

And no one is applying Ronthe Death Eater. Abusive ≠ evil, and it's a dangerous misconception that it does. An emotional abuser can love you to the ends of the Earth and still manage to scar you for life.

MsCC93 Since: May, 2012
Mar 9th 2014 at 12:58:40 AM •••

[[Removing statement to preserve dignity.]]

Edited by 131.118.228.9
OnTheHill Since: Feb, 2011
Mar 9th 2014 at 11:40:30 AM •••

The Parents as People trope is for parents who didn't have/wouldn't make time for their children, or had things in life they would obviously rather be doing than being parents. It's a more specific trope that fits even less than Abusive Parents.

Again, please stop putting words in my mouth and suggesting I'm calling them "awful, abusive, unfit parents." Just how unfit they were is arguable, but they weren't awful or evil. No parent is perfect and all parents make mistakes.

However, most of those parents avoid isolating their children for years on end and encouraging their crippling fears and self-loathing.

In fact...let's frame it another way. Let's assume that instead of shutting Elsa away, the King and Queen let her roam free. However, any inkling of her powers being used would result in Elsa being hit. Not beaten within an inch of her life, but walloped pretty resoundingly all the same. And let's assume that this was done with the absolute best of intentions. Her parents still loved her and believed that stifling her powers by any means necessary was the most important thing. Let's assume that she grew up with all the same emotional problems we see in the film.

Would that or would that not be abuse?

The King and Queen were loving, but they were not good to Elsa.

Good intentions. Do not excuse. Abusive behavior.

Edited by 74.77.27.153
MsCC93 Since: May, 2012
Mar 9th 2014 at 3:42:05 PM •••

[[Removing statement to preserve dignity.]]

Edited by 131.118.228.9
OnTheHill Since: Feb, 2011
Mar 9th 2014 at 4:05:05 PM •••

"Emotional abusers ARE abusive parents, whether they love their children or not, but Anna and Elsa's parents aren't this."

"I still think no parent is perfect and that abusive parents are only for parents who are uncaring and jerks towards their kids"

Well done; you successfully contradicted yourself. You can certainly leave this discussion here if that suits you and we can agree to disagree — me, I'm willing to push a little harder for this, for the simple reason that it's incredibly important.

"They couldn't have been abusive. They loved me, and it could have been so much worse. It wasn't abuse. They meant well. It was my fault. It was always my fault," is a tragically common line of thought among survivors of emotional abuse. And it's not going to get better unless we actually recognize abuse where it exists — even if it's a work of fiction.

MsCC93 Since: May, 2012
Mar 9th 2014 at 5:57:58 PM •••

[[Removing statement to preserve dignity.]]

Edited by 131.118.228.9
OnTheHill Since: Feb, 2011
Mar 9th 2014 at 6:20:21 PM •••

Please do. If your definition of abuse begins and ends with "jerk to your child", then this is already an ugly discussion.

tryrar Since: Sep, 2010
Mar 10th 2014 at 12:07:27 PM •••

I went to see the movie yesterday, and my take is they were simply scared and misguided, not outright abusive. I can see why they can come off that way, what with going complete isolation from the rest of the kingdom and all.(keep in the parents effectively isolated THEMSELVES as well)

MsCC93 Since: May, 2012
Mar 10th 2014 at 12:35:34 PM •••

[[Removing statement to preserve dignity.]]

Edited by 131.118.228.9
OnTheHill Since: Feb, 2011
Mar 10th 2014 at 4:40:02 PM •••

I'm not so sure they did isolate themselves. Let's not forget, they died heading out on a two week voyage someplace, while Elsa and Anna stayed behind, still cut off in the castle.

While it's doubtful that they were simply blowing off on a vacation, that's still a far cry from isolating themselves along with their daughters.

tryrar Since: Sep, 2010
Mar 10th 2014 at 4:49:59 PM •••

....I kinda meant isolating themselves as much as the KING and QUEEN of a freaking country could. Of course there are things they couldn't simply ignore and had to attend to themselves, but then that's my take. The movie doesn't EXPLICITLY state they isolated themselves too, but it's logical given they closed the gates, barred visitors, and ran a reduced staff, all to keep people from finding out about Elsa's abilities.

ShanghaiSlave Since: Mar, 2012
Mar 10th 2014 at 5:54:21 PM •••

Isolating a "sick" person does not constitute of abuse.

imagine if Elsa's powers were, instead, a contagious airborne disease which is dormant on her but deadly on others of her age. wouldn't "abuse" constitute of forcibly raising her with Anna regardless of consequences?

I'll tell you what a "subtle, realistic example" of Abusive Parents is.

if they showed obvious favoritism and obviously neglected either or both, that would be a "subtle, realistic example" of abusive.

Is dast der Zerstorer? Odar die Schopfer?
OnTheHill Since: Feb, 2011
Mar 10th 2014 at 5:56:37 PM •••

The freedom to leave the castle for any reason, even reasons pertaining to royal business, was still something they denied their daughters and allowed themselves. And it was a freedom that would have done worlds for both Elsa and Anna's developments.

They were obviously extremely close, and their relationship was an important one; their parents put an deliberate end to this. Then, they made it nearly impossible for the girls to forge new relationships, to experience the world, to grow. If there was ever a shred of necessity to the whole decision, it wore out in the long time skip.

The end result: one daughter who believes she's a hair's breadth away from killing anyone who gets near her, and another who's jubilant at the thought of opening the windows and meeting people.

OnTheHill Since: Feb, 2011
Mar 10th 2014 at 6:05:54 PM •••

@Shanghai Slave

There is no "one" example of abuse. Obvious favoritism is abuse. Obvious neglect is abuse. Cutting off a child from the world and younger siblings without ever tending to the emotional ramifications of this is abuse. Placing the blame for all this on the child (in front of Elsa, the King says that Elsa can learn to control her powers, and will only be isolated until she does...which she never does) is abuse.

Frankly, I don't know why I ever said it was a subtle example. It really isn't.

Edited by 74.77.27.153
SpitefulFox Since: Jun, 2010
Mar 10th 2014 at 7:35:24 PM •••

I second this counting as abuse. "Well-meaning" doesn't mean something isn't abuse. Plenty of abusive parents are fully convinced they're doing something for their children's own good.

Lots of people have been seeing Elsa's "Let It Go" song and circumstances as some sort of metaphor for homosexuality. She had something secret about herself that she had to hide because people might misunderstand and hurt her.

Lets extend that comparison for a moment. If Elsa had literally been homosexual, and her parents forced her to pretend to be straight in order to protect her from people who might fear her, would you still say her parents weren't hurting her?

Elsa's parents taught her to fear herself and not trust other people and made her a paranoid wreck. Them doing it to protect her doesn't make it any less abusive. Just as saying "This is for your own good," doesn't make it okay to smack a child around.

ShanghaiSlave Since: Mar, 2012
Mar 10th 2014 at 7:36:42 PM •••

You're ignoring the obvious danger of Elsa's powers in the verse. So I admit, yes it would indeed have been abuse had Elsa's powers been merely "being able to build a snowman".

But no, her powers doesn't stop there. She can freeze entire kingdoms, cause snowstorms, freeze people which presumably could cause Literally Shattered Lives. Of course they'd "unreasonably isolate" Elsa.

what you're painting as abuse is merely normal overprotectiveness relative to the Frozen verse.

it would be the equivalent of isolating a kid with chickenpox from her sister who hasn't gotten it yet if it was not fantasy.

And what you're proposing as "freedom" would be the equivalent of letting Typhoid Mary on the loose.

Is dast der Zerstorer? Odar die Schopfer?
OnTheHill Since: Feb, 2011
Mar 10th 2014 at 7:46:19 PM •••

Typhoid Mary had a dangerous, contagious disease that was spread by handling food, and was eventually set free (after a public outcry) on the condition that she never work around food again. Which she did, but that was beside the point.

Elsa, at the age of eight, had the ability to make things freeze and create snow. She was pretty adept at handling it, but in a freak accident, wound up hurting her sister. Her parents locked her away, her fear and distress continued to amplify over time, and her powers followed suit.

You're acting like Elsa was carrying the Ebola virus. She wasn't; even her kingdom came to accept that.

ShanghaiSlave Since: Mar, 2012
Mar 10th 2014 at 8:29:45 PM •••

I'm acting as if she has Ebola virus, yes, because she obviously "almost killed" Anna when they were playing, but luckily, she only hit her head. she later caused her entire kingdom to fall into an eternal winter, just think about their crops and livestock (aka their food source) and the fact the the queen just left them. Sure it's no disease, but in real life, the closest "power" a person can have that can affect an entire population is a disease, so there.

And it was not her parents, but the Trolls who made both parents and Elsa so distressed by telling them their kid will become so powerful that if she loses control of her powers she can accidentally kill people and stuff. and it was that dangerous at that point (i.e. one slip and she can kill) because of Elsa's distress which they only fueled further by telling her that complete with visuals.

So yeah sure, she was adept, but it was shown serious accidents can happen. which the trolls emphasized further, which caused Elsa and her parents to fear her powers, which caused them to take isolation measures, which caused them to become overly paranoid (and rightfully so). which you somehow equate with abuse.

Edited by 180.194.171.4 Is dast der Zerstorer? Odar die Schopfer?
blackcat MOD Since: Apr, 2009
Mar 10th 2014 at 8:47:14 PM •••

OK, Moderator Speaking. For the love of Mike everyone needs to back up about 32 steps and remember that you are talking about a work of fiction. Not real people. Fiction. You know: existing world order, inciting incident, complications, rising action, climax and resolution and new world order. That stuff. All this sound and fury is a waste of energy. The goal of the wiki is not to host massive battles over "who is right" and "who is wrong", there is a whole lot of internet that just loves that stuff. Not here. Knock it off.

OnTheHill Since: Feb, 2011
Mar 10th 2014 at 9:14:39 PM •••

I wouldn't say that this is a waste of energy, or that it's about who is right and who is wrong. Not at all. Fiction is important, and discussion of fiction is important, and at least half of Elsa's popularity comes from the sheer amount of repression and fear that she overcomes. This may be a fictional story, but those things happen all the time to very real people. It resonates. It matters. If it isn't worth exploring, I'm not sure what is.

On that note...

1) The trolls didn't tell them that their daughter was ludicrously powerful and capable of killing people. Pabbie told her that her powers were beautiful (they were), also dangerous (they were), and that she would need to learn to control them or people would kill her.

2) By the time Elsa's powers buried the country in snow, the King and Queen had been dead for some time. This wasn't a question of "shut her away for eleven years to protect the general public"...they had no reason to believe she was capable of something on that grand a scale. Even Elsa herself didn't realize it.

What the King and Queen did, they did "for Elsa's own good." And as Spiteful Fox said, "this is for your own good" doesn't mean something isn't abusive.

Edited by 74.77.27.153
desdendelle (Ten years in the joint)
Mar 10th 2014 at 11:19:31 PM •••

Haven't watched the movie and I have no idea what this is even about, but I'll belabour the obvious and say that if a mod tells you to knock it off, you knock it off or get hammered. It isn't a democracy here.

The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground
OnTheHill Since: Feb, 2011
Mar 10th 2014 at 11:25:42 PM •••

My mistake. I read that as "cool it", not "stop altogether."

Fair enough.

MsCC93 Since: May, 2012
Mar 12th 2014 at 8:57:31 AM •••

I would like to apologize for my abysmal behavior. I know it's just a movie, but what really set me off was not the apparent "character bashing." It was that I felt On The Hill was being ignorant (and ignorance is my Berserk Button) and I apologize to anyone I offended here with my comments. I understand that people are entitled to his/her opinion, and I'm sorry I dragged this discussion down.

Edited by 131.118.228.9
OnTheHill Since: Feb, 2011
Mar 13th 2014 at 10:16:41 PM •••

That's big of you. For my part, I'm sorry I got overly snippy and hostile. It's an incredibly important topic to me, but one I could have stood up for without offending everyone else unnecessarily. My apologies.

MsCC93 Since: May, 2012
Mar 14th 2014 at 12:17:22 PM •••

Same here. Again, I'm sorry. At the end of the day, both of us enjoyed this kickass movie and analyzing this stuff really gives us headaches. Dropped.

elsathesnowqueen Since: Jun, 2014
Jun 26th 2014 at 12:47:04 PM •••

@Shanghai Slave Totally agree. It really WAS the trolls who scared poor little Elsa EVEN MORE then she already was. Were those trolls REALLY trying to help Elsa? Or were they trying to terrorize her for the rest of her for the rest of her life?! Poor Elsa. - elsathesnowqueen <3

Hi everyone, I'm elsathesnowqueen. And, no, I'm not ACTULLY Elsa. Odviously.
MsCC93 Since: May, 2012
Mar 30th 2014 at 12:50:51 PM •••

Just why do people keep on deleting jerkass for Hans without any reason? It's getting annoying. Also, I added them back, and if I am wrong, please at least EXPLAIN why I am wrong, because it's annoying.

Hide / Show Replies
TheWildWestPyro Since: Sep, 2012
Apr 21st 2014 at 5:51:57 AM •••

I do not see why they keep on deleting it either. He may be a Jerkass Woobie, but still qualifies after crossing the Moral Event Horizon.

Discar Since: Jun, 2009
Mar 28th 2014 at 1:35:05 PM •••

Recently, Fanservice Pack, Ms. Fanservice, and Mr. Fanservice were all removed with the reason "there is no fanservice in the film."

While I agree that calling Hans Mr. Fanservice is stretching the definition too much, Elsa is definitely an example of the first trope, and probably the second. She switches out her conservative cloak and dress for a lacey thing that shows plenty of skin. While there's minimal fanservice in the movie, it is there, and it's pretty much exclusively focused on her.

Hide / Show Replies
Larkmarn Since: Nov, 2010
Mar 28th 2014 at 1:42:42 PM •••

Fanservice Pack is shoehorned, though. You cannot have a Fanservice Pack in a single self-contained work.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
MsCC93 Since: May, 2012
Mar 27th 2014 at 3:05:08 PM •••

I swear, should we lock this page for at least 2 weeks, because all it does is cause drama and endless edit wars.

Hide / Show Replies
SeptimusHeap MOD (Edited uphill both ways)
Mar 28th 2014 at 3:43:31 AM •••

Already discussed and rejected in Ask The Tropers.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Frelus Since: Dec, 2011
Jan 29th 2014 at 5:14:43 AM •••

In the Character Page, it says for Elsa:

"Meaningful Name: "Elsa" is German for "noble", which alludes to her high status as a princess, her ascent as queen of Arendelle, and the fact that deep down she really has such a good heart and spirit. She is the Snow Queen for her heart is as pure as the driven snow!"

Never heard of that word, and I am German myself. Is it an archaic title, or did someone make that up? Because a noble is "ein Adliger", when translating it generally.

Edited by 84.60.57.78 Hide / Show Replies
frosty Since: Jan, 2013
Mar 10th 2014 at 9:04:12 AM •••

I know a few people named Elsa, and they're all German, but as far as I know it's a variant of Elizabeth. Elizabeth has religious origins, but nothing noble about it. Maybe they got confused by the two queens who've been named it.

Tuckerscreator (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Mar 10th 2014 at 9:23:56 AM •••

I think they mean "noble" as in the virtue, not "a noble" as in the title.

Per the mods' repellant efforts to avoid all responsibility, I regret to announce this is the end of my time on TVT. I'm going now. Goodbye.
Telcontar MOD Since: Feb, 2012
Mar 10th 2014 at 10:34:27 AM •••

"Elsa" isn't a German word at all — it doesn't mean "noble", "a noble", or anything.

That was the amazing part. Things just keep going.
SeptimusHeap MOD (Edited uphill both ways)
Mar 10th 2014 at 10:42:30 AM •••

It's a German proper name (like Jack or David).

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
IBG Since: Jan, 2014
Mar 11th 2014 at 5:46:50 AM •••

Though it is more common the form "Elisa", the name "Elsa" exists in Spain too. I know someones, and our National Institute of Statistics (data of 2012) says here are 11,726 Spanish women with this name.

Elsa Pataky (the wife of Chris Hemsworth, her real name is Elsa Lafuente Medianu) is Spanish of mixed Spanish-Romanian origin.

Added: thinking about it, one Elsa I know is also daughter of Romanian immigrants: a coincidence, or is it a common name there?

Edited by 95.39.192.139
Top