Reviews WesternAnimation / Frozen 2013

P.S. This is not the review I wanted it to be. An estimated 3,000 character count is still too limiting.

Even by your standards this is ridiculously petty, nitpicky, and hyperbolic. Not even 30,000 extra characters would've helped.

You don't even know what my standards are Bastard 1. There's no point in you commenting on here if you're just going to live up to that username.

I don\'t consider Elsa\'s \"you can\'t marry a man you just met\" a Take That at other Disney movies, but a more realistic look at Love at First Sight. Granted, not everyone turns out to have Hans\' motives, but perhaps the other princesses were just lucky.

As for Anna getting set up with someone she just met, she didn\'t immediately agree to marry Kristoff. Apart from how they spent several very trying days together, at the end of the movie, they\'re in a relationship, not engaged or married. Anna knows enough that she likes and is interested in Kristoff, but also learned the hard way that she shouldn\'t rush into things.

Elsa didn\'t forsake the sister who loves her- she fled the palace to avoid accidentally killing her, like she almost did when they were little, only to almost do so a second time when Anna comes after her. As for Anna, her naivete is indeed a serious flaw that causes problems at several points, but it\'s also counterbalanced by her determination and love for her sister. The general consensus is that the parents\' approach did more harm than good, but not only were their intentions good and they were dealing with something beyond their control, but the trolls\' advice gave them that idea, so they probably wouldn\'t have helped with controlling Elsa\'s powers.

I concede that the issue of who served as regent could have been covered more in depth, but I wouldn\'t call them \"apathetic\" so much as short-handed and kept at a distance, since the king mentioned cutbacks to keep Elsa\'s powers secret.

Overall, this review was somewhat meandering, overly negative, and more of a list of complaints than an actual review that would help someone decide whether or not to see it (for example, it spoils the Hans plot twist). All in all, it doesn\'t accomplish all that much apart from expressing your dislike for the movie and some of the reasons behind it, and not as efficiently as it could have, at that.

According to this interview, there was going to be a regent in the film but they were cut.

Also I highly doubt this film is worse than Home on the Range or Chicken Little, also in the animated canon.

Valiona, did you read the first comment? I couldn\'t make this into the review I wanted it to be because the character limit is just too constricting for me. Somehow I feel your decision has already been made, Tucker.

The Real Yuma,

I did. I believe that many of the people complaining about the review limit do so because they\'re not able to write concisely and make the best possible use of what they\'ve been given. 3,000 characters may not be much, but it\'s enough to write a good review if you don\'t let it get bogged down in discussing minutiae or complaining, as this review was.

Yeah, I think 3000 words should generally be a decent enough wordcount if one isn\'t going into minutiae or spoilers. 400 was pretty small, but 3000? Not so much, I don\'t think.

Valiona, you\'re ignoring one thing: it\'s easier to draw readers in when something is more on the positive side. However, given the acclaim that Frozen has gotten, that means I need to go beyond what I would normally have to. I have to make sure that everyone understands where I\'m coming from, etc. No, 3,000 characters isn\'t enough for that. Pannic, it\'s 3,000 CHARACTERS, not words. There\'s a HUGE difference.

However, given the acclaim that Frozen has gotten, that means I need to go beyond what I would normally have to. I have to make sure that everyone understands where I\'m coming from, etc.

Dude. You\'re on one website. Frozen is acclaimed across the entire world. Point is, one review on Tv Tropes is not going to change \"everyone\"\'s mind, so there\'s no need to claim you have to hyperbole yourself in hopes of shattering the whole world\'s beliefs. Just state your opinion and understand it as that, one opinion, like everyone else\'s.

It\'s not about changing everyone\'s mind Tucker. You\'re making an assumption. Besides, what do you think I tried with this review, hmm? Yes, I do require more characters to use in order to get my points across.

Then expand your thoughts on another website. Open a Wordpress or a Tumblr instead of merely complaining about the length.

You don\'t think I haven\'t been doing that? Why? Why do you continue to make assumptions, Tucker?

Because I hadn\'t seen evidence to the contrary. Rather than respond in a patronizing manner, one could\'ve just linked to the longer review in the comments and saved ten comments arguing about the length.

<Moderator headband on>

Oi, folks. Not so confrontational please.

Plot Hole misuse.

Tucker, that's no excuse. A longer review will take time, so obviously it wouldn't show up right away. Plus, isn't linking to another review against the rules? And if you're going to ask, I always make the TV Tropes review first. I know for a fact that there's a rule about copying and pasting from another review on some other website. Furthermore, would you be so fond of someone repeatedly making assumptions?

I will heed Septimus's warning and drop this debate, but will leave with this.

Furthermore, would you be so fond of someone repeatedly making assumptions?

I shouldn't be fond or think ill of any commenter I'm debating with because personal feelings have no place in debates. So I don't care that you are apparently "not fond of me".

Really poor choice, Tucker. Really poor. Lastly, it's not about personal feelings. It's about respect. Just because we enter a debate that does not mean we can't show some mutual respect for each other. Am I right fellas?

null

With all due respect, it felt needlessly streached out (the whole princesses comparison) and pretentious (hell, even you seem to be aware of this) and self-centered with lines like "The King's likeness to Walt Disney feels more like an insult than an honor given how the final film ended up."

It goes back to what Vialona said, you didn't really add anything that sustancial compared to this review, so the complains about size come out more as the typical excuses.

With all due respect marcellX, that is just what you think. The fact is that the full review is far more substantial, considering the definition "of considerable importance, size, or worth," than this one and the character limit is too small for me to make a good review for this film. Besides, for all I know, you dislike this review so much that you were quick to denounce the full review rather than treat it with a new set of eyes. Also, let's be honest. Chances are that Walt would have never approved of the final version of Frozen. That's why I said that the King's appearance comes off as an insult.

of course is just what I think, what's with the Irrelevant Thesis

That seems like a rather big assumption, however, I'm not acutally surprised given the rest of your display in general so far.

Because?

I read the rest of the review, and similar to what marcelx said, it feels like an expanded version of your first one. Since most of the points were expanded versions of your ones in your review, I\'ll go into the ones that speak to the various problems with the expanded review.

In particular, the fact that you believe that the rest of Anna and Elsa\'s childhood is \"dumbed down\" because it\'s only four minutes long says a lot about your approach to quantity and quality. While the story of Anna\'s quest to find Elsa is the main focus, the sequence shows a great deal about how the relationship between the sisters develops, such as Anna gradually losing hope in reaching out to Elsa, and Elsa\'s room freezing over after her parents\' deaths. Similar to the montage about Carl\'s life story from Up, the sequence was as long as it needed to be, and if it had gone on longer, it would have hurt the movie\'s pacing.

I understand your complaints about the trolls, and you\'re not alone in feeling that way, since they\'re probably the least popular characters in the film. That said, I do have to wonder whether the fact that they live in secret from the humans has something to do with it, so they\'d see keeping one\'s power secret as a practical solution, even if it isn\'t for human royalty.

For Anna, not only is it not entirely convincing to essentially say \"See, IMDB said it, so it must be true,\" but even if her parents neglect her, they aren\'t about to just let her go off and do what she pleases, since she\'s next in line for the throne. Essentially, a lot of people on TV Tropes do only just enough thinking to point out various plot holes and inconsistencies, when there are times when, if they\'d done a little more, they\'d have realized that there\'s a plausible explanation for them.

Even in the longer review, the assertions that Elsa is a \"bitch\" were given only threadbare evidence, which only works if you don\'t consider that what she did was for Anna\'s sake. The point of the story is that Elsa and Anna are wrong about various things for various reasons, but they have the best of intentions and love each other, which helps them bring about a positive resolution to the story.

As such, this review goes to show that removing the character limit on reviews doesn\'t necessarily make reviewers any better at expressing their opinions or supporting their assertions with evidence.

And, as always Valiona sallies in to claim a brutal victory.

Home on the Range: Am I a joke to you?

The reason the sisters look like the mother is because she\'s their mother and they\'re sisters. Some families just have really strong genes. And the reason the mother looks like Rapunzel is because they were designed by the same person, Glen Keane.