Reviews WesternAnimation / Frozen 2013

• whispers* ............ CR? ..... is that you??

I wasn't into this movie either. I found the plot very lazy and inconsistent, never really building up to anything grand, always relying on clichés to get by.

There is nothing resembling build up and foreshadowing,

The "sandwiches" line in "Love is an Open Door." The way he very noticeably changes his demeanor and mannerisms depending on who he's talking to.

Pannic: They're trying to make up for this lazy plot twist by trying to throw in some pathetic attempts at "foreshadowing" that don't really work, and he had pretty much the same demeanor and mannerisms all throughout the movie until this twist. This was something they REALLY should have handled properly during the story production phase because voice acting and animation does not make up for poor storytelling. Besides, if they were REALLY planning to go through with this half-assed idea, then they probably shouldn't have made Hans give that genuine smile after falling off the dock when he first meets Anna even when no one's around to witness it and he has no reason to put on an act.

kyun: No, this ain't CR. I don't even know what his opinion on this movie is.

TT 454: Yeah, I saw your review on that one and I pretty much agreed with a lot of what you had to say. Again, I could have gone more into my problems with it had it not been for the word limit. When you mentioned "always relying on clichés to get by", my mind immediately turned to that incredibly forced parent death that was nothing more than an excuse to write them out of the film instead of giving them proper development. I don't mind parent deaths in Disney movies, but they have to be handled well, and unlike something like Lilo And Stitch, where that was a huge plot element for Lilo and Nani, the parents here just get killed off unceremoniously in one scene and it adds nothing to the movie but another cheap shock moment. I know that Disney producer Don Hahn has stated that "Disney movies are about growing up" and having to "accept responsibility" and that "it's much quicker to have characters grow up when you bump off their parents", but just because something like that can be done doesn't mean it should be the norm.

No, his acting is very noticeably different depending on who he's talking to. When he talks to Anna, he's all shy and dorky. When he talks to Elsa and the general populace, he puts on a facade of being noble and admirable. When he talks to the Duke, he's an abrasive asshole. If you pay attention to the song, the entire time he's trying to make sure he follows Anna's lead. Y'know, like a manipulative sociopath.

Exactly how should they have handled it? Should they have had him rub his hands together evilly in asides to the audience?

A lot of people behave differently around different people. It's a basic part of human psychology. Even though I loved this movie, I agree that any foreshadowing was quite poor and only apparent in retrospect if you squint hard enough.

Foreshadowing for plot twists generally is only apparent in retrospect. That's why it's a plot twist.

The "sandwiches" line in "Love is an Open Door."

Oh, it goes pretty well beyond that. The first line he sings is "I've been searching my whole life to find my own place." Not only that, but when you take a second to think about it, the line "love is an open door" doesn't really make sense for him to sing. Doors by this point in the movie have been established as a metaphor for emotion and relationships, which makes perfect sense for Anna, as she's been shut out of her relationship with her sister since they were little kids, but Hans? Hans tells that story about a couple of his brothers pretending he was invisible for two years, but he laughs it off as "what brothers do." He never expresses any dissatisfaction with his relationships, so why would he be singing about love opening that door?

Because he's using "open door" in its more traditional metaphorical sense: opportunity. When Anna says that line, she's saying that being in love has given her the emotional connection she's been desperate for ever since her parents died and her sister shut her out. When Hans says it, he's saying that Anna falling for him is giving him an opportunity to take her kingdom for his own. Hans isn't lying when he sings the line; he just means it sincerely in a different way from how we interpreted it at the time, which is exactly how a good twist works. The evidence is all there, we just weren't looking at it the right way before the twist occurred.

Besides, if they were REALLY planning to go through with this half-assed idea, then they probably shouldn't have made Hans give that genuine smile after falling off the dock when he first meets Anna even when no one's around to witness it and he has no reason to put on an act.

By the same token, Hans' smile here in genuine in his happiness... in having found an opportunity to steal the kingdom. Hans came to Arendale with taking it over in mind from the start, and after that brief interaction with Anna, he realized he already had his foot in the door, hence the smile.

Pannic: I noticed the first two demeanors, but I never noticed anything about him being an "abrasive asshole" towards that Duke. And even then, that indicates NOTHING about his true intentions.

"Exactly how should they have handled it? Should they have had him rub his hands together evilly in asides to the audience?"

No, but it should have been handled in a much smarter way than it was in the final product. One of my big problems with the twist is that it doesn't feel like a genuine surprise, like some of those other films with plot twists that I like, it just feels like a rip-off, a cheat, and it just infuriates me that Disney would stoop to such a level of laziness as to say "POOF! Now he's suddenly a bad guy!" rather than putting any thought or competence into giving it a proper execution. The last time such a blunder happened in a Disney movie was in Atlantis: The Lost Empire. The twist in Frozen just feels too out of nowhere and it comes way too late in the film to amount to ANYTHING. THAT is part of the reason as to why I hate this twist so much, because it wasn't being smart, despite its vain attempts to be so. I wouldn't mind having some hints thrown in, but they didn't have to bury what they had so deeply into the film that it can't be seen by the average viewer, even on a second viewing.

"Foreshadowing for plot twists generally is only apparent in retrospect. That's why it's a plot twist."

That may be, but I have seen plot twists that were handled infinitely better than with this film, like Fight Club and Wreck-It Ralph. And if you're going for really subtle twists, The Lego Movie executed theirs brilliantly. This, however, is nothing more than a cheap lie. Even if there WAS something to be gained in retrospect, it doesn't improve the movie, it just hurts it. Fight Club's twist allowed for there to be a double meaning to the events being shown onscreen that allowed you to look at it in a different light upon re-watching, and it gives a whole new experience. Frozen doesn't have that. In fact, it just makes re-watching certain scenes painful, particularly the "Love Is An Open Door" scene.

doctrainAUM: "A lot of people behave differently around different people. It's a basic part of human psychology."

Yes, I am perfectly aware of that. I've taken psychology, so I should know. And yes, the attempts at foreshadowing were just lazy and tacked on in order to compensate for this twist.

Wryte: Contemplating navels about the movie, eh? Look, buddy, you've been looking into this way more than you should. Even with all you said about "Love Is An Open Door", that doesn't make the scene any less painful to sit through a second time. Good twists shouldn't take away from the enjoyment of a movie. They should add something to a second viewing that makes it worth watching, or take you by surprise genuinely. The Lego Movie's plot twists were infinitely superior to the ones in Frozen, because they were handled with enough detail to make it truly subtle but not enough to be blatant in its execution, and the way they were handled was smart. What you said about something being done "in a different way from how we interpreted it at the time," is exactly why I feel the other twist with the true love being between sisters worked, because they built it up as being one thing, but it went another way that was just as believable. Hans' twist wasn't believable, it was purely movie-making bullshit, an excuse for a villain when there didn't need to be one, it was going just fine the way it was just by having an EMOTION as an antagonist, but then some idiot in the story department thought "HEY, let's add a bad guy or two to give it some drama!" and totally screwed that idea over. Now, far be it for me to talk badly to someone for liking something that I don't, but I really wish people would understand that if you're going to do a plot twist, it has to be done right. I don't feel like they got it right with Hans, and I know I'm not the only one who thinks that.

Also, to those reading, there's this video from the website Animator's Island, where two animators talk about the movie, and they brought up why they feel the villain twist doesn't work, and even brought up some wasted opportunities for the story that were ruined because of this twist. You can see this at 21:01-23:55 (and a little more at 29:05-31:57). And watch the whole video as well. It's very insightful as to what works and doesn't work in this movie. (You can watch it at this address: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8oIyUp_JDE )

You complain about the foreshadowing in Frozen not being blatant enough (even after people spell things out), but you praise The Lego Movie for being "subtle" about the buildup to its plot twist?

Look, buddy, you've been looking into this way more than you should.

You just simply can't accept that someone has a perfectly good explanation. Look, I didn't feel like Hans' twist was bad at all. I felt it actually justified just about everything he did in the movie (most notably, him wooing in Anna despite the fact they only just met). So why don't you take other people's opinions into consideration instead of just calling BS on them.

Pannic: That's because it was done properly. It was buried deep in the film, but it wasn't buried as ridiculously deep as Frozen was, and at the same time, there were still enough hints to pick up on, especially during a second viewing, so it came off as genuinely surprising instead of that forced shock moment that Frozen had. And another thing, The Lego Movie managed to be unpredictable with its twist. I've heard some people refer to the twist in Frozen as predictable, but The Lego Movie managed to take EVERYONE by surprise. Again, it was handled by people who were really thinking about what they wanted in their movie, not what they felt it needed. They didn't lie to the audience to such a degree that Frozen did. They treated the audience with respect for their intelligence. Also, people aren't spelling things out, they're just giving me their own interpretation of the twist. That's entirely different.

Satoshi Bakura: It's not that I'm unwilling to accept anyone else's opinion, I'm just trying to state why I feel it doesn't work at all. I just get so tired of people saying "Oh, this is so ingenious" and going into detail with why they think it's a good twist or something else of the sort, and feel they deserve an explanation from someone who despised this twist and why I refuse to accept it like others did. They don't have to agree with me, but I just want them to realize that there are problems with having a twist like this in a movie.

It's not that I'm unwilling to accept anyone else's opinion, I'm just trying to state why I feel it doesn't work at all.

Then make it clear that that's what you are trying to do in the first place. You act like the other opinions are wrong, even if you don't think you are doing that.

The reason we like the Hans twist so much isn't because thevery subtle foreshadowing. We like it because we think it makes sense. It manages to change the way we look at his past actions, but not to an extent that we feel that he was a totally different person, but to a point where we realize that it is perfectly possible for his character to be a Manipulative Bastard. Hell, this kind of thing happens in real life relationships a lot (obviously not to the extent of Hans, but you can see where I'm going). I can accept that you don't like the twist, but you seem to write off other people liking the plot twist as naive. That may not be what you are saying, but that's what I get from it.

As someone who hasn't seen the movie, I think your (maniacaldude) argument isn't coming off too well and seem like you're too stuck on your own view. Sorry, but as Satoshi Bakura said, that's how you come out as.

Satoshi Bakura and marcellX: I don't think the other opinions are wrong, they can believe whatever they want, but I'm just tired of everyone getting in my face and saying what a "brilliant twist" it is and acting like my dissing of it is some form of hearsay. The reason I come off like that to you is because I don't see what the other people see in this and I tend to be pretty negative when everyone thinks something is the biggest shit and I'm the only one who doesn't really like it that much. It makes me feel like an outcast. I'm sure there's some validity in their opinions, but I don't go by them. My big issue is not only because it doesn't make sense in my eyes, but because the entire thing just feels rushed. I know this kind of stuff happens in real life relationships, but this one doesn't feel genuine. It feels like contrived movie-making. If it were executed properly, I wouldn't have much of an issue with it, but I don't think it was, I think it was done for the sake of adding more needless drama into an already convoluted plot. And need I mention that duke? They build him up to be this really jerky antagonist character, but after Hans is revealed as the antagonist, his contribution to the film is rendered moot, and he winds up nothing more than a red herring. That's not clever, that's just lazy. That's another reason why I dislike this twist, because it renders another character completely POINTLESS.

It's not that I think that people who like it are naive, it's that I just want for them to understand things from a different viewpoint outside of their own "constantly worshiping Frozen" view, even if I kind of have to force it. Much like they try to explain why they think it works, I try to explain why I think it DOESN'T work. Besides, there are a ton of other things about this movie that I could complain about. You guys are making a big deal because I cited this moment as the thing I hate the most in the entire movie and are trying to defend it. Don't agree? Fine, but seriously, don't get your panties in a wad because I see this moment as a massive failure on the part of the storytellers.

How does it render the character pointless? In my view, it helps to reinforce the film's theme.

Don't really have a strong opinion on Frozen but if you're going to say in the review that 400 words is barely enough time to go into the issues you have with it, you might want to include your best arguments, rather than things like 'The film tries too hard, but in some places it doesn't try hard enough.' That tells nobody anything about anything.

As for the twist, to each their own and all, but I really liked it, and from what I can tell most people thought it was shocking and decently executed. It doesn't really render the character 'pointless', it just renders him 'the villain'.

I hated the twist in this movie. But not as much as the, in my honest opinion, absolutely abysmal scene with the trolls.

Oh God, the trolls. Was that the 'He's a real fixer-upper' song scene? Yeah, bleh, could've cut that and I don't think anyone would've shed a tear. Although it does add to the validity of the Anna/Olaf pairing, so... eh.

Very mixed feelings on this 'The twist was awful' issue. On the one hand, opinions are opinions and you're completely entitled to that. But at the same time it's a twist that the vast majority seemed to really like - it's unexpected but not unbelievable, and it doesn't go against Hans' character because while he was presented as a good guy, there was never enough detail on him to properly establish it, so it's shocking, but doesn't break the suspension of disbelief.

So the mixed feelings are there because if you think the twist is really terrible, what does that mean you think of people who liked it?

Contemplating navels about the movie, eh? Look, buddy, you've been looking into this way more than you should.

Uh, have you been to this site before? :P

"Although it does add to the validity of the Anna/Olaf pairing"

• facepalm*

Okay, so maybe 'validity' was the wrong word, but it means that pairing comes less out of nowhere.

No, I was facepalming at the fact that there's even a PAIRING IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I just despise shipping, okay? And please don't give me "You don't understand looooooooove!!!" speech.

I'm not talking about fanfiction and shippers and that, just referring to the fact that Anna and Olaf end up together in the actual movie. An in-universe pairing.

Pannic: "How does it render the character pointless?"?!!!? Seriously? By going this route, it winds up making the character completely superfluous to the grand scheme of things! And how does this waste of animation reinforce the movie's theme? Explain, because I don't follow your mindset.

TT 454: Oh my god, I LOATHED those things. Not only did they have the single worst, most forgettable song in the entire movie, but the whole subplot involving them, hell, their own PRESENCE pisses me off. This was what I had to say about it on my DA journal talking about this movie:

"First of all, the bit with the trolls altering Anna's memories. Why did they do that? I know Elsa's powers accidentally struck Anna, but is that any reason to alter her memories? Wasn't there another way they could have healed her? Besides, Anna found out about the powers anyways, so that ultimately renders that scene completely pointless. Also, when Anna came across the trolls again later on in the movie, why didn't they tell her the truth of what happened or restore her memories to the way they originally were? Why did none of them EVEN recognize her? In fact, I feel those trolls are more of a plot device than actual characters."

So yeah, that was another thing about this movie that I hated. The rules set by them were contrived, they weren't funny, they weren't cute, they weren't entertaining, I just wanted to commit mass genocide on those "ugly Smurfs", as they were dubbed by Honest Trailers. Also, is it just me, or did they kind of resemble Stanley from A Troll In Central Park to a degree?

Elmo3000: That would be hard to do, because there was quite a bit I wanted to say and I wasn't given enough to say it with. The whole plot was a mess of wasted potential and not very well executed ideas that it would have taken more words to go in-depth with some of the really big ones, like my issue with killing off the parents in this and Elsa's character.

As for the twist, I know quite a few who agree with me on it. My own brother is a HUGE movie buff, and that was one of his many issues with the film as well. And by "pointless", I was referring to the Duke, not Hans, for your information.

Also, I'm looking at it from a filmmaking and a storytelling stand point, and by that perspective, it does not work. It would have been one thing if it was actually executed by someone competent enough to handle such a serious theme, but it wasn't. It tries to be like real life, but it's just purely movie-making BS, a plot device, and it also offended me as a viewer, because I felt cheated by it. I wasn't convinced by it at all. It broke the suspension of disbelief for me. I can accept pulling the wool over the eyes a little bit, heck, even more so when it comes to stuff like Fight Club, but when it's done to such a heinous degree, it feels like a rip-off. I'm sure they were trying for a positive theme for this aspect warning about people not being what they seem or whatever, but Beauty And The Beast handled this idea infinitely better. And personally, this was the theme I got out of this moment: "Trust no one. EVER." And it pisses me off that they're trying to pass this kind of thing off to younger audiences when they're not being smart about making it and they didn't really think it through in pre-production. Also, because it's placed so late in the film, we're never given a chance to properly bear animosity towards Hans.

It's not that I have anything against people who like it, I'm just sick of them bugging me about it, like I've committed some form of treason for saying anything bad about their precious movie, in particular, this moment.

Wryte: Yes, I have. I've been a long time viewer of this site.

You think that the creators of Frozen think that people are idiots and will accept a plot twist like this because they are dumb. Umm...no.

This plot twist required the viewers to think about it. That's why we are arguing with you: we realize how a plot twist like this can work in real life. In fact, when you get down to it, all the twist is is Hans is a Jerkass and he never loved Anna. Now if it turned out Hans planned everything in the film...that's a different matter. It's just the reveal of a true personality, and he was just going a long with everything that happened to get him to the position he wanted to have.

And we are not trying to bug you. We are just trying to share our opinions in the same way you share yours. But you seem to swat away everybody else's opinions. You may not believe that's what you are doing, but you are still doing it.

"How does it render the character pointless?"?!!!? Seriously? By going this route, it winds up making the character completely superfluous to the grand scheme of things! And how does this waste of animation reinforce the movie's theme? Explain, because I don't follow your mindset.

Simple. He helps to illustrate the story's themes about love. It shows that Anna "falling in love" out of nowhere with a guy she just met isn't just silly and childish; it's actually pretty dangerous.

So yeah. He does serve a point to the film's storytelling.

Satoshi Bakura: That was not what I was getting at AT ALL. I never said that the creators of Frozen think that people are idiots who will accept anything thrown at them. I have too much respect for filmmakers and creators to say that. I can easily say that about studio executives, because they act all high-and-mighty, but not the actual creators themselves!

Even if it CAN work in real life, it doesn't mean you shouldn't put in the effort to represent it ACCURATELY. I consider this a hot button topic to discuss with kids about, and if it's not executed properly, it could really scar them. Besides, didn't you see that video I linked to? It already mentioned some potentially good ideas that were wasted because of this reveal. Like, there was the notion of having to choose between two nice guys, that's ALSO something that happens in real life. It's like what J.K. Riki said in his own review of it:

"What drove the nail in the coffin regarding Hans for me was that for the better part of the film I was becoming increasingly excited that for once Disney was not going to wrap up the love-aspect into a neat little box. Anna was clearly developing feelings for Kristoff and yet had already made (very hasty) promises to Hans. She was going to have to DEAL with that situation, and I was thrilled to see such a development crop up. In reality we humans encounter tough situations like that, and it made things seem so much deeper. Instead they whisked away that character-developing choice from her and turned Hans from happy and caring into sneering and murderous, all in three or four lines of dialog. What a shame."

And that's another big problem with this film: it tries to do stuff differently, but it bails out at the last moment. I get so annoyed whenever I hear people talk about how "progressive" and "groundbreaking" it is, because it seemed like they were trying to fill in the voids with their own ideas and biases and not actually look into the content of the film as is.

Again, I'm not swatting away everybody else's opinions. I read them. I really do. But I just don't agree with them.

Pannic: *Facepalms* No, no, NO, I wasn't referring to Hans, for crying out loud, I was referring to the Duke. I said "it renders ANOTHER character completely pointless".

You don't want to believe you are swatting other people's opinions away, but you are. I'm not saying you don't read them, but you just don't take them into consideration. You don't go "you make a good point, but I still don't like it". You are instead going "your point means nothing". This how you come across to me. You don't have to agree with my opinion, but you should take it into consideration. I can see why you don't like the plot twist, but we are not trying to refute your opinion. We are trying to explain why we like the plot twist, not that why you should like the plot twist.

"And that's another big problem with this film: it tries to do stuff differently, but it bails out at the last moment."

Can you please give me examples? I can't see how the film bails out from doing things differently.

What drove the nail in the coffin regarding Hans for me was that for the better part of the film I was becoming increasingly excited that for once Disney was not going to wrap up the love-aspect into a neat little box. Anna was clearly developing feelings for Kristoff and yet had already made (very hasty) promises to Hans. She was going to have to DEAL with that situation, and I was thrilled to see such a development crop up. In reality we humans encounter tough situations like that, and it made things seem so much deeper. Instead they whisked away that character-developing choice from her and turned Hans from happy and caring into sneering and murderous, all in three or four lines of dialog. What a shame.

Y'know, that was actually pretty close to my reaction too, the first time I watched the movie and got to the scene where Hans reveals his true colors. Until that point, I'd figured they were going for a twist that while Hans was a nice guy, it wasn't true love, and turning him into a villain apparently out of the blue really turned me off because it seemed like throwing a good message out the window for the sake of having another villain.

What changed my mind was when they also rejected kissing Kristoff as the solution, and went with sacrificing herself for her sister. That was a totally unexpected twist, and while it could still have been done by putting the Duke in Hans' place in that scene on the lake, it wouldn't have been nearly as effective. The Duke was too comical a character to be a legitimate threat himself, and wasn't subtle enough a manipulator to trick Elsa in the first place. At best, we would have gotten a retread of the fight in Elsa's ice palace where his henchmen attacked her on the lake, which would have been totally anti-climactic. Making it Hans made it much more personal, and pushes the "love at first sight is bullshit" message they'd established earlier in the movie further to include "and makes you vulnerable to predation."

And being a red herring in no way makes the Duke pointless. Besides instigating the hostility against Elsa and sending men to assassinate her, without the Duke prancing around being obviously the villain, Hans would have tipped his hand too early. The audience would have been looking for who the villain was, and Hans would have been making more overt moves to manipulate the situation, which would have both made him being the real villain obvious and made him less realistic, as suddenly he turns from an opportunist taking advantage of the situation as it unfolds into the chessmaster who was responsible for everything all along. Just Hans turns out to be the bigger bad doesn't suddenly sweep away everything the Duke did up to that point.

^ Well, I'm pretty sure some people wanted Hans to reveal himself earlier (I'm apathetic on that). But the Duke is still funny anyway, and was a great source of comic relief. And to me, comic relief is never a waste of animation.

Oh crap was I saying Olaf this whole time?

Kristoff!

Anna and Kristoff... the pairing... thing. I got Kristoff's name wrong. It's him and Anna who end up... eh... ah, sugar puffs.

Well I just fulfilled my 'Look like a gigantic idiot on the internet' quota for the month.

As a person from Norway, the funny thing for me was that it got really poor reviews here which initially made me groan, thinking the critics were stuck in Animation Age Ghetto or something when I saw how well recieved it was in America. Then I watched the movie and thought "Wow... they were kinda right." It's a sweet and entertaining movie by all accounts, but the insane reception it's recieved, winning Oscars here and there and being considered the greatest Disney film this decade mindboggles me to no end. While Tangled also had its flaws, I still thought it had way stronger writing and comedy. Wreck it Ralph was a masterpiece, but I guess that one doesn't count since it wasn't a fairytale movie? In my impression, Frozen tries so hard to tell this amazing and funny story it ends up trying too hard at several points. Some of the jokes are just weird and alot of the serious moments just fell flat for me because of lack of "substance" behind them, such as the supposed heartbreaking moment when Elsa cradles a frozen Anna... I didn't feel sad at all. The two sisters had a playing montage as kids and giggled over chocolate as adults and because of that, I'm supposed to get invested in what a deep, touching relationship they have? Honestly, I found the climax in Brave when Merida hugs her bear!mother thinking she's lost her to be way sadder, even as that film is generally considered mediocre. Lilo and Nani's relationship was played way more realistically and even though none of them died, Nani simply being told she had to send Lilo away had me to tears at first viewing. About the jokes, I felt alot of them had the same problem in that they were kinda forced, for instance: "I bet the princesses are beautiful!/I bet they are lovely!" (Oh gee, does that mean we're about to get a shot of them not looking so lovely?) Sven, a reindeer that acts like a big stupid dog (rather than comparing him to Tangled's Maximus, I say he's more like Pascal, another character with no purpose besides making the kids laugh), and Olaf's "Wow, Kristoff is really coming back fast. I guess I was wrong, he doesn't love you after all" (sorry but what kind of a joke is that?) Weselton's character also struck me as forced, even as he's meant to be the decoy villain, some of his lines such as shouting "Monster!" at Elsa when she accidentally strucks him, asking Anna if she's "a monster too" and his blubbering breakdown at the end are delivered so over the top and clichè it's like he came out of a of a Looney Toons cartoon. If his character was really meant to trick people into thinking he's the main villain, Disney must think that Viewers Are Morons.

I could point out more I find mediocre, but alot of things has been said by other before me too, so I'll just leave it. Overall, I have no idea what made the film as popular as it is, though I'm guessing it's a combination of "Let it Go" and "UNIQUE SISTERLY LOVE!!!11" added to the Disney Hype formula. It's probably why How To Train Your Dragon 2 won't make as much money or recieve as much attention even though that one was far superior both story and comedy-wise. I kiss the feet of the critic who delivered the famous line of calling it "More fun than Frozen" though.

If his character was really meant to trick people into thinking he's the main villain, Disney must think that Viewers Are Morons.

That's the first time I think I have heard somebody say that. The Duke definitely seemed like the main villain of the film to me, comic relief or not. And his main point was to be comic relief in the first place.

Many of us got invested in Anna and Elsa's sisterhood, because it was realistic. We liked Hans' twist because it was realistic. The way this film hits relationships so well is what got us into it in the first place. You don't have to like it, but we are telling you why we like it. And don't forget to let it go... let it go!

• for a decade would be more correct

Satoshi Bakura: First of all, yes, they make good points, I can see where they're coming from, but I just don't buy into them. I never said their point means jack shit. I'm not saying that you're wrong for accusing me of being like this towards the opinions of others, it's understandable why you would, but I am saying you're wrong for accusing me of saying things I NEVER said. Or at the very least, THINK I'm saying through my behavior. And I'm sick of you accusing me of these things just because it seems like I don't acknowledge the opinions of others. I do. They at least have SOMETHING to back them up and that is something I can't take away from them. They have the right to believe what they want BECAUSE they have this something, much like I have something to back me up on my own perspective on why it doesn't work. But your constant accusations of things I didn't say are really starting to wear thin on me, buck-o!

Second, there are quite a few things. For one thing, they had Elsa sing this big epic song about being independent and free and what does she do after that? She hides away in her ice castle like a pussy! That should be a clear example, shouldn't it? I've seen a lot of stuff claiming that this movie was "progressive", but it often comes from the interpretations of those who see it, like claiming that that one trader guy that Anna comes across is gay, when it's something that's clearly taken out of context, and outside of the bit with the "family" (which could have been like siblings or something, not an actual gay couple), has no solid proof. You could tell they wanted to try something new with this through some of the ideas, but man, it backfires big time.

You, didn't answer my question. How does Elsa having a big song about being free that hiding away mean that the film bails out from doing things differently. Oaken is just misinterpreted to be gay, but that means nothing. Please provide real examples of bailing out from doing something different. I'm not trying to be mean, but I just don't get what you mean by it.

Besides, that's one idea right there: Applicability. This is what the film does. It doesn't out right state that Oaken is gay, but you can interpret that. Also, you can interpret that Elsa is lesbian, as well as interpret what kind of message Let It Go sends, what Hans's true personality is, and why Elsa has ice powers in the first place (oddly enough, not explaining how she had them at all made seems a lot easier to accept than a half-assed explanation).

And I'm honestly trying to help you. I don't want to annoy you, I just want you to realize that we are not trying to shove our opinions in your face. We are just trying to share ours, just like how I want you to share yours: firm, but accepting.

Satoshi Bakara: You kinda contradict yourself there. You thought the Duke was the main villain but you also thought he was mainly meant to be a comic relief?

Even if Hans hadn't existed, the most I would think of the Duke was that he acts like a silly and insignificant character, and the main issue of the story would be Elsa's struggle with her powers. I don't get it if he was meant to make people think he offered a serious threat.

See that's the problem, you can say all those pretty things, but reading everything else, we just don't buy it. And again, this is from someone who hasn't seen the movie yet, going 100% based on your reaction and behavior. Notice that Satoshi Bakura hasn't been the only one to call you out on this, and your response has been more on the lines of, nuh uh, because I say I'm not, and getting angry at other for saying it.

The main villain can't be comic relief?

Even if he was both a villain and comedy relief, his lines that I quoted above were obviously meant to be taken seriously and make you hate him for how quickly he turns on Elsa and Anna, but they just came off as so over-the-top I couldn't take it seriously. Incidentally, I watched the film in Japanese once where it was handled much better, when Elsa accidentally strucks him, his reaction is a more realistic "What the..! Get her!" than the clichè of "Monster! Monster!" Overall my point was that subtlety for a majority of the time wasn't the film's strongest point. The funniest moment to me was when Anna showed Hans to Elsa and declared they were getting married and Elsa's wtf reaction, I never even cracked a smile at Sven. Though of course, I know alot of this comes down to personal taste.

I still don't really see what your point is, it's still along the lines of main villains can't be comic relief for me (of which Disney has a lot of). However, unlike the case with maniacal, that seems more like something I would need to watch the movie first to divulge more into.

The line that he calls Elsa a monster is not meant to be taken seriously. The idea that he wants to kill Elsa is however. Also, in my opinion, the Japanese line sounds more cliche than the American line (I mean, how many times have you heard a villain say "get him/her/them/it"?). Of course, personal opinion, and I see that you like the Japanese line better. It's just that I think it's more cliche than the American line.

He thinks Elsa is a monster because of her powers and her inability to control them (which he misinterprets as her using them as a weapon). So I think that was meant to be taken seriously.

I point to my original description of him which is that he reminded me of a character from a Looney Toons cartoon, that's how over-the-top I found him, regardless how much of a part time comic relief he was meant to be. And his calling her a monster was meant seriously, that's the part where Elsa panics for real and sees other people are getting scared of her too. And you would probably have to watch the Japanese version yourself to see what I mean, it's the manner in which he delivered it which just sounded way more natural, in fact alot of the lines were handled better in Japanese, including Marshmallow's hammy voice being changed to actually sounding scary. But that's getting off the subject. Overall, if you thought the Duke was a convincing decoy villain, that's great, I just personally didn't buy into his character at all.

Wryte: Personally, I felt Hans was too much of a pretty boy to be a convincing villain. Here's a good example of someone who's handsome but also a bad guy: Gaston from Beauty And The Beast. Even though Gaston was sort of a good-looking handsome sucka man, you could also tell there was something to his design and demeanor that made him much more, well, deceiving. He starts off as this egotistical jerk rather than a flat-out bad guy, but his design wasn't just a convincing contrast to the Beast, there also seemed to be a sense of parody to it, like something that was subtly making fun of stereotypical macho men, with the square jaw and cleft chin, the confident pose, the perfectly chiseled body, the works. And furthermore, what made Gaston work as a baddy was the progressive development of how far he'd go to get his hands on Belle. If it was their plan for Hans to be the villain the whole time, why not develop it like they did with Gaston WITHOUT making it so ridiculously buried within the context of the film? Or at the very least, not give him a pretty boy design? Looking back, that's one of the reasons why I didn't like this twist, because I cannot see this guy, with THIS design, acting like a villainous jackass.

scrooge20mcduck: Totally agreed with you on quite a few things related to this movie, particularly the fact that it tried too hard and didn't have a ton of substance.

Satoshi Bakura: Realistic? Seriously? You've mentioned why you felt the twist with Hans was realistic, despite my not agreeing with you, but I could understand your reasoning for saying so. But the sisterhood between Anna and Elsa? I'm sorry, but would you bother explaining WHY it's "realistic"? Right now, though, I feel it's a good time to bring up part of something my brother wrote as a way to let his feelings on this movie out:

"One of the many oddities of the general public's positive response to Frozen is they want to fill the colossal voids in its incredibly broken plot with their own ideas and biases. They base these opinions not on the content of the film but on the idea of the film.

A good example would be this quote of Idena Menzel:

Frozen is "a bit of a feminist movie for Disney. I'm really proud of that. It has everything, but it's essentially about sisterhood. I think that these two women are competitive with one another, but always trying to protect each other – sisters are just so complicated. It's such a great relationship to have in movies, especially for young kids."

At what point in the movie are these two sisters actually competitive?!?!?! Competition usually comes from comparison and similarities between sisters yet most of the story elements in Frozen involve isolating and separating the two sisters from each other, giving them little opportunity to compare themselves to one another. They are so estranged they don't have any point of reference for rivalry.

What is so compelling about this "sisterhood" for which this movie supposedly revolves around? Like everything else associated with this film, the answer is purely surface and superficial. They are sisters, and they are both the main characters, therefore, the movie is about sisterhood. That's good enough right?! at least these kids are too stupid to question it any farther*. But the key ingredient that is missing from this "sisterhood" is the idea of a relationship bond being formed between these two sisters. Ideally this would be a compelling relationship but I would just settle for any sort of relationship. But it doesn't truly exist.

Jennifer Lee is the first Women to direct a Disney film (A shame it took them this long.) But what many people probably don't realize is that her job was mostly in directing the story… AND IT SHOWS. This script is so nauseatingly girl power and at the same time portrays women so one dimensionally it seems it should have ticked off everybody."

• I presume he was being sarcastic with that.

Then again, he did think this movie was slightly better than Brave, which he really hated...

Also, I know someone who didn't feel the Duke's antics worked. Personally, he was okay, but honestly, why build him up as the bad guy only to do nothing with him once Hans pulls the mask off?

You really don't understand how the movie is about sisterhood, don't you. Well, allow me to explain.

The sisterhood is what keeps the film going. They care for each other. But hey are like friends and enemies at the same time, which is how sibling relationships go in real life. Elsa tries to isolate herself from Anna so that she doesn't hurt her. However, this results in them arguing throughout the film. When Elsa's powers are revealed, Anna goes after her because Elsa is her sister. Elsa didn't want to freeze Anna's heart, but she accidentally did. The whole freaking act of true love involves the sisters caring for each other for crying out loud! It's why Anna sacrificed herself: to save her sister. They do have a competitive nature throughout the film: Anna wants to be with Elsa, while Elsa wants to isolate herself, but while they have completely different methods of protection, that's what they are trying to do.

And again, you don't seem to understand the concept of Applicability: parts of the film are purposefully left up to interpretation. And while I don't see how the plot is exactly broken. I mean yeah, the beginning could have been done better, but other than that, interpretation is what makes this film so well liked.

And once again, you are swatting away other people's opinions about the movie, because you seem to deny that the movie is about sisterhood, when everyone else sees it that way. If you can't understand it, that's fine, but you are acting so stuck up on your own opinion that you neglect to see it from other people's point of view. Deny it all you want, but it's true. Please just calm down, and be polite.

Erm, the Hans/Gaston comparison isn't really a great match. Gaston is clearly a bad guy who turns out to be a badder guy than we previously thought. Hans doesn't show any hint of being the bad guy until it's revealed. That's what made it shocking.

Satoshi: If I can butt in, then Maniacal is far from the only person arguing that Hans' villain twist was out of nowhere, it's even included on the Broken Base entry of the film's YMMV site. And as I mentioned in my intital post, then people who don't buy Anna and Elsa's relationship I'm guessing don't buy it because it's more told than shown. We know they used to play alot as kids because the grandpa troll tells us, we know Anna wants to continue playing with Elsa because she sings a song about it...that's basically it. I remember my inital impression of the sisters was that I thought it was sweet how determined Anna was to have a relationship with her, not by any relationship they actually had. The main plot of the film looked more like "Anna fights to get her sister back" than "two sisters share a beautiful bond". When it comes to Lilo & Stitch, Lilo and Nani interacted several times and just like real-life sisters, and you legimately felt torn when Nani's told she can't take care of Lilo anymore. Even The Nostalgia Critic called their relationship one of the greatest Disney has ever produced, to the point he wished Stitch wasn't part of the movie! Now I know it can't be entirely compared as Lilo and Nani weren't forced to separate by magic forces, but when Frozen's being praised as it is because of the "unique" treatment of sisterly love, alot of people groans at that when a sisterly bond was done much more realistic and touching before, but similarly to Wreck it Ralph I guess, L&S wasn't a fairytale movie and in the latter's case only a relative success so it gets glanced over. I'm personally not saying people can't find Elsa and Anna's relationship a touching and realistic one, different people react differently to what they're represented to, but it remains that some people don't buy their relationship and that's their reaction. No matter how much anyone should try and explain to me how touching/realistic/beautiful etc. their relationship is, I still won't feel a thing when Elsa hugs the frozen Anna. And I even got teary eyed once at a Tom and Jerry cartoon.

Well, I think the problem is that people have different views on what "realistic" means. And the Nostalgia Critic said that Lilo and Nani's relationship works against the movie since it is so good. I guess why it was toned down here. Anna and Elsa's is not as realistic as Lilo and Nani's, but in my eyes, it's pretty realistic for a movie where a girl has snow powers and can make living snowmen.

And yes, I know the Hans twist has mixed feelings, but we were trying to say that there was legitimate foreshadowing. Maybe it wasn't enough, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Satoshi Bakura: “And the Nostalgia Critic said that Lilo and Nani's relationship works against the movie since it is so good.”

(sighs) Alright, I was going to wait until I wrote down everything I had to say about each comment, but this statement caught my attention, so let me put this out there: DOUG WALKER’S WORD IS NOT LAW. I’ve disagreed with him many times on things, and he personally states that if you like a movie that he doesn’t or you disagree with him on something, that’s perfectly fine. It annoys me how people are so obsessed with this guy that his opinion will drive them away from a movie or make them change their own opinion on it or something. I mean, yeah, I love the Nostalgia Critic, but he’s just some guy with an opinion. Granted, they’re interesting opinions, but they’re still opinions nonetheless. People should not match their opinion according to his. Even if he does have insight about something, it shouldn’t really change how you view it. Lilo And Stitch was considered one of Disney’s best movies in the 2000’s, and you’re telling me that just because some guy with a camera and editing software said something about a movie having something that’s so good that it works against the movie as a whole or some other nonsense, we have to modify our opinions to match his? BULLCRAP. I said it once and I’ll say it again: THE NOSTALGIA CRITIC’S WORD IS NOT LAW. You have the nerve to call me out on my opinions and how I’m getting angry at people for having different opinions, but are willing to side with the same guy who caused uproar for stating he hated District 9? Are you a hypocrite? Are you serious? No. J-just… No.

No...you really think that was what I meant? You are kind of overreacting here. scrooge20mcduck mentioned it first, and responded in suit. And I don't think the relationship in Lilo And Stich is bad at all. But since scrooge20mcduck talked about him liking the movie, I also had to mention that. Granted, I should have taken out the sentence "I guess that's why it was toned down here.".

And also, why are freaking out just because I mentioned the Nostalgia Critic? I mention him in one sentence...and you have to write an entire paragraph to complain about it. That's making you come out to be rude. Take deep breaths and calm down, and we can discuss calmly.

Even though I find many Nostalgia Critic videos funny and informative, I'm fully able to disagree with him.

For example, he despises Phil Collins. Phil "Genesis" Collins. GENESIS. I would never start hating one of the greatest men to ever walk the planet just because some hotheaded Internet man-child doesn't like him.

Well, yeah. You do have to admit, that song in Brother Bear was very badly placed. Other than that, I can't see what is wrong with Phil Collins. Though I'm not sure whether it's Phil Collins himself the critic dislikes, or the way his songs are awkwardly placed in the movies.

Nostalgia Critic is entertaining until he pans the movie you like (not talking about you, TT 454. I don't mean anyone in particular). Than he's annoying. Though keep in mind, Doug Walker is not like that at all.

Wow, someone has some issues, you didn't even replied to anything else.

I've never even seen Brother Bear. However, I do agree with the placement of that song. It made no sense to put it there. But I can't see why he hates Phil because of it. Maybe he just doesn't like his voice.

Again, I love The Nostalgia Critic as much as the next guy, but I don't think people should take to EVERYTHING he has to say. Also, I admit to jumping the gun. I saw your response, Satoshi Bakura, but I didn't read scrooge20mcduck's comment until AFTER I posted it, so forgive me, it's another case where I didn't look through things clearly.

While I disagree with Doug about Phil Collins' contributions to Tarzan and Brother Bear (Seriously, what the hell's his issue with the guy? I love Phil Collins.) I do agree that the placement of that one song in Brother Bear might have kinda messed up the emotional impact of the scene it was placed over.

(Again, still working on responses for some of those past comments.)