Frozen (Disney film)

When Grand Pabbie said "Feared her power's were too much for this world" I got worried for a moment they were going for a depowering ending, but then it was fine.

I like the apparent references to adaptations of The Snow Queen with spring, summer, and fall locales to go with the Queen's winter setting.

I'm just frigging glad that the official trailer was really light on spoilers.

And yes, the music was epic too.

I saw giants in the trailer.Again another reference to Norse mythology.

That looks fantastically amazing.

I wonder if the giants will be called jotunn.

Maybe it'll pull a Rescuers 2 and be better than the first film! It definitely seems like they're taking more care with the worldbuilding.

Apparently the horse figure Elsa sees in the ocean is a real mythical creature from Norwegian mythology. I don't remember the name of the creature but they say they take people on their back into the ocean where they drown them alive, which appears to be what the horse wanted to do with Elsa before she stopped in front of it.

The posters are really mysterious and vague as to what the two women are going to go through in this movie. Elsa no longer has that white streak and her hands are not gloved anymore obviously, but in the Japanese poster, Anna's hand is clenched into a fist.

Nice to see that Elsa's nightgowns are evidently scarlet or violet colored, and not blue like her ice dresses.

She can make her own clothing so a blue nightdress is fitting really

I thought the last line of the trailer really had an X-Men vibe to it.

Now I'm waiting even more eagerly for this film, although I hope it will not involve too much retconning.

I'm thinking that this is the movie that ties all the princess movies together, including Brave.

How so?

x6

You're thinking of a Kelpie, I think.

They're traveling to a bunch of different lands, including a foggy Stonehenge-looking place (which brings Brave to mind) and the ocean (which could be Little Mermaid). With these two and since Corona was established to exist in the same universe in the first movie, I think this could be an attempt at a cinematic universe. Then again, I may be full of crap.

I will never ever understand why it feels like everyone believes Tangled = Frozen are in some shared universe. Even worse, I don't understand why people throw Little Mermaid and Tarzan on that pile. Yes, Rapunzel and Eugene were there in a background shot of the first film.

But we've seen this before. Aladdin's Carpet, Belle, and Pumba appear in Hunchback of Notre Dame but that's not some shared universe either. Particularly since most people guess Bat B being anywhere from mid 1700s to very very early 1800s and Hunchback is... literally the mid 1400s. Explicitly the 1400s. Or how Mrs. Potts is hidden in Tarzan.

It's just a cameo.

Exactly. Disney does not do crossovers with their big animated features. The Easter Eggs are not official canon, they're just visual gags. Hercules didn't kill Scar. Donald Duck wasn't listening to the underwater concert in The Little Mermaid, a random woman in Belle's village in Beauty and the Beast wasn't actually dusting the Magic Carpet from Aladdin, Hans isn't actually a wanted criminal in San Fransokyo nor is he Fred's ancestor despite the statue; Disney doesn't actually exist in Arendelle as an entertainment company even though Wandering Oaken's Trading Post sells Mickey Mouse dolls etc. etc etc. They're jokes.

If Rapunzel and Eugene actually were at Elsa's coronation, we'd have seen them in more scenes, not just the backs of their heads for a few seconds of visual easter egg. Plus, the timelines don't match. Tangled has been dated by the creators to take place in the 1780s while Frozen has been dated to the 1840s. 60 years difference minimum, Flynn would be in his 90s by the time of Elsa's coronation even if they lived in the same universe, which they don't. It's impossible that Agnarr and Idun would have been traveling to Rapunzel's wedding, as it took place (in a different dimension) over half a century ago from the events of Frozen.

They are all just Easter Eggs. Disney is famous for them and they're in every single movie.

I think because it's in CGI this time, people tend to believe cameos are more "permanent" and aren't just a small in-joke.

" God Never Said That: A popular fan theory exposited that Anna and Elsa's parents actually survived their ship going down and built a home for themselves on a faraway continent with their newly born infant, before they would later die and their son would grow up raised by apes. The film's co-director Chris Buck was reported as "confirming" this fan theory as canon... except he didn't. He was referring to the theory in the sense of being a fun personal head-canon. Ignoring the timeline and logistics of the theory not making sense, Buck also claimed that he liked to imagine a group of surfing penguins existing on the other side of Tarzan's island in a reference to a non-Disney movie, making it clear he was not being serious."

As someone who wasn't really a big fan of the first Frozen, I stand by my statement that the only thing that would make me interested in the sequel is if they do, in fact, explicitly establish Elsa as a lesbian. It might not have any bearing on the quality of the movie, but it would at least indicate that Disney is willing to take risks, and not just regurgitate the same old stuff over and over again.

Pretty similar here; though the trailer makes it feel like they might not really have any place to deal with something like that? Idk. Very little on new characters.

Frozen is an ok movie marred by a lot of rewrites and lack of development on ideas; The film peaks around the 30 min mark after a pretty solid first act and then plateaus out not knowing quite what to do with itself. I want the sequel to be better and do something interesting and... follow though and carry it out to the end.

(x3)I wouldn't call that a "popular fan theory". I've been in the fandom since before Frozen came out and haven't seen many people take it seriously.

The one people take seriously is the "Rapunzel is Elsa's first cousin" theory. It's never been proven or unproven and I doubt it'll ever be. It's just a fun fanon like "Ariel is Hercule's cousin" (which actually has more against it than the Rapunzel theory).

(x3) "As someone who wasn't really a big fan of the first Frozen, I stand by my statement that the only thing that would make me interested in the sequel is if they do, in fact, explicitly establish Elsa as a lesbian. It might not have any bearing on the quality of the movie, but it would at least indicate that Disney is willing to take risks, and not just regurgitate the same old stuff over and over again."

There's absolutely no way in hell Disney will ever make Elsa a lesbian. She's been too popular for too long assumed straight, and turning her suddenly gay after half a decade for building popularity as a normal (for Disney, who's never ever had a single canon gay human character, let alone a protagonist, let alone a princess, it means not-gay) would come across to the parents worldwide as a shifty bait-and-switch con. People don't like feeling betrayed or cheated, it'd be absolutely terrible business, it'd absolutely wreck the "reliable family entertainment" brand Disney's been building since the 1930s.

Introducing a new gay/lesbian character is different. I think that's very possible. But making Elsa, their biggest, most iconic cashcow of this decade, suddenly gay, the first gay Disney character ever, a huge leap into the unknown, a gamble with one of the most lucrative franchises and characters they have, in a way that would be sure to piss off huge parts of their most lucrative customer base (parents) - not gonna happen.

And the way people have been pushing and petitioning for Elsa to be made gay is pretty much a demand. It was phrased as an order, "give Elsa a girlfriend". It's not just quietly hoping the creators might choose to decide it, it's trying to influence them by exerting social pressure, which is a demand. It's pretty telling it's not #giveusagayprotag, but specifically about Elsa. Which says it's not really just about representation, it's about getting to claim the shiniest, best, biggest, most popular character as the representation. I've seen loads of people in the tags in Tumblr, Twitter etc say they don't even like Frozen but want Elsa to be gay because it'd piss off homophobes so bad, and let's be honest, a character deserves more than being made into a social brownie point.

In fact, I think it's pretty common sense to say that Disney should tell good stories, not push politics. I see nothing wrong with a gay princess, but it needs to be part of its own story, not just a feel good add on to a story that is already created. This is the same argument George Takei made when Sulu was shown to be gay. Takei, as a gay man, had no issue with a gay character, but didn't like that they monkeyed with an existing character with his own storyline to create one. Elsa isn't a political ploy, and for that matter, neither is being gay.

There’s plenty of story available to mine by revealing Elsa to be gay. It’s more interesting from a character perspective than simply doing the same as all the prior Disney movies.

Also having her not gay is also political. “No politics” is itself politics.

Sulu’s gayness in New Trek was, what, two seconds of him hugging some guy?

Edited by Tuckerscreator on Jun 12th 2019 at 12:38:49 PM

In my opinion, getting pushy and trying to tell creators how they should write their stories can backfire. It's a bold assumption, in my opinion, to think that the people at WDAS see the gay Elsa activists as a core audience that'd be so important their petitions would actually affect the plot.

There's another problem that would come from making Elsa gay. It's that revealing that actually, Elsa's been into girls this whole time, while we've seen her spend all this affection, attention and whatnot on Anna, while having no other friends or relatives or love interests, while her life sort of revolves around Anna and kinda disliking Kristoff, well, it'd really throw an unpleasantly suspicious shade over their sibling relationship and all their love and adoration of each other. It'd come off as somewhat incestuous. The point of the first movie that true love doesn't need to be romantic, it can be familial love and still be very strong. But if it turns out that Elsa's a lesbian and also this much in love with a woman, who happens to be her sister - nope. It'd taint the first movie too. Disney's not gonna risk those sort of implications with their most profitable franchise.

I also resent the idea that if a female character doesn't spend all of their time obsessing over romance and marriage with a man, it MUST mean that they're a lesbian. Even when Elsa had a good reason to not think of romance in Frozen.

Elsa's broad appeal is partly because she's ambiguous enough to be whatever the viewer wants her to be, and her powers could act as a metaphor for practically anything, including LGBT+ issues. This allows her to represent everyone without having to be anyone. She's the character equivalent of a Rorschach Test. However, the more definite qualities you give her, the less ambiguous she becomes, the less identities you can project onto her, and thus the less relatable she is. As such, giving her any sexuality would make her less relatable, and I don't see why Disney would risk their cash cow in order to appeal to a relatively smaller demographic. If I haven't said this already, I'll say it again, but if Elsa is made gay, she'd instantly become nothing more than "that Disney character who's gay". Sure, people will remember that song and that magic, but her true defining quality, her attraction to women, will make history. Suddenly people care about her for her sexuality and not her actual character. Her psyche. Her connection with Anna. Elsa doesn't deserve any of that. It's also suspicious why people demanding progress aren't asking for just any lesbian protag, but that specifically the most popular cashcow Disney's had since The Lion King should be made into a lesbian.

I would personally rather see Elsa not have a romantic partner so there could be more Disney females that don't need romantic partners in their lives. Also, there would have to be time spent on Elsa's romantic relationship and her partner, and I'd rather keep things simple as putting too many things into the sequel can make it feel bloated. I mean, there's already Anna, Elsa, Kristoff, Sven, and Olaf at the front, so would dumping more characters into the front be helpful? And the trailers show that Frozen II will likely do more with Anna and Elsa's relationship as they were separated for a majority of their lives and only just got back together.

Edited by dmcreif on Jun 12th 2019 at 3:13:12 AM