Holy crap, Frozen suuuuuucks.

[Fox12]

snip

There are a lot of Ghibli films of varying quality, and not all of them are good. However, for their more critically acclaimed films, there are several reason why people like them. Miyazaki's early works, while not bad, were fairly bland and simple. Nausicca and Castle in the Sky were fun adventures, but the they followed well worn archetypes that have been done before, and done better. His later filsm, however, tend to stray from this path. They are childrens films, but they don't talk down to children.

Mononoke has a rather complex set of characters, given that its a 2 hour film. It's not a story of good vs. evil, it's a story of people vs. people, which is inherently more interesting. The leader of the humans is simply trying to carve out a place for her followers to live. She looks after the rejects of society, including lepers and whores, and shows them another way to live. Technology isn't evil, it allows the poor to resist their oppressors and maintain a higher standard of living. However, in so doing they ruin the lives of the creatures of the forest, who are noble, but savage and violent. They simply want to protect their home. This is far more complex then Cinderella or Hercules, where the villains are simply evil for the sake of being evil. It's also far more complex then Fern Gully or Avatar. Most of his films are like this, at least in his later career. Spirited Away is more of a traditional fairy tale that manages to avoid the traditional act structure of Western story telling, to its benefit. It also has a cast of complex characters. Miyazaki also has FAR more complex female characters than Disney does, and I would much rather have my sister appreciate Ghibli's heroines to Disney's. Miyazaki simply writes better female characters.

However, is Ghibli inherently superior to Disney? Disney has much more to it, since Ghibli is only a studio, so I would argue that Ghibli maintains a higher standard of quality overall. However, if you compare the best works of both, I would say they are relatively even. Up, The Lion King, and Hunchback of Notre Dame deal with complex characters and motivations, and are surprisingly mature, given their target audience. Sometimes I grow tired of the silly sidekick characters, when their not important to the plot, but on the whole I would say that Up and Hunchback are just as good as Ghibli's best films.

How does Frozen fall into all of this, though? I would argue that it doesn't compare favorably to either Ghibli OR Disney. It can't hold a candle to Pixar, either. It's trying so hard to recapture the magic of the Disney Renaissance, but it fails in all regards. There are plot holes, poorly written characters, and bad music. This is what happens when Disney fires the staff that made them great in the 90's. The old masters are gone.

This is Frozen:

This is classic Disney:

There can be no comparison.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

This is Frozen:

This is classic Disney:

There can be no comparison.

I don't believe this is really 'fair' comparison, given that these two songs are not, at all, similar in tone.

The Frozen one is the comic relief, side character bit, and I suppose the closest approximation in Hunchback might be...


...And it's still miles better.

I really. Truly. Sincerely miss the animated films. They're just gorgeous and hold up ridiculously well.

 

[Fox12]

snip

Yes, I suppose you called me out on my bias there, haha. You're absolutely right, I was being rather unfair.

I do still think Hunchback and The Lion King made their music more story relevant, though, and thus were still better. Topsy Turvey introduced several major plot points and characters, and led into the next scene flawlessly. I Just Can't Wait to be King, from Lion King, was silly, but it was actually foreshadowing for what would happen later. Simbas view of power was infantile, and we see the consequences of that attitude when Scar takes over. The song actually becomes darker when we see the natural result of the abuse of power. We then understand that having power is about responsibility, not about serving ones own interests. Frozen lacked that subtlety, and many of its characters were superfluous.

 

[K12]

So basically the OP:

1) thinks Magic should be a branch of physics

2) Was really bitter about Hans betrayal because he's so totally dreamy

 

[klaynexas3]

snip

The villain is almost bipolar in Mononoke, she doesn't just want to protect her own, she wants to take what is others as well. Perhaps I'm being unfair in judging that film, and should give it another watch, but when it was anyone not within her town, she seemed callous and even just straight vindictive towards them. I'd say an apt comparison would be Hitler, she doesn't care about other forms of life, but will eagerly help out that of her own, and then the drastic quick shift in the end comes almost from nowhere. That's part of the problem, the ending is just so nice and neat and wrapped up in a bow despite all the problems and tensions.

Now, I can't remember everything from these movies, and I can think of a reason why I might have become more distracted when I was watching them, so perhaps I should give them another look.

And Pixar has gone down hill in recent years. Way down. I mean, Cars 2, Monster's University, they're making a Toy Story 4? They are really losing their touch. Hell, even Cars and Ratatouille weren't amazing, and Brave was only pretty good at best as well. And the Incredibles had a horrible underlying message that you can't even try to become something more than you are. Yes I realize the other message was don't try to be something you are not, but it basically also says you can't reach for anything more unless you were born that way.

 

[Scow2]

Well, videogames can be made either for children, teens or adults, I don't often play those made for children, and I don't read comics either (or rather, superhero comics that is), so there you go.

Yeah, that doesn't matter. The fact that you're playing a 'game' is enough for others to see it as childish, no matter how mature you think it is. Just as there are people who think it's idiotic that a grown person could see something profound in a cartoon made for kids.

Except Disney fare isn't "A cartoon for kids" - they're animated films designed to be something that appeals to an entire family, from infants to great-grandparents and offbeat uncles/aunts.


Anyway... I thought the entire point of Hans was that he was a media-controlling manipulator (Though the reaction to him getting smacked at the end was odd).

And I'm not sure how anyone could say "There's not enough between the sisters" - you mean, aside from the entire movie? Part of the point was that they were separated from each other, but still loved each other.

And as for the 'control' issues... it was pretty clear that Elsa had complete control of her powers as long as she wasn't panicking over them. Her own fear of her powers and hatred of herself is what lead to the problems.

 

[Odbarc]

You don't get to be mad at Frozen. It's directed to be enjoyed by children.
Just... Let it go.

 

[Fappy]

Why do so many people get their jimmies rustled when discussing this movie?! It was a pretty decent kids movie. The film lacked the necessary depth to have any real, prolonged artistic discussions, and it baffles me that so many people are still getting caught up in this futile debate. You thought the movie was overrated? Great!

It's a kid's movie... who cares?

 

[Coruptin]

to all the guys going, "magic doesn't need to be explained!"
fantasy doesn't need to follow the rules of reality but it still needs to follow some kind of rule. it still needs to be internally consistent; otherwise, you end up dissatisfied and full of questions just like op.

hopefully I don't need to start to explain why, "it's for kids/girls," is a destructive and backwards non-argument.

 

[Pyrian]

to all the guys going, "magic doesn't need to be explained!"
fantasy doesn't need to follow the rules of reality but it still needs to follow some kind of rule.

And yet people are complaining about Frozen, whose rules are merely somewhat arbitrary, versus Tangled, whose explicit rules are deliberately broken for no given reason.

 

[Fox12]

snip

The villain is almost bipolar in Mononoke, she doesn't just want to protect her own, she wants to take what is others as well. Perhaps I'm being unfair in judging that film, and should give it another watch, but when it was anyone not within her town, she seemed callous and even just straight vindictive towards them. I'd say an apt comparison would be Hitler, she doesn't care about other forms of life, but will eagerly help out that of her own, and then the drastic quick shift in the end comes almost from nowhere. That's part of the problem, the ending is just so nice and neat and wrapped up in a bow despite all the problems and tensions.

I would respectfully disagree. Lady Eboshi is actually quite accepting of outsiders. She takes in the protagonist without question, and is actually very kind to him, even when others don't trust him. She shows him around, and explains their situation. She also takes in the lowest classes of society, and while she expects everyone to carry their weight, she finds work that they are capable of doing. The lepers, for instance, help make guns, since they can't perform physical labor. Most societies would exile them from their village. She is only violent against two groups, the government and the forest creatures. The people you see her fighting are emperial soldiers who want to confiscate the mines, and exploit the people for slave labor. Their the ones attacking her, so she's essentially defending civilians against an army. If you pay attention, you see the army killing civilians in other villages. She's trying to stop that from happening. She is willing to accept refugees, however.

The other group she fights are the forest spirits. Here is where moral ambiguity comes in. She doesn't really hate the spirits. In fact, she doesn't really care about them. However, she is a humanist, and prioritizes the human race over the gods they used to worship. In many ways she represents the ability of human ingenuity to overcome any obstacle, as she essentially wars with both the government and the gods themselves, the two institutions that have historically controlled the people. However, in order to do this she is willing to kill the forest spirits, and she is willing to destroy the forest in order to carve out a place for her people. The spirits are witnessing deforestation everywhere, and they can't stop it, so in a sense they are victims. However, they are also brutal and violent, and often eat one another. They are also used to having the humans beneath them, before technology turned the tables.

Everyone is simply looking after their own interests, there aren't any villains, except for the emperor, who we never see. As for the ending, it isn't completely clean, but it works. Essentially it ends in a truce. Ashitaka becomes a leader of the villagers, while San becomes a leader of the forest spirits. They become lovers, and through their love a tentative peace is established between the two factions. Because ashitaka took charge during the crisis and saved the village, and because he saved many of the villagers, he has the respect needed to influence their decisions, and likely becomes the primary leader later on, after Lady Eboshi passes away. Lady Eboshi has seen her plans fail, in trying to broker a truce with the emperor, and is likely open to listening to Ashitaka's council, since he's now as popular in the village as she is. The ending is pretty realistic in my opinion, and it also reinforces the themes of the story. Peace is not easy to achieve, but it is possible. The struggles aren't over, but the crisis is over. I would argue the film was quite well thought out, and I don't think the things you mentioned were necessarily plot holes.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

I'm just biding my time until Tangled becomes popular again. Viva la Tangled!

oh my gawd, first post nailed it.

/thread

Spoiler: I'll let my favorite character do the talking..err...movements

OT: as many have mentioned, frozen was GREAT for its target audience, and as a male in his 20's who usually doesn't like too much musical crap, frozen wasn't half bad. too much singing bits for my taste, but it was still good.

 

[Alatar The Red]

Actual flaws are fine to criticise. Plot holes and such.

Critiques which boil down to opinions on plot points or characters are just opinions. If you don't like something, take a look at whether or not you're the target audience.

I mean he dedicated four large paragraphs complaining about not liking characters or the music. That's not a flaw, that's just an opinion. An opinion that can be addressed with "You're not the target audience".

I look forward to you making the same argument the next time some reviewer goes on a morals rant about video game characters and how they only pander to X while ignoring Y.

"You're not the target audience" can be valid in the sense that a movie/game might actually be meant for demographic X, however using that to deflect criticism makes no sense at all.

 

[Schadrach]

This is when films or shows aimed at children incorporate themes and jokes only adults will understand. Over the Garden Wall is absolutely filled with this.

That is such a massive understatement that it might just generate meaningful gravity.

It's not like it's full of references to the Divine Comedy or anything (seriously Beatrice? That's pretty upfront. Do you know what happens to suicides in the Inferno? They're turned into trees. Heck, you can map the progression of places they go to the circles of Hell). It's also not like the big bad is a metaphor for depression (and every bit of imagery they could come up with to associate him with the devil without coming out and saying it). There are sooo many things you can say about this series.

The frog is awesome though, and a cue as to what was actually going on, because they both know what Greg named it while in the Unknown after they leave, but the others don't which means they didn't talk about it afterward.

Another nice touch is that there are a series of flashes at the beginning of the series that are all stuff that has happened before they start walking through the forest, including one that shows what happened during the flashback in episode 9, but it's hard to realize it in context.

Dancing in a swirl,
Of golden memories,
The loveliest lies of all,
The loveliest lies of all.

Those four lines, from the end of the main theme "Into the Unknown". They cut the song short at the beginning of the series and leave them off, only playing the full thing at the very end.

 

[Astoria]

'It's a Disney movie' can answer just about all those questions. Take a good look at most Disney movies and they have similar faults but I go agree with you that Frozen is vastly overrated. It took me three times to watch it all the way through because of the music numbers. Let it Go was good but the others were meh. It's not great but it's not terrible.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

snip

Spoiler: Did you just use my post as an excuse to gush about Over the Garden Wall? Okay then, let the gushing and speculation commence!

It's not like it's full of references to the Divine Comedy or anything (seriously Beatrice? That's pretty upfront. Do you know what happens to suicides in the Inferno? They're turned into trees. Heck, you can map the progression of places they go to the circles of Hell). It's also not like the big bad is a metaphor for depression (and every bit of imagery they could come up with to associate him with the devil without coming out and saying it). There are sooo many things you can say about this series.

I get all the Divine Comedy references although I'm not sure if the beast is really meant to be the devil. If the beast is supposed to be the devil, why would it only be interested in children? The turtles also don't really have an explanation, though we know they're some kind of corrupting force and probably connected to the beast in some way.

I read an interesting theory about the origin of the beast [http://oatmealaddiction.tumblr.com/post/104871646528/over-the-garden-wall-analysis-the-beast]

Also why was Auntie Whispers able to eat the turtles without suffering the same ill effects as the dog in episode 1?

 

[KazeAizen]

5. It's a film for small children, aimed at little girls. Remember the target audience of a film before you write a book about how you didn't like it next time.

This really irks me to my core. You aren't the only one who said something like this in this thread. This is just not true at all. By that logic most of the Disney canon is aimed at little girls and small children. Most if not all of the actual Disney canon is not aimed at kids. They are aimed at families. How to Train your Dragon, The Lego Movie, The Lion King, Kung Fu Panda, Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, etc....every single one of those are not aimed at small children. They are aimed and written for families. People of all ages can enjoy them and not feel stupid or degraded.

The amount of people that don't seem to understand the concept that a family film is different than a kid's film is very worrisome in this day and age. The target audience of Frozen was everyone but if it had a more specific audience I'd be willing to bet it was people like me. 90s kids that grew up during their Renaissance which produced the musical style films Frozen was trying, and succeeded, to emulate.

 

[chadachada123]

I can't believe that over this entire thing, only a single person has gotten OP's most important mark correctly addressed.

Kristoff and Anna did not fall in love or get engaged on day one. That's pretty damn clear. They meet at start of journey, get closer throughout the film, **don't** fall madly in love, and are only seen further in their relationship at an unspecified time in the future. While it's obvious that they WILL fall in love, I don't see how anyone could think that Disney made such a giant plothole/oversight/whatever. And I dislike Disney and most of its works.

5. It's a film for small children, aimed at little girls. Remember the target audience of a film before you write a book about how you didn't like it next time.

This really irks me to my core. You aren't the only one who said something like this in this thread. This is just not true at all. By that logic most of the Disney canon is aimed at little girls and small children. Most if not all of the actual Disney canon is not aimed at kids. They are aimed at families. How to Train your Dragon, The Lego Movie, The Lion King, Kung Fu Panda, Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, etc....every single one of those are not aimed at small children. They are aimed and written for families. People of all ages can enjoy them and not feel stupid or degraded.

The amount of people that don't seem to understand the concept that a family film is different than a kid's film is very worrisome in this day and age. The target audience of Frozen was everyone but if it had a more specific audience I'd be willing to bet it was people like me. 90s kids that grew up during their Renaissance which produced the musical style films Frozen was trying, and succeeded, to emulate.

I hope I'm not reading the sentence wrong, but How to Train Your Dragon, Kung Fu Panda and The Lego Movie are not Disney. The point remains valid either way, though.

 

[KazeAizen]

I hope I'm not reading the sentence wrong, but How to Train Your Dragon, Kung Fu Panda and The Lego Movie are not Disney. The point remains valid either way, though.

You weren't and I'm well aware of that. The point does not stand. If it was marketed towards little girls it would not have literally made $1 billion at the box office. Frozen is a family film like all the rest of those. Not a kids film. Not a little girl's film. Its a family film which is totally different than either of those. His point is not valid and anyone that tries to make that point about Frozen is wrong. Plain and simple.

 

[chadachada123]

I hope I'm not reading the sentence wrong, but How to Train Your Dragon, Kung Fu Panda and The Lego Movie are not Disney. The point remains valid either way, though.

You weren't and I'm well aware of that. The point does not stand. If it was marketed towards little girls it would not have literally made $1 billion at the box office. Frozen is a family film like all the rest of those. Not a kids film. Not a little girl's film. Its a family film which is totally different than either of those. His point is not valid and anyone that tries to make that point about Frozen is wrong. Plain and simple.

It seems that you're the one misreading sentences, hah. I meant that YOUR point remains valid; that Frozen is a family movie like the rest

captcha, and I'm not even joking: 'my bad'